Call this meeting in the Senate, agriculture and environment to order. Our Sergeant-At-Arms today are Ed Kesler from Source[sp?] Bay North Carolina, Larry Hancock, Terry Barnhardt, and Giles Jeffreys. Thank you for being here and keeping the crowd in order. Our pages today is Chad Barefoot from Wake County we appreciate you being here today, and I tell you he shows up a lot, he really likes this place, we need to get him to run one day for the Senate. We'll jump right into the agenda today is, first bill up is House Bill 765, there is a proposed committee substitute that Senator Cook moves for adoption, all those in favor will say aye? Oppose no? Ayes have it. Senator Wade. Thank you Mr. Chairman. The Regulatory Reform Act of 2015 builds on the provision sent over earlier this session by the House and continues our efforts from the past four years to reduce unnecessary, burden-some and unnecessary regulation. The bill make the government more efficient by eliminating unneeded reports, rules and activities. This bill also increases government efficiency and protects the constitutional rights of private land owners, allowing additional development while still keeping environmental protections in place. The bill also adds additional protections to our citizens by expanding the state's approach to real space remediation. This bill increases development opportunities by expanding ground field development opportunities. This bill reduces numerous requirements on private businesses that are unneeded and unfair. This bill provides regulatory relief to assist the maintenance and expansion of all utility infrastructure statewide. One specific example of how this bill also protects people is a provision that holds a good Samaritan exemption from civil and criminal liability while they're acting in good faith if they have to break into a motor vehicle to assist an ailing person and provide emergency medical assistance. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go through the bill and just have the stuff do a complete run-through, if we could do that Okay, alright We're ready to start Okay. Alright, Karen Thank you Mr. Chair Karen [xx] a staff attorney with the research division. The bill is broken up into four parts. I'm going to go through the sections in part 1 and in part 2 of the bill. Part 1 deals with Administrative Reforms and part 2 with Business Regulation. Beginning with section 1.1, this provision would repeal two obsolete provisions in the law currently if they're in the criminal law one relates to using profane or indecent language on public highways and the second relates to refusing relinquish a party telephone line in an emergency those are obsolete provisions and they're appealed. Section 1.2 clarifies in the Administrative Procedure Act that a petitioner has the burden of proof in most contested cases and establishes that the state agency has the burden of proof in certain limited cases. These cases include cases involving the imposition of civil fines and penalties and cases involving disciplinary actions against career state employees. Section also directs the administrative procedure oversight committee to study whether there are other appropriate categories to be included in this. Section 1.3 amends the law governing legislative of appointments to boards and commission commissions, whether by a Bill enacted by the General Assembly or through appointments made by the speaker and the president per term of the senate. It basically adds provisions to the law that require that if consultation or recommendations are required of a third party, those consultation and recommendations are discretionary not binding, and a third party must submit the recommendation at least 60 days before the expiration of a term or within 10 days of a vacancy. It also adds a provision that failure to submit a recommendation, or indulge in consultation within the time period deemed a waiver of the third parties opportunity to do so. This is also true for
cases in which the appointment is made from a list of nominees provided by a third party. Section 1.4 amends the law governing the award of attorney's fees in certain civil action involving the state. in a case that contests the state's ability to construct transportation improvements, or seeks relief based on environmental impact, and the state is the prevailing party in the action, the court must allow the state to recover reasonable attorney's fees and cost. The prevailing party must petition for fees within 30 days following final disposition of the case. If the attorney's fees are awarded the judge must issue a written order including the factual basis and amount of fees to be awarded. This provision would become effective September 1st of this year and applied actions and proceedings filed on or after that date. Section 1.5 amends the law governing Occupational Licensing Boards, to prohibit a board from contracting with or employing a person licensed by that board, to serve as an investigator or inspector. If the person is actively practicing in the professional occupational for which the board has jurisdiction. The section would not prohibit a board from hiring a licencee for other purposes, or or is the license is not actively engaged in working in the field. Section 1.6 amends the process for periodic review in exploration of existing rules in the administrative code. The section provides that during the re-adoption process a rule that's amended to impose a less stringent burden on regulated persons than the existing rule would not have to fiscal note requirement that rules generally we have to go through in the adoption process. Section 1.7 would direct the administrative procedure oversight committee to review the recommendations of the program evaluation division in their occupation licensing agency report that was released earlier in this year. The APL was directed to determine how to improve oversight of occupational licensing boards, and the section directs APL to consult with various to parties in conducting the review and propose legislation to the 2016 session of the 2015 general assembly. Section 1.8 is a purely technical change it makes an amendment to the motor vehicle law to just make adjustments to the code bill drafting section it remove some subsection As that are duplicated in that section. Part B has two sections dealing with business regulation, the first one section 2.2 would amend the law governing criminal history checks for applicants for manufactured home licenses. It would also clarify the only applicants for initial licence you'll need consent to a criminal history record check. The section clarifies that an applicant is a person applying for initial licence at the manufacture, home sales person or setup contractor. Section 2.3 amends the definition of the term employee under the worker's compensation an act to exclude volunteers and officers of certain non-profits corporations and associations. The new definition applies to non-profit subject to following acts, the Unit Ownership Act, the Condominium Act, the plan Community Act, the Non-profit Cooperation Act, the Uniform Unincorporated Non- profit Association Act and any organization that is exempt from Federal Income Tax under section 501C3 of the Internal Revenue Code. The section applies to persons who receive no remuneration for voluntary service other than reasonable reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with voluntary service. It also provides that officers can be counted however, if the corporation has one or more paid employee, but those officers are only counted towards reaching the limit for being covered by Worker's compensation Insurance. The section also excludes and does not apply to a number of volunteer firefighters and emergency workers that are currently covered by the Workers Compensation, and so does not change the law with regard to those employees. That's the end of part 1 of part 2. I'm Erica [xx] also a staff attorney with the Research Division and I'm going to go over the provisions in part three of the bill, the state and local government regulations potion. Section 3.1, currently every state agency is to report to the legislature and officers of budget management on the use of mobile electronic devices on a quarterly bases section 3.1 will change that to an annual bases.
