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.

House | May 9, 2013 | Committee Room | Environment

Full MP3 Audio File

The French high heels and Lake CC else john Brandt said M likelihood that thank you all so much for your service will head to cite them that's not really am Wendell on the calendar today that they are on the agenda to bank and it will be hospital 94 and represented Samuels said we'll present at Beale the matter is that the CS banking and Representative Catlin,(SPEAKER CHANGES) has some made in the senate PCs before you holiday for the BCSAI, a Lopez L BCS is before you thank you and Senator Kennedy decibel is like several others that we had great team LIC street from the final review commission and the state has the only remaining share, how would be the proud Mary Bowie, a service that cannot attend a clean the contract is that we got married but CT scan today offered to write four heard five but no man's leave the line every session and there is a model technical corrections in message N1 man's technical corrections is strictly technical corrections and the disease is something that's a lot more substantive M. Shand D general ER consensus less signs, AA contentious think I’m is considered a steady stream from, and then, the pass rush things routed 2B55, is not eight separate from land reform M ND the main battle tank and we did try to make them more consensus, so many other types of things on the satellite SA would be more likely, the Reg reform committee or in a Reg reform bill I'm not aware me that if you are the facts and that is the way they work so you would like to leave, icy tracks staff that three BS because they are certain technical and then we'll see if we need to questions about the time stamp would accept that and standards and Cincinnati to someone else to go quickly ms six sections in the first lady clarify provision has enacted in 2012 thanks to the duration of permits the cemetery brain cells can transfer stations to provide estimates are for both construction and operation of the facility section two clarifies the process for he'll start from civil penalties assessed by local government has established a minister's the C approved a motion in syndication control program the section also provide and civil penalties assessed by local government under that syndication pushing control at (SPEAKER CHANGES) Mr. Nixon to settle protein forfeiture five sections for EMZ PCs would repeal requirement for air pollution permit holders to submit two department Financial Resources report that conflict that he tells a description of their credit protection plans to reduce emissions air contaminants under permits by source reduction and recycling facility in their channel five air quality permits section four-PCs, five existing factors and comments came out of money at pioneer wood CT factor for consideration planned by the secretary of the division by central banks, assesses several Parks assistance is solid waste penalties under current law within the statute in North Carolina Mr. Five, Santa Ana National Resources consensus that is determining of companies for violations under this lost six and five other PCs is a technical chains to provide Data Storage tanks assistance that were installed after Jerry 11995 and five few people in 2000 were not required to comply the fall setback requirements to provide secondary containment until she's in so doing 12020 in section six in the act would direct the commission for public health to the rule seven permits are issued four-wire Wells and circumstances and lets local health Atty. (SPEAKER CHANGES) says term amp propose site for the well is OK with your mouse and CNN source of contamination , schools at five out to buy the commission must provide for news and information-source of contamination and restitution of premises consumption uses such a law firm such a site NL become a fact of life from floppy hat in some questions banking crisis for staff, through posting MMM, a different set of tech companies like a plantation as the cities are clarifying our can't find things in IE 6 to 1 PM way to making them section like this era and Ellen here to deal with the C.s and that will be the place the four which is the one we continue planning for the C.s I B's concise this is just making sure that it's clear that its construction as well ??.....

