Opinion ID: 2679944
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Air Emissions Standards

Text: [¶22] In reviewing a planning board’s decision, we defer to the board’s factual findings; “we do not substitute our own judgment for that of the Board,” and will vacate its judgment only “if no competent evidence exists in the record to support it.” Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc. v. Town of Fryeburg, 2009 ME 30, ¶ 33, 967 A.2d 702 (quotation marks omitted). “[T]he fact that the record before the 14 Board is inconsistent or could support a different decision does not render the decision wrong.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). However, “[t]he interpretation of a local ordinance is a question of law, and we review that determination de novo.” Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 22, ¶ 16, 868 A.2d 161; see also Isis Dev., LLC v. Town of Wells, 2003 ME 149, ¶ 3 n.4, 836 A.2d 1285 (stating that although we generally defer to a state agency’s technical expertise, “[w]e review interpretations of local zoning ordinances by local volunteer boards de novo”). [¶23] “In interpreting a statute or ordinance, we look first to the plain meaning of its language to give effect to the legislative intent, and if the meaning of the statute or ordinance is clear, we need not look beyond the words themselves.” Wister v. Town of Mount Desert, 2009 ME 66, ¶ 17, 974 A.2d 903. “Words [in the ordinance] must be given their plain and ordinary meaning and must not be construed to create absurd, inconsistent, unreasonable, or illogical results.” Bushey v. Town of China, 645 A.2d 615, 617-18 (Me. 1994) (quotation marks omitted). [¶24] The abutters argue that (1) the Board erred in relying on a study that based its evaluation on state and federal air quality standards; and (2) even if the evaluation was based on standards that were more stringent than state and federal requirements, the Board failed to make specific findings that the facility’s air emissions would not be “injurious” or “detrimental to the enjoyment” of 15 neighboring properties. See Berwick, Me., Land Use Ordinance § 7.1 (Nov. 2, 2010). Section 7.1 of the Berwick Land Use Ordinance states: Emission of dust, dirt, fly ash, fumes, vapors or gases which could be injurious to humans, animals or vegetation, detrimental to the enjoyment of adjoining or nearby properties or which could soil or stain persons or property, at any point beyond the lot line of the commercial or industrial establishment creating that emission, shall not be permitted. Any air emissions must meet all applicable state and federal statutes. [¶25] The plain language of section 7.1 of the Berwick Land Use Ordinance sets out a fixed test that prohibits three types of emissions: (1) “injurious” emissions, (2) emissions “detrimental to the enjoyment of” neighboring properties, and (3) emissions that “could soil or stain persons or property.” In its 2012 judgment, the court determined that “[i]f compliance with state and federal statutes were sufficient[,] then the ordinance would have consisted solely of the second sentence.” The court concluded that the Berwick ordinance must therefore be more stringent than state and federal statutes. [¶26] However, even if the ordinance does restrict more emissions than state and federal laws, in the matter before us, the Board addressed those standards and made findings, supported by the record, that the proposal met the ordinance standards. [¶27] The air emissions study that Berwick Iron provided to the Board stated that the Board could rely on compliance with the Clean Air Act as evidence 16 that the project complied with the ordinance because the national ambient air quality standards regulate the same types of emissions as those described in Section 7.1 of the ordinance.4 In the Clean Air Act, Congress authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish the national ambient air quality standards, which “in the judgment of the Administrator, . . . are requisite to protect the public health,” and “to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 7409(b) (West, Westlaw through P.L. 113-49). The Clean Air Act defines “welfare” as follows: All language referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being, whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination with other air pollutants. 42 U.S.C.A. § 7602(h) (West, Westlaw through P.L. 113-49) (emphasis added). Emissions that “could be . . . detrimental to the enjoyment of” neighboring properties, Berwick, Me., Land Use Ordinance § 7.1, are very similar to those that may have “effects on . . . personal comfort and well-being,” 42 U.S.C.A. 4 Although section 7.1 of the ordinance refers to both state and federal statutes, in 2011, the Legislature repealed the Maine ambient air quality standards and amended the statute to provide that Maine’s ambient air quality standards are equivalent to the national ambient air quality standards. See P.L. 2011, ch. 206, § 19 (codified at 38 M.R.S. § 584-A (2012)). See also 42 U.S.C.A. § 7409 (West, Westlaw through P.L. 113-49) (providing for the establishment of the national ambient air quality standards); Berwick, Me., Land Use Ordinance § 7.1 (Nov. 2, 2010). 17 § 7602(h). Similarly, those emissions that “could soil or stain persons or property,” Berwick, Me., Land Use Ordinance § 7.1, are analogous to those emissions that have “effects on economic values,” 42 U.S.C. § 7602(h). Thus, the Board did not err in relying on compliance with the national ambient air quality standards to support its conclusion, in part, that the facility would comply with section 7.1 of the Berwick ordinance. [¶28] Although the Berwick Land Use Ordinance restricts the same types of emissions as those regulated by federal law, the ordinance is more restrictive than state and federal statutes in two ways. First, it has a broader scope. The Clean Air Act requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate those emissions that “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 7408(a)(1)(A) (West, Westlaw through P.L. 113-49). In exercising this administrative discretion, the Environmental Protection Agency has enacted detailed regulations of sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and lead, among many others. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 50.4-50.18 (West, Westlaw through Nov. 27, 2013). In contrast, the ordinance is not limited but applies to all air emissions. See Berwick, Me., Land Use Ordinance § 7.1. Second, the ordinance is more restrictive because it is fixed. If the federal standards and applicable state standards are relaxed in the future to permit the three types of emissions described 18 in the Berwick ordinance, then section 7.1 of the ordinance imposes independent requirements that must be met in addition to the state and federal standards. [¶29] The Planning Board had sufficient evidence to conclude that Berwick Iron’s proposed project met the standard in section 7.1. First, Berwick Iron provided the Board with a copy of the air emissions license granted by the Department of Environmental Protection for the proposed metal shredder. The permit is evidence that, with regard to those sources regulated by federal law, the emissions would meet section 7.1. Second, the study provided by Berwick Iron provided a conservative analysis of the proposed emission levels in two ways: first, by assuming the facility would operate twenty-four hours per day and 365 days per year, and second, by employing more stringent state environmental standards that have been repealed. [¶30] In granting the air emissions license for this project, the Department of Environmental Protection noted that the only emissions addressed in the license were those from the diesel engine and from the water sprays released by the shredder. Both Berwick Iron’s expert and the Board’s independent peer reviewer agreed that in their professional judgment any emissions from other sources, including other parts of the shredder, the conveyor belt, movement of metals in sorting, storage, and separation, and road dust, would be minimal. As a result, Berwick Iron’s expert concluded, and the Board’s independent peer reviewer 19 agreed, that the proposed project would not emit any of the three types of emissions restricted in section 7.1. The Board concluded that, due to these additional considerations, the proposed project would meet the requirements of section 7.1 of the ordinance, and that conclusion is supported by ample competent evidence in the record. See Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc., 2009 ME 30, ¶ 33, 967 A.2d 702.