EPA plans to weaken rules on how Duke Energy handles toxic coal ash
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to weaken federal clean-water rules that have been used to force Duke Energy to clean up its toxic coal-ash storage sites across North Carolina for more than a decade.
The EPA announced Thursday it wants to amend the rules because a “one-size-fits-all approach to compliance” is not the best. The agency proposes relaxing some of the standards and moving to a “site-specific” approach that would allow regulators to approve different solutions for the coal ash problem in different situations.
Nick Torrey, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the EPA’s plan grants the wishes of Duke Energy and other electric utilities at the risk of the safety of drinking water near and downstream from coal ash deposits.
Duke Energy spokesperson Riley Cook said the Trump administration’s proposal is “a positive step toward reducing customer costs while protecting public health and the environment. We look forward to reviewing the proposal and collaborating with regulators on a final outcome that maintains these protections and keeps prices as low as possible for our customers.”
What is coal ash?
Coal ash, called coal combustion residuals or CCR in regulatory documents, is the by-product of coal-fired power plants such as those in North Carolina.
According to the EPA, coal ash contains contaminants such as mercury, cadmium, arsenic and lead, as well as radioactive elements. Without proper management, the EPA has said, “These contaminants can pollute waterways, groundwater, drinking water, and the air.”
The need for federal action was highlighted by large coal ash spills near Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008 and in Eden in 2014, both of which caused widespread environmental and economic damage to nearby waterways and properties.
In the Eden spill, between 50,000 and 82,000 tons of coal ash along with 27 million gallons of ash-pond water were released into the Dan River when a pipe running under the pond broke and caused the pond to collapse, EPA investigators found.
The SELC had been pressing Duke Energy to secure its coal ash, which can be safely stored if kept dry in lined landfills to prevent leaching. It also can be safely reused in some applications, scientists say, including as an additive to cement.
Torrey said the fact that the SELC had to sue Duke Energy repeatedly to force the utility to address the safe handling of coal ash at 14 sites in North Carolina shows that uniform standards should be kept in place.
“Leaving this to the utility to clean up is not going to work,” Torrey said, adding that the company knew coal ash was toxic for decades before it began cleaning it up.
“We have seen time and again when the utilities set the agenda they often are able to convince state regulators to let them get away with lax approaches to their pollution,” Torrey said.
What would change under the EPA proposal?
If the EPA approves the changes, Torrey said, regulators could move to a “site-specific,” or case-by-case approach to coal ash. That could mean that in some cases, coal ash ponds that are leaking contaminants into groundwater could continue doing so, and some of those that have been cleaned up would not be monitored for residual pollution going into the groundwater, Torrey said.
“The whole point of having uniform, common-sense standards is to make sure our water is protected and that these sites are safe,” Torrey said. “By allowing any sites to seek exceptions from that, you open up the door to all the problems we have had in the past.”
What happens next?
The EPA said it plans to hold two webinars on April 15 and 16 to provide an overview of the changes being proposed.
Once the proposal is published in the Federal Register, the EPA will accept public comments on it for 60 days and will schedule an online public hearing.
This story is available free to all readers thanks to financial support from the Hartfield Foundation and Green South Foundation, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners, as part of an independent journalism fellowship program. The N&O maintains full editorial control of the work. If you would like to help support local journalism, please consider a digital subscription, which you can get here.
This story was originally published April 13, 2026 at 5:30 AM with the headline "EPA plans to weaken rules on how Duke Energy handles toxic coal ash."