As, From a construction and operation and that was just an omission in the original bill [Speaker Changes] Rep, Here is your question for the staff [Speaker Changes] OK [Speaker Changes] Thank you Madam Chair and Thank you representatives for bringing this bill forth and I just have a couple of questions about it. The piece about the air pollution portion section 3 I guess. is that really all to the revisions to the air toxic program or is that a completely different issue? [Speaker Changes] I believe it’s not that I am sure I am pretty certain that there are folks in the department who can answer that more directly [Speaker Changes] Please state your name and position [Speaker Changes] Mike Edwardson, Deputy Director with the division of Air Quality. Its not related to the air toxics revision that were changed last year [Speaker Changes] Thank you Madam Chair. Relates to the tough requirements for well construction. Where is that. Number 5 clarifiying and resourcing. That i assume that means if this is something that takes place before the rules were adopted and takes a longer time to move [??] and the point about that. [Speaker Changes] Madam Chair. Rep Harrison This change was actually made in 2011 by a legislation. It was just an inadvertent omission the end date in there to kind of put parenthesis around the tanks that were eligible. [Speaker Changes] Rep Iller what's next please. OK and Rep Dickson. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Madam Chair. this question may be for the bill sponsor or staff. In section 6 help me understand how if does apply to current livestock facilities relative to the whale in proximity to the live stock facility itself where to the method of handling the waste relative to the livestock facility i.e the lagoon [Speaker Changes] I am going to let staff half answer that specifically. I was assuming that ones are already known. [Speaker Changes] Rep Dickson. I believe what this section is contemplating is for sources of contamination i.e source of spills and other like hazardous substance releases and things of that. But I believe that this was the recommendation of the department, so if they would like to speak this more specifically that might be helpful. [Speaker Changes] Anyone from Deaner. Mr Matthews [Speaker Changes] My name is Matthews and Ia m the director of waste Management in deaner. I am sorry, could you repeat the question. [Speaker Changes] Rep Dickson [Speaker Changes] The question was to help me understand if section 6 has pertinent applicability to whales located adjacent to livestock facilities or in proximity to the method of waste stored relative to the live stock facilities. [Speaker Changes] If there was a known contaminant source, what this will do is have the commission adopting rules that basically gives notice to the person seeking a permit for a whale of that source of contamination and any information that the department had on that particular source of contamination prior to receiving a permit. [Speaker Changes] Madam Chair a Follow-up [Speaker Changes] Follow up [Speaker Changes] Madam Chair and Bill sponsor and also Mr [??]. My concern is that I don't want anything to interrupt the current method of watering the livestock as it exists. I want to be assured that the current whale at the facility cannot be , You can't come in and declare because there is some certain proximity to the facility itself that it is now in jeopardy of being classified to a contaminated source. [Speaker Changes] Madam Chair. From what you are saying could be an issue that we would probably welcome an amendment to clarify that. Madam, could be an issue that we would welcome a amendment to clarify to make sure it doesn't happen. But this amendment [??] because of concerns from health department.

issuing permits around known contaminated sites. Thats what its directed at and to give a procedure in place to where they can still issue the permits but they have to know, the property owner has to know theres a contaminated site within 1000 feet. However in relation to the question you're asking the way its working its broad enough that it could go beyond what the intention is for them for perfecting the amendment asking them to address ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] staff can you, he's correct about the intent was and I viewed it more too as just notifying them of the contaminate but if its broad enough that it could actually impact either current existence of a permit or issuance of a permit, is there a way for us to clarify that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess I would note that I believe this language came from the department. A couple of things to think about, so this is known source of release of contamination, so I the way we would read that that we would not be talking about animal waste as a known source of contamination as Ms Munt said earlier I think we thinking talking about leaking underground storage tanks, that kind of thing, so I so noted the second sentence rules ?? of any way to as Representative Samuelson noted the second sentence the rules of doc ?? well ?? within 1000 feet of a known source of contamination, they know the contamination is there so they can decide if they want to drill the well or whatever precautions, I don't think it has anything to do with the source of contamination, whatever it is. That was our understanding and reading of this, the department way want to expand on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] madam chair I would agree with that assessment there that's the intent and exactly the way its worded. The Representative is concerned that they might go further than that and call hog lagoons or any kind of animal waste lagoons as contaminated sites. I think thats his concern, and so I would probably refer that to back to Mr. Mathews and see if he would give his response to that and see if he would with that if he may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] madam chair while Mr. Mathews is coming up I just want ?? one more followup ?? but if it needs ?? amendment I'm in support of that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] and I'm comfortable with Representative Sanderson offer there. Let me give a very brief explanation of what is reality. I know of a situation where a constituent of mine has a legally permitted very fine operated livestock facility. And if you'll envision in your mind a livestock barn here on your right and one on your left, when the facility was originally constructed the well the source, the total source of drinking water he has damaged that facility and that well is going to not operate, a big chain as dropped down in it when they were repairing it and he went and applied to correct that situation and he was not allowed to put a new well down adjacent to the well he's currently using and a matter of fact under the regulations was going to have to go 3000 feet because of underground cables etc etc to put down his new well to water those ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] and that may also be a separate issue that needs to be resolved in regriform but lets make sure [SPEAKER CHANGES] lets make sure [SPEAKER CHANGES] is this on the same subject? [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you maybe we can [SPEAKER CHANGES] and I understand your concerns Representative Dixon but there are hoglicans that have costs that are sources of contamination to private drinking water wells in addition to just the so ?? we just want well drillers to know that there is that potential out there its not to stop it it's just to know about it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK thank you [SPEAKER CHANGES] maybe we can work this out before this goes to the floor then if Representative Samuelson agree to that then with Representative Dixon. Oh, I'll agree also [SPEAKER CHANGES] and next

