A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | June 25, 2013 | Committee Room | Agriculture

Full MP3 Audio File

What is; give me some background to why you’re moving enforcement of the smoking ban in bars and restaurants from the commission of public health which to my understanding has done that successfully with the support of the restaurant and lodging organization etc. You’re moving that to Deaner. I’m not aware of them having any sort of a relationship with restaurants and bars so can you give me some thinking behind that. [Speaker Changes] I will ask staff to address that for me. [Speaker Changes] Staff [Speaker Changes] Chris [Speaker Changes]Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’m not sure of the reasoning why the change was made. The commission for public health has only adopted three rules. One is a general provision. One provides the exemption of cigar bars and then the third explains the types of signs that have to be posted, but otherwise, its local health directors that enforce the ban rather than commissioners. [Speaker Changes] Follow up? [Speaker Changes] Follow up. Can I say one more thing? [Speaker Changes] You may. [Speaker Changes] Okay. Since the local health directors enforce the ban and in this bill they will still enforce the ban and it’s a health issue, DHHS has managed it. I don’t know why want any more rules than we already have. It seems to be working well in terms of what all my constituents say. So I would just be concerned as to why we would move it to Deaner and they’d have to start another rule making process and unless there’s a reason I just would ask the sponsor to consider leaving it as where it is, unless there’s a particular reason. And I would like to make there’s no one in the audience that would like to speak on that. [Speaker Changes] Senator Jackson. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Bryant, this was done because we feel like Deaner is more adaptive to adopting the rules being they have so many already in place on our books. The local health directors will continue to enforce these rules and we just thought this would be a good move. But I’ll be glad to entertain any other questions or comments from the audience on this. [Speaker Changes] Senator Ford[Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Jackson, can you help me or staff with section 2.1. Does this circumvent; or what impact will this have on local communities on deciding what they want to do with this particular policy? Can you help me out with that? [Speaker Changes] I will try Senator Ford . to my knowledge it will not have any bearing on that whatsoever. The locals will still have control. Now, if I stand corrected, staff that’s the way I interpret it. [Speaker Changes] Senator Kinnaird [Speaker Changes] I would like to hear from; also when we sat down we didn’t have this. All of a sudden this showed up and I don’t know did our health directors have advanced knowledge of this? Did anybody work with our health directors? I know that they’re very very concerned; the health directors are. And I also know that the restaurant association sent a letter to each of us saying how important this was to keep these rules in place; that their businesses had actually exploded once that was put in place. And I’m very concerned that this change might upset ?? that has worked very well. I would like to hear if there’s anybody in the audience from the public health or health department. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Chairman [Speaker Changes] Senator Jackson [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Kinnaird, basically to my knowledge this does nothing more than clarify and sort of make uniform rules that would affect all the way across this state and not each county and each health director making different rules. They will still enforce them but they will be uniform across the state is what I interpret this language[Speaker Changes] Follow up[Speaker Changes]Is that correct? [Speaker Changes] Mr. Chairman [Speaker Changes] That’s correct. The smoking ban is in section 138-496 the general statute said that the ban will remain in place. This will just affect whose adopting or enforcing the rules. There’s two real subsitive rules in place right now. I think some of the confusion may have been over the definition of enclosed areas of restaurants, but that’s not currently addressed in rules. [Speaker Changes] Follow up [Speaker Changes] Follow up [Speaker Changes] He did say enforcement will be with Deaner. Can I ask for clarification? Who is going to enforce this? [Speaker Changes] Well, it will still be enforced by local health director at lines 44 and 45 on page

Three. On page three lines 47 and 48 it says the rules shall be adopted to ensure the consistent interpretation and enforcement of this part throughout the state. So it would still be enforced by the local health directors. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time and ask a question Mr. Chair. I'm still concerned in that this is a health issue, it's not an environmental issue. It's primarily a health issue, that's the public policy behind the smoking band. And so the health directors and the health commission they address health issues, not something deaner [SP] does outside of the impacts of the environmental stuff. That's number one. And so I think it is better for our businesses, farmers and our citizens that a health issue be managed by people of that expertise. That's number one. A nd I think the health commission is perfectly good at making rules and we want to direct them to make certain kind of rules or to address the consistency, they are capable of doing that. But I thought our focus was on fewer rules not more rules, that was the sense I got that was the goal of this administration and this majority. That's number one. But I would like to hear from assistant