Good morning, looks like we've got enough folks here to get started, I appreciate everybody being here today this is an attempt to make sure that the public as a chance to comment on what's come over from the senate and thou we will be aware of concerns and support so appreciate you being here. I want to start by recognising our Sergent at Arms we've got Young Bay, Bill Morris, Jim Warren, Reggie Sills, Marvin Lee, Terry McCrawl, David Lighten and David Lenticam[sp?] did I say that right? I don't know. All right this is my lucky day. All right thanks and then Representative Pat McElraft is the original sponsor of this bill which was a one half page bill and came back 58 pages, I'll let her start topic. Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee and the public, a lot of public I just want to let you know, yes I had house bill 765 it was environmental amends bill, I would tell you that the senate was very gracious in order, they did ask me if they could use that bill to tag on our read reform that's already passed over here and their read reform, and I said I have no problem with that when we realize there were some issues with some of the parts of the new 765 we said this needs to have a public hearing, so that's what we decided to do is to have our members who are on the committee and other members who are here and not on the committee, and let the public have a chance for against this bill and I just would see Mr. Chair if its okay, if Jeff Hudson from staff would explain this bill. Yes Jaff thank you Mr. Chairman in the interest of time and to get to the public comments sooner the chair is asked rather than do a full staff to view takes about 45 minutes with this bill, for me to briefly just go over the general structure of the bill and what's in it if you will look at your bill summary, but some of them are laid out in parts, part one of the bill, administrative reforms is a sections from 1.1 through 1.8 these are largely amendments of the state to the most procedural act and other procedural laws, the next part two business is sections 2.1 through 2.3 these provisions deal with laws that regulates businesses in the state. Part three, state and local governments regulations, this is sections 3.1 through 3.13, these are largely dealing with the statutes that empower local governments to regulate and the final part which is the bulk of the bill for environmental and natural resources regulations, these run from sections 4.1 through the end of the bill which is 4.38 and there are 38 different sections and that makes up the remainder of the bill. I and my colleagues will be here through the meeting to help answer any questions but that's basically a quick overview of the bill. Mr Chairman? Yes. I would like to say that I'm not here today to defend this bill and I'm just here to ask most of our members are is to listen and I'm going to have to defend it when it goes to the conference because we're going to ask not to conquer and it will go into conference. I wanted you to know that I might be taking notes and that will help me understand the bill better, but thank you for being here and taking the time. Thank you, we have 31 speakers signed up already and it is limited to two minutes and when you come to the microphone please state your name and then speak quickly, you may get some questions from the committee members and if you'd like to sign up and you haven't yet please get with Sergeant at Arms, we may not have time for that because we take 31 and multiply by 2 minutes we probably don't have time for that, and you specify which section you're speaking on. I want [xx] the committee has any comments or if
you just want to listen to the what's going on? Representative Harger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what Representative [xx] has said already and think the general intent was to reasonably put the BR reg reform bill that came out of reg reform community but I am not sure I will find a lot of that in [xx] so maybe we can point that out or that is for that I am searching pretty hard for. I don't see pretty much in there. Representative Luke Thank you Mr. Chair, and thank you Representative [xx] for being able to pray a prayer. To your left. There you go thank you for being here, accept comment and also to Representative [xx] I really appreciate [xx] hearing because as I understand it on the senate's side this just came out real quick without public review really of it and I just want to say though to the chairs, I hope you'ill fight this vigorously, and to the point of insisting that certain sections in this bill particularly in section four be removed, and if the Senator will not agree to that then we just let this bill die for this session. I think that's extremely important look at the recycling issue for electronics, the six year old being used the ATVs is just a terrible bill, and I hope of you can't come up with alternatives to this that meet the needs of the state that you would just let it by for the long session, and I appreciate. There will be comments on those issues. Yes. Thank you Mr. Chair, and thanks Representative [xx], Representative [xx] comments and also being transparent about this, I'm mostly I'm going to reserve my comment make sure I'm not duplicating what the audience does not have a lot of problems with section four thank you. Pretty good, alright we will get started the first person to sign up is Casey Gavein with the [xx] club, wants to talk about the self audit. Good morning committee my name is Kasy Gaven[sp?] with North Carolina Chapter of the [xx], club I represent the club and our 60000 members and supporters the North Carolina thank you for the opportunity to speak today and we really appreciate that the house is taking a hard look at this bill and we appreciate you especially holding a public hearing today. The [xx] club is opposed to this bill based on concerns about a number of provision but I would like to highlight our concerns specifically with section 4.1 environmental self audit privilege and limited immunity that's on page 16, versions of this language have been proposed before then but failed to become law for good reason the self audit provision would do two things one create a new privilege for companies to keep internal environmental audit secret and two provide immunity from civil penalties and fine to companies that self report environmental violation. Their are two major flaws with this proposal, First the confidentiality provisions don't just keep information from the public they also prevent Dina from using information in the audit in certain circumstances second providing immunity from civil penalty remove the major disincentive for violations. There is a confidentiality provision and a self disclosure close your immunity could allow a company to use environmental audit to shield themselves from the consequences of long standing violations and to get responsible parties to clean up, providing a get out of jail free card like this would only make that much harder, for example we are told that Dina tried a policy from municipal waste water treatment violations a few years ago but the policy actually cause compliance rates to drop it turns out that both local governments and corporations take compliance more seriously if their is a price to be paid for non-compliance we want polluters to report when something goes wrong but they should be accountable when the public air and water are damaged. Failure to penalize violators isn't fair to all the responsible companies thye were kind to comply, thank you very much Thank you, any question from committee members? All right next speaker [xx] operator Joe Sulaman from New Hanover county Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of this committee I appreciate the opportunity to speak to speak to you today Say your name please My name is Joe Sulman, I'm the director of environmental management for New Hanover county, my department which numbers 30 personnel operate the Land Fill and Recycling Program and Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Recycling Program for the entire county, I'm specifically here to speak today in reference
to sections 4.2 A and 4.2 B and me about local impact to my department. Our department started in electronics waste collection recycling program three years ago, at the end of that first year we recycled 50, 000 pound electronic waste. We just ended this current fiscal year by recycling 600, 000 pounds of electronic waste, and it costs our residents nothing, the reason why this program is so popular with the in because we make an accessible, six days a week it could come out there and drop it of at no charge. This funding that's coming from manufacturers, is already passed on to consumers taking that funding away especially after we've already adapted out fiscal year budget for this year, will cause us to scramble to try to find the as to continue this program ages[sp?], all we are going to pass the course on to recent. We see in the past as we take the variable service [xx] way like that, things end up in [xx] at the end of single lane[sp?] lodge[sp?]. This will have a direct impact to us. to the tune of $275, 000 here. Thank you very much. Thank you, any question from [xx] members? [xx] Thank you Mr. [xx], thank you for coming. I think I was around when we had a stake hold process to develop the right return[sp?] recycling program, and I am [xx] not everybody had [xx] so this is a very curious provision to me, I'm just trying to figure out where the consequences are are you saying you will all operate [xx] you continue to operate at the cost of $700, 000, so you also anticipate like [xx]. [xx]. Yes mum, my intention is the director of the department to continue offering the services as it is without any reduction to services cause we realized that, when you start to divert that kind of tonnage away from land for disposal, and you're keeping those toxic heavy metals out of the landfall for [xx], which is very difficult to treat in any waste water treatment system, I need to provide that service to our citizens. We're going to find a way to do it, but it's going to be very difficult, it's going to require us to cut in other areas, and may require us some cuts to staffing, it may require us to increase our service fees to the consumer. Again this funding is coming from the consumer anyway, the cost is built in the cost of the electronic devices you're purchasing it, so the consumer are paying for it anyway. Now the burden is going to be placed back on the municipalities in the counties. So, while my county may choose to continue with this program, that quarter million $275, 000 annual cost may not be able to be worn by some counties that don't have a robust program such as we do. Thank you, I know Joe could talk for a long time we are going to move on, thank you gentleman. Allan Hudson with [xx]. Good morning, My name is Allan Hudson, I'm with the North Carolina charter to celebrate association with North America 400 members of our charter, members include both public and private sectors employees conducting solid waste recycling and disposal operation in counties and municipalities across the state, our charter opposes the repeal of the current electronic waste recycling program founded in section four of the bill our reasons include the following, the current program were lawfully underfunded by the manufacturers thus appeared to be working Local governments are spending millions of dollars to collect, sold, transport electronics to recycling markets over and above that provide about the manufacturers millions of pounds of waste are being diverted from land fields in North Carolina. In fact in fiscal year 2014, over 14 files and tonnes electronics were recycled. 63% of that was CRTs and televisions, that compares to fiscal year 09 before the current program became law, when only 4, 000 tonnes were recycled. Local government have already adopted their budgets for this year. They anticipate to receiving these funds is going to be hardships if they don't receive them. Contrary to same information that we've heard the value of materials and electronic choices not sufficient to cover the cost. While some products such as computers do have a value. CRTs and televisions are very expensive to recycle. While house bill 765 proposes to end the manufacturers contributions to the cost of the program, the ban on these materials remains in effect. Unlike paper card board glass which are not banned from land fills. The mandate on local governments to continue the programs is still there. The cost is not being minimized only the supplemental funding is being eliminated. The reclying industry in North Carolina provides over 17, 000 private sector jobs and over 700 private businesses.
Again our chapter opposes the repeatal of the program but we do support the language that was in house bill 576 and senate bill 453 directing the dinner conducts the study of the existing program and reported funding to the ERC. We believe those engaged in the program across the State can provide important contributions to improve the program and at the same time make it affordable for manufacturers of all sizes and times. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much any questions? Representative Harrison. Briefly, thank you Mr. Chairman, can you tell us how many jobs some electronc recycling career in North Carolina? I don't have numbers for electronics individual the recycling industry in total across the state is about 17, 000 jobs that's according to a study that Dinah did couple years ago representative [xx] Thank you. How do you determine how much money each county gets from this program? Done on for capital bases, the total amount collected is divided out on per capita basis across all 100 counties Follow up? It's an advantage to have program in your county but not telling anyone. I'm not sure I understood. You collect the money actually doing the waste. I believe that you only get money if you showed that you spent the money and you get reimbursed I believe that's correct. Also the television manual pay the recycles direct, for their share of the recycling program. Thank you, alright, our next speaker is a [xx] deal with DHHS Thank you sir, Nancy Deal branch had on site water protection division public health speaking on sections 4.14 page 33 we recognize many comments we conveyed on H760 were incorporated into H765. Of those remaining the most critical are first non expiring permits are risky particularly detailed plats are not required. Infrastructure placed on adjacent sites may result in unbuildable lots and tort claims. Second, we will not oppose privatization but suggest seeking input from the full range of the stakeholders to ensure successful implementation. Our third point is that we've acknowledged our unwieldy process for approving new technologies and we've enlisted our stakeholders in March to revise patent rules cooperatively. In fact, we began revision of the full set of onsite waste water rules last fall and this draft is ready to distribute to public and private sector folks for review and comment. By next June we and the commission of Public health are directed to conduct studies, generate reports, write rules and develop guidance for sections of H765. Within this same a time frame we could instead present a fully vetted complete set of rules to the review commission. This could incorporate provisions of H7-65 as appropriate based on stakeholder engagement. Our drafts aims to streamline and even expand permitting options and to still protect public health and ensure superior customer service. We thank you for your attention, and request that you endorse a long overdue complete revision that affects fully 50% of your collective constituency. Additional details is in our official response and I'm ready to take questions. Thank you, any questions? Representative Millers. Thank you Mr. Chairman, in line with this and I'm not speaking for or against the provisions here but this is a matter that has come up and I just wanted to see if there's any discrepancy regarding the onsite waste water provisions under the department of health per view, if any of this systems were to fail whether conventional or alternative is the department liable for this failure and if so or if not is the department responsible for any clean up or any of those failures? So if I understand your question you're asking if the department is responsible for malfunctioning systems is that correct? Mr Chair Follow up. I'm asking two questions the first is that is the actual department responsible if one of the systems were to fail in terms of liability, and also if so would they act in terms of the clean up. Just trying to see where the roles fall existing and also to just to have the understanding of what this
aspects that we currently have in 765 that's being proposed here considering alternative or innovative systems. So is the department liable and is the department responsible for clean up if one of this waste water systems were to fail? If the system were incorrectly permitted in other words if they didn't not meet to rules and malfunction occurs there is a chance that the department would be the state would be liable tot hat yes, but that is if the permit were incorrectly issued. I'm sorry did I answer your question? Mr Chair you certainly did so it's my understanding that your department permits one of this onsite waste water systems incorrectly what you are saying is you are liable and you guys would financially clean up all waste water system, is that what I've heard? Legal arguments and decisions are to two data facts [xx] claims and that is on the basis of an incorrectly issued permits that's correct Alright one more. Thank you so much for that clarification. Do you know of any on site waste water systems that you guys have been found liable on and whether you guys have actually moved to clean those up as regard of that? Yes sir, we have been directed to bear the financial burden of placing systems in certain cases yes and not always, well yes Sir. Thank you alright. Next speaker David Col. Barker with the North Carolina Board of Nursing, Good Morning, my name is David Col. Barker I am Director of Public Information with the North Carolina Board of Nursing and thank you for having me here today. Up to 12 years of working with the Legislature I realized that on occasion legislative language can have unintended consequences, if we look at section Section 1.5 it has a reference to occupational licensing board investigators. As a point of reference the Board of Nursing has more than a half dozen investigators, all of whom, one of are licensed nurses and currently non otherwise are employed in the same profession and so. However the section 1.5 if passed as worded would change 93B to seemingly make it unlawful for the board of nursing to hire an outside consultant who also is a license nurse. To help us review a case, I would suggest that if needs to be corrected, finally on a more personal note, we have an employee who's been with us for 18 years, started as a secretary, worked up as an investigator and recently became a licence nurse and this language will bore her from practicing one weekend a month, if the current language in this bill prevents, is designed to prevent conflict of interest or favortism I suggests that it could be changed to reflect that, no occupation licensing board shall assign a case to an investigator who is currently employed by or under contract to an entity or an individual, thank you very much. Thank you, any questions? Hi good next speaker Jim Thompson profession engineer Thank you for letting me to come to speak today I want to speak on section What is your name please? Jim Thompson with weather in mnl have 14 years of experience in the water and waste water industry, license professional engineer have previously been licensed as original contractor, and also previously licensed as a water systems operator speaking on section 3.9 which sticks to a material selection for water ways water and warm water projects keeps off for a while fileon this this is going at two minutes am going to start with the main point that is of concern to me and it is issue of sound engineering. The bill base it says that, All types of pipes should be considered unless sound engineering is used by a licensed professional engineer in North Carolina. My question is what is sound engineering? and how do I know where to stop when I'm considering different types of pipes for a project without exposing myself to litigation? For years, engineers in this State have been using ''sound engineering'' to decide these types of questions, and we don't just arbitrarily choose materials.