was Representative Catlin [SPEAKER CHANGES] A question maybe for the public health commission. How are we going to identify that? I mean, it's not easy to identify sources of contamination. There's some research that you have to do. Has there been any thought about what these sources of information would be? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is sources that are already known and identified, but they have a process for doing that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, well, I do it myself, and it's not always easy to find all the sources. So, I'm just curious where we are on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair, we have all the known sites identified, and it's quite extensive in North Carolina, the contaminated sites. The reason that we didn't submit to you language that was tighter is because there's absolutely no way that we could have done this in legislation. We felt like this is an instance where it had to go to rule making so that you can prioritize these contaminated sites because, if you just try to say contaminated sites, and basically this would affect most of North Carolina. So you have to go through rule making to prioritize what type of contaminated sites that are known actually needs to have this notification. And that's what all this is. It doesn't stop anything. It just says that they will notify the owner within a thousand feet once they prioritize which sites they determine are contaminated. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And one good thing about this is the bill that we ran earlier on well education. It would be putting people that needed to know being able to get that information. And, to follow up with that, I would agree to that. And we would've liked to have known this issue in time to have it in that bill. So, it should've been part of that bill originally. But this issue is something that has arisen as a result of that bill. And it's arisen from the health department directors across the state have brought this issue to us, or brought this issue before the state. And we've agreed to ask for this recommendation from the house and senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, assistant secretary. Representative Iler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the senate our question wasn't totally answered. So, I want to clarify something. It's probably for staff, but my hometown went through a major issue a few years ago where we couldn't place irrigation wells close to the sewer. It was a debate about a hundred feet or twenty-five feet. I just need a final assurance this has nothing whatsoever to do. We have county water, but we have irrigation wells which, you know, in some cases, somebody could drink out of a hose maybe. I don't know. But this will not impact that situation whatsoever. Is that correct, Mr. Hudson? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, our reading of this is it's just providing information. So your local government, for instance, would get under this, under the rules that would be adopted pursuant to this, would get information about any known sources of contamination within a thousand feet of where you're proposing to put the well and that you would decide if you still wanted to do it. Now, there may be other existing background law that says you can't put a well within so many feet of a certain source of contamination. But this doesn't change this. The other thing I'd note is this is for rule making. So, anything the commission does will have to go through the rules review commission and would have to come back to the general assembly and be subject to legislative disapproval if, ultimately, the commission adopted rules that y'all didn't like. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This about letting you know, when you want to drill your well, what's around it. Then somebody else decides whether or not you can drill it. But this is just making sure you know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One clarifying follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. So, a municipal sewer system would not normally qualify as a source of contamination. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, the language in here is "known source of release of contamination". So, just the existence of it is not going to be a source, a release of contamination. If there was a major spill from it, for instance, then that could be a source of contamination. But just the existence of that, or an agricultural operation, or an underground storage tank - it's not a release of contamination. So, you actually have to have contamination leaking into the ground, and the department has to know about it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a real quick clarification about Section 2. I just want to make sure that this is really just trying to modify these aspects of civil penalties from a technical standpoint because, a lot of times, these local governments administer their own sanitation ?? control program. But this is not expanding the authority in any way

