![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Coal Ash Survey Results Frequent Questions
General
- What is EPA posting today? Will EPA be posting additional information on the survey responses?
Answer: Today, EPA is posting responses that electric utilities have provided in response to our information request. This is information that utilities have sent to EPA – it does not reflect independent evaluation or analysis by EPA.
This is part of EPA’s ongoing national effort to assess the management of coal combustion residuals that are managed in surface impoundments and similar management units. This national effort includes the information requests, as well as assessments of the coal combustion units themselves. We have already posted a number of items and we anticipate numerous updates to the web site.
EPA is now posting all of the responses to both our first and second information requests. So far, EPA has posted:
- the Information Request letter and the list of recipients;
- a list of the 44 “high” hazard potential units. This was updated to include an additional 5 units, based on Tennessee Valley Authority’s reassessment of its units.
EPA plans to post:
- the final site assessment reports
- updates to the list of high hazard potential sites, should they occur.
- Are all the responses to the information request letters sent out by EPA posted? Or are there more to come?
Answer: EPA is posting all of the responses to the information request letters, with the exception of information claimed as confidential business information. EPA sent out two sets of mailings – the first was to 162 facilities from a comprehensive list prepared in 2005 by the Department of Energy and to the 61 corporate offices of those 162 facilities (which sought the names and addresses of any other facilities that we may have missed); the second mailing was to an additional 48 facilities identified by the 61 corporate offices. Responses from both mailings have been posted; these include all responses except for information claimed as confidential. Please note that while EPA sent out a total of 210 letters, the responses which were returned to EPA identified a total of 219 facilities. The respondents had identified additional facilities and provided EPA information about them.
The information posted to date represents responses that the electric utilities sent back to EPA. This information does not reflect EPA evaluation or assessment.
- Why do some survey responses have information that is blacked out?
Answer: Blacked out sections contain information which companies have claimed as confidential business information (CBI). All of the CBI information is subject to a review that will determine if the company’s CBI claims are justified. If the claims are determined to be justified, the information will not be released. If the claims are not justified, the information will be posted.
- Some companies have responded by saying some questions are ‘not applicable’ to their unit – what does this mean?
Answer: EPA is finding that there are a number of reasons a company responded to a question as ‘not applicable’: It can mean the unit has no State rating (for the hazard potential determination); the information is not available; the facility is no longer in operation and the question does not apply; or there could be a below grade unit where none of the questions apply to this particular unit.
EPA is following up with companies in cases where the response to a survey question is ‘not applicable’ and will add information as appropriate.
- How many companies have claimed the information they submitted to be confidential? Will you make this critical information public?
Answer: A total of 6 companies have claimed all or part of the information submitted in response to the 104(e) request as confidential. These are:
- Alabama Power
- Duke Energy
- Georgia Power
- Gulf Power
- Mississippi Power
- First Energy Generation
Originally, Alliant Energy and Progress Energy claimed information was CBI, but subsequently withdrew the CBI claim.
EPA has sent letters requesting that the companies substantiate their CBI claims; to date, we have received responses from 6 companies.
EPA is beginning the process of reviewing the materials that substantiate the CBI claims; EPA must follow the process established in our regulations to determine if the information is entitled to be protected as CBI or not. EPA has made this effort a priority and will work expeditiously to make a determination on these claims.
- Where are Coal Combustion Residues (CCRs) being disposed?
Answer: CCRs from utilities are being disposed of in 41 states, in approximately 300 landfills for dry CCRs and approximately 580 surface impoundments or similar management units for “wet” or slurried CCRs. EPA’s original estimate was 300 surface impoundments based on a 2005 Department of Energy survey; however, based upon the responses to the information request letters, companies have identified additional management units.
- What is EPA doing about those units which have a high or significant hazard potential rating?
Answer: EPA will assess all units which currently have a high or significant hazard potential rating by the end of this calendar year (not including TVA facilities, which are being separately assessed). EPA will post the final reports on those assessments once they are completed.
- What is EPA doing about the units which have a low or less than low rating?
Answer: For those units that have a low or less than low rating, EPA is reviewing all of the information that we have on these units, as well as other information we can obtain on the area surrounding the unit. EPA will complete its review of these units, and will prioritize these for assessments.
- What is EPA doing about the units which do not have a rating?
Answer: For units that do not have a rating, EPA is reviewing all of the information that we have on these units, as well as other information we can obtain on the area surrounding the unit. From all of this information, we will determine what rating the unit would likely have received if it had been rated. EPA will use this determination to prioritize these units for assessments.
- What will EPA do if it finds a unit that poses a threat to human health and the environment?