There's all sorts of considerations that go into selecting a type of pipe. There's the corrosivity of the soil, there's the corrosivity of the material in the pipe, there's serviceability, there's reliability, and this section really gives a perception to me that the legislature is meddling in the engineering of projects while this same Body dictates that engineers that are licensed by the State go through years of extensive and specific experience and education to attain the title to make those decisions, thank you. Thank you, any questions? Mr. Chairman, I'd just like this section identified. I didn't get which section that was in the bill. 3.9. Representative Brawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. OK, I understand you don't the language that's there, what should it say? If I were given an opportunity to write the bill I might say that at the offset it's unnecessary and we're already doing that, but if there is an alternative language to be proposed it's that the issue is dead once an engineer puts his seal on it, and I'm not going to be exposed to litigation and have to go back and prove to some court over and over that I went through all the necessary steps that may be a lay person thinks that I need to have done. Follow up. Yes alright, follow up. The language that you suggest, That once you seal it any question of the ability would be dead would completely shield you from all liability, would that be your intent? That's not true at all. If the project fails for some reason that I didn't consider, then I'm immediately exposed to liability. That's correct, and our next speaker will also talk on this issue, thank you. Jon Carr, North Carolina Rural Water Association. thank you Mr chairman. Members of the committee John Car attorney [xx] from north Carolina rural waters association our members are 95% of local community the water and waste water system in the state along with the professional engineers of north Carolina we oppose section 3.9 and Mr. Thomson is just referring to in addition that provision is opposed by the lead municipalities, county commissioners, Carolina association general contracts, american council engineering companies that Carolina concrete pipe and product association, national utility contractors association, the Carolina doctor iron pipe research association and the North Carolina utility Contractors Association. This bill is unnecessary in our opinion we do not have any solutions or alternative language, Representative Bradley, we believe that what engineers utility have been doing for decades and using their sound professional judgement, experience to determine the best pipe materials for the needs of an individual community has worked well and so north Carolina well with respect to the environment for litigation he mentioned manufacture or dealer can file suit to stop a project at any time for failure to consider all products. All products are required to be considered in every phase from development to the to the actual operation the facility itself such that a pipe when its in the water facility, the engineer will have to consider all acceptable forms of piping to player to repair that pipe regardless of the expenditures, the amount of the expenditures regardless of whether there's state funds involved or not this provision will lead to unnecessary increase in engineering cost and lawyer's fees to the detriment of the construction of water and waste water projects which our state needs. I'm glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, any questions? Yes, Representative Bradford. Hi Mr. Car, good morning? Good morning sir. So when I read this I think the spirit of this particular section is just ensuring technology changes all the time, I'm an engineer by degree. I don't practice it now but most certainly piping materials change. So you can have concrete that get lighter, you can get stronger, you can have polyolefins that are just as strong as concrete, and you have PVC materials, and I kind of took it as of this particular section sort of opened up the ability for a variety of materials that had engineering standards that were specked out by engineers to be considered. So are you saying that if an engineer specs out certain strengths required by the pipe but they designated it as concrete that are polyolefins products that's already been proven to have those same characteristics will not be allowed? I'm not sure I fully understand your question, I think that the point is that the bill requires any acceptable form of piping, and there are a number of products as you've mentioned and new products coming out all the time, there's PVC, there's concrete, there's iron, there's variations thereof, at what point does the engineer stop considering and start building?
That's my point, and I'm not sure I followed your question. I'm glad to speak with you. Follow up. Follow up. Yes, and we can take offline I guess, I believe competition is a great thing fair products out there that could meet the engineer's specs regardless of the material, I struggle to understand why that wouldn't be permissible RV type of situation. It would be permissible that's currently being done. The engineer and the utility in the community are determining what their needs are and proceeding accordingly, and they proceed presumably at the development phase although they may change their minds as they move through this, but as you proceed through the project again the bill talks about doing this type of assessment of acceptable products at the construction, development, financing, maintaining, rebuilding improving repairing, procuring or operating a waste water or storm water project. Again in less sound engineering practices dictate otherwise Thank you though there are three more speakers on this pipe issues I don't know about three or may be we got to speculate we are getting together but we got really Ruddy Underworld, Charles Law and and John Fishbone to any of you all to speak on this issue Good morning, Chairman, Captain, representative, micro-rep and members of the House Environment Committee, my name is John Fishpent, I'm a North Carolina registered professional engineer and I reside in Chorlet thank you for the opportunity to speak today on section 39, I refer to a summary of comment since supporter of the proposed, section that have been circulated I have 13 years of pipeline engineering and maintenance and field repair experience for shallow water a division city of Charlet, in 2013 I was recognized by the city of Charlet with three city managers for award for innovation in place and change in community outreach, I also volunteer as the chairman of the American Board of Work Association standards committee on polyethylene, pressure pipes and fittings a WWA standards committee a balance committee of technical experts that ensure material provide satisfactory performance in water works application, in my opinion section 39 opens up market place to competition by encourage performance based standards. When there is a project be laid all piping materials that need specification should be able to respond, the engineer will determine whether the project requires a pipe that can sit in a certain sort of condition or must be able to withstand a certain amount of pressure, the sole piping material itself should be irrelevant and it's the performance of the product that should determine whether that piping can be used. This legislation merely courtifies what the public already expects of its license professionals, public servants and public employees to be good steward of tax payer dollars, competition is vital to achieving that purpose. I'll be happy to take any question Any questions? Yes sir. Thank you, as you read the language in this bill, does some see it as allowing someone that's working on a project is on the ground to be able to substitute other materials? Yes. From personal experience with this is the engineer puts in a specific material into the drawing, it's got to be that exact material, a local distributor doesn't have it and it shuts and the project for a week the more are looking for that specific material when there's plenty of substitute of materials available. That is correct. That is one of several structural [xx] that we have to deal with in executing a process and it will eliviate some of that. Okay, Thank you. Does Ruddi or Charles want to speak? Mr. Chairman my name is Charles Laws and I am the Territory Manager for Silver Land Plastic a family owned business employing approximately 170 people at our production and administrative offices in Nashville I have been employed by Silver Land for 25 past years and during this term I have had the opportunity to research projects to the distributors that we met [xx] in Counties where certain products are required by local regulations RPBC expalliate in products cannot be considered even when they meet the specifications. When we go into a market
that allows our products then meet the specifications of this project all products become more competitively pressed. Thank you. Questions? all right it looks like you got one more pipe, Speaker. My name is Ruddy Anduward and I am with American Chemistry Council out of the Southern region, a whistle Section 3.9 as it relates to open competition for piping materials, here in the State of North Carolina we are, this is World largest chemical production state in the country, with $56 billion in product value manufactured here every year. Some of the big companies BSL do part Clarion, [xx] PPG and they make the materials that go into the products such as high performance pollymer materials that go into piping. There are several states that are considering similar legislation to this because what has been found is municipalities are sometimes specking one type of material in this case, and a lot of cases they stock to alarm. And so we think that the State of North Carolina should look at things like USDA Rural Development Program, which in the past five years has invested more than $9 billion in the State of North Carolina and 2014 alone they put 56 million in water and infrastructural requirements, infrastructure projects, and the USDA Rural Development Program requires the exact same provision for the use of their funds, and there are no instances of litigation of other legal consequences. The USDA procurement language references it goes like this, maximum open and free competition of procurement transaction regardless of whether by seal bid or negotiations and without regards to dollar value shall be conducted in a manner that provides maximum, open and free competition. Procurement procedures shall not restrict or eliminate competition and specify materials the owner and consultant will consider all the materials normally suitable for the projects and with sound engineering practices and project requirements. Thank you for allowing me to make the comments. Any questions, all right leaving along we are now on the simply take issue Doug Laseter, Mr. Secretary there's one with the microphone over there, that was a committee. My name is Doug Lassiter a lobbyist for the North Carolina septic tank association speaking on the on site wastewater amendments these were, especially the ones Mr. Chairman, what section is he referencing to? 4.14 Yeah, thank you, It should be found on page 33 the one you're looking at, there are two sections here, the first one beginning on 33 the house wastewater amendments and clarifications. The one that establishes the private option permit, and the criteria that would be established by the commission same as it does for the public sector, we're in strong support of this. This is a contingency issue that's all it is. Some counties do a worthy job of doing an internal review and getting a timely permit back to the developer some don't this establishes an option for those who can hire a private engineer using a license all scientist surveyer this also shifts all the liability away from the state and to the PE the section man the approval of on site waste water system, gives a clear indication of how to enter the market if you're a manufacturer of a product or a technology so we still have the same ability for the department to approve this system we just streamline a little bit everything else is in place. The things are basically as stringent as those found out [xx] we just give more options to streamline the regulatory procedures, thank you. Thank you any questions? All right we will move along to a Jay Staron with North Carolina Shell Fish Growers Association. Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you committee my name is Jay Star I'm here to speak more on section 4.19 on the coastal storm water run off protection. My wife Jennifer and