They preform just kind of clarity just making it better more efficient is that the case? [Speaker Changes] Correct and find who the money goes to. [Speaker Changes] Okay. Representative McGrady is next [Speaker Changes] Thank You. Just speak on the bill real quickly, im one of the co sponsors too and spent a lot of time going through each of these sections. I agree with the assessment that these are clarifying these are fixing mistakes there really pretty clear should be pretty clear that we just need a fix and there is not a lot else in here. The bill though does raise a bigger issue and representative Storrin tonight talked about this and the fact that the proposal put forward by the department included a range over other proposals to include some rule changes in the bill we made how we do our rules and I know representative Sampson has another bill on this issue, we’ve made the rule process so difficult that we are now seeing dyer need to come back or proposing to come back and change rules through statutes and we are seeing legislators like representative Storrins have an issue that really out to be a rule but since we can’t get through the rule process we got to stick it in a bill so I just raise that issue this is a good bill it’s been appropriately described there’s no hidden agendas in this thing it is exactly what it reports to be and I’ve been gone thru it line by line and recommend it to you. [Speaker Changes] Representative Harrison was next [Speaker Changes] Thank you I just want to follow up on a question about section 3 and I’m trying to sort of understand the impact of the bill summary that is not considered part of the permanent application I’m just wondering if someone can speak to it with another more detail department staff or – [Speaker Changes] Thank you Madam Speaker. Representative Harrison basically this eliminates unnecessary paperwork requirement where facilities are required to report recycling activities every time they paid their air quality permit fees, we collect in the department that information other ways so it was just making this requirement unnecessary. [Speaker Changes] Representative Starnt. [Speaker Changes] Thank you well just to comment and there is nothing wrong with this bill but I think what we have to recognize the fact that in the past legislatures have passed provisions in law with the anticipation that something would be done. But then nothing happens because the rules making process is so slow and I would contend that the rule making process if it’s not broken it certainly needs to be streamlined so that rules can be made in a timely matter and I’ll give you nan example we’ve had a scrap tire provision put in the bill last session one year later the rules have not been written and they say it’s going to take another 18months to get the e rules done. It’s frustrating because we don’t just put provisions in bills because we don’t have anything to do. We are trying to address problems so now I thought I was s fixing a problem last year and they say a year later give us another 18 months and we’ll have a rule for that so I’m in favor of if this means eliminating the rule or expediting but I respect your opinion won’t monkey with it but I’ve got an amendment that would fix my provision but apparently you don’t want to go down that path. [Speaker Changes] Not in this bill if possible. I am sympathetic wildly sympathetic actually and just trying had a discussion with the assistant secretary this morning about tit and I’m trying to figure out how to we get there because the issue you raise is I can give you six more examples of it. And I suspect assistant secretary Galespy can give you 20 more examples about it. We got to figure out how to get there because these rules need to be put in place in a timely fashion to do exactly what you’re proposing to do. [Speaker Changes] And I know you’ve talked to rep Moffat and I also sent your stuff to representative moppit and he’s trying to deal with it on the reg reform side. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. Alright any other questions? Is there anyone one from the audience that would like to -

On this bill. Hearing none. Is there a motion? Representative McGrady: [speaker changes] We’ve got a PTS – favorable PTS as favorable as to the original. [speaker changes] Referral to? [speaker changes] Referral to finance. [speaker changes] Okay, you’ve heard the motion. You can fix it in finance now? And he may do that! All in favor say Aye [speaker changes] Aye [speaker changes] All opposed no. The motion carries and the bill has passed this committee. Thank you. And this committee, if there is no other business is adjourned.