Environmentalists charge Duke’s Cliffside permit is illegal

This morning, the Southern Environmental Law Center and 18 other environmental organizations from across the state issued a petition to the state Division of Air Quality, urging the agency to revoke or modify an air permit issued to Duke Energy for its new Cliffside facility.

In a letter to Keith Overcash, director of the division, the SELC charges that the permit, which was issued to Duke on Jan. 29, violates the Clean Air Act because it does not require Duke to use the best available controls for mercury emissions.

Following a federal Court of Appeals ruling on Feb. 8, all coal-fired power plants permitted after December 2000, such as Cliffside, must identify the most stringent mercury-control technology available and then meet that level of pollution control. The permit issued by DAQ would allow the Cliffside plant to emit mercury at a rate 10 times higher than the Clean Air Act allows, according to tthe SELC.

See the text of the SELC’s release on the matter below.

— Rebecca Bowe, contributing editor


Nineteen groups call on North Carolina to send Cliffside’s permit back to the drawing board

Permit violates recent federal court ruling and the federal Clean Air Act 

Raleigh– In light of a pivotal federal court ruling last month, 19 environmental groups are urging the North Carolina Division of Air Quality to reopen the air quality permit it finalized for Duke Energy’s proposed new unit at its Cliffside power plant earlier this year. The permit, which is based on state and federal regulations that have been invalidated by the court’s ruling, is illegal under the Clean Air Act because it fails to identify or require the most stringent pollution control standards for mercury. In a letter filed with DAQ today, the groups urged the state agency to reopen the Cliffside permit to evaluate the maximum achievable controls for mercury, and then either modify or revoke the permit based on that analysis.

“North Carolina has issued an illegal permit that violates the Clean Air Act and a federal court ruling,” said Gudrun Thompson, attorney with the non-profit Southern Environmental Law Center which submitted the letter to DAQ. “The Division of Air Quality must now go back and do its homework by first identifying the highest achievable level of control for this hazardous pollutant and then requiring Duke to implement it.”

The Southern Environmental Law Center was joined by Environment North Carolina, Environmental Defense, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, Sierra Club, North Carolina Chapter, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Cape Fear Riverkeeper, Catawba Riverkeeper, Lower Neuse Riverkeeper, New Riverkeeper, Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper, Watauga Riverkeeper, Waccamaw Riverkeeper, Yadkin Riverkeeper, and Cape Fear Coastkeeper in submitting the letter.

Following a federal Court of Appeals ruling in February, all coal-fired power plants permitted after December 2000, such as Cliffside, must identify the most stringent mercury control technology available and then meet that level of pollution control.  At an absolute minimum, new sources must meet the level of control achieved by the best performing existing “source,” or power plant. In comments filed with DAQ in October, environmental groups identified approximately two-dozen existing sources with tighter hazardous pollution control requirements than those required for Cliffside. However, DAQ’s final permit neither identified nor required such controls.  Instead, DAQ relied on now-invalidated state and federal regulations to control mercury.

“The federal court clearly confirmed what we told DAQ in October: that the Clean Air Act requires the most stringent mercury controls and that its plans for Cliffside were falling short. Now it’s time for DAQ to take its head out of the sand and realize that it must do more to control this hazardous pollutant before Cliffside can move forward,” said Thompson.

The permit issued by DAQ would allow the Cliffside plant to emit mercury at a rate 10 times higher than the Clean Air Act allows.

Additionally, the permit DAQ approved does not analyze, much less require, maximum pollution controls for 66 other hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants, such as hydrochloric acid, arsenic, dioxins, and other heavy metals.  Consequently, the Cliffside permit approved by DAQ does not meet the minimum Clean Air Act requirements for hazardous air pollution, endangering public health and North Carolina’s environment.

The February 8 federal court ruling resulted from a challenge brought by a coalition of 14 states, a dozen national environmental groups, a half-dozen Indian tribes, and four national organizations representing over 300,000 physicians, medical researchers, nurses, and public health advocates challenging EPA’s federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). The court ruled that in issuing CAMR, EPA illegally removed coal-fired power plants, like Cliffside, from the list of hazardous air pollution sources that are subject to the Clean Air Act’s most stringent air pollution controls. Though slightly stronger, North Carolina based its own mercury control regulations on EPA’s unlawful CAMR.


Thanks for reading through to the end…

We share your inclination to get the whole story. For the past 25 years, Xpress has been committed to in-depth, balanced reporting about the greater Asheville area. We want everyone to have access to our stories. That’s a big part of why we've never charged for the paper or put up a paywall.

We’re pretty sure that you know journalism faces big challenges these days. Advertising no longer pays the whole cost. Media outlets around the country are asking their readers to chip in. Xpress needs help, too. We hope you’ll consider signing up to be a member of Xpress. For as little as $5 a month — the cost of a craft beer or kombucha — you can help keep local journalism strong. It only takes a moment.

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.