Well I know everybody has been busy, but we'll go ahead and get started. Thanks for being here, this is our first normally scheduled environmental meeting due to all the snows that we've had, and the sessions that have cancelled for Thursday, so glad to have you here. First I would like to recognize the house Sergeant at Arms we've got Reggie Seal, Marvin Lee, Terry Mcroll and Chris McCracken, thank you very much for your service, and we have a page here that's sponsored by Representative Hailer from Brunswick County and it's Bryson Hill. There you're. Glad to have you here Bryson. OK today there was legislation filed in SL2014 120 that ask Dina to do a study use of contaminated property, and as legislation comes forward on this issue I think it's important that our committee be educated on the details of this, it's a multiple page I don't know 30, 40 pages of information and it's complicated for people that are not involved in ground water contamination, so I think it's important that we get a chance to that so Dina is going to present the details of this, so that we would be informed as things come forward and Linda the director of Waste Management Division has worked with me to put together something for this committee and Linda you can come forward, we very much appreciate your help on this. Thank you. Good morning chairman and commission, excuse me representatives, I'm going to call Paper the director of the division of waste management. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today a little bit about use of contaminated property reports that we've done. As chairman Catlin had indicated back in 2014, the regulatory reforms station law or to study ways to improve the timeliness in addressing contaminated properties. Dino had two small stake holder work group meetings in October to discuss the actions and explores some policy options. The first of these items explores the expansion of risk based remediation of ground water to all our remediation programs in Dino Chairman, Cathleen thought it would be beneficial to help give a little bit of background, oops! on what it is, and our current practices to address for mediation of contaminated properties across the state. The rules in place to prevent releases of contaminant is due to environments, some of the properties that we deal with have old historic contamination that may have come from prior rules being developed or being in place. Often times, or to tell when the contamination happened and actually who did the termination when the property has changed ownership overtime. The first step is to find out what type of contamination exist in the property, and address those immediate issues. There may be something we need to do to provide ultimate water, if the drinking water was contaminated. The next step is we evaluate other risks at the site, such as maybe soil contamination and we design and work with responsible parties to design a strategy to assure people of not exposed to the contamination. With this space, you can eliminate exposures by preventing the use of groundwater, into not allowing someone to dig in the soil where the contamination is those can be done through land [xx] that are placed on the property, and then followed with the land if it is sold. Without the [xx] authority we work with party to clean up the property to return it to an unrestricted use level that means there will be no restrictions on the use of the property to give you an idea of what we are going to have, you've given Dina specific authority and certain program area. is which allow the use of raised base from radiation. From petroleum releases from underground storage tanks that's the UST program, said the gas station for example, we categorize the properties as high, medium or low risks size. Depending on the impact or the potential impact to human health of the environment. so if it is a
release, in which gasoline flows on the ground water, there's that much gasoline that has to be removed. But there's still going to be some gasoline, that is resolved in the ground water and or there maybe some left in the soil. Most space from radiation standards have been established to balance how much contamination needs to be removed, versus, allowing some of the control measures, such as the land use restriction to prevent the exposure to the contamination. just preventing the use of the groundwater in that area. There is approximately $8, 000 UST releases from commercial and non commercial petroleum tanks, undergoing clean up or in need of clean up in North Carolina right now. The dry clean program is another area that has 304 sites, and the pre-resitory landfill program has 675 that are in the remediation programs respectively. In total, over 20, 000 releases have already been addressed there is space for mediation across the states. You also gave authority to Deaner in 2011 to apply real space for mediation till this last category which are manufacturing industrial sites, with only on site groundwater contamination. We've had about 40 property owners interested in this 2011 session law with the few sites nearing close out, and one has being completed since we developed these slides a few weeks ago. to give you an idea of how many other properties across this state have contamination, we have about eight 1, 881 stock inactive as it sites on our see perform program, 333 of those are known to be all fence, and when I say