secretary Gillespie from deaner [SP] or from anybody here form DHHS, or anyone in the audience who would have an opinion or information on this issue if they'd like to speak out I'd request that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Bryant I understand what you're saying but to me this is a dual role because I see deaner [SP] being more concerned with the air quality and that's what we're dealing with here is air quality. But it also has a health issue as well and it's sort of a counter rule if that makes any sense. Deaner [SP] issues air permits and all that and so that's what the problem has been with the smoking and we're just trying to get the two together to make it more consistent across the state, that's all this bill is intended to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could we see if anyone we could hear from the departments or... [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think secretary Gillespie wants to speak again. He misses us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I sure do Mr. Chairman. Thanks so much, Mitch Gillespie, assistant secretary of the department of environment. This might would have made a little bit of sense to us prior to us moving a lot of the different responsibilities we had over to DHHS a few years ago but right now we don't see how in the world we'd have anybody at all who would be capable of and the expertise in going [??] this, and we would oppose this. Unfortunately we would have to. We feel like it would be better over at the department or the commission of public health doing these rules as it is. We have about 900 rules in place and I think they have about 11000 rules over there so I think they're a lot more qualified doing rules than we are since they have so many more than we do. So we would oppose this and respectfully ask that you let them continue to adopt these rules because it's not our issue as we see it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not going to let the first part of this bill be killed by the second part so we'll take it out and we can [??]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You want something done with the rules, I think that could be done with the commission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, as I understand it Senator Jackson wished us all being [??] as farmers. And so as to the rules I don't know that we need anymore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She's right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So maybe just striking that section. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's good. it would strike sections 2.1 and 2.2 so basically... [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can tell you what the amendment would do and then I can get it drafted up. It would strike the language beginning on page 3, line 22 through page 4, line 2. So this is going to remove sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the bill. So the only remaining sections would be section one on the tobacco assessment and then the effective date in section three. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is the committee okay with that? [??] we're striking section 2.1, section 2.2, everyone against the vote to vote against deaner [SP] today. All those in favor, wait a minute, who's sending forth an amendment, senator Kinnaird? Senator Kinnaird sends forth an amendment striking section 2.1 and 2.2...

All those in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Opposed, no. Ayes have it. The bill is before you. Senator Rabin had a-. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Senator Bryant moves to favorable to the proposed committee substitute as amended unfavorable to the original. All those in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Opposed, no. Ayes have it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: You’re welcome. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Now, next on the agenda, House Bill 94. And we have a post committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: We do. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Senator Jackson moves for a proposed committee substitute. All those in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Opposed no. Ayes have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Go ahead, they’re passing out the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Go ahead, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: This bill basically is a large bill. It’s 43 pages, but the last 20 pages deal with our last section and I’ll go through that. What I’m gonna do, this is our environmental bill for 2013 that has been negotiated with the House and the Senate, and we’re all on board with this. And so there shouldn’t be any problem. It’ll just be sent back over to the House for concurrence. And from what we understand, for the most part they will concur on this bill. I’m gonna go through each part, and as we get through it, I’ve got an amendment to run at the end of this bill that will correct a few things, and I’ll explain that to you. It is a very lengthy bill. It is not that complicated. It just appears to be. Trust me, if it was that complicated, I would not be running it. The farmer here would not be running this complicated bill. But I’m a sort of try and describe all the parts to you, and we’ll come back and answer any questions should you have any at the end. Part one directs the Environmental Management Commission to repeal the model year 2008 and later model years for the Heavy Duty Diesel Requirement Rule on or before December 1, 2013. This is already being taken care of and this would just sort of alleviate these rules. And at any part of this, you see something that alarms you, members, let me know and I’ll get the proper staff or the department to answer any of your questions if I can’t. Part