










































Abstract: America’s electricity generation industry has historically been almost entirely 
dependent on the burning of coal.  This necessity to burn coal so as to provide vital ener-
gy for our nation will likely continue for several decades into the future.  Due to the large 
volumes of ash generated by the burning of coal and the toxins associated with coal ash, 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified coal combustion residuals, or 
CCR, as a potential threat to the environment.  To help protect both society and the environ-
ment, the EPA instituted a new regulation in the Federal Register in the Fall of 2015, stipu-
lating both design and operation measures for all electric utility facilities across the nation.  
With such drastic regulation comes much controversy and concern over the necessity 
of governing coal ash disposal.  This paper provides an overall summary of the history, 
make up, controversy, and implementation of the new CCR Rule so that members of the 
engineering community can gain a better understanding of the new regulation.

Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201623

The CCR Rule ‘s Impact on Electric Utilities 
by Matthew McDermott

 Just before sunrise on December 22, 2008 in 
rural Tennessee, a catastrophe was minutes from 
occurring that would ultimately change the operation 
of hundreds of power plants across the nation.  That 
morning, a surface impoundment at the Tennessee 
Valley Authority power plant failed, releasing 1.7 
million cubic yards of coal ash into the surrounding 
environment.  As one of the largest releases of coal 
combustion residuals (CCR) in American history, the 
spill flooded 300 acres and contaminated both the 
Emory and Clinch Rivers [1].  Meanwhile, in the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
much discussion was already happening concerning 
the handling of CCR waste across the nation.  To 
environmental activist groups that were pushing for 
such legislation, the recent spill in Tennessee was 
the perfect catalyst for their arguments of tightening 
restrictions on the handling of CCR waste.  Despite 
much opposition by the electric utility industry, a final 
regulation further governing the disposal of CCR 
was published in the Federal Register less than seven 
years after the spill.  For Americans, the production 
of CCR will certainly continue for several decades 
into the future as coal forms the basis of electricity 
production.  Therefore the new CCR Rule (or simply 

the Rule) will need to be fully embraced.  As a result, 
an understanding of the Rule’s history, its structure, 
and resulting implications to both the electric utility 
community and American economy is valuable for 
civil engineers serving the industry.
I. Background
 As stated on the EPA’s central website, the pur-
pose of the Rule is to provide a comprehensive 
set of requirements for the safe disposal of coal 
combustion residuals from coal-fired power plants.  
The rule was shaped by the inputs of various 
entities from the electric utility industry along with 
numerous environmental activist organizations that, 
together with the public, generated some 450,000 
comments during the review of the proposed Rule 
[1].  These comments served as the voice of the public, 
representing the views of both sides of the argument, 
and were used by the EPA to revise the draft of 
the Rule and make decisions about controversial 
requirements as published in the final version of 
the Rule.  The resulting legislation was placed under 
subpart D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act, the nation’s primary regulation of solid waste.  
During the proposal process of the rule, there was 
much controversy over whether the final Rule would 



