Committee hears testimony on bill language to let developers manage "development soils" under limited ANR permits

A Vermont House General and Commerce subcommittee on April 10 heard testimony about a provision in S.127 that would let developers manage certain urban "development soils" at locations authorized under an Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) insignificant waste event permit rather than sending the material to fully permitted landfills.

Legislative Council attorney Michael O'Grady summarized the proposal and the statutory definition: "development soils are defined in statute with unconsolidated mineral and organic matter, overlaying bedrock that contains poly, cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, or lead in concentrations that exceed the relevant soil screening level for residential soil," he said. O'Grady added that those soils, when managed under specified conditions, "pose no greater risk than the agency established soil screening value for the intended reuse of the property."

Why it matters: witnesses and committee members said the change could reduce trucking and disposal costs for urban redevelopment projects that produce excess soil. Matt Chapman, director of the Waste Management and Prevention Division at the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), told the committee the proposal is intended to create another management option when on-site reuse or disposal at a categorical waste facility is not feasible. "[The proposal] basically is another option for developers, so that to the extent there are site constraints or other constraints of their ability to manage this class of dirt, that they could try and find another option that basically reduces trucking costs, reduces project costs," Chapman said.

Under the S.127, section 10 language described by O'Grady and DEC staff, soils could be managed at a receiving location authorized through ANR's insignificant waste event process only if several conditions are met: the soils originate from a site under ANR corrective action oversight; they have been tested for arsenic, lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) under an ANR-approved monitoring plan that demonstrates no leaching above groundwater standards; the receiving location is appropriate for the amount and type of material; soils are capped in a manner approved by ANR; disturbance follows a soil management plan; and a record of notice is filed in the land records where the soils are managed. O'Grady summarized those limits, saying the proposal allows management "notwithstanding any other requirements of this chapter" but only with enumerated safeguards.

Evernorth policy director Kathy Beyer urged the committee to ask for a broader review of how cleanup standards are set. "The cost of brownfield remediation are really are really determined by the standard that's in place," Beyer said, arguing that remediation triggers and standards are set by the Vermont Department of Health and that standard-setting has not always been transparent or multidisciplinary. She urged the committee to consider a report that also examines how remediation standards are adopted because those standards drive the extent—and cost—of cleanup.

DEC staff emphasized limits to the proposal. Chapman and Trish Capalino, senior environmental program manager in DEC's sites management program, said the provision focuses on contaminants common in urban soils (arsenic, lead, PAHs) and is not intended for more hazardous contaminants such as chlorinated solvents or asbestos. Chapman said these development-soil contaminants are often at or above regional background values and are primarily a dermal/ingestion pathway concern when left uncontrolled.

Committee action and next steps: committee members and staff said this subject more directly involves ANR and the House Environment Committee. The chair said the committee will transmit testimony and that DEC and Environment staff will continue discussions about how the language should be handled in S.127. No formal votes or motions were recorded on the floor during this hearing segment.

Ending: Committee members acknowledged the issue's connection to broader brownfields policy and signaled they will coordinate with the Environment Committee and DEC staff on any statutory or intended-use-plan changes needed to implement the approach in S.127.