W.A. PARISH FUEL HANDLING

Conveyor System Observations and Suggested Actions

Elliott Molnar—Intern, Engineer

1 | M o l n a r

Abstract

Conveyor bearing and roller failures contribute to the majority of fuel handling outages. In

addition to outages, high temperatures occurring upon failure pose undesirable combustion and

safety risks in enclosed spaces. With the goal in mind to reduce the frequency of outages,

observations of the system status and history were made in order to identify issues.

Recommendations are also made regarding how the life of rotating equipment in the system

could be extended.

An overlying theme in the observations is the existence of off-center loading onto conveyors.

Off-center loading is known to cause transverse movement of the conveyor position away from

the load. This results in wear on the bearings and rollers on the side of the conveyor which is

more heavily loaded. The recommended action of increased cleaning of the J-Glide chutes to

prevent “eyelashes” from building up is recommended with the alternative of reinstalling the

Inteliflow® actuators which were designed to divert the flow onto the center of the receiving

conveyor. These actuators were removed after installation of the J-Glide chutes as a result of

hydraulic fluid leakage. As a third alternative, new self-training idlers could be installed to keep

the belt centered.

In addition to centering the load on the conveyors, a new lubricating grease, Mobilith SHC 460,

is suggested to replace the Mobil Ronex MP grease currently used on the Timken housed

conveyor bearings.

It is important to remember why these issues are being addressed. In recent history, the number

of failures within the fuel handling system has increased dramatically. Whether these issues are

related to the age of the entire plant or changes in environment which may have led to

accelerated failure of equipment will be discussed. A large concern when writing this document

is the possibility of a fire hazard around failing equipment. With bearings reaching temperatures

which allow for shafts to melt through housings, combustion of fugitive emissions within the

conveyor system is likely and could put confined spaces like the silos at risk. With that in mind,

please take the following observations and considerations seriously as we look towards solving

these problems.

2 | M o l n a r

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 3

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 4

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Observations ................................................................................................................................... 6

Conveyors 1&2 and Rotary Dumpers ......................................................................................... 6

Conveyors 3&4 ........................................................................................................................... 7

Conveyors 5&6 ........................................................................................................................... 9

Conveyors 7&8 ......................................................................................................................... 11

Conveyors 9&10 ....................................................................................................................... 12

Conveyors 11&12 ..................................................................................................................... 13

Conveyors 13&14 ..................................................................................................................... 15

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 19

Grease ....................................................................................................................................... 19

Self-Centering J-Glide Chutes .................................................................................................. 20

Pulley Alignment and Training Idlers....................................................................................... 20

Bearing Temperature Sensors ................................................................................................... 20

Belt Alignment Sensors ............................................................................................................ 21

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 22

3 | M o l n a r

List of Figures

Figure 1: Bearing Failures Reported as Work Orders to SAP ...................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Roller Failures Reported as Work Orders to SAP ......................................................................... 5

Figure 3: The Effect of Off-Center Loading ................................................................................................. 5

Figure 4: Tail end of Conveyors 1 & 2 on Phase 2 ....................................................................................... 6

Figure 5: Torn chute cover on Phase 1 Conveyor 1 ...................................................................................... 6

Figure 6: Stagnant water bacterial growth on Phase 1 Conveyor 1 .............................................................. 7

Figure 7: Phase 2 Conveyors 3 & 4 (3 on Right, 4 on Left) ......................................................................... 8

Figure 8: Training idler roller on Phase 2 Conveyor 4 ................................................................................. 8

Figure 9: Chute from conveyor 1 dumping to conveyor 3 ............................................................................ 9

Figure 10: De-layering on the left side of Phase 2 Conveyor 6 with respect to flow direction .................. 10

Figure 11: Abrasions on Left side of Phase 2 Conveyor 6 with respect to the direction of flow ............... 10

Figure 12: Tear on right side of Phase 2 Conveyor 6 with respect to the direction of flow. ...................... 11

Figure 13: Sporadic loading of Phase 2 Conveyor 7................................................................................... 12

Figure 14: Dumping chute onto Phase 2 Conveyor 10 ............................................................................... 12

Figure 15: Load pattern immediately from J-Glide Chute on Phase 2 Conveyor 12 .................................. 13

