Since May 2009, EPA has been looking at coal ash impoundments and ponds at electric utilities.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released plans from 20 electric utility facilities with 70 coal ash dumps that detail the measures the power companies are taking to improve safety.
Coal ash, of course, became infamous late in 2008 when a taxpayer-owned Tennessee Valley Authority dump holding the toxic waste spilled – releasing more than 5 million cubic yards of the deadly sludge to the surrounding area in what was clearly one of the worst environmental disasters of its kind.
Electric vehicles, the current technology in favor by special interest groups who want their use mandated as well as subsidized by taxpayers, raise many legitimate environmental concerns since half the electricity in the United States is generated by burning coal. Aside from the coal ash problem, burning coal also produces enormous amounts of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas that the use of electric vehicles is supposed to eliminate.
“EPA is committed to making communities across the country safer places to live,” said Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. “The information we are releasing today shows that we continue to make progress in our efforts to prevent future coal ash spills.”
Since May 2009, EPA has been looking at so called coal ash impoundments and ponds at electric utilities. EPA provides copies of the structural integrity assessment reports to each facility and requests the facilities implement the reports’ recommendations and provide their plans for taking action.
The plans released today address recommendations from assessments of 70 impoundments at 20 facilities. Last year, EPA completed assessments for 60 impoundments that were considered to have a high risk of causing harm if the impoundment were to fail.
In addition to the plans, EPA is also releasing assessment reports on the structural integrity of an additional 38 coal ash impoundments at 17 facilities across the country. Of these units, nine received a “poor” rating, but none of the units received an “unsatisfactory” rating, the lowest possible EPA rating.
The poor ratings were given because the units lacked engineering documentation required in the assessments, and not because the units are unsafe, EPA claimed. Based on analysis from the engineers who conducted the assessments, the ratings for these units are likely to improve once the proper documentation is submitted.
More information on the impoundment assessment reports and action plans:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm
