Committee reviews plan to allow limited local disposal of ‘‘development soils’’ to speed brownfield housing projects

Members of the Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee discussed draft legislation (25‑O841, draft 2.2) that would expand options for managing ‘‘development soils’’ excavated during downtown housing and infill projects, potentially reducing disposal costs and delays.

The measure would allow the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to authorize limited-duration ‘‘insignificant waste events’’ for development soils — defined in the draft as unconsolidated mineral and organic matter overlying bedrock that contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), arsenic or lead — provided the agency finds the disposal will not threaten public health, the environment or groundwater. Matt Chapman, director of Waste Management and Prevention at ANR, said he oversees the Brownfields program and explained that the change aims to give local developers an alternative to transporting soils to distant certified facilities such as the Coventry landfill.

The proposal would require that soils be tested and managed under an ANR‑approved soil management or monitoring plan and that a permanent notice be recorded in land records for properties used to receive development soils. Chapman said public notice and a 14‑day comment period and appeal rights would remain part of the authorization process. He described the approach as a ‘‘streamlined’’ but permitted process rather than an unregulated option.

Committee members pressed for clarity on thresholds, scope and safeguards. One member asked whether Vermont’s screening levels are stricter than other states, noting the potential for stricter state thresholds to increase excavation and disposal costs. Chapman said Vermont’s health‑based screening levels are developed by the Vermont Department of Health and are comparable to neighboring New England states for the PAH indicator discussed, while noting the state uses its own methodology. He said ANR applies background values when appropriate so landowners are not required to clean soils to levels below ambient background.

The draft language would also instruct ANR to give priority review to housing projects seeking Brownfields cleanup, which committee staff and members described as intended to accelerate housing creation where contamination complicates redevelopment. Committee members asked whether prioritization includes priority access to existing cleanup funds; staff said the text does not change fund allocation but prioritization in review may allow housing projects to access funds and approvals sooner.

Other topics in the discussion included the distinction between on‑site management (for large properties where soil can be capped or mounded), categorical facilities or full facility certifications for larger, repeated disposal operations, and a potential categorical permitting pathway for recurring sites. Participants noted that transportation costs are a major driver of disposal expenses and that local receiving sites — including larger farms or community facilities — might be viable receiving locations when groundwater risk can be managed.

Committee members asked ANR to track use of the new pathway to ensure the state is not simply exporting contamination to locations with lower standards. Committee staff suggested adding the activity to ANR’s biannual solid waste report for monitoring. Members also discussed referral of the language to the House Natural Resources Committee for deeper review of technical and appeal issues.

The exchange was a discussion of proposed statutory language and administrative practice; the transcript records questions, clarifications and policy direction but no formal committee vote on this provision during the session.