Special Waste Home Cement Kiln Dust Crude Oil and Gas Fossil Fuel Combustion Mineral Processing Mining Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports As part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's national effort to assess the management of Related Links coal combustion residuals (CCR), EPA released the final contractor reports assessing the structural Information Request Responses integrity of impoundments and similar management units containing coal combustion residuals, from Electric Utilities 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, Frequent Questions or company which are not related to the stability of the impoundments but to the potential for harm Final Rule should the impoundment fail. For example, a “significant” hazard potential rating means impoundment failure can cause economic loss, environmental damage, or damage to infrastructure. Additional Information Regarding Alliant Energy EPA assessed all of the known units with a dam hazard potential rating of “high” or “significant” as Corporation's Facility in Burlington, Iowa reported in the reponses 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. Further, the assessments represent a "snapshot in time" of the condition of the CCR unit. Following submittal of Action Plans by the utility, the utility may have provided EPA with additional materials which indicate that the condition rating of the unit may have improved since the time of the assessment, such as meeting minimum Factors of Safety in both seismic and steady state scenarios, increasing the hydrologic and hydraulic capacity of the CCR unit, or improved operations and maintenance procedures at the CCR unit, for example. Draft copies of these reports were reviewed by the facilities and the states for factual accuracy and their comments on the draft reports were also 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 provided a copy of the final report to each facility and requested that the facility implement the recommendations in the reports and provide plans for taking action. These plans are posted below when 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. For facilities that have had their units assessed and submitted their action plans, EPA has informed facility owners and operators that in addition to implementing their action plans, an ongoing, routine program to assess these units and to take necessary corrective measures is needed to ensure the units' continued structural integrity. The ongoing responsibility for this lies first with each facility's owner and operator. States also have a critical role in monitoring and overseeing these units, so the EPA is providing the states with all the information it has on the facilities in their respective states. EPA informed facility owners and operators through final letters that are posted below. Ratings summary for the assessments: Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Satisfactory 22 31 15 23 15 3 34 9 29 20 13 27 241 Fair 15 9 12 17 14 27 10 16 18 9 11 8 166 6 0 10 30 9 14 12 21 4 38 0 8 152 1/29 Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports | Special Wastes | Wastes | US EPA Poor 6 0 10 30 9 14 12 21 4 38 0 8 152 Unsatisfactory 000000000000 0 Total # of Units Given Condition 43 40 37 70 38 44 56 46 51 67 24 43 559 Ratings Assessment Reports You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s PDF page to learn more. Some companies have at some point claimed some information they have provided to the EPA related to their coal ash impoundments is confidential business information (CBI). EPA has, to date, reviewed each claim of CBI and has made the determination in all cases to deny the claim. All the documents have now been made publicly available and have been posted to this website. CBI claims summary here. Summary Table for Impoundment Reports (.xls) ­ July 31, 2014 (Download the free Microsoft Excel Viewer) 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 A Cover Letter: Letter from EPA to facility requesting that the facility develop an Alabama Power Company Action Plan to address recommendations from the Final Report. Final Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 337 KB) Draft Report: Initial report from EPA’s contractor. Alabama Power Company – Barry Plant Comments: Compiles comments from EPA, state, and company on the Draft Report. Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 111 KB) Final Report: Incorporates comments, Comments (PDF) (1 pg, 130 KB) as appropriate, from the EPA, state, and Draft Report (PDF) (51 pp, 34.39 KB) company as well as any information/data Final Report (PDF) (56 pp, 9.58 KB) the company provided to EPA between Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 247 KB) when the report was initially drafted and finalized. Company Response/Action Plan: the Alabama Power Company – Gadsden Plant responses from the facility to EPA’s Cover Letter. Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 102 KB) Final Letter: Letter from EPA to the Comments (PDF) (3 pg, 130 KB) company explaining their responsibility for Draft Report (PDF) (159 pg, 7.59 MB) ongoing routine assessment of their CCR impoundments. Final Report (PDF) (159 pg, 8.43 MBB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 77 KB) Alabama Power Company – EC Gaston Plant Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 103 KB) Comments (PDF) (3 pp, 130 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (274 pp, 42.10 KB) Final Report (PDF) (271 pp, 42.12 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 309 KB) Alabama Power Company – Gorgas Plant Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 874 KB) Comments (PDF) (10 pp, 75 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (67 pp, 12.29 MB) Final Report (PDF) (69 pp, 19.80 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 46 KB) Alabama Power Company – Greene Plant Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 69 KB) Comments (PDF) (3 pp, 370 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (467 pp, 45.93 MB) Final Report (PDF) (465 pp, 45.48 KB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 290 KB) Alabama Power Company – James H. Miller Plant Cover Letter (PDF) (5 pp, 98 KB) Comments (PDF) (3 pp, 125 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (160 pp, 8.77 MB) Final Report (PDF) (160 pp, 12.32 KB) 2/29 Final Report (PDF) (160 pp, 12.32 KB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 666 KB) Allegheny Energy Final Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 330 KB) Allegheny Energy – Pleasants Power Station Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 25 KB) Comments (PDF) (16 pp, 3 MB) Draft Report (PDF) (83 pp, 6 MB) Final Report (PDF) (83 pp, 6 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) ( 6 pp, 2408 KB) Allegheny Energy – R Paul Smith Station Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 23 KB) Comments (PDF) (25 pp, 2 MB) Draft Report (PDF) (91 pp, 13 MB) Final Report (PDF) (91 pp, 7 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (5 pp, 2 MB) Allete Final Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 328 KB) Allete – Boswell Energy Center Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 69 KB) Comments (PDF) (1 pg, 71 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (134 pp, 28.4 MB) Final Report (PDF) (134 pp, 52.7 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (42 pp, 10.3M) Allete – Laskin Energy Center Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 36 KB) Comments (PDF) (6 pp, 1.2 MB) Draft Report (PDF) (101 pp, 18.9 MB) Final Report (PDF) (110 pp, 18.7 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (64 pp, 10.34 MB) Alliant Energy Final Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 328 KB) Second Final Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 651 KB) Alliant Energy Burlington Generating Station Alliant Energy – Columbia Power Station Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 37 KB) Comments (PDF) (7 pp, 385 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (149 pp, 26.4 MB) Final Report (PDF) (164 pp, 26.9 MB) Action Plan (PDF) (43 pp, 6.66 MB) Alliant Energy – Edgewater Generating Station Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp,