Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Testimony flags PFAS, microplastics and composting gaps as regulators, stakeholders disagree on rulemaking
Summary
Rural Vermont urged the committee to consider compensation funds if land becomes contaminated from sewage sludge, flagged microplastics and ag‑plastic recycling challenges, and said composting rules drafted into statute have not been implemented in RAP guidance; stakeholders cautioned opening RAPs could trigger broader fights.
Speakers raised three linked environmental concerns: land application of sewage sludge and 'forever chemicals' (PFAS), microplastics and ag‑plastic contamination from recycling/depackaging streams, and gaps between composting statutes and existing Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) guidance.
Eunice Rupertoff of Rural Vermont told the committee that other states’ experiences—she cited Maine—show farmers can suffer severe economic harm when contamination is found on their land. She urged that if Vermont moves toward restrictions on land application or tighter testing, a fund should be available to compensate landowners who lose productive capacity.
Committee members asked whether microplastics were part of the same regulatory conversation. Rupertoff said the Ag Innovation Board and implementation of universal recycling policies can concentrate plastics in materials that are later land‑applied; collection programs for bale wrap and other ag plastics exist but are logistically difficult and may shift waste to other jurisdictions.
On composting, witnesses said new statutory composting rules have been written into law in recent years but have not been inserted into the RAPs/manual guidance (the transcript contains inconsistent acronyms: RAPs, IEPs, IPs). Rural Vermont recommended targeted public rulemaking to correct gaps in composting guidance but opposed broad reopening of RAPs for the municipal‑exemption issue, arguing that doing so would invite unrelated battles.
No regulatory changes or votes were taken in the meeting; members requested additional technical testimony and said they would consider bringing agency staff and legislative counsel to explain the administrative options for targeted rulemaking versus statutes.