Section 3.3 as senator Wade mentioned the bill provides civil liability immunity for a person who acts in good faith for helping someone who is inside a railway, car, motor vehicle, trailer, aircraft, boat or water craft, and is in need of first aid or emergency health care treatment it would establish two things the first is an exception from the criminal law for breaking and entering to the get the person out of the vehicle and secondly we provide civil immunity for any damage to the vehicle. The section would not apply if the acts were of gross negligence weren't in conduct or intentional wrong doing. Section 3.5 would allow the department of motor vehicles to issue to a permanent license plate for a trailer attached to the rear of a motor cycle. Section 3.7 would allow the commission for mental health developmental disabilities in substance abuse services to adopt rules so that nationally accredited providers would not have duplicative oversight from the national accreditation in the state. Section 3. 8 would clarify that when permits are issued for a food establishment, there can be more than one permit issued for the same location if the establishment is operated in the same physical location and each establishment satisfies all the requirements of the rules and regulations. of the permit. Section 3.10 would clarify that a licensed engineer or licensed surveyor must be used when a state agency is contracting with someone to mark their boundaries of the lands under the control of that state agency and section 3.12 would amend the Underground Damage Prevention Review Board to clarify that the terms are for four years, the appointments are by the governor and the governor selects the chair that the board does have rule making authority and would set the civil penalty authority for up to $25, 000 per violation. I will review the first few provisions in part four the environmental provisions and then Mr. Hudson Osmond[sp?] and Mr. Sanders will also address other provisions included in part 4. The first relevant provision section 4.1 would establish privilege for self audit reports, environmental self audit report works under the PCS environmental audit means voluntarily internal evaluation review of one or more activities or facilities regulated under federal state regional or local environmental law or compliance programs basically to identify and prevent non compliance and to improve compliance with environmental laws so those reports generated during these top audits would be privileged so they be immune from discovery and not admissible as evidence in civil and in administrative proceedings. In addition an immunity it would be granted to owners and operators of such facilities for in position of civil and administrative penalties for violations of environmental laws discovered through the contract conducted environmental audits. This provision was in a bill that passed the Senate last year and is identical to that provision. the next section in part 4 section 4.2 would repeal the recycling requirements for computers and televisions. Those provisions were originally enacted in 2007 and substantially modified in 2008 and 2009, in addition to the substance requirement for manufactures to recycle, in addition there's reporting elimination on the part of Dina. The next section 4.7 would amend Risk-Based remediation provisions that were enacted in 2011. As the members know the Risk-Based provisions allow contaminated sites under a number of environmental programs to be cleaned up using sites specific Risk-Based standards, rather than cleaned up to unrestricted use standards. In 2011 that legislation provided that only sites where contamination had been reported to the department before 2011, were eligible for Risk-Based remediation. This PCS would remove that date limitation so that contamination reported into the future, those sites would be eligible as well.
In addition the 2011 legislation limited sites that had no off-site migration of contaminants, this PCS would lift that restriction so sites that did have off site migration could be re mediated with Risk-Based principles. However, they would have to re mediate the off-site properties to unrestricted use, so only Risk-Based on the source property. The next section, section 4.8 is related to risk space re-mediation changes and directs Dina to develop internal processes to govern re-mediation of contaminated industrial sites to using risk base for mediation that would be consistent across all programs and requirements, they also would have to develop a coordinated program and process for re-mediation of contaminated industrial sites using risk base for mediation that are subject to more than one program or requirement so basically streamlining if there are different mediums or different programs that cover the contamination on a site. Also to reform or expand the role and otherwise enhance the use of registered environmental consultants which would be approved to implement an oversees side using risk base for mediation and Dina would be required to report to the Environmental Review Commission no later than April 1st 2016 on their activities under the direction of the PCS. Section 4.9 would amend the law governing the Brown Fields Program to change the definition of respective developer which historically has been defined to include those who buy or sell a site basically planning to develop, and Brown fields as you know are those sites that are, because of contamination redevelopers is hindered such that eligible for Brown Fields roads redevelpoment there is some risk limitations the department enters in with developers for risk limitation and also there are some tax incentives, the PCS would enlarge the definition of prospective developer from those who buy or sells sites for the purpose of redevelopment to include all the classifications under the federal law, those include bona fide prospective purchasers those are persons who purchased property knowing or having reason to know of contamination, they acquired the contaminated property after January in 2002 they performed all appropriate inquiries and satisfy other requirements under the federal brownfield's program. Also contiguous property owners, those are owners of property that is not the source of the contamination they must also perform all appropriate inquiry prior to purchase, and the bonifide prospective purchasers and contiguous property owners must not be potentially liable or affiliated with any other person who is liable for the site response cosul contamination on their property. Also in state land owners for those property owners that purchased without knowing or having reason to know of contamination of the property they would also be now eligible for the ground fields program. Section 4.10 would eliminate too outdated fees in the solid wast program the first is a tax on news print publishers who for short ternent requirement for recycle post consumer content in their paper also section 4.10B would eliminate fee that would be imposed upon person's transporting, collecting or recycling used oil. Mr. Chairman I will turn it over to Ms. [xx] now. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members picking up with section 4.11, and the substance components of these section you will find on page 23 of your PCS. This provision would repeal a requirement for the department of transportation to develop an energy audit and procedure to perform energy audits for each state agency or institution of higher learning, and this section would also repeal any corresponding report and requirements. Such in 4.12 would delete a repeal various environmental and natural resources reporting requirements those are articulated starting on the bottom of page 7 of your summary. Sections 4.14A through E beginning on page 24
