EPA Extends Coal Ash Compliance Deadlines, Citing Utility, Contractor Strain

Citing a mounting compliance crunch in America’s coal-fired power sector, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized new rules extending key deadlines for coal ash cleanup and management, while floating the prospect of a further 12-month delay. The changes address calls from utilities, engineering contractors, and state regulators for more realistic timeframes to assess, monitor, and remediate coal combustion residuals (CCR) units, the agency said.

The EPA on July 17 unveiled a direct final rule that immediately broadens procedural flexibility and extends several compliance milestones for power facilities managing CCR management units and legacy surface impoundments. In tandem, it released a companion proposed rule that requests comments on whether to grant industry another 12 months beyond the newly established deadlines. The actions build on EPA’s Legacy CCR Rule, finalized in May 2024 by the Biden administration, which for the first time subjected inactive surface impoundments and historical CCR disposal areas to federal regulation following a 2018 court decision that vacated earlier exemptions.

Immediate Relief Given Critical Industry Constraints

The direct final rule, titled Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; CCR Management Unit Deadline Extension Rule (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0107), is designed to deliver immediate procedural relief for power sector stakeholders overseeing CCR management units and legacy surface impoundments. The rule grants expanded flexibility to comply with key reporting and environmental requirements.

At the core of these compliance adjustments is the Facility Evaluation Report (FER), a two-part, engineer-certified analysis required of owners and operators of CCR management units. FER Part 1 involves a comprehensive review of all available historical records to determine where and how coal ash was managed or disposed of on-site. That could include decades’ worth of operational logs, permits, construction drawings, and electronic archives—often stored in disparate locations and formats. FER Part 2 entails a physical field evaluation to fill information gaps from Part 1, including, for example, on-the-ground inspections, geophysical testing, sampling, and mapping of CCR deposits and management units to verify (or refute) records-based findings. As the EPA explains, the FER directly informs subsequent steps in environmental management, including for groundwater monitoring and closure planning.

The new rule essentially allows utilities to submit both parts of the FER simultaneously by Feb. 8, 2027, rather than following previously set, staggered deadlines. That flexibility addresses the extreme logistical challenge of gathering and analyzing sometimes millions of records, the EPA said.

In addition, the new rule moves back the deadline for design, installation, sampling, and assessment of CCR monitoring wells from May 8, 2028, to Aug. 8, 2029. The agency determined that a robust monitoring design cannot reliably proceed until the FER process has conclusively identified and mapped all relevant CCR units, a process that it anticipates could stretch late into 2026 for large operators.

CCR unit closure plans, post-closure care plans, and annual groundwater monitoring/corrective action reports are also now aligned with the extended groundwater deadline. Written closure/post-closure care plans are now due on Feb. 8, 2030. Unit closure initiation is due Aug. 8, 2030, and the initial annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report is due Jan. 31, 2030.

According to the EPA, the direct final rule will apply to at least 104 regulated facilities managing 195 CCR units, with an additional 15 units at other active sites, encompassing much of the U.S. electric power generation sector. The EPA projects annualized net cost savings of $2.84 million $3.63 million (discounted at 3%) and $9.05–$10.1 million (discounted at 7%), driven entirely by deferred compliance and capital expenditures

The agency notably stressed that the rule was necessary given “credible, consistent reports” of sector-wide bottlenecks in contractor availability, data processing, and field assessment logistics that have complicated compliance with CCR regulations—particularly for utilities managing aging ash infrastructure.

“Since publication of the Legacy Final Rule, several companies have identified challenges in preparing the FER Part 1 report by the current deadline because of difficulty in obtaining, accessing and reviewing historical documentation,” EPA wrote in the final rule’s preamble.

The agency in its rule cited industry reports detailing delays caused by “voluminous historical records,” offsite and poorly cataloged archives, and incompatibilities in digital record formats. One operator, the EPA noted, “has located over a quarter million boxes of records stored at ten off-site warehouses, as well as over 5.8 million electronic records.” Another utility reported locating “nearly 600 boxes and 30 file cabinets of documents resulting in approximately 30,000 pages and nearly 4 gigabytes of information.”

