Waste Management seeks clarifying exemption for permitted cell expansions at Turkey Landfill

Henry Veilloux (Waste Management) testified that Waste Management — operator of the Turkey Landfill in Rochester — supports the broader policy goals behind the Site Evaluation Committee amendment but asked the committee to add clarifying language so routine expansions of already‑permitted cells would not trigger SEC review.

For the record, Veilloux told the committee the Turkey Landfill’s total throughput is roughly 1.4 million tons per year (including about 275,000 tons used as daily cover) and that the facility has multiple permitted cells that will be filled and opened on a phased schedule spanning years. “We suggested some language,” he said, explaining the company’s proposed text reads: “such certificates are not required for changes or additions to existing facilities unless they propose an increase in existing permanent annual throughput of greater than a hundred thousand tons per year.”

Veilloux said DES staff told Waste Management the department’s intent is that routine, cell‑by‑cell construction at an already‑permitted landfill would not require SEC review, but he urged the committee to codify that clarity to reduce litigation risk. He also noted Waste Management expects existing permitted capacity at Turkey Landfill to last into the 2034–2036 timeframe under current depletion assumptions and that New Hampshire waste is prioritized when capacity tightens.

Committee members pressed for detail. Representative Germana asked for help conceptualizing 100,000 tons; Veilloux replied the amount is about one‑tenth of the facility’s current annual intake and said company staff would provide truck‑load equivalents to members. Representatives also asked whether additional cells would increase leachate or odor; Veilloux said the site has an on‑site leachate treatment system and that adding permitted cells would feed the existing system rather than require a new leachate collection structure.

DES engagement: Veilloux said he had discussed the amendment language with DES assistant commissioner Adam Crapo and that Crapo was not opposed to clarifying text. The amendment’s draft includes technical assistance from DES on the front page.

Status and next steps: The committee did not take a vote on the language but indicated it will consider technical edits in an executive session before returning to the amendment; industry and DES representatives were told to expect further conversations in a committee‑of‑conference if the House and Senate versions diverge.