of your PCS would provide an update and new program under the current law regarding the siting, constructing and operation on site Wastewater systems. What this provision would do would is create an alternative process which is dubbed the Private Option Permit, by which a professional engineer licensed in this state may design, construct, install and prepare for operation in new long site Wastewater System without having to go through the oversight or get approval from a local health department. In addition to making a number of conforming changes within the applicable statutes, the changes to this article would also authorize licensed soil scientist, in addition to local health department sanitation staff, to evaluate soil conditions and site features of any site proposed for a new Wastewater System, and the provision goes on to establishing create the new private option permit for that professional engineer or the owner to contract with a professional engineer to go about siting any constructing a new waste water system. The provision would also direct DHHS to implement this program. DHHS would be required to develop a common form known as a notice of intent to construct so that the developer, the applicant, the owner, the engineer could file a hostive[sp?] information all of which is articulated beginning on page 27 later on around page 30 of your PCS the local health department will notify the owner or the engineer that the notice of intent to construction is complete at which time upon such time the owner or the engineer would be able to commence construction of the waste water treatment system. Presuming to all of the criteria and requirements that are contained within the statute. Once the system is constructed the affected parties including representatives from the local health department are to participate in a post-construction conference after which a host[sp?] of documents reports must be made including the engineers mission of the engineers report so the owner of the waste water system the report has to be signed and notarized and the report has to be noted as having being received by the owner, and then the owner at that point has to submit a certified copy of that engineers report, a copy of any written operations and management program, any fees, any notarized letter that documents their acceptance of the report and the system form the personal engineer after which the local health department upon receipt of all those documents would issue would issue a document to the owner operator that the waste product system may operate in accordance with all of the criteria that are particularly in the statute in accordance with rules adopted by the commission. In short this section also directs the commission for public health to rules to implement the new private option permit, and directs the commission to report beginning January 1of 2017 and annually thereafter to HHS Oversight and the Environmental Review Commission on the implementation and the effectiveness of the private option permit program. Moving along on this, in Sections 414D and E those make conforming changes to other portions of the statutes that govern the operation of waste water systems to include requiring applicable documentation under the private option permit prior to receiving any permanent electrical power service, and an occupancy permit. Section 4.4 act of the PCS is a study that directs the commission in consultation with other entities to look at minimum on-site waste water inspection frequencies as those are currently established in the administrative code, and to evaluate whether or not duplicative inspection should be eliminated. Section 4.14G of the PCS would make conforming changes to the statutes governing the installation operation and development of on-site waste water systems to incorporate the private option permit that would be enacted in previous sections, and would provide that, and other changes to this provision also include that an improvement permit or an authorization for waste water system construction would now remain valid once issued without exploration provided that the design flow, and characteristics,
and description of the facility, that the systems served remain unchanged. Section 4.14H of the PCS would amend the criteria for operators to permitted systems to provide that systems with the design flow of less than 1, 500 gallons per day must be operated by a certified subsurface water pollution control system operator, and authorizes the Commission for Public Health to establish additional standards for systems with the design flow of more than 1, 500 gallons per day. Section 4.14 provides that the section that would enact the new private option permit is effective when it becomes law, but that the commission must adopt rules to implement the new private permit option no later than June 1st of 2016, and this also goes on to articulate that no person may utilize the private option permit until such time as rules adopted by the commission become effective. Section 4.15 of your PCS does a pretty substantial overhaul to the statute that governs the approval of on-site waste water system technologies. In short this section would provide that a provisional waste water system includes any system or component that is acceptable to the department, or has been approved by a nationally recognize certification body for at least one year. The PCS will define what constitutes a nationally recognized certification body. The provision would also repeal the subsection on experimental waste water systems. It would amend the process by which a waste bottle system achieves either a provisional or an innovative Wastewater System status. It would repeal the statute that authorizes the department to form a technical advisory committee or some of you maybe familiar with INE committee, which is comprised of specialists who are trained and have expertise related to Onsite Subsurface Wastewater Systems, and this provision would also make conforming changes to the fee schedule for DHHS for their review on modification of Wastewater Systems. The final provisions in section 4.15 of the PCS direct the commission to adopt and review and amend their rules in accordance with the provisions in this sections, it directs the commission to report beginning October 1st and quarterly thereafter on its progress in adopting rules that are required pursuing to these sections, and there is one last directive to numerous entities involved in Wastewater to study the cost and benefits of requiring treatment standards above those that are established by a nationally recognized standard. and with that I'll turn it on to Mr. Hudson. I'm going to begin with Section 4.17 which is over on page 40 of the PCS, this is contestant cases for air permits. Section 4.17 would amend the process for filing a contested case regarding an air quality permit issued by the environmental management commissions by doing two things. First, it would provide that following of a contested case by a permit applicant or permittee would state the EMC's decision while the filing of the contested case by a person who is not the permit applicant or permittee would not automatically state the EMC's decision. The other change is that the language would limit these contested case provisions to permit applications decisions rather than other types of permit decisions such as permit modifications, suspensions, or revocations. Next section is 4.18 and then isolated wetlands law, make several changes to the law governing regulations of isolated wetlands it would provide that the only types of isolated wetland estate would regulate a base in wetlands and bugs it would provide that the regulatory threshold for impact isolated wetlands is one acre currently under our law, the threshold is one acre for isolated wetlands East of i-95 and 1/3 of an acre for isolated wetlands West of i-95. It provided the mitigation requirements for impacts to isolated wetlands apply only to the amount the impact that exceeds the regulatory threshold of 1 acre and it would provide that impact to that isolated wetland or impacts to wetlands that aren't isolated wetlands can't be combined with impact to [xx] to determine whether or not you've reached that regulatory threshold. Section 4.19 amend Coastal Stormwater Requirements make several key changes to the State's coastal Stormwater management laws. It would increase the threshold for a coastal Stormwater management requirements that apply to non-residential development from the current threshhold of 10, 000 square feet of built-upon area to 1 acre more of land distributing act activity it would increase the amount of allowable built-upon area for the less stringent storm water management requirements for
low density from 12% built upon area to 24% build upon area for any lot, and it would provide that as necessary to comply with federal storm water management requirements, the rescission of designation of local governments within the 20 coastal counties it says two municipalities repealed. That's to make sure that with these changes in the coastal storm water program that if they are pulled back to some extent that we're still in compliance with federal requirements. Section 4.21, Exempt Linear Utility Projects From Certain Environmental Regulations would provide that, except as required by federal law, activities related to construction maintenance or removal of various linear utilities projects are exempt from regulation by State agencies authorized to implement for state and federal environment law. Section 4.14, repeal Department of Environment and Natural Resources [xx] would direct the secretary to repeal the heavy duty Vehicle Idling Restrictions rule by December 1, 2015 and between now and then neither the department nor the commission or any political subdivision of the state could implement or enforce the rule. Section 4.25 Ambient Air Monitoring, would direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to review its air monitoring network and request from U. S. CPA the authority to remove any monitor not required by federal law. The section would also direct the department no later than September 1, 2016 to discontinue all Ambient Air Quality Monitors not required by federal law and for which U. S. CPA approval for