Four coastal communities experiencing chronic erosion problems near inlets are developing studies to harden their shorelines based on a change of state law. But questions remain about how the recently passed law will be administered and how any damage from the hardened shoreline will be measured.

The N.C. General Assembly in 2011 approved a law, authorizing up to four small jetties, called terminal groins, along the coastline adjacent to tidal inlets, overturning the state’s decades old ban on hardened structures on the ocean. A terminal groin is a wall, usually made of rock,  that extends out toward the ocean and is designed to trap sand and prevent erosion. It is usually built perpendicular to the shoreline.

The decision to permit terminals groins follows years of lobbying by some beach communities facing severe erosion and the potential loss of property value if oceanfront houses are removed or taken by the sea. A 2010 study by the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission found that terminals groins in combination with beach re-nourishment could control erosion at the end of a barrier island.  Hardened structures had been illegal in North Carolina since 1985 because they can accelerate erosion problems on adjacent beaches.

Braxton Davis, director of the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, which oversees the CAMA permitting process, said it’s still unknown whether the Coastal Resources Commission will eventually develop administrative rules to guide the construction of terminal groins.The study said the erosional effects of terminal groins are the main concern, but they are variable. If it is built so that it disrupts the movement of sand, the groin can trigger increased erosion on beaches “downstream.” The study estimated that is would cost $3.5 million to $10 million to build a groin and to perform the necessary beach re-nourishment, depending on the length of the structure and building material.

“We have a process in place that can handle the whole permit process,” Davis said. “As we work through the first application, we may find things that it would be helpful to have rules to clarify.”

Communities seeking to build groins must commission an environmental impact study analyzing alternatives and showing the groin is the preferred alternative.  Among other things, the new law also requires that applicants monitor the groins and provide financial assurance that they have the money to repair any damage and to remove the structure if necessary.

Applicants must obtain a Coastal Area Management Act major permit from the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, a permit from the N.C. Division of Water Quality and a federal permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Figure Eight Project

To date, Figure Eight Island, a privately developed five-mile-long island in New Hanover County, has advanced the farthest in the planning process to build a terminal groin. Its purpose is to protect oceanfront houses threatened by erosion near the north end of the island at Rich Inlet.

Earlier this year, the Corps of Engineers released a draft environmental impact statement outlining alternatives including the construction of a 1,600-foot terminal groin along the southern shoulder of the inlet extending 700 feet into the ocean to protect two miles of eroding oceanfront. The design is intended to control shoreline erosion south of Rich Inlet and to protect property. Sandbags have been placed around 20 houses threatened by erosion near Rich Inlet. One house has since been relocated.

Sandbags protect oceanfront houses on Figure Eight Island.

The plan includes building a groin and placing sand along more than a mile of shoreline along the oceanfront and Rich Inlet. The estimated initial construction cost for the groin and beach re-nourishment is $5.9 million, according to the study. Ongoing replenishment of sand on the shoreline, using sand dredged from periodic maintenance of Nixon Channel, is estimated to cost $1.8 million every five years. This is the preferred alternative of the Figure Eight Homeowners’ Association.

The association has tried to shore up the eroding north end of the island with a total of 1.8 million cubic yards of sand since 1993. But their efforts have failed to stabilize the beach because of the high erosion rate in the area.

The Corps is receiving comments on the draft environmental study of the project until July 20.

Mike Giles, an advocate for the N.C. Coastal Federation, said a groin would pose a navigational hazard and affect access to public trust waters. “People who built near an inlet knew what they were getting into,” Giles said. “They rolled the dice.

Doug Huggett, manager of the Division of Coastal Management’s major permits section, said Figure Eight is the farthest along in the planning process and the earliest a terminal groin could be constructed would be the fall of 2013.

The law sets forth broad requirements as the basis for building terminal groins. Environmental groups including the federation have urged the Coastal Resources Commission to adopt specific rules to implement the law and to ensure its requirements are applied and enforced consistently.

Are Rules Needed?