that I mean they have no viable responsible party to do the clean out. We also have properties in our houses lease program that are undergoing [xx], for the state super fan size, 513 have already been cleaned up under the program, we can stay oversight being on the worst ones in priority order, unless someone volunteers to do the clean up, which typically happens when someone is trying to do a property transaction trying to sell the property. Otherwise, after the immediate threats were addressed, as I mentioned before like providing alternate waters and nobody is drinking contaminated water. Most of the properties remain on the list without [xx], waiting for them to come in priority state for the state to enforce clean up action by any party that the state can determine is responsible Contaminated property is also bought or sold for redevelopment, and has been successfully addressed on the Brownfields program. This also uses a risk based approach to make the site safe for intended use. Here we work with developers not the responsible party who caused the contamination. The developers work with our staff on potential land uses and we enter into an agreement with them which outlines necessary actions to make the state safe for the intended future use. And the developer receives liability protection from having to claim the property up to an unrestricted use level, the responsible party though, is held to the cleanup standards under the regulatory program. Some of the sites in the super [xx] sections and active sides program have been or will be redeveloped under the Brownfields Program, but most of those 1800 sites are not. Again work on the sites listed in the inventory is done on a priority basis with our limited resources. Some do have a voluntary clean ups underway, where owner or the responsible parties addressing the contamination many side that have no ongoing active remediation, broadening the use of risk space remediation may encourage more remediation and clean up across the state with tha in mind, here are the policy issues that we explored. This first was the initial policy that you asked us to study as in expansion of the use of risk space remediation and other types of properties, also with the consideration for those contamination graded off the original property, to give you a little bit of an example here for trolling releases you can use that's the space from the radiation for release from those underground storage tanks. That's when you have an above fuel tank, that's how to release. currently you have to remidate to the rag petrol standards. Our users specific example of benzine which is found in gasoline. The ground water stand that is one part per billion. For risk-based room remedies we would allow a gross contaminant level of 5000 parts for a billion of benzene at a low risk property site to stay in the ground water as long as they put in a land use restriction so nobody accesses that ground water. So in contrast if you have
an above ground tank release which is not so far been included in the risk-based authority, it would have to be remidiated[sp] to the one part per billion. Environmental Management Commission received a petition for rule making, last year to allow the use of risk-based levels for both types of the tanks systems above and below ground the EMC agreed with the petitioners request and asked division to present the rules which we'll do in May, at the ground water waste management committee meeting. One key provision for considering risk-based remedy is the demonstration that the contamination is stabilized. You need to know where it is so you can assure the protective measures are in the right place. Another area regarding land use controls that are used in risk based remedies policy options include broadening the [xx] so it's available to all Dino programs we had the small stake holder work group and one of the areas we were looking at is those land use controls. You have already given the dry cleaning program the ability to use use existing state or local government zoning or ordinances to help with land use control, by instituting educational deed notices which reference existing government provision on certain activities, such as an [xx] that ban the installation of new wells in an industrial area, which is known to have ground water contamination one consideration is to allow other programs to use those existing control measures rather than to institute individual deed restrictions on individual properties Another area that we explored is how to handle releases from permitted units should be afforded the option of a risk space formating Some permitted units have a compliance boundary, some do not, as is the case this UST the underground storage tanks. If you have a release from the USG, you're required to address the contamination right there at the source. Given permits and other regulatory provisions aren't in place to prevent releases, if it really should happen, the question is, should a facility be allowed to use land use restrictions as part of the risk-based remedy, or should they be required to remediate unrestricted use standards? We also took a look at that 2011 Session Law, which addresses the manufacturing in industrial sites, and thinking about banning respace remediation to all contaminate properties. We looked at the financial insurance requirements for the clean up in these different options. The