Category Archives: Energy

Environmental issues related to energy development and production, including hydraulic fracturing.

N.C. Environmental Legislation 2015: The Budget

October 9, 2015. Now that the General Assembly has adjourned, a look at legislative actions affecting the environment. First, the state budget for 2015-2017.

Among the most significant impacts:

♦  REORGANIZATION.   The Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Natural Heritage Program — originally intended to protect and restore water quality and identify important natural areas — have been separated from the environmental protection programs in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The budget transfers the CWMTF, Natural Heritage Program, Museum of Natural Sciences, state park system, N.C. Aquariums and N.C. Zoo from DENR to a newly organized Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. The move combines conservation  and ecological education programs with state historic sites and cultural resources. The new department appears to be organized around management of the programs as public attractions rather than as research and education partners to state environmental protection programs.  As a result of the reorganization, DENR becomes the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Whatever the merits of the move for facilities like the Museum of Natural Science and N.C. Zoo,  the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and Natural Heritage Program do not  fit the new department’s basic organizing principle. Unlike the “attractions”,  the  CWMTF and Natural Heritage Program provide no public facilities and exist primarily to protect  water quality and identify important natural resources.

The General Assembly created the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) in 1996 to fund projects to prevent water pollution and to restore water bodies already impaired  by pollution.   CWMTF’s  non-regulatory approach complemented water quality rules  protecting state waters.  Originally,   CWMTF grants funded acquisition of riparian buffers to reduce polluted runoff into streams and rivers and  extension of sewer lines where failing  septic  systems threatened surface water quality.  In moving CWMTF, the 2015 budget severs its connection with other state efforts to restore and protect water quality.  The move follows 2014  legislation diluting the original CWMTF  focus on  water quality protection by authorizing use of the Trust Fund for acquisition of historic sites and buffers around military bases.

The  Natural Heritage Program researches, classifies and inventories the state’s natural resources, including endangered and rare plant and animal species. Information collected by the program can be used to document the conservation value of property and to assess the environmental impacts of projects requiring state and federal environmental permits.  The program has a much closer working relationship to the environmental  protection programs that remain in DENR than to public attractions like the N.C.  Zoo and Aquariums. (Note: The 2013 state budget eliminated the Natural Heritage Trust Fund which had been a source of funding for conservation of important natural areas;   the CWMTF  has become the funding source for those projects as well.)

♦  LANDFILL PERMITTING. The budget changes landfill permitting, allowing issuance of a single “life of site” permit to cover construction and operation of a landfill that may have a 30-year lifespan.  State rules had previously  required review and approval of the entire landfill site before construction, but also required each 5 or 10-year phase of the landfill to have a construction and operation permit.  Moving to a “life of site” permit  reduces the number of permit reviews for each landfill operation, changing the permit fee schedule and cutting funding for the state’s solid waste management program by 20%.  The change also reduces state oversight of landfill operations.  Landfill construction will continue to be done in phases for economic and practical reasons,  but the “life of site permit” eliminates state compliance review for each new  phase of the landfill.   The change also seems to eliminate the possibility of imposing additional permit conditions for construction or operation of later landfill phases in response to  technological developments  or new knowledge  of  risks to groundwater and other natural resources. The  budget provision does not set minimum inspection requirements in place of the 5 and 10-year phased permit reviews.

The bill also creates a legislative study of local government authority over solid waste collection and disposal, including ordinances on solid waste collection;  fees for waste management services; and potential for privatization.  The study suggests the General Assembly may focus next on reducing local solid waste regulation.  That will be a somewhat different discussion, since solid waste disposal has long been a local government responsibility so  local fees and ordinances have a direct connection to city/county collection and disposal services.

♦  LEAKING PETROLEUM UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS. The budget eliminates a state fund for cleanup of petroleum contamination from small  petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs) such as home heating oil tanks.   The Noncommercial UST Trust Fund has assisted property owners with the cost of soil and groundwater remediation caused by leaks from farm, home and small commercial USTs.  The budget allocates additional money to the Noncommercial UST Trust Fund to cover pending claims, but  limits use of the Fund to  cleanup costs associated with leaks reported to DENR by October 1, 2015.  All claims for reimbursement of those costs must be filed by July 1, 2016.

The budget provision also prohibits DENR from requiring removal of petroleum-contaminated soils at noncommercial UST sites that have been classified as low risk.  The  problem —  risk classifications  have been based on groundwater impacts;  a low-risk classification does not mean that contaminated soils on the property pose no health hazard. Current UST  rules require remediation of contaminated soils to levels safe for the intended land use (residential versus nonresidential) without regard to the overall risk classification of the site.  Soil remediation standards have been based on the potential health risks associated with exposure to petroleum-contaminated soil. Adverse health effects may include increased cancer risk since petroleum products contain a number of carcinogens. The budget provision may allow petroleum-contaminated soils to remain on residential properties at levels putting children at particular risk of adverse health effects.

♦ JORDAN LAKE WATER QUALITY RULES. The budget allocates another $1.5 million (from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund) to continue the 2013 pilot project to test use of aerators to improve water quality in the Jordan Lake system. The budget also has a special provision further delaying implementation of the Jordan Lake water quality rules for  another 3 years or one year beyond completion of the pilot project (whichever is later). The rules had been developed by the state’s Environmental Management Commission to address poor water quality  caused by  excess nutrients reaching the lake in wastewater discharges or in  runoff from agricultural lands and developed areas. See an earlier post  here on the  2013 legislation creating the pilot project.

♦ COASTAL EROSION CONTROL.   A special provision in the budget also changes state rules on use of sandbag seawalls and terminal groins in response to coastal erosion.  State coastal management rules have only allowed use of  temporary sandbag seawalls to protect a building facing an imminent threat from erosion. The same rules prohibit construction of the seawall more than 20 feet seaward of the threatened building. (These sandbag seawalls are substantial structures built on the beach in response to oceanfront erosion; the rules do not apply to sandbags used to prevent water from entering a building during a flood event.) The budget bill allows an oceanfront property owner to install a sandbag seawall to align with an existing sandbag structure on adjacent property without showing an imminent erosion threat to any building on their own property.  Since the bill allows construction to align with the adjacent sandbag seawall, the new seawall  may  also be more than 20 feet seaward of any  building. The irony here — a property owner may want to install a sandbag seawall in these circumstances  out of concern that the adjacent sandbag seawall may itself cause increased shoreline erosion.

The budget bill also increases the number of terminal groin structures that can be permitted at the state’s ocean inlets from four to six and identifies New River Inlet for location of two of the additional structures. See an earlier post  for more on earlier legislation allowing construction of terminal groins as a pilot project. Note: No terminal groins have been completed under the original pilot program, so the state does not yet have any data on the actual impacts of these structures.

♦ RENEWABLE ENERGY TAX CREDIT.  The budget bill allows the state’s 35% tax credit for renewable energy projects to sunset on December 31, 2015. A separate bill provides a “safe harbor” for renewable energy projects already substantially underway by that date. Those projects may qualify for a one-year extension of the tax credit. See Senate Bill 372 for more on conditions that apply to the safe harbor extension.

The North Carolina Response to EPA’s Clean Power Plan Rule

July 26, 2015.  In one way, the proposed  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants  — expected to be final in August — looks like a typical air quality rule. The Clean Power Plan rule sets state by state reduction goals for a pollutant (CO2) from a particular set of of sources (electric generating facilities).  But the rule takes an unusual and  innovative approach to meeting those goals. The rule identifies  four components  (or “building blocks” in EPA rule-speak ) of a plan to reduce CO2 emissions associated with power generation : 1. reducing power plant CO2 emissions (the traditional Clean Air Act approach); 2. energy efficiency measures; 3. increased  electric generation from renewable energy sources;  and 4. transition of electric generation facilities from coal to natural gas.   In effect, the rule aims to lower CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour used and allows the  states to take credit for CO2 emissions avoided through increased energy efficiency and by shifting electric generation to energy sources with low or no CO2 emissions.

The proposed EPA rule requires each state to submit a plan for meeting its CO2 reduction target by June 30, 2016. The state plan can rely on any or all of the four “building blocks” in the EPA rule; it can also include measures that fall outside those categories as long as the plan achieves the CO2 reduction target for regulated electric generation facilities. If a state fails to develop a plan, EPA can create a federal plan for the state.  An earlier post  provides more detail on the  proposed federal rule.

The McCrory administration has opposed the Clean Power Plan rule in  written comments and in testimony before Congressional committees. In part,  the administration has argued that the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to issue  a rule that relies on measures — such as energy efficiency and increased reliance on renewable energy — that go beyond limiting  pollutant emissions from regulated power plants.  Last week,  the practical implications of  that   position became more clear when DENR  Secretary Donald van der Vaart  told a Senate committee that  the McCrory administration intends to resist the flexibility offered under the federal rule and submit a CO2 reduction plan  based entirely on requiring additional CO2 emission reductions at  power plants.

The Secretary’s comments came  as a state Senate committee debated House Bill 571, which requires DENR to develop  a state CO2 reduction plan with the participation of the public and the electric utilities. DENR did not support House Bill 571, but the bill passed the House with a bipartisan majority and the support of  the state’s major electric utilities and environmental organizations. Last Wednesday, the  Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee took up a substitute draft of  H 571 that would prohibit DENR from taking any action or expending any state resources on development of a CO2 reduction plan until all legal challenges to the federal rule had been resolved or until July 1, 2016 (whichever came later).  Asked to comment on the proposed substitute bill,   Secretary van der Vaart  indicated that DENR  would prefer to submit a CO2 reduction plan by June 30, 2016 as required under the federal rule — but a plan based entirely on reducing  power plant emissions.