The CCR Rule’s Impact on Electric Utilities 

Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201624

be under subpart C or subpart D, as the specific 
subpart had implications towards its regulatory structure 
and effectiveness.  Under subpart D, the enforcement 
organization is unlike almost any other similar solid 
waste regulation because a permitting program is not 
employed.  Instead the Rule is only enforceable by civil 
lawsuit.  The Rule is one of the first regulations structured 
this way, so there is both skepticism and concern on the 
degree of its effectiveness and its consequent effect on the 
industry [2].
 Though CCR has been a waste of society for 
centuries, this new regulation intends to mitigate its 
future detrimental effects to the environment and 
protect the health of society by improving the waste 
management criteria for nearly all CCR units across 
the nation.  The first and most likely avenue for CCR 
waste to impact the health of society in the future is 
through the contamination of groundwater.  Though 
CCR is known to cause little bodily harm while 
interacted with in small doses, it contains small 
amounts of heavy metals that have the potential 
to cause significant bodily harm over an extended 
exposure period.  During the burning of coal, slight 
amounts of these heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, 
selenium, and mercury are released that can become 
trapped in the ash.  Over time these toxins can seep 
out of the ash at the disposal site and infiltrate into 
the ground.  Eventually there is a possibility that 
the underlying groundwater could be affected by 
the toxins and reach unsafe concentrations, thus 
compromising the local source of drinking water [3].  
Because this process takes time, the effects of poor 
waste management could be realized decades after 
placement of the waste.  This means that improving 
the waste management practices today will help to 
improve the quality of life for future generations.
 The second concern addressed by the Rule is the 
potential for catastrophic failure of coal ash surface 
impoundments.  The Rule sets detailed structural 
integrity criteria for both design and maintenance 
in attempt to prevent events such as the spill at 
the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston, TN 
power plant in 2008.  Though these events are rare, 
they have the potential to cause the most harm to 
the public and local property.  The Rule intends to 
protect both society and the environment through 
these criteria by ensuring that good engineering 
practices are employed and maintained throughout 

the life of a surface impoundment.
 Finally, the Rule addresses the potential of CCR 
to become an air born contaminant.  Once CCR be-
comes dry enough to be blown away, the heavy 
metals generated during the burning of coal have 
the potential to also be carried by the wind to almost 
any part of the earth.  There is already a global issue 
with airborne mercury that has caused harm to 
the environment; so as a national administration, 
the EPA supports responsible management of the 
nation’s global input of mercury [4].  On a local scale, 
fugitive CCR dust can also raise issue for the health 
and aesthetic desires of the surrounding community.  
Though daily inhalation of CCR by local residents 
would likely not be fatal, it could generate potential 
health hazards over a lifetime of exposure.  Further, 
the amount of dust produced by a CCR waste facility 
through several decades could be substantial and 
thus accumulate in the surrounding areas.  As a 
result, the Rule requires CCR facilities to nearly 
eliminate fugitive dust and take note of all local 
complaints [4].

II. The CCR Rule
   The CCR Rule is structured into six main 
divisions that establish design, operation, closure, 
and notification characteristics of the regulation.  
As found in the preamble to the regulation, 
almost every part of the Rule received comment 
from both environmental groups and electric utility 
representatives that commonly influenced the 
decision by the EPA as reflected in the final Rule [4].  
Though there are particular aspects of some parts 
with which each side of the discussion still likely has 
issue, the Rule is published in the Federal Register 
so electric utility companies must embrace the 
Rule.  Ultimately, the goal of the Rule is to mitigate 
the potential for groundwater contamination, cata-
strophic failure, and fugitive dust associated with 
CCR units.  Consequently, each part of the Rule serves 
an integral purpose in protecting the environment 
and society against these three major issues, among 
others.
 The initial criterion the Rule addresses is a location 
restriction on new and existing CCR landfills and 
CCR surface impoundments.  Location limits are 
intended to ensure the waste is located a suitable 
distance from water sources as well as out of 