Answer: If EPA finds that any unit poses a threat to human health and the environment, EPA will take appropriate action to protect public health and the environment. This could include working with the state involved and other federal agencies.
- What is the next step in this process?
Answer: EPA has prioritized its assessment activities. We are conducting site assessments at those units which currently have a high or significant hazard rating first. In June 2009, EPA released as list of 44 High Hazard Potential units; EPA expects to have assessed all 44 of these impoundments by the end of the calendar year. Since releasing the list of 44 High Hazard Potential units in June, the Tennessee Valley Authority has provided EPA with information on five additional units now rated as High Hazard Potential. These five additional units also will be assessed by EPA.
As the Agency completes each facility assessment, EPA will share our findings with the company and the state. If there is a need for follow-up activities, they will be taken to ensure protection of the public and the environment. The final reports on the assessments will be made available to the public.
- How have the utilities responded to EPA’s efforts?
Answer: The utilities have cooperated throughout this process. All utilities responded to EPA ‘s information request. Utilities have been cooperative in providing access to their facilities, to the coal combustion residual management units, and to additional information in their files.
- What can you tell us about the results of the assessments that you have conducted?
Answer: So far, EPA has not encountered any issue which required immediate action on the part of the utility or the federal or state governments.
However, our contractors have made some recommendations in their draft reports, for example:
- establish grass in bare areas where soil is visible
- control nuisance animal activity
- monitor water pressures in the embankment and foundation
- correct the low areas of the dam crest by placing engineered fill.
Recommendations that are contained in the final reports will be made available to the public.
- As background, how many total dams (not just coal combustion residual impoundments) in the United States have a high hazard potential rating?
Answer: There are more than 12,000 dams in the US with a high hazard potential rating.
- When and to whom did EPA send its information requests?
Answer: On March 9, EPA signed information request letters under the authority of Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to 162 individual facilities and to 61 utility corporate headquarters offices. EPA obtained its list of facilities from a 2005 Department of Energy Survey of coal burning electric utility facilities. Specifically, we used the 2005 Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency F767 database, which provides information on the disposition of coal ash from coal burning electricity producers. The database included "steam-electric plants with a generator nameplate rating of 10 or more megawatts." The term “generator,” means the actual electric generator, not the whole plant. A plant typically will have one or more generators.
EPA sent the letters to corporate offices to make sure that all of their facilities were accounted for due to limitations in the DOE survey.
Based on information received in response to the initial letter to the utility corporate headquarters offices, on April 27, 2009, EPA sent information request letters to an additional 48 facilities that had been identified by the corporate offices.
- Why did EPA use CERCLA authority for this information request?
Answer: Many statutes provide EPA the authority to request information from regulated entities and often, in specific situations, one or more authorities are available to the agency. EPA, as a general matter, evaluates its authorities and chooses the most appropriate authority given the circumstances. EPA reviewed all of its authorities and determined that CERCLA was the most appropriate authority to use. CERCLA provides EPA with broad authorities. Section 104(e) of CERCLA allows EPA to seek information where there is a reasonable basis to believe there may be a release or a threat of release of a hazardous substance or a pollutant or contaminant. The presence of a hazardous substance or a pollutant or contaminant in coal combustion residuals allows coal combustion residuals to be appropriately covered under the CERCLA information request.
- What information did EPA seek in these information requests?
Answer: EPA’s information request asked specific questions related to the structural integrity of each surface impoundment or similar diked or bermed management unit(s) or management units designated as landfills which receive liquid-borne material for the storage or disposal of residuals or by-products from the combustion of coal, including, but not limited to, fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, or flue gas emission control residuals. This includes units that no longer receive coal combustion residuals or by-products, but still contain free liquids. The specific questions are:
- Relative to the National Inventory of Dams criteria for High, Significant, Low, or Less-than- Low, please provide the potential hazard rating for each management unit and indicate who established the rating, what the basis of the rating is, and what federal or state agency regulates the unit(s). If the unit(s) does not have a rating, please note that fact.
- What year was each management unit commissioned and expanded?
- What materials are temporarily or permanently contained in the unit? Use the following categories to respond to this question: (1) fly ash; (2) bottom ash: (3) boiler slag; (4) flue gas emission control residuals; (5) other. If the management unit contains more than one type of material, please identify all that apply. Also, if you identify “other,” please specify the other types of materials that are temporarily or permanently contained in the unit(s).
- Was the management unit(s) designed by a Professional Engineer? Is or was the construction of the waste management unit(s) under the supervision of a Professional Engineer? Is inspection and monitoring of the safety of the waste management unit(s) under the supervision of a Professional Engineer?