two directs to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources the study for all of the counties covered under the Emissions testing and the magnets program are needed to maintain the current and proposed federal ozone standards in the state. Part three provides the Environmental Management Commission with the flexibility to determine whether rules are necessary for controlling the effects of complex sources on air quality. Part four amends the rules in the North Carolina administrative code that pertain to open burning or land clearing for right of way maintenance to provide that an air quality permit is not required if materials are not carried off site or transported over public roads for open and burning. Part five provides that with the exception of permits issued pursuant to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act, air quality permits must be issued for a term of 8 years. This section also provides that in addition to a permit, applicant, and a permitee, a third party who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Environmental Management Commission may commence a contested case within 30 days of the commission notifying the applicant of his decision. Part six amends the Department of the Environment and Natural Resources notice requirements for minor permits issued pursuant to the Coastal Area Management Act. Part seven amends the statues governing the provision of hydraulic fracturing, fuel chemicals, fluid chemicals and constituent data and mining to the Energy Commission and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The following provisions apply to information designated as confidential or as a trade secret as those terms are defined in the general statute. Part eight exempts the Mining and Energy Commission, the Environmental Management Commission, and the Commission for Public Health from preparing physical motes for proposed rules for the creation of a modern regulatory program for the management of oil and gas exploration activities in the state, including the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Part nine clarifies the process for appeals from civil penalties, assessed by local government that has established and the ministers of state approved erosion sedimentation control program. This section also provides that civil penalties, assessed by local government on the sedimentation.

In the pollution control act of 1973, must be remitted to civil liberty and the forfeiture fund. Part 10 amends the rules in the NCEAC for reduced flow alternatives to the daily flow rate for design for waste order systems. This section would exempt proposed waster order systems from complying with the daily flow rate for the design and any design flow standards established by the commission for public health, or the department of health and human services. Both, part 9 and 10, you have seen before in Senate Bill 112, which passed out of the Senate, fairly unanimous. Part 11, directs the commission for public health to adopt rules governed, permits issued for private drinking water wells for circumstances in which the local health department has determined that the proposed site for the well is located within 1,000 feet of a known source of of contamination. Basically, what this does, we have found out is its taking some of the health department 60, 90, or 6 months to give a decision, a yes or a no decision, if they locate that well there. This basically will tell them they've got 30 days to make a determination. I feel like that's time aplenty to say yes or no. Part 12 provides that underground storage tanks and systems installed after January 1, 1991 and prior to April 1, 2001 are not required to comply with well setbacks requirements or provide secondary containment under January 1, 2020. This is another article that was voted out of the Senate in Senate Bill 112, this is a ?? request, because the underground storage tanks and systems installed after April 1, 2011 all ready have a required secondary setback. Part 13 amends the various statutes govern wildlife to conform to federal law, this is another part of Senate Bill 112 that was passed. Part 14A amends the statute regulate ownership or the use of venomous reptiles to correctly refer to the term antivenom and not antivenom, as the serum or treatment for venom. That was part of Senate Bill 12 as well. Part 14b amends the statute of the govern the investigation of suspected violations, seizures, and disposition of reptiles to direct law enforcement personnel to consult with representatives of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Science or the North Carolina Zoological Park to identify appropriately and safe methods to seize a reptile. This section further provides that representatives of the museum or the zoological park may euthanize a venomous reptile for which an anti-venom is not readily available. This again, was passed in Senate Bill 112. Part 15 amends the Administrative Procedure Act to provide the Wildlife Resource Commission with temporary rulemaking authority for manner of take. Again, this was voted out of Senate Bill 112. Part 16 prohibits the public entities from purchasing or requiring an ownership interest in real property with known contamination. Without approval of the govern and the counsel of state. This again, was voted out of Senate Bill 112. This section applies to a purchase or acquisition of interest of real property occurring on or after July the 1st, 2013. Part 17 clarifies that no building code is required under the building code for routine maintenance on fuel dispensing pumps and other dispensing devices. We have worked with the fire marshall to develop language that codifies our rules with regards to routine maintenance on fuel dispensers. Part 18 clarifies that the ?? environment of natural resources may, in addition to adopting a schedule of entrance fees