discontinuance is not required. Section 4.27 Division of Air Quality Notice Requirements, it would reduce the notice period for proposed consent orders related to air pollution from 45 days notice to 30 days notice and provide that the notice of a consent order public meeting on a consent order would be given on Dina's website rather than in newspaper having general circulation in the county where the air pollution was occurring. Section 4.29 disclosure of personal identifying information directs the Wildlife Resources Commission and the Division of Marine Fisheries to treat email address like other forms of personal identifying information which is basically confidential and not a public record. Section 4.30 increased threshold for mitigation of linear stream impacts. This would increase the threshold for when stream mitigation for loss of stream is required from the current 150 linear feet stream bed to 300 linear feet of stream bed, and would provide that one to one ratio of mitigation is only required for the loss of stream bed above the 300 linear feet. I'm going to jump up a couple of sections over the wildlife section that Mr. Sanders will cover to finish up on the water quality, so I'm going to jump over to Section 4.37 on page 40 this makes various changes to state storm water management law. It extends the deadline for the EMC to adopt rules implementing fast track permitting for storm water from July 1, 2016 to Nov 1, 2016. Provides the vegetative buffers adjacent to intermittent streams will be measured from the center of the stream beds. Provides that the velocity, volume, and discharge rates associated with the 1 year 24 hour storm must be calculated using any acceptable engineering or hardware logic and hydraulic method. Provides that the development may occur within a vegetative buffer if it complies with all applicable state and federal storm water management requirements. Provides that the requirements that apply to development activities within one half mile off and drained to shell fish waters, one applied to development activities and associated with storm water discharge that don't occur within that one half mile up, or draining to shell fish waters. Provides that no later than January 1, 2016 the state or a local government that implements Stormwater management program must submit it's current program or a revised program to the environmental measurement commission and the commission must review and act on each of the submitted Stormwater management programs. The commission may only approve a program if it finds that centers of the program equal those the of the EMCs motto program. Under current law, the local programs can equal or exceed so this would limit them to just equaling the EMCs motor program. Finally it directs the general assembly's environmental review commission with the assistance of Dino to review and consider reorganization of state statutes and other laws relating to Stormwater management and the final water related provision section 4.38, study flat alleviations and building height requirements, directs to department of insurance, department of public safety and the building [xx] council to jointly study how flight alleviation and building
heights for structures are established and measured in the coast region estate and directs them to jointly report the results of the study to the general assembly no later than January 1, 2016 and my colleague Mr. Sanders is going to finish up with the last few wildlife provisions. Thank you Mr. Chairman. So we're going to be back on page 47 starting with section 4.32, section 4. 32 would designate that pigeons are wild birds for the purpose of jurisdiction regulation by the Wildlife Resources Commission. The commission currently excludes pigeons from the definition wild birds and this designation would allow pigeon hunting in the states because of an exception in the cruelty statutes in the Animal Welfare Act. Section 4. 33, 34 and 35 create three Wildlife Resources Commission studies. Section 4.33 would direct the commissions to review the methods and criteria by which it adds, removes or changes the status of animals on the state protected animal list and compare these to federal regulations and the method and criteria of other states in the region. This section also direct the condition to review the state's policies for addressing introduce species and make recommendations for improving these policies. Section 4.34 would direct the commission to establish a coyote plan to address the impacts of coyotes in the state and the threats the coyotes pose to citizens industries and populations of native wildlife species in the state. Section 4.35 would direct the condition to establish a pilot coyote management assistance program in Mutual county which would document and asses private property damage associated with coyotes, evaluate effectiveness in different coyotes, control methodologies including lethal removal and evaluate potential for a scalable state wide coyote assistance program. All these studies would be due to the ERC by March 1st, 2016 and the mutual county program would have a final report due by January, 1st 2017. And finally section 4.36 will direct the attorney general to establish and publicize a hotline to be known as the NCPETs we care hotline to receive reports of allegations of animal cruelty or violations of the Animal Welfare Act against animals under private ownership. An individual who makes a report to the hotline would be required to disclose his or her name and telephone number and any other information that the attorney general may require. When the AG is all these allegations of activity involving cruelty to animals under private ownership they'll be required to refer the allegations to the appropriate local animal care agency, and when they receive the allegations of activity involving of the Animal Welfare Act against animals under private ownership, they'll be required to refer these to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The AG's office would be required to maintain a record of the total number of reports received on the hotline and the number of reports received against any individual on the hotline. Additionally, the section would create a $250 court fee for support of local Animal Control Authorities in the investigation of animal cruelty or Animal Welfare Act violations to be remitted to the general fund of the local governmental unit that investigated the crime. Thank you Senator Wade. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like to briefly just review which one of these sections have already passed the senate, which ones have passed the house and you can tell which ones are new because I won't call their number out. Section 1.1 passed the senate senate, section 1.2 has already passed the senate, and this was in 2014/15 and section 1.3. Section 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 2.2, and 2.3 passed the House in 2015. Section 3.1 passed the senate. Section 3.12 passed the House. Section 4.1 has already passed the senate. Section 4.11 has already passed the senate. Section 4.12 has passed the senate. Section 4.14 passed the House, 4.15 passed the House, 4.17 passed the senate, 4.18 passed the house, 4. . 25 has already passed the senate, 4.29 has passed the senate, 4.37, 4.38 has already passed the House and Mr. Chairman I know that there are several amendments. Would you prefer to go ahead and get the amendments so we can discus other PCS amended? That's a very good idea. Any amendments? Senator Alexander. Thank you Mr. Chair. I've got an amendment here certainly that I'd like to present and I'd appreciate if staff would pass it out. Okay Senators this is a sort of a