I own Carolina and [xx] culture we raise farm raised oysters and clamps in Cotton County, and I'd like to also thank the general summary this past winter and some of you maybe in that committee to help booster our oyster industry in North Carolina and help get it going again like it used to be in the early 1900. I feel compelled to speak about the storm water run off issues though, we've got great water in North Carolina right now and I would like to keep it that way because one key thing we have to remember is with shell fish quite a bit of that is eaten raw, straight out of the water. So, whatever goes into the water goes into our shell fish and we don't have to worry about contaterminte in the water any other issue biological or chemical either one and so, we take this regulatory reforms probably not in the best start by anything to do with the water, the creatures in the water, right now North Carolina imports over 70% of the shell fish eaten we have a huge market potential in North Carolina. We've got Great Border already, Virginia the reference date $64 million worth of shell fish last year North Carolina did $ 330, 000 worth so we've got a big gap to overcome, we've got great water to do it with and I just like to see that water maintained and I thank you for your support. Thank you, any questions? Rep. Pierce. Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you for making syrup. If I recall, the level of the [xx] that level used to be 24% and it was reduced to 12.5 in 2008 which level was that madam? Through storm water. I believe so. If I could follow up I just wondered if you've noticed any water quality improvements [xx] seven years that that lower density level has been in place? For our farm been particular we're actually so remote and so rural that has an effect on our farm but I know farmers that are more in the mouths of other rivers like the Neuse that have seen better water quality and one of the issues that concerns me more is also the setbacks. We need to maintain our setbacks from the edge of the water sources as much as possible because that's the only natural filtration we have left once the development house industry whatever gets put in place so I think that's one of the really major parts of this bill and reform also that needs to be maintained. Thank you, yes. Thank you Chairman the bill specifically protects the Class SA waters which I understand to be the shellfish growing areas. Is that not give you many relief. It would if water stayed where it was at, unfortunately water never stays where it's put and anything that happens in Raleigh had any watershed ends up on my farm eventually so I'm not looking at it just locally I'm looking at it state wide as an issue because at the saying goes, Everything flows down hill, and we're at the bottom of the hill so we want to make sure everybody above us is doing as much as they can to protect it. Representative McElraft. I just have a question, and actually a comment that you said just now about a lot of the pollution coming from other areas of Raleigh. Those areas have 24% impervious allowed and we only have 12.5 at the coast. Do you not think that that hurts people who have building lots there, and of course now we've lots that are almost unbuildable because we have such stringent rules at the coast? I guess on my point of view looking at just as a shellfish farmer it's a double edge sword. Looking at it as a developer on the other side, which I'm not, but can see the developer's point of a view. For me having as little unimpervious[sp?] surface as possible will be great and the more impervious so you could actually drain and do naturally as is supposed to. Where that bounces between development and protecting resources, I would always lean on protecting resources, so having the lease un-impervious surfaces is possible, in my mind would be best, or water management, retention power management, possibly. Follow up. Yeah, I just wanted to say, do you not think that we should be in line at the coast with the rest of this eight? Yes. Then she said the pollution is coming down. Well, the pollution that was a reference not necessary just as all coming from Raleigh but it all comes from other places. So yes, we do have local pollution happening as well but we're spread out
of the state and unfortunately everything that does happen up current of the coast comes down to the coast so we definitely can't stop at the coast with regulary reforms either for in protecting our resources Okay. Yes representative Meddles Just one quick question Yes Thank you and thank your for your presentation and like you I am definitely innovatitive in protecting water quality just want to ask question here for the record it is my understanding while we can debate the percentage impervious that is in this bill in regard to whatever outcomes it has, is the understanding of you that whatever percentage of impervious that it is in this coastal counties all actually captured and treated before discharge service orders while upstream as you are taking related which fall down to earth represent pendon on western angesdf[sp?] that there are a lot of these area that are any under any state board requirement so in requirement to your comments I want to make sure you are aware that whatever impervious we were talking about is actually being treated it is the state that has zero treatment regrading on percentage impervious I want to make sure they were plan to abandon it on the wood and not plan to abandon it where it where it doesn't need to be Right and I totally agree, and to be honest am not that well versed on the impervious versus un-impervious throughout the state. We definitely do need rules and regulation that do represent everybody equally as long as it is a good representation for what we need to do, but treated water unfortunately still has stuff in it. So I'm just saying let's not be so hung up on whether water is treated or not because even treated water coming out is not the highest quality we need probably, so yes definitely everybody should have the same standards across the state as long as they are high standards. Representative Insko. Oh thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in the potential for your industry to grow in North Carolina. You mentioned that we import 70% of our shellfish now? Yes Ma'am. Could you tell me how many employees you have? Right now my wife and I are doing this as a part time job to start out before I actually retire we have about 12 actual intensive shell fish growers in North Carolina that means they use cage methods or some kind of culturing methods. Not traditional oyster leases were like put out shell or whatever and wait for oysters to come along. We have actually about 200 leases in North Carolina. Virginia on the hand has over 200 actual intensive farms produce $64 million worth of product every year, and hire about 15 to 1800 individuals. That's just on the shell fish end then you have also the wholesalers, the dealers, distributors that's another section, equipment suppliers, is another section then it goes to the restaurant or bars. So as you can see it connects financially grow and effects the state in a huge way, and we have actual more water sources than Virginia does. Very good, one more question, Representative Adams. Yes thank you Mr. Chairman. The stuff you refer to in the water that affects the business that you're in, is the stuff do you consider it to be chemical-oriented or particular-oriented is The stuff that washes off roads, is it the stuff that is precipitated during rain storms? What is the nature of the stuff that you would refer to? Is it form agriculture or is it from industry? Unfortunately it's all the above. Everything chemical, biological. It could be chemical hydrocarbons washing off the road way, into the ditch making it out to the water, it could be agricultural run-off some type either fertilizer, some kind of animal waste, it could be segmentation from a development that comes in. Real fine silk comes into an area, plugs the bio-valves they can't filter feed, so it could be anything and everything unfortunately. Chairman Mackel [xx] County. I just like to say, I guess you know in our budget we've funding opening up more lease land, and any way that more investors can help and the state can help, develop this industry we're working on that now. Yes ma'am and we definitely appreciate it because I think North Carolina is sitting literally on a gold mine for this it could be the truly greenest industry North Carolina could have All right we have one more speaker thank you very much on the storm water issue and that's Mark Montgomery with the Coast Federation. Thank you Mr. Chairman my name
is Mark Montgomery and I live in Kure Beach North Carolina and I've lived there for 15 years and I had the great privilege for serving as major [xx] and the major of that time leaving office in 2010 I was very proud of that I also serve 24 years in the army I came to North Carolina state here after I retired I was dean of community college so public service to me is very important and I appreciate you all being part of it. I choose to live at the coast because it's beautiful it's place to raise a family and point to things that make it unique clean coastal waters we have and the productivity for the citizens and the productivity the entire state that water provides and Kure Beach during the time I was in office we demonstrated an innovative technique to combat one of the greatest to our coast and that's polluted storm water. Storm water is the largest source of non point pollution on the coast. To address it in conjunction with NC state Kure Beach implemented an innovation storm water treatment system where we used the sand dunes to filter all storm water coming off our streets before it went into the ocean. That's system is still in effect today we invest in this effort because we know that clean beaches and clean water are the livelihood of our productive coastal economy. No one wants to visit the beach when it's shut down because the water has bacteria or dangerous chemicals in it and no one wants to buy a house, or develop a business on parts of the coast where the water isn't clean. When you can't swim or fish at this point I'll take no credit for sharks on the coast today. In 2008 the town of Kure Beach and I as Mayor and a resident of the coast also supported long overdue coastal storm water regulations passed by the General Assembly, at that time extensive data and scientific reseasrch the storm water rolls they were in place prior to this time, were not working, and that without a factor protections our water quality will continue to decline, and that was a very intensive study, and there're members of Dena[sp?] who still in office today who took part in that and helped us work that out one of which is here today, my friend Tom Raider[sp?] wherever Tom is. All of which forces us to question the proposal in this bill to weaken the current rules to go back to old runs that we know didn't work. OK. SO thank you very much, and I would encourage you in section 419 to take a look at it and go back, and look at what we need to do. Thank you. Thank you any questions? Chris Millers. Yeah thank you Mr. Chair. Excuse me Representative Millers sorry about that. It's good it's good, just to give you an opportunity here to shed a little bit more, just have a quick question for you about this provision, it is my current understanding is that