Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Good morning, and welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning, we are going to be walking through the latest draft of h six thirty two, the miscellaneous DEC bill, with our legislative council, Michael O'Grady. Welcome back, Michael.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. This is Mike O'Grady with legislative council. I was trying to check to see what's on the website, but I can't load your committee website for some reason.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Either, which is a real thing.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: The committee type site?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I can't load any. I can't even get to committees. I'll just pull

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So hopefully, you have draft number 4.1 in front of you. And I'll just start walking through. So before I go into specifics, there are certain programs that have been removed. There are certain programs that have been added, and there are two programs where questions still remain. So what has been removed was that section about ANR adopting rules for net gain of wetland. They're already past that deadline. You didn't wanna extend it, so that section was removed. There was also those sections that were amending the stream alt statutes related to the threshold for permitting, moving from a a basically any movement of 10 cubic yards in a a water course to movement in a water course that drained point 0.5 square miles. That was removed, and I'll talk about what replaced that in a minute. And then the storm water impact fees and the ANR proposal to waive them, that was removed. That was removed a while ago. But then what was added was the, proposal for an ecological restoration general permit in order to combine several criteria from criteria from several permits into one permit or more expeditious dam removal or similar projects. Also what was added was excluding fire extinguishers from the, hazardous household products, EPR program. Only if those manufacturers are already running a program for the collection of waste extinguishers. And then there's that language that you asked for for having in the municipal prohibition on burning and disposal of waste, also having you can't, you have to have a a certified solid waste hauler in order to transport waste motor vehicle tires. That was in H 204 yesterday. It was something that Matt said is recommended regardless of if you do the EPR for tires. Then the questions that remain are the emissions repair program. I know the house transportation committee looked at it. I think they had similar questions and doubts about it that you did. I don't know if they're giving you official recommendation or not.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: They did send us an email with, I think, recommendation. From the chair or who do know who it came from? That came from the person who was implementing the program.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Oh, that was just committee. No. Okay. Yeah. I I don't remember getting anything from transportation.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: No. It wasn't from transportation. Oh,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: oh, it was a committee note from the person who administers the program. Right.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yes. Right.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Answering our questions and giving some more information.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'll I'll follow-up with the chairs of the other committees in general. So the Matts, Matt Byron and Matt Walker and Ag, David Durfee, and there's one more. Am I am I missing one more? I do not.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So those were the three, the CAFO program, which Ag has looked at and was fine with, and, Laura Depetro testified and was fine with that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, okay. Great.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Then there was the missions repair and then the emergency rulemaking that ANR has proposed. I have not heard anything from. So

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. I I emailed them again yesterday. So I think we should they they should be in touch with you soon.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Alright.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Then we wanted their thoughts sooner rather than later.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So do you want me to just focus on changes, or do you want me to do high level of every section?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, yeah, Kat's got a few copies coming. I don't know, because are folks able to pull it up on the web page? Mhmm. That's something of mine I

[Unidentified committee member]: need to

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: sit down and start over.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Mine's working now.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So yeah. But when you do high level, just a sentence about what it is. Okay. And then detail on the changes.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Okay. Thanks. Sure.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So section one, high level, the battery assessment report on how to collect and dispose of problem batteries like EV batteries. That remains unchanged. The battery program wants to take over, and they'll get an extra year to do that. The fuel storage tank section two, improving the ability of ANR to tag cat one underground storage tanks, that remains unchanged. The healthy home initiative, making clear that the information submitted by applicants for that federal ARPA program is confidential. That remains unchanged. In the section four in the flood safety, this is where river development rules reporting education, etcetera is. There is one change in this section, and it is on page four. And it relates to the report it had previously said on or before 01/15/2027. And you want that annually until the permitting of development is completed. So that was the change there. Page five in the mapped river corridor rules. The date for the deadline for issuing permits, I just wanna note it, it's 07/15/2028 in section five. That's important or relevant to a change later, and I'll that change. Section six, the NFIP study program for committee, giving them extra time, a year extra time, that is unchanged.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. I just wanna pause on date changes when you're finished with the date change section here for the blood safety.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not quite savvy on the date gen changes. The next, the last section with date changes of section seven, remember I pointed out the 07/15/2028 for rules. That needs to be consistent in section seven. Section seven is one of those sections where the ex chair of senate natural would dictate when rulemaking had to start and when it needed to end. So you need to provide consistency between section five and section seven.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: that's the end of the day change.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We've had some a fair amount of testimony discussion on this, and I just wanna be sure that folks I want to check-in where folks are on these requested extensions.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I'm just considering that it's expanded. We're talking about people's lives and safety. It's really confirming.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Same. I'm concerned we're pushing the dates out and not requiring some act based on the work that's already done with the three thousand months already been done. It seems like they're just holding on to that data and not making use of it, yet pushing the end date out. It seems like we ought to make use of the work that's been done thus far in some fashion.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Yep. Thanks for that reminder. Alright. So then this is a good time for me to say, we're moving into final walkthrough here, and so we need to pull out any concerns along the way. And if like Michael just high leveled a bunch of sections. I'm gonna assume you're fine with them unless you bring up an issue