Based on the Secretary’s statement, the McCrory administration response to the Clean Power Plan rule puts the state in a strange place:

♦  DENR has argued for an interpretation of  the Clean Air Act that would force the federal rule to be more rigid and offer the state less flexibility to meet CO2 reduction targets.   (A number of environmental law experts disagree with this narrow interpretation of EPA authority; the issue will likely have to be settled in court.)

♦  Based on this narrow interpretation of EPA authority, DENR intends to develop a state CO2 reduction plan that relies entirely on further reducing  CO2 emissions from power plants even though existing  state policies have North Carolina on a path to achieve much (if not all)  of the necessary reductions through increased renewable energy generation, greater energy efficiency, and  transition of power plants from coal to natural gas.  Although DENR has not provided an analysis of the state’s ability to meet the state’s CO2 reduction target based on those existing policies, others have. You can find one (an analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council)  here.

♦  Relying  entirely on lowering power plant emissions could  make meeting the CO2 reduction target more difficult and more costly for electric utilities and consumers. Again, DENR has not provided a comparative analysis of the cost of relying entirely on power plant pollution controls versus  a comprehensive CO2 plan that takes credit for energy efficiency measures, renewable energy generation and transitioning power plants from coal to natural gas.

Most states have started planning to meet the  CO2 reduction targets. Even in coal-producing states where political opposition to the EPA rule tends to be highest,  state air quality agencies have begun sketching out CO2 reduction scenarios in case the rule survives the expected legal challenges. Only one state — Oklahoma — has prohibited its environmental agency from developing a plan. A recent Washington Post story  reported that even coal-dominated states like Kentucky seem confident of meeting the  CO2 reduction target thanks in part to recent investments in renewable energy generation. It isn’t clear that any state other than North Carolina has decided to develop a plan based solely on CO2 reductions at coal-fired power plants.

Which leaves something of a public policy mystery. A state with significant advantages in renewable energy, energy efficiency and already on the road to transitioning power plants from coal to natural gas seems to have settled on a policy that throws those advantages away. Instead of working with electric utilities, consumers and environmental organizations to develop the most cost-effective  CO2 reduction plan for the state, DENR intends  to unilaterally develop a plan based entirely on reducing power plant emissions.  It isn’t clear why or what that policy choice could cost the state.

Note: The Senate committee approved the substitute draft of House Bill 571 on Wednesday, but offered to continue talking to DENR about the content of the bill. The bill was pulled off the Senate calendar last Thursday; when the bill  reappears on the Senate calendar, there may be amendments as a result of the ongoing discussions.

Update: The original post has been revised to make it clear that state CO2 reduction plans can also rely on measures other than those covered by the  four “building blocks” identified in the EPA rule.

The NC Senate: Budget 2015

June 18, 2015.  Yesterday, the  N.C. Senate  took a first vote to approve a Senate version of House Bill 97  ( 2015 Appropriations Act).   The Senate received H 97 from the House of Representatives on May 22. The Senate  released its  alternative draft of the appropriations bill three days ago and quickly moved H 97  through Senate appropriations committees.  The Senate takes  a very different approach to funding state government than the House, but the Senate version of H 97 also contains many more “special provisions” — changes to existing law that go beyond finance and appropriations.  Some of the more significant environmental provisions in the Senate budget bill  (not by any means a complete list) below.

First, the Senate revisits the organization of state natural resource programs.  Sec. 14.30 of the Senate bill would combine  DENR’s natural resource programs (Division of Parks and Recreation, State Parks, Aquariums, the N.C. Zoo and the Museum of Natural Sciences) with cultural resource programs (such as the Museum of History and state historic sites)  in a new Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.  DENR would become the Department of Environmental Quality. Sec. 14.31  requires the two departments to study  whether  the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program,  state Coastal Reserves, the Office of Land and Water Stewardship,  the Office of Environmental Education and Public Affairs, the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Wildlife Resources Commission should also be moved to the new Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.

Other changes proposed in the Senate bill by subject (parenthetical descriptions are mine) :

COAL ASH

Sec. 29.18 (Beneficial use of coal ash) requires the Utilities Commission to report to several legislative committees by January 2016 on “the incremental cost incentives related to coal combustion residuals surface impoundment for investor-owned public utilities” including:

(1) Utilities Commission policy on  incremental cost recovery.

(2) The impact of the current policy on incremental cost recovery on utility customers’ rates.

(3) Possible changes to the current policy on incremental cost  recovery  that would promote reprocessing and other technologies that allow the reuse of coal combustion residuals stored in surface impoundments for concrete and other beneficial end uses.

Although a bit opaque, the Senate seems interested in the possibility of allowing electric utilities  to recover (through charges to consumers) the costs associated with making coal ash in surface impoundments available  for beneficial use.  Duke Energy has previously told legislators  that much of the coal ash in North Carolina impoundments  would require additional processing to be usable in concrete manufacturing.

COASTAL ISSUES

Sec. 14.6 (Use of sandbags for temporary erosion control) amends standards installation of sandbags for  erosion control on ocean and inlet shorelines. State rules now allow installation of sandbags only in response to erosion that imminently threatens a structure. The Senate bill allows a property owner to install sandbags to align with existing sandbag structures  on adjacent properties without showing an imminent erosion threat on their own property.

Sec. 14.10I (Strategies to address beach erosion) requires the Division of Coastal Management to study and develop a strategy “preventing, mitigating and remediating the effects of beach erosion”.

ENERGY 

Sec 14.29  (Federal energy grants) prohibits DENR from applying for grants from two federal programs – the State Energy Program Competitive Grant Program and the Clean Energy and Manufacturing Grant Program.

FISHERIES

Sec. 14.8, Sec. 14.10A and Sec. 14.10C  (measures to increase shellfish restoration and cultivation)

Sec. 14.8  directs the Division of Marine Fisheries to work with commercial fishermen,  aquaculture operations, and federal agencies to open additional areas in Core Sound to shellfish cultivation leasing.

Sec. 14.10A  directs DMF and the Division of Coastal Management to cooperate in  development of a new, expedited  CAMA permitting process for oyster restoration projects. The provision  also  authorizes DMF to  issue scientific and educational activity permits to nonprofit conservation organizations engaged in oyster restoration.

Sec. 14.10C Amends G.S. 113-202 to allow a lease for use of the water bottom to also cover fish cultivation or harvest devices on or within 18″ of the bottom. (Devices or structures not resting on the bottom or extending more than 18″ above the bottom will continue to require a water column lease.)

Sec. 14.10F (Joint fisheries enforcement authority) repeals the Division of Marine Fisheries authority to enter into a joint enforcement agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service. The joint agreement allows DMF  to receive federal funding to enforce federal fisheries regulations in state waters.

SPECIAL FUNDS

Sec. 14.16  continues a recent trend of eliminating “special funds” that hold fees or other revenue dedicated for a specific purpose outside the state budget’s General Fund. The Senate bill eliminates special funds for mining fees,  stormwater permit fees, and UST soil permitting fees and moves the fee revenue into the General Fund.

STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION

Sec. 14.23 (Limiting the state’s role in providing stream, wetland, riparian buffer and nutrient mitigation)  requires DENR’s Division of Mitigation Services to stop accepting fees in lieu of mitigation in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Cape Fear River basins within 30 months.  The provision then allows DENR (with the Environmental Management Commission’s agreement) to also eliminate the state in-lieu fee programs in all other river basins after June 30, 2018.

DENR’s  in-lieu fee program allows a developer to pay  a fee for mitigation  required as a condition of state and federal development permits. DENR  then contracts with private mitigation providers for the necessary mitigation. Payment of the fee transfers responsibility for providing the mitigation from the developer to DENR. Under a Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the state’s in-lieu fee program can be used to satisfy stream and wetland mitigation required as a condition of federal Clean Water Act permits.

Eliminating  the State in-lieu fee program seems to eliminate the fee-for-mitigation approach as an option for developers. The burden would be back on the developer to find acceptable mitigation through a private mitigation bank or to plan and manage an individual mitigation project.  The change may slow some development projects that can now move  ahead based on the Corps of Engineers’ agreement to accept payments to the state in-lieu fee program as satisfying  federal mitigation requirements.

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

Sec. 14.16A (Elimination of the Noncommercial UST Trust Fund) phases out the state’s Noncommercial UST Trust Fund which reimburses property owners for the cost of cleaning up contamination from leaking underground petroleum storage tanks. The Noncommercial UST Trust Fund has  benefitted homeowners with soil and groundwater  contamination caused by home heating oil tanks and property owners  with contamination caused by USTs  used to store fuel for personal use — as on a farm. Under the Senate provision, the Noncommercial Fund could only be used for leaks reported before August 1, 2015 and claims for reimbursement filed by July 1, 2016. The Noncommercial Fund  would be eliminated for any petroleum releases  reported or claims made after those dates.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Sec. 14.20 (Life of site landfill permits) amends G.S. 130A-294 to replace the current  5 or 10 year landfill permits with a “life of site” permit to cover landfill operations from opening to final closure. The provision would require permit review every five years.

Sec. 14.21 (Study of local government authority over waste collection and disposal services) directs the legislature’s Environmental Review Commission to study local authority over solid waste management including local fees; ordinances on waste collection and processing; cost to local government to provide solid waste services; and efficiencies or cost reductions that might be realized through privatization.   Solid waste collection and disposal services are entirely financed and provided by local governments;  many already contract with private entities for waste collection or landfill management.  It isn’t clear what the study might lead to since the legislature doesn’t have a role in  providing or financing local waste management services.

Sec. 14.22  (Privatizing landfill remediation) directs DENR to privatize the assessment and remediation of at least 10 high priority pre-1983 landfill sites. For several years, DENR has received a percentage of the state’s solid waste disposal tax  to fund assessment and cleanup of  contamination associated with landfills and dumps that closed rather than meet environmental standards that went into effect in 1983. Some legislators have expressed concern about the slow pace of remediation (and the resulting high fund balance). Note: Most state-funded remediation programs have a slow ramp-up in spending since it takes time to set up a new program and assess the sites.

WATER QUALITY

Sec. 4.5  (Nutrient management) earmarks $4.5 million from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund for a  DENR study of “in situ strategies beyond traditional watershed controls” to mitigate water quality impairment. The provision specifically mentions impairment by “aquatic flora, sediment and nutrients”, suggesting the study may be a continuation of the legislature’s effort to replace watershed-based nutrient management programs with technological solutions.

In 2013, the General Assembly suspended implementation of watershed-based nutrient management rules in the Jordan Lake watershed and funded a pilot project to test the use of aerators to reduce the impacts of excess nutrients on water quality. Sec. 14.5 allows extension of  the  pilot project contracts for another two years and delays implementation of the Jordan Lake watershed rules an additional two years or one year beyond completion of the pilot project, whichever is later.

Sec. 14.25 (State Assumption of permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) directs DENR to  hire a consultant to plan and prepare a state application  to assume the  federal permitting program under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.   Sec. 404 requires a permit to fill waters or wetlands that fall under Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The U.S. Corps of Engineers issues Sec. 404 permits,  but a state can assume Sec. 404  permitting authority under certain conditions.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency oversees  404 permitting and would have to approve a state program. In a state that assumes Sec. 404 permitting, EPA retains authority to review  permit applications; a permit cannot be issued over an EPA objection.

Although several states have explored the possibility of assuming Sec. 404 permitting authority, only Michigan and  New Jersey have approved Sec. 404 programs. Individual states have reached different conclusions about the costs and benefits for a number of reasons. One may be cost — there are no federal grant funds to support a state 404 permitting program.   The Clean Water Act also prohibits state assumption of permitting in  tidal waters; water bodies used for interstate and foreign commerce;  and wetlands adjacent to both categories of waters. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would continue to have permitting authority in those waters and wetlands.

Sec. 14.26 (Transfer Sedimentation Act implementation to the EMC) eliminates the Sedimentation Pollution Control Commission and transfers responsibility for implementation of the Sedimentation Act to the Environmental Management Commission.

Once the Senate takes a final vote on House Bill 97, the bill goes to a conference committee to resolve the (considerable) differences between Senate and  House versions of the bill.  Few of the environmental provisions described above appear in the House version of the bill — although that doesn’t necessarily mean all of the Senate additions will be opposed by the House in conference negotiations.

2015 Environmental Bills — Part II

April 17, 2015. A continuation of the previous post. Not a complete list, but hopefully  most of the significant bills.

Amend Environmental Laws.  In the category of you just can’t have too many — there are actually three “Amend Environmental Laws” bills this session (so far).  As noted in the previous post, House Bill 157 (Amend Environmental Laws) has already been enacted into law and House Bill 593 (Amend Environmental Laws-2)  amends  laws allowing reimbursement for third-party damage claims as a result of leaking petroleum storage tanks. I missed House Bill 576 (Amend Environmental Laws-1); at the moment, the bill  amends  solid waste laws to allow  the white goods tax (currently used by local governments to manage discarded refrigerators and other large appliances) to also be used for programs to manage discarded electronic devices.    Amend Environmental Laws-1 may also pick up additional provisions as it moves through committee.

Contaminated Sites. House Bill 748 (Establish Contamination Source Removal/Disposal Bd) creates a new full-time  (salaried) board to take over DENR’s responsibility for cleanup of contamination at pre-1983 landfills and other contaminated sites. The “pre-1983 landfills” are unlined waste disposal  sites — in some cases,   simply  dumps –that stopped operating before 1983 to avoid having to comply with federal standards for waste disposal facilities.  Many have groundwater contamination.  A 2007  state law  gave DENR responsibility for assessing and remediating the sites. Many of the landfills had been operated by local governments, so the 2007 legislation freed local governments of the potential environmental liability in return for a state solid waste disposal tax to fund cleanup.  House Bill 748  expresses concern about the slow pace of remediation.  It will be interesting to get more of the back story on the bill.  The concern may be as much about unspent funds earmarked for the cleanup as it is about unremediated contamination;  a  pot of money always attracts attention.  Reality is that contaminated sites require a  lot of assessment work before actual cleanup can begin.  Most  state-funded remediation programs have had a slow start up before making significant outlays for remediation.

Also,  a note that  House Bill 639 (Risk-based Remediation Amends) proposes the same amendments to remediation laws that appear in the Senate regulatory reform bill. You can find a description of those provisions in an earlier post.

Fracking. House Bill 773 would strengthen  requirements for public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid.

Riparian Buffers. House Bill 760 is the  House regulatory reform bill.  The environmental provisions include significant changes to state laws allowing use of riparian buffers to protect water quality. It isn’t clear exactly how broad the bill’s restrictions on local government buffer ordinances are intended to be.  The bill amends a law written to allow  state delegation of riparian buffer programs under the nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) rules to local government, but  some of the bill language could be interpreted to prohibit local adoption of riparian buffer ordinances for any other purpose:

Units of local government may impose restrictions upon the use of riparian areas as defined in 15A NCAC 02B.0202 only within river basins where riparian buffers are required by the State.

Local riparian buffer ordinances  are sometimes adopted in response to other  state/federal water quality mandates  — such as Phase II stormwater permit conditions, water supply watershed regulations and endangered species management plans. So a local buffer ordinance may be needed to meet a water quality standard or  permit condition, but  not specifically required under state rules applicable to the entire river basin.  Assuming  the bill did not intend to prohibit use of riparian buffer ordinances to meet  other state and federal water quality mandates, it would be helpful to make that clear.

In  areas covered by the NSW buffer rules, the bill exempts residential lots platted before the buffer rules went into effect — even if the property could be developed for its intended purpose in compliance with the buffer requirement. (There are already exemptions and variances that cover previously platted lots that cannot be developed in full compliance with the buffer requirement.)  The buffer  rules are  part of  broader  water quality strategies designed to meet  federal Clean Water Act requirements. The Clean Water Act requires the state  to adopt a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) –in effect, a cap —  for any pollutant causing impaired water quality. A number of state  water bodies, including the Neuse River and Falls Lake,  have impaired water quality due to excess nutrients  — particularly nitrogen and phosphorus.   The nutrient management rules provide the regulatory  underpinning  for  TMDLs that set nitrogen and phosphorus reduction targets for  those  rivers and lakes.    The rules include  riparian buffer requirements as a critical  tool in reducing the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that runs off the land into surface waters. One question may be whether such a broad exemption from the buffer rules will allow the state to meet the federally-approved TMDLs.

The bill would also require that riparian buffers on shorelines bordered by coastal wetlands or marshland be measured from the waterward edge of the wetland. The term “coastal wetland” includes both wetlands that regularly flood on the tides and wetlands that flood on wind tides and seasonal high tides.  Under the provision, the “buffer” would often consist of wetlands with a frequent, direct  connection to coastal waters;  in some cases,  the buffer would effectively be in the water. The change would seem to defeat the purpose of having a buffer to allow polluted runoff to infiltrate through the soil rather than go directly into the water.

Stormwater. On the face of it,  House Bill 141 (Stormwater/Flood control) authorizes cities to use existing stormwater management programs to address flood risk by purchasing properties at high risk of flooding, elevating existing structures, and retrofitting  structures to reduce flood risk. The bill seems  intended to allow  cities in more populated counties to expand the purpose of existing stormwater programs to include flood management as well as water quality protection.  (The bill would limit the new authority to cities in a county with a population of 910,000 or greater and at least one city with a population of 500,000 or greater.)  One possible pitfall  — the bill could be interpreted as limiting the authority of other North Carolina towns and cities  to take similar actions through flood hazard mitigation projects.  For example, the small coastal town of Belhaven  has done a major flood hazard mitigation project  to elevate structures in areas repeatedly flooded due to hurricanes.   House Bill 141 may need to be clarified to avoid undermining cities and towns’  existing authority  to reduce flood hazards.

N.C. General Assembly: 2015 Environmental Bills

April 15, 2015.   The final bill introduction deadline  fell  yesterday for bills that don’t affect finance or appropriations,  so it is a good time  to look at the environmental bills  introduced and awaiting action. The General Assembly can also amend environmental laws  in the budget bill or by completely rewriting a bill on an entirely different subject, but with that warning in mind:

House Bill 795 SEPA Reform  would  greatly  limit the number of  projects requiring an  environmental impact statement (EIS) under the state’s Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).   Adopted in 1971, SEPA requires an  EIS  for projects that potentially have a significant environmental impact, need a state approval (such as a permit), and involve either the use of public funds or use of public lands.  Unlike its federal counterpart (the National Environmental Policy Act  or “NEPA”), the state law  has never applied to  privately funded development projects no matter how significant the environmental impact. To require an EIS under the state law, there must be public investment ( which could mean either state or local government funding) or use of public land.  Typical projects requiring an EIS in the past would be  a new wastewater treatment plant; a county landfill; a major development project on state-owned submerged lands; or activities on state parkland.