Geoff Gisler

Geoff Gisler, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the existing law doesn’t provide the level of detail necessary to clarify important considerations such as how to calculate when a terminal groin is causing negative effects to adjacent beaches and what financial guarantees would be required to pay for removal of the groin.

“When you are dealing with coastal geology, the legislature isn’t a good forum for working out details,” Gisler said. “The statute doesn’t provide a level of detail to clarify how an agency should evaluate permits and what the requirements in the statute should mean. There is ambiguity in what different things mean.”

But Huggett said the law provides enough guidance that the staff is not recommending at this point that the Coastal Resources Commission develop administrative rules.

“Our view is the legislation gives us a lot of guidance that a rule normally would,” Huggett said.

The law requires a community to provide financial assurances to cover the removal of a groin if it harms neighboring shorelines. But Huggett acknowledged that developing long-term monitoring processes to measure accurately whether a groin is causing accelerated erosion on downstream beaches posed a major challenge the staff would have to tackle.

Every one of the groin projects is going to have its own unique measurement criteria for determining beach erosion before and after the construction of a groin, Huggett said.

“It’s certainly one of the more difficult components of the law we’re going to have to deal with,” he said.

Huggett said the staff would bring issues to the CRC’s attention if they see scenarios with construction of terminal groins that do need rulemaking.

Other Groin Projects

In addition to Figure Eight Island, three other communities are in the early stages of seeking permits to build terminal groins.

Bald Head Island—An exclusive island near the mouth of the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County, Bald Head has applied to the Corps of Engineers to build a terminal groin at the western end of South Beach to address accelerating erosion.

A portion of South Beach on Bald Head Island has retreated by as much as 400 feet since 2000, despite the placement of 6 million cubic yards of sand to rebuild the beach. Sixteen temporary sand-filled tube structures have been in place since 1996 to try and stabilize the western end of South Beach.  Despite all that, a portion of South Beach continues to disappear. In 2011, Bald Head built 350 feet of sandbags near the last groin to protect nearby houses, roads and dunes.

The Corps held a meeting in March to get input on a draft environmental study of the project. The draft environmental study is expected to be published at the end of 2012, and a public hearing will then be held.

Holden Beach—Holden Beach has asked the Corps for authorization to install a terminal groin on the western side of Lockwood Folly Inlet and place more sand along the eastern end of Holden Beach, according to the Federal Register notice. The eastern end of Holden Beach has experienced severe erosion and the town has undertaken periodic beach re-nourishment.

The Corps held a public meeting in March to receive input on issues that should be addressed in the draft environmental study. The final location of the terminal groin is still to be determined. The study is evaluating two alternatives designs and locations. One alternative is a 1,600-foot rock structure located along the western shoulder of the inlet. The second alternative is a shorter 400- to 600-foot structure near the end of Ocean Boulevard East.

A draft version of the environmental study is expected to be published in early 2013 for public comment.

Ocean Isle Beach — In April, the town hired engineering consultants to do an environmental impact study of building a groin on the eastern end of Ocean Isle.

In a presentation to the town board, engineers with Coastal Planning and Engineering, a consulting group involved in several of the projects, said that construction of a terminal groin would extend the cycle for re-nourishing the beach from three years to six years, resulting in costs savings. They estimated that continuing erosion to the east end of the island over the next 20 years would result in damages costing approximately $12.6 million. The consultants estimated March 2016 for completion of the design, permitting and construction of a terminal groin.

First of two parts

RALEIGH — Fish caught in Eastern North Carolina have contained some of the highest levels of mercury in the nation. That poses a threat to people who eat them.

State environmental officials say the state needs to reduce mercury levels by 67 percent by 2016 to protect North Carolina’s waters from mercury contamination, make fish safe to eat and ultimately lift the fish consumption advisories.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin and reduction efforts are already underway. Unfortunately much of the mercury that contaminates the state’s rivers, lakes and coastal waters comes from power plants and sources in other states and even other countries, state officials say.