clarification that allows what the state and local governments can and cannot do with the buffers that they have in their areas and it helps tell developers and governments what they can or cannot do. If you got any specific questions I've got a lot of experts here and I forwarded this to Jeff Warren and he reviewed it, and then also we forwarded to staff, and if you got any questions please let it be known. Other than that I would appreciate your support. Any questions or comments from the committee? If not all those in favor of Senator Alexander's amendment will say aye? Oppose no? Ayes have it. Any further amendments from anyone else from the committee. Senator Barefoot. Staff has my amendment, they will send it forth and pass it out. Senator Berefoot. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee the amendment before you his language identical to the senate bill that is already passed this body and this committee and I would commend it to you what it does is it prohibits the enforcement the state enforcement of the new federal standards for wood heaters, and I think this is very upper per given the fact that the Supreme Court rule this morning that the EPA must consider cost including the cost of compliance before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary and I ask for your support. Senator Ford Yeah quick question for [xx] staff or whoever senate passed the same language are you all putting it up again Senator [xx] because the house did not pass it, I mean, what's the need for the duplication and legislation? How I could give the house as many opportunities as possible to pass good legislation. Follow up Mr. Chair. Follow up. I'm not sure if the senator in all of his weight answered the question. Mr. Chairman did the house pass the legislation that we sent over yesterday? No. I checked. So we can give him another chance. Any other questions, Senator Bryant. What is the importance of sections three and four? I'm just trying to see why those sections are there. Well this entire amendment is identical to the entire Senate Bill number 303 that passed through this committee and this body earlier this year, and it basically sets up a process for the state adoption of federal air quality standards in regards to resource performance standards. Follow up? Follow up. Mr. Chair could the staff at least give us a general sense of how this differs from, I just don't remember all of the details for that bill, how does this differ from what we currently do in terms of federal air quality standard? Jennifer? Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Bryant In terms of what it does with respect to current State implementation of Federal Air Quality Standards, I would point you to Sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of the amendment starting on page 2. And essentially what those would do is modify the implementation of the Air Pollution Control Rules for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the rules for maximum achievable control technology and the new source performance standards to establish a new process by which proposed federal standards are adopted into the administrative code. Currently, the new standards are adopted automatically and enforced, and this amendment would instead prohibit the EMC, the Environmental Management Commission, from adopting those new standards except by an Affirmative three-fifths vote of the Commission to include those new standards into the code, and then those new
rules would be subject to legislative review under the APA. Any further questions? Senator Barefoot sends forth an amendment, all those in favor will say Aye. Aye. Opposed No, Ayes have it. Any further amendments? Mr. Chairman, I have an [xx]. Senator Wade. I think staff has the amendment to pass out. I do, but that's fine. Mr. Chairman, I think Erika Churchill is going to explain the amendment. Are we ready? The amendment would require any public entity that is constructing or repairing a water, wastewater or stormwater drainage product to consider all acceptable piping materials before determining which piping material is to be used unless a licensed professional engineer suggests that one type of acceptable piping material is more suitable or not to that particular project. It will be applicable from October, 1st on to any projects initiated on or after that date. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Question? Senator Jackson. Senator, do we already have this in another bill? Mr. Chairman. Senator Wade. Yes, we did discuss this at another time, but we have some new information on areas that have actually, they wanted example of areas that did not use PCV pipe or look at PCV pipes or certain types of pipe, and we now have a list of some cities, we also have a lobbyist here for the industry that could elaborate on that if you would so like. Anyone from the audience? Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Wade, Members of the committee. My name is Amy Fullbright, I represent the American Chemistry Council. The business of chemistry is the third largest. North Carolina is the third largest chemistry State in the United States, and there have been some concerns about this legislation when it was produced before that it was basically a solution in search of a problem. What I wanted to bring you today was simply some information we had taken to Senator Wade Greensboro for example, has standards for water, sewer and sewage legislation designed just in their June 2014 edition, where it requires that all of those azimuths[sp?] shall used with ductile iron. There's also a language where it lists the materials used for a meter to a point of a minimum two feet past the backflow device shall be used with type K copper for lines up to three inches, and ductile iron for lines three inches and larger. What this language does is not simply say that you have to use a particular type of piping material, it just says you need to look at all the different ones that are out there. There's a lot of new innovations, and this language simply asks that you do that. I'll take any other questions? Questions or comments from the Committee. OK, Senator Wade moves forward an amendment. Adoption of the amendment, all those in favor will say Aye. Aye. Opposed No. Ayes have it. Any further amendments? There are none. Do everyone have a copy?
Senator Brock you may explain your amendment. Thank you Mr. Chairman. The amendment and has two parts. Number one, is to conform the North Carolina ATB Laws to the National Safety and Design Standards. What happened on this one is that in 2005, North Carolina adopted standards that later in 2008 the industry as a whole adopted for the national standards. We were just ahead of the curve a little bit here in North Carolina, and our language doesn't match up with the national standard. So that would make the changes, uniforming changes with all laws to the national. And to the section, is the requirement of mitigation for impact to intermittent strings. Currently we have it in State Law, it doesn't exist for Federal Law, and so we just don't want to go out and create extra work and additional impediments for our people in North Carolina, and if you have any questions or comments please do so. Seeing no hands, all in favor say Aye. Aye. All opposed say No. Ayes have it, the amendment is incorporated. no I think they should follow the amendments flight yeah that's it. Follow amendments and I had a list of speaker any question or comment from the committee Senator Ford I got a couple questions, is now the appropriate time? Yes Alright senator Wade section 4.2 I'm trying to understand why the repeal and I'm trying to lean back my recycling the waste management days, I was under the impression that the reason why that was in place, it wasn't a feel me good, but it was more have them to do with safety as related to the components in computers as well as in televisions that were toxic that we were trying to mitigate from going into our land fields which could contaminate the burn off from those landfills as I understood way back when, I was just trying to understand why they repeal. Mr. Chairman thank you. Senator Forbes my understanding is that every business that sales computers or TVs, must pay a fee in order to have recycle materials, and we are trying to make it so. Some businesses are barely making it as and we are trying to reduce those regulations, because at this time, my understanding is, you can go to county owned facilities or city owned facilities and turn those in so there's, or you can go to like a best-buy and they take them back. So it might be a small appliance person who's having to pay this large fee or to have them recycle there's lots of other ways to have them recycle, free ways. Follow up? Yea, follow up. Thank you for that Senator Wade. I just, again I looked at it a as a safety rather then an impediment for businesses to help protect our landfills and more in particular the water runoff. I want to move real quickly to Section 4.14, Wastewater. Excuse me, no no back up to 4.7. I need some help from staff on this one. 4.7 is the Amend A Risk-based Remediation Provisions. To me, it seems contradictory as it relates to only sites where no mitigation of contaminants, and then the second provision that only sites where the release of contamination. I'm not understanding if there's contamination on the site. Well first of all, Senator Wade, any developer, any landowner worth his salt before their purchase of property is going to do a Phase 1 so they know what contaminates are on that particular site. What I'm trying to figure out is are we limiting the liability for the cleanup to the owner in this particular bill only where it has been identified by DENA, and if so, why? Mr. Chairman could I refer that to Staff please? Staff. Thank you Mr. Chairman. [xx] 44.7 is related to the Risk Based Re-mediation Program which is separate from the Brown fields program. This 4.7 again what the general assembly did in 2011 was allow risk base clean up so arguably a less stringent standard of clean not to unrestricted use which is historically been the requirement across all the clean up programs. In 2011 the General Assembly
