Committee considers Brownfields changes to prioritize housing, commission study and allow temporary management of ‘development soils’

The House Committee on General & Housing received a presentation from Michael O'Brady of Legislative Council on Feb. 20 proposing several amendments to the state’s Brownfields cleanup authority intended to speed remediation where housing is planned and to study program efficiency.

O'Brady said sections 17 and 18 of the draft require the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), when reviewing a Brownfields site, to prioritize review and remediation for sites that "contain housing or where single‑family or multifamily housing is proposed," and to conduct a stakeholder survey and efficiency study with a report due Nov. 1. The stated goal is to respond to developer testimony that lengthy corrective action planning and review timelines have delayed housing projects.

The committee’s discussion then moved to a separate but related regulatory problem: how to manage so‑called development soils — urban soils that contain elevated concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), arsenic or lead above soil screening levels but that do not require a full cleanup response. O'Brady and committee members described a practical barrier: there are currently no categorical waste certification facilities in Vermont for development soils, and previous attempts to create such facilities stalled because neighbors feared groundwater contamination.

The draft language presented by Legislative Council would allow ANR to permit temporary handling of development soils at a site approved pursuant to an "insignificant waste event" — a limited‑duration (the draft contemplates up to six months) authorization already available under ANR solid‑waste rules. The permissions would be conditioned on testing for arsenic, lead and PAHs under an ANR‑approved monitoring plan; managing the material under a soil management plan; capping with clean soil; and filing a land‑record notice so that future buyers are informed (O'Brady said the draft envisions a recorded notice for 20 years). O'Brady said, and the committee noted, the statutory text would explicitly say these options are "notwithstanding any other requirements of this chapter," to create the limited, temporary pathway.

Committee members asked technical questions about how the temporary management would work after the six‑month period, whether soils could be graded on‑site or used as fill in other projects, and which permits would be required. O'Brady said the soils would remain in place after the permitted period and would be subject to conditions and soil management plans approved by the ANR secretary; any future disturbance would require an approved plan. He also said the receiving location must be appropriate for the amount and type of material and that the instrument would include a record that runs with the land to inform title reviews.

Several members of the housing committee expressed support for prioritizing housing remediation but also voiced concern that soil‑management authority and development‑soil disposal are primarily environmental issues and may be better reviewed in the House Environment Committee. The chair asked Legislative Council to refine the drafting to make clear the prioritization language pertains specifically to sites where housing is planned or exists and to coordinate the draft with ANR staff and program managers.

Ending: Legislative Council agreed to refine the language (including replacing broad "development" language with an explicit reference to sites containing or proposing housing), coordinate with ANR program staff, and prepare updated draft 5.1 language for the committee’s review.