Tag Archives: Coal Ash

N.C. Enacts Coal Ash Legislation

August 21, 2014.  After two weeks of drama in which the House and Senate had a falling out over one critical provision  and threatened to adjourn without voting on a final bill, the N.C. General Assembly enacted coal ash legislation by strong bipartisan margins in both chambers.  The  final bill now goes to Governor Pat McCrory for signature.  Senate Bill 729  follows eighteen months of controversy over the environmental impacts of the 33 coal ash impoundments located at 14  electric generating facilities  in North Carolina and the McCrory administration’s response to the problems.   Coal ash became an urgent  legislative priority after  a stormwater pipe under an  impoundment in Rockingham County ruptured and spilled more that 30,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River. (Earlier posts on N.C. coal ash impoundments  and the Dan River spill here and here.)

What Senate Bill 729  Does:

♦ Sets timelines for  conversion from  wet to dry ash handling;  an  end to deposition of  coal combustion residuals (CCRs)  in wet impoundments; and final closure of  all 33 impoundments under  environmental standards.  Nothing in existing state or federal law otherwise requires any of those actions. Under current law, the state  can take enforcement action  to require a utility to address  unpermitted  wastewater  discharges or groundwater standard violations associated with an impoundment, but it is more difficult to effect comprehensive policy change through individual enforcement cases.

Under prior N.C. law, CCRs in a wet impoundment had been considered “wastewater residuals” and  exempt from the state’s solid waste disposal laws.  Senate Bill 729   requires CCRs removed from a wet impoundment  to be disposed of as solid waste.  Unless put to an approved reuse, the  bill requires disposal in a landfill that meets the most current standards  for  industrial landfills (including a liner system, leachate collection,  groundwater monitoring, and financial assurance).

♦  Sets  timelines for groundwater assessment and remediation  for all 33 CCR impoundments.  The state would otherwise have to seek assessment and remediation through enforcement cases. Even in response to enforcement action, existing state  rules generally allow the person (or company) responsible for the contamination to propose a schedule for assessment and remediation.

[Note:  In  litigation over  how state groundwater remediation rules apply to  pre-1984 CCR impoundments, a superior court judge recently interpreted the rules to require “immediate” removal of  coal ash causing  groundwater contamination beyond the compliance boundary. Senate Bill 729 reverses that decision;  see  “Controversies” below.]

♦ Requires the utilities to  identify drinking water wells within one-half  mile down-gradient of each CCR impoundment; test  wells potentially affected by groundwater contamination from the impoundment;  and provide  an alternative water supply if  testing finds a contaminant associated with  CCRs at levels exceeding the groundwater standard.  Under existing law, DENR can use enforcement authority to require a person responsible for groundwater contamination  to  identify and test wells for contamination.  Enforcement actions  focus on conditions at individual sites and the groundwater assessments tend to be more incremental, gradually working out from the known source of contamination and continuing  only as far as testing  shows high levels of contamination. The  comprehensive requirements of Senate Bill 729 may provide more information on well contamination more quickly.

The bill requires the utilities to provide  alternative water supply to any well owner whose drinking water well shows high levels of a contaminant associated with coal combustion residuals.  Without this kind of statutory remedy, a well owner may have to sue for damage to the water supply well — bearing both the upfront costs of  litigation and the burden of proving the impoundment caused the  well contamination. Senate Bill 729  requires  the electric utilities to provide an alternative drinking water supply within 24 hours  and alternative water supply for other purposes (such as bathing) within thirty days based  simply on data showing  that the well water exceeds the  groundwater standard for any constituent associated with CCRs.

♦ Requires the utilities to inspect all CCR impoundments;  report on all wastewater discharges (permitted and unpermitted) ;  and take action to eliminate unpermitted discharges to surface waters on a timeline set in the law. DENR has existing authority to take enforcement action in response to an unpermitted discharge of wastewater to surface waters, but would  normally have to take those actions on a site by site basis. Senate Bill 729 may prompt earlier identification and correction of the violations.

♦  Establishes stricter design, construction and siting standards for large projects  using coal ash as fill for construction projects and puts a moratorium on smaller structural fill projects. (Any project using more than 8,000 tons of coal ash per acres or more than 80,000 tons  total will be considered a “large” structural fill.) Existing  state rules  governing use of coal ash as structural fill have significant gaps. The new law fills a number of those gaps by requiring large structural fill projects to be lined;  have leachate collection systems;   monitor for groundwater impacts and provide financial assurance.  The bill also  establishes new siting criteria for large structural fills, including  setbacks from streams, wetlands, wells and property boundaries.

The bill puts a one-year moratorium on smaller structural fill projects while DENR studies  the adequacy of standards for those projects. The bill allows for two exceptions to the moratorium on small structural fills: 1. voluntary compliance with the new, stricter standards applied to large structural fill projects; or 2. use of CCRs as structural fill for a  public road  project.

♦ Amends the state Dam Safety Act to require Emergency Action Plans for all  high or intermediate hazard dams (including CCR impoundments) and  sets specific inspection requirements for CCR impoundments.

♦ Amends water quality laws to require  earlier notice to DENR and to the public following a wastewater spill that reaches surface waters. Prior law had been unclear about notice to DENR and allowed 48 hours  for notice to the public. Senate Bill 729 requires notice to DENR as soon as practicable  (and no later than 24 hours after the spill reaches surface waters) and to notify the  public within 24 hours. The new notice requirements apply to all wastewater spills and not just those associated with CCR impoundments.

♦ Repeals  much  of a 2013 regulatory reform provision dealing with groundwater contamination. Senate Bill 729   repeals two significant parts of the 2013 law: 1. a  presumption that the groundwater compliance boundary should be at the property line;  and 2.  restrictions on  DENR’s ability to require action inside the compliance boundary to control  groundwater contamination. (See the section on groundwater legislation  in an earlier post  for  more explanation of  what the 2013 provision did and Senate Bill 729 now undoes.)

♦ Imposes a new fee on electric utilities that own CCR impoundments to support implementation of the law. The bill allocates funds for 25 new  positions in DENR to work on coal ash and 5 positions in the Department of Public Safety to support the Coal Ash Management Commission.

Weak Points:

Creating a  new Coal Ash Management Commission in the Department of Public Safety with  authority to overrule DENR decisions on prioritization of impoundments for closure and approval of closure plans — but without the expertise or staff support to make those decisions. The Department of Public Safety has no experience with implementation of state and federal environmental laws and the bill authorizes a small staff of five to support all of the commission’s activities.  Commission appointment criteria do not require any member to have expertise in  groundwater hydrology or water quality  –  likely to be critical in prioritizing sites for closure and approving closure plans.