department was given the discretion in legislation to lower the amount of financial insurance required. Sometimes you get into cases where the property owner can only pay for the remediation or they can pay for the financial insurance, which would assure that they could provide the remediation, but sometimes they can't do both. The Session Law in 2011 also established a March 2011 cut off date, where releases reported at manufacturing and industrial sites by that day, were eligible for the respace remedies consideration can be given to modify this statute to eliminate the cut off date, move the date to some time in the future or to leave it as it is. That is the bulk of our first task that you asked us to do last year. So I'm going to pause and take any questions? thank you, I know that Prasty Harrison has a question. Thank you you made a number of references to the Land [xx] restrictions do you necessarily also mean recordations so that there's a notice on the deed to the land there is this problem? Right in the US program they're allowed to put the deed notices on the source area properties, so their's a notice if somebody is doing a title search that they would see that. Information. OK, does that apply to the other programs too dry cleaning and. Did restrictions which would actually outline these are the preventative measures you cannot dig two feet into the soil in a particular area, sometimes the contamination is at depth. So the surfacial area may not be contaminated where somebody is doing landscaping, they're not going to have an exposure route. Maybe at five to ten feet deep, somebody is putting in [xx], doing some kind of construction work they dig down, they may actually get into contamination, deeper down in the soil, so there is deep restrictions, land deeds restrictions that you see on the deeds will actually describe the areas that are contaminated, and at what depths and what types of chemicals that they need to be aware of. Is that a follow up? Yes, so I guess what I mean is so, but it's on the deed so that the purchaser
of the land knows that there is a land news restricted attitude that's the intent Another follow we are ready to the registration we pass in 2011, so those properties is limited to onsite contamination and how do we know that its has their contamination state on site, are monitoring wells required or? That's a good question that 2011 did you go with the manufacturing and industrial size. We look at ground along modeling we also look ground water data to know where it is which we space for mediation you really do there isn't another area we will get into that in the next seven resources we have to do more sophisticated ground water modeling. You need to know that is not going to exceed a standard at the property line. Is the whole idea to show that it is on sight, it is going to stay on sight and not exceed the ground standard, pass the boundary of the property. Follow up? Didn't we think that about coalition line? and then it turned out as it did, we had this conference so that it would stay on sight and we just moved the boundaries so I don't know but anyone it is the most sophisticated situation and I'll be glad in the resource as we agree with that that it takes more information to be available to the proof of [xx]. Okay, representative Martin. Thank you very much Mr chair, I've got a couple of questions on risk and I think it's two different types of risks. The first one is the risk to health which as a lawyer, I bravely actually made a mistake of trying to read the statute, I think I'm going to have the training to do it but quickly hits some numbers and fractions and so forth and was quickly stunning could you explain me a little bit more about exactly what the allowable risk is and the remediation standard. Right, we have several toxicologists and staff that work with us, we are looking at impact and non cause eugenic impacts, we also use EPA resources as well, they have tables and standards that they look at when they have screening levels for contamination across the state, we're looking at 10 to the minus 6 to 10 to the minus 4 risk factors you're familiar with that but we are really heavily based our information to on National EPA criterion when we're looking at in the air, issues, paper intrusion from solvents in the ground water to germal exposure as well as ululation. I'll be glad, maybe one of our toxicologists, I wouldn't bring them with us today, I apologise [xx] to people like me, so the numbers I'm looking at in the statute 138-310.68 talk about a range from reading from the statute XS lifetime cancer risk of one in a million, any where up to, I think one in 10, 000, can you tell me exactly what a one in 10, 000 life time cancer risk means I'm getting out of my expert I am not a cancerologist, but it is looking at a chance to have an access cancer, incident based on the population the factors involved for [xx], they look in children in different desperate situations, they are trying to be protective they have a safety factors involved in the calculations on they are looking at seventy year exposure out if its in their home looking at 24 hours industrial it's an eight hour typically, so they are trying to adjust those levels based on no potential exposure. I will follow up on that, thank you very much Mr. Chair is that, someone said that if they were about 10, 000 people affected by aside or over the lifetime, maybe