The CCR Rule’s Impact on Electric Utilities 

Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201625

seismically active areas.  Some of the specific locations 
that are considered in the Rule are placements by 
the uppermost aquifer, wetlands, fault areas, seismic 
impact zones, and unstable areas.  By simply not 
placing a CCR unit in these locations, the risk for 
water contamination as well as structural damage is 
greatly reduced.
 The second major division of the Rule focuses 
on design and is arguably the most important 
aspect concerning the effectiveness of a CCR 
unit.  The liner design and surface impoundment 
embankments are critical in regards to protecting 
against seepage of toxins into the groundwater and 
mitigating the risk of a surface impoundment failure.  
Consequently, the Rule contains much stipulation on 
the minimum design requirements as well as regular 
inspection standards that must be met.  For the liner 
construction, an extremely impermeable liner is 
required to be used in new CCR units that will 
prevent nearly any seepage into the underlying earth.  
In regards to surface impoundment design, the Rule 
establishes detailed embankment criteria ensuring 
a considerable factor of safety is employed, thus 
reducing the risk of future failure.  To ensure a CCR 
unit continues to be a safe and suitable containment 
unit long into the future, the third section of the Rule 
contains several requirements so as to ensure proper 
operation and maintenance of the facility.  Among 
several operating criteria discussed in the Rule is 
the requirement of a CCR facility to manage erosion 
within and around CCR units.  The Rule requires that 
a run-on run-off plan be in place for CCR landfills 
and hydrologic and hydraulic capacity requirements 
be evaluated for surface impoundments to address 
issues with erosion.  
 To ensure all these criteria are being met on a 
periodic basis, weekly and annual inspections are 
required to be performed and recorded.  In addition 
to hydrologic concerns, the Rule also requires 
facilities managing CCR to adopt measures towards 
diminishing fugitive dust from their facility.  Even 
further, a fugitive dust control plan needs to be 
developed, practiced, and placed in a facility’s operating 
record according to the Rule.  These operation and 
maintenance criteria are all intended to improve the 
management of CCR so as to protect the nation’s 
natural resources along with the health of society. 
 The next major part of the Rule is centered on 

implementing a groundwater monitoring program for 
both existing and new CCR units.  The Rule requires 
the implementation of a groundwater monitoring 
program at all CCR units within 2 years after the 
effective date of the Rule.  Many electric utility 
companies have raised concern with this ambitious 
implementation time.  The implied costs associated 
with implementing a monitoring program are 
substantial, and if they were not anticipated 
correctly in the facility’s budget, the facility could 
face significant financial burdens.  The monitoring 
program includes the installation of anywhere from 
a few to dozens of monitoring wells depending on 
the size of the facility.  These monitoring wells are to 
be used for determining if the underlying aquifer 
is being affected by the CCR unit through any 
seepage of toxins.  Based on periodic assessments of 
the data collected by the wells, potential issues can 
be identified and the required corrective actions 
performed.
 Closure procedures are addressed next in the Rule 
as it is inevitable for almost all CCR units to reach 
design capacity or be closed.  While closing a CCR 
unit, it is essential that the cell be closed in a way that 
will minimize maintenance and ensure its effectiveness 
for encapsulating the CCR waste long into the future.  
As a result, the Rule includes several requirements 
concerning the preservation and maintenance of the 
unit even after a CCR facility is long out of commission.  
Since the heavy metals common within CCR waste 
generally do not disintegrate very quickly, they can 
still pose a threat to the environment and society long 
into the future [3].  The closure section of the Rule is 
intended to prevent future harmful effects of escaping 
CCR due to the deterioration of a CCR unit.
 Finally, the Rule ends by stipulating how the previous 
parts of the Rule are to be reported so as to demonstrate 
that the required actions have, in fact, been completed.  
The Rule requires three types of reporting including 
placing items in the facility’s operating record, notifying 
the state director, and placing items on the facility’s 
publically accessible website.  Unlike most regulations 
of this kind, the enforcement of the Rule is dependent 
upon civil lawsuit rather than federal permitting.  This 
final section of the Rule regarding public reporting is 
a direct result of the the civil regulatory approach as 
it allows the general public to be the regulating party 
though scrutiny of each facilities’ public records.