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: on this. Just I'm just wondering if it makes sense to kind of have someone I'm sure they're monitoring rainfall, but what we've heard from testimony is, you know, with the increased amount of rainfall, there's higher risk of the dams flooding. And I don't know if we can put it in here or not, but I think this committee should keep track of rainfall and if it's really increasing and heading towards a threat.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. And many people are keeping track of that for the state of Vermont for us, and we can always access the data. So we'll circle back with DEC on what they're doing with the already mapped corridors and what the options are there. Okay. Great.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So moving on, you're on page seven, line 12. Sections eight and nine relate to the clean water service providers and providing uniformity in their notice requirements. They'll provide notice to the public in a comment period of not less than thirty days. That's unchanged. And that takes you to page 10 and section 10, line 14. This is the session law that replaces the stream alteration statutory changes. So this is the one year allowance for a 0.5 threshold for a stream alt permit. And during that one year, you will see on page 11, line three, section 11, ANR is going to develop and report back to you effectively a science based standard for stream alteration that could be scalable depending on the size of the the water or the size of this the alteration, and what makes sense scientifically to permit as opposed to just a default, amount and a default watershed.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's great. Can we walk through that?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. On a report, 01/15/2027, they submit to you, the general assembly, a recommended permitting threshold for stream all water courses of the state that is based on the ecological effect, volume, size of a watershed, or amount of in stream material moved will be based on scientific evidence that includes an assessment whether the permitting standard should be scaled to address the relative impacts of the alteration on a water course, including whether the standard should be adjustable based on the degree of impact that an alteration would have, such as whether smaller alteration should be permitted in smaller watercourse but not in a larger watercourse. It what? Whether the type or volume of material moved that would trigger the permitting standard would be subject to different standards based on the effect that the material or volume would have.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. So in number one up there, the permitting standard all alterations should be permitted in larger water courses.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Require effort.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It should say, yeah. I mean, that's

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's backwards. Somehow I

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: can read whether they should require a permit.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. That needs a little work.

[Unidentified committee member]: Could multiply. Yeah. Representative Norton. I think you skipped past the previous paragraph. There were

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: a whole bunch of yellow at the beginning of section 10. Could you walk us through

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I didn't walk through 10.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Actually, one second. Cat's got hard copies for folks who would like

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: So

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: in 10, remember that the existing statutory threshold is no limit on the water course. It's whether or not you're moving 10 cubic yards of in street material. And so notwithstanding the existing provisions requiring ANR to issue a a stream alteration permit for the movement, fill or excavation of 10 cubic yards or more of in stream material in any year in any water course. Beginning on 07/01/2026 and any 07/01/2027, ANR shall only require a stream alteration permit for the movement filler excavation, 10 cubic yards or more than stream material in any year in a watercourt with watershed area greater than 0.5 square miles at the location of the proposed movement filler excavation?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So I would say we would wanna extend past 07/01/1927. We need to be in session to be able to respond to avoid confusion out there in the field in the middle of construction season. So I I would suggest something more like February 1 or something.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Remember, you get the report back January '27 about what would be the science based scalable standard. So you would have a legislative session to enact

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: What would replace

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Go ahead. There. It would begin this July. We get the report January. I say six months later, we get the report. Okay. But I guess we'll do that.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I see your point. It's in the middle of construction season. If you wanna push it out six months until

[Unidentified committee member]: So

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: that makes sense. Okay. Like, at the beginning date, maybe,

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: is it 07/01/2026?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Should No. That's sort of where every like Okay. Anything we pass this session usually starts the first of the fiscal year kind of. But It's just like an onpass as opposed to. But Yeah. Same thing. Same.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: She has roughly the same thing. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No. I mean, no. It's my same issue. Yeah. But yeah. Let's We can see what do you see Yeah. What's best for them. By the time they're different sizes. So Yeah. By the time it goes into effect, it's usually July 1, realistically.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Should I move on? Okay. So that takes you to page 12. The next four sections are about the CAFO program. Most of these changes is changing cow slash calf to cow and calf.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We don't need to walk through that anymore. I think we're clear on the oars and the andes.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: The big substantive change in these sections is page 14, line 21. Remember, there used to be the ability in ANR's permitting authority to require any AFO to get a FO permit without a standard built in, and the agency objected to that. I will point out that you already have authority for ANR to do that, but there's a standard.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. Did you say page 14?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Page 14, line 21. It's not there any it's like it's

[Unidentified committee member]: on. Mhmm.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So Oh, the sec the a and r brought us the change, and then it got removed? Yes. Why?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I think I was told to take it out.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: It was in the draft that we received, and then the ag agency requested that you removed and the CDC requested. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I missed that.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Talking about the original sub four secretary determined secretary's discretion of the case for permission required

[Unidentified committee member]: Exactly.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: That was instruct. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Even though that's already

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I will show you on page 22 going on to page 23. There this is still ANR's authority, And you will see that they have in these subdivisions five, six, and seven the ability to require APHOs to get a CAFO permit. But there's a standard because under the Clean Water Act, there's they have to either be discharging, actually discharging, or they have to be determined to be a significant cause of contributor of pollutants to a water. And so you have the standards here. The secretary still has the discretion, still her discretion to make that determination. But this is consistent with federal law. The other one was trying to be consistent with federal law, but it was too it was too broadly drawn.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And then so if you don't wanna focus on cow and calves, and we just went through the permitting discretion, I think you can skip to page 25, section 17. This is ANR's enforcement authority. Remember, ANR and Agency of the High used to have an MOU that described their enforcement cooperation. EPA wanted that MOU removed. And you did that last year, but you forgot to change a reference to that in ANR's enforcement authority, and that's what the language on page 25 to 26 does. And then you get to page 26, section 18. This is a new section. It's been called ecological restoration projects. It's been called freshwater restoration projects