I'm one of them is going to get cancer as a result of this. I would agree in a limit, yes, and I would be glad to have our talks because some are afraid they are least standards they are going to hate me when I get back to the office. Miss. Chairman if you prevent there are slightly different question on different topic. OK. Thank you the risk I want to talk about now is the risk to surrounding the real estate values of surrounding properties. If we're requiring the responsible party to just clean up the property, in theory at least there should be any diminution in the values of surrounding properties, because the property is clean. If however we do re space [xx], there's still a risk out there, and it seems to me that's going to affect the surrounding property on this value, because of the concern that not everything still going to be cleaned up at the after years a risk come. Did we ask her to look at, and did you look
at or are you aware of any other studies that talk about the risk to those innocent surrounding properties? Well, I'm not sure. Let me try that dress then you tell me if I need to provide something else, but it is a huge discussion point of interest for everyone involved. With this, if there was offsite termination [xx], and property on it affected will have to agree to a land reconstruction. So that, that would be something typically worthy finding. People have third party agreements with responsible parties. If there is an offsite property, they have outside agreement, outside of the state agency to make arrangements on that situation and if they're willing to put in a large in restriction, then that property, we can close out the site basically. That makes sense try it again. Just one follow up and then I'll be out. Thank you very much Mr. Chair, I think what I'm really dis concerned about is, do we know how much the presence of a site, under risk space remediation as opposed to other more thorough methods, how it affects the value of innocent surrounding property owner? Right, I'm not aware of studies where you're saying the contamination is on one piece of property, and how that may devalue an adjacent piece of property without contaminating the adjacent piece of property. I'm not aware of studies, JIm Bates, and our [super] chief, I'm not sure if you know of any studies There are recent studies conducted by EPA Superfund program, which were aimed at demonstrating, the increase in property values, at super plans site once they were cleaned up under federal program, but the data under pinning it resource would speak to your question and now we'll get that study to you. Thank you. Representative Barbra Thanks Mr. Chairman, thank you MR. Propaper, just a follow up on representative Harisone question on data recordation and I'm not familiar with the statutes required there but, when is that triggered, is it like for example if I'm a buyer of a piece of property when would that recordation, be taking place, in the cell or some other external, prison? Right. It's a good question. When we are working with the site at the point where we say OK then. Sometimes the contamination is under, say a building, and you can't actually access the soil to remove this. They need to leave some soil [xx] in place, it's just not practical, to make them tear down the building to go get the soil that's undereath. So there might be a land jurisdiction that, in that area, you cannot dig in the soil, in that particular area. That would go at the point where we are trying to say there's no further action needed at the site, as long as there's a land restriction in place that says, you cannot dig in this particular area because of that contamination so, as the agency is working with the responsible party, they put in that notice, the land deed restriction on the property, so if you were to go buy it later in the future, you will see that that land deed restriction is there to help. We don't wait until they're ready to sell property, because sometimes people are holding on to properties, they want to use it, continue to use it I'm not suggesting that you wait. Yeah. But I was curious again I would hate to like buyer beware and hopefully what we had a lot of time was doing you a closing would do a research and whatever darkness goes with it and they will find this that is correct. OK. And when we find out that somebody is interested in redeveloping a property that helps raise it on the priority list for the super fun program to go ahead and expend resources to take a look at it if we know there is a property transaction pending. Thank you, representative Adams, you have a question? A comment and a question I guess, I've been commercial real estate business for over 20 years so I've had to deal with environmental issues on a number of occasions I'm doing that right now. The problems that I've had in the past were not necessarily because of extreme contamination, but basically because thresholds were exceeded, and only by small amount, what occurred in that case was Dina didn't have the time to mess with this low threshold situations, and so we could get a letter of no further action and so the properties couldn't be sold. The brown field program has been a big help, but currently what does the brown field application cost, is it $12000? it is a little bit less than that and we do have an expedited process and it's expensive. And that's $30, 000 and on top of the 12.
