Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Soil Arsenic Standard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers narrowing wording in arsenic-in-soil standard; sponsors say change will aid housing projects
Summary
Senator DePalma proposed striking the phrase “naturally occurring” from the statute that sets the state soil-arsenic threshold at 19 parts per million, saying the change would remove a legal/administrative impediment to property transfers and affordable housing projects without raising the numeric standard.
Senator DePalma presented a bill to amend the state soil-arsenic language by striking the phrase “naturally occurring” from the statute that set the acceptable arsenic threshold at 19 parts per million. DePalma and proponents said the change does not raise the numeric standard but simply removes the qualifying phrase, which proponents argue has impeded property transfers and development because soils above the numeric threshold were treated differently depending on whether arsenic was judged to be naturally occurring.
Witnesses in support included a development industry representative, Mr. Lopes, Vice President of Development for Balfour Beatty Communities, who said the language addition had created practical obstacles to transferring and developing parcels — including parcels intended for affordable housing and school facilities. Lopes said the 19 ppm threshold is comparable to nearby jurisdictions (he cited Massachusetts at roughly 20 ppm) and that striking “naturally occurring” would clarify application of the standard across projects (for example, a parcel transfer to support a school expansion in Portsmouth).
Senator DePalma said the department of environmental management (DEM) had not taken a formal position and that Director Gray had indicated the department would not oppose the legislative change; senators asked staff to confirm state and neighboring-state thresholds as part of follow-up. No on-the-record opposition testified at the hearing; the committee accepted written submissions and then held the bill. A motion to hold S-644 was adopted by voice vote.
Committee members asked for technical comparisons with other states’ numeric thresholds and for DEM to confirm operational implications for soil removal, transport and reuse. Proponents noted past projects where soil excavated from sites in Rhode Island had been transported to Massachusetts because of differing thresholds, and they argued the proposed wording change would reduce that impediment without changing the numeric cleanup level.
The committee held the bill for further study.