said on generally on contaminated sites under the right conditions risk based re-mediation could be used but they restricted that cleanup to only contaminated sites where they had not offsite migration. This PCS would say those contaminated sites where contamination has migrated off site, so be on their property boundary, now they will be eligible for a Spread_Based but the risk-based ends at their property boundary. They can do risk-based on their property, but where it's migrated to an adjacent property, they have to clean up that adjacent property to unrestricted use. Thank you for the clarification. Last question, Mr. Chairman. Follow up. Section 4.14, Wastewater. To me, and I applaud the effort Senator Wade, in terms of the freedom that is being allowed to homeowners. My question either to you or to staff, with all of that freedom and flexibility that they will have is there anything in the bill that would not allow the homeowner or the engineer to be held harmless in the event of failure? Senator Wade. If you'll allow staff. OK. Jennifer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Ford, I would point you to, bear with me here, a new sub-section F on page 28 starting on line 44 this word present what would constitute liabilities for the various specialists who will be working on these various systems. It would say that the licensed soil scientist who performs these soils evaluation and siting further Waste Water System will be held liable for their report and all the information they provide. This provision would also say that the professional engineer that designed this system would assume all liability for everything that falls within their scope of work and [xx] the design and calculation e. T. C. And so forth. And then it also provides that the owner of the Waste Water System would assume all liability for the proper operation and management of the system. Provided they don't make any unauthorized changes to the system that weren't approved or suggested by the soil scientist through the engineer of record. The department and all these authorisations in local health departments would have no liability for an assistance is that approved under this private option permit program? Senator Ford, Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you [xx] Senator Smith Ingram. Thank you Mr Chair. I have a question about section 4.25. That calls for the division of air quality to remove air quality monitors that are not required by the EPA. Dina was supposed to do this in the past can you give me and update of how they fill this as of today especially as these air quality monitors have been very successful in identifying amendments in the size of non-containment areas. Mr. Chairman I can take a staff wants to go first, a Ok take a staff. My understanding is some of these air quality monitors are regional and it really doesn't pin point anything to tell you where the problem is coming from and what the federal government is moving to is not doing regional but doing what the impact is so you will be able to tell if you are making and improvement or if you are not. Follow up Mr. Chair Yes follow up Do we have any idea how many air quality monitors we are talking about removing? I'll have to ask that from now on I don't know but there may be representatives from the department here that could answer that question. Anyone from the department that can answer the question? Thank you Mr. Chairman Matthew Duck[sp?], I'm [xx] affairs. I don't have the data on the number of those monitors that you're talking about but we can certainly get that data for you. Follow up. Thank you. There are volumes of reports that indicate air quality and problems that our citizens are encountering particularly there was a district impact among poor communities introduce a minority communities with the level of ozone issues that we're having as well as asthmatic citizens and having ever increasing problems with that.
I'm just not sure it's wise to kind of scale back on those Air Quality Monitors. Do you know if there has been a health assessment that will indicate what kind of impact this is going to have reducing the Air Quality Monitors? Mr. Chairman I can tell you senator that in October 10th, 20 11 there is a letter to Dina, that says that the United States EPA, has told the state and local programs to shut down, other monitoring stations to provide the resources for meeting the new monitoring requirements. So I think what we are trying to do here is shut down the original one so we can go to pin pointing where the problems are and that's what we've been asked to do by the EPA Okay I'm sorry Mr. Chair that doesn't answer my question, has there been a health assessment form as it relates to removing air quality monitors? yes or no? Anybody from the EPA? I don't see anybody from the EPA. We have the letter but we don't have any representatives from the EPA. Senator Jackson. Switching gears a little bit some of the way I think you identified section 1.4 is one of the sections that hasn't previously passed house for the senate. It speaks to awarding attorney's fees and it basically has two halves, awarding attorneys fees when the State wins and awarding attorneys fees when the State loses and by my reading, I could be wrong about this, and please correct me if I am, It looks like we set a higher standard for a citizen getting attorney's fees than the State getting attorney's fees looks like if the State wins they will almost always get attorney's fees, but if the State loses maybe, maybe not. So my question is why is there? There appears to be a different legal standard for awarding legal fees here, and my question is why. Mr. Chair. Senator Wade. First, that hasn't passed either the House or the Senate if you're talking about 1.4. First, I'll ask staff if they need to elaborate at all on that. Yes. Go ahead. Are we going to hold this? Thanks. This is greater than the Research Division. The attorney's fees currently under current law are sort of a patchwork of of laws, so it all depends on the type of claim. The section of the statute that's edited in the PCS is just one way the people could potentially get attorney's fees. So I'm not sure, you say, when you say it's not bilateral that's true for these two types of cases that are discussed in this PCS for the environmental cases and the impact cases, then the attorney's fees are one way for that little bit, but depending on the type of claim it's possible that the claimants might receive attorney fees under different statutes. Follow up. Follow up. And this is just a comment. So from what I understand this applies to environmental cases. So we now, this section would implement a difference with respect to environmental cases on when attorney's fees are collected, and it's going to make it easier for the State to collect than for the citizen to collect, and I think when we do that what we do is we create an incentive for firms to volunteer to represent the State, and we create a disincentive for firms to sue the State for environmental reasons. So what I see in this section is a policy statement that we would prefer that the State not be sued for environmental reasons. I could be wrong about that, but I don't see any reason to have a different legal standard for when you award attorney's fees. The idea is we want to award attorney's fees to discourage frivolous litigation so let's have one standard with respect to environmental cases of what constitutes purpose litigation, and we certainly shouldn't have one side to be discretionary and one side not to be discretionary. That on it's face is really stacking the deck against every citizens. Thank you. Any other questions? Senator Hartsell did you have a question? Senator Bryant? I have a couple of questions Mr. Chair. My first question's a follow up on the air monitors. I was looking at that language and I don't see anything in it which would limit them to removing regional air monitors. It says all air monitors are not required by federal law be removed. So do we have a sense of how many regional air monitors there are, what that number is approximately, and then what is the difference, or where