The bill provides few guiding standards for classifying impoundments based on risk. Risk classification will be one of the most important decisions required under the law  because the classification determines whether coal ash has to be removed from the site or can potentially be capped in place. The bill lists a number of factors to be considered, but provides no guidance on how to translate the  factors into high, intermediate and low risk classifications. Existing state programs that use similar classification systems to guide remediation work  have gone through rulemaking to  adopt specific criteria for defining high, intermediate and low risk. In the absence of rulemaking, the lack of legislative guidance could lead to inconsistent and arbitrary decision-making. Senate Bill 729   identifies four sites for immediate closure and in debating the bill a number of legislators questioned  the basis for prioritizing those four over others with similar environmental problems. Those kinds of question aren’t going to go away when the prioritization process shifts over to DENR and the new commission.

The bill authorizes  the Coal Ash Management Commission to issue variances from the impoundment closure deadlines, although the final version of the bill  allows only one variance of no more than three years for an individual impoundment.

Controversies:

In debate on the final bill, Democratic lawmakers again raised concerns about  the impact on ratepayers if  utilities  try to recover assessment and cleanup costs in a rate case. Senate Bill 729 prevents  utilities from recovering costs associated with an illegal spill (like the one on the Dan River), but only puts a  brief moratorium on recovery of  costs associated with assessment, cleanup and closure of coal ash impoundments.  The moratorium ends January 15, 2015 — before the utilities are likely to have incurred significant costs.  Some  legislators  would clearly prefer to leave the cost recovery issue entirely to the N.C. Utilities Commission; others  suggested  the General Assembly will  have time to revisit the cost recovery issue next session.

A number of environmental organizations have criticized the bill for potentially allowing use of capping in place to close impoundments that have CCRs  in  close proximity to  groundwater. This  issue  nearly derailed the bill completely  as House and Senate conferees tried to reach agreement on a final bill.     Both House and Senate versions of the bill required removal of CCRs from impoundments classified as high or intermediate risk.  Although worded differently, both versions of the bill allowed low risk impoundments to be closed by dewatering the coal ash and  installing an impermeable clay cap over the ash under standards  applied to closure of solid waste landfills  — the practice known as  “capping in place”.   Neither version of the bill  addressed  the concern  that a “low risk” impoundment may  be in close proximity to groundwater, allowing  CCRs to be a continuing source of groundwater contamination even after installation of a cap.

House  members  raised the issue for the first time in conference and proposed  new language to bar  “capping in place” if any part of the impoundment was located below the seasonal high water table. See an earlier post for more on the conflict between House and Senate conferees and the cost concern in the background of  debates over capping in  place. The final bill did not include the language proposed by House conferees, but added a sentence  barring approval of  a “cap in place” closure

…unless the Department finds that the proposed closure plan includes design measures to prevent, upon the plan’s full implementation, post-closure exceedances of groundwater quality standards beyond the compliance boundary that are attributable to constituents associated with the presence of the impoundment.

The new language would allow the utilities to cap in place  CCRs  in close proximity to groundwater as long as the closure plan  includes other measures (such as engineered groundwater remediation systems) to  prevent groundwater standard violations  beyond the compliance boundary.   The language clearly does not provide as high a level of protection  as a separation between the  coal ash  and groundwater — but  would   be consistent  with existing state  rules allowing DENR to approve a groundwater remediation plan based on use of engineered systems  to treat or control the contamination source and prevent groundwater violations beyond the compliance boundary. The question may be the level of confidence in DENR’s review and approval of remediation measures and the utilities’ commitment to long-term maintenance of remediation systems.

A final (related) controversy has to do with  language in Senate Bill 729  to   overrule a recent superior court decision interpreting state groundwater rules to impose more rigid remediation requirements  on waste disposal systems permitted before 1984. An earlier  post discusses the issue and Judge Ridgeway’s decision (now on appeal to the N.C. Court of Appeals) in more detail. In brief, the judge interpreted  state rules to require  immediate removal of the contamination source at any pre-1984 waste disposal site where contamination has caused a exceedance of a groundwater standard beyond the compliance boundary.   At a waste disposal facility, the contamination source usually turns out to be the waste disposed of in the facility  — which  could  be garbage  put in  a landfill or coal ash placed in an impoundment. The judge’s interpretation does not allow the alternative of using engineered groundwater remediation systems to treat or control the source of contamination at these older facilities — something the rules  allow for newer  facilities.

Senate Bill 729 reverses the effect of Judge Ridgeway’s decision by requiring groundwater remediation rules to be applied consistently to all waste disposal facilities without regard to the date of permitting.  Legislative intervention  seemed to be driven  by  some combination of concern about completely foreclosing the possibility of capping coal ash in place  and the impact of the decision on county and municipal waste disposal sites permitted before 1984.

The bill now sits  on the Governor’s desk, waiting for signature or veto.

Coal Ash Legislation Hits the Wall

August 2, 2014. Senate Bill 729 (Coal Ash Management Act of 2014) hit a wall  this week  when the conference committee  trying to resolve differences between House and Senate versions of the bill failed to reach agreement and the Senate adjourned for a two-week recess.  (The House adjourns today following a final budget vote.)  The General Assembly  returns on August 14, although the Senate’s adjournment resolution suggests the coal ash bill may not be eligible for consideration then. It  may  be November before the General Assembly takes up  coal ash legislation again.

House and Senate versions of the bill differed  in several ways (such as appointments to the Coal Ash Management Commission),  but  negotiations apparently blew up over a new issue. House negotiators became concerned that the bill’s  provisions on closure of coal ash impoundments could allow coal ash in close proximity to groundwater to be  “capped in place” and remain a source of ongoing groundwater contamination.    “Closure”  means  final cleanup and restoration of the impoundment site under environmental standards.  “Capping in place” refers to a closure method that allows the coal ash to be dewatered  and then covered by a layer of low-permeability soil (such as clay) to reduce infiltration of rainwater.  Another layer of soil on top of the clay cap  provides a base for vegetation to stabilize the site and prevent erosion.

Capping the dewatered coal ash on site  avoids the expense of  moving  the coal ash for disposal in an industrial landfill.  Although Duke Energy has said the company has no bias in favor of capping in place (other than the lower cost), company representatives have  stressed to legislators the high cost of  removing all of the coal ash from impoundments at  14 electric generation sites in North Carolina (some operational and others closed).  Duke Energy’s State President for North Carolina,  Paul Newton,  used the graph below in an April presentation to the legislature’s Environmental Review Commission. The graph  shows a  “baseline” cost of  approximately $2.5 billion dollars to close impoundments at all 14  sites and convert to dry ash handling. The baseline estimate assumes that Duke Energy will entirely remove the coal ash  at four facilities  (Dan River, Riverbend, Asheville and Sutton) and use capping in place at the other ten facilities. Duke Energy estimated the cost of removing coal ash from all 14 facilities to be $10 billion.

