House hearing spotlights leachate planning for new landfills after Bethlehem violations

Representative Nick Germanna opened a hearing on HB 566 by pointing to reports and Department of Environmental Services (DES) actions that, he said, show “hundreds of infractions” at the Bethlehem landfill and other facilities and that leachate — the liquid that drains from landfills — can concentrate PFAS and other contaminants.

The bill would require that permit applications for new landfills include a detailed leachate management plan covering on-site management, transportation and ultimate disposal for the facility’s operating life and post‑closure care. Germanna told the committee the requirement is not intended to prescribe treatment methods but to ensure applicants show how they will manage leachate and report changes in contracts for transport or disposal.

Business groups, operators and the Department of Environmental Services all testified at the hearing. Notch Grays of the Business & Industry Association (BIA) said the association opposes the bill as introduced because similar requirements exist in DES rules and because rigid statutory language could hamper regulatory agility and innovation. Grays said the existing rules include compliance tools and technical assistance and that agencies can update rules faster than the Legislature can change statute.

Germanna and several proponents pressed that the bill is meant to address a gap in permitting documents and to make leachate plans explicit in statute so DES and communities better understand long-term management of toxic constituents, particularly PFAS. Representative Germanna said he worked with DES and facility operators on an amendment that would move contract-related language into the plan requirement, clarify that the permit step is an “operating approval” rather than a construction permit, and include expansions of facilities in the requirement.

DES Director Mike Wimsatt testified the agency was not taking a position on the bill but said the proposed amendments addressed many of the agency’s technical concerns. He warned of drafting pitfalls — for example, how an accepted application could be deemed approved under RSA 541‑A:29 if the statute does not explicitly prevent deemed approvals — and suggested technical drafting changes so the agency can accept and review applications during any pause without inadvertently granting approvals.

Representatives from industry and environmental groups gave contrasting perspectives. Tom Tower (North Country Alliance for Balance Change) and Wayne Morrison (North Country ABC) urged stricter planning, describing large and growing quarterly leachate volumes at the Bethlehem facility (documents cited an increase from about 2.8 million to 5.2 million gallons per quarter in one reporting period). The Business & Industry Association and some industry witnesses urged reliance on DES rules, saying those provide flexibility and enforcement tools and can be amended to reflect new treatment technologies.

Committee members asked how DES would enforce plans if operators failed to implement them. Wimsatt explained that DES uses a compliance-assurance approach: education, monitoring, letters of deficiency, unilateral administrative orders, and judicial referrals for civil penalties if needed. He said DES has enforcement authority and sometimes coordinates with the Department of Justice on penalty actions.

The hearing produced no final vote. Representatives pressed for technical edits and for language that would not lock in specific technologies, while proponents stressed public health concerns tied to PFAS and to higher leachate volumes following heavier storms.