for the aquariums, may do so for the piers operated by the aquariums, and may adopt fees for facility rentals and educational programs. Part 19 repeals the Mountain Resource Planning Act. They are non-regulatory commission that has a non-regulatory advisory board. A lot of our members from the West floor, they were the first step to mountain zoning and regulation and is not necessary. Part 20a and Part 20b provide an exemption from the 25 acre or more size requirement for local governments entering into development agreements for developable properties of any size, provided the property is subject to an executed brownfield agreement. The reason for these provisions is because there are numerous spots with less than 25 acres that are brown sized, that really need to be cleaned up and this will help and assist in that process. Part 21 directs the department of transportation to adopt rules for selective pruning within highway right aways for vegetation that obstructs a motorists view of properties on which ?? and activities occur. This was passed with Senate Bill 112. Part 22 amends the statute that regulates the sources of water pollution and activities of which a permit is required, by requiring any source that must

...to obtain a permit must also have a compliance boundary established, either by the permit or by a rule adopted by the Environmental Management Commission beyond which ground water quality standards may not be exceeded. The compliance boundary must be established at the property boundary unless otherwise established by the commission. Multiple contiguous properties under common ownership and permitted for use as a disposal site must be treated as a single property. This language, even though it seems a little confusing to some, has been worked out with DNR, Duke Energy, Farm Bureau, the North Carolina Chamber and also the North Carolina Manufacturer's Alliance, and also the North Carolina League of Municipalities. So to my knowledge, no one has any problem with Part 22. Part 23 adds radio towers to those towers exempt from applicable with the Military Protection Acts of 2013 under certain conditions. Part 24 clarifies a provision enacted in 2012 that extends the duration of permits for sanitary landfills and transfer stations that such permits are both construction and operation of the facility. We voted this out in Senate Bill 112, as well, and this was an ERC recommendation. Part 25 codifies existing factors and adds the amount of money a violator saved as new factor for consideration in assessing solid waste penalties. Current law under the general statutes and the North Carolina Administrative Code requires the Secretary of Environment and National Resources to consider numerous factors to determine the amount of penalty for a violation of solid waste management laws. Part 26 provides a local government from impeding the storage, retention or use of non-hazardous recycled materials, including asphalt pavement, raft or roof shingles in properly zoned storage facilities throughout regulation of the height of recycled materials stockpiles. This was voted out in Senate Bill 112, with Senator Ford's amendment and this is still in here, on there, so this just put all that together, Senator Ford. Part 27 directs the Environmental Review Commission to study the State requirements applicable to recycling of discarded computer equipment and televisions. The results of the program implementation since the enactment of those provisions and whether changes may be required or advisable to improve recycling rates and overall effectiveness of the State. We have worked with DNR on these provisions and should you have any questions on this one I know DNR can answer them. Part 28 and pardon me just one second. My whistle's getting dry. OK. I'm back at it. Part 28 amends the definition of build upon area to mean impervious surface and partially impervious surface to the extent that the partially impervious surface does not allow water to infiltrate through the surface into the subsoil. Build upon area does not include a wooden slated deck, the water area of a swimming pool or gravel. This section directs the Environmental Management Commission to amend its rules to be consistent with the definition of a build upon area. Part 29 exempts ponds that are constructed and used for agriculture from a ?? buffer rules. This was also voted out in Senate Bill 112. Part 30 provides that in addition to a permit applicant and a permittee, a third party who is dissatisfied of a decision of the Environmental Management Commission may commence a contested case within 30 days of the commission notifying the applicant of its decision. Like Part 5, this language includes a third party in the list of individuals who can petition the commission. Part 31 repeals an article that provides alternative requirements for land disturbing activity that result in an increase in vehicular surface area of one acre or more. In 2008, a provision was inserted in the Senate budget requiring all pavement in North Carolina to be impervious, including residential construction. This presented structural issues, cost issues and potential ground water issues for areas like where gasoline is sold. The language was changed the next year to exempt areas where watershed programs were in effect. However, this law compared with these duplicate programs, causes compliance issues as retailers and other companies which may be building stores have to ensure compliance with both these watershed programs and the impervious pavement requirements which are duplicative, thereby driving up construction and engineering costs. We're just trying to give them a little help here. Pardon me? Part 31. Part 32 amends the notice procedure to the property owners that are joined property subject to an application for a dredge and field permit. We voted this out, also, in Senate Bill...

