Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-1202
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2013-06-07T04:00Z

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 

	

Project No.: 0172.07.029.040

	

DISTRIBUTION

Page _1_ of  __2_

	

Project Name: Steam Electric Rulemaking

	

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

	  Outgoing Call	

Date: 01/28/2010

	

Time: 4:30 pm EST

	

Company Name: Delta Ducon	

Contact Name: Craig Fleming

Phone No.:  610-695-9711

	

Name:  Elizabeth Sabol, Sarah Holman	

Eastern Research Group

	

GENERAL SUBJECT :  Potential Changes to the Ash Handling Part of the
Steam Electric ICR  

	

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Sarah Holman and I contacted Craig Fleming, Delta Ducon, on Thursday,
January 28, to discuss the potential changes that EPA was considering
making to Part C (Ash Handling) of the questionnaire. We briefly talked
with Mr. Fleming regarding his thoughts about these potential changes.
Below is a summary of the call.

Mr. Fleming agreed that asking for ash handling information on a system
level is a good way to go; however, he wanted to make sure that we allow
for plants that have multiple generating units and have dedicated ash
handling systems for each generating unit (like Fayette).  We
explained that our current setup will allow for this type of response. 

 

Mr. Fleming stated that it makes sense to ask for costs in three
categories (conveyance, intermediate storage, and transport/disposal),
and that he thinks that plants that installed ash handling systems after
1980 should have costs broken out in such categories. He stated that
before 1980 they more likely would have purchased the system as one lump
sum, which would make it difficult for them to split up costs in these
three categories.  Therefore, he agreed with splitting up the costs,
and our suggested timeframe for gathering the costs on ash handling
systems.

 

Mr. Fleming stated that he does not know of any plant in the US that is
combining fly and bottom ash in a silo.  He stated that Crystal River
is the only plant that he knows of that is even handling bottom ash
completely dry (using a Magaldi system) in order for that to be
possible.  Mr. Fleming explained that plants in China collect/handle
their bottom ash dry and then mill it so that they can sell it with fly
ash.  

 

Mr. Fleming stated that he believes the vast majority of plants would
have the vertical space required to retrofit a boiler with a dry bottom
ash handling system.  The DRYCON system needs about 10 ft of vertical
space below the boiler and most boiler hoppers are about 16 to 18 ft in
height.  He explained that Magaldi's dry bottom ash equipment is
taller, and so, there may be some vertical space issues that have been
encountered overseas.  Mr. Fleming discussed the space issues that may
be encountered in US plants with conveying the bottom ash from the
boiler out of the building.  He suggested we ask the plants if they
have space available for bottom ash to exit the building in a "straight
shot".  If not, capital costs could increase greatly (he cited one
example where multiple DRYCONs had to be installed off-center from the
boilers and then those fed another DRYCON that conveyed the bottom ash
outdoors).

 

Mr. Fleming also informed us that he reviewed the questionnaire and
thinks it's good and detailed.  He is concerned that we are classifying
a submerged chain conveyor as a dry bottom ash handling system because
it still uses water. We stated that we think we have the submerged chain
conveyor system appropriately categorized for the purpose of the data
collection.

 

Mr. Fleming stated that they do have some cost comparison info that
could help us, previously talked about in the UCC conference call on
December 17, 2009, and said he would send it our way soon. 

Need to return call by         /         at/between         and        
.	Signature: