Category Archives: General Observations

General comment on environmental issues

Environmental Issues in the Courts

October 26, 2014.  Some recent state and federal court decisions dealing with   environmental controversies in North Carolina:

Cape Fear River Watch, et al v. Environmental Management Commission. An earlier post provides background on the issues in the case. In  brief,  several environmental organizations  appealed a 2012 decision by the  N.C.  Environmental Management Commission  (EMC)   interpreting state groundwater rules to give  older, unpermitted waste disposal facilities the same groundwater remediation  options available to  permitted waste disposal facilities. All of the coal ash ponds in N.C would be considered “unpermitted” waste disposal facilities and  Duke Energy intervened in the  Cape Fear River Watch case to support the EMC  decision.

In March, Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway reversed part of the  EMC decision. Judge Ridgeway  interpreted groundwater remediation rules to require  facilities permitted before December 30, 1983  to  immediately remove the source of any groundwater contamination.  The decision has significant implications for coal ash ponds and old, unlined landfills where the waste material disposed of in the facility often turns out to be the contamination source. Under Judge Ridgeway’s interpretation of the rules,   waste material causing groundwater contamination would have to be immediately excavated and removed.  Although state rules allow the use of other (potentially less costly) measures to control groundwater contamination,  pre-1984 ash ponds and landfills would not have any option other than removal of the waste.

Duke Energy appealed Judge Ridgeway’s  decision to the N.C. Court of Appeals.  But before the Court of Appeals could take up the case, two things happened to alter the course of the litigation.  First,  the General Assembly enacted legislation  intended to moot the  Ridgeway decision. Section 12 of Session Law 2014-122 (the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014)  amends a groundwater statute to direct the EMC to require remediation of  groundwater contamination at a waste disposal facility without regard to the date  the facility had been permitted.  Legislators acknowledged that the provision was intended to reverse  Judge  Ridgeway’s interpretation of  the groundwater  remediation rules  as applied to facilities permitted before  December 30, 1983. As a practical matter, the new law allows DENR to approve an alternative means of controlling groundwater contamination associated with a  coal ash pond or pre-1984  landfill but does not guarantee approval.

Then,  on October 10, 2014,  the N.C. Supreme Court issued an  order removing  Cape Fear River Watch v. Environmental Management Commission from the Court of Appeals docket  to  the Supreme Court docket.  The Supreme Court removed the case on its own motion, surprising the parties and their lawyers.  (The court  issued similar orders in four other civil cases at around the same time.)  The court’s action  has no recent precedent and little precedent  in the court’s history. The one-paragraph  order offered no explanation for removal of the case to the Supreme Court.  The next step in the Cape Fear River Watch case will now be the filing of briefs in the  N.C. Supreme Court.

City of Asheville v. State of N.C. and Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County.  In 2013, the General Assembly enacted a law transferring the City of Asheville’s water system to the  Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County.  Session Law 2013-50,  drafted  to apply only  to the City of Asheville water system,  had the unprecedented effect of transferring the system’s assets  (infrastructure and a 17,000 acre watershed) and debts (over $67 million in water bonds) to a new entity without the city’s consent and without compensation.  Two earlier posts, here and here, provide background on the legislative action and constitutional issues raised by the law.

In June, N.C. Superior Court Judge Howard Manning issued an order concluding that Session Law 2013-50 violated several provisions in the  N.C. Constitution. Among Judge Manning’s findings:

♦ The law violated Article II, Section 24  of the N.C. Constitution which prohibits the General Assembly from adopting  certain types of legislation  to apply in  only one jurisdiction in the state. Judge Manning concluded Session Law 2013-50 violated  constitutional  prohibitions against local acts relating to “health, sanitation or the abatement of nuisances”  and local acts regulating  nonnavigable streams.  Although  Session Law 2013-50 did not mention the City of Asheville or the  Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County  by name,  it described water systems affected by the law  in a way that only applied to the Asheville system.  As a result, Judge Manning found the law to be an unconstitutional  local act addressing  health and sanitation (operation of a drinking water system) and regulation of nonnavigable streams.

♦  The law violated Article I, Section 19 by transferring the Asheville water system to a different entity without the city’s consent and without any rational basis. Article I, Section 19, known as the “law of the land” clause of the N.C. Constitution, has been interpreted to require both due process and equal protection. Judge Manning found Session Law 2013-50 violated the clause by depriving the City of Asheville of property without any  rational basis, suggesting a due process violation and expressly finding a denial of equal protection.

♦ Other sections of  Judge Manning’s  order concluded that Session Law 2013-50 violated Article I, Section 19 and Article 1, Section 35 (a broad reservation of rights) by taking city-owned property and by doing so without providing compensation for the property.

One key to the court’s decision:  operation of a  water system is considered to be a proprietary rather than a governmental function. Proprietary functions don’t involve peculiarly governmental powers and could also be carried out by a nongovernmental entity. Other examples of proprietary functions would be  operation of an electric utility, a recreational facility  or a sports venue.   With respect to proprietary functions,  Judge Manning concluded that  local governments have  the same constitutional protection against  uncompensated taking of property as a nongovernmental entity.

Judge Manning’s order did not address the city’s argument that the law also unconstitutionally interfered with contracts between the city and bondholders.  The state, throughout the Attorney General’s Office, indicated an intent to appeal the decision to the N.C. Court of Appeals. A final decision by the appeals court would not be expected for about a year.

Erica Y. Bryant, et al v. United States, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 14, 2014.  The plaintiffs  had sued the United States government seeking compensation for health problems allegedly caused by exposure to contaminated drinking water at the Camp Lejuene Marine Corps Base near Jacksonville,  North Carolina.  A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in another North Carolina groundwater contamination case, Waldberger v.  CTS, Inc.,   held that the state’s 10-year statute of repose barred a lawsuit alleging injury and property damage caused by groundwater contamination filed more than 10 years after the  last act contributing to the contamination —  even though the plaintiffs first learned of the contamination much later.  (You can find more on the Waldberger decision in an earlier post. The same post also includes additional background on the contamination problem at Camp Lejuene.)

The N.C. General Assembly responded to the  Waldberger decision  by enacting a law excluding claims for property damage and personal injury related to contaminated groundwater from the 10-year statute of repose. See Session Law 2014-17.  The law was written to apply to both pending cases and cases filed after its enactment. In the Bryant decision, however, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the new law could not retroactively apply to pending cases. The appeals court treated the 10-year statute of repose as a sort of property interest benefitting (in this case) the U.S. government. The court ruled  that the state legislature could not retroactively remove that benefit.  The decision turned, in part, on the court’s conclusion that Session Law 2014-17 changed rather than clarified the state’s prior law.

The 11th Circuit decision seems to leave the Camp Lejeune plaintiffs without any legal remedy for long-term health effects allegedly caused by exposure to the contaminated drinking water.

North Carolina and EPA’s Proposed Carbon Rule

September 30, 2014. On June 2, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  released  a draft rule to reduce  carbon dioxide (CO2)  emissions from power plants.  Gov. Pat McCrory’s administration has taken a number of opportunities  to  question the legal basis for the  rule. An earlier post described  a presentation by DENR Deputy Secretary Don van der Vaart  to the N.C.  Energy Policy Council soon after EPA  released the draft rule in June.  DENR actually began staking out a position in opposition to the proposed carbon rule even earlier. (See the DENR website for a number of agency policy documents related to the carbon rule.)  Each time, DENR focused on legal arguments — challenging EPA’s authority to regulate a power plant’s CO2  emissions under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act —  rather than the actual impact of the rule on the state and its electric utilities.

Evaluating the impact of the rule on an  individual state can  be challenging because the rule takes an innovative approach to reducing CO2. Instead of putting the burden and cost of CO2 reductions entirely on the power plants,  the rule tries to harness  other  trends in energy generation — increased  reliance on renewable energy;  adoption of  energy efficiency standards for buildings, appliances and equipment; and a shift in generation from coal-fired plants to natural gas units — to help lower CO2 emissions associated with power generation.  Many of those trends developed in response to other environmental concerns (stricter  air quality  standards for ozone and particulates) or economic incentives (the lower cost of natural gas). EPA’s proposed  carbon rule builds on those trends to also drive down CO2 emissions associated with power generation.

Steps  North Carolina has taken over the last 10-15 years to increase renewable energy  generation and energy efficiency seem to put  the state  in a favorable position to meet the CO2 reduction goal in the rule and come out the other side with competitive energy costs.  This post is intended to provide some  (very basic) background on how the rule works and to  identify the questions that need to be answered to understand what more the state may need to do to meet the CO2 reduction goal in the proposed rule.

BASICS OF THE CLEAN CARBON RULE

♦ The rule only addresses CO2 emissions associated with electric generating units (EGUs) that burn fossil fuels; the rule does not affect industrial sources of CO2.

♦ The rule sets a carbon reduction goal for each state in the form of a rate – pounds of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt hour of electricity generated or CO2/MWh.

♦ Instead of setting a CO2 emission limit for each EGU, EPA proposed a statewide average CO2 emission rate – allowing the goal to be met in part by shifting electric generation from high to low emission units; increasing renewable energy and nuclear generation; and creating “savings” through energy efficiency measures.

♦ The rate is based on net generation (electricity delivered to the grid) rather than gross generation measured at the EGU. Net generation excludes energy used at the power plant to run fans, pumps, motors and pollution control devices.

♦ The rule sets a final goal for each state to meet in 2030 and interim goals for 2020-2029.

♦  CO2 reduction goals differ from state to state. In calculating the goals, EPA considered the existing mix of electric generation facilities in each state (nuclear, coal, natural gas) and each state’s potential for  increased renewable energy generation and growth in energy efficiency savings.

HOW EPA CALCULATED STATE REDUCTION GOALS (THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT)

State goals are not based on simply requiring  fossil-fuel burning power plants to reduce their CO2 emissions per megawatt hour from 2012 levels.  Although  EPA used the EGU’s 2012 reported emissions of CO2 as one factor in calculating  the goals, it is not quite correct to describe 2012 as the “base year” for reductions.   The state goals represent something different — reductions in EGU emissions combined with a shift in electric generation capacity to cleaner sources (such as renewable energy and nuclear power) and increases in energy efficiency. More about the rate calculation below.

To set the state CO2 emission rate goals, the EPA rule adjusted the  2012 calculation of CO2/MWh in two ways:

1. EPA reduced the net CO2 emissions  reported by regulated EGUs in 2012 (the numerator in the CO2/MWh equation) by assuming those units can achieve a 6% improvement in heat efficiency. In states where there are both coal-fired plants and natural gas plants, EPA adjusted the numerator again if any natural gas plant in the state operated at less than 70% utilization. Assuming  every natural gas plant could operate at 70% utilization, EPA shifted a corresponding amount of electricity generation from  coal-fired plants to the underused natural gas plants and and adjusted the pounds of CO2 emitted to reflect the natural gas plants’ lower CO2 emissions rate.

So the numerator in the goal represents pounds of CO2 emitted by  the state’s existing power plants after each individual plant has become more heat efficient and after power generation across the entire system has been  reallocated  to better utilize low-emission natural gas units. Both adjustments reduce the amount of CO2 generated by the EGUs  below the amount actually reported  in 2012.

2. EPA then adjusts the denominator in the CO2/MWh equation to spread the pounds of CO2 generated  by the EGUs across the megawatt hours generated by all electric generating sources in the state and megawatt hours of electric generation saved through energy efficiency measures. The denominator becomes:  total megawatt hours generated by the EGUs + new renewable energy generating capacity + new or preserved nuclear generation capacity + an estimate of annual avoided power generation associated with demand-side energy efficiency.  (“Preserved” nuclear power refers to  an existing nuclear plant operating beyond a previously announced closure date.)

The final 2030 CO2 emissions goal as a rate =

Net CO2 emissions for regulated EGUs – 6% heat efficiency*
Total net MWh (EGUs + renewable energy + new/preserved nuclear + avoided generation)

* In some cases there has also been an adjustment for under-utilized natural gas plants.

Although the rule does not propose CO2 reductions from any baseline year, EPA has estimated the rule will result in a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions as compared to 2005.

THE NORTH CAROLINA CO2 REDUCTION GOAL

The proposed  2030 goal for North Carolina is  992 lbs CO2/ MWh. By comparison, North Carolina’s electric generating units reported 2012  emissions  of  1647 lbs CO2/ MWh. (Source: Congressional Research Service report.) The EPA rule would require North Carolina to reduce CO2 emissions from:

1647 lbs of CO2 per megawatt hour  of electricity generated by fossil fuel EGUs

to

992 lbs of CO2 per megawatt hour of electricity generated by fossil fuel EGUs + estimated new renewable energy generation+ new or preserved nuclear capacity+ electricity generation avoided by energy efficiency measures

The Clean Power Plan goal does not require  North Carolina power plants to reduce CO2 emissions by 40%.  The rule requires the state’s  electric generation  system  as a whole to  meet demand for electric power at a 40% lower rate of CO2 emissions.

MEETING THE GOAL

The draft EPA  rule  requires  states to  use four “building blocks” to comply; the building blocks correspond to the factors EPA used to calculate each state’s  CO2 reduction goal:

1. Increased heat efficiency at EGUs —  EPA has  assumed each EGU can achieve  6% improvement in heat efficiency.

2. Increased “dispatch” of power generation from higher emission coal-fired units to lower emission Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) plants —   EPA has assumed every NGCC  unit can be operated at 70% utilization.

3. Increased generation of electricity from renewable sources and new or preserved nuclear generation.  EPA has estimated the  potential for growth in renewable energy generation and new or preserved nuclear generation individually for each state.

4. Energy efficiency measures to lower demand,  measured by  megawatt hours of generation avoided. EPA set a  goal of increasing demand-side efficiency by 1.5% annually.

The individual building block goals set out for each state are not requirements. EPA  used  these assumptions and estimates  to calculate  each state’s  CO2 reduction goal, but  the rule allows a state to weight the  building blocks differently in  its  compliance plan.  For example,  difficulty meeting EPA’s expectations  for demand-side energy efficiency can be offset  by increasing renewable energy generation (or vice-versa).

RELYING ON EXISTING PROGRAMS

Media reports have  reflected a lot of confusion about the impact of the proposed rule on states like North Carolina that have already taken significant steps to increase renewable energy and energy efficiency.   The proposed federal rule actually stresses  reliance on programs already in place and gives the states  credit for expanded renewable energy generation or growth in energy efficiency as a result of  existing programs.

In talking about the final state emission rate goals,  the rule notes that  “EPA is also proposing that measures taken by a state or its sources after the date of this proposal, or programs already in place, and which result in CO2 emission reductions at affected EGUs during the 2020-2030 period, would apply toward achievement of the state’s CO2 goal.” 

The rule makes a similar statement about renewable energy generation:  “We note that with the exception of hydropower, the renewable energy generation levels represent total amounts of renewable energy generation, rather than incremental amounts above a particular baseline level. As a result, this RE generation can be supplied by any RE capacity regardless of its date of installation.”

Table 6 in the proposed rule  shows North Carolina’s 2012 renewable energy generation as 2% and a proposed final 2030 goal for North Carolina of  10%.  The  N.C. Utilities Commission has reported that North Carolina electric utilities met the first state Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (REPS) goal of  3% of retail electricity sales in 2012. The final goal under the existing state law will be 10% of retail sales for electric membership corporations/ municipal systems  (by 2018) and 12.5% of retail sales for the electric public utilities (by 2021).  Under the EPA rule, the state will get credit for any new or expanded renewable energy generation in 2014 or later as a result of the existing state REPS requirement.

Since the state REPS goal requires electric utilities to continue to increase renewable energy generation and energy efficiency through 2021,  the increases realized between 2014 and 2021 will also move North Carolina toward the federal goal. To know whether the proposed carbon rule will require the state to do more on renewable energy, the state will need a gap analysis.  The analysis will have to separate  renewable energy generation from energy efficiency savings; the two have been combined in the state REPS goal, but are calculated separately under the federal rule.

The federal rule sets a goal of having every state achieve a 1.5% annual incremental savings based on  demand-side energy efficiency measures.  EPA assumes that states already realizing  a 1.5% in annual incremental savings  will continue  and  maintain that rate through 2029 — giving states that engaged in energy efficiency measures early full credit for the incremental energy savings achieved through existing programs. To understand how close North Carolina may already be to meeting the  carbon rule’s  energy efficiency goal, the state will need to calculate the incremental annual  demand side savings that can be attributed to the state REPS goal and  add incremental savings associated with other energy efficiency programs (such as energy efficiency standards incorporated in the State Building Code).

THE QUESTION

The big  question to be answered is this: How far will North Carolina’s existing renewable energy and energy efficiency programs go toward closing the gap between 1647 lbs CO2/MWh generated by EGUs that burn fossil fuels  and 992 lbs CO2/ MWh generated by power plants+ renewable energy + new/preserved nuclear + generation avoided by energy efficiency?

It appears the remaining gap may be small, giving  North Carolina  an advantage over states that haven’t adopted policies supporting renewable energy generation and energy efficiency.   If so, the advantage will be economic as well as environmental by holding down increases in state energy costs.

RESOURCES

Text of the Clean Carbon Rule (from the June 18, 2014 Federal Register notice)

Congressional Research Service Report: State CO2 Emission Rate Goals in EPA’s Proposed Rule for Existing Power Plants, Jonathan Ramseur, Specialist in Environmental Policy, July 21, 2014.

2013 NC Utilities Commission Annual Report Regarding Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard in North Carolina

Regulatory Reform 2014

September 23, 2014.  Late last week, Governor Pat McCrory signed Senate Bill 734 (the Regulatory Reform Act of 2014)  on the final day to either sign or veto the bill.  The bill, now Session Law 2014-120, includes both substantive  changes to environmental laws and  amendments to the state Administrative Procedures Act  affecting environmental rule-making and administrative appeals. Below, some of the more significant  environmental provisions; a future post will look at the administrative law changes.

Air Quality: Open burning and fireplaces. Section 24 of Senate Bill  734 eliminates the need for  a state air quality  permit for open burning of leaves, stumps, logs, tree branches, yard trimmings under certain circumstances.  It  also  prohibits a city from banning or limiting open burning of debris in the city’s  1-mile extra-territorial jurisdiction unless the city provides yard waste pickup or access to drop off centers in the area to the same extent provided to residents in the city.  These provisions are the latest in a series of  legislation actions over the last three years to reduce  regulation of open burning.

Section 24(h) prohibits local air pollution control programs and the state from regulating any combustion heater, fireplace, etc. in a private dwelling except as required by federal law. This appears to be a preemptive move; I am not aware of any state or local air quality initiative  to regulate residential fireplaces and heaters.

Coastal Development:  Coastal stormwater;  inlet hazard areas; and permit appeals.

Coastal Stormwater. Section  25 of   Senate Bill  734 extends a  grandfathering provision in the coastal stormwater rule,  15A NCAC 02H .1005,   to expansion of the grandfathered development onto adjoining  property.

Inlet hazard areas. Since ocean Inlets  often move in response to changing nearshore condition and cause  accelerated  shoreline change, state coastal development rules have long put additional density and size limitations on development in  designated inlet hazard areas. In 2012, the General Assembly directed the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to study the Cape Fear River Inlet Hazard Area.  Within the past year,  the CRC expanded the review  to all  inlet hazard areas. Although the CRC review has not been completed,   Senate Bill 734 preemptively  removes some coastal shorelines  from existing inlet hazard area designations:

(1)  An inlet hazard area associated with an inlet that has been closed for at least 15 years.  The provision applies only to Mad Inlet in Brunswick County. The inlet originally separated Sunset Beach from Bird Island to the south, but  closed naturally in 1998.  The CRC  had already amended coastal management  rules to remove the Mad Inlet hazard designation earlier this year.

(2)  Inlet hazard area designations that no longer include the current inlet location due to shoreline change.  This provision also applies to Mad Inlet, but it is not clear that the impact will be limited to Mad Inlet. Other inlets have moved due to natural shoreline change or  engineered inlet relocation projects and  a comparison of current inlet locations to the corresponding inlet hazard area will be necessary to fully understand the potential impact of the provision.

(3)  The inlet hazard area surrounding an  inlet providing access to a State Port via a channel maintained by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. This provision eliminates the inlet hazard area designated around the mouth of the Cape Fear River at the entrance to the  Wilmington port,  which now includes part of the Bald Head Island shoreline.  The Village of Bald Head Island had pushed for removal of the inlet hazard area designation.

Shorelines  removed from  an inlet hazard area will be regulated instead under the general standards for  development on ocean and estuarine shorelines.

Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit Appeals. Section 23 of  the bill  eliminates  the automatic stay of a CAMA permit that has been appealed by a third party.  Under the amended law, a petitioner appealing the issuance of a CAMA permit will have to request an administrative law judge to stay the permit pending appeal. The amendment makes the CAMA appeal statute consistent with stay provisions in the state Administrative Procedures Act, but third parties  seeking to appeal a CAMA permit will continue to face a hurdle that is not imposed on other petitioners  —  the need for a preliminary determination by the CRC that the appeal has merit.

Environmental Permitting. Most permitting programs apply the standards in effect at the time of the permit decision. If  a rule or ordinance  changes during review of a permit application, the project may have to be  modified to meet the new standard.  In those circumstances, Section 16 of Senate Bill 734  now allows the permit applicant to choose whether to construct under the new standard or the old standard. The provision applies to development permits issued under state environmental laws or under  local ordinances. The new law does not define “development permit”, but clearly excludes zoning ordinances from the “permit choice” option.  The provision does not  recognize any exception based on requirements of federal law.

Engineered Plans. Section 29  of Senate Bill 734 makes a number of changes in the way state and local government permit reviewers interact with professional engineers  responsible for  design of a  proposed project. The  legislature’s Environmental Review Commission recommended the provision. See the section on review of engineered plans in an earlier post for more detail and  background on the conflict between PEs and state/local permit reviewers.

Onsite Wastewater Systems: Innovative systems and permitting changes. 

Innovative wastewater systems. Section 28 of Senate Bill  734 changes the law on approval of innovative onsite wastewater systems using polystyrene aggregate as a substitute for the gravel traditionally used in trenches for dispersion lines. “Innovative” systems do not meet established standards for onsite wastewater systems and require approval by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The new provision prevents DHHS and the Commission for Public Health from conditioning approval of a system using polystyrene synthetic aggregate on using a certain particle or bulk density.  The provision also requires DHHS and the Commission to rescind and reissue any  approval that may have included  those conditions. The legislative record does not  reflect  any  discussion of the density  conditions  — either the reason the conditions had been imposed or the effect that removal of the density  conditions may have on the performance of the wastewater systems.

Permitting. Section 40  expands the current permitting law to  cover ground absorption systems and removes the 5-year limit on a permit issued for installation of an on-site wastewater system. Under the provision, the permit holder would not require a new authorization even  if   standards for those systems have changed.

Parks. Section 31 of the bill allows the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to waive the 25 mile per hour speed limit in state parks for special events and  gives  the Commissioner of Agriculture the same authority in state forests. Media reports during the legislative session indicated the waiver had been requested by groups interested in using  a state park for private race events.  See a  report by the Raleigh News and Observer.

Water Quality: Isolated wetlands and stormwater. 

Isolated Wetlands. Section 54  raises the permitting threshold  for disturbance of isolated wetlands.  (See an earlier post for an explanation of the term “isolated wetlands”.) West of Interstate 95 (the unofficial dividing line between eastern and  piedmont/western  N.C. ), the permitting threshold has been raised  from 1/10 acre to 1/3 acre. East of I-95, the permitting threshold has been raised from 1/3 acre to 1 acre.    During the legislative debate, DENR indicated that raising the permitting threshold to 1 acre east of I-95 would effectively eliminate permitting requirements for isolated wetlands in the eastern part of the state. The bill also  reduces  the mitigation ratio for  all wetland impacts from 2:1 to  1:1 and directs DENR to study the definition of isolated wetlands and whether mountain bogs  should be regulated differently  than other isolated wetlands.

Stormwater. Section 45 of Senate Bill 734  reverses  a 2013 regulatory reform. The Regulatory Reform Act of 2013 (Session Law 2013-413)  changed   stormwater  standards to  treat gravel areas as “pervious” and to exclude gravel from the calculation of “built-upon” area on a development site.  Since the amount of built-upon area determines the level of stormwater control required, developers had  pushed for exclusion of gravel areas from the calculation as a way to reduce stormwater management requirements. The 2013  provision  also directed the legislature’s Environmental Review Commission (ERC)  to study state stormwater programs “including how partially impervious surfaces are treated in the calculation of built-upon area under those programs”.

The ERC study group  encountered an unexpected complication — the lack of consensus on  the definition of  “gravel” had  created uncertainty  about implementation of the 2013 provision.   Instead of moving  on to the next reform requested by developers, the ERC  focused  on defining gravel and found that gravel  may not be pervious depending on the  nature of the aggregate material and the underlying substrate.   On recommendation of the ERC,  Section 45 of Senate Bill 734 effectively repeals the 2013 provision and directs the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)  to contract with N.C. State University for a study of the pervious/impervious qualities of different types of aggregate materials.

Water Supply: Interbasin transfer.  Sec. 37 of Senate Bill  734  extends an expedited interbasin transfer  approval process (originally created for certain coastal counties) to allocation of water from  reservoirs managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The intent may be to speed approval of an  interbasin transfer that would allow the City of Raleigh to take drinking water from Kerr Lake.