House Bill 795 proposes to  limit SEPA review  to projects involving $20 million or more in public funding or land-disturbing activity affecting 20 acres or more of public land.   It is difficult to know what percentage of projects required to do an EIS in the past would avoid  SEPA review under the amended law, but it is reasonable to assume that many public  projects fall below the $20 million threshold. Controversial proposals for use of state parks and tidelands could also avoid SEPA review because — whatever the other impacts of the project —  an EIS would only be required for land-disturbing activity that permanently alters the landscape and affects 20 acres or more. For projects that exceed the new size and funding thresholds, House Bill 795 provides additional  SEPA exemptions  for projects receiving  certain types of state approvals. Some of the approvals listed in the bill, such as a certificate of convenience and necessity for a  public utility infrastructure project,  do not  involve  any environmental review.  (That particular exemption also doesn’t seem to serve a purpose;   the “public utilities” that need a certificate of convenience and necessity are by definition not owned or operated by a governmental  entity and  don’t involve public funds.)

For projects that would still require an EIS under the amended law, the bill also limits the scope of the EIS.  Under the bill,  the EIS would only describe direct project impacts — eliminating consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts.

Projects  exempted from the EIS requirement would still need  any necessary environmental permits, but permit reviews tend to be more narrow than an EIS. The EIS looks beyond one set of permitting standards to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project as a whole — which can include consideration of noise, traffic, endangered species, historic sites, and effects on minority and low income communities as well as natural resource impacts. Projects that require a federal permit could still trigger NEPA review; what the state may lose is an opportunity for the same comprehensive review and public input on projects that do not require a federal permit —  which may include some landfill projects and inter-basin transfers.

THE OMNIBUS BILLS (AMEND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATORY REFORM)

In every recent legislative session, the General Assembly has enacted an Amend Environmental Laws bill  and a Regulatory Reform bill. Both bills become vehicles  for multiple changes to environmental laws. See an earlier post for a description of Senate Bill 453, the Regulatory Reform Act of 2015.

At the moment, House Bill 593 (Amend Environmental Laws-2) only  contains provisions amending  state law on reimbursement of third-party damage claims by the state’s petroleum underground storage tank (UST)  trust funds.  (The UST trust funds can reimburse UST owners for up to $1,000,000 in third-party claims for property damage or personal injury resulting from a petroleum release.)  The amendments require the UST owner to provide specific documentation of the third party damage claim; add definitions of “third party”, “bodily injury” and “property damage”;  and provide more  direction on how to calculate  compensation for  property damage.

It is the  nature of  both the Regulatory Reform and Amend Environmental Laws bill to pick up baggage as the session goes along.  Expect new versions of each bill  as the bills move through committee.

Note: This bill is Amend Environmental Laws-2 because  House Bill 157 (Amend Environmental Laws) has already been enacted into law as Session Law 2015-1. H 157 generally made uncontroversial and technical changes to solid waste laws, the Coal Ash Management Act and other environmental laws. The one provision in H 157 that  created some controversy amended a state law requiring the Environmental Management Commission to adopt air toxics rules for hydraulic fracturing sites.The bill replaced the requirement with language authorizing the EMC to adopt  air toxics  standards for fracking sites  if necessary to protect public health, safety, welfare and the environment.

AIR QUALITY

Senate Bill 303  Protect Safety/Wellbeing of N.C. Citizens  prohibits state enforcement of any federal standards for wood heaters used for home heating.  The bill  is interesting as an example of  state legislation intended to nullify  a federal standard.  In February, EPA adopted updated performance standards for wood heaters. Federal air quality rules have included standards for wood heaters since 1988; the new rule updates the standards to reflect changes in technology and to  regulate  wood-burning boilers and wood-burning furnaces as well as wood stoves.   The  revised  standards only apply to newly manufactured wood heaters, phase in over several years and do not affect fireplaces (at all) or wood heaters already in use.  An EPA fact sheet provides an overview of the rule.  Generally, N.C.’s delegated authority to implement Clean Air Act programs  requires the state  to adopt and enforce federal new source performance standards, but EPA has not delegated enforcement of the wood heater rule to the states.

House Bill 169  Limit Motor Vehicle Inspections  eliminates motor vehicle emissions inspections in six counties  (Burke, Granville, Haywood, Rutherford, Surry and Wilkes). Forty-eight of N.C.’s 100 counties require annual emissions inspections as part of the state’s plan to meet the  federal ozone standard under the Clean Air Act. Recently, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued a  report concluding that emissions inspections could be eliminated in as many as 28-31 counties without  violating either the current ozone standard or the stricter ozone standard EPA  will  finalize by the end of the year. Given the DENR report, expect the number of counties  the bill removes from the emission inspection program to increase.  Since the emissions inspection program has been used to meet a federal air quality standard, any change by the General Assembly must have EPA approval.

House Bill 172 Fracking – Protecting the Public requires the Environmental Management Commission to adopt rules establishing best management practices and  leak detection and repair standards to  minimize air emissions from natural gas operations. The bill approaches the related problems of wasted natural gas and  air pollution by focusing on  ways  to minimize unintended releases resulting from leaky equipment or inefficient practices during exploration, development, production, processing and compression of the natural gas.

House Bill 571 Implementation of Carbon Dioxide Regulations requires DENR  to begin work on a plan to comply with new federal regulations reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants. EPA’s Clean Power Plan rule sets a CO2 reduction goal for each state, but states have flexibility in the mix of power plant emission reductions, renewable energy generation, and energy efficiency measures used to meet the goal.  Find  more background on the federal rule here. Each state  must  submit a plan for meeting its   CO2 reduction goal by June 2016, although EPA can extend the deadline if the plan needs legislative approval or relies on a multi-state strategy.  DENR does not appear to have any effort underway to develop a plan. Instead, DENR has both  questioned the legal basis for the federal rule and urged EPA to delay implementation until lawsuits  challenging the rule  have been resolved. House Bill 571 appears to be intended to push DENR to begin  work  on a CO2 reduction plan and do it in a way that provides for  input from both stakeholders and the public.

COAL ASH

House Bill 448 Extend Coal Ash Structural Fill Moratorium  The Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 put new, stricter standards in place for large projects using coal ash as structural fill .  ( “Large” means > 8,000 tons per acre or > 80,000 tons total).   But the law made few change to existing standards for smaller structural fill projects. Instead, the 2014 bill put a moratorium on permitting smaller structural fill projects  until August 1, 2015 to allow time for DENR and the Environmental Management Commission to study the standards for those projects.  The law required a report back  to the General Assembly by January 15, 2015.  The EMC discussed an interim report in  January,  but the interim  report didn’t address the adequacy of existing structural fill standards for small projects. The interim report indicated that a final report would be released in April; it doesn’t appear that a final report has been issued yet.  In the absence of a report on the adequacy of the existing structural fill standards and recommendations, House Bill 448 would extend the moratorium on permitting smaller projects until August 1, 2016.

COASTAL ISSUES

House Bill 151 Property Insurance Ratemaking Reform is not strictly speaking an environmental bill, but deals with use of models projecting catastrophic losses as a result of a hurricane or other natural disaster in setting property insurance rates. The bill would continue to allow use of models, but would require the results of more than one model to support a property insurance rate change.  The bill is interesting given the longstanding tension between the economic benefits of coastal development and the externalized costs of building in natural hazard areas.

House Bill 302 Strengthen Oyster Industry  requires the Division of Marine Fisheries to study the state’s shellfish lease and franchise programs and make recommendations for changes necessary to increase shellfish  aquaculture on the North Carolina coast. The bill also expands on existing law requiring DMF to plan and construct  oyster sanctuaries in the  Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds; sets new civil penalties for interference with oyster cultivation; and makes other changes designed to increase oyster production. State funding for creation of oyster habitat has seen a steep decline in recent years; some additional resources will likely be needed to make the oyster sanctuary program a reality.

House Bill 346 Counties/Public Trust Areas extends to counties the  authority to enforce local ordinances in public trust areas and particularly on the state’s ocean beaches.  Municipalities already have this authority.

CONTAMINATED SITES

Senate Bill 301 DOT/Purchase of Contaminated Land would exempt the N.C. Department of Transportation from a law enacted in 2013 that  effectively prohibited state agencies from purchasing property with environmental contamination.  As noted in a earlier post about the 2013 law,  the General Assembly may not have realized the far-reaching effects.   Environmental contamination is widespread and state policies allowing polluters to do limited, “risk-based” remediation of groundwater contamination mean the contamination will persist well into the future. The 2013 law exempted the UNC system campuses from the restriction; NCDOT has asked for the same exemption — presumably because the law makes acquisition of property for highway construction more difficult.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Senate Bill 397 Open and Fair Competition Water and Wastewater would prevent a state or local government from “preferring” one type of piping material  for use in a  water, sewer or stormwater infrastructure project receiving state funds.  I don’t know the story behind the bill,  but usually legislation attempting to  change a state agency’s policy about  use of a particular product or system has been introduced in response to complaints by  a  vendor.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

The General Assembly’s internal debate over renewable energy development continues. In 2013,  the Republican majority in the General Assembly split over attempts to repeal both the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (REPS) and the state’s tax credit for investment in renewable energy projects. In the end, a bipartisan majority declined to repeal the incentives for renewable energy development — in large part, because renewable energy had become one of the bright spots in the state’s economic recovery. See an earlier post on the end of the 2013 fight over the REPS.