But it includes the initial it's like 8500 it includes those initial, it's still expensive. OK so if you want to do a brown field application just for the factual having experience for you're going to be looking at about $12, 000 fee to make the application, and then how long will it take typically to complete that application and get response. Yeah we run in about 18 months and what you have implemented our tax credits which helps or were envisioned to help offset these fees and the initial assessment cost, so they will get tax credits on that redevelopment. Follow up. Where we a have a staying in the commercial real estate business say time kills all deals. The 18 months no deal. So, now they expedited ground field application at $30, 000. How quickly will that be turned around? It takes is a little less than a year and what we will find in our a lot of property transactions can happen as long as the site's eligibility, the learning institutes are at that point knowing the property is actually eligible for the brownfield's process, and the state is willing to negotiate with them, so we have had a lot of projects just by the eligibility which is about a three week process. Powell, and do you have a list of those against these institution that'll take this risk? We do not capture that information from the Brownfields applicants on what launders they're using. Follow up, well hence we can say our property sometimes is only tied with threshold, contamination, another avenue of this realize having more whose guy is an investor in one of the premises we have in our community. Yes we all know men [xx] and some of the areas vacuum or deep water contamination below 35 feet, so the sides contaminated even the people on top will not contribute this to the condemnation, in picking all along by their [xx]. I'll just say if my point of view will be continue develop means or ways for people to deal with living on the operating or habitating a previously contaminated site and safe way, no roads rather than remediate the site, figure out a way to deal with the contamination which is really that can be medicated any hazards that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you representative Brandford. Thank you chairman, I said a comment which may help a resolution of modern, so before doing my current job in the real estate, I was an environment engineer for Exo Nobel and actually my job was doing environment mediation from underground storage tank releases both impact to soil and ground water, there was no doubt about it that innocent property owners next door can often have impact, because of these things which does take a toll on the value if you will of the property. Although risk base assessment you don't always have the monitoring wells that will deliniate what we used to call the plum, to really prove that there was any type of impact to the adjoining property. So usually what I saw in my Job, if you'll with [XX] is we would work with the neighboring property owner, and they could install monitoring wells or take samples to see if there was an impact, and if there was in my case in the company they took responsibility and they would usually indemnify the neighboring property owner or if the neighboring property was on say a city water system as long as they weren't going to put for example a playground where maybe children will be outside ingesting the soil then the impact was minimal, but there is no doubt that if it is of knowledge if it's fact that there is a site next door that has some sort of environmental impact, the property next door will in fact have some sort of diminished value. There is no doubt about it thank you, and now we're going to move on to the next section, thank you. Okay thank you, the second task you gave us was to look at the resources and this is where re-mediating parties typically occur reduced costs when implementing risk based remedies, the regulatory programs as we talked a little bit typically caries an additional burden though of reviewing more ground, a lot of models that are needed to demonstrate that the future extended the contamination and reveal that tostilogical assessments, especially if there is multiple chemicals that are involved at the same time. The burden of long term oversight of engineering or largest control rests with the state, after sites are closed out and a few leverage programs with a risk base remedies have resources either specific to the industry sectors such as, I'd mention dry cleaning, there was a tact that dry cleaning solvents, or
there is a fee based on a per acre such as with the manufacturing and industrial site. Currently the superfan section has the registry environment consultant program or IAC program, that might actually help representative Adams in this discussion as well, it certifies professionals to oversee and approve standard based remediation[sp?] projects in lured the state oversight the state provides support and order to the projects to ensure that they confirm to the requirements However with space remedies right now, there are a lot of the industrial sites require dinner review and approval, even when the IC's may have conducted the work as the consultant. The majority of IC responding to a recent survey we did, acknowledged the value of the state training and guidance with support extending IC's authority, to allow there approval of [xx] remedies without direct stay oversight, where there are industrial sites or other types of property this will provide a privatized track for the risk based for mediation approvals. Another option would be to allow licensed geologists or engineers to over see and approve without the REC programe certification, the majority of consultants responded to theie survey indicated their [xx] to work with REC option Any follow up on that aspect? Any questions on that issue? are you reading from the power point you presented to us, and can you remind me what REC is? Registered Environmental Consultants I apologize for not forwarding this line, but in that case where representative Adams is indicated that the time it takes to do something, there is a superman program, there is this privatized track, where you could hire consultants. add on