112 and this is for the neighbors. They have to be notified and obtain the signatures skipping the mailing process. Part 33 provides motor treatment centers with expiration authorization may obtain new authorizations that allow the systems to withdraw surface water from the same water body and at the same rate as whats approved in the expired authorization. It says new authorization are not required to pair an environmental document pursuant an to the state environmental police act. This section applies only to those systems who's authorization for the water treatment plant expired within the last 10 calendar years within of the effective date of this act. And this was worked out with Deener as well. Part 34 mid section law 2013 dash 50. An act to promote the provision of regional water and sewer services by transferring ownership and operation of certain water and sewer systems to a metropolitan water and sewer district. By removing from the criteria for determining effect public water systems. That the public water system has not been issued and inner base transfer certificate. Part 35A and this is where the majority of the last part of this bill comes into play. Directions department of environment and natural resources to combine the division of water quality and the division of water resources to create a new division of water resources. The remaining language in this bill as I said, deals with this issue. We have worked with Deener on this provision. Secretary Scrabar has asked the general assembly to give him the authority to implement one of the governments campaign promises. Which is more efficient less wasteful government and more customer service and Deener believes this will do that in combining that. They have found there was many overlaps and inefficiencies. With having DWQ and DWR as seperate entities. By combining these two divisions customer service a faster permitting process and less red tape are some of the advantages. And then part 35A gives the secretary of the fire to combine DWQ and DWR. But parts 35B through 35GG make conformance statutory session law changes relating to the combining division of water quality with the division of water resources. Bottom line is they just have to change the name and all the general statues. Part 36 of the standard separability cause and issuance of effective dates. I do have an amendment to run that will correct a few things. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson sends forth an amendment. Its coming out right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does all members have a copy? I'm sorry mr chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] you have a seat. Do all members have copies? You may proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to ask Jennifer if she would to walk us through this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr chairman and senator Jackson. Really quickly to walk yall through the amendment makes changes to three portions of this proposed committee substitute. The first is on page 3 lines 22 through 24 and what this will do is change the dates on which the department is directed to reporters in the room in final findings with regards to the studies of the federal ozone standards and their applications here in this state. It would shift the interim report from being due to the ERC for March One 2014 and bump it out a year to April one 2015. And then the final report from January 1 2015 to April one 2015. The next change you'll find begins on page 6 line 46 and this is a technical change to fix improperly referenced statue. The next change is on page 7 line 16 which rewrites that line at some division to ...