This session, one focus is on the scheduled sunset of the renewable energy tax credit on January 1, 2016. There are bills in both the House and the Senate to extend the tax credit;  House Bill 454  extends the tax credit until January 1, 2021 and Senate Bill 329 extends the tax credit to January 1, 2020.  Opponents of the tax credit have introduced a bill, Senate Bill 372, that essentially retains the existing January 1, 2016 sunset,  but provides a “safe harbor” for investors who have made substantial outlays on projects not  in service  by the sunset date. Those taxpayers would have an additional year  (until January 1, 2017) to claim the tax credit.

UPDATE:  House Bill 681 would sunset the REPS requirement early, ending in 2018  with a  standard requiring  6% of retail sales of electricity to be generated from renewable sources. The current law requires that  electric public utilities generate 12.5% of retail sales from renewable energy source by 2021 and thereafter.

N.C. Senate Budget 2014: Environment

The most significant changes:

Oregon Inlet. The single largest allocation of new money ($15 million) would fund an effort to acquire  federal lands surrounding Oregon Inlet and the erosion-threatened  segment of N.C. Highway 12 on Hatteras Island.  The lands targeted for acquisition now make up parts of  Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.  The newly acquired lands would be designated as a state park, but the special budget provision tied to the funding describes the purpose of the acquisition as managing “existing and future transportation corridors” on the Outer Banks.  An earlier post describes the cost (as of 2013) of maintaining Highway 12  in the face of high erosion rates and inlet movement.

Continuing  erosion and storm damage have  made it increasingly difficult to maintain Hwy  12 within the  original right of way.  Going outside the right of way means working on federal lands. The National Park Service and federal wildlife refuge  managers have worked with the state to reach agreement on a number of  previous Hwy 12 maintenance and relocation projects, but conditions have now deteriorated to the point that future projects could involve much more significant impacts to lands in the national seashore and wildlife refuge. Some of the proposed maintenance and relocation options for Hwy 12 also conflict with  the conservation purposes  of the federal  lands.  Management plans for national seashore and wildlife refuge give high priority to maintaining a natural, unobstructed shoreline and  protecting wildlife habitat.

The bill directs the state Department of Administration to begin negotiating an agreement to acquire the federal lands by purchase or exchange of state land for federal land. If efforts to negotiate an agreement fail, the bill directs the department to begin  efforts to acquire the lands by condemnation next year,  Not surprisingly,  the budget provision allows use of some of the funding for litigation expenses. The budget cobbles together the $15 million allocation by transferring a total of  $7 million  from two specific  DENR  fund accounts ($3.5 miilion from each);  appropriating $5 million in new money;  and earmarking an additional $3 million in capital reserves.  One of the two DENR fund accounts  appears to be a Marine Fisheries fund for license revenue;  the budget provision identifies the  fund by  number and  title (the “Advanced License Sales Fund”).

The bill also has language (similar to a provision in the Senate regulatory reform bill) authorizing the Governor to  waive  state coastal development permits and environmental impact statements for projects needed to maintain transportation access to Hatteras Island. As noted in an earlier post, waiver of state environmental review may not actually shorten the permitting process –the Governor’s action cannot affect  federal permits needed for the Hwy 12 projects  and  the state and federal permit reviews have been coordinated for many years to streamline  review. On the other hand, waiving state permits for the project will remove any influence the state might otherwise have on the federal permitting process — taking state environmental permitting staff out of the negotiation entirely,

Coal  Ash. The Senate has proposed to appropriate $1.75 million to DENR to support activities related to regulation of coal ash, including 23 new staff positions. The staff positions would be allocated among the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (7 total positions – 2 in stormwater and  5 in  dam safety); Division of Waste Management (2 positions); Division of Water Resources (8 positions) and the DENR Secretary’s Office (6 positions). Funding is contingent on passage of Senate Bill 725 (Governor’s Coal Ash Management Act) or similar legislation,

Shale Gas.  The Senate budget appropriates an additional $1.17 million dollars for shale gas activities. Most of the funding ($973,324) would be used for additional geological and geophysical analysis of the shale basins in the state. The remaining funds have been identified for marketing and promoting  the state’s shale gas resources ($100,000); digitizing data ($50,000); and doing more chemical analysis of gas wells  ($50,000).

Transferring Interest Income from DENR Special Funds. DENR has a number of interest-bearing special funds. Some were created to provide a  source of revenue for conservation programs; others receive a combination of fees and tax revenues to fund cleanup of environmental contamination. The Senate budget would transfer all of the interest earned by these funds to the state’s General Fund, reducing the funds available for the originally intended purpose and allowing the legislature to reallocate the interest income for other uses. The conservation  funds affected include the Clean Water Management Trust Fund; the Marine and Estuarine Resources Conservation Fund; the Ecosystem Restoration Fund; the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund; and  the N.C. Marine Resource Fund.

The environmental cleanup funds affected by the transfer of interest income include the Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Fund;  the Commercial Underground Storage Tank Fund;  the Non-Commercial Underground Storage Tank Fund;  the Inactive Hazardous Sites Fund; the Bernard Allen Emergency Drinking Water Fund;  and a fund supporting the state  Brownfields program for redevelopment of contaminated sites.  Some of the special funds receive revenue from fees and taxes  imposed on a particular commercial activity (such as dry-cleaning and operation of petroleum underground storage tanks)  to address contamination associated with the activity. The proposed transfer would  allow use of the interest income on those fees and taxes for unrelated purposes.

The state Brownfields program (which assists in the redevelopment of contaminated sites)  operates entirely on federal  funds and fees paid by the prospective developers.  The program receives no state appropriations, so the special fund provides the only source of operating funds.  A number of the  environmental cleanup funds (including the Commercial UST Fund) have been chronically underfunded and transfer of the interest income will only further reduce the resources available for assessment and cleanup of contamination.

Marine Fisheries. It is hard to find a plan behind the many changes to the marine fisheries budget. The bill increases a significant number of commercial and recreational fishing  license fees and fees for fish dealers, while slightly  reducing  fees for commercial fishing vessels.  The budget reduces  funding for fisheries conservation by transferring interest income from several special funds to the General Fund and transferring $3.5 million from one  license fee fund account to  a fund  to acquire property on the Outer Banks.  At the same time, the bill eliminates  appropriations for  the At-Sea Observers program (necessary under a state-federal agreement keep some N.C. fisheries open by monitoring the impact on  endangered sea turtles) and shifts  the costs of the program to license fee revenue.  The bill also directs a portion of the higher commercial fishing fees to a new  Commercial Fisheries Resource Fund. The result of all of the moving pieces seems to be higher fees, reduced appropriations, and at the same time a transfer of fisheries fee revenue to other purposes.

2014 Shale Gas Legislation

Note: The original  post has been updated to reflect the fact that a new bill draft presented in committee today added a section authorizing the issuance of permits for hydraulic fracturing effective July 1, 2015. 

May 20, 2014: In what has become an annual rite of spring, the N.C. Senate has introduced another bill on oil and gas exploration and development. Some highlights of Senate Bill 786 (Energy Modernization Act):

Fracking Rules. The bill extends the deadline for  adopting rules on hydraulic fracturing from October 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015. The extension gives the Mining and Energy Commission   (MEC) more  time to  consider public comment on draft rules and finalize the standards.  The bill  also  exempts the fracking rules from Administrative Procedure Act provisions that would otherwise prevent the rules from going into effect until mid-June 2016. The changes would allow  the rules to become effective in 2015 (assuming the legislature approves the rules) .

Allow Issuance of Permits for Hydraulic Fracturing Beginning July 1, 2015. A new version of the bill presented in committee today added a section authorizing the Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources to begin issuing permits for natural gas production using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing on July 1, 2015.  Shale gas legislation enacted in previous legislative sessions had prohibited issuance of permits until the state had rules in place to regulate hydraulic fracturing. This provision authorizes DENR to begin issuing permits on a date certain without regard to the status of the proposed rules.

Trade Secrets. The Senate wades back into the controversial issue of  “trade secrets”.  In 2013, oil and gas industry giant Halliburton lobbied both the Mining and Energy Commission (MEC) and the legislature to allow the industry to withhold  “trade secret” information about chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing  from state regulators unless needed to respond to an emergency.  Earlier posts describe the previous (failed) attempts to legislatively resolve the tension between protecting trade secrets and making timely information available to doctors and first responders in an emergency.

Senate Bill 786  would require oil and gas companies to disclose  all of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid to DENR, but protect  trade secret information from public disclosure.  The trade secret information would be maintained  by the State Geologist (a position in DENR) and protected from public disclosure under confidentiality provisions in the N.C. Public Records Act.  The bill would allow the State Geologist to provide the information to emergency  or medical personnel  if  needed to respond to an emergency. Up to this point, the bill follows a  common approach to balancing protection of trade secret information  with  emergency response needs.

The new controversy concerns penalties in the bill for unauthorized disclosure of  oil and gas industry trade secrets. First, the bill allows the owner of  the trade secret to require a doctor or fire chief receiving the information for emergency response purposes  to enter into a confidentiality agreement that may set out remedies  for breach of the agreement including “stipulation of a reasonable pre-estimate of likely damages”.  Without any further explanation of how the stipulation would be used, it  sounds  like a stipulated penalty that could make it unnecessary for the company  to establish  actual economic damages in court.

