Committee reviews S.29 chloride bill; debates training, measurement and costs

The Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee on Feb. 7 reviewed S.29, a bill that would establish a state program for training, certifying and tracking commercial and municipal salt applicators and for collecting data on salt and salt‑alternative use to reduce chloride impacts on surface water and groundwater.

Committee members spent most of the hearing discussing definitions, program administration, training standards, recordkeeping requirements and enforcement. They debated whether the bill should exclude salt used for construction dust suppression, how to define “transportation infrastructure construction project,” who should implement the program, and how to measure baseline salt use.

The committee discussed several points that would shape drafting. On administration, members said the bill should allow the Secretary of Natural Resources to implement the program directly through agency employees, by competitively selected third‑party vendors, by municipal partners, or by a combination of those approaches. The Agency of Transportation (AOT) and the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) were named repeatedly as consultation partners.

On training, members pressed for a mix of classroom and hands‑on instruction. The bill’s training provisions would create a certification system that could include an initial in‑person component, ongoing re‑certification, and a “master applicator” designation. Committee members suggested adding a requirement for a check‑for‑understanding or test at the end of training and for records of training to be part of required recordkeeping.

Recordkeeping and data collection drew sustained attention. The draft would require commercial and municipal applicators to keep records describing product type and rate, location, dates of use, weather conditions and other circumstances that led to salt use. Members discussed creating a publicly accessible database of salt purchases and use and debated how to set and measure a baseline (the draft uses averages from 2010–2020). The committee flagged difficulties in accurately capturing historical private and parking‑lot applications but asked staff to pursue reasonable baseline and future reporting approaches.

Equipment and verification were contested topics. Several members said requiring salt‑application meters and equipment-calibration records would improve measurement and control, but they also warned meter requirements could deter participation and impose costs on small municipalities and contractors. The committee agreed to give the implementing agency flexibility to recommend whether and how to require meters, leaving technical details to AOT/ANR.

Committee members also discussed compliance and incentives. Proposals discussed included random compliance checks (a “compliance check” rather than a formal audit), model reporting templates to ease reporting burden, business incentives such as access to state procurement contracts for participants, and liability protections for certified applicators. The draft contains a rebuttable presumption that certified applicators who follow the bill’s best management practices would be deemed to have acted appropriately in the absence of proof to the contrary; members noted the first litigation under such a standard could be precedent‑setting.

Cost and staffing concerns surfaced repeatedly. A fiscal note cited roughly $250,000 in initial costs to set up training, reporting systems and staffing; members said the long‑term cost for administration, potential inspections or compliance checks and software could be higher. The committee asked staff to obtain additional input from AOT and ANR about expected costs for random compliance checks and for AOT to provide previously submitted recommendations the committee had not yet reviewed.

The committee did not take any formal votes on S.29. Members asked staff to consolidate the flagged edits—including adding a specific definition for “transportation infrastructure construction project,” clarifying record retention (members discussed three years for records but noted statutory record‑retention schedules may apply), adding training verification, and giving implementing agencies flexibility on equipment requirements—and to circulate a revised draft before the next meeting.