Section, persons that are subject to the regulation of this chapter may withhold any information that constitutes a trade secret, et-cetera, and this is the provision that applies to the provision of information related to hydraulic fracturing fluids and related data as it pertains to fracking in this state. The next change is also on page seven, line thirty-four, you'll see that the same statute is referenced there, GS132-2.1 and that should read 132-1.2, that's a technical fix. The next change, if you'll turn all the way to the end of the PCS, is on page forty-three and this just rewrites a portion of the effective date to make it a little bit more clear as to when the provisions pertaining to built upon area become effective. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions from the comity? Anyone from the audience? If interjection, sends forth amendment, all those in favor will say I. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oppose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have it at two, nothing. The bills back before you, members of the comity, any questions? Senator Allran? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman. My question is in regard to section twenty-nine. The agricultural ponds and the riparian buffer rights or riparian buffer rules. Some of the river basins are included and some aren't and why is that and what is the point of this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The point of this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, section twenty-nine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. My point in this is, it has nothing to do with the rivers and the inner basins. It's basically, if you've got a farm pond out there, that you don't have to have riparian buffers to go out from that pond to tie up more land. You've got a bank around that pond already, so why go beyond that? Those are some of the same issues we addressed when senate bill 112 went through. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jeff's got the answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to your point about why some river basins are listed, not all river basins in this state have rules for riparian buffers. So this actually just lists out the river basins that do have those rules. For river basins where there are no rules, you don't need a change. So it just lists out all the river basins that have rules, such as the Noose and the Tarpon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I just do not know, so my question is, have there been issues about this is these various river basins, so that we need to change than the ones that are listed? Has it been requested? What is the deal on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My knowledge, the problem has been, and not necessarily that it is a problem, Senator Allran, but when you've got a farm pond located in the middle of an area that, you've already got a bank around this pond and you don't need to have the riparian buffer rights fall even further, you're taking up production land is what you're doing. Does that make sense to you? I'd have to take you to the farm to show you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well that makes sense and it may be a good thing, but it includes, for example, the Katanga river basin and I don't know exactly whether or not the people in that area want this change or do not want this change, whether or not there's concern about it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To my knowledge, this would not change any of your standard riparian buffer rights along these inner basin transfers. This is just pertaining to farm ponds. So your riparian buffer distance would still be there. If that makes sense? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It makes sense. Senator Ford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman. Senator Jackson, I'm not sure if it's you or ?? who can help me out with this question, but going to section seven, I'm trying to understand how staff or... And I'm also gonna recommend that we add part of our orientation, is the number of commissions that the state has, but help me understand how you're gonna manage it and I don't want to infringe upon industries proprietary or trade secrets as it relates to their secret recipe of how they're gonna do this, but I am concerned about how...

is staff going to manage what they don't know is being used? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I would like, staff, would you, or I could ask the department, Jennifer? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Yeah. Let's have the department answer that question, they were so kind to me on my last bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We actually appreciate the Senators in the House, on this bill here, working with the department to make sure that a lot of the concerns we had was addressed in it. So we actually like this bill. If I was talking to the Senator about farming I'd say we got a nice box of tomatoes, but there's a couple in here that’s a little bit soft. But other than that we like the package here. On this particular issue here, this is a issue that we've asked to be put in here to address our concerns about the trade secrets and what we'd have to disclose and everything, and we've run this by a lot of different stake holders and we feel very comfortable with the way it's worded. It gives us some further protections on trade secrets and how those are handled. So, specifically to your question, I guess, you know, we support this language as it is. We are adopting rules now, and we do have a rule that's almost ready for our chemical disclosures. As far as how we're going to handle the disclosure of that, it's not worked out yet. We hope it's going to be worked out, but this goes even further on all trade secrets, whether it's the chemicals that's used in their fracking fluids or the sand that's used in the fracking process, or any of the other trade secrets that gives us some more protection on being able to keep those trade secrets in house. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Any other questions before Committee? Senator Rabin. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I'm not sure who has the best answer, but I'm concerned with Section 23. Has that section been coordinated with the Military Advisory Committee, or anyone else from the military community, or are these exemptions simply a way to get around some of the restrictions that come with the Military Protection Act, 2013? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Colonel? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Jennifer has to answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Rabin, this is a request that came from the radio communications industry. If you look at the language that it amends in that act that was just enacted, that's actually ratified and before the Governor for his signature right now, but essentially what that does is, adds radio towers to the cellular towers and television towers that are provided with exemptions to that act, provided they meet certain conditions that are already in there. The radio towers were inadvertently left out when that legislation moved through the process, and they came asking to be included. That's my understanding, and it's just a technical amendment and all of these were addressed as the legislation was moving forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Follow up, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I guess now we're starting to find out, Mike, why 72 might be a good cut off on that other bill we looked at. Just, the question is, has it been coordinated with the Military Advisory Committee, or anyone else, to make sure that we aren't violating, or giving exemptions that would be antithetical to the Military Act that we passed for 2013 on getting along with the military? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Senator Rabin, it's my understanding that this would align with the language that had already been approved by the staff at DOD that were consulted before. And again, it just adds radio towers to those other towers. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I see the word... Follow up, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I see the word 'exempt' about three times. We're exempting things from those Military Acts, the way I read it. You know, that's why I'm asking the question. You know, is this going to square away with the, I'm trying to find the right word there in 23. The Act of 23, of 2013, the military installations. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Senator Rabin, it's my understanding that DOD and those folks that were consulted with are okay with this language. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Mr. Chairman, ?? once more. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Senator Rabin, I don't think there's anything in this language that the DOD has not been made aware of and they're fine with, but I think it's more clarifying that

they added the radio towers to this, so that we would not have an issue. I don't think- there's no intent in here to slip anything by for sure to our military customers. We're proud of our military as you well know, and we want to do everything we can to help them , and that's the intent of this bill. It was trying to add the radio towers to the cell towers and all that stuff that was already in place. And I still don't know if that answered your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll check on that Senator, and we'll make sure that we take that. Sen. Bryant. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? questions Mr. Chairman. The first question is on section 34 on the regional water systems and I was trying ?? with that session law back up, but when you remove the criteria of the inner basin trans- you know the public water system has not been issued an inner basin transfer certificate. When you remove that provision, does it add any other cities or towns or regions other than the ones that were covered in the bill that we passed in the Senate which I thought somehow added Ashville or something. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You know, sort of a mirage that's covered in that provision. So could you just make it plain who are we covering and why are we making that change? [SPEAKER CHANGES] So as you've noted, that section 34, it's page 20 line 32, this is repealing a provision that was in session lot 2013-50 passed earlier this session dealing with regionalizations of water systems, the particular criteria that's being removed is that the system could not have an inner basin transfer certificate, I believe that with the removal of this language, right now that still wouldn't pull anyone else in, but that's because there's another criteria that has a based on the service population, if the service population of another area increased beyond 120,000, I believe is the threshold, than it could be subject to that bill as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? Can staff say what areas would be most likely next covered? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Jackson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Bryant, Pitt county's what's been affected and we are being told that they have no opposition to this section of this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Thank you, I had another question. ?? if that's okay? On the area where you were giving the commission for public health the 30 days to do the well's inspections, do we know that they have the staff for that? I hate to give them 30 days and find out that we just cut- slashed their budget you know in half, or down tremendously. I don't know if anyone's here from DHHS that can speak to whether they can handle that requirement. I don't know if the sponsor knows. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not know if they have the staff. I would think that when you go out and look at a facility and it's either a yes or a no answer, it doesn't take that long to cover a lot of places in 30 days. Which I thought was very sufficient in time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, we can see if anybody's here from the department or any of the other environmental organizations who want- I don't know if you have a sign up for speaking on this bill or not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We did, we have ?? up here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, and I have- [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? from HHS, County Commissioner Association. You better watch out, you may get volunteered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, and I just have one other question. Before you go to the list, how many of these provisions were new today over all these provisions already in other bills, are any of them new for today and do we have a sense for that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's a good question, but there are some new ones, but a lot of them were in Senate bill 112, that is already been vetted. Pardon me? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] House 94 already. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House 94, I know- Oh, okay, and they've already been vetted in the House as well? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right, they were combined. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Sen. Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, we'll just hold that question. Sen. Allran. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I would like to go back to section 34 and the questions about section 34. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand that the answer was that that was aimed to just apply to Pitt county, but I'm not quite sure I understand what it might do to some other areas and I'm still concerned about the inner basin transfer aspect of it. So if I could I guess direct a question to Mr.