Update on 2014 Budget: The Environment

July 31, 2014 (8:00 p.m.) At this point in the legislative session it’s a minute to minute situation. Last night, the General Assembly  released budget documents providing more detail on the House and Senate budget deal announced on Tuesday.  The budget conference report still must be approved by each chamber in two votes on successive days. The budget gives with one hand and takes away with the other — providing additional earmarked appropriations to DENR and funds for (very small) state employee pay raises, while making additional reductions  in DENR programs.  Some of the  more significant  budget  decisions  affecting environment and natural resource programs:

Coal Ash – The budget provides no additional resources  for response to the environmental threat posed by 33 coal ash impoundments across the state.    An appropriation for coal ash  regulation and oversight  ($1.7 million and authorization for  23 positions in DENR) had been one area of agreement between the House and Senate budget bills,  but the appropriation does not appear in  budget documents coming out of the conference committee.  The General Assembly could  add an appropriation  once  the House and Senate resolve their differences on the substantive  coal ash bill (Senate Bill 729) that is still in a conference committee. Given significant cuts to DENR’s water quality program over the last year, additional resources will be needed to respond to groundwater contamination; illegal discharges of wastewater to rivers and streams; and structural concerns associated with the coal ash impoundments with or without new  coal ash  legislation.

Diversion of Monies from Environmental Cleanup and Conservation Funds —  The budget transfers interest earned by  a number of DENR special funds to the  state’s General Fund.   Conservation  funds affected include the Clean Water Management Trust Fund; the Marine Conservation Fund; and the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund.  The transfer also affects a number of environmental cleanup funds including the Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Fund (remediation of sites contaminated by dry-cleaning solvents);  the Commercial Underground Storage Tank Fund (remediation of petroleum contamination from underground storage tanks);  the Non-Commercial Underground Storage Tank Fund (remediation of petroleum contamination from smaller USTs, including home heating oil tanks);  the Inactive Hazardous Sites Fund (assessment and remediation of sites contaminated by hazardous substances); the Bernard Allen Emergency Drinking Water Fund (funding alternative water supplies for  low income homeowners whose drinking water wells have become contaminated);  and the Brownfields fund (supporting  redevelopment of contaminated sites).

The Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Fund and the Commercial UST Trust Fund receive funding from  fees and taxes on the commercial activities  associated with past contamination problems. The Brownfields program  operates entirely on federal  funds and fees paid by prospective developers of contaminated sites; the program receives no state appropriations, so the special fund provides the only source of state 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. The transfer of interest income from these funds  allows the legislature to appropriate those funds for unrelated purposes as part of the General Fund budget.

Fisheries Enforcement —  The budget bill authorizes the state Division of Marine Fisheries to enter into a joint enforcement agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service.  Commercial fishing interests  successfully opposed  a joint state-federal enforcement agreement for a number of years.  Under the agreement, state marine patrol officers will enforce federal fisheries regulations and DMF  will receive federal funding for those enforcement  activities.

Fee Increases —  The budget raises  several  license fees for commercial fishermen. Some of the fees will be used to replace General Fund appropriations for the At-Sea Observer Program.  (The  program  monitors the deaths of endangered species, such as sea turtles,  associated with the use of gill nets.  Federal regulators have required the observers as a condition for continued use of gill nets, which incidentally cause sea turtle deaths, by N.C. fishermen.)   The budget also authorizes new fees for access to GIS information collected by the Natural Heritage Program.

Missing from the compromise budget — 

No new state funds are appropriated for analysis of the state’s  shale basins and existing gas wells, digitizing shale gas data  and marketing the state’s shale gas resources. (The Senate had proposed appropriating $1.17 million.)

The budget does not include a special fund for acquisition of federal lands around Oregon Inlet and Highway 12 on Hatteras Island. (The Senate had set aside $15 million for land acquisition and legal fees.) The compromise budget still directs the Department of Administration to attempt to negotiate acquisition of those lands and begin proceedings to condemn the lands in 2015 if negotiations fail.  (State condemnation of federal lands should set up an interesting constitutional issue.) The budget bill also has special provisions authorizing the Governor, by executive order, to waive both Coastal Area Management Act permits and environmental impact statements for projects to reconstruct or relocate Highway 12.  For more on the content of the executive order provision, see an earlier post.

Rushing Stormwater

July 26, 2014. House Bill 201 (Building Reutilization for Economic Development Act) left the House as a  bill exempting restored buildings from the most recent state energy efficiency standards. The bill returned from the Senate with the addition of significant changes to state stormwater standards and a new exemption from  environmental review under the state Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The bill received final House approval on July 24  without review by an  environment committee in either chamber.  The House approved the new measure on a vote of 66-42 and the bill will go to the Governor for signature.

The stormwater amendments   affect  a number  of existing state water quality  programs, including rules for development in water supply watersheds; coastal stormwater rules to protect the quality of shellfish waters; and nutrient management strategies adopted to restore water quality in rivers and reservoirs already degraded by excess nutrients. In the last 20 years,  stormwater controls have become increasingly important in reducing the amount of pollution running off developed areas into rivers, lakes and streams  The  bill raises two questions — 1. Will higher intensity development with significantly reduced stormwater controls be consistent with maintaining  water quality (particularly  in sensitive areas near shellfish waters  and drinking water supplies)? and 2. Are the changes consistent with federal Clean Water Act requirements?

What the stormwater provisions  do:

♦ A new definition of “development” excludes  existing built-on area from the calculation of stormwater requirements.

♦  The bill  prohibits the Environmental Management Commission (EMC)  from requiring private property owners to install new or increased stormwater controls on existing development “except as required by federal law” — a savings clause that will raise more questions than it answers.

Excluding existing development from the built-on area calculation for a site   could  allow redevelopment with seriously under-designed stormwater controls. Under existing rules for  water supply watersheds,  low density development (defined as no more than 12% built-on area) does not require engineered stormwater controls; projects exceeding 12% built-on area do.   H 201 would allow a  developer  in a  water supply watershed to  increase existing built-on area  by another 12% before being required to install any engineered stormwater controls. If the added built-on area exceeds  12%, the developer will  only have to provide stormwater controls for the added built-on area.

Using redevelopment of a property in a water supply watershed (but outside the water supply critical area) as example: If  the property  already has 50% built-on area,  H 201  allows the developer to  expand the built-on area by another 12%  with no engineered stormwater controls. The developer could add up to 30% additional built-on area (the maximum allowed under the rules) — for a total of 80% built-on area —  and only provide stormwater control  for 30%. The end result could be  a  property in a water supply watershed that is  largely impervious, but has either no stormwater controls  or stormwater controls designed  for only  a fraction of the stormwater generated by the development.  The EMC’s coastal stormwater rules and rules for municipal storm sewer systems also use the low density/high density approach  (with  different high-density  thresholds), so the bill will have similar results in  those programs.

It is less clear how the bill will affect  stormwater requirements  under nutrient management strategies for impaired waters (including the  Neuse River, Tar-Pamlico River, Falls Lake and Jordan Lake).  The nutrient management strategies address  the stormwater impacts of new development ( including  redevelopment that adds built-on area) by limiting nitrogen and/or phosphorus loading associated with the development activity.  Developers   usually  meet those load limits by either limiting built on area or installing stormwater controls, but the nutrient management rules do not directly link stormwater requirements  to percentage of built-on area.  The  question is whether the provision in  H 201  prohibiting the EMC from requiring a private property owner to provide stormwater controls for existing development would also affect the calculation of  nutrient loading on a redevelopment site where some part of the loading comes from  existing built-on area.   Nutrient management strategies will also be affected to the extent  those rules  loop in other stormwater standards (like those for water supply watersheds) in areas  with specific water quality classifications.

H 201 may not have a significant effect on the existing development rules included in the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake nutrient strategies. Depending on the success of other parts of those  nutrient management strategies,  local governments in the two watersheds could be required to  achieve additional reductions in nutrient loading from  existing developed areas.  Although stormwater retrofits will be one way to meet the reduction targets, the rules give local governments  flexibility  to use a number of strategies to achieve the load reductions and those may or may not include requirements on private property owners.

The savings clause  in H 201  allowing  the EMC to require stormwater controls on preexisting development to the extent required by federal law raises the question of what it means to be “required by federal law”. The  federal Clean Water Act  creates  a framework, but  allows the state to develop  water quality standards appropriate for state waters.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated implementation of most federal Clean Water Act programs to North Carolina’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),  but   subject to EPA approval and continuing oversight.  Federal law does not dictate the content of state water quality rules, but does require the state to have standards adequate to protect  water quality.  In the programs described above, stormwater controls have played an important role in those standards.  The question  is  whether state water quality  standards  will still be  adequate to  meet the goals of  the Clean Water Act  given  the restrictions  imposed by H 201.