the REC program, they go out and implement eradity, they sign off on it and get closure to that property. Independent of the state, the state comes in and we as we would to make sure, on a percentage basis, to see if the consultants have operated properly just as we would have and move forward Representative Adams I'm working on the situation using consult right now just for the education of the audience, we're working on a project where we have a bit of a grumble to contamination, 26 patched pavilion, I believe the threshold is 18 patched pavilion for something related to gasoline, there is a monitoring well on the side, it hasn't been checked since 1998, so in the conference call on Monday, the consultant said well, because there was a monitoring well there, it's not money to pull the sample and check it out, but upon further questioning, it's going to be about $3500 on $100, 000 transaction, so sometimes people, there is a glibness about the cost of doing these things, and that's why the monitoring well in place on the site. So, and we're talking again about a threshold violation, we're not talking about a massively contaminated site, so we're trying to the project, it's a nice piece of property that should be redeveloped, and the grass grows green, but down in the ground there might be something. Thank you, representative. Sorry I don't want to extend this, but so did you, is the purpose of this meeting day here [xx], are we supposed to discuss some of these policies options because I don't remember if you mentioned these policy options about eliminating the March 1, 2011 cut off date if you've said that, now are we supposed to respond to that today or is that for future discussion or? This is an education session, so if you have questions please ask them. May I respond to that potential cut off date. I guess what I'm wondering, had the implications of that are such that, so if you have a future contamination issue, they occurred after, now. It seems like you'd be less inclined to prevent the pollution from occurring because you knew you would have this risk based alternative, rather than having to clean up to the default position right now. Wright, is that a concern? That's the view point that we've discussed. The other aspect of it is that there are rules to prevent releases. So, if you have say a UST, above ground tank that has a release, maybe they'd have spend that money on the engineering review, and has been certified, something happens
though, and there is a release from that tank, right now, an above ground tank will not be afforded a risk based remedy. They would have to clean up for xx for example down to that part pavilion. If they happen to be an underground tank a UST. if it is a low raised type, they could have up to 5, 000 parts pavilion under a risk based option. So that's absolutely one of those points of discussion that we need to continue to have for current releases, should they be afforded the ability. to get a risk base, remedy or not. Follow up. Follow up to the example on the devolved ground passes underground and I have some recollection after that. West Virginia experience that contaminated the river up there, it was pretty significant. It wasn't clear to me that we actually have strong rules on above ground releases from tanks. And no remarks eliminates the petroleum and try to make a comparison between above ground and below ground of petroleum I am gland you asked that follow up it's specifically for petroleum. Thank you and can we move on please. And onto the ground water standards our third test was to study the options of having the ground water standards be the same as the maximum contaminant level where we call the MCL's, for the public drinking water supply systems where there is an MCL. These two well ground water standards are established by the Environmental Management Commission with recommendations by the division of water resources at the value of the lowest of the six criteria in which you see presented, one of which is the MCL the EMC recently modified the rule to allow standards less stringent than in the MCO if the MCO is calculating what is now outdated toxicology information, in that case the state toxicology can use more recent information and calculate an updated standard. If there is a contaminant does not have a standard, the default is the laboratory practical quantitation limit. Some constituents like [XX] iron are also naturally occurring in parts of our state, the standard there becomes the background concentration for those sites. The comission for public health adapts the federal MCLs for public water supply systems. The MCL includes an economic component of cost benefit and is not traditionally updated unless contaminates are detected and finish drinking water which wants a more stringing standards. The research behind the Tox Cology studies I indicate the standard should change, resources are typically not spent not to find the standard, unless EPIC is the problem with that final drinking water from a public water supply system. The study reports provides the evaluation contaminant levels currently listed with MCLs and to our values. 88 of the contaminants on the to our list do not have an MCO of those that do, 18 are currently set at the same level as the MCL which is based on the two of our criteria. Now I can give you an example I'm going to go back a slide real quick. So these are the criteria, for cardman the MCL has a level of 5 micro grams per liter. Using the two way criteria [xx] and that first criteria concentration to protective of the non cancerous systemic effect of the contaminant, that level was lower when its calculated its two micro grams per litre so in this case, the two ounce standards for cadmium is two micro grams per liter rather than the MCL which was five. We came up with two policy options brought forth adopt the MCL values for those parameters that have an MCL or leave the two out standards as they're. The next test our forth test was to consider liability protection for innocent land owners. For example this applies when someone inherits property that is contaminated, and they did not cause or contribute to the contamination, or if the contamination migrates onto their property. Under Federal Authority protection is given to innocent land owners if they follow certain requirements. Policies options explored, include replicating that Federal innocent land owner provision at the state level, and whether or not to make it self implementing. another point of discussion was on the level of certification an individual should have, to implement the provisions. same to that discussion on the