Figure 16: Downstream load on Phase 2 Conveyor 12 ............................................................................... 14

Figure 17: Corrosion Phase 2 Conveyor 12 J-Glide Support ...................................................................... 14

Figure 18: Transfer House #4 Engulfed in Cooling Tower Wake. Wind is NE at 5 mph. ......................... 15

Figure 19: Mobil Ronex MP Grease ........................................................................................................... 16

Figure 20: Failed inboard bearing on Phase 2 Conveyor 14 ....................................................................... 16

Figure 21: Misalignment on PH2 CONV 14 with inboard side on left, and outboard on right. ................. 17

Figure 22: Moment loading Phase 2 Conveyor 14 ..................................................................................... 17

Figure 23: Uneven loading on PH 1 CONV 13 .......................................................................................... 18

Figure 24: Phase 1 Conveyor 13 failed gravity take-up bearing ................................................................. 21

Figure 25: Phase 2 Conveyors 1 & 2 facing against the direction of flow ................................................. 22

Figure 26: Conveyor 10 electromagnet for removing metals before crusher ............................................. 22

Figure 27: J-Glide chute support on Phase 2 Conveyor 12 ......................................................................... 23

Figure 28: Corrosion on Phase 2 Conveyor 12 Chute to Transfer House #4 .............................................. 23

Figure 29: Pitting on Phase 2 Conveyor 12 Chute to Transfer House #4 ................................................... 24

Figure 30: Phase 2 Rotary Car Dumper Inlet Rail ...................................................................................... 24

Figure 31: Phase 2 Fuel Handling System (ARCH E Drawing Available) ................................................ 25

4 | M o l n a r

List of Tables

Table 1: Hardness Data from Sample Bearing ............................................................................. 18

Table 2: Recommended actions for the conveyor system ............................................................ 19

Background

Previous work orders reported to SAP were consulted to identify trends in conveyor outages. An

Excel spreadsheet was used to sort the outages by phase and conveyor number, while only

displaying work orders within specified start and end date. For conveyor bearings, as seen in

Figure 1, both phases have a high rate of failure on conveyors 4 and 7, as indicated by the “All”

column. The columns, “Phase 1” and “Phase 2”, distinguish the overall failures by phase, which

helps to isolate trends like the one seen on Phase 2 conveyors 13 and 14.

Figure 1: Bearing Failures Reported as Work Orders to SAP

Similar to the method used to identify bearing failures, a spreadsheet was used to identify roller

failures, as seen in Figure 2. The roller failures tended to show more global trends between both

phases than what is observed in the bearing failures. Both Figure 1 and Figure 2 display the

number of failures seen across the entire phase, including all conveyors. Phase 2 has historically

had a higher frequency of bearing and roller failures.

Start Date 8/11/2014 8/11/2014 diff 0

End Date 7/7/2016 7/7/2016 696 1000

Bearings Conveyor Phase 1 Phase 2 All Phase (All CONV) Count

1 3 0 3 1 40

2 2 0 2 2 58

3 1 0 1

4 4 6 10

5 0 0 0

6 2 1 3

7 6 4 10

8 2 0 2

9 2 4 6

10 1 4 5

11 2 2 4

12 2 1 3

13 2 13 15

14 2 15 17

5 | M o l n a r

Figure 2: Roller Failures Reported as Work Orders to SAP

As mentioned before, off-center loading of conveyors is a common cause for belt wear and

rotating equipment failure. Figure 3 describes how the loading of material from one side of a

conveyor can result in increased loading of the impacted rollers and wear on the opposing side of

the belt. In order to promote centralized loading onto conveyors, Benetech provided W.A. Parish

with Inteliflo® chutes which, if hydraulic actuators are functional, can maneuver to dump coal in

the center of the conveyor. This hydraulic system was deactivated and replaced with stationary

supports in response to hydraulic leakage, thus defeating the ability of the chutes to center the

load path. As coal builds up in crevices of a chute, “eyelashes” form and divert the flow within

the chute from the DEM modeled path, resulting in an off-center loading onto the conveyor.