The federal Clean Water Act also requires the state to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for any pollutant contributing to impaired water quality. The  TMDL caps pollutant discharges  to an impaired water body at a level that will allow the waters to meet water quality standards.  TMDLs must be approved by EPA . State nutrient management strategies for the Tar-Pamlico River, Neuse River, Falls Lake and Jordan Lake have been designed (and approved by EPA) to meet the TMDL requirement for those nutrient-impaired water bodies. Each of those nutrient strategies relies in part on stormwater controls to reduce nutrient loading from new development. By significantly changing stormwater requirements as applied to existing development, H 201 has also changed the TMDLs previously approved by EPA.

Amendments to the Clean Water Act in the 1990s extended wastewater permitting requirements to municipal stormwater discharges, requiring municipalities to get National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for storm sewer systems.  To have permit coverage, federal  rules require  municipalities to put  stormwater controls on new development. The EMC’s  urban area stormwater rules, which  set the minimum requirements for coverage under a federal NPDES stormwater permit, will also be affected by H 201.  It isn’t immediately clear whether the changes required by H 201 will be consistent with federal NPDES stormwater rules.

The  EIS exemption  in H 201 will likely have limited impact (positive or negative).  Under the  exemption, a state Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would not be required for expansion or new construction that does not increase the footprint of a building or facility to more than 150% of the  previous footprint. (In other words, the total footprint of the expanded facility could be 50% larger than the existing facility without triggering an environment document.)  The State Environmental Policy Act, N.C.G.S. 113A-1, et seq.,  only requires an  EIS for a project that requires a state approval and involves expenditure of public funds or use of public lands. As a result,  SEPA  has a limited impact on private development projects.

For projects  meeting the  SEPA triggers,  DENR   rules already exempt many construction projects. The difference is that   H 201 grants an EIS exemption based  on the size of the expansion project alone and without regard to natural resource impacts. To the extent H 201 has an effect on SEPA reviews, it may be to exclude from review some construction projects that  would otherwise require an environmental document   because of the  sensitive location or amount of stream and wetland disturbance.  Note: some projects  will still trigger an EIS under federal law; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to both public and private projects and the H 201 exemption would have no impact on federal environmental review requirements.

NCDENR Questions Legal Basis for Proposed EPA Power Plant Rule

July 22, 2014.  On June 18, 2014, EPA published a proposed  rule to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)   from existing coal-fired power plants.  Both Duke Energy  and  DENR’s   Division of Air Quality  indicated a detailed review of the draft rule would be required to fully understand the impact  on North Carolina’s electric utilities.    More recently,  Donald van der Vaart, DENR’s Energy Policy Advisor,  made a presentation on  the  proposed CO2 rules to the N.C. Energy  Policy Council. You can find both a video  and a copy of the  powerpoint presentation here.  Rather than discussing the rule’s potential impact on the state’s electric utilities, the presentation questioned the legal basis for the EPA rule.  The  legal analysis identified some legitimate questions about interpretation of the Clean Air Act provision  underlying the CO2 rule,  but the analysis also had significant flaws.

EPA  proposed the CO2 rule under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act,  which authorizes EPA to adopt standards for new and existing sources of air pollution by category; in this case, the category consists of electric generating units burning fossil fuels. (The Clean Air Act also gives EPA two other tools for addressing air pollution —   Section 108 authorizes EPA to adopt  ambient air quality standards to be met on an area-wide basis and Section 112 allows EPA to regulate listed hazardous air pollutants, like mercury,   by source category.)

DENR’s  presentation to the Energy Policy Council offered some criticism of  EPA’s proposed CO2 standard for  new power plants, but  made a more pointed  attack on the  rule addressing emissions from existing power plants. The presentation both questioned EPA  authority to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants under Sec. 111(d)  and the appropriateness of including  transition to  natural gas;  expanded use of nuclear power and renewable energy sources;  and energy efficiency  as elements of the performance standard  for existing coal-fired power plants. This post will likewise focus on the  proposed  existing source rule under Sec. 111(d) and particularly the DENR objections to the rule that need  more context or correction:

DENR Objection:  EPA cannot  use Sec. 111(d) of the Clean Air Act  to set a standard for an existing air pollution source  also regulated  under  Sec. 112  (addressing  hazardous air pollutants) even if the standard proposed under Sec. 111(d) addresses a pollutant that is not regulated under Sec. 112.

Counterpoint:   This seems to be  a more open question that the presentation suggests. When Congress added Sec. 111 to the Clean Air Act in 1990,   the  House  version prohibited  use of Sec. 111(d)  to set standards for existing sources regulated under Sec. 112 and the Senate  version prohibited  its use to set standards for pollutants regulated under Sec. 112.  Both versions became part of the Statutes at Large.  EPA has consistently interpreted Sec. 111(d)  to prohibit  adoption of  existing source standards  for pollutants  regulated under Sec. 112.   (See a paper  by Adam Kushner and Judith Coleman on the background of the  Sec. 111(d) language and  EPA’s interpretation.) Under EPA’s interpretation, Sec. 111(d)  can be used to regulate CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired power plants because CO2 has not been regulated under Sec. 112 as a hazardous air pollutant.

As a policy matter, EPA certainly seems to have the better interpretation; otherwise, the language in Sec. 111(d) would create a loophole preventing regulation of a dangerous air pollutant from an existing  source (in this case, a  power plant) simply because the facility  also emits hazardous  air pollutants regulated under Sec. 112.  If EPA’s interpretation is challenged, the question will be whether the court recognizes the existence of a conflict in the statutory history of Sec. 111(d)  and defers to EPA’s interpretation.

DENR quotes the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in support of the more restrictive interpretation of Sec. 111(d), but the NRDC comments concerned  an EPA  rule regulating  mercury emissions  from power plants. Since mercury had been listed as a hazardous air pollutant under Sec. 112,  NRDC challenged EPA’s decision to use Sec. 111 instead of  Sec. 112 as the basis for the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR).  NRDC did not argue that EPA lacked authority to  regulate emissions of other pollutants  from the same source  under Sec. 111 and the federal court decision in the CAMR case did not decide that issue.  (The Kushman/Coleman paper notes that the CAMR decision erroneously says that  EPA conceded a lack of authority.)

DENR Objection: Sec. 111(d) cannot be used to regulate pollutants listed under Sec. 108 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 1408).

Counterpoint:  DENR correctly notes that Sec. 111(d) cannot  be used to regulate an air pollutant  already covered by an ambient air quality standard  or  listed for development of an ambient air quality standard under Clean Air Act Sec. 108. But EPA has not adopted an ambient air quality standard for CO2 or listed CO2 under Sec. 108. The  DENR presentation assumes that EPA’s   2009 finding that CO2 (in combination with other greenhouse gasses) endangers public health and welfare  automatically resulted in a  Sec. 108 listing. The 2009 “endangerment” finding was made under Sec. 202 of the Clean Air Act as a necessary first step toward regulating motor vehicle emissions of  greenhouse gasses. But an “endangerment” finding by itself does not cause a pollutant to be listed under Sec. 108. The two are distinct actions.

DENR Objection: Sec. 111(d) requires controls on individual emission sources; the “performance standard”  cannot be met by alternative  CO2 reduction measures (such as energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy sources) allowed under the proposed EPA rule.

Counterpoint: This again appears to be a much more open question than the presentation would suggest. EPA’s proposed rule gives states the flexibility to use measures other than  pollution  controls on existing power plants in developing the “standard of performance”  required under Sec. 111(d).  EPA identifies four “building blocks” : increased efficiency at existing  coal-fired units; transition  from coal to natural gas;  greater reliance on nuclear energy and renewable energy sources; and management of electricity demand.   There may well be a debate over what can be considered a “standard of performance” under Sec. 111, but the question has not been settled. A number of legal scholars endorsed a similarly broad interpretation of the “standard of performance” under Sec. 111  well before release of the proposed EPA rule.  (You can find a  2011 discussion  paper on compliance flexibility under Sec. 111  here.)

EPA’s interpretation is also entitled to deference where Congress has not clearly required (or barred) a particular approach to implementation. The federal court decision cited by  DENR  as rejecting  pollution trading under Sec. 111, ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA,   was effectively overruled by the later U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,  467 U.S. 837 (1984).    In Chevron, the court upheld  EPA’s interpretation of “stationary source” to encompass all of the emission sources at a facility  —  an outcome  contrary to the earlier ASARCO decision-– giving industry the flexibility to modify individual sources at a facility within a facility-wide emissions cap.   The Chevron decision also made a very clear statement about deference to agency interpretation: “When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency’s policy rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail”.  EPA’s interpretation of the  “standard of performance” language in Sec. 111 to allow greater compliance flexibility and lessen the regulatory burden on electric utilities should be entitled to the same deference.