this percentage of impervious is relative to low density development in our coastal areas, and low density treatment is based on a minimum of 100 foot swell. Just to kind of think in condra[sp?] of a potential solution to this, it should not the actual environmental studies in the future focus on a percentage of impervious based on link of swell therefore we're making sure we're getting the treatment. Reason why is say that is because 12% of a low number Vs 12% of a high number should be based on if it's 100 feet no matter if you have 1000 feet of swell, or if you have 101 feet of swell, should that not be function in this debate moving forward for the house You are an engineer, and I'll leave part of that for you. I will say that there are faults with the 2008 law, the 2008 law is not perfect. We still have problems on the coast that need to be addressed. What this proposal does is basically take the entire 2008, yes it changes the percentage of impervious from 12 to 24, but then also then directs Dino to direct the study and then come back and tell you to general assembly at that study, what needs to be done, and by the way in the end run, this entire law will take effect in 2016 in the last paragraph of 419, my suggestion which has worked before for us is those of us that are involved in it, and those of you that have professional expertise if 2008 law needs to be amendment, then let's appoint a committee, let's appoint a panel to look and see what needs to be changed, and I will admit from the first point of view, from the developers that work in my town, and I see it today that are problems we need to address, but they're also an innovative new group of builders and developers on the coast and who want to and see cost plus cost value going in to an innovative system that they're using and many of you in here maybe involved in
that I know at least two of your more engineers, and I encourage us to look at this, we do need to look at it, but I encourage assembly to point somebody to do that, all regulations need to be looked at at some times and this one is not an exception. Thank you. All right, we will move on now to some by air quality comments and before I must start with Dr, Howard [xx] but then I've got two more from the applicants for healthy air is a Lower Vessel and two [xx] if you guys can think about maybe one of you guys speaking so we can move on, we still got several pages, thank you so, we will start with Dr. Howard [xx] Thank you I'm Howard [xx] Bull North Carolina. I'm here today to ask for your support in maintaining the current suite of air quality [xx] operated by the division of air quality issue 765 and section 4.25 proposes taking out many air quality monitoring sites not explicitly required by the UACPA as a former member of the is [xx] advisory committee members andair quality affects research on state have have been intimately involved in air quality monitoring and another value provided for the city citizens the state and the region. The bill being discussed today will eliminate only [xx] 17 of 25 particular [xx] and the entire air [xx] networks have ability to determine if air quality is changing either for the better or worse will be compromised if [xx] are removed, north Carolina has a very diverse geography when the sea level in the east the highest east of misisipi [xx] this gives rise to an air quality, climate the source of it is varied and complex and successful characterization has shown we will require all across the state [xx] has shown reductions in naughty missions from our plans as mandated [xx] Act and north Carolina [xx] which it's legislature passed and it's dramatically lowered those pollution on the State, they were only able to report this good news because we had data from North Carolina's excellent air quality monitoring network air pollution plays a significant health risk to the [xx] and the children suffering from asthma [xx] translates into lower mortality and reduce healthcare cost healthier eco-systems and that they tracks visited to our State. We have a $24 billion in the tourism industry and the cost of monitoring a small fraction of that In conclusion I urge you and you and your colleagues to continue to support the current air quality monitoring network, clean areas are right not a privilege to the citizens of North Carolina and the State has an obligation to ensure that its citizens have a high quality air that they breath every day. Thank you. Thank you, any questions? I [xx] who will be our speaker from the [xx] for healthy air Good morning. Thank you. My name is Laura Winsel[sp?] and manager of Medical Advocates for Healthy Air an initiative of Clean Air Carolina, ou members are Public Health and Medical professionals our growing body of research shows that air pollutions impacts all aspect of human health, we are concerned about several provisions that would increase air pollution or make it more difficult to protect ourselves from current pollution sources and our focus my comments on section 4.3 prohibiting the implementation and enforcement of federal standards from wood hitters. Natural substances like wood are necessarily harmless and their are burnt low temperatures would combustion mix highly toxic gas and particles concentrated inside the four walls in a home or trapped in a valley especially in counties like and Madison where more than 15% of the homes use wood stoves these emissions can be deadly exposure from just a few hours can trigger heart and Asmer attacks and other respiratory problems and cause symptoms of suffocation prolonged exposure can cause cancer immune system problems, obesity neurological problem and low birth weight children are most substantial their lungs are they breath more air relative to adult and they are closer to the ground where toxic particles would fall. The Asmer epidemic is the leading cause for school absence in North carolina the cooler school man this can have a detrimental effect on their school performance in counties with high concentration of wood stoves, carefully regulating wind stoves significantly reduces emergency room visits for heart attacks. The new EPA rule for safer wood stoves supplies only to new stoves and that sense already minimizes any burden on those who use wood stoves. The most responsible action would be for the state to adopt stronger safety regulation for all stoves, losing laws to protect their quality and monitor the measuring where implemented after years of research prove that they are necessary to protect our health and they are still necessary in the name of our children health, I urge
you to continue to protect them from the poison emitted from the heavy vehicle idling, factories and devices in our homes, thank you. Thank you, any questions representative Harrison. Thank you Mr. Chair, do you have any one else to speak on section 4.4 and 4.5 because if none I would like to ask their quality about that? I don't think so we are checking, Go a head. In essence of time I would say I appreciate your comments on that sections has concerns on the next one that meat the process automatically adopting federal air quality standards, did you have comments on that? There are positions with that the EPA standard are based on scientific research they are necessary and for the good of the citizens in our state for our public health we should adopt those resolutions and strongly enforce them to keep our air clean because of the fact they are systems of our body. Follow up. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you Okay the next one is John Donnie his former [xx] supervisor Thank you Mr. Chairman, the committee members My name is John Don Ian, I'm representing myself as a private citizen for this testimony about section 4.18 of the bill. In 2011 I retired from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality as an environmental supervisor. In 2009 while I was still a dean, I was one of the leaders of an inter-disciplinary, inter- state team of researchers made up of [xx] [xx] international and University of [xx] Carolina to examine isolated wetlands in the lake county study area, North and South Carolina. In North Carolina the study included Brunswick, Blaiten[sp?] Robinson and Columbus counties. Isolated wetlands are identified as wetlands which have Brunswick, Blaiten[sp?] no surface connection to downstream waters, no surrounded on all sides by uplands, there're essentially bowels in the landscape, we went in the field to determine the sizes on how much water they can store, and the level of their overall condition, in this four North Carolina counties the work estimate there were at least 50, 000 isolated wetlands to the average size of about two thirds of an acre, based on these numbers from just these four counties there're certainly hundreds of thousands thunderstorms, tropical storms and hurricanes, when this [xx] on the landscape fell at the water they will change ground water and drinking wells provide habitat for threat to endangered species, remove a very large percentage of the storm water pollution that discharges into them and therefore provides storm water treatment at minimal cost. Certainly the [xx] rules may be changed the statutes can be changed. The best approach to that change would be to take will and quality into account when issuing permits. Presently will and quality is not considered during the permitting process. The use of well and quality in the permitting program has long been a goal of the agencies both Federal state development industry and environmental groups since state incorporation of this approach into the isolated initially which permitting program that allows Dinah to test this approach before eventually adopting it state wide. Use of North Carolina assessing method could be the focus of this modification and I'd be glad to provide a list of North Carolina references I so dwell and see if there's anybody else wants to see them. Thank you the committee questions. Thank you. Okay Thank you. All right our next one is Ben Hudson our Environmental Attorney thank you Mr Chairman, My name is Ben Hudson I'm a partner at the McGuireWoods Law Firm in Charlotte and I've been practicing environmental law over 30 years and until January this year I was the Chairman of North Carolina's Environmental Management Commission, I'm here on behalf of myself and 13 other leading environmental lawyers to speak in opposition to section 4.9 of the bill which is found on pages 30 and 31, which proposes to change who can do redevelopment under the state's Brownfield statute. I was involved in the initial adoption of Brownfields statute has been one of the most successful if not the most successful program for the safe redevelopment of contaminated properties today there's been over 325 projects, tens of billion dollars have been invested in resulting economic activities as occurred, one of the big reasons for this is that the current statute is very simple and clear, if you did not cause or contribute to the contamination and you're seeking to redevelop than in most likelihood you're going to be eligible to get a Brownfield's agreement. The proposed 4.9 takes away that clarity and simplicity
and instead it says we're going to include definitions from the federal super thumb law which run for pages at length they're supportd by regulations, by guidance documents and they've been through the courts a number of times. If these provision passes fewer people eligible to do brown fields, it's going to take more staff resources and time to do them it means it kinds slow process is going to get even slower and there's going to be less economic redevelopment and putting these blended and underused properties back to use, these made yesterday in similar package of water from myself and 13 other living environment warriors in the state who have done most of the grand field projects for the last 20 years since the bill was passed myself and others who were involved in the initial adoption in amendment of the bill what we ask is these provision needs to come out of the bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman I will be happy to answer your questions Thank you Representative (xx) Mr. Chair (xx) questions thank you all for coming I am had a question about the impact of this (xx) shades is it there is a name that the owner actually caused (xx) could we say that about the protection? No it is not, what it does representative [xx] is right now is seller who did not cause contamination who is seeking a [xx] to try help in the sale of the property to be able to market it, they would no longer be eligible and the determination of whether or not someone who is buying a piece of property is eligible even if they did cause or contribute to the contamination will become a much more detailed and lengthy process because the federal terms they want to put in are much more cumbersome than the current one we we have in state law, but it would not allow someone who cause or contributed to be able to get [xx] Thank you. okay, we have [xx] and Davis with Carolina Recycling Association Thank you very much, my name is [xx] Davis and I'm Davis and I'm the executive director for the Carolina Recycling Association, I represent over 800 members of this association, I would like to speak to you briefly regarding section 4 of house bill 765. Our members come from multinational organisations small and large business, universities, government agencies and individual across the Carolina, we share our commitment to the organisation mission to conserve resources an advance, waste reduction and recycling across the states, at this time our association opposes the repeal of the current electronic waste recycling program found in section 4 of the Bill. The reasons includes the following, the current electronic recycling program while Under funded by the manufacturers, and not a perfect solution appears to be working for many. Local Government suspending large sums of money to collect sole transport and market this recyclables. Million of pounds of electronics are being diverted under this program. I'm going to go on down a little bit because I am repeating some of my colleagues things and we don't have time here, but while House bill 765 proposes the end of the manufacturers contribution to these programs. The land film mandate is still there, and so the mandate to the local governments to continue recycling the material won't be reduced just because of funding is reduced. Our association urges you to think about this carefully and to move cautiously when considering repeal of these electronics alone. We would be happy to serve on a stakeholder group that looked at this to improve the current program and I thank you so much for your time, thank you. Thank you, any questions? I want to make a comment all the speakers if you would please [xx] electronic copy of your comments to us will be very helpful if you could do that please. OK we have John Plier if I'm saying that right Restoration Systems. Thank you Mr Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John Plier and I am co-founder and President of Restoration Systems, a Raleigh-based
company specializing in providing turnkey mitigation needed for regulatory compliance required by state and our Federal Law for development-related impacts to wetlands, streams and maperian[sp?] buffers. I'm also a member of North Carolina Environmental Restoration Association, a trade group for representing mitigation companies and engineering companies that provide services related to mitigation Since 1998, restoration systems has performed 53 mitigation projects in a dozen different states. Often times using our own money to buy, design, and construct these projects, in advance of any commitment from customers. We take this risk because of certainty in the laws which determine the thresholds for what constitutes an impact to wetland streams, repairing buffers and requires offset in mitigation. House Bill 765 removes that certainty and threatens to undermine the emerging green industry of environmental mitigation, by doubling the amount of stream which can be destroyed without requiring offset in mitigation. In addition, this bill effectively removes regulatory jurisdiction of isolated wetlands, as to in effect allow their destruction without requiring any offset mitigation. The current regulatory standards have been in place since 1996 and 2001 respectively, and they've not impeded development. Instead these regulations have made certain that there's offsetting mitigation to ensure an environmental benefit associated with it. Thanks to the mitigation industry which provides a private sector alternative to the state run mitigation program. The ability to comply with these regulations has never been easier, or more cost effective and the environmental benefit never more certain. As a businessman I don't think government should ever be in the position of picking winners and losers, but that is exactly what it is doing with this legislation. The winners are those who don't want to have to offset any stream destruction between 150 and 300 feet. The losers are those of us spent their own money to build projects to provide these regulatory compliants. I hope the general assembly will reconsider these provisions in the bill and keep the continuity that many companies in the mitigation industry, Time is up. Has come to expect on regulatory standards, thank you. Thank you, questions? All right, we'll move on I only respect for one of our other representatives, representative Pendelton has asked to speak and so I'll let you go ahead and move ahead, You sign up at the end but I'm going to let you move on. Mr. Chairman when I'm referring to page 15 3.13 altering vehicles, when I called you I thought than I because I've received phone calls from two good friends of mine that will oppose to these A-TV provision, one of them is a general sergeant and one of them is a pediatrician who calls children being involved and they thought, and I think a lot of docs think, that I did until I was set straight by this young man back here, that so I recommend that they together with the medical society and brief the medical society but basically it's not saying that a kid six years old can get on a full size A-TV and go full appealing, is what it does is gets us in compliance with national standards, so you probably have seen list I have anyway, these little kids Ad on Real Small ATVs, though it's done on age grouping, and sir Mr. Chairman? Yes. Could I have him finish up my talk? Yes you can please, David Furrow please. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I am David Furrow, I'm an attorney in Lobias[sp?] representing the North Carolina Motor Bike and Vehicle Dealers Association. We are the sellers of ATVs in North Carolina, also representing Polaris Industries one of the manufacturers of ATVs. Now what these provisions would do would conform North Carolina standard to the national safety standards. North Carolina adopted their standard in 2005 when there was no national standards for the operation of ATVs by youth operators, and so the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America has adopted standards for following by manufacturers and sellers of ATVs across the country those standards were adopted by the National Standard Institute, and so essentially what they've done
is set speed restrictions for youth operators, North Carolina statue when it was enacted set standards based on certain age limits in size of it did not tie to speed restriction to, so what the National Standards in the Safety Institute t's primary focus is to prevent and promote safe operation has done is focus on speed restrictions, and so the provisions when they conform with say youth from age six to age nine could operate one of the small ATVs with a maximum speed limitation of 10 miles an hour, and then it stare steps up from there we go to 15, and then 20 as you get closer to 16. The national stand would not affect North Carolina's requirement that used operators must operate under the supervision of an adult. What they do is say that if a parent decides they want their child to operate, there are age appropriate devices with the requisite speed restrictions that would allow for the safe operation of ATVs, so that's essentially what it does. North Carolina's current age is eight, and then they run with from 8-16 with certain restrictions on engine size. These standards would go from 6-16 with certain speed restrictions. OK. Thank you. Thank you, any questions? Representative McElraft. Thank you so much. I appreciate your explaining that part to me also because I was very concerned about a six-year old getting on an ATV, and you imagine the big huge four-wheelers and this little tiny person on there. I didn't even know how they could reach the pedal for one thing, but thank you for explaining these are almost like the cars you get from Walmart that kind of thing, very small, don't go very fast. Let me just ask you this, if we get into conference and that becomes an issue for our House members would you be willing to consider keeping the agent aid and then have the rest everything comply with the Federal Law? Mr Chairman. Thank you, we would certainly willing to discuss and understand there have been some members receiving calls primarily about going from eight to six, we are certainly glad to sit down to speak about that issue. Thank you. Let's have representative Bluke[sp?] Did I hear you say you real only want to talk about whether goes some sixty aids, so that you're real defending that a six year old can get on a motorized ATV even if it's a weak motor and all things you said. You support a six year old being an motorized vehicle or am I hear you wrong? Representative Luke the industry supported bring you forward a bill to confirm North Carolina's law to the national standard. The safety institute looked at this and has been adopted nationally has determined that an did appropriate ATV can be operated by safely, our industry has told the representatives and senators interested in this that we are more than willing to move from six to eight if that's the will of the body so that we have the same set of rules to force the national standard but are willing to compromise and focus on leaving from six to eight Thank you Thank you the question Mr. Chairman representative [xx] has asked me to remind the committee that these devices that are manufactured and designed for use operatives are equipped with tempophied speed inspection devices they are set to go to the maximum speed based on the youth category. Thank you. Thank you. Okay we're going to try to to move on first year and some of the areas have already been discussed I'll move those till later to make sure that we try to cover everything. The next one is [xx] North Carolina Conservation Network Thank you, I'm [xx] with the North Carolina Conservation Network, and my organization this has concerns of the number of provisions, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today, about the section 4.7 which is the risk of mediation provision this committee had presentation in February that covered many of the complexities of swollen ground water protection chief concern we have an average concern with this profession but our major concern with this profession is the current default as you've heard then for most clients of mediation [xx] from most sources, is if you're responsible party and you spill it you have to clean it up to background conditions. That has exceptions. One of those exceptions is a