Figure 3: The Effect of Off-Center Loading

Start Date 7/8/2014 7/8/2014 diff 0

End Date 7/7/2016 7/7/2016 730 1000

Rollers Conveyor Phase 1 Phase 2 All Phase (All CONV) Count

1 6 4 10 1 103

2 10 9 19 2 108

3 3 5 8

4 3 3 6

5 1 0 1

6 14 13 27

7 9 14 23

8 0 0 0

9 14 12 26

10 8 4 12

11 12 13 25

12 6 12 18

13 4 7 11

14 9 9 18

6 | M o l n a r

Observations

Conveyors 1&2 and Rotary Dumpers

Conveyors 1&2 both run underneath the rotary car dumper and transport coal to conveyors 3&4

through the chutes seen in Figure 4. The vertical load received by these conveyors is significant

and sporadic when in service.

Figure 4: Tail end of Conveyors 1 & 2 on Phase 2

As a result of the high load, roller and bearing failures are common even though these belts are

the shortest, spanning only the width of length of the rotary dumper collection hopper. In

addition to bearing failures, chute covers seen in Figure 5 are wear items for maintenance which

come as a result of uncontrolled flow from the collection hopper. Since the coal is fresh from the

train at this point, the fuel can be of varying moisture content.

Figure 5: Torn chute cover on Phase 1 Conveyor 1

7 | M o l n a r

Higher moisture content will increase load on the rollers, but also increase bioactivity. As seen in

Figure 6, active colonies of bacteria are found in stagnant pools of water on conveyors 1&2. The

bacteria are introduced with the fresh coal, but may be feeding off of it. Biodegradation of the

fuel may be occurring alongside degradation of the conveyor. The nature of these microbes is

unknown, but could contribute to the degradation of conveyors.

Figure 6: Stagnant water bacterial growth on Phase 1 Conveyor 1

Conveyors 3&4

Conveyors 3&4 run from Conveyors 1&2 under the rotary car dumpers to Transfer Tower # 1.

There is a significant elevation change relative to the total length of the belts, as seen in Figure 7.

The loading of these conveyors is nothing to be alarmed with. There are significantly more

failures on conveyor 4 than 3, which may result from the load distribution within the collection

hopper. When the rail car dumper rotates and drops coal into the collection hopper, more coal

might be dumped towards one side. Since the collection hopper distributes coal onto conveyors

1&2 and these chutes dump to 3&4 respectively, there may be an overall larger load on

conveyors 2&4 when compared to 1&3. This should be confirmed when coal is being received to

this system.

8 | M o l n a r

Figure 7: Phase 2 Conveyors 3 & 4 (3 on Right, 4 on Left)

As seen in Figure 8, Conveyor 4 does have an older form of training idlers. The training rollers

on the idlers are worn down approximately 1/16” around the base only on the inboard side of the

conveyor. While not under load, it is safe to assume that drift occurs towards the inboard side

while loaded. These need to be listed as wear items and sent to the EDC when possible to

determine the depth of the hardened surface for planning the lifespan of this idler.

Figure 8: Training idler roller on Phase 2 Conveyor 4

9 | M o l n a r

On conveyors 3&4, the chutes from conveyors 1&2 have side baffles immediately surrounding

outflow (Figure 9). If correctly positioned, this method of conveyor dumping seems to

appropriately bed down the coal onto the conveyor. It may be the case that conveyor 4’s baffles

need to be repositioned to properly center the coal onto the conveyor.

Figure 9: Chute from conveyor 1 dumping to conveyor 3

Conveyors 5&6

Conveyor 5 takes from Transfer Tower #1 and dumps out to the emergency pile through a

telescopic chute. Conveyor 6 also receives coal from Transfer Tower #1, but instead heads to the

linear stacker to be placed in the active storage pile. Considering that conveyor 5 has very few

historical failures as a result of its usage history, it was not observed in depth. Conveyor 6 on the

other hand, is at high risk for failure due to its exposure to the sun and structures within the

stacker. Since conveyors 3&4 can simultaneously dump coal onto conveyor 6, there is a need for

a larger belt and additional rollers to support the belt. As seen in Figure 10, exposure to the sun

may lead to layer separation on the edges of the belt which exposes the load bearing fabrics

within the belt to the environment.

10 | M o l n a r

Figure 10: De-layering on the left side of Phase 2 Conveyor 6 with respect to flow direction

Once torn and exposed to the environment, the inner fabric layers subject to further weakening

and damage, much like pulling a loose string on a shirt (Figure 11). Once the fabric is

significantly weakened, the rubber layer of the belt must carry more of the tensile load, which

results in excess wear of the belt surface.

