Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports

Additional Information

As part of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s ongoing national effort to assess the management of coal combustion residuals (CCR), EPA is releasing the final contractor reports assessing the structural integrity of impoundments and similar management units containing coal combustion residuals, commonly referred to as “coal ash,” at coal fired power plants. Most of the impoundments have been given hazard potential ratings (e.g. less than low, low, significant, high) by the state, EPA contractor, or company which are not related to the stability of the impoundments but to the potential for harm should the impoundment fail. For example, a “significant” hazard potential rating means impoundment failure can cause economic loss, environmental damage, or damage to infrastructure.

EPA has assessed all of the known units with a dam hazard potential rating of “high” or “significant” as reported in the responses provided by electric utilities to EPA’s information requests and additional units identified during the field assessments. EPA will release additional reports as they become available.

The reports being released now have been completed by contractors who are experts in the area of dam integrity, reflect the best professional judgment of the engineering firm, and are signed and stamped by a professional engineer. The reports are based on a visual assessment of the site, interviews with site personnel, and the review of geotechnical reports and studies related to the design, construction and operation of those impoundments, if available. The engineering firms also reviewed past state/federal inspections of the impoundments. EPA contractors were not authorized to conduct any physical drilling, coring or sampling while on site; however, they did review studies which may have included such information. These reports include complex engineering evaluations and use terms which may be unfamiliar to the general public. Also, the contractors were asked to rate the impoundments as “satisfactory,” “fair,” “poor,” or “unsatisfactory,” terms commonly used in the field of dam safety. Expert experience has shown that only impoundments rated as “unsatisfactory” pose immediate safety threats. None of the impoundments assessed so far have received an “unsatisfactory” rating. Impoundment ratings noted in the reports should be taken in the proper context, since a unit may be found to be structurally sound while it may receive a fair or poor rating based on other factors such as lack of information.

Draft copies of these reports have been reviewed by the facilities and the states for factual accuracy and their comments on the draft reports have also been posted. EPA continues to review the reports and the technical recommendations, and is working with the facilities to ensure that the recommendations are implemented.

EPA has provided a copy of the final report to each facility and has requested that the facility implement the recommendations in the reports and provide plans for taking action. These plans are being posted below as they become available. Should facilities fail to take sufficient measures, EPA will take additional action, if the circumstances warrant, and will be devoting special attention to those facilities receiving a “poor” rating.

Ratings summary for the assessments:

	First Round	Second Round	Third Round	Fourth Round	Fifth Round	Sixth Round	Seventh Round	Eighth Round
Satisfactory	22	31	15	23	15	3	33	9
Fair	15	9	12	17	14	27	10	16
Poor	6	0	10	30	9	14	13	21
Unsatisfactory	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total number of units	43	40	37	70	38	44	56	46

The companies in the table below have at some point claimed some information they have provided to the EPA related to their coal ash impoundments is confidential business information (CBI). While EPA reviews these claims, the information that is claimed as CBI is redacted (removed) from the coal ash reports. If these claims are accepted by the EPA, the information will remain redacted. If EPA denies these claims, the information will be made publicly available and posted to this website.

The public should be aware that Southern Company subsidiaries (Georgia Power and Alabama Power) have informed the Agency that major portions of their draft and final EPA assessment reports contain CBI information; as a result, the Agency will review and make a determination on these CBI claims after requesting further substantiation. The Agency will release redacted (edited) versions of these reports.

CBI Claims
Company that Claims CBI	EPA’s Determination on CBI Claim
Alabama Power Company – Barry Power Station – Gorgas Power Station – Greene County Power Station – Ernest C. Gaston Power Station	In Process In Process In Process In Process
Ameren UE – Coffeen Power Station – Duck Creek Power Station – E.D. Edwards Power Station – Labadie Power Station – Meramec Power Station – Meredosia Power Station – Newton Power Station – Sioux Power Staion	In Process In Process In Process In Process In Process In Process In Process In Process
Duke Energy Corporation	Denied
Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. – Dale Power Station	In process
First Energy Generation Corporation – Little Blue Run Dam	Denied
Georgia Power Company – Bowen Power Station – Plant Branch or Harlee Branch Power Station – Plant Hammond – Plant Mitchell – Plant Yates – Plant McDonough – Plant Scherer – Wansley Power Station	In Process In Process In Process In Process In Process In Process In Process In Process
Gulf Power Company – Lansing Smith Power Station	In Process
Mississippi Power Company – Plant Jack Watson	In Process
Northern Indiana Public Service Company – R.M. Schahfer Power Station	In Process

Top of Page

You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s PDF page to learn more.

Reports

Summary Table for Impoundment Reports (XLS) – October 12, 2011 (2.2MB, Download the free Microsoft Excel Viewer) | PDF Version (6 pp, 61K, about PDF)

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

Reports Key

Cover Letter: Letter from EPA to facility requesting that the facility develop an Action Plan to address the recommendations from the Final Report.
Draft Report: Initial report from EPA’s contractor.
Comments: This document compiles comments from EPA, state, and company on the Draft Report.
Final Report: Incorporates comments, as appropriate, from the EPA, state, and company as well as any information/data the company provided to EPA between when the report was initially drafted and finalized.
Company Response/Action Plan: the responses from the facility to EPA’s Cover Letter.