The bill also makes unauthorized disclosure of an oil and gas industry trade secret  by any person  a Class I felony if the person knew  the information was a trade secret. (Class I felonies carry a presumptive sentence of 4-6 months — but you may be eligible for community service or supervised probation.)  By contrast,  current state law protecting trade secrets does not impose a  criminal penalty for  unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized acquisition or even unauthorized use of trade secret information.  G.S. 66-154  provides civil remedies and allows recovery only of “actual damages…measured by the economic loss or the  unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation of a trade secret”.  Aside from  questions about the  reasonableness of the penalties proposed in Senate Bill 786,  it is clear that the bill creates  much more severe penalties for disclosure of  oil and gas industry trade secrets  than state law imposes for  unauthorized disclosure or use of  other types of trade secrets.

Well Drilling Fees.  The bill reduces the well drilling fee from $3,000 per well to $3,000 for the first well and $1500 for additional wells on the same well pad.

Notice of Oil and Gas Activity. Section 11  of Senate Bill 786 adds a new requirement that the company holding lease rights for oil and gas must provide 30 days notice to the owner of the surface property  before starting exploration, development and production activity.

Pre-Drill Water Testing/Presumption of Liability for Contamination. Section 12  of the bill would  amend the law requiring pre-drilling tests of water supply sources located within  5,000 feet of the  proposed wellhead by limiting the testing to water supplies within a  one-half mile (2,640-foot) radius  around the proposed wellhead.  A corresponding change to G.S. 113-421 would reduce  the area  where  a presumption of oil/gas operator liability for water supply contamination would apply — from  the current 5,000 feet to the same 1/2 mile radius around the wellhead. 

Restrictions on Local Ordinances Prohibiting Oil and Gas Activity.  Section 13  of the bill repeals any past local acts  or resolutions of the General Assembly prohibiting well siting, horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing  in specific localities. The bill then preempts local ordinances that have the effect of prohibiting oil and gas exploration and production,  horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. An  oil/gas operator  could challenge a local ordinance as preempted under the law by filing a petition with the Mining and Energy Commission.   The bill creates a presumption that general  development  conditions in local zoning and land use ordinances   (such as buffers, setbacks and stormwater requirements) will continue to be valid unless the MEC  finds otherwise. To preempt a local ordinance, the MEC  would have to find that: 1. The ordinance would prohibit oil and gas activities; 2. The oil/gas operator has received all  necessary state and federal approvals (unless the only reason for denial was inconsistency with the local ordinance); 3. Local residents and elected officials had an adequate opportunity to participate in the permitting process; and 4. The oil and gas activities will not pose  “an unreasonable health or environmental risk” to the surrounding locality,  the operator will take reasonable measures to reduce foreseeable risks, and the operator will comply with local ordinances to the maximum extent feasible. This section of the bill seems to be modeled on a similar preemption  law concerning  the  siting of hazardous waste facilities.

Ban on subsurface Injection of drilling wastes.   The N.C. Senate has previously proposed to amend an existing state law prohibiting underground injection of waste to allow subsurface disposal of oil and gas drilling waste.  The earlier proposals ran into strong opposition from members of the Mining and Energy Commission as well as the public. In Section 14, Senate Bill 786 abandons the effort to authorize subsurface disposal of drilling waste and instead reinforces the existing prohibition on underground injection of waste found in G.S. 143-214.2.

Compliance review for oil and gas permit applicants. Section 14 also creates an environmental compliance review  for oil and gas permit applicants. The compliance review will cover at least the previous five years.  For business entities, the compliance review  will extend to any parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated entity; a partner, officer, director, member or managing director; and any other person with a direct or indirect interest in the company (other than a minority shareholder in a publicly traded corporation).  The bill allows DENR to deny an oil and gas  permit based on a past history of significant or repeated violation of statutes, rules, orders or permit conditions.

Trespass.  The bill protects workers collecting seismic or other geophysical data from trespass claims as long as they do not physically enter private land without consent. Seismic surveys  use  sound waves to  characterize subsurface geology and identify potential oil and gas reserves. The survey team generates  sound waves  on one side of the  target area  (by setting off small explosive charges or using trucks specially outfitted to create vibrations); geophones record the waves on the other side of the target. The intent of the bill is to prevent trespass claims based on movement of  the seismic waves under surface properties  the workers do not physically enter. The  company conducting the  seismic testing  would still be liable for any physical or property damage caused  to the surface property.

Severance Tax. Section 16 of the bill creates a new severance tax for oil and gas.  Others with expertise in severance  taxes  and oil/gas industry revenues will have to provide the in-depth analysis. One quick observation:  The bill  appears to prohibit cities and counties from imposing any taxes on the oil and gas industry other than property taxes.

Miscellaneous. In a provision unrelated to oil and gas, the bill caps city and county property tax revenue at an 8% increase over revenue received the previous year.

The bill requires  a number of new studies, including a  feasibility study for  a liquified natural gas export terminal on the N.C. coast.

Beyond Coal Ash – Other Environmental Bills

For those of you making scorecards and tracking sheets for  2014 legislation, a list of other bills on energy and the environment filed  so far; some  bills have already  been  introduced in both chambers:

Environment. The first six bills listed below   were recommended by the House/Senate Environmental Review Commission (ERC).    The last, House Bill 1105,  came out of a House/Senate legislative study commission on land development.

House Bill 1081 (Senate Bill 765)  addresses several  concerns about  state and local permit review of engineering plans.  An engineer submitting an innovative design proposal to a state or local permitting agency will have the opportunity to elevate the  permit review to a supervising engineer.  The bill also allows the permitting agency to charge the applicant for a third-party engineering review if the agency does not have a staff engineer qualified to review the innovative design.  The bill makes other less significant changes. The bill requires  permit reviewers to clearly distinguish necessary design changes  from suggested changes and  cite the law or rule that makes a design change necessary for permit  approval. The bill also directs permitting agencies to review working job titles for permit reviewers  to insure only PEs have “engineer” job titles. For more on the history of these proposals, see an earlier post.

House Bill 1057 (Senate Bill 757)  requires the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to study several  issues related to transfer of water from one river basin to another  or “interbasin transfer” (IBT):  1.  Whether  temporary and emergency interbasin transfers, including transfers to relieve water shortages caused by drought, should be regulated differently  than long-term interbasin transfers; 2. Whether interbasin transfers between river sub-basins should be regulated differently  than interbasin transfers between major river basins. and 3. Whether there are types of interbasin transfers that should be exempt from state approval or  other regulatory requirements.

Interbasin transfers  usually  involve piping water from a drinking water source in one river basin to  a water system in another, although some large water systems cross river basin boundaries  and need an IBT just to serve  system customers. An  IBT  of  2 million gallons per day or more requires a certificate of approval from the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). Rather than using the boundaries of the  17 major state river basins,  the  IBT law requires  a certificate for any transfer among  38 sub-basins.  Over the last seven years, a series of legislative changes have made the IBT approval process increasingly difficult.   The House and Senate IBT bills signal an interest in reexamining some of the restrictions.

House Bill 1058 (Senate Bill 756) directs the General Assembly’s Program Evaluation Division (PED) to study: 1.  the benefits of combining water and sewer systems into larger, regional entities; 2. potential incentives for systems to merge; and 3. the possibility of  allowing one system to apply for grants  on behalf of  a less efficient  system  based on a commitment to purchase, interconnect  or enter into a joint management agreement with the less efficient system. The idea of encouraging merger of  small water systems and wastewater  systems into larger, more efficient utilities  has popped up in just about every legislative session for a decade or more.  The biggest obstacles tend to be local resistance and the financial burdens  associated with the takeover of  a small, inefficient system often badly in need of capital investment.  The last of the three PED study issues (allowing one system to apply for grants on behalf of a system targeted for takeover) may be focused on removing the financial disincentives.

Senate Bill 737 (Amend Isolated Wetlands Regulation). “Isolated wetlands”  fall outside the federal Clean Water Act permitting program for wetland impacts because the wetlands do not have a connection to navigable waters.  (Congress adopted the Clean Water Act  under its  authority to regulate interstate commerce and  limited federal regulatory jurisdiction to navigable waters used in interstate commerce.)   In response to pressure from realtors and developers to eliminate state  protection of isolated wetlands,  S737  allows additional  impacts  to isolated wetlands without  prior state permit review.  State water quality rules  now allow  development impacts  to  isolated wetlands below specific thresholds to be “deemed permitted”.  S737 raises those thresholds from 1/10th of an acre to 1/3 of an acre west of Interstate 95 and from 1/3 of an acre to 1 acre east of Interstate 95.  (I-95 has long been used as the  dividing line between the wetter eastern counties and drier piedmont/western counties.)  DENR has expressed concern that raising the  threshold to 1 acre east of I-95 will effectively eliminate review of projects impacting isolated wetlands in the eastern part of the state. S737 also reduces the amount of mitigation required for isolated wetland impacts (from a 2:1 ratio to 1:1) and eliminates the  practice of giving more mitigation credit for creation or restoration of wetlands  than  for preservation of existing wetlands.