Figure 11: Abrasions on Left side of Phase 2 Conveyor 6 with respect to the direction of flow

11 | M o l n a r

Figure 12: Tear on right side of Phase 2 Conveyor 6 with respect to the direction of flow.

As stated before, the sun exposure to conveyor 6 eventually leads to excess wear on the belt

surface by direct damage and indirect damage via the weakening of load bearing fabrics. With

exposure over time, small cracks in the rubber surface may propagate in the direction of flow and

expose deeper layers of the belt, as seen in Figure 12. The belt misalignment is notable when

comparing the left and right positions of the belt on the pulley.

Conveyors 7&8

In both phases, Conveyor 7 receives coal from the active storage pile rotary plows while

Conveyor 8 receives PET coke and emergency coal through a grizzly and collection hopper.

Both conveyors transfer feed to conveyors 9&10. Since conveyor 8 has a limited failure history,

it was not observed in depth. Since conveyor 7 receives coal from the rotary plows, the bedding

of the coal appears to be sporadic as a result of the flow pattern of the coal from the plows. There

are a significant number of roller failures on this belt which may come as a result of the bedding

of the coal along the entire length of the conveyor as the plows traverse the pile. There may be

little that can be done about this issue unless a better chute system is to be installed on the plows

to limit the momentum in the vertical direction impacting the roller supports.

12 | M o l n a r

Figure 13: Sporadic loading of Phase 2 Conveyor 7

Conveyors 9&10

In each phase, Conveyors 9&10 run from Conveyor 7 under the active storage piles over to the

crusher houses, receiving PET coke and emergency feed from Conveyor 8 along the way. There

is a trend of more roller failures on conveyor 9 than 10 based on SAP work orders. Upon

observation of the system, there was no clear reason why this may be occurring. Further

information on why this may be occurring should be explored. Since both conveyors traverse a

vertical incline over a short distance to the top of the crusher house, both conveyors are subject

to non-normal loads on the rollers. If conveyor 9 is a preferred conveyor in operation and

conveyor 10 is used as a backup, this may explain the trend in roller failures towards conveyor 9.

The dumping involves a similar baffle system to conveyors 3&4 (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Dumping chute onto Phase 2 Conveyor 10

13 | M o l n a r

Conveyors 11&12

Conveyors 11&12 on both phases stretch from the crushers to the tripper deck transfer houses.

The distance and elevation change demand tension provided by a 17,000 lb counterweight

system. Being the longest belts in the plant, aligning the conveyors 11&12 can be difficult.

Considering the long distance they traverse and the number of bearings and rollers involved in

this system, the number of failures is reasonable. In Figure 15 and Figure 16, the bedding of the

coal is shown. Early in the belt, the coal is slightly off center and the belt is aligned. Further up

the conveyor near the tripper deck, the coal settles into a more centered position but the belt is

misaligned to the outboard side. Idlers are already installed on these conveyors, but their

effectiveness seems to wane off as the flow reaches the tripper deck transfer houses.

Figure 15: Load pattern immediately from J-Glide Chute on Phase 2 Conveyor 12

14 | M o l n a r

Figure 16: Downstream load on Phase 2 Conveyor 12

While the J-Glide chute assists in providing a clean flow of coal, having the Inteliflo actuators

replaced with solid fixtures does not take advantage of all benefits of this chute system. An off-

center loading pattern can be prevented in the J-Glide system by introducing horizontal actuators

on the bottom of the chute. It should also be noted that the vertical actuator support for the chute

is heavily corroded at the structure base above the chute (Figure 17). This point experiences a

continuous load resulting from the impact of coal on the J-Glide and is key to the positioning of

the chute above the conveyor. Further metallurgical analysis of this support is suggested.

Figure 17: Corrosion Phase 2 Conveyor 12 J-Glide Support

15 | M o l n a r

Conveyors 13&14

On both phases, conveyors 13&14 carry coal from tripper deck transfer house to the silos. The

belts are 60” and are tensioned by 6000 lb counterweights within the transfer house structure.