In addition to records management constraints, multiple companies reported that “many of the historical engineering and construction documents and drawings stored in boxes at offsite warehouses are in poor condition,” and that scanned versions suffer from “poor resolution or are faint and difficult to read.”

Finally, companies also described contractor backlogs that have hampered timely execution of technical site work, including sampling and physical investigations, citing seasonal constraints and permitting delays. “These companies have identified shortages and backlogs in qualified contractors resulting from the simultaneous demand for contractors,” EPA wrote.

A Proposed Rule for More Flexibility

Alongside the direct final rule, EPA also issued a companion proposed rule seeking public comment on whether the agency should grant the power sector an additional 12-month extension beyond the newly extended deadlines. Under the proposed scenario, regulated facilities could submit both parts of the FER by Feb. 8, 2028, instead of 2027, with all related compliance milestones—including groundwater monitoring and closure planning—moving forward by one year in parallel.

Like the final rule, it does not introduce new technical standards or extend the regulation to additional entities. Instead, it strictly adjusts timelines and procedural options. The EPA emphasized that this proposal is subject to a single 30-day comment period following publication in the Federal Register.

Environmental and Public Health Advocates Criticize Delay

The EPA’s actions drew immediate criticism from environmental and public health groups, who said the agency is prioritizing power sector flexibility at the expense of environmental accountability and community health.

“Trump’s EPA is abandoning its responsibility to communities across the country, allowing toxic coal ash to continue contaminating water supplies,” said Lisa Evans, senior counsel at environmental advocacy Earthjustice, in a July 17 statement. Evans noted that EPA issued its proposal “at the same time top agency officials were meeting with communities harmed by coal ash and health experts who were requesting that cleanups not be delayed.”

According to Earthjustice, the delays proposed by EPA were actively sought by industry groups, including the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), the Edison Electric Institute, and the Cross-Cutting Issues Group, organizations that represent coal-fired generators and electric utilities. The groups requested deadline extensions while EPA undertakes its ongoing review of coal ash regulations, the advocacy group said.

“The longer industry delays dealing with its toxic mess, the more toxic waste enters our water, and the more difficult and costly cleanup becomes,” Evans said. “These coal power companies cannot escape liability for their reckless release of toxic coal ash.”

Earthjustice also emphasized that many CCR units regulated under the 2024 Legacy Rule include “unlined landfills that have likely been contaminating groundwater for decades,” and that these sites are often located near water bodies and within low-income communities or communities of color. The group reiterated its longstanding concerns about EPA enforcement, citing the agency’s own findings that coal ash pollution has impacted groundwater at nearly every coal plant site in the country.

Last week, the EPA framed the coal ash compliance extension as a centerpiece of President Trump’s broader deregulatory push aimed at the power sector, particularly for coal-fired generation. “President Trump recognizes that affordable and reliable energy are key to the strength of our nation and to our nation’s energy dominance,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. “Today’s actions provide much-needed regulatory relief for the power sector and help deliver on the commitments outlined on the greatest day in deregulatory history to unleash American energy, lower costs for Americans, and work hand-in-hand with our state partners to advance our shared mission.”

In June, Administrator Zeldin also proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan’s carbon emissions standards for power plants and is rolling back the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), granting two-year exemptions to 68 coal plants from mercury and arsenic limits. The Trump administration has further opened federal lands to coal mining through executive orders, designated coal as a “critical mineral,” reduced royalty payments from 12.5% to 7%, and directed that 6,250 square miles be made available for coal leasing.

Media reports this week indicate the administration is preparing to overturn the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” which underpins all federal greenhouse gas regulation.

—Sonal Patel is a POWER senior editor (@sonalcpatel, @POWERmagazine).