Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Brownfields Development Soils topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews Brownfields language; ANR says development-soils flexibility would apply statewide, not only to Brownfields
Summary
Committee members compared language in H.479 and S.133 on management of development soils and brownfields. Agency witnesses said the draft extends a flexible soil-management path to non-Brownfields sites that meet criteria (arsenic, lead, PAHs) and could reduce transportation costs for developers.
The Senate committee on Southern Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs discussed Brownfields and development-soils language on May 6 and heard from agency officials that the draft language is broader than a Brownfields-only program.
Mike Grady, counsel to the committee, said the language in draft 2.1 of H.479 matches language in S.127/S.133 and asked ANR to explain the scope. "The version in our bill was specific to Brownfields redevelopment dollars, and the version that went in S.133 to natural resources was all projects eligible for an alternative compliance path," a senator asked. ANR staff said the development-soils provisions apply to soils contaminated with arsenic, lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) when those contaminants exceed relevant soil-values and when a corrective-action or soil-management plan is in place.
Why it matters: Developers have cited high transportation and disposal costs for contaminated soil as a key barrier to redevelopment. The committee heard that expanding local options for managed reuse or temporary placement under a state insignificant-waste-event permit could reduce hauling distances and project costs while preserving regulatory controls.
Agency explanation and constraints: Matt Chapman, director of lease management and compliance at the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), said the draft was written to be as broad as possible so that developers encountering contaminated soils during projects could access regulatory flexibility regardless of formal Brownfields enrollment. Chapman emphasized the flexibility still requires a willing receiving site, a corrective-action or soil-management plan, and safeguards so the material does not threaten groundwater or become a long-term stockpile.
Scope of contaminants and limits: Officials said the development-soils authority is limited to the three contaminant categories (arsenic, lead and PAHs) and to situations where those contaminants exceed residential or partial-use soil values. Other contaminants are managed under separate rules and corrective-action frameworks.
Costs and local capacity: Committee members and ANR staff discussed transportation as the major driver of costs; witnesses said the proposal would not make disposal free but could reduce costs by enabling closer, temporary receiving locations and by using the insignificant-waste-event permitting mechanism rather than long-distance hauling to a single landfill. ANR officials said they are willing to work with municipalities or public entities to identify willing receiving locations but do not generally solicit private participants.
Next steps: Members asked for confirmation that the language is not narrower than what was included in S.133; committee counsel and ANR staff confirmed the language was equivalent and counsel noted a section in the draft requires a report back on management of the program. Committee members said the language moves policy forward and expressed support for retaining it in the bill.