are these other air monitors that would also be? removed and if there's some volume, or quantity, or someway we can get a sense of what is this, how significant this removal would be. Mr. Chairman. Senator Wade. Senator Bryant I don't have that information, Dina would have that, I don't know if they have it here but I know that they've been asked to do that so the resources can go toward more on a local level where the actual problem is instead of regional, and to meet their new monitoring requirements. OK, follow up? Follow up. Since they cannot have air monitors anywhere EPA then require it, what is the standard for them to put these monitors where they are needed, quote on quote, and how is that to be determined? Mr. Chairman. Yes, Senator Wade. My understanding is Dina could put these air monitors anywhere there is a problem, it's not prohibiting them from putting them where a problem is, but it's just saying take the regional ones and go with whatever the new monitoring requirements Follow up? Follow up. I'm trying to determine how they would know since they have any air monitors, assuming they wont, how will they know there's a problem. Do we just call them up and say the air is smelling funny or, how would they know. Is there someway, I'm not trying to be funny but is there some way to for them to know? Senator Wade. First Senator Bryant it's a good question but with the regional one you don't know where the problem is coming from either. It might be in a region that leaves it wide open, so the reason I got to now is someone is going to call, but if anyone's from Dina here that wants to speak to them it's fine. Please Mr. Chair. Dina is up again. Now we want to hear from the EPA. Thank you Senator. If you just re-say your question if you don't mind, I was just trying to determine, you might not know this because you said you so didn't know before, I was trying determine how many regional, air monitors we have and then how many are some scale of what these other air monitors be that would be removed, and where are they? That's one question, and related question is, if then you can put them, wherever ''there is a problem'' how are you going to know where there is a problem? OK, thanks for the question and on the first part, we'll definitely work on getting that data to you, and on the second part, we'll have to kind of go back and I can get you that information as soon as I can. OK? Sorry, I don't have that right now. I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to say that if you look on page 45, Section 4.25 C it will say, Nothing in this section is intended to prevent the department from installing temporary air monitoring systems as part of an investigation or a suspected violation. I hear you, and I don't want to repeat myself, Mr. Chair. I can move on. OK. The other question is about the isolated wetland[sp?] I understand we are [xx] everything from isolated wetlands provisions other than the basin wetland or the bogs. I think I'm correct on that, let me 14.8, that's 4.18 is that right? Yes. Could somebody help me with what's being removed and maybe the staff or someone in the audience who maybe a specialist and if they are here, what difference is this going to make in terms of protecting our water quality and that these isolated wetlands are removed. I think this will also be a question also for the department. Earlier today I looked up the different types of wetlands under this Well and Assessment User Manual, there are 14 different type of wetlands, the basin wetland and the bog they are just two of those, but I don't have any more information about what's different about those or their particular characteristics, but I'll get that information from the department Okay thank you, Sen Ingram, Sen. Brayn are you finished? I was wondering if anyone would know if department could say what the impact it will be on removing those other 14 types maybe in consequential, but I think it's important enough for us to know what we are doing because somebody say out there other environmental advocates some could say that would be helpful. Anyone? Anyone?
Beuller[sp?]? Anyway, [xx] you've got the day off. Senator Bingham[sp?] Thank you Mr. Chairman on section 4 on the Ground field property reuse act of 1997 in this talks about perspective developer if you don't mind Mr. Chairman I'd like to ask a couple of questions. First off, say it's 97, Emily, what is a total number of people who have applied for Brown Field remediation or help or assistance and since that time, how many have been concluded or signed [xx] ? Mr. Chairman the department would have that type of data, so I was just asking [xx] Does the department have that data? [xx] doesn't have that data. Senator Bingham? [xx] I think it would be rather shocking when you hear the information if it's [xx] it's on recall, but you know it's a bit puzzling the way this is worded as a potential liability for cleanup cost [xx] I suppose the intent in this is to enhance or get more of the Brownfields properties which have not been very successful as I understand. Senator Wade, to get more people to participate senator, but is this in any way going to create or pose a problem for people moving into these redeveloped property that you're aware of? Senator Bingham, [xx] staff, I don't want to say that and not be completely correct Again, this really would be for the technical folks inside of Dina but basically the department is going to require a clean up to whatever use is going to be allowed for the redeveloped property. So if it is residential, and I think there's actually Brownfields project just a few blocks away, some of the pilot mil[sp?] condos, then that project will need to be cleaned out too a certain standard. If they were merely commercial and there would be limited interactions, then there would be a different standard and that as part of the analysis these are site specific clean ups based on the risk of the property so it is definitely opening or enlarging the type of individuals or owners eligible for a Brownfields re-development, and you write the initial intent of the program was to assist these kind of stagnant contaminated properties in being redeveloped and reused. You're enlarging the scope but again, enlarging it to have the same scope as a federal Brownfields program. Okay thank you Mr. Chairman if I may ask one other question Follow up Thank you, Senator Wade you may or not know this, from what I gather, in what is say that up to now, anyone at sales property that has an environmental hazard on their property. They are not required to notify a purchasers that's what I understood in the conversation is that correct? [xx] Mr. Chairman? Senator Bingham some of the programs require, recordations[sp] at notice of residual some do not. In commercial properties however generally, there will not be any financing unless I say a phase one environmental audit is done at a minimum so there is certainly a protection there in that no lender in a commercial setting is going to finance a property where a site assessment has not been done. In residential again it varies from program to program whether recordation of contamination is required. Okay, thank you Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman. Senator Smith Ingram. This is not a question, just a clarification, can we get a response to the question that I asked. Has there been a health assessment done on the impact that this could have and if there has been cordoned can
the committee get a copy of it before this goes? Well to send that response to everyone on a committee. Senator Jackson. I have a question to D ina[sp?] Do they have a position on this Bill? This impacts them in about 65 different ways. Thanks for the questions senator, we are reviewing this language, we obviously haven't seen it, had a whole lot of time to see the language though we were having our folks we'll provide feedback as we proceed thank you. Quick comment Senator Jackson I am not an environmental expert but we have a whole department full of people who are know we relay on their expereese and their guidance, and eitheir they can't or won't give their guidanced about this amnibous piece of legislation that affects our environment in countless intended and unintended ways, I don't know how any of us can support it under those circumstances we need to hear from them. Senator Jackson this bill has a [xx] to finance, it'll be on the floor for probably two days, it will go through a long and lengthy debate and some of these provisions, that are in this bill are addressing some very sane concerns that you have. There're a lot of people in North Carolina have brought up everything that they were never asked to give any type of feedback or any type of response, and so they've been suffering for many years, so we are talking to those people. Senator [xx]. All the sections that don't deal with finance, those aren't going to be debatable, that's what we've seen every time this is the environment committee I want to hear from the environment people, about their thoughts, on this bill and if they can't or won't give us their thoughts, we need to pause. We are asking for the response that we sent out to each and every member and we'll have plenty of time to debate this on the floor of the chamber. Senator Bryant. I just want to also know that when we are debating on the floor in the chamber it's us debating we don't have access to any staff or experts at that point in time. It's in the committee process that we will hear from those people, we got this omnibus legislation on a Sunday I think it was eight o'clock if I remember the date on the email, so our time to prepare and some of us work on top of that, so our time to prepare to be here is limited and then when we get here the department apparently they got it after we did, so the state didn't get prepared because they had all day. And so I'm just wanting to register an objection to this process and it's not helpful to us in terms of representing our constituents. Obviously you know what you're going to put in the bill, and you've had time to talk to the people you've been talking