risk base for mediation implementation, could could it be done by PG, professional geologist or professional engineer. here, the final task you gave us is open anent to explore other related areas is we have an ongoing effort to build consistency on remidiation method across our agency, we also receive the benefit and provide in a high level of service to a property owners regarding training, and education and remediation options to help ensure the clean up is done in a cost effective manner. That's in all of our best interest. [xx] spent a lot of information, there's a lot of different view points on this, [xx] points of contact for our program areas [xx] based apart from him a little bit earlier, he and the staff in the super fan section, developed much of these reports which I thank them for. The directives will whats for mediation to terminate the property regulated by other divisions, in our agencies have also waste the [xx] The director of the division of water resources, it is program area which oversees the development of this ground water standards. With that I'll be glad to take any follow up questions. Do you have a question [xx]. Sorry about that. Thank you for that presentation responding to a directive from the legislator, so [xx] pass that bill on 2011, we set that kind of date and I guess there were maybe, I think we sold 40 properties in presentation of about 200 properties that would have been covered, right now we have about 40 properties on us who have approached us about doing a risk base remedying. None. I'm sorry follow up, so and how many have engaged in the process, I mean, I was trying because I had to figure it out too. We have, I'll get back one that we have just completed recently. So, eligibility, I just pierce our inactive xx positive signs, super fund, and RCRA is our hazardous ways program. So these are the folks that we have qualified, and with remedial action approved at those four. One of those four Schneider Electric has come through the finish line and they're closing out with the land rates restrictions. Follow up. So I wrote down 881 is that the number of hazard ways site so that be the approximate number you think fall into the program if we remove the cut off date or is the number potentially bigger than that cause that leaves it at a loss I guess on dry cleaner. Sure and I apologize I wasn't speaking clearly at that point we have 1881 inactive sites so that first category there the We have about 1881 sites in the inventory right now. I can't tell you today how many this sites would how many of those property owners would be interested in this ability we have had about 40 people come, 40 projects come in our doors so far just asking questions and interested in it. Thank you Mr. Chair it seems like this wouldn't do much expanding wouldn't do much to deal with backlog until we give you a lot more money for staff, but on totally different subject on the and quickly out of in the area of expertise the standards that you used you got EPA standards and on image MCO, but their's also the health based MCPLG. Goal. Goal yeah right so do those inter-actors or some covered by both how is that factor in here? I'm going to get back to the two. Seems to be more a help base standard. Right it is the goal currently the two out standard though is based on these six criteria for the two out standard. for ground water. So the fifth ball I apologize as MCO. I guess follow up. So the 12 center draw all the states where we are implementing the EPA MCO and different things the MCL related to public water supply systems the two underground water standards are protective of the ground waters as resource for North Carolina. One follow up so on that risk base program that we have existing now is any protection for, unexpected contamination I think I spoke to this earlier [xx] where there's no known contamination reach beyond that property boundaries is there any protection for, the potential for a plan perhaps to escape that you could never anticipated? That's a good question too
and it goes back with [xx] there is re openers that if we should find contamination in the future, then we got to revalue[sp?] if we evaluate this remedy, that's what the long term burden is on the stage, to go back and make sure those land restrictions, are being abided by nobody has put in drinking water well or an irrigation well, that may be pulling that contaminated plume towards an area that was not thought of in the past, future uses of property are a concern, and that's why we are trying to put measures in place, we also try to do public outreach to get our information up on the website for folks when they are trying to do a property transaction. Our goals is to have our sites listed, what kind of contamination is there, is that ground water decision, support system talked about in the past. So people can put a buffer, I want to mark one mile radius of the property that I want to buy and find out what kind of contamination might be in that particular area. That's another way we are trying to hope to be able to prevent those types of exposures in future. Representative [XX] Yes! well It's nice to have you here to ask questions directly. Only the Brownfield, projects, there is a ready for reuse ground field program am I correct? And that allows the present land through the process, to make the application, to go through the process and have the property ready for re use on the field today. I'm I correct? Yes, I'm glad you mentioned that as well. And what is, when you want that up, property and it goes through the whole assessment process is do you know this has decided what kind of restrictions might be required at the sight, how far along are you fake to close that application now? We public noticed that ready for lease of