Whatever the strength or weakness of DENR’s legal analysis of the proposed CO2 rule for existing coal-fired power plants,  the fact of the critique certainly sends a message. It suggests that the McCrory administration may intend to  oppose the proposed rule whether the impact on North Carolina will be positive or negative.

Status of Regulatory Reform Legislation

July 15, 2014.   For the last two weeks, substantive bills have been held in committee during  budget negotiations (some would describe this as hostage-taking).  But Senate leaders have signaled an intent to begin moving bills out of committee and to the Senate floor.  Two of the bills waiting for action are regulatory reform bills. An earlier post described Senate Bill 734 (Regulatory Reform Act of 2014) . The House made significant changes to the bill after it came over from the Senate, stripping out all of the environmental provisions. The bill (or what is left of it) is now back in the Senate for a concurrence vote.

The House put  its environmental regulatory reform provisions into a different Senate bill.  Senate Bill 38 came over to the House as an emergency management bill.  The House stripped out the original provisions; inserted some of the environmental provisions from Senate Bill 734; added a few new environmental provisions; and retitled the bill “Amend Environmental Laws”.  Senate Bill 38 has also been returned to the Senate for concurrence.

Key differences between Senate environmental regulatory reform proposals in S 734 and  the House proposals (now in S 38) below; these provisions will  have to be negotiated if the Senate  refuses to simply accept the House changes to both S 734 and S 38.  The Senate had proposed more –and more controversial — environmental provisions, so much of the negotiation will likely focus on Senate provisions left out of the House bill. (References to S 734 below  refer to the Senate version — Edition 3 of the bill on the General Assembly website.)

Senate provisions in controversy:

♦ A new environmental audit privilege and immunity for self-reported violations.  The Senate version of S 734  makes the results of an environmental audit confidential and gives the company immunity from civil penalties for environmental violations voluntarily reported to DENR as a result of an audit. The concept of immunity for self-reporting has some merit. The Senate provision had not been tightly drafted, however, and could allow a facility to avoid  penalties for longstanding, continuing violations by self-reporting under cover of a recent environmental audit.

♦   Limits on citizen appeals of air quality permits.  S 734 proposed  to limit citizen appeals to circumstances involving violation of a national ambient air quality standard.  As noted in the earlier post, this would eliminate citizen appeals of  permits issued  for sources of toxic air pollutants which are regulated under a different section of the Clean Air Act than the six pollutants covered by national ambient air quality standards.

♦   Authority for the Governor to waive environmental impact statements and Coastal Area Management Act  (CAMA) permit review for projects to protect, maintain or rebuild Highway 12 on the Outer Banks. (For  more on  conditions surrounding Highway 12 see  an earlier post.)

♦   A provision allowing a local government to block classification of a stream or river segment   for  water supply under state water quality rules.  State rules protect water supply sources through  in-stream water quality standards and development standards  (such as stormwater controls and stream buffers) in the water supply watershed. The water supply classification  must be approved by the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) before a water intake can be constructed.  The Senate provision intervenes in a conflict between  Caswell County and the towns of Roxboro and Yanceyville   over classification of a segment of the Dan River for water supply.  The EMC approved the Dan River water supply classification in 2012; the proposed water intake would supply Roxboro, Yanceyville and the Town of Milton.  The watershed for the new water supply extends into Caswell County, which had agreed to revise  its ordinances to meet water supply watershed development standards. Political opposition to the watershed ordinance led  Caswell County  to reverse course and petition the EMC to undo the Dan River water supply classification.  The EMC denied the Caswell County request last year.  The provision in S 734  directs the EMC  to grant any  request  to reverse a water supply classification made by an affected local government —  without regard to the effect on water supply.  The provision only applies to requests submitted after January 1 2012 and before the effective date of the provision — in other words, the  Caswell County request.

♦  Elimination of  air quality monitors not required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   The provision would significantly reduce the number of  state monitors used to assess air quality and demonstrate compliance with federal ambient air quality standards. The origin of the provision has been somewhat mysterious;  the legislator who requested the provision cannot seem to explain why. DENR’s Division of Air Quality has expressed concern about the loss of the monitors.

♦ A provision exempting animal waste lagoons at  dairy farms from closure requirements in state water quality rules. The rules reference closure standards for animal waste management systems developed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service in the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.  The exemption would apply to waste lagoons constructed before 1967 and in use as recently as 2006.

House environmental regulatory reform provisions in controversy:

♦ A reduction in the amount of financial assurance required for a construction and demolition debris landfill (from $2 million  — the amount required for municipal solid waste landfills and industrial landfills —  to $1 million).

♦ Two provisions easing regulation of onsite wastewater systems. One would  prevent state regulators from putting certain conditions on approval  of  innovative systems using expanded polystyrene synthetic aggregate particles as the dispersion media. Another eliminates any requirement for an inspection or performance audit to review the performance of modified onsite wastewater systems.

♦  A new requirement for disclosure of mineral, oil and gas rights to prospective purchasers of real property.

♦ The House and  Senate bills have slightly different proposals to reduce state oversight of development  affecting isolated wetlands. The Senate bill would only require an individual water quality permit for activity affecting more than one acre of isolated wetlands. The House bill maintains a distinction that exists in the water quality rules between wetlands in the eastern and western parts of the state, requiring a permit for activity affecting 1/3 acre or more of isolated wetlands west of Interstate 95 and for activity affecting 1acre or more of isolated wetlands east of the interstate. Efforts to limit state protection for isolated wetlands began last year; see an earlier post for more background.

The House also put a number of provisions recommended by the General Assembly’s Environmental Review Commission into Senate Bill 38. The same provisions were introduced in the Senate as freestanding bills and  shouldn’t be in controversy.

The N.C. House on Coal Ash

July 7, 2014. Last week, the N.C. House approved a  revised version of Senate Bill 729 (Coal Ash Management Act of 2014).  See the 5th edition of the bill on the General Assembly website.   The bill now goes to a conference committee to resolve differences between the House and Senate  bills.   There is little or no disagreement between the House and Senate on the most important requirements of S729.  Usually — although not always —  uncontroverted sections of a bill appear in the final bill.   Only a handful of the House changes  are likely to meet opposition from the Senate and some of those have more political than policy significance.   Under Senate rules,  the  conferees can consider any change  germane to the original bill. House rules allow conferees to consider provisions not in controversy between the two chambers to the extent the Senate rules allow, but require entirely new provisions to go back through a House committee before adoption of the conference report. In any case, comparison of the Senate and House bills should give a fairly clear picture of  the final bill.

 House/Senate Agreement. The House and Senate agree on:

♦  Barring electric utilities from recovering the cost of addressing an illegal discharge to surface waters from a CCR impoundment through a rate case.

♦  Timelines for  assessing all  CCR impoundment sites for groundwater contamination and unpermitted discharges to surface waters. House and Senate bills also have identical  corrective action requirements based on existing state groundwater rules.

♦  Deadlines for final closure of CCR impoundments.   Both bills have the same  deadlines for  converting all N.C. coal-fired power plants from wet to dry ash handling; ending disposal of ash in wet impoundments;  and completing final closure of all 33 CCR impoundments in the state. The bills require final closure of  all impoundments by the end of  2029, but set earlier deadlines for closure of high and intermediate risk impoundments. (Final closure  involves dewatering the impoundments  and taking additional steps — which may include removal of the CCRs from the site — to prevent future groundwater and surface water contamination.)

♦   Priority  for closure. Both the House and the Senate  direct DENR to give four  impoundments  highest priority for closure (Riverbend, Asheville, Dan River and Sutton). Like the Senate, the House voted down a number of amendments attempting to add sites to the immediate closure list. Both bills direct DENR and the Coal Ash Management Commission to prioritize the other 10 CCR impoundment sites for closure based on risk. Neither  bill  provides guidance  on how to translate  risk factors listed  in the bill  into high, intermediate and low risk classifications. Uncertainty about how the risk factors will be used to  prioritize impoundments for closure has caused concern on the part of both the electric utilities and environmental organizations since risk classification also determines the allowable closure methods.

♦  The link between prioritization for closure and the method of final closure.  Under both House and Senate bills,  high and intermediate risk impoundments  must  be closed by permanently  removing the coal combustion residuals from the impoundment for disposal in a permitted facility; removing the CCRs for use in structural fill or another beneficial reuse  allowed under the law; or temporarily moving and storing the CCRs  for disposal in an industrial landfill to be built on the old impoundment site.  Both  bills allow low risk impoundments to be closed by  capping the CCRs in place under closure standards that apply to municipal solid waste landfills.