to and they're happy with it, but it doesn't help the rest of us who represent people in North Carolina that are just as important as those you represent. So I just want to register strong objection to that process. Senator Bryant let me just respond that when you're in the majority, I'd love to have as much time as you have to read legislation, we're reading things that are still hot off the printer. If we were going to actually even comment at all, and when we did have the chance to comment on the floor a question was called and debate was shut off. That just reminds you to go back to those times when there was no debate when no other side was in control. Senator Brock. Senator Wade Thank you Mr. Chairman and I will remind everyone that at least a half to three fours of these have already passed one chamber or the others. It's not like it's new it's been out there before from 2014 on this year. Alright we're going to take comments from the audience, from Center of Environmental, Brooks Renny Good afternoon, good evening. My name is Brooks Rainey Pearson. I'm an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, and I'd like to speak on Section 1.4. This would allow the state to recover attorney's fees whenever the state is the prevailing party in a case dealing with environmental or transportation interest. This legislative body has granted state agencies permission to hire outside firms in these cases with exorbitant hourly rates, ensuring these fees will be very large. Prohibitively large for the majority of North Carolina citizens. Particularly concerning is that the provision is asymmetrical, as Senator Jackson pointed out. The standard for a plaintiff to win fees from the agencies if they prevail, is based on the agency having acted without substantial justification. There is no parallel limiting language concerning when the state can recover fees. If the goal is to stop
favourless lawsuits then the language for recouping attorney fees should be based on favourless law suits. it's written however, it's shockingly broad. In addition to violating federal law and jeopardizing federal programs delegated to the state, this would have an extreme chilling effect on citizens ability to ensure that environmental laws are enforced. With enforcement actions for water quality permiting violations down by over a half under the Macori administration, this is not the time to threaten the very people, the citizens have North Carolina who in the absence of the state looking out for them are attempting to look out for themselves Thank you Thank you. Matthew Starr from the Upper Neuse RIVERKEEPER. Upper Neuse RIVERKEEPER. takes over. I have some really great comments for [xx] about Buffers but after Senators Alexanders[sp?] amendment which I have no idea what it is, I'll refrain from those comments since I don't know really what's going on there but I can speak to section 4.1 the Environmental Self Act Privileged and Limited Liability. Recently the HF league called our facility on the banks of the Neuse river just upstream of Greensboro, North Carolina Duke Energy announced that they were going to excavate the five coal ash ponds at that site. That is a gigantic victory for the news river but that didn't happen because of legislative action, that didn't happen because of action at the department environmental natural resources that happened because of a group of activist demanded it happen and with section 4.1 it doesn't seem that that action could have happened if the is if that were current law and Duke had done a self audit. Also want to speak on the wetlands provision. Senator Brian brought up lots of good questions and we're striking 12 out of the 14 types of wetland that we're going to protect as a stat as crazy. We've wetlands for a reason. Wetlands provide many, many valuable benefits for our state's water. Waters that we depend for recreation, waters that we depend on for food, waters that we depend on for drinking and when you start to eat away at regulations to protect our wtaer, such as buffers, such as wetlands, such as being able to impact in a maintained streams, you've nothing left and buffers protect our water. They provide a source of habitat. They provide the ability for nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus to be taking up through the ecosystem, and they help with flooding. They absorb the impact in floodways and flood zones, and by chipping away our water quality protections we're doing a huge disservice to North Carolinian's and to our own environment. Thank you. Thank you, Mary Klin high school, from the Senator [xx] law Center Thank you Senator Brock. I'm Mary Mclain [xx] with the southern environmental law center and I've to say I feel a little bit like I'm in that bilmmerry groundhog day movie, at least to couple of times a session I find myself here, thinking a bill is going to be one page coming ever from the house and when I arrive it's over 50 pages of polluter protection. Today actually it's just 37 pages of harmful environmental provisions it maybe more with all the amendments that we haven't seen I'm not sure what were contained in those pages, but I'd like to address two things that make it harder for North Carolina citizens to have clean air and clean water. First is the environmental self audit provision which as my colleagues and senators have stated all a company that has a permit to pollute or just pollutes has to do is confess to having found a violation yesterday or a violation from 5 years ago, or violation that's getting ready to happen maybe tonight. and they will not have to testify in court, and they will be provided immunity from any fines or penalties for that violation. That harms good North Carolina
companies who are striving and hiring good people to comply with our environmental safeguards. The second part is the provision about I'm challenging air permits, or air permit applications, again it's not symmetrical. If a permittee or a permit applicant wants to challenge a permit because it's too strange and they don't feel they can meet these limits, that permit does not go to effect until that contested case is over. If a third party, some citizen that lives near that plant some person that breathes the air near that plant wants to challenge that draft permit because they'd like tighter limit on that permit, challenges it. That permit goes right into effect after the 30 days and there is no way I can test a case would finish in time that they could have any impact on that situation the company would have the permit they would have invested right that permit pretty much chilling any citizens or groups in North Carolina from ever challenging an air permit again. So I just wanted to know that this is not a bill that reduces the burdens on the regulated community or its a regulatory reform bill it's a polluter protection down you should call it as such thanks very much. Senator Wade. Thank you Mr. Chairman just two questions to staff first question is in the cell phone at my understanding is criminal charges they're still liable for those is that correct? Yes senator Wade they're it doesn't have any bearing on criminal actions. Okay and second question is it okay Mr. Chair. On the coal ash the bill that we passed last session does it pretty much cover everything we call rush and doesn't allow many changes? in terms of the self audit provision, a report is not privileged under a host of factors, information obtained via observation of an enforcement agency, information obtained from a source independent of the environmental audit, documents, communications, data or reports or other information required to be collective, maintained and made available under environmental law or their permit orders, consent agreements or otherwise provided by law. So, the report is a discreet document, has a beginning date and an end date. And there or is language in this provisions and I would just know that South Carolina has essentially the same language that's the progression that was made adopter for about 20 years, but they also have guidance that if information in the report shows instances where evidence of non compliance with environmental laws permits e. T. C has occurred and operator or owner has failed to take prompt corrective action eliminate a violation again that report is not privileged, so there're these constrains that I've just mentioned and then a host of others that I can elaborate or no as you prefer. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Senator Jackson. Thank you Mr. Chairman make further questions I appreciate the work that you'll have done on this bill as long as far I know it's been long hard process and I really appreciate all the work you've done on it and I would make a motion for favourable report. Motion before you is on will vote to the original favor vote proposed committee service as amended with the serial referral to finance. All those in favor will say I. I. Oppose no. No. I's have it, we're adjourned. Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you committee.