The transfer house and tripper deck are in the wake of the cooling tower evaporation, as seen in

Figure 18. The evaporate results in washout of bearings, resulting in a historically lower lifespan

of rotating equipment in this section.

Figure 18: Transfer House #4 Engulfed in Cooling Tower Wake. Wind is NE at 5 mph.

Excessive degradation of grease due to uneven loading is also a common cause of rotating

equipment failure. If the applied load on a bearing increases, the grease will either drop the

supported load or degrade at an accelerated rate. As seen in Figure 19, the grease remaining on a

failed gravity take-up bearing shaft is silver in color; far from the original green. The color of the

failed grease may come from fine particulate iron content, which suggests that the failure was

prolonged. Fine particles introduced to the grease could act as abrasives, damaging the bearing

and reducing the ability of the grease to support a load. If the load is no longer supported, the

temperature of the bearing and its grease will increase until the grease hits its dropping point.

Past this temperature, it is highly likely that the bearing will fail.

16 | M o l n a r

Figure 19: Mobil Ronex MP Grease

When greasing is not sufficient, the bearing will fail by increasing the temperature of the housing

and shaft, deforming the moving parts while the grease completely drops any load it was able to

carry. In Figure 20, the remaining shaft of a bearing failure is shown where the shaft and bearing

reached temperature and load conditions which allowed the shaft to push through the housing.

Figure 20: Failed inboard bearing on Phase 2 Conveyor 14

Structural failures on Phase 2 Conveyors 11&12 may have misaligned dumping chutes onto

13&14, resulting in uneven loading onto the conveyors. The increased rate of failure on

conveyors 13&14 can largely be attributed to misalignment of the belt. As seen in Figure 21, the

misalignment of the belt is significant and approximately 4” to the right viewed from the flow

17 | M o l n a r

direction. Shown in the exaggerated sketch of Figure 22, with the off-center position of the

distributed load between the belt and the gravity take-up pulley, more vertical load is placed on

the outboard bearing while a moment is placed on the inboard bearing. Since pillow block

bearings are not designed to support a moment reaction, the bearings may fail prematurely.

Figure 21: Misalignment on PH2 CONV 14 with inboard side on left, and outboard on right.

Figure 22: Moment loading Phase 2 Conveyor 14

As seen in Figure 23, the coal loaded onto Phase 1 Conveyor 13 is towards the outboard side of

the flow. This loading resulted in the abrasion of the inboard side of the conveyor as the center of

load moved outboard. Referencing Figure 3, one can see the similarities.

18 | M o l n a r

Figure 23: Uneven loading on PH 1 CONV 13

While the vertical loading may not have directly caused the failure, a moment load exerted by

the bearings to support the shaft likely caused the bearings to fail. A hardness test was performed

on four corners of a sample roller from a tripper deck bearing (Table 1). The results showed that

roller had lost all of its hardening in one corner of the bearing with the hardened surfaces at ~60

HRC and the softened corner at ~40 HRC. If the loading on the bearing were purely vertical with

no moments, at least two of the corners would be softened following failure. The hardness data

was collected in the Texas A&M Materials Preparation Lab with a Time Instruments Rockwell

Hardness Tester. There is a large standard deviation in the data as a result of uneven surfaces. If

a Wire EDM becomes available in the near future for removing damaged surfaces, more precise

data may be gathered while not disturbing the underlying grain structure.

Table 1: Hardness Data from Sample Bearing

Sample Number Outer Top (OT) (HRC)Outer Bottom (OB) (HRC)Inner Top (IT) (HRC)Inner Bottom(IB) (HRC)

1 59.5 60 40.8 31.7

2 50.6 79.8 50.9 41.5

3 59.9 65.1 57.5 43.1

4 51.7 54.9 54.6 52.8

5 57.2 58.8 55.7 33.6

6 65.8 72.4 44.2 33.2

7 46.9 53 52.1 45.8

8 49.5 49.4 53.8 35.6

Avg. 55.1375 61.675 51.2 39.6625

Std. Dev. 6.455327257 10.26905894 5.810335619 7.405391376

19 | M o l n a r

Recommendations

In the following section, solutions will be outlined as ways to solve different issues within the

fuel handling systems. In Table 2 below, the recommended repairs are listed for each conveyor.