The CCR Rule’s Impact on Electric Utilities 

Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201626

III. Controversy
 With nearly half a million comments received 
during the revision of the proposed regulation, 
almost anyone would agree this Rule was 
surrounded by much controversy during, and even 
after, its development.  The majority of unrest occurred 
early in the lawmaking process while the EPA was 
deciding whether to create the Rule under Subpart 
C or Subpart D of the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act.  Because this difference would change 
the entire nature of the Rule, the initial decision 
between the two subparts was critical.  The two 
approaches vary significantly on their regulatory 
approach and also on the financial burden the 
federal government would adopt after the Rule 
came into effect.  Under Subpart C, CCR would be 
treated as a hazardous waste requiring a permitting 
process to be constructed and continually regulated.  
As a hazardous waste, CCR would have to be dis-
posed in hazardous waste management facilities.  This 
structure under Subpart C was largely supported by 
environmental groups as they felt CCR needed to 
be handled very seriously.  Unfortunately, this strict 
regulatory structure would have cost the federal 
government large amounts of tax dollars to oversee 
and manage the permitting program.  Further, many 
existing hazardous waste facilities across the nation 
are not prepared to handle the large volumes of CCR 
waste that are generated by electric utilities.  The 
power industry favored the structure of the proposed 
rule under Subpart D as it was less strict compared 
to Subpart C.  Under Subpart D, CCR would not 
be treated as a hazardous waste, and no permitting 
program would be necessary, thus making the waste 
management more flexible for CCR management 
facilities [5].
 Without a federal permitting program, the 
EPA needed to maintain some kind of regulatory 
approach, so the EPA implemented a civil lawsuit 
method to ensure the Rule would be upheld.  This 
uncommon regulatory approach has also raised 
much concern as there is little evidence of its 
effectiveness.  Environmental activist groups are 
concerned that, without direct governmental over-
sight, electric utility companies will take advantage 
of their flexibility and ultimately not obey the Rule.  
On the other hand, the electric industry is tentative 

at this point about the regulatory structure as only 
one mistake could be grounds for a lawsuit.  Because 
concerned environmental activist groups will be very 
keen to jump on any compliance failure, the public 
posting website will be watched closely, and action 
will likely be taken on any instance of noncompliance 
[2,6].  Both sides of the controversy are uneasy by the 
civil lawsuit approach, but only time will tell how 
successfully it functions.
 The ground water monitoring program was 
perhaps the most controversial part of the Rule itself 
as the cost implications for electric utilities are quite 
high.  The electric utility industry has argued that proper 
design of a CCR cell should be enough to ensure waste 
is properly contained.  This has lead the majority of 
the industry to believe that excessive monitoring 
wells are not necessary for the management of 
CCR and would only serve to increase the required 
operating budget of a facility.  Environmental activist 
groups claim that monitoring wells are essential to 
ensure the CCR unit’s design is, in fact, protecting 
the groundwater from contamination. Since one 
of the main reasons for implementing the Rule is 
to protect groundwater, environmental groups felt 
it was reasonable to require the implementation of 
an extensive monitoring program.  In the final rule, 
the EPA decided to require a relatively extensive 
monitoring program be developed and practiced 
[2,6].
 Clearly neither side of the argument felt com-
pletely satisfied after the final publishing of the 
Rule.  Environmental groups generally felt as though 
regulation under Subpart D was too weak and that 
the EPA was giving into industry desires instead of 
upholding their role to fairly protect the nation’s 
environment.  The electric utility industry, on the 
other hand, never wanted the Rule to go into effect 
in the first place as it would inevitably cost them 
millions of dollars over the coming years, thus 
decreasing profits and raising production costs.  
In the end, the EPA did result in taking action by 
instating the Rule, so each side of the argument must 
embrace the rule as it is for the time being [7].

IV. Impact
 The general concern shared by both the electric 
utility industry and members of the public is the 
likelihood of an increase in cost to produce electricity 