that document so it's already gone through one public notice phase, then when you have a buyer ready, maybe you have marketed the property as a commercial with first four commercials mixed to use with residential above and your buyer comes in and says actually in this particular area I want to put residential slab on grade so it's changing the use a little bit, changing an exposure row where you may have individuals homes in an area which creates a different exposure row than the apartments we have businesses on the 1st floor. So we would look at that use of your intended buyer, match it up with what was done and is ready for reuse document. If there's any gaps in that, we go back and we evaluate. You need to do any vapor intrusion, mitigation or something else so that your buyer can make use of that property. We will tweak the agreement if needed, sometimes it's not, sometimes the market is dead on what you've marketed for, and then it goes out as a final brauf as an agreement with that developer. I would say that analyze the tremendous in terms of solving the problem in the front yard one of the things I think we should be able to do or try to do, is educate people on exactly how that would occur and what the requirements would be to for various levels of use, but I will say that is a very big benefit, lots of hours. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm [XX] some concerns, I've had experience with ground water contamination and North Carolina has always been known as the water wealthy state. But that, we are losing that identification I think and especially as we expand development expands more and more and more that ground water is going to be more important. So I have some concerns about just adding to the problem of the backlog, it seems like that we need to be cleaning up more, rather than adding to the list of the sites that are, so I guess I have some concerns about. We are not as water wealthy as we were 40 years ago. Is that right? We have more, we have problems right now, with ground water in many place Absolutely an opinion that we've had in discussion as well, of that type of concern. Thank you. Thank you, representative Magredi. I'm going back to the number of representative Piason put for and I just want to the first question would be, it seems that the re-space remediation programs were quite successful with respect
to petroleum underground storage tanks and dry cleaning solvent cleanup, but have not been particularly successful with respect to free regulatory land sales and manufacturing and industrial sites least if you look at the numbers. Is that fair? Yes! and also the [xx] is the most recent program, they're getting ready to, they've been doing a lot of assessment work and getting ready to work on those closure phases, so they're going to have numbers coming up in the next few years. follow up. So if that is so and again recognizing my limited ability to understand all these could you, why is that? What was it about the petroleum, storage tanks and dry cleaning clean up, solvent clean up, that made those remedial Asian programs, work for a large number of different sites wide across the state, we're just not getting a lot of remediation been done which remediation being done with respect to these other categories. Let me try and you can tell me if has this or not, but the US team that just get program they have funding sources the trust funds same thing preleratory land fills there is a tipping fee that goes towards the state to take oversight of cleaning up those preregutaory land fields. We realized local governments and industry contributed as hard find attribution who contribute what to the contamination so the product efforts where the state can go in and actually do the work regardless of who contributed to it not owners and my reflection is, we have trust funds, we have fund in available, where people get reembasment for work that they are doing and clean enough, USTs for example. So those are incentive there and the smaller property, when you are talking about, some of this industrial sites, okay, one UST project can be at a quarter gas station one of these investor properties can be a chemical manufacturer that has 20 different sources of potential contamination. So the scale one [xx] to one industrial site is not equivalent, if that helps. Just a comment you've hit the home run, where I was going with this, it's hard, the numbers don't, they're really hard to [xx] because it's not just, it's more like grapes and watermelons [xx] in terms of comparing these two things but, on the and Mr. Chairman, I would like to see more res base for radiation and theory, anything that gets cleaned up quicker, but I just wonder I continue to struggle, we past a lot 4 years ago, tried to move in a similar direction with respect to manufacture and industrial site, we don't seem to have moved the need of very much, I guess that's the reason for that study. thank you. Thank you, representative Dickson, Thank Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair in response, to brief discussion that took why is a bad day, quality and quantity in condition of water I wonder if, I can address question to Mr. Tom Weeder[sp?] from the department of data, yes. Mr. Reider if you can get to the microphone please we have two minutes, Mr. Reider briefly your brief opinion relative to the quality and quantity in water condition currently in North Carolina I would say that North Carolina is still a very much a water wealthy state we have been doing this based on [xx] plants, hydro logic models throughout the state and what we found with the exception of rally, we basically have the amount of water we need, surface water, can meet the states need for the next 50-60 years we are at extremely good shape in terms of water quantity. And, in terms of water quality, we have problems but not the to degree where we are going to have to close our cities down or something because we don't have enough water to meet the need. Thank you and we're out of time I was going to let some of the public visitors comment but we don't have time.
So we will be adjourning the meeting now. Thank you very much for educating us on this. Thank you. Adjourned.