Duke Energy  has openly worried  about the number of impoundments  that may be classified   as high or  intermediate risk and require  more costly closure plans. Environmental organizations see no assurance in either bill that “low risk” impoundments will necessarily be appropriate for capping in place.

♦ Giving the Coal Ash Management Commission final authority to approve  prioritization of impoundments for closure and the final closure plan for each impoundment. Under both bills, the commission would be  directed to approve a closure plan based on consistency with the law; technological feasibility; and a determination that “benefits to public health, safety, and welfare; the environment; and natural resources outweigh the negative impacts on electricity costs and reliability”.  The last part of the standard — weighing public benefits against impact on electricity costs and reliability — suggests that even a technologically feasible closure plan  approved by DENR as consistent with the law  could be disapproved by the commission based on the impact to electric utilities. The bill  doesn’t  seem to set any  minimum  requirement for protection of public health, safety, the environment and natural resources  to put a floor under the commission’s weighting of public benefits versus utility costs.

♦ Expanding “structural fill” use of CCRs to include mine reclamation, construction of embankments, and greenscapes. Existing state rules allow use of CCRs as fill material to support  a building foundation or other structure (such as a  roadbed or airport runway). Both the Senate and House bills  expand the concept of “structural fill” to include  uses unrelated to  construction, such as reclamation of open pit mines;  embankments; and  greenscapes.  The idea of using CCRs  as  fill material for an open pit mine  would be a particularly significant departure from past structural fill uses because of the volume and depth of the fill project.

♦ More stringent standards for large structural fill projects. New standards require liners; leachate collection systems; financial assurance;  groundwater monitoring; and establish setbacks from surface waters, wetlands, water supply wells and other features.  As noted  below,  the bills differ on the dividing line between large projects and smaller structural fill projects that will be deemed permitted under less protective standards.

♦  A moratorium on new structural fill projects that do not meet the more stringent standards for large projects and a moratorium on construction of coal combustion product landfills on top of old CCR impoundments  under standards in  the 2007 Solid Waste Act. The  structural fill moratorium will be linked to a DENR study of structural fill and other beneficial uses of CCRs. The bills also require a study of the 2007 coal combustion product landfill standards.

♦  Earlier notice  to DENR and to the public when untreated wastewater is discharged to surface waters,  picking up on  a recommendation of the legislature’s Environmental Review Commission. This provision would apply  to all wastewater spills and not just  spills  associated with CCR impoundments

♦  Requiring  an emergency action plan for high hazard and intermediate hazard dams. The emergency action plans would be required for both CCR impoundments and other dams regulated under the state Dam Safety Act.   The House and Senate also  agree on specific inspection requirements for CCR impoundments and a  process for decommissioning CCR impoundments under the Dam Safety Act.

♦  Assessment of a fee on electric utilities that own CCR impoundments to fund DENR and Coal Ash Management Commission activities under the law.

♦  Transfer of rulemaking authority for state solid waste programs from the Commission for Public Health to the Environmental Management Commission.

House/Senate Differences.  Some of the more significant differences that will need to be resolved in conference between the two chambers:

♦  The length of a moratorium on cost recovery for expenses related to CCR impoundment assessment, remediation and closure.   The Senate moratorium would end on January 15, 2015; the House extends the moratorium to December 31, 2016.

♦  Makeup and organization of the Coal Ash Management Commission.  The General Assembly would continue to make a majority of appointments to the 9-member commission, but the  House bill gives the Governor  authority to appoint the chair.   The House also made very minor changes to criteria for appointment to the commission. One of the most significant differences between the House and Senate  may  be the administrative location of the commission. The Senate put the commission under the Department of Public Safety; the House  moved the commission under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

♦  A shorter deadline for providing alternative drinking water supply when a CCR impoundment causes well contamination. Both the Senate and the House require the electric utility to provide an alternative water supply  when a water supply well has become unsafe because of groundwater contamination associated with a  CCR  impoundment. The House bill added a requirement that  an alternative supply of drinking water must be provided within 24 hours after DENR confirms that contaminants associated with a CCR impoundment have caused exceedance of  a groundwater standard in  a drinking water well. Alternative water supply for other purposes must be provided within 30 days consistent with the Senate bill.

♦   More alternatives for final closure of  “low risk” CCR impoundments.   The  House bill  allows low risk impoundments to be closed using any of  the methods approved for high and intermediate risk impoundments (removal of ash for landfill disposal; removal of ash for beneficial reuse;  or conversion of the impoundment to an industrial landfill)  or  by capping the coal ash in place under standards for closure of a municipal solid waste (MSW)  landfill. The Senate  restricted closure of low risk impoundments  to the “cap in place” option.

♦  Opportunity for electric utilities to request  a variance from CCR impoundment closure deadlines.  The Senate and House bills  have the same deadlines for final closure of CCR impoundments, but the House bill allows the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to grant variances from the deadlines. To get a  variance the electric utility must show that : “compliance with the deadline cannot be achieved by application of best available technology found to be economically reasonable at the time and would produce serious hardship without equal or greater benefits to the public”.   The variance standard  requires a cost-benefit calculation  that weighs cost to the electric utility against the public health and environmental benefits of closure.  In that respect, it is similar to the standard for Coal Ash Management Commission approval of closure plans.  As a standard for granting variances from environmental or public health rules, it is unusual in not requiring any minimum level of protection for  public health, safety and natural resources.  There  seems to be no floor under the Secretary’s authority to give  greater weight to electric utility cost than to the public benefit of closure. The provision also puts no limit on the  extension of time allowed by variance.

♦  The threshold for requiring more stringent structural fill standards.  The House bill lowers  the threshold between structural fill projects that will be deemed permitted and those requiring an individual permit under more stringent standards. Under the House bill, any project using 8,000 tons or more  of coal combustion residuals per acre or  a total of 80,000 tons or more for a single project would trigger an individual permit under more protective standards. The Senate bill set the thresholds at 10,000 tons or more per acre and 100,000 tons or more total.

♦ Addition of  a criminal enforcement provision. The House added a criminal enforcement provision, making it a Class 2 misdemeanor (maximum penalty of $10,000) to make a false statement, representation or certification in any application, report or other document required under the law.

♦  Protecting some information in Dam Safety Emergency Action Plans.  The House bill adds a confidentiality provision  excluding “sensitive public security information” from disclosure under the state’s Public Records Act. The bill specifically protects information that is protected from disclosure under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules as “Critical Energy Infrastructure Information”.

♦  Groundwater Compliance Boundaries: The Senate bill repeals  most of a 2013 regulatory reform provision  concerning groundwater compliance boundaries around permitted waste disposal sites. For an explanation of the 2013  legislation, see an earlier post. The Senate  bill   repeals everything except a provision clarifying that each individually permitted waste disposal site should have a groundwater compliance boundary without regard to the date the facility first received a water quality permit. The House  adds new language on groundwater corrective action to the Senate provision.

According to one House bill sponsor, the new corrective action language  intends to reverse a recent superior court decision concerning remediation of groundwater contamination caused by CCR impoundments.  Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway reversed a declaratory ruling by the  Environmental Management Commission (EMC) interpreting the  groundwater corrective action rule,  15A NCAC 2L.0106, as applied to CCR impoundments.  Judge Ridgeway concluded that the rule does not give older waste disposal systems  (those first permitted under water quality laws before 1984) the alternative of treating or controlling the groundwater contamination source.  Judge Ridgeway  interpreted the rule to require immediate removal of the contamination source in every case involving groundwater contamination associated with a pre-1984 waste disposal  system.

Most CCR impoundments fall into the pre-1984 category and the Ridgeway decision  seems to require immediate removal of coal combustion residuals that are the source of groundwater contamination beyond the compliance boundary.  See this post for more on Judge Ridgeway’s decision. Since the  rule  applies to all waste disposal sites first permitted before  1984,  Judge Ridgeway’s decision  has  also created  concern among local governments  because of the potential impact on some county and municipal waste disposal sites.

It isn’t possible  to fully analyze the  implications of the House language as compared to the  current groundwater corrective action rule;  the Senate provision; and Judge Ridgeway’s order in this post.   But House bill sponsors have clearly  indicated an intent to reverse  the part of the Ridgeway  decision requiring  the owner of a pre-1984 waste disposal facility to immediately remove a source of groundwater contamination that has migrated beyond the groundwater compliance boundary and allow greater flexibility in measures used to  address ongoing groundwater contamination.