Table 2: Recommended actions for the conveyor system

Grease

The current grease being used on the bearings within the conveyor system, Mobil Ronex MP, is

not recommended by the manufacturer for housed pillow block bearings. Comparing the

manufacturer’s suggested grease and Mobil Ronex MP, the Mobil product was not designed for

the operating conditions of these housed bearings at slow speeds and high loads. Upon

consultation of a lubricant specialist with ExxonMobil, the same verdict was met about the

Mobil Ronex grease.

When re-greasing, it is important to use grease which contains the same thickener. Since Ronex

is lithium-complex grease, the new grease must be thickened by a lithium-complex as well.

When choosing new grease, the criteria considered were high temperatures, slow rotational

speed, high loads, and washout, in addition to thickener. Mobilith SHC 460 was chosen to be the

grease to replace Mobil Ronex, based on its higher viscosity, synthetic base, higher four-ball

weld load, and dropping point temperature. Mobilith SHC 1000 Special would be preferable, but

this product is only offered in 5 gallon buckets as opposed to the 14 oz tubes preferred by the

maintenance crew. The product data sheets for these greases are available online.

In addition to new grease, it is advisable to install auto-greasing systems on the tripper deck

conveyors at the least. Considering that this area is more likely to experience washout compared

to the rest of the system, it may be worth it to address the possibility of a lack of greasing as the

possible cause of failure.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Grease

Add J-Glide

Modify J- Glide

Pulley Alignment

Training Idlers

Bearing Temperature Sensors

Belt Alignment Sensors

Total 1 1 3 6 1 1 5 1 3 3 2 2 6 6 1 1 3 6 1 1 5 1 5 5 2 2 6 6

Phase 1 Phase 2

20 | M o l n a r

Self-Centering J-Glide Chutes

The J-Glide chutes currently have a vertical actuator, as seen in Figure 27. This actuator does not

allow for a change in direction in the transverse direction. If an actuator were to instead be

placed on the side of the chute, it would be possible to re-center the bedding of the coal, after

eyelashes have formed; eliminating the need to continually wash down eyelash formations in the

chutes. Eyelash formations could also be prevented by introducing a new chute lining material

such as ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene.

Pulley Alignment and Training Idlers

If possible, it is advised to attempt aligning the conveyors while under load from coal. As seen in

Figure 21, there are bump stops on the top sides of the bearings to protect the alignment of the

conveyor in between bearing or belt changes. Concerning the damage to conveyors 11&12 on

Phase 2, these bump stops may need to be repositioned since the dumping characteristics have

changed.

Training idlers are in place on troublesome conveyors, but it seems that they merely act as bump

stops for the edge of the conveyor as opposed to realigning the belts. Advancements have been

made in training idlers which may be worth looking into.

Bearing Temperature Sensors

The ultimate failure of the bearings has been an overheating and excessive wear on the races in

the load direction, as seen in Figure 24. By providing a warning before a more catastrophic

failure occurs, bearing temperature sensors should be installed with warnings set at 215°C in the

grease casing. This warning temperature was chosen to be 50°C below the new grease’s

dropping point of 265°C. Once the grease temperature reaches the dropping point, the

temperature will rapidly increase as surfaces begin to make direct contact, indicating the onset of

a catastrophic failure.

21 | M o l n a r

Figure 24: Phase 1 Conveyor 13 failed gravity take-up bearing

Belt Alignment Sensors

Binary and linear feedback sensors are available for detecting belt misalignment. While it may

be unwise to put these in place to automatically shut down operation, control room operators

could be provided a warning screen on belt alignment. While this may not prevent misalignment,

it could help prevent off-center loading related failures.

22 | M o l n a r

Appendix

Figure 25: Phase 2 Conveyors 1 & 2 facing against the direction of flow

Figure 26: Conveyor 10 electromagnet for removing metals before crusher

23 | M o l n a r

Figure 27: J-Glide chute support on Phase 2 Conveyor 12

Figure 28: Corrosion on Phase 2 Conveyor 12 Chute to Transfer House #4

24 | M o l n a r

Figure 29: Pitting on Phase 2 Conveyor 12 Chute to Transfer House #4

Figure 30: Phase 2 Rotary Car Dumper Inlet Rail

25 | M o l n a r

Figure 31: Phase 2 Fuel Handling System (ARCH E Drawing Available)