(Duke Energy’s cost estimates are provided to give a sense of the utility’s message to legislators and not to validate the numbers.)  Mr. Newton’s entire presentation can be found here.

Negotiation of Senate Bill 729 broke down over the House conferees’ insistence on language that would put additional limits on capping in place.   S 729 requires coal ash  in  impoundments prioritized by DENR as high risk or intermediate risk to be removed and either  placed in a lined  industrial landfill or put to an approved beneficial reuse.  The bill allows low risk impoundments to  be closed by  capping in place under the same standard applied to closure of a municipal solid waste landfill.  But unlike  landfills, coal ash impoundments  were not  required to have a  liner  and maintain a minimum separation (in feet)  between the lowest level of waste  and groundwater. House negotiators became concerned that an impoundment with coal ash in  close proximity to  groundwater  could be  classified as low risk under the bill — allowing the coal ash to be capped in place  and  continue leaching contaminants into groundwater through direct contact with the water table.

House  conferees  proposed language  to  prevent the use of capping in place to close  impoundments below the seasonal high water table – by either  excluding  those impoundments from the low risk category completely or by  changing standards for  closure of low risk impoundments to allow capping in place only at impoundments located above the seasonal high water table.   Senate conferees agreed to  add proximity of coal ash to groundwater as another factor in  prioritizing  impoundments for closure, but  rejected House language to prevent  a “cap in place” closure  of  coal ash in impoundments  below the seasonal high water table.  House conferees refused to accept a bill without assurance that groundwater would be protected from ongoing contamination by coal ash in the water table.

Senate conferees prepared and signed a conference report including only the changes in S 729 acceptable to the Senate. House conferees prepared an alternative conference report. The Senate then adjourned  without final action on  the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014.

Update (1:30 p.m.)  The legislative session will continue until at least early next week because of lack of agreement on the adjournment resolution. The House modified  the  adjournment resolution adopted by the Senate to allow more bills to be considered during the August 14 session (including coal ash). The Senate, having already gone home, has not  voted on  the modified adjournment resolution so session continues. Senate will reconvene on  August 5 at 10:00 a.m. and the House on August 6 at  12:00 p.m. Whether the two bodies will do anything next week beyond agree on an adjournment resolution remains to be seen.

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.

NC Senate Debates New Coal Ash Bill

June 16, 2014. The Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee began debating a revised  version of Senate Bill 729 (Governor’s Coal Ash Action Plan) that makes significant changes to legislation proposed by Governor Pat McCrory. The most important new  provisions  are described below.

End disposal of coal ash in wet impoundments. The bill would prohibit construction or expansion of surface impoundments for disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) after June 30, 2014. The bill requires all electric generating facilities in the state to convert to “dry” fly ash disposal or be retired by December 31, 2018 and to convert to “dry” bottom ash disposal or be retired by December 31, 2019. The bill also sets interim deadlines  for ending CCR disposal and stormwater discharges to surface impoundments at facilities that no longer produce coal combustion residuals.

Groundwater assessment and corrective action. The bill sets timelines for groundwater assessment, survey of drinking water wells, and groundwater corrective action similar to those in the Governor’s Coal Ash Action Plan, but  the bill goes on to  require the corrective action plan to restore groundwater in conformance with the requirements of North Carolina’s groundwater rules. (See, Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 2L).

Structural fill. The bill revises the definition of “structural fill” to allow use of CCRs in mine reclamation and construction of embankments. The bill also sets new standards for structural fill projects. Smaller structural fill projects (those using less than 10,000 tons per acre or less than 100,000  total tons) could be “deemed permitted” without an individual permit review based on meeting design and construction standards set in the bill. For these smaller projects, the bill applies standards  essentially identical to those already in state rules. Larger projects would need an individual permit and be required to meet more stringent design/construction standards including: use of an encapsulating liner system; leachate collection; a cap liner; groundwater monitoring and financial assurance.

In a somewhat confusing turn, the bill then puts a one-year moratorium on some structural fill projects. The moratorium has two  exceptions: 1. projects that meet the new standards for large structural fills (i.e. a liner system, leachate collection, cap liner, groundwater monitoring and financial assurance); and 2. use of CCRs as the base for a public road constructed of asphalt or concrete. As a result, some very large structural fill projects could go forward during the moratorium, but smaller projects would be delayed for additional study of the standards that apply to those projects.

Closure of impoundments. The bill creates a new 9-member Coal Ash Management Commission in the Department of Public Safety and gives the commission final authority over decisions about closure of existing surface impoundments. Six of the nine members would be required to have experience or knowledge of engineering; waste disposal; manufacturing; use of CCRs in structural fill; economic development; and electric co-op management. The other three members would be a state resident (no other qualification required); a doctor or person with public health expertise; and a representative of a conservation organization. More on prioritization and closure:

♦ Prioritization for closure. The bill requires all of the existing coal ash impoundments to be prioritized for closure based on a list of factors in the bill and then ties the risk classification (high, intermediate or low risk) to deadlines for closure and to allowable closure methods.  Although DENR would propose priorities for closure, the Coal Ash Management Commission would make the final decision on prioritization of sites. Since the prioritization factors listed in the bill are not weighted in any way, it is not possible to know how many (or which) sites would fall into each risk category.

♦ Alternatives for closure. Understanding how sites will be prioritized for closure becomes important because low risk sites will be given the option of  dewatering and capping the coal ash in place. The bill also requires the Coal Ash Management Commission to study whether it may be appropriate to allow  some low risk impoundments to  remain in their current condition (without either dewatering or capping) if the CCRs have no contact with groundwater or surface water and the site has returned to a “natural” state. A report on the no further action alternative would be due October 1, 2015. Even if  recommended by the commission, additional legislation would still be needed to authorize use of the alternative.

High and intermediate risk impoundments would have to: 1. convert the surface impoundment to an industrial landfill; or 2. remove all  coal ash to a permitted disposal facility off-site; or 3. remove  all coal  ash for use in structural fill or another beneficial reuse. Conversion to an industrial landfill would require temporary removal and then replacement of the CCRs after bringing the disposal facility up to industrial landfill standards. Those standards generally require installation of a liner system, although  current state rules allow the owner/operator to request approval of a different design that would be equally protective of groundwater. The Senate bill goes beyond existing industrial landfill standards in one way; an industrial landfill created on an impoundment site would require a 300-foot setback from surface waters as compared to the 200-foot setback required for other industrial landfills. The bill also requires high and intermediate risk sites to meet the same closure and post-closure requirements applied to municipal solid waste landfills. Those requirements include post-closure groundwater monitoring and financial assurance.

