Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deicing Chloride S29 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DEC and stakeholders debate tracking, training and timelines in S.29 de‑icing bill to curb chloride pollution
Summary
Department of Environmental Conservation staff told the Senate Natural Resources & Energy committee that S.29 should begin with certification of commercial de‑icing applicators, use AOT’s local‑roads program for municipal training, and rely on improved receiving‑water monitoring and mapping before imposing broad statewide reporting or immediate coverage mandates.
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) staff who testified on S.29 urged a focused, phased approach to reduce chloride pollution from de‑icing: require certification and best‑management training for commercial applicators first, work with the Agency of Transportation to expand municipal road training, and collect usable monitoring data before imposing broad reporting mandates.
Deepak Laum (introduced himself as director of watershed management in DEC testimony) told the Senate committee that chloride levels are rising in many Vermont watersheds with high impervious cover and that commercial applicators who de‑ice parking lots and sidewalks are a major source of loading. “Chlorides are a real problem in our waters,” he said, and he urged an implementation model similar to programs in New Hampshire and Minnesota that focus first on commercial applicators.
DEC staff recommended striking provisions in a working draft that would require municipalities to be included immediately in the certification program and they proposed relying on the Agency of Transportation’s local road training program to deliver enhanced municipal training instead. They also suggested that record‑keeping requirements be kept at the applicator level (commercial applicators keep certification and application records) rather than requiring that all records be submitted directly to ANR. That approach, the DEC officials said, eased administrative burdens on small operators while preserving a chain of accountability for enforcement.
On monitoring and measurement, DEC staff said the department already conducts varied in‑stream monitoring and is prepared to scale or adapt monitoring — including telemetry and continuous sensors — but cautioned that calculating exact tons of salt applied at a statewide level is difficult and often a poor proxy for in‑stream concentrations because of variability in winter severity and leaching dynamics. DEC proposed enhancing receiving‑water monitoring and mapping problem watersheds before setting prescriptive tracking or import‑reporting rules.
Senators and committee members pressed DEC on whether measurement of salt purchases or imports could yield a usable proxy for application. Several lawmakers said an annual, aggregate reporting requirement — for participants in a voluntary certification program or for major importers — would allow the state to track trends adjusted for winter severity. DEC agreed to take back that request and to work with AOT and municipal partners to identify feasible data sources and reporting approaches.
DEC also questioned certain schedule provisions in the draft that would require covering uncovered salt or sand storage facilities by fixed dates without a statewide cost estimate. DEC proposed mapping and cost‑estimating exposed storage locations first and then setting timelines tied to funding sources and technical assistance, rather than imposing un‑funded, immediate coverage mandates.
The committee closed the discussion asking DEC and legislative counsel to refine the draft, provide redlines and to return with more concrete language on training, monitoring metrics and timelines. No formal vote was taken at the hearing.