“It’s an issue that needs to be addressed,” said Kathy Stecker of the N.C. Division of Water Quality. “It’s a global problem. It’s not just a North Carolina problem. But that doesn’t mean we can’t start to work on it.”

The state currently lists all water bodies in the state as contaminated by mercury. The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources is drafting a plan to quantify sources of mercury such as power plants and sewage treatment plants and propose steps to reduce mercury in North Carolina waterways. Having such a plan will make it easier to press other states that contribute to North Carolina’s pollution problem to cut mercury pollution, officials say.

As part of the process, state officials are developing an estimate of the maximum daily amount of mercury that waters may absorb without contaminating fish and posing a threat to humans. It’s known as a total maximum daily load, or TMDL, and it sets a target for reducing mercury. A public meeting is scheduled Wednesday in New Bern on the plan.

Coast Most Affected

Mercury contamination varies greatly across the state. Mercury concentrations in fish tend to be higher in coastal North Carolina than in the mountains or piedmont areas of the state, according to environmental officials and researchers.

“We see in Eastern North Carolina some of the highest mercury levels in the nation,” said Derek Aday, an ecologist at N.C State University who has done research on mercury deposition and affected fish. “It’s really variable from water system to system.”

Aday said the eastern portion of the state tends to have swamps and peaty, acidic soils that promote the formation of methylmercury, the toxic form that can build up in the tissue of fish and wildlife.

People in coastal North Carolina are exposed to mercury primarily by eating fish that contain methylmercury, a neurotoxin and can damage developing fetuses. Statewide health advisories warn about limiting consumption or avoiding certain species of freshwater and ocean fish that commonly have high levels of mercury.

The advisories warn that women of childbearing age, pregnant women and nursing mothers should avoid eating certain types of fish known to be high in mercury. Other people should limit consumption of these types of fish to no more than one meal a week.

Fish species vary greatly in the amounts of mercury they contain. The amount of mercury in fish depends on what the fish eat and how long they live. As a rule of thumb, longer-lived and larger predator fish, which devour smaller fish, typically accumulate higher levels of mercury in their tissues. Among saltwater fish listed as high in mercury are cobia, grouper, gag, king mackerel, greater amberjack, orange roughy, Spanish mackerel, shark, swordfish and albacore tuna.

Fish With High Levels

In recently published research, Aday and colleagues tested mercury levels in six commonly consumed fish caught by commercial and recreational fishermen in North Carolina. They found that king mackerel had the highest mercury concentrations. Grouper and wahoo also had high levels, while mahi mahi and triggerfish had the lowest levels.

Tests also have revealed high levels of mercury in freshwater fish such as black crappie caught east of Interstate 95 and in blackfish, catfish, chain pickerel and yellow fish caught east of Interstate 85, according to N.C. Department of Health and Human Services.

While largemouth bass caught throughout North Carolina have shown high levels of mercury, most of the high mercury concentrations occur in the eastern part of the state in the Cape Fear, Pasquotank, Lumber and Tar-Pamlico river basins. The highest mercury concentrations have been found in largemouth bass in the Lumber River basin.

If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approves the state’s mercury reduction plan, it could affect private industries that operate their own wastewater treatment plants —some of which have high levels of mercury in treated wastewater. They would be required to develop plans to minimize the discharge of mercury. But wastewater plants represent only about 2 percent of the overall mercury released in the state.

“There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding that we are only targeting wastewater plants,” Stecker said. “The reduction we are looking for is the same reduction as from the other source we identify. We are not asking them to get any more of a reduction than their fair share. “

Coal Burning and Mercury

Most of the mercury getting into the water and fish comes from airborne emissions. When power plants burn coal to generate electricity, the combustion releases mercury into the air. Coal-burning power plants are the largest source of mercury in the United States, according to the EPA. They account for more than half of mercury emissions.

Mercury in the air eventually settles into bodies of water or on land, where rain can wash it into the water. Microorganisms in the soil convert the mercury into methylmercury, a toxic form that builds up in fish and shellfish.