The CCR Rule’s Impact on Electric Utilities 

Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201627

as a result of added operating costs pursuant to the 
Rule.  The actions required by the Rule to ensure en-
vironmental protection generally require some type 
of action to be performed by the CCR unit facility 
that otherwise would not be necessary. These added 
practices equate to increased operating costs which 
in turn raise the cost to the consumer.  As a result, 
critics have noted that the Rule is just one of many 
relatively recent legislations aimed at phasing out the 
burning of fossil fuels that have paid little regard to 
the consequent and potentially detrimental effects to 
the nation’s economy.
 The preamble of the Rule delves deeply into the po-
tential implied costs associated with implementation 
of the Rule due to the large number of CCR 
facilities affected.  Currently across the nation there 
are 1,045 CCR management units that are run by 
166 companies, all of which have to follow the 
regulations that went into effect in October 2015.  
The EPA estimates the total cost resulting from the 
implementation of the Rule over the lifespan of all 
applicable CCR units could be as much as $23.2 
billion.  Further, the EPA estimates there will be 
$8.71 billion in benefits to society, resulting in a 
0.38 cost to benefit ratio [4].  This means more funds 
will go into obeying the Rule than will be saved by 
society, which is questionable when considering the 
overall benefit to society.
 The largest impact is due to the aggressive time 
frame of the Rule.  Various sections of the regulation 
have their own time frames, but in general, the 
actions that are required to be carried out by the CCR 
facilities are required to be completed very soon after 
the publication date of the Rule.  For example, the 
fugitive dust control plan was required to be created 
and placed in the facility’s operating record by the 
effective date of the Rule, which was in October 2015.  
For some facilities, their budgets may not have been 
planned appropriately to support the development of 
such a plan as engineering costs can be quite steep.  
This likely left many electric utility companies in a 
pinch by the end of 2015 as they would have been 
forced to choose between cutting other operation 
costs to make budget for actions required by the 
Rule or risk breaking the law, which will likely lead 
to the closure and potential bankruptcy of the owner 
[7].  If the time frame of the Rule were extended on 
some of the requirements, it is likely that electric 

utility companies could plan better financially.  
Nevertheless, there will almost surely be an increase 
in demand for engineering guidance due to the rapid 
integration of the Rule into the electric industry.

V. Conclusion
 The CCR Rule will likely be a hot topic in 
engineering circles over the coming months while 
the integration of the Rule continues and electric 
utility companies embrace the realities of this new 
legislation.  Despite much controversy during the 
development of the Rule, it is here to stay, so the 
engineering community must continue to recognize 
the breadth of the Rule and prepare to assist clients 
with the various activities required of them.  The 
key to succeeding in properly serving clients on 
legislative related projects is becoming an expert on 
the requirements and then applying good engineering 
practices to the problem.

References:
[1] United States Enviromental Protection Agency 
(2015, August 10). Final Rule: Disposal of Coal 
Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities.  
Retrieved October 19, 2015, from United States 
Environmental Protection Agency website: http://
www2.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-rule
[2] Ludwiszewski, R., Scherman, W., Haake, C., 
Fleischer, J., & Pai, R. (2014, December 29). U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Issues Final 
Regulations Addressing Coal Combustion Residuals 
from Electric Utilities Under Subtitle D of Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act. Retrieved October 
19, 2015, from Gibson Dunn website: http://
www.gibsondunn.com/publications/pages/  US-
EPA-Issues-Final-Regulations-Addressing-Coal-
Combustion-Residuals-from-Electric-utilities.aspx
[3] Weatherford, K. (2015, January 8). Update: 
EPA’s New Coal Ash Rule Leaves Communities, 
Environment at Risk. Retrieved October 19, 2015, 
from Center for Effective Government website: 
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/update-
epa%E2%80%99s-new-coal-ash-rule-leaves-
communities-environment-risk
[4] 80 Fed. Reg. 21302 (Apr. 17, 2015) (to be codified 
at 40 C.F.R. pt. 257).



The CCR Rule’s Impact on Electric Utilities 

Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201628

[5] Farley, R. W. (2015, April 1). New Coal Ash 
Regulations Causing Additional Controversy. 
Retrieved October 19, 2015, from Lexology 
website: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.
aspx?g=0d937fea-2799-4e1c-ace3-71b0b512f210
[6] Kane, L. (2015, January 5). Coal Combustion 
Residuals Rule Is Approved by EPA. Retrieved 
October 19, 2015, from Bingham Greenebaum 
Doll website: https://www.bgdlegal.com/
news/2015/01/05/environmental-letter/coal-
combustion-residuals-rule-is-approved-by-epa/
[7] Snider, C. J., & Eichenberger, J. (2015, March 10). 
The new CCR rule. Power Engineering, 10. Retrieved 
from Academic OneFile database.