Senate Bill 738 (Clarify Gravel Under Stormwater Laws). In 2013, the N.C. Homebuilder’s Association successfully lobbied for legislation directing  the state stormwater  program to  treat gravel areas as “pervious” (meaning the surface allows water to percolate through to the soil beneath) and exclude  them  from the calculation of built-upon area on a development site.  The amount of built-upon area determines the level of stormwater control required for the project, so excluding gravel areas from the calculation  potentially  reduces stormwater costs.  The 2013  provision  (included in  Session Law 2013-413)  also directed the ERC to study “how partially impervious surfaces are treated in the calculation of built-upon area under [the stormwater] programs”.    Ironically, the ERC study found: 1.  no consensus on  the definition of  “gravel”; and 2. evidence that permeability is a function of several factors, including the nature of the substrate and method of installation as well as the surface material itself.  Instead of further weakening stormwater control requirements,   the  ERC bill recommends repeal of the 2013  provision declaring  gravel areas to be pervious and  funds a study of the permeability of different surface materials to be done by the North Carolina State University Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering.

Senate Bill 734  (Authority to Adopt Certain Ordinances).  The  Regulatory Reform Act of 2013 (Session Law 2013-413)  put  a one-year moratorium on local environmental  ordinances and directed the ERC  to study  local authority to adopt environmental ordinances. The  moratorium/study  provision represented a compromise  between the House and the Senate after the Senate  passed  a bill (Senate Bill 112) putting significant restrictions on local environmental ordinances.

An ERC working group looked at the issue  of local authority through the lens of actual conflict between local ordinances and state or federal environmental  rules.  The legislators identified only one  conflict — local ordinances on use of fertilizers regulated by the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.  Based on the working group recommendation, the ERC  proposed  a limited bill addressing state  versus  local authority to regulate fertilizer use. The bill also  directs  DENR and the Department of Agriculture to  report back in  November 2014  and again one year later on any  local ordinances that  “impinge on or interfere with” state rules.  Supporters of S112   almost certainly want something more.  It seems clear the intent of S112 was to prevent  local government from imposing  additional environmental requirements on developers  and not simply  to avoid conflict with state rules.

House Bill 1105  amends the section of the  state Sedimentation Pollution Control Act that allows DENR to delegate  authority to a local sedimentation program. The amendment transfers responsibility for enforcement of previously approved erosion and sedimentation control plans from DENR to the local government when DENR approves a local program.

Energy

House Bill 1055   would appropriate a total of  $5 million to North Carolina State University and UNC-Charlotte  for research on renewable energy, energy storage, and coal ash reuse.  The bill sponsor,  Rep. Mike Hager,  spent much of the 2013 session   in an unsuccessful effort  to repeal  the state’s renewable energy portfolio standard (REPS).  (You can find the first of several  posts on the 2013 REPS repeal bill here.)  Some of the 2013 combatants  have already signaled an intent to  continue the battle for  repeal  of the REPS standard.    That  very fresh legislative history makes  Rep. Hager’s  proposal to  fund research on renewable energy  somewhat surprising.

Senate Bill 786, (The Energy Modernization Act).  The bill proposes so  many changes to state law on  oil and  gas exploration and development that it merits a separate  post. (To follow.)

Budget Cuts in the N.C. Coastal Management Program

January 30, 2014.  Caught between state and federal budget reductions, the state’s Division of Coastal Management (DCM) eliminated five positions effective  December 31, 2013 including the land use planning director and federal consistency coordinator.  DCM carries out the state’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)  — a joint state-local program to reduce  property damage and injury from coastal hazards; protect public access to the state’s beaches and waterways;  and manage the impacts of  development on sensitive coastal resources.  With the support of Republican Governor Jame Holshouser, the N.C. General Assembly adopted CAMA in 1974 shortly after  Congress enacted the federal Coastal Zone Management Act  to encourage creation of state coastal resource protection programs.  Over the next several decades,  North Carolina became a national leader in coastal policy even as   the state’s  coastal counties experienced an explosion of development activity.

DCM was forced to eliminate these two positions and three others (the Assistant Director for Permitting and Enforcement,  an IT support position and a policy analyst)  after several years of state and federal budget reductions. Federal grant funding under the Coastal Zone Management Act had been flat for over a decade while salaries, benefits and indirect costs increased. The last federal funding cycle  reduced the state grant by 5.9%. At the same time, state appropriations  have dropped  35% since 2009 and permit receipts  fell by  approximately  30%  as the recession slowed development activity.

More on the impact of eliminating the land use planning and coastal consistency positions:

Land Use Planning Director. One  goal of the Coastal Area Management Act  was to plan coastal development with an eye toward conditions that make the coastal area uniquely hazardous and uniquely productive. To work, it had to be a joint state-local effort and CAMA made local land use planning a key part of the state’s coastal management program.  Budget  cuts in previous years  forced the elimination of a long-standing DCM grant program that provided  financial assistance to coastal cities and towns for land use planning.  Ongoing budget cuts have now made it necessary to eliminate the  CAMA land use planning director. The director supervised  DCM’s  planning efforts and worked directly with local government planners.    Supervisory responsibilities for the  planning program has  shifted to DCM’s policy director.

Federal Consistency Coordinator. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires federal  activities affecting  the coastal area to be consistent “to the maximum extent practicable” with the state’s approved coastal management  program.  (To be enforced through the CZMA consistency requirement, a state program must be approved  by the  Office of Coastal Resource Management in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.) The approved North Carolina coastal management program  includes development standards adopted under CAMA, but also includes local land use  policies, water quality standards, and other state laws and rules concerning coastal resources.   As a practical  matter, the federal consistency requirement  gives the state an opportunity to review and comment on proposed federal activities and federal permit decisions affecting the North Carolina coast.   In many cases, federal consistency review is the only  way  the state  can influence the federal action.

You can find a list of  the types of federal actions and permits DCM  reviews  here.    North Carolina has most often used  consistency review to request accommodation for state needs rather than to block a federal action entirely.  The state used consistency review  to press the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put sand from federal navigation dredging projects back on N.C. beaches rather than dumping the sand offshore.  In 1991,  the U.S. Secretary of Interior upheld a North Carolina consistency objection to a federal  permit that would have allowed  Mobil Oil  to deposit drilling waste from an exploratory well onto a commercially important fishing ground off the Atlantic coast. The CZMA consistency requirement also became one of the most important legal tools in North Carolina’s  unsuccessful effort to prevent Virginia from constructing  a pipeline to take water from Lake Gaston to  the City of Virginia Beach.

Loss of the federal consistency coordinator comes at a particularly bad time given the increased  activity around  coastal energy development.  Offshore oil and gas  development  most often occurs in federal waters that are beyond the state’s jurisdiction. (Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, state jurisdiction  only extends  3-miles from shore.)  Without  direct permitting or enforcement authority,  the  state’s only influence over offshore energy activities may be through  consistency review of federal lease and permit decisions.  Since those federal decisions can advantage or disadvantage the different Atlantic coast states, even supporters of offshore oil and gas development may need a way to advocate for North Carolina interests.  Consistency review  also gives the state an  opportunity to influence  federal leases and permits for  onshore and offshore wind energy facilities.

In both 2012 and 2013, the General Assembly  funded new positions in  DENR’s Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources to support work on energy development.   At the same time,  DCM budget cuts have resulted in the loss of a position critical to the state’s influence on offshore energy development activities.    As of January 1, 2014,  federal consistency review  will be divided between two DCM staff  who  review  CAMA major development permits. If activity around offshore energy development  continues to pick up,  the state will need to  reinvest in the federal consistency process to have a voice in how that development happens.

The Links between Coal Ash Disposal and Water Pollution

January 23, 2014. Burning coal  generates ash; depending on the  type of  coal,  the ash may contain iron, chromium,  manganese, lead, arsenic, boron and selenium.   At high levels of exposure, some  of those elements  cause  health problems  such as increased cancer risk and neurological damage.  At many coal-fired power plants, large open impoundments (or “ponds”) store coal ash in water; the ponds may also receive stormwater and process wastewater from the electric generating plant. Dry ash may be disposed of in a landfill, but can  also be  used in manufacturing cement or as additional fill material on construction sites.  Concern about the environmental impacts of  coal ash disposal prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to  propose new federal rules  in 2000. EPA ultimately withdrew the proposed rules in the face of opposition from  electric generating companies, members of Congress and state governments. More than a decade later, regulation of coal ash disposal  remains at a stalemate — no new federal rules have been adopted and Congressional supporters of the electric generating companies have responded to a new EPA  rule proposal by attempting to remove EPA’s authority to regulate coal ash disposal altogether. In the meantime, data collected by EPA and events in North Carolina suggest real risks to surface water and groundwater supplies.

Coal ash in North Carolina.  Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress (related companies  resulting from the 2012 merger of Duke Energy and Progress Energy)  have a combined 33  wet coal ash ponds located at 14 electric generating stations  in North Carolina.  You can find a map showing the location of the N.C. ash ponds here.  The  ponds have been largely unregulated until very recently.  No state or federal standards applied to construction of the existing coal ash ponds. Unlike modern landfills, the ash ponds  are not lined to prevent contaminants from percolating into the groundwater below.   Although coal ash  can have some of the characteristics of hazardous waste,  EPA  has excluded  coal ash from federal hazardous waste regulations.

Before  2009, DENR’s water quality program exercised  very limited regulatory authority over coal ash ponds.  The Division of Water Quality (DWQ)  issued a federal Clean Water Act permit for any direct discharge from an ash pond to surface waters, but did not require stormwater controls or groundwater monitoring. State law exempted coal ash ponds and other utility impoundments from regulation under the  N.C. Dam Safety Act. The  state’s largely hands-off approach to coal ash ponds  began to change after a massive spill at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Kingston plant in 2008.   On December 22, 2008,  an  ash impoundment at the  Kingston plant breached and spilled an estimated  5. 4  million cubic yards of ash slurry. The spill flooded 15 homes, covered 300 acres and deposited over 3 million cubic yards of ash in the nearby Emory River, making it one of the largest industrial spills in American history. The cleanup cost $1.1 billion and  took over four years to complete.