[SPEAKER] I would be interested for him to go over that a little bit more. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So this provision does not affect the underlining basin transfer law. Its just in session law 20, 2013-50. There were three criteria for when public water system would have to be transferred to a metropolitan water, and sewer district. And those were, that there was a metropolitan sewer district in the county were the public water sewer system is located. That the public water system did not have an interbasin transfer certificate, and it has a service population of 120,000 or more. With the provision that is being repealed if that remains in. Currently the only public water system that will be impacted by the session law, enacted the earlier session would be the system in Buncombe County, the Asheville operated system, by removing this criteria as Senator Jackson noted, the system in Pitt county, if its population continues to grow. It could reach the 120,000 threshold and it would be pulled in by the operation of that act as well. Because the only thing that distinguish that system from the Asheville system is that that system has an interbasin transfer certificate. So its just those, thats just a distinguishing factor between the two. Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there any particular reason why you express it in such a way that the names of the affected areas aren't mentioned? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thats a question for the bill sponsors. The sponsors of 2013-50. Any further questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What is the answer? I'm just kinda of wondering if it was oriented to specific areas? It might of been clearer if it just mentioned them. So what is the reason for that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir, I don't know if I can give you an honest answer so I wont give you one at all. Other than I don't know who introduced that session law. I don't know exactly which bill that is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That was a house bill. We can go back and get you the specific sponsors names of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That explain's it all! [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thats it! SPEAKER CHANGES] It's the House! It is the House. We love them. We love them alot. Any further questions? Anyone from the audience would like to speak into the bill? Mary? ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator Brock for allowing me to speak again. I'm Mary Mclain-nausville. I work for the Southern Environmental Law Center which is an non-profit environmental law firm. I just have to say here we are again.Were looking at what was a simple, fairly straight forward bill, or actually two bills in the house and the senate. It has now grown into a grab bag of weakening safeguards that will hurt North Carolina's families and businesses. By my account I think there are least ten new sections. I just saw the bill this morning so I'm not sure exactly how many new. So Im just trying to address a few of those quickly. Sections 1-5 make changes to our air permitting programs and on the heals of last's sessions dramatically weakening the air toxic program. I feel that these changes should not be taken lightly and deserve full vetting. Section 7 undermines the long standing work already being done by the mining and energy commision. Created, by this legislature on what information needs to be disclosed to the the citizens of North Carolina about chemicals being used in the fracking process. It seems to keep important information from Deaner rather than providing them with more information forcing them to go to court to get this disclosure information. Section 8 exempts the mining and energy commission from doing a fiscal note for the hundreds of rules that it is trying to promulgate. All in an effort to fast track fracking in this state. This legislature require more fiscal notes of all agency last session. Now it seeks to exempt one segment from that requirement. Said that the oil and gas industry won't get impatient waiting around for rules that are designed to protects North Carolina's people air, and water. Finally section 22, the compliance boundary section. You probably heard that this is just clarifying existing law. This is not accurate. Currently Deaner ??

Draws an imaginary line, called a compliance boundary around all waste disposal areas, which includes co lash disposal which is hog waste lagoons, and landfills. Right now that's drawn either five-hundred feet or two hundred and fifty feet. This bill would bring that compliance boundary out to the property line. Placing, removing any obligation for polluters to address contamination until after it is contaminated in neighbors private property. It goes so far as to say that multiple contiguous properties shall be considered as one, which means if you contaminate out to your property boundary, you can buy the next guy's property, so you still don't have to clean up that contamination. This is not the way the law is currently being interpreted, and is a vast expansion. This list goes on and on. I simply urge you to slow down, and take time to look at all of these important safeguards for the citizens of North Carolina. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you member. Anyone else in the public senator wade moves in favor to the original, in favor to the proposed committee substitute as amended all those in favor will say I. Opposed no. I's have it. We're adjourned. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you members.