♦ Role of the Coal Ash Management Commission. The commission would have the final word on both prioritization for closure and approval of closure plans.  The bill  directs the commission to approve  a closure plan only if it finds that the plan meets the requirements of the law; is technologically feasible; “and that the benefits to the public health, safety, and welfare; the environment; and natural resources outweigh the negative impacts on electricity costs and reliability”. Under the last criteria, the commission could reject a closure plan based solely on the cost to the electric utility or impact on reliable power generation. Applying the criteria could be extremely complex and unlike the N.C. Utilities Commission, the new commission will have few resources to put toward cost analysis.  The bill does not require any commission member to have expertise on electric utility cost structures and only authorizes a  staff of four.

Preemption of local ordinances. Using language very similar to the preemption section in the most recent fracking legislation (Session Law 2014-4), the bill would limit the ability of local governments to regulate disposal of CCRs. Although local governments could potentially apply development regulations that apply uniformly to all types of development (such as setbacks and stormwater control standards), the Environmental Management Commission would have the authority to determine whether state law preempts a local ordinance regulation affecting coal ash disposal.

Next steps:  The  Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee did not vote on  the bill today. The committee  noticed another meeting for tomorrow at 11:00 and the bill will be back on the agenda for further discussion and possible amendment then. The bill could go to the Senate floor by the end of the week.

2014 Legislative Session Begins With Coal Ash

Today opened the 2014 “short” session of the N.C. General Assembly. The main purpose of the off-year short session is to make adjustments in the two-year budget adopted by the legislature in the first year of the biennium.  In addition to appropriation  and revenue bills, the legislature can  take up any bill that passed  one chamber of the legislature in 2013 and bills recommended by interim special committees or study committees.  

One of the first bills introduced in the short session turned out to be a coal ash bill.  Given concerns about environmental problems associated with coal ash impoundments in the state (described here  and here),  a bill had been expected. The bill  surprisingly turned out to be  identical to  Governor Pat McCrory’s  “Comprehensive Coal Ash Action Plan”. The governor’s legislative proposal  initially received a  chilly reception from lawmakers, but has  new life as Senate Bill 729  (“Governor’s Coal Ash Action Plan”).  An earlier post analyzing  the Governor’s proposal for coal ash legislation also describes Senate Bill 729.

The bill  sets aggressive timelines for assessment and remediation of groundwater contamination around the existing  coal ash ponds.  The bill also requires Duke Energy to take steps to find and eliminate unpermitted discharges from ash  impoundments to surface waters.

The bill does not set a hard date for transition away from wet disposal of coal ash, but directs the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to prioritize  existing coal ash impoundments for closure.  There is no deadline for completing  closure  of all 33 ash impoundments. The bill itself puts  four Duke Energy impoundment sites  at the top of the priority list for closure — Riverbend (located near Charlotte’s drinking water source);  the Asheville plant;  the Dan River plant; and  the Sutton plant near Wilmington. The Asheville site  has already been linked to contamination of a private drinking water well.  Groundwater contamination near the Sutton plant has required closure of several public water supply wells.

The bill identifies three methods for closing an ash impoundment  — capping the ash in place; removing the ash to an off-site disposal facility (such as a landfill); and  a hybrid approach that would involve consolidating the ash into a smaller footprint before installing an engineered cap. The bill provides only one  very broad standard for closure:  the closure method should result in restoration of contaminated groundwater to the  state groundwater standards to the extent  economically and technically feasible. There are no technical standards for the individual closure methods and no criteria  for selecting the appropriate closure method for an individual  site.

The bill  remains silent on standards for  future coal ash disposal, although it amends state law to classify coal ash removed from an impoundment as solid waste.  Presumably that means ash removed from an  impoundment during  closure  would have to be disposed of under the solid waste laws — most likely in a landfill. The option of using coal ash as structural fill on a construction site would still be available, although the bill puts a temporary “moratorium” on large scale structural fill sites. (Projects using less than 5,000 cubic yards of coal ash for fill would not be affected.)

The Senate had always been expected to  move first on coal ash legislation, but state House members have their own ideas about regulation of coal ash.  Senate Bill 729  just starts the   coal ash debate in the legislature.

The Governor’s Coal Ash Bill

On Wednesday, April 16, Governor Pat McCrory surprised everyone (including his fellow Republicans in the  state legislature) by releasing a draft bill on coal ash. The “Comprehensive Coal Ash Action Plan” has created a buzz  in the environmental community. Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) criticized the draft bill as bearing too close a resemblance to the now-abandoned DENR settlement with Duke Energy. Other environmental organizations have been less critical,  acknowledging  the bill makes steps in the right direction without quite delivering the comprehensive coal ash plan needed. Highlights below.

What the Bill Does:

♦ Clarifies state law to require immediate notice to DENR of any wastewater spill that reaches surface waters and shortens the time for public notice of a wastewater spill from 48 hours to 24 hours.

♦ Requires assessment of contamination at all of the  Duke Energy ash impoundments, setting timelines that could  result in completion of groundwater assessment and the beginning of remediation within one year after adoption of the bill.  The bill sets a hard  deadline of 45 days from the effective date of the law for  Duke to submit groundwater assessment plans to DENR for all 14 facilities.  Duke Energy would be required to  begin assessment  as soon as DENR approves the plans. The overall assessment/remediation timeline could slip, however; DENR would  have the discretion to extend the  time allowed for completion of the final assessment report and submission of a  proposed corrective action plan to address  groundwater  standard violations.  Once a corrective action plan has been approved, the bill sets another hard deadline of 30 days for  Duke  to begin implementing  the plan.

♦  Requires Duke  to map  all public and private water supply sources in an area within ½ mile of the compliance boundary around each ash impoundment within 60 days after the bill becomes law.    Based on the survey, DENR could require Duke Energy to  sample  any water supply source at risk of contamination. (Sampling may not be needed for water supplies upstream or up-gradient of the  ash impoundment.) The bill  does not put a timeline on completion of  any sampling required by DENR. The bill also requires Duke to provide an alternative water source if testing shows well  contamination exceeding groundwater standards.

♦ Requires Duke Energy to identify and eliminate unpermitted wastewater discharges from the ash impoundments.    Duke must submit topographic maps of engineered outfalls  draining the toe of the ash impoundments (“toe drains”) within 90 days after the bill becomes law  along with a schedule for water quality sampling of the outfall.    Similar maps  showing the location of seeps and drains that do not discharge to an engineered channel must be submitted within  180 days after the bill becomes law. The bill requires Duke Energy to eliminate any unpermitted discharges to surface waters within 120 days after receiving notice from DENR. The unpermitted discharge can be eliminated by stopping the discharge; routing it to a permitted outfall; using  best management practices (BMPs); or applying for an NPDES permit for the discharge.