According to the state, power plants, steel mills and incinerators spewed approximately 5,300 pounds of mercury into the air in North Carolina in 2002, a year used as a baseline for measuring mercury. Two-thirds of the mercury came from coal-burning power plants operated by Duke Energy and Progress Energy.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of man-made mercury in the United States.

Since then, mercury emissions have dropped dramatically, according to the state. In 2002, state lawmakers approved a significant environmental bill known as the Clean Smokestack Act, which required utilities to make significant reductions in certain air pollutants by 2016. The scrubbing of certain pollutants from smokestack emissions at larger power plants had the added benefits of reducing mercury releases. Mercury emissions from power plants dropped from 3,500 pounds a year in 2002 to 963 pounds in 2010, according to state data. By 2016, mercury emissions from power plants are projected to drop by 72 percent.

Tom Mather, a spokesman for the N.C. Division of Air Quality, said the state anticipates additional reductions in mercury from the closure of some smaller coal burning plants and tighter federal regulations on industrial boilers. Mather said state computer estimates that only 16 percent of the mercury in the state comes from power plants and factories within the state. Most of the airborne mercury wafts into the state on wind currents blown from other states and even other countries.

“We’ve done a lot to reduce mercury emissions in North Carolina, and we expect further reductions,” Mather said. “But there is only so much we can do here if only 16 percent of our mercury is coming from sources within North Carolina.”

The Division of Air Quality has drawn up a list of options for achieving additional cuts in mercury air emissions. They include:

• Filing a legal petition to seek reductions in mercury emission from utilities outside North Carolina
• Setting a cap on statewide mercury emissions
• Reviewing industrial facilities’ pollution control technologies that would increase mercury emissions on a case-by-case basis

Tuesday: The role of the ecosystem’s smallest creatures

Last of two parts

RALEIGH — A group of 85 doctors and medical professionals recently wrote Gov. Beverly Perdue expressing alarm that state lawmakers were considering weakening or dismantling the state’s air toxics program.

“Now is not the time to weaken North Carolina’s air toxics program,” said, Dr. Lawrence Raymond, chair of the Medical Advocates for Healthy Air. “Having more toxic pollutants in the air we breathe will only diminish our state’s appeal and will certainly decrease public healthy, especially for children, seniors and those with medical conditions.”

Dr. Lawrence Raymond

Republican legislators in the GOP-controlled N.C. General Assembly are considering changes to the state’s 20-year-old program that would exempt North Carolina’s largest polluters of dangerous airborne chemicals from meeting state standards that are meant to protect people’s health.

If the legislative majority’s “reckless attack” on the air toxics program is successful, the doctors wrote, the changes will be paid for by personal health tragedies and medical expenses by many families in North Carolina. Exposure to air toxins is linked to cancer, pediatric respiratory disease, adult respiratory and cardiac disease and premature death. Children, pregnant women and seniors are most at risk of harm from industrial emissions.

Legislators promoting the changes note that industries that discharge toxic chemicals into the air would still have to meet federal standards. The state program, they argue, duplicates federal law and forces unnecessary expenses on industries in North Carolina. Some of the state’s largest industries and business organizations have been pushing legislators to abolish or greatly modify the state program.

State vs. Federal

But as the doctors pointed out in their letter the state air toxics rules are distinctly different than the technology-based federal programs. Federal air pollution standards focus on improving technology controls while state standards are based on protecting community health.

Federal rules, adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, establish technology controls on an industry-by-industry basis. Regulators determine the pollutants of concern from a given industry. They then decide the most effective air pollution technology to reduce the emissions. The regulations require industries to install pollution controls to achieve an established reduction in air pollutants.

Once the federal pollution controls standards are in place for an industry sector, the federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review the effectiveness of the standards every eight years and to conduct residual risk of toxic air emissions posed by an industry.  But EPA is woefully behind in doing the residual risk analysis, state air officials say.

And federal standards do not necessarily cover all sources of emissions from a plant. Federal rules do not require, as the state program does, computer analysis of emissions of an air pollutant and concentration levels at a manufacturer’s property line.

For example, with pulp and paper mills, the federal air pollution rules do not cover 11 compounds such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan. The state does because they are considered a local health threat.

The state air toxics rules also require a facility-wide evaluation and estimation of the concentration of pollutants at the property boundary.

Typically, a plant expansion or addition of new production line will trigger a state requirement that a company do computer modeling to show the emissions will not be harmful to the surrounding community. Some plants must re-analyze their emissions several times within a year if they are constantly adding new production lines that increase emissions, state air officials said. If the analysis shows a plant is exceeding the fence-line concentrations for a given pollutant, the company has to change the design of the plant or eliminate the use of a toxic chemical used in a production process.

“We are often asked to quantify the specific benefits of the air toxics program,” said Mike Abraczinskas, deputy director of the N.C. Division of Air Quality, who acknowledged that it’s difficult to list. “By the time we get an application, they usually have figured it out.”

State Air Quality officials say the state and federal air regulatory programs are complimentary rather than redundant. The state applies standards that weigh health risks to the community, based on scientific studies of a particular chemical.

“It fills a gap where the federal program leaves off,” Abraczinskas said. ‘We have the authority in existing rules that allows us to address unacceptable risks from air toxics.”

As a result of federal and state air regulations, toxic air emissions in North Carolina have steadily declined from more than 120 million pounds a year in 2000 to less than 40 million pounds in 2010, according to EPA data. Electric utilities remain the biggest contributors of air emissions in North Carolina, contributing 40 percent of pollution. Paper mills, such as the Domtar paper mill in Plymouth, contribute 22 percent and chemical manufacturers 13 percent. They are among the industries that are advocating scaling back the state air toxics program.

Born Out of Crisis

North Carolina’s air toxics program had its roots in the environmental concerns of the late 1980s. At the time, many residents of North Carolina were increasingly alarmed about the harmful effects of air pollutants on health. Two projects were feeding their concerns.

ThermalKEM was trying to find a county in North Carolina to accept a large commercial hazardous waste incinerator to dispose of waste from southeastern states. The siting process generated a lot of public anxiety.

Meanwhile, a commercial incinerator in Caldwell County burning waste paints and lacquers from furniture manufacturers was generating one worrisome headline after another. Federal health investigators declared that the Caldwell Systems’ activities posed a public health hazard to workers and the incinerator created a potential health threat to area residents.

Amid these growing public concerns, there was no effective state or federal program regulating toxic air pollutants.

Women in Northampton County in 1991 protest the proposed ThermalKem incinerator. Photo: N.C. Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“We had very limited regulatory tools to deal with an emitter like that,” said Tom Mather, the public information officer for the state Air Quality Division. “EPA had been very slow to develop an air toxics program.”

Gov. Jim Martin and the N.C. General Assembly directed the state Department of Environmental and Natural Resources to develop an air toxics program. The rules adopted in 1990 initially focused on 84 pollutants with an additional 21 pollutants added the following year.

A number of states adopted air toxics programs during this period because the Environmental Protection Agency was behind schedule in adopting federal air toxics rules.

Today, the North Carolina Air Toxic Programs focuses on 97 toxic air pollutants. That includes 21 pollutants that are not covered by the federal air toxics program, including mercury vapors; hydrogen sulfide, a rotten-egg smelling toxic gas that is produced by paper mills and waste ponds; ammonia; and methyl mercaptan, a foul smelling gas produced by pulp mills.

The air toxic rules are developed by a panel of health scientists and toxicologists who study scientific studies about particular chemicals or compounds, then recommend concentrations limits that are safe for people living near the factories.

‘Director Calls’

An important provision of the state air toxics regulations allows the director of the Division of Air Quality to require that a manufacturer, utility or other source of toxic emissions submit computer estimates showing the concentrations of toxic air pollutants at the property are safe.