The Coal Ash Management Commission

June 24, 2014. The Senate’s coal ash bill has  been approved by two  committees and goes to the Senate floor for a vote today.  Given the N.C. General Assembly’s desire to  adjourn soon after  July 1, the bill will need to make its way through the House quickly to become law.  An earlier post provided a broad outline of Senate Bill 729; although there may be amendments on the floor today, the basic structure of the bill  seems to be set.

The earlier post generally described the  9-member Coal Ash Management Commission created by the bill, but more on the  unusual nature of the proposed  commission below:

♦ Why a new commission? When Republican senators raised this question in committee, the  bill sponsor  suggested a need to restore public confidence.  The Coal Ash Management Commission would have the power to overrule decisions made by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on closure of coal ash impoundments, suggesting a lack of confidence in DENR. But Senate Bill 729   gives  commission members with  very general knowledge and experience the ability to second guess such technical decisions as  the relative risk posed by  a  coal ash impoundment ( based on  groundwater contamination,  surface water pollution, threat of structural failure and other factors) and compliance with  laws governing closure. [See the earlier post for  more  on the makeup of the commission. ]

♦  One of the criteria for commission  approval of a closure plan would be  “that the benefits to the public health, safety, and welfare; the environment; and natural resources outweigh the negative impacts on electricity costs and reliability”.  In effect, the bill allows the commission to disapprove a closure plan based on a cost-benefit analysis  that considers  the impact on electric rates and  electric service.  One problem will be the lack of expertise on the commission to do a very complex cost-benefit analysis, but the provision  seems odd for other reasons.  First, cost only becomes a factor when the individual closure plan comes to the commission for review — after   the electric utility has proposed a closure plan based on alternatives identified in the law; after public comment on the proposed plan; and following DENR approval of the plan as consistent with the law.

Since the commission will  review and approve closure plans individually for each impoundment, the analysis of impacts on electric rates and electric service will  be difficult at best. The total cost of closing all  33 coal ash impoundments  in the state may  affect electric rates  — if the N.C. Utilities Commission allows the utility to pass some or all of those costs to consumers. It will be much harder to evaluate the impact of a closure plan for an individual impoundment on rates and electric service.  The cumulative cost of closing the coal ash impoundments  and any impact on electric service will also largely be  a function of the law  rather than individual closure decisions. The bill  sets the timetable  for eliminating use of wet coal ash impoundments; identifies the allowable  closure methods;  and sets closure deadlines  based on risk factors listed in the bill.  Individual closure plans have to fit within the framework  set by the legislature.

The greatest impact the commission could have on total cost would be through prioritizing  impoundments for closure. Since the bill allows  low risk impoundments to be closed by capping the coal ash in place  (which is much less expensive than removing the ash for disposal in a landfill),  putting more sites in the low risk category  also reduces total closure costs. But for very good reasons the bill does not make cost a factor in prioritizing impoundments for closure.

Given all of that,  the commission will have a very limited ability to affect the impact of closure  on electric rates and electric service. By the time a closure plan reaches the commission, the issues will be much  narrower. The priority for closure of the impoundment would already be set, determining the  closure options.   For a high risk impoundment, the alternatives  would be removing the ash for disposal elsewhere; moving the ash temporarily and creating a coal ash landfill on site (under standards set in the law);  or removing and treating the ash for beneficial reuse.  In  that narrow context, the commission could  tilt an individual closure decision in the direction of lower cost to the utility — although that would also require the commission to second-guess DENR’s evaluation of the environmental and public health impacts of the closure alternatives.

The commission’s decision to disapprove a closure plan could be appealed by either the electric utility or any other “person aggrieved” by the decision. (That may include DENR, since the department will not be  the decision-maker.)  Otherwise,  the electric utility would presumably have to revise the closure plan and go through another round of public comment and DENR review. Nothing in the bill suggests that the commission can change a closure plan.

♦ There doesn’t seem to be any precedent for  giving a citizen commission in one department of state government the power to overrule a decision made by another department.  The Coal Ash Management Commission would be part of the Department of Public Safety, but have the authority to override  decisions made by DENR under solid waste laws implemented by DENR’s Division of Waste Management and rules adopted by the Environmental Management Commission. Aside from the potential for conflict and confusion given the number of state agencies in the mix, the arrangement sets up an interesting situation on appeal of closure decisions. Since the Coal Ash Management Commission would  make the final  decisions  on prioritization and approval of  closure plans,  the commission would also have to respond to appeals of those decisions.  Although much of the technical work may have been done by DENR staff, DENR would not have responsibility for defending the decision.  Instead, DENR could be a party to the appeal.

♦ On a purely political level,  the  process for making appointments to the commission has already created a controversy.  A majority of  commission (6 of the 9 members) would be appointed by legislative leaders and commissioners would elect the chair and vice-chair.  Such strong legislative influence over an executive branch agency would be unusual. Other state commissions  have appointees divided between the governor and legislative leaders, but generally  the governor has a clear majority of the appointments and also appoints the chair.   As reported in the Raleigh News and Observer’s Under the Dome,  Governor Pat McCrory does not necessarily appreciate the idea of  legislative leaders controlling the Coal Ash Management Commission.

Recycling Wastewater for Drinking Water — Without a Permit

June 19, 2014. In one of many quick changes over the last few legislative days, Senate Bill 163 (“Protect Landowner’s Water Rights”)  entered the telephone booth of the House Environment Committee yesterday and emerged as an entirely different bill entitled “Reclaimed Water as Source Water”.  The House adopted the new version of S 163 today,  making a significant change to state water quality  and drinking water laws with little debate.

The bill endorses the use of highly treated wastewater, classified under  state water quality rules as “reclaimed” water, to supplement drinking water supplies.  The policy makes sense  under the right conditions.  Treated wastewater  already indirectly supplements  drinking  water supplies; many wastewater treatment plants discharge to streams and rivers that also serve as  water supply sources for downstream communities. State reclaimed water rules also allow direct  use of reclaimed water for many non-potable purposes, including  landscape irrigation, easing demand on the drinking water supply.

Senate Bill 163,  as adopted by the House, goes further and  for the first time allows reclaimed wastewater to be used to directly supplement a drinking water supply. The problem — the bill appears to allow a water system to add reclaimed wastewater to a drinking water reservoir without a water quality permit.  If that is the  effect of the bill, it represents a significant change in the way the state protects the quality of drinking water supplies and  likely conflicts with the federal Clean Water Act.

Under the bill,   “notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local water supply system may combine reclaimed water with source water treated to provide potable water supply”  in an impoundment controlled by  the  water system.  The bill does not define “impoundment”,   but under state drinking water rules an “impoundment” means a reservoir.  That interpretation would also be consistent with  other  Senate Bill 163 language describing the addition of reclaimed water  as occurring before the water goes to the water treatment plant.

An impoundment used as a  public water supply source  would  usually be considered a “water of the state” under water quality laws. Most impoundments  have  been created by damming a river or stream segment to store water for  water supply and continue to release water through the dam to maintain downstream flows.  Wastewater  (even treated wastewater) can only be discharged to a water of the state under a  permit that  insures the discharge  will not result in violation of a water quality standards.  Under G.S. 143-215.1, it is unlawful to:

Cause or permit any waste, directly or indirectly,  to be discharged to or in any manner intermixed with the waters of the State in violation of the water quality standards applicable to the assigned classification.

An impoundment used as a drinking water source has specific water quality standards (adopted in state rules) to protect its  use as a water supply. Discharge of treated wastewater to a water supply source can be allowed,  but only  under permitted limits.  Unfortunately, the “notwithstanding” language in Senate Bill 163  seems to sweep away both the requirements of state  water quality permitting laws and the N.C.  Drinking Water Act.  Nothing in the bill itself requires the addition of reclaimed wastewater to be done under a water quality permit  or in compliance with water quality standards for public water supplies. Instead, the conditions in the bill read like a self-contained set of standards that rely on a 20% limit on the proportion of reclaimed water to total water produced by the impoundment  and a minimum  5-day holding time in the impoundment as a substitute for meeting water quality standards.

If — as it appears — the bill allows discharge of reclaimed water to a “water of the state” without a permit, it also  conflicts with federal  law. Many impoundments that are  “waters of the state”  would also be considered “waters of the United States” under the federal Clean Water Act.  Federal law  makes it unlawful to discharge a pollutant into waters of the United States without a Clean Water Act permit — a requirement that state law cannot waive.

Senate Bill 163 will now go back to the Senate for approval or disapproval of the new  House version of the bill.  If the Senate rejects the House rewrite, the bill will have to go to a conference committee to work out the differences between the two chambers.

If the House did not intend to allow the discharge of treated wastewater to a water supply reservoir without meeting state and federal water quality laws, it would be  helpful to clarify  the bill  before final adoption.