Note: BMPs for operation of ash impoundments do not currently exist; the  bill actually directs Duke Energy to submit a set of best management practices designed to prevent unpermitted discharges from ash ponds to surface waters within 180 days after the bill becomes law. It also isn’t clear that BMPs can bring the ash impoundments into compliance with the Clean Water Act.  SELC  has said that EPA objected to similar language in the draft  consent agreement proposed by DENR to resolve enforcement actions related to the Asheville and River Bend ash impoundments.

♦  Creates a  process for identifying ash pond discharges that have reached surface waters and caused water quality standard violations. The bill requires  Duke Energy to develop a plan for upstream and downstream water quality sampling subject to DENR approval. The timeline in the bill (180 days to submit a plan – 30 days for DENR review – 180 days for Duke Energy to carry out  the  approved sampling plan) means the outcome of surface water sampling  may  not be known for up to a year after the bill becomes law.

♦ Requires Duke Energy to  develop an inspection plan  to identify new seeps and  submit the plan to DENR within 30 days after the bill becomes law.

♦ Sets new inspection standards for coal ash impoundments. The bill would require Duke Energy to inspect the impoundments weekly and after storms. It would also require Duke Energy to contract for annual inspection by an independent professional engineer.

♦ Puts a temporary “moratorium” on use of coal combustion products as structural fill. The “moratorium” has two significant exceptions — 1. use of the material as structural fill under an airport runway or road project built by a public entity;  and 2. use of up to 5,000 cubic yards as structural fill on any public or private construction site.  Since the bill  does not lead into any review of the current standards for using coal ash as structural fill,  the provision seems to function more as a cap on the size of structural fill projects than a moratorium.

♦ The bill requires DENR to “establish the priority for closure of all active and inactive investor-owned coal combustion products impoundments”. The language  appears to call for closure of all  impoundments in some unspecified order of priority. The bill  provides no guidance on how  DENR should set  priorities for closure  although a separate provision in the bill identifies  four specific facilities (Riverbend, Asheville, Sutton and Dan River) to be given first order of priority.  At a minimum,  legislation will need to identify factors  for DENR to consider  in prioritizing other sites for closure.

The bill  allows the alternatives of: 1.   “closure in place” (installing an engineered cover system over the coal ash on site); 2. “clean closure”   by removing  all ash from the site; 3. consolidation of  coal ash on the site, reducing the overall footprint of the waste disposal area before installing an engineered cover; and 4. other alternatives that may be equally effective in protecting water quality.  The bill sets only one standard for selection of the closure method:  the closure method must result in “restoration to the level of the groundwater standards will be obtained as is economically and technically feasible”. (Awkward phrasing, but it  seems to mean that  the closure method should allow contaminated groundwater to be restored to meet state groundwater standards to the extent that is economically and technically feasible.) The bill does not define “economically feasible” — something other environmental laws have found to be necessary in similar circumstances. It also sets no standards for implementation of the different closure methods –such as dewatering of  impoundments  that will be closed in place.

The bill requires a post-closure plan, including groundwater monitoring,  covering a period of at least 30 years.

♦ Sets detailed standards for “decommissioning” an ash impoundment under the state’s Dam Safety Act.

What the Bill Does Not Do:

♦ Set standards for future disposal of coal ash. The bill puts coal ash removed from ash impoundments under the state’s solid waste laws by amending a definition in the Solid Waste Act. The state’s solid waste laws do not allow disposal of solid waste in open impoundments and the bill as a whole implies a ban on future disposal of coal ash in open impoundments, but never expressly prohibits it.  A clear statement about future coal ash disposal  will be important.   Beyond that, the bill is silent on standards for landfill disposal of  coal ash. Current laws give the investor-owned utilities exceptions from a number of standards  that  apply to other industrial landfills — including significantly smaller setbacks from surface waters, wetlands and property lines. If those laws remain unchanged,  Duke Energy could create coal ash landfills  located 50 feet from surface waters.

♦ Modify structural fill standards. The  “temporary moratorium”  on use of structural fill really just limits the  amount  of coal ash that can be used as structural fill on a private construction project. Otherwise, the standards remain unchanged; structural fill sites do not require liners and have only minimal setbacks from surface waters, wells and property lines.

♦ Provide sufficient guiding standards for implementation. As noted above, the bill provides no standards for prioritizing closure of existing ash impoundments or for implementation of the different closure methods. The bill sets only a single, broad criteria for selection of the closure method.  More detail will be needed to make the bill workable.

Understanding the Court’s Coal Ash Order

Note: This post was updated to link to a different site for a copy of the judge’s order after the original source site became unavailable.

On March 6, 2014,  a  Superior Court judge issued an order reversing part of a 2012 declaratory ruling  by the N.C.  Environmental Management Commission (EMC) concerning regulation of coal ash ponds under state groundwater rules. The declaratory ruling case began in October of 2012 — before the Clean Water Act citizen suits of 2013 and the recent Dan River spill — as a request for an interpretation of state groundwater rules as applied to the coal ash ponds. The declaratory ruling request (filed on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, Sierra Club, and Western N.C. Alliance) asked the EMC to  rule on three issues:

1. Operators of coal ash  ponds with Clean Water Act discharge permits first issued on or before December 30, 1983 must take corrective action (such as assessment and remediation) when their activity causes a groundwater standard violation — even if the violation occurs inside the compliance boundary around the ash pond;

2. Operators of coal ash  ponds with Clean Water Act discharge permits first issued on or before December 30, 1983 must take immediate action to remove sources of contamination causing a groundwater standard violation; and

3. These same requirements apply to owners of coal ash ponds that are closed and inactive.

Two background notes. State  rules recognize the possibility that waste disposal may cause groundwater contamination.  The rules generally only require corrective action at a permitted waste disposal site  if the waste disposal activity has caused a groundwater standard violation beyond a defined compliance boundary.  Corrective action can include assessment of the extent of contamination, steps to contain or reduce ongoing contamination and groundwater remediation. Landfills built to modern (post-1983) solid waste management standards have a  groundwater compliance boundary  of  250 feet around the perimeter of the waste disposal area or the property  line, whichever is closer.   Older facilities (like the coal ash ponds) generally have a  500-foot groundwater compliance boundary. See a previous post for  more on groundwater compliance boundaries.

December 30, 1983  becomes significant because state rules treat waste disposal sites that first received Clean Water Act permits on or before that date as unpermitted facilities.  (More about the logic of that assumption as applied to ash ponds later.) The rules require a different response to groundwater contamination found at an unpermitted waste disposal  site  as opposed to a permitted facility — presumably because newer facilities  have been built to more environmentally protective standards.