- When did the company last assess or evaluate the safety (i.e., structural integrity) of the management unit(s)? Briefly describe the credentials of those conducting the structural integrity assessments/evaluations. Identify actions taken or planned by facility personnel as a result of these assessments or evaluations. If corrective actions were taken, briefly describe the credentials of those performing the corrective actions, whether they were company employees or contractors. If the company plans an assessment or evaluation in the future, when is it expected to occur?
- When did a State or a Federal regulatory official last inspect or evaluate the safety (structural integrity) of the management unit(s)? If you are aware of a planned state or federal inspection or evaluation in the future, when is it expected to occur? Please identify the Federal or State regulatory agency or department which conducted or is planning the inspection or evaluation. Please provide a copy of the most recent official inspection report or evaluation.
- Have assessments or evaluations, or inspections conducted by State or Federal regulatory officials conducted within the past year uncovered a safety issue(s) with the management unit(s), and, if so, describe the actions that have been or are being taken to deal with the issue or issues.Please provide any documentation that you have for these actions.
- What is the surface area (acres) and total storage capacity of each of the management units? What is the volume of material currently stored in each of the management unit(s)? Please provide the date that the volume measurement(s) was taken. Please provide the maximum height of the management unit(s). The basis for determining maximum height is explained later in this Enclosure.
- A brief history of known spills or unpermitted releases from the unit within the last ten years, whether or not these were reported to State or federal regulatory agencies. For purposes of this question, please include only releases to surface water or to the land (do not include releases to groundwater).
- Identify all current legal owner(s) and operator(s) at the facility.
- How many impoundments has EPA identified as a result of your information request? This number is significantly higher than EPA’s earlier estimate of 300. How can you be sure there aren’t more impoundments that have been missed?
Answer: Currently, EPA has identified 584 surface impoundments or similar management units which may contain “wet” CCRs from coal-burning electric utilities. EPA has taken a very broad view of what constitutes a coal ash impoundment for purposes of conducting our assessment on the structural integrity of these impoundments and this number includes units that contain any free liquids. For example, EPA has included as impoundments those units which contain water that came in contact with coal ash even if the coal is not placed in the impoundment – as in the case where coal ash is slurried to an impoundment where the ash settles and the clarified liquid is sent to another impoundment as a polishing step before discharge, this would be counted as 2 impoundments.
Also, the initial estimate of 300 impoundments came from a survey that was conducted by the Department of Energy in 2005 of coal burning electric utility facilities. Since we knew that the survey did not necessarily include all facilities, we also sent information request letters to the utility headquarters offices asking them to identify any additional facilities which may have had units containing “wet” CCRs from coal-burning electric utilities. They have identified 48 additional facilities.
Based on this conservative, methodical approach and the numerous interactions with the utilities, EPA believes that we have a good list of the impoundments or similar management units which contain “wet” CCRs from coal-burning electric utilities.
- Are you looking at closed impoundments as part of your assessment or the rule? If not, why not? Closed impoundments could still contain coal ash which could release to water bodies or be in flood plains and subject to flooding.
Answer: Closed units that still contain free liquid are part of the assessment. EPA specifically stated in the introduction to the questions in our information request letter that “this includes units that no longer receive coal combustion residuals or by-products, but still contain free liquids.
- Can you describe or explain the National Inventory of Dams criteria and what it means to be “High,” “Significant,” “Low,” or “Less-than Low.” That is, does this mean how structurally stable the dam is?
Answer: No, the hazard potential ratings refer to the potential for loss of life or damage if there is a dam failure. The ratings do not refer to the structural stability of the dam.
High Hazard Potential
Dams assigned the high hazard potential classification are those where failure or mis-operation will probably cause loss of human life.Significant Hazard Potential
Dams assigned the significant hazard potential classification are those dams where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life, but can cause economic loss, environment damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or impact other concerns. Significant hazard potential classification dams are often located in predominantly rural or agricultural areas, but could be located in areas with population and significant infrastructure.Low Hazard Potential
Dams assigned the low hazard potential classification are those where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life and low economic and/or environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the owner’s property. Such dams must:- exceed 25 feet in height AND 15 acre-feet storage or,
- exceed 50 acre-feet storage AND 6 feet height.
Less Than Low Hazard Potential
Dams which do not pose High, Significant, or Low Hazard Potential. - What are EPA’s current plans/schedule for the coal combustion residuals rulemaking?
Answer: As part of her commitment to ensuring the protection of public health and the environment regarding coal ash, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson had set a deadline to complete the regulatory decision before the close of this year. However, the agency is still actively clarifying and refining parts of the proposal.