In response to the TVA disaster, North Carolina legislators introduced several bills in 2009 to strengthen state regulation of coal ash disposal.  House Bill 1354    may have been  the most comprehensive; the bill  set standards for coal ash disposal,   required groundwater monitoring around  existing ash ponds, and prohibited construction of new wet ponds.  The bill ran into opposition from the major electric generating companies and never got out of committee. The only piece of coal ash legislation enacted in 2009,   Session Law 2009-390 , repealed  the N.C. Dam Safety Act  exemption for coal ash ponds and other utility impoundments.

Although comprehensive state legislation on coal ash disposal failed,  DWQ increased efforts to use existing state laws to  reduce the water pollution risk and  began putting groundwater monitoring requirements in  Clean Water Act  permits for coal ash ponds in 2009-2010.  One of the factors  in  DWQ’s decision: troubling results from  voluntary groundwater monitoring carried out by Duke Energy and Progress Energy as part of an  industry-led program started in 2006.  DWQ also began  work on  stormwater requirements for  coal ash  disposal facilities.   In 2013,  several things happened  to shine a much brighter light on the coal ash ponds in North Carolina:

Clean Water Act citizens’ suits and  DENR enforcement action.  In early 2013,  the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) filed two  notices of intent to sue under the Clean Water Act  based on water pollution from coal ash ponds. (Under the Clean Water Act, a citizen  can sue to enforce the Act only  if the water quality permitting agency has failed to take effective enforcement action. The 60-day notice  gives the permitting agency  time to show that effective enforcement action has  been taken.)  One notice, filed on behalf of the N.C. Sierra Club, Western N.C. Alliance and the Waterkeeper Alliance,    concerned illegal discharges  into the French Broad River from ash impoundments at the Asheville Steam Electric Generating Plant operated by Duke Energy Progress.  The other notice, filed on behalf of the Catawba Waterkeeper Foundation, attributed contaminants in Mountain Island Lake  – a water supply for the City of Charlotte – to  seeps from coal ash ponds associated with the Riverbend Steam Station in Gaston County operated by Duke Energy Carolinas.

In response to the  two  SELC notices,  DENR filed enforcement actions against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress  in the spring of 2013 and immediately  began work on a consent order to resolve  the Asheville and Riverbend  violations.   The state enforcement action described  illegal discharges in the form of seeps through the impoundment walls at both facilities and groundwater standard violations near  the Asheville impoundments.  After taking  public comment on a draft consent agreement, DENR filed a revised consent agreement with the court in October 2013.  You can find a copy of the proposed consent agreement  here. The consent agreement would require the companies to pay civil penalties, increase groundwater monitoring  and eliminate unpermitted discharges  to  rivers and lakes. The consent agreement has not yet been approved by the court;   meanwhile, the pending state enforcement action keeps the threatened citizens suits on hold.

Drinking water well  contamination near  the  Asheville  coal ash pond.  In 2012,  the state water quality program   found  high levels of iron and manganese in one of five private drinking water wells located near the Asheville  plant.   When DENR retested the well  in 2013,  the results showed a level of contamination that made the water unsafe for use without filtration and  DENR  ordered  Duke Energy Progress to provide the homeowner with an alternative water supply and increase off-site groundwater monitoring around the  ash pond.   The contaminated drinking water well added another groundwater impact to those  identified in the DENR enforcement action filed earlier in the year.

Duke Energy’s agreement with Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Last fall, Reporter Bruce Henderson  wrote  an  article  for the Raleigh News and Observer about an  unusual agreement between  Duke Energy Progress and Cape Fear Public Utility Authority.   Cape Fear Public Utility Authority has  two public water supply wells located within 2,000 feet of an impoundment holding coal ash from Duke’s Sutton Electric Generating Plant; one of the two wells supplies water to the Flemington community.  Under the agreement, Duke Energy Progress will pay up to $1.8 million  to extend a water line  to carry treated  Cape Fear River water to Flemington and the Authority will close the water supply well. The agreement is significant for two reasons:

1.  In entering into the agreement, Duke has implicitly acknowledged that  groundwater contamination from  the  coal ash pond  may  move offsite and contaminate  the public water supply wells.

2. The agreement requires  Cape Fear Public Utility Authority to close four existing water supply wells in a 17-square mile area bounded by the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear rivers. The Authority also agrees  not to install new  public water supply wells  in the area.  As a result,  groundwater in the entire 17-square mile area will be off-limits for  public water  supply for the foreseeable future because of the potential for contamination from the coal ash pond. (The agreement does  not affect private water supply wells in the area, but those wells would presumably face the same risk of contamination.)

Total cost of the project has been estimated at $2.25 million and costs above the first $1.8 million will be shared between Duke Energy and  Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. You can find a copy of the agreement (as presented  at the October 2013 meeting of the Cape Fear Public Utility  Authority Board)  here.

National data on environmental harm caused by  coal ash disposal.  A 2007 EPA report   assessed 85 instances of  suspected damage  caused by disposal of coal  ash in  landfills or  in ponds.  In 67 cases,  EPA confirmed  either  “proven”  damage (direct health impacts or documented harm to fish, wildlife, or water quality) or “potential” damage (contamination exceeding  drinking water standards either  beneath or near the waste disposal site).  The 67 cases broke down into 24 proven damage cases and 43 potential damage cases.   In the remaining 18 cases, EPA could not confirm a link between  coal ash disposal and environmental or health risks.

In 2009, EPA  surveyed  electric generating companies  to get  more information specifically on wet ash impoundments and  asked the  companies to report  any known  spills or discharges  that had occurred over the previous ten years (not including groundwater releases).  The 240  companies responding to the survey reported  29  spills, breaches and  discharges.  There was little overlap between the incidents reported in the survey and those assessed in EPA’s 2007 report.  Some of the spills reported in the 2009 survey had occurred since the 2007 assessment; others had never been reported to EPA.

North Carolina in the national data.  Two  of the “proven” damage cases described in the 2007 EPA report involved older incidents at North Carolina facilities.   Permitted releases of  water from a coal ash impoundment  at the Roxboro Steam Electric Generating Plant made  fish in Hyco Lake unsafe to eat for a number of years because of high levels of selenium.  In 1990,  Carolina Power & Light shifted to a dry ash system at the Roxboro plant to meet tighter selenium discharge limits and the fish consumption advisory was lifted in 1994.  In the second “proven” damage case from North Carolina, selenium in  discharges from an impoundment at Duke Energy’s Belews Creek plant entirely eliminated 16 of  20 fish species originally found in Belews Lake, including all of the major sport fish.  Under state orders to reduce the selenium discharge,   Duke Energy changed its method of fly ash disposal in 1985 and the state lifted the  fish consumption advisory for Belews Lake  in 2000.  (Descriptions of the environmental damage at Hyco Lake and Belews Lake come from the 2007 EPA  Coal Combustion Waste Damage Assessment Report; the link is provided  above.)  Duke Energy’s Allen Steam  Generating Plant appears in the EPA list of potential damage cases. The Asheville and Riverbend releases  cited in  DENR’s 2013 enforcement action do not appear in either the 2007 EPA report or in the 2009 survey  responses submitted on behalf of Duke Energy and Progress Energy.

State and federal regulatory action?   In June of 2010, EPA published  a new draft rule on disposal of coal combustion residuals. The rule proposed  two alternative approaches to regulating coal ash disposal –1.  treat the ash as a “special waste” under federal hazardous waste rules, establishing specific standards for disposal; or 2. adopt standards for disposal of coal ash as solid waste (the same broad category that covers other, non-hazardous waste). EPA has not yet decided on  which path to take and in the meantime there have been several efforts to shut down the EPA rulemaking entirely.   In July of 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 2218 (The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013)  which would prohibit EPA from adopting enforceable national standards  for  coal ash disposal and leave regulation to the states.  See the Library of Congress bill summary for more on H.R. 2218.  The U.S. Senate has not acted on the bill.

In North Carolina, the Regulatory Reform  Act of 2013 ( Session Law 2013-413) included a provision limiting DENR’s  authority to require steps to contain groundwater contamination at a  permitted waste disposal facility  — including coal ash impoundments.  For more detail, see the  section on groundwater in an earlier post on 2013  water quality legislation.

So.   It seems clear that large, unlined coal ash impoundments present  some  risk to groundwater,  surface water  and  fish. Recent  events suggest that the risk may be greater than previously known. There was little or no groundwater monitoring around coal ash ponds  before 2006 and  no state oversight of  groundwater monitoring until 2009-2010.  It is simply a fact that groundwater contamination is much more likely to be found if someone is actually looking for it.  The same is true for discharges to rivers and lakes through the walls of coal ash impoundments. The  Riverbend and Asheville  enforcement cases  only happened after citizens documented  unpermitted discharges and gave notice of intent to sue under the Clean Water Act.  It is not clear that the state’s water quality program had found the illegal discharges identified in the consent order or has the resources to do adequate inspections of these large  impoundments.  (The Asheville impoundments alone total 91 acres.) So as new information suggests the need for  frequent, careful inspection of coal ash ponds and quick, effective response to groundwater contamination, state budget and environmental policies are moving in the direction of making both  more difficult.