Judge Ridgeway’s Decision. On the first issue, Judge Ridgeway  agreed with the EMC, concluding that state rules only require corrective action if the waste disposal activity causes a violation of groundwater standards beyond the compliance boundary  around the disposal site.  Exceedence of a groundwater standard within the compliance boundary does not require corrective action except in extraordinary circumstances.  Although consistent with past EMC and DENR interpretations,  Judge Ridgeway’s decision leans heavily on new groundwater legislation adopted as part of the Regulatory Reform Act of 2013. (See the  earlier post for  more on the 2013 legislation.) According to the judge’s order, all of the parties to the declaratory ruling case  agreed that the 2013 legislation mooted the compliance boundary issue.

On the other hand, Judge Ridgeway decided the second issue (concerning immediate removal of the source of groundwater contamination) in favor of the petitioners. The  judge  relied on state rules  treating waste disposal  facilities first permitted under the Clean Water Act on or before December 30, 1983 differently from those permitted later.    The rules  classify  older facilities   as  unpermitted  and  a groundwater standard violation at an unpermitted waste disposal site triggers a requirement to immediately remove the source(s) of contamination.    All of the coal ash ponds in the state  first received a Clean Water Act discharge permit before December 30, 1983.

Treating the ash ponds as unpermitted waste disposal  facilities  is  key to the  judge’s ruling  that  the utility companies must immediately remove the contamination source at any ash pond that has caused a groundwater standard violation beyond the compliance boundary.   Removal of the source of groundwater contamination associated with  a coal ash pond clearly has huge implications, since the  primary  source of contamination is the coal ash itself. Under the rules, a groundwater standard violation at a permitted waste disposal facility  may require corrective action, but not  necessarily  removal of  waste causing the contamination.

Judge Ridgeway disposed of the third issue by briefly noting that the laws  and  rules don’t distinguish between active and inactive waste disposal facilities.

Potential confusion.  Judge Ridgeway’s order seems to treat  coal ash ponds as permitted waste disposal sites in deciding the first issue  and as unpermitted waste disposal sites in deciding the  second. The 2013 legislation the judge relies on  to decide  the first issue  clearly  applies to waste disposal systems that require an individual permit under either  water quality or waste management laws. The  new statute language  limiting the EMC’s power to require corrective action  inside the compliance boundary  begins with these words: “When operation of a disposal system permitted under this section results in an exceedance of the groundwater quality standards…”

It seems clear that the 2013 legislation can only benefit operators of waste disposal facilities holding individual  water quality or waste management permits.  Having given  coal ash ponds the benefit of the new law on the first issue, the judge does not explain why the  coal ash ponds are treated as unpermitted waste disposal  facilities in deciding the second.  The judge relies on  state rules that predate the 2013 legislation to identify the kind of corrective required at the ash ponds even though  the new law  also addresses  corrective action —  without making any distinction based on the permitting history of the facility:

“(k) Where operation of a disposal system permitted under this section results in exceedances  of the groundwater quality standards at or beyond the compliance boundary established under subsection (i) of this section, exceedances shall be remedied through cleanup, recovery, containment, or other response as directed by the Commission.”

It is possible that Judge Ridgeway saw no conflict between the new law on corrective action and existing groundwater rules  on corrective action at  older facilities, but the decision does not explain how he reconciled the  two.

Permitted or unpermitted and  does it matter? There may well be an appeal of Judge Ridgeway’s  decision.  By assuming the coal ash ponds have a different permitting status for purposes of the two major issues in the case, the decision awards each side a win and a loss. It is conceivable that at least one party to the case would prefer two wins.

The permitted/unpermitted conflict  just emphasizes again the peculiar regulatory status of coal ash ponds. EMC rules treating pre-December 30, 1983 waste disposal sites as “unpermitted” makes perfect sense  in the context of truly unauthorized waste disposal sites or  older landfills that closed rather than meet new standards for  solid and hazardous waste disposal that went into effect in 1983.  It makes less sense as applied to coal ash ponds that largely fell under the jurisdiction of the Utilities Commission until 2009 and never had an  obligation to comply with solid and hazardous waste regulations.   In fact, the coal ash ponds continued to operate for decades after 1983  — subject only to Clean Water Act permits for discharges from the ponds — with the acquiescence of both state and federal policy makers.  That only began to change in 2009 after the TVA ash spill drew more attention to the risks.  Then,  the state somewhat increased environmental oversight for the ponds — but  failed to  enact comprehensive coal ash disposal legislation  much less demand  immediate closure of the ash ponds.

Since coal ash ponds  operated  outside of  most  environmental regulatory programs for  years,  existing laws and rules don’t fit either operation or closure of the ash ponds very well. As badly as the state needs a solution to the problems surrounding coal  ash ponds, Judge Ridgeway’s order in itself is not likely to be the answer.  A solution will require standards for coal ash disposal;  a process for safe closure of coal ash ponds;  priorities for closure;  and  assessment of environmental damage and ongoing risk at existing facilities. It’s going to require legislation.

The Dan River Coal Ash Spill and Environmental Policy

March 3, 2014.  The February 2 coal ash spill at Duke Energy’s Dan River steam station (see an earlier post for more on the spill) puts some recent and still pending environmental policy decisions in a  new light.

Preventing state environmental programs from adopting standards “more stringent than” federal standards.  In 2011, the General Assembly prohibited environmental agencies  from adopting a rule  “that imposes a more restrictive standard, limitation, or requirement than those imposed by federal law or rule, if a federal law or rule pertaining to the same subject matter has been adopted”. You can find the statute (G.S. 150B-19.3)  here.   The increasing evidence of water quality problems associated with coal ash  ponds may test those limits on state regulation —

♦  The question is whether  new state rules on  coal ash disposal or closure of existing coal ash ponds would be considered  “more stringent” than existing  federal rules.  Federal rules exempt  coal ash from regulation as a hazardous waste, but include ash as a “solid waste” and set minimum standards for solid waste landfills. On the other hand, coal ash ponds aren’t considered solid waste landfills so the solid waste rules don’t apply.  Federal  Clean Water Act rules  regulating  stormwater and wastewater discharges apply to the ponds, but nothing in the existing  federal rules requires  a coal ash pond to meet  construction standards  to minimize groundwater impacts or obligates  the utility company to move coal ash from a pond to a disposal facility with less environmental risk. Given that landscape — federal rules  address some, but not all,  concerns about coal ash disposal — can state environmental programs fill the gaps by imposing additional requirements without specific statutory authority?