State air quality regulators issued a series of these “director calls” from 2007 to 2009 after reviewing toxic emissions generated by industrial boilers at 590 facilities statewide. The state’s analysis showed that the industrial boilers at 18 facilities were exceeding state standards for certain toxic pollutants. The air quality director issued directives to the boiler operators requiring them to modify their facilities to comply. Most were able to show compliance by accepting production limits or changing the fuels they were using.

Under the proposed changes to the air toxic rules, the division director would still have the power to issue a director’s call. But if the agency exercises that authority and requires a facility to submit air permit application and make modifications to comply, the division must inform the chairs of the legislature’s Environmental Review Commission of the circumstances surrounding the directive and provide a copy of the written finding.

Weakening of the state’s air toxics program would disproportionately affect Eastern North Carolina because of the presence of a number of the state’s largest producers of air toxics.

Ironically, exempting many types of industries from state air toxics standards also could make it more difficult for prospective industries wishing to locate in a community. A state air permit states that emissions levels are safe to the community beyond the property line.

“That’s an assurance an industry can provide the public,” said Mather. “Without an air toxics program, they are not going to have that to fall back on.”

First of two parts

RALEIGH — Four of the state’s five largest producers of toxic air pollutants are in Eastern North Carolina. Each year, they emit millions of pounds of chemicals that can make people sick or even kill them.

The state has a program designed to control those emissions and protect people’s health.

But North Carolina’s air toxics program now appears at risk.

Some of the state’s largest companies and business and industrial organizations have lobbied Republican lawmakers, who hold a majority in the N.C. General Assembly, to abolish or modify the state program. A bill to kill the program was introduced in the waning days of the legislature last year, but was hurriedly withdrawn after public protest.

Republican legislators now want to scale the program back to remove what they say are overlapping federal and state environmental requirements that cost businesses time and money.

The legislature’s Environmental Review Commission will discuss the proposed changes when it meets Thursday in Raleigh.  A bill to modify the program may be voted on during the legislative session starting in May.

PCS Phosphate in Aurora on the Pamlico River is the state’s largest discharger of toxic air chemicals. It emits more than 4.1 million pounds of toxic air pollutants a year, according to recent state data. The Progress Energy power plant in New Hanover County contributes 2 million pounds of pollutants. A DAK Americas plastics manufacturing plant near Wilmington generates 1.6 million pounds of pollutants, including acetic acid and hydrogen chloride.

PCS was among the five companies that asked the legislature last year to kill or modify the state program that regulates those emissions. The others were Duke Energy; Domtar Paper Co., which operates a pulp mill in Plymouth; Nucor Steel in Hertford; and Evergreen Packaging, which own a paper mill in Canton.

Toxic Risks

Pollutants from manufacturing plants, paper mills and power plants foul the air and waters of Eastern North Carolina and affect public health. People who breathe certain concentrations of air pollutants may be at higher risk of developing cancer and serious respiratory disease.

Mercury settles out in streams and builds up in the tissue of certain fish and can accumulate in humans who eat the fish. Babies born to women who consume fish with high mercury levels may grow up with development problems. The state warns people about eating certain types of fish caught in the Atlantic Ocean and in certain coastal rivers.

Scientists’ understanding of the effects of air pollutants has advanced in recent decades, but the range of health effects is still only partially understood. To safeguard public health, the state of North Carolina has an air toxics program that focuses on nearly 100 toxic air pollutants that are known or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health problems in humans. The program has been in place since 1990 when Jim Martin, a Republican, was governor. It borrows from the concept that good fences make good neighbors.

State Program

The program requires more than 780 manufacturers across North Carolina, from asphalt plants, to chemical manufacturers to papers mills and power companies, control emissions of toxic pollutants at their fence lines. The requirements are site specific.

Under the state program, each regulated manufacturer or power plant must show through computer estimates that by the time combustion gases and emissions waft to the property line, concentrations of any toxic pollutants are so low that people living or working nearby are not at risk.

Rep. Mitch Gillespie

Whenever the plants add new sources of emissions or increase production lines so as to generate more toxic pollutants, they may have to be new computer estimates showing the emissions will not harm the surrounding community beyond their fence line.

“I do think there are things we can do to make it easier for businesses to compete in a worldwide level playing field,” Rep. Mitch Gillespie, co-chairman of the legislature’s Environmental Review Commission, told lawmakers recently. Gillespie is leading the effort to overhaul the state air toxics rules.

Gillespie unveiled a proposal in late February to exempt many manufacturers and industries from the state standards that protect people from toxic air pollutants in the air they breathe. “Even though this bill is a page and a half, it has major implications,” Gillespie told lawmakers. “It may seem short and sweet, but it’s not.”

Industry Pushed Bill

The draft legislation pushed by a consortium of large manufacturers and industry would exempt many if not most of Eastern North Carolina’s large polluters such as paper mills, chemical makers and power plants from complying with the state’s health-based air toxics regulations. Those utilities and manufacturers that are covered by federal air toxics standards would not have to comply with state regulations requiring computer modeling showing that emission levels are safe to the surrounding community.

If Gillespie is successful, Nucor, International Paper in Riegelwood, PCS Phosphate and Domtar Paper Co. would be largely exempt from the state program. Secondary sources of emissions at the plants not addressed by federal air toxics rules might still be covered by the state program. But state air regulators would have to determine that on a case-by-case basis.

At the direction of Republican legislative leaders, officials with the N.C. Division of Air Quality met with representatives of the manufacturers lobbying group, the furniture industry, the power companies and the N.C. Chamber and negotiated proposed changes to state environmental regulations during a series of meetings in recent months.

Gillespie presented the proposed legislation to the Environmental Review Committee as consensus legislation. It’s common for groups that are affected by regulations to offer input on changes to laws.  But typically, all the groups that have a stake in the outcome are invited to take part. But those who might have challenged the consensus, the environmental groups, were shut out of the negotiating process.

“That was my choice not to let them (environmental groups) be part of the original negotiations,” Gillespie told the committee.

“I’ll treat everyone the same from this point forward,” he said.

Preston Howard, president of the Manufacturers and Chemical Industry Council of North Carolina, told a legislative committee that dual regulations by state and federal agencies results in costly permitting delays and reduced the competitiveness of North Carolina industries. He said the group did not want to abolish the state program, but wished to see it overhauled.

Money Talks

Rep. Joe Hackney

Manufacturers and utilities wield influence with state lawmakers by virtue of contributions to legislators and political campaigns.

An analysis by Democracy North Carolina, a nonpartisan watch group, shows that 17 producers of air toxics and their trade groups, led by the Manufacturers and Chemical Industry Council of North Carolina and the N.C. Chamber, spent $5.2 million on state political donations and lobbying the General Assembly during 2009 and 2010. Their spending was more than 10 times the $481,000 spent by 11 major North Carolina environmental groups.

“This is something the manufacturers and utilities have wanted for years and years,” said Rep. Joe Hackney, the Democratic House minority leader and former speaker. “They sat in my speaker’s office and said they did a lot of modeling that was unnecessary.”

Hackney said environmental regulations addressing air and water are incremental in nature. They’re based on the premise that requiring polluters to spend money to reduce emissions will lead to reduced incidence of respiratory disease and other illnesses

A move in the opposite direction to ease the requirements of the North Carolina air toxics program should confront those advocating the idea with some uncomfortable questions.

“How many asthma cases with children do you find acceptable?” Hackney said. “How many deaths during the worst pollution days do you find acceptable?”

Hackney characterized the effort to accommodate manufacturers by rolling back by environmental regulations to compete with other states in the name of economic development as “a race to the bottom.”

The draft legislation directs the state Division of Air Quality to review the air toxics rules to determine if further changes can be made to reduce the regulatory burden on industries while protecting public health. State officials are supposed to provide the results of their review of air toxics rules in November.

Tuesday: Doctors oppose changes; State vs. federal program