law that you passed, this body passed in 2011 for limited set of industrial sites reported to the Department of Environment Natural Resources by March of 2011. Those sites were allowed to be cleaned up to which called the Risk-based Standard, the leaves contamination in the ground and generally deals with some of all the contamination in the ground, and deals with it by putting land [xx] on the property around that program has gotten greater review this provision will expand it to all sources contaminated agriculture commercial residential as far as well as industrial past present and future so there is no cut-off date. We are concerned that that changes the incentive for our large corporations to invest in school profession because it becomes cheaper to simply treat the [xx] as cost to doing business rather than investing in scope prevention. I don't have time to go into it now, but it also has implications [xx] for contract farmers and their relationships with integrators in the Animal Agriculture Industry, it increases the risk for land owners who are neighbors of contaminated it has a lot of complex ramifications. This is a midi provision, it would be a significant bill in its own right. We recommend that you dont move it through this way but give it the time it deserves and move it as a separate bill that may be something that takes till the short session of extra to do properly, but it deserves your engagement and attention. Thank you so much. Thankyou. Any committee questions? Representative Harrison. Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you Gredy[SP?] for that. I I recognise that this House Bill I guess 639 that is basically the substance of that is in this provision in terms of the protection for the I guess you have a second to go into this? Is there, I guess consequences relate like maybe coal ash contaminatination, you are saying halogen contamination, it's much broader than. Wait, the way this is drafted, it is virtually all kinds of contamination. I will say coal ashes explicitly or is an explicit exclusion of the coal ash ponds and you might think about why that is. I mean you know that that has been controversial, but all the problems that we've seen in relation to coal ash ponds where you have this contamination spreading out and the neighbours and the neighbours. The neighbours concerned about those plums, that applies in other industries as well, and those institutions not excluded from this. So, co-ashes exclusively excluded from this provisions but any contamination associated with for example swine liquors[SP?] that's a problem not just for individual neighbors but as I was saying it affects the balance of power between the intergrators and the contract farmers in ways that are worthy of your attention and and discussion is longer than you probably have time to get into today. Thank you, OK moving on to another to Mary Penny Kelly with Mary Penny Kelly laws hello I am Mary Penny Kelly and I am here to speak on the attorney's seat position in section 1.4. In my former life I was a state attorney, I worked for the attorney general's office named Dina[sp?] on a number of actions that also including permit appeals by people who are seeking clarification of conditions that were contained in permits I then moved over to the agency as an in-house general counsel and was involved in the policies and managing litigation that went [xx] on this type of environmental permits I'm currently in solo practice and now I am flip-size so it's been quite an education to see how the agency interacts with a lot of small businesses as a solo practitioner that's a lot of my client base and I see this provision here as particularly affecting any environmental permit that someone may seek to challenge already the burden to come across up against the state is difficult to have an attorney seize provision up front is a calculation of that risk I think makes it almost impossible for a small business to take on a challenge for the state permit. I think the provision was written so broadly that it addresses any activity on real property that has an environmental impact. Those phrases are so broad I think it would affect almost any environmental permit as you can think of environmental permits there is one a simple as one acre of land disturbing activity for grading and building homes or other sites that could be affected by this where someone wants to seek to clarify the condition of permit but would not be able to because of the inherent risk of cost shifting to them at the end. The people who already seek environmental permit, the costs are already high, they do the preparation, the application. They have to hire their own consultants and professionals to help them prepare those applications. If they seek to challenge it, they have the price of their own attorney. They also pay taxes which already support the state attorney's salaries or costs of the attorney's fees for them although the provision is directed to the law firms, it would be passed
on to the small businesses through retainer agreement and an unknown bond market and would prevent them from seeking any clarification on permits issued to them, thank you. Yes representative McGrady. Yeah based on your experience on the AG's office, are there any laws where the sort of the relief is asymmetrical this is, that is allowing attorney's fees in one instance and not in another and then same sort of question, obviously this is directed at [xx] law suits, but in your opinion does rule 11 not to get you where you need to be here without a provision like this. Absolutely and that's what I was saying as you were leading the question on was that rule 11 does prevent public law suits would directly hit the lawyer involved, there are also already a statutory attorney's fees provisions that allows a judge to access attorney's fees and certain criteria this just makes it more difficult for people to challenge the state environmental permit. Pretty good, representative Millers? Thank you Mr. Chairman. In light of your comments, I just wanted to say I'm not familiar with rule 11, if you can just provide some of the committee members information of how rule 11 actually prevents against various law suits, I'm a little bit lost of if the actual state is the prevailing party why not, them actually being compensated, the tax payers being compensated from a law suit that actually fails, so I'm just a little perplexed at the on one token looser pays, but when it comes to the State that's not the case so the tax payer is the loser no matter what happens so rule 11 is I believe it's one of the rules of civil procedure that's quantified in statute already that regulates the law states that a broad that do not have sound base so there can be sanctions by the court including the Attorney's fees that is brought without basis there is already in attorney's provisions so it is not the loser pays but there is balancing that the judge study there makes the this will just heighten the burden for someone to seeking to challenge the State permit. I think the taxes do pay the states fees, the cost of running the regular pulling from program from inspectors to investigators to enforcement to the Attorneys they prosecute the cases so that it is already part of the scheme of what you are paying for in permit fees sometimes and your taxes and then to being shifted to a small businesses up on for call us particularly in going into a litigation you may have to pay that if you loose that is the only criteria okay representative Mikellia thank you Mr chair. I just have a question maybe you can now tell us your solution for instant we have been sued the north Carolina has and we have paid in our attony fees 35 million dollars just to get some top going on the bill bridge I think they have come to the solution nearly halfway but 35 million dollars that's taxpayer's money you for all this losses we have to defend them whether they favor us or not that is tax for your money so do you have any suggestion on how maybe we we have a mitigation or something before it gets to court and all the lawyers get it all, but I just don't understand how the State of North Carolina does one case and it's costing [xx] $35 million and [xx] is paid by the citizens of this State [xx] I can happily follow up with you in our discussion on that I think its a big issue I must keep it short matter hereby outlined. Thank you, I want to follow it up with on the same issue with former Supreme Court Justice Robert thank you Mr chairman [xx] licensed attorney here in North Carolina 40 years and a retired judge, I'm here in my individual capacity to speak against the provision just discuss 1.4A and specifically section 8.1 see which is the legislation at issue and the chair has indicated if the state prevails in civil litigation in which environmental impact certain actions is being contested this proposed legislation mandates the award
of attorneys fees to the state and against the losing party's attorney you should contrast trust this with part A which states if the state loses the trial court is limited only in its discretion to award attorneys pays to the the private citizen and only if the state has acted without substantial justification I would submit this legislation is unfair in it's application it's bad public policy favoring government over it's citizens and I would submit their is potential of it's unconstitution being unconstitutional, article 1 section 18 of the Declaration of Rights. Open court provision says in part that justice shall be administered without favor denial or delay and I would suggest that this legislation is an impediment and barrier that the right of our citizens to go in the court to contest actions that are legitimate and which they may win or may not win, but should not have attorneys fees mandated against them if they are unsuccessful and I would urge the house to reject this provision. Thank you, any questions? Alright we'll move on now or did I miss one? Representative Stan. I thought a member of committee but if I could. That's okay just a question. Judge [xx], just a thought can you think of any other statute that mandates that the Attorney fee be taxed against the law firm. No, none whatsoever, I'm stunned if their isn't a line of lawyers in law firms Bar Association here today, concerned about it even though there is a provision that says the lawyers can contract with their clients to reimburse them for any attorney this I don't think that solves the problems Follow up Give me the actually on a (xx) under the professional rules of conduct to agree to pay the cost of your client in allegation it is yes I think the common law fit was by lottery they are actually insights litigation for lawyers to agreed to advance costs, is that not correct? I think that's correct, but Representative Sam you are far more the legal scholar when we clair[sp?] most you are getting serious than I was but I think that is correct thank you very much thank you Mr chairman moving on we might actually make it almost through where are you Johnson, North Carolina Association of County Commissioners thank you I'm Hugh Jones with North Carolina Association County Commissioner thank you for the opportunity to comment on House Bill 765 I'll keep my comment brief we are concerned with three provisions in the bill, we oppose to the appeal the electronic recycling program in section 4.2 county value adopted budgets and we believe this will create unfunded mandate to county's to manage, to discard electronics particular those with older and most expensive to dispose of we're also opposed to the changes in section 3.9 to accept for piping materials and echo the previous comments made by North Carolina water Association and lastly we're concerned with some of the changes onsite, waste water regulations, in section 4.1. 4 in particular we've heard that the 10% fee described in sub-section section and on page 39 will not be high enough to cover the cost for local public health officials to conduct inspection and post-construction meetings. Thank you again for the opportunity comment, and that will be followed by an specifics Thank you very much. Any questions? I just have one question, what was that last one, I didn't get that written down I'm sorry, page 39 or? The the 10% fee under the onsite waste water system changes we've heard from some counties that might not be high enough. Thank you, now we have Dr. I guess it's West Wallace good morning, my name is West Wallace I'm speaking as a private citizen. I am an emergency physician, I've been practicing and teaching in the specialty for over 30 years, I think it's safe so say that I am a person you would prefer to meet when we're both standing up. I come here today to talk about section 4.2.