♦ The exceptions in G.S. 150B-19.3 are inadequate to get ahead of an environmental  problem that poses a long-term risk, but  not a   “sudden, unforeseen” threat.  Few of the problems associated with coal ash ponds would be considered sudden or unforeseen. Both federal and state regulators have long known that  unlined ash ponds pose  some  risk of groundwater contamination. The massive spill at  TVA’s Kingston plant in 2008  focused attention on the possibility of  structural failure of a coal ash  impoundment.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  has been working on federal  coal ash disposal regulations off and on for over ten years because of these and other concerns. As obvious as the problems surrounding coal ash disposal have now become, the exceptions in G.S. 150B-19.3 don’t seem to give environmental agencies a way to address those problems through rulemaking.

♦  If state agencies  need  additional  statutory authority   to adopt  state rules that go beyond current federal regulation of coal ash disposal,  rulemaking could not begin until after the 2014 legislative session that  begins in mid-May.  Rule adoption often takes two years. The other alternative would be  for the General Assembly itself to set standards for coal ash disposal through legislation. Legislation can move much more quickly than rulemaking, but the last effort to enact state legislation on coal ash  failed due to opposition from the utility companies. See  this  post for more information on  earlier state legislation and  a link to the 2009 coal ash disposal bill.

Efforts to limit state review of engineered plans and drawings.  North Carolina’s professional engineers (PEs)   have lobbied for several years to limit state review of plans prepared  by  PEs and to constrain the ability of regulatory staff to require  changes to  engineering  plans. The most recent effort  led to language in the Regulatory Reform Act of 2013 (Session Law 2013-413)  requiring a study of state and local review of engineering plans. Section 58 of S.L. 2013-413  requires DENR, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services and local governments to study:

“(iii) the standard scope of review within each permit program, including whether… staff are requiring revisions that exceed statutory or rulemaking requirements when evaluating such permits or plans; [and]

(iv) opportunities to eliminate unnecessary or superfluous revisions that may have resulted in the past from review processes that exceeded requirements under law, and opportunities to otherwise streamline and improve the review process for applications and plans submitted for approval.”

The history and recent failure of the Dan River stormwater pipe reinforces the value of having a second, objective review of engineering plans and decisions.  The  early decision by utility company engineers (before state regulation) to expand the ash pond over a metal stormwater pipe and the apparent failure to plan for maintenance of the pipe likely contributed to the spill.   In the aftermath of the February spill, it became clear that current Duke Energy staff  did  not know how the stormwater pipe had been constructed — incorrectly  assuming that  the entire stormwater pipe was concrete.    Even in real time response to the Dan River spill, Duke Energy  and  DENR  engineering staff  sometimes reacted very differently to the same information. Duke Energy did a camera inspection of  a second, smaller stormwater pipe at the Dan River site to check its condition.  According to news reports,  Duke Energy staff  planned no immediate action based on the results of the camera inspection other than continued monitoring.  A state dam safety engineer who looked at the same video showing  leaks and pooling of water in the  pipe concluded that  the  second  pipe could also be discharging coal ash to the Dan River. Water quality testing  confirmed high levels of arsenic in discharges from the pipe and the dam safety program ordered Duke to close the second pipe within 10 days.  When an error carries potentially high risks or costs,  review of engineering plans and decisions can be critical — simply because  state and local environmental staff will look at the same situation through different eyes.

Note: The Study of Review of Engineering Work has been submitted to the legislature’s Environmental Review Commission and the General Assembly could consider legislation on state/local review of engineering plans in the upcoming legislative session.

Limiting DENR’s ability to order steps to contain groundwater contamination. The Regulatory Reform Act of 2013 also does two significant things to limit (or defer) steps to contain or cleanup groundwater contamination: 

♦ The law makes the property line  the presumed “compliance boundary” for groundwater contamination caused by a permitted waste disposal facility  (including  a  coal ash pond).  State rules allowed for some exceedence of groundwater standards near a waste disposal area, but generally put  the compliance boundary at 250 feet around the footprint of the facility or  at the property line whichever is closer.  Causing an exceedence of  groundwater standards beyond the compliance boundary violates the permit. The new law  presumes  groundwater contamination associated with a waste disposal facility  can be allowed to migrate to the property boundary — including any  adjoining  property in the same ownership. The law does not change existing compliance boundaries set by permit, but sends a strong message about future permit terms  and regulatory requirements. The change would potentially allow the owner of a waste disposal facility to contaminate a much greater area of groundwater without any obligation to remediate. Using the property line as the compliance boundary also leaves little safety margin to protect the groundwater rights of  nearby  property owners.

♦ The law  limits DENR’s ability to require the operator of a permitted waste disposal facility to take steps to remediate or contain groundwater contamination within the compliance boundary. The law ties DENR’s hands until the contamination has migrated beyond the compliance boundary unless DENR can show that:

(1)   The contamination has already caused a water quality violation in adjoining classified waters  or a violation “can be reasonably predicted to occur”;

(2)  The contamination poses an imminent threat to the environment, public health, or safety;

(3)  The contamination will cause a violation of any standard in groundwater occurring in the bedrock, including limestone aquifers, unless  the violation has no  potential to adversely affect a water supply well.

At the very least, DENR will have to meet a significant new burden before directing the owner of a waste disposal facility to take steps to prevent further migration of groundwater contamination.  It appears that clear evidence of groundwater contamination  moving  offsite — affecting another property owner’s groundwater  — will not be enough by itself to allow DENR to require steps to contain the contamination.  DENR  will have to  demonstrate that  groundwater standards will be violated. In the worst case, the horse will be well out of the barn before the state can act.

Coal Ash Problems Continued

February 9, 2014. An earlier post described  groundwater contamination and  potential surface water  pollution associated with coal ash impoundments in North Carolina.  Last week,  a Duke Energy  ash impoundment in Rockingham County released  an estimated  82,000 tons of  coal ash into the Dan River. The ash, in a slurry of  as much as 27 million gallons of water, leaked from a ruptured  stormwater pipe running under an ash impoundment at Duke’s now-closed Dan River Steam Station.  The spill  continued off and on for five  days  as Duke Energy worked to temporarily contain the spill and then permanently cap the  stormwater pipe.  Duke Energy workers finished installing and testing the permanent cap  yesterday.  Early reporting on the spill can be found in stories by  Charlotte Observer reporter Bruce Henderson here and here and by AP reporter Michael Biesecker here.

EPA staff  have been on site since early last week.  Although coal ash has not been classified as a hazardous waste, coal ash can contain a number of metals identified as hazardous substances in rules adopted by EPA under the Clean Water Act.  Under federal law, a  hazardous substance spill that exceeds thresholds set in federal rules must be reported immediately to EPA and to emergency response agencies.     (You can find the rule listing hazardous substances regulated under the Clean Water Act and the reporting threshold for each substance here.)  Although EPA must be notified immediately of a reportable spill, the person (or company) responsible can take up  to 24 hours to determine whether the spill  meets the reporting threshold.

Under state law (G.S. 143-215.85),  anyone responsible for a hazardous substance spill  must “immediately notify the Department, or any of its agents or employees, of the nature, location and time of the discharge and of the measures which are being taken or are proposed to be taken to contain and remove the discharge.”  Both state and federal law also require immediate action to contain the spill, remove the hazardous substance and restore damage caused by the spill.

It is not yet clear how the spill  will affect water quality  and life in the Dan River.  The nonprofit Waterkeeper Alliance reported that water samples  taken by that organization  close  to the spill site  showed high levels of arsenic and other  metals. The Waterkeeper Alliance reported arsenic at levels capable of causing acute injury to fish and wildlife.  You can find the Waterkeeper Alliance test results here.  (Click on an individual sampling location in the box on the left-hand side of the page to pull up the test results for that sample.)  Note that results have been reported as milligrams/liter (mg/L) and have to be converted to micrograms/liter (ug/L) for direct comparison to DENR sampling results.

DENR posted its complete water quality test results late Friday;  you can find  the  DENR  lab report here.  Allowing for different sampling locations and units of measure,   DENR’s results are generally consistent with test results reported by the Waterkeeper Alliance.   A DENR water quality sample taken on  February 3, 2014 at Draper Landing  (about 2  miles downstream of the spill site) showed arsenic levels of 40 micrograms per liter —  four times the water quality standard of 10 micrograms/liter.  A sample taken on the same day further downstream (at the Virginia border) showed arsenic levels of 13 micrograms/liter.  DENR’s results  also show water quality standard violations in the Dan River for  copper, aluminum and iron.  By February 4, arsenic levels at Draper Landing had  dropped back below the water quality standard and levels at the Virginia border were at the water quality limit of 10 micrograms/liter.  Results for copper, aluminum and iron remained high.

Sampling immediately after a  spill only  provides a snapshot of water quality conditions and may  not reflect  long-term impacts to the river as metals  leach out of  coal ash settled on the river bottom.  A year after the TVA coal ash spill, Duke University scientists found extremely high levels of arsenic in pore water (the water in river-bottom sediment) in Tennessee’s Emory River. Although surface water testing showed arsenic levels in the Emory River dropped just  after the TVA spill,  the contaminated sediment became a source of ongoing arsenic loading to the river in low oxygen conditions.  (Source:  Bruce Henderson’s  report for the Charlotte Observer.)   It will also take more time to get an assessment of the damage caused to vegetation, fish and wildlife as a result of the physical presence of ash in the water and on the river bottom.

There have been  no reported  impacts to drinking water. The Danville, Virginia water system has an  intake in the river  downstream of the spill site, but  the  water treatment plant had been able to filter out the ash and  treated water continued to meet drinking water standards.

Some questions and concerns raised  by the spill:

Public notice of hazardous substance spills.   It doesn’t appear that either federal or state law requires the person (or company) responsible for a hazardous substance spill to notify the general public and that may be a gap  for the N.C. General Assembly  to fill.   After notifying state and federal officials, Duke Energy put out a press release about the Dan River spill just over 24 hours after detecting the release.  In the case of an immediate health and safety hazard, early notice would be better — although there  may  be  a trade-off  between early notice and the completeness and accuracy of information about the spill.

Conflicting water quality test results.  Conflicting  water quality test results  created a significant amount of confusion about the Dan River spill — and some degree of suspicion. Mid-week, Duke Energy  reported  that river water samples taken  downstream of the release  showed only trace amounts of  arsenic and other metals.  You can find the Duke Energy water quality testing plan and results here.   Note that Duke Energy reported  water quality test results  as  parts per billion (ppb)  — a unit that is essentially equivalent to the micrograms/liter (ug/L)  used  by  DENR.  (For purposes of comparing  results, assume 1 ppb =1 ug/L.) Duke Energy also provides  results for both unfiltered samples and filtered samples used to monitor treated drinking water quality.

Duke Energy’s instream results differ significantly from  results reported by the Waterkeeper Alliance and by DENR. In the end, the Waterkeeper Alliance results and the DENR results seem to be generally consistent with each other;  differences can most likely be attributed to  selection of sampling locations. The extreme divergence of Duke Energy’s water quality test results calls for some explanation.  Since state water quality  test results lagged behind by several days, the  Duke Energy  results became the basis for early public statements about  water quality impacts and that information proved to be unreliable. The inconsistent test results also suggest the public  would be better served  if  the person  responsible for a hazardous substance spill provided   water quality test results to the state’s water quality agency for confirmation  before releasing the information to the public.

Much of the water quality concern over the last week  focused on arsenic levels in the Dan River. Another metal found in coal ash, selenium, can damage fish populations and present a health risk to people who eat  the fish.  DENR’s February 7, 2014 lab results for the Dan River did not find excessive levels of selenium, reporting selenium at the lowest quantifiable level.    Preliminary lab results released by DENR on February 6, 2014 omitted the initial selenium results,  indicating those samples would be given additional analysis because of suspected “interference”.   The preliminary lab report did not explain the nature of  the interference  — which could mean another potential source of selenium in the Dan River or something related to the analytical process. Given conflicting data  and general confusion over  water quality test results from the Dan River spill, it would be helpful to have more explanation of the preliminary and final selenium results.

Delays in providing state water quality sampling results. DENR tested for  more potential contaminants than either Duke Energy or the Waterkeeper Alliance, but  that does not  completely explain why results only became available five full days following the spill.  Some analytical methods take longer than others, but it is important to  know  if inadequacies in the state water quality laboratory or other factors contributed to the delay. In this case, waiting five full business days for complete water quality test results probably didn’t cause  additional harm, but the next hazardous substance spill may be different.  The delay clearly did have one immediate result  — it left an information gap that was filled by what turned out to be inaccurate water quality information.

Lack of information about conditions in old coal ash impoundments.   Since  older coal ash ponds have been largely unregulated, state and federal environmental agencies have very limited information about the impoundments. The Dan River spill suggests that utility company managers don’t have all of the information needed to manage  environmental risk  at these facilities either. Duke Energy struggled to find and fix the cause of the spill in part because the company believed the leaking stormwater pipe had been constructed entirely of concrete.  Duke Energy employees could not find any damage to the end of the pipe and there was no obvious reason that a buried section of concrete pipe would have broken. It turned out that much of the buried pipe was actually constructed of metal rather than concrete, suggesting that corrosion caused the break.

The lack of accurate information on conditions at the Dan River Steam Station impoundment  suggests the need for a  joint Duke Energy/ DENR engineering review  of existing ash ponds –including  documentation of past construction, maintenance and expansion activities –to identify potentially high risk conditions.