4 which would rescind the rules regarding idling of the large vehicles and large engines. Medically speaking, if we look at this with a lens of a public health under public interest, I think this is a real mistake. Let me tell you why, it is not surprising to you I suspect that emmisions from large engines are increased when they are idling and operating inefficiently. If this is happening in a fixed point these toxins become concentrated. They affect the health of all of us, but particularly they place at risk those people who are young, children who have asthma, people with pre-existing heart disease, people with lung disease and indeed all former and current smokers. I like you are probably concerned about the increasing costs of of healthcare in our State. If we really share this concern, I would suggest to you that rescinding these rules would be a giant step backward, if we're concerned about maintaining the public health of our citizens, I would suggest as well that rescinding these rules is the wrong thing to do These rules were promulgated in 2010 after a stakeholder process, I think they're good rules, they have adequate exceptions to protect people who need to run engines in this fashion, and I would encourage you to not rescind these rules and to eliminate this portion from the bill. Thank you, any questions? Very good. Now we have Andrew Blethen, acting President of the North Carolina Supervisors Association. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Committee. My name is Andrew Blethen. I am the acting Supervisor for the North Carolina Environmental Health Supervisor's Association, and I'd like to speak briefly on Section 414 as they pertain to onsite wastewater rules. Our membership is comprised of environmental health directors, supervisors, program specialists and coordinators whose job is to directly oversee and administer State Environmental Health Rules and Laws at the local level from our vantage point we have a unique perspective in that we see the direct consequences of piecemeal rules and laws that are not carefully thought out and implemented, and the impact they have both on local economies and on the safety and health of the public we are charged to protect. With respect to Section 414 we see a number of potential pitfalls including the private issuance of wastewater permits, non-expiring septic permits and limited liabilities for these private option permits and our overriding concern is for the protection of the public trust, in that failure to not carefully evaluate all of the potential impacts of this legislation both positive and negative, can lead to unintended or unforeseen consequences that may potentially be devastating and may not be realized for many years to come, open honest discussion among all stakeholders is essential to creating effective regulation. This is why we feels so strongly that the proposed edition to our aintiwastewater rules, promptly contained in health bill section 765 need to be carefully studied, debated and revised through the public Health Commission, a process that was set in place for display purpose and acting any new legislation or regulation without following this process process will ultimately hinder our ability to assist the public at the local level and more importantly to honor our sworn oath as registered Environment Health Specialists to protect the public health and irreplaceable natural resources. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you, any questions? Yes sir. Thank you, you and the previous speaker talked how they are ready to study this issue of technology in wastewater, this has been a major problem for decades now why [xx] as it's suddenly they were interested in studying it and making it available to our citizens? With respect to the law making process With respect to the fact that you have limited choice when it comes to your own waste water well, there are planned technology set there available to the rest of the country Okay North Carolina is very progressive and proactive state when it comes to wastewater treatment and part of that we take it seriously and when new technologies and new systems are brought to our state to be proposed we want to be sure that it will work as it will apply seasons of our state, when septic systems fail it is not just threats
to public health but also so the citizen pocket books and so throughout INE committee and through careful studying evaluation we are trying to make sure that what we put into place will work and work long term not just the short term need. Thank alright we've two more speakers which is four more minutes so that would be great to get them all done and I saw it I want to remind you again please submit your electronic copy of your comments to my legislative assistant in my office please, alright we've got Jake Thermind[sp?] /Craig foster hello I'm Craig Foster from the overs rally store I really appreciate your time in letting us speak on this, we want to take I regards of section 4.31 the intermittent stream section, in North Carolina we currently have four store in North Carolina 20% of those stores are business based off live fishing for a year to date 2015 those four stores have generated over $600, 000 in the live fishing industry in North Carolina 70% of that 600, 000 is of a healthy trap fishery, and as we know [xx] and streams are very important to our local child fishery expanding grounds, bringing nutrients into that area giving these fish places to hide away from predators and things like that, the native [xx] fishery in North Carolina is so important to our business our rod developers actually developed a rod just for the North Carolina we call it blue lining, but for perky fish in the North Carolina blue line strings or sell nationwide so thank you for giving me this time to speak about how important the [xx] fishery is and how opening up these streams to where there is no probabition on mitigations or anything like that to where, anything that we do in these streams will directly affect the fishery down stream from that, thank you. Any questions? Alright, and last but not least I miss somebody is Veronica Bryant, the North Carolina Public Health Environment Health Section. Bryant good morning, my name is Veronica Bryant and I represent the Environmental Health Section of the North Bryant statutes recognize us as an important function stating in part in 138-333 that, the General Assembly finds and declares that continued installation of septic systems and other types of waste water system in a faulty or improper manner and in areas where unsuitable soil and population density adversely affect the efficiency and functioning of this system has the detrimental affect on the public health and the environment. Sections 414 and 415 of house bill 765 present concerns from the public health perspective. This include the private option permit, limited liability of engineers and permitting process, not expiring septic permits and elimination of the technology advisory panel for new and innovative systems that we as a profession acknowledge that the current rules are not without fault. There's already a rule revision process underway that will allow for necessary updates to made to the current onsite waste water rules. Allowing the rules to be updated through the public health commission will ensure open discussion among all stake holders. Many of the concerns that have been brought up in other legislation such as house bill 705 are already being addressed in this rule revision also the [xx] issues raised in house bill 765 which are private option permit and technology approval can be we discuss by all interested and necessary stakeholders. Being able to bring everyone to the table for discussion in this issues will be the best way to ensure genuine regulatory reform and improvement fro onsite waste water. I urge the general assembly to amend house bill 765 by sending the onsite waste water rules to the NC commission for public health any questions from the committee, thank you. I want to say thank you to everyone who spoke here today, I want I say thank you to all of our committee members for being thoughtful and listening and having good questions and thank you for staff for taking notes least we forget something and have to ask so I'll end with are there any comments or suggestions from staff I mean from the committee Representative Harrison Mr Chair and I echo your compliments to and thanks to folks who came and spoke to us.
I share all the concerns that the speaker spoke to especially in section four, and I just hit back with one quick question of the staff, because I'm sorry we didn't have a chance to explain the Bill but understand with time constraint, but I'm trying to understand the impact of the self -audit, and another sensitive issue has come up on every session since I have been here. If a company does engage in self-audit and discovers that they have violated Enviromental Law. Does that information remains secret? Does DENA have access to it? Can DENA challenge it in court? And does that mean they are absolved of any penalties possibility? Jennifer Mr. Chairman, Representative Harrison, there are several restriction in there, but primarily the department would not have access report itself, the ordered report itself under the pre pledge, the underlying fact the violation are still usable in the court of law by DeanORs[sp?] but the ordered itself will not be available neither would the personell who purposes are describing the report be added otherwise they will be subject to accessibility by the department and an enforcement action but not as it pertains to their work on the audit. As far as the penalties, they would get limited immunity form several penalties if a number of criteria were met and I would just know that there is actually several penalty policy on the except then with dinner sent, originally enacted and are not enacted but adopted by the department it looks like 95 and substantially amended in 2000, that self reporting violation policy not only gives that apartment digression to waive civil penalties, but also criminal penalties. Which the provision in house bill 65 before you does not allow any waiver of criminal enforcement action. Thank you Representative Stan, it was a quick question. It's very quick. Is there a schedule for when the committee is going to vote whether directly in concurrency or not in concurrent? Yes right now representative McGrady wants to make a motion on that. Chairman I'm consistent with representative Mccaul opening comments I would move that we recommend to the house that the house do not concur in the senate committee substitute. to this bill. So you second on that? All in favor. Aye. All opposed. Very good the ayes have it. Thank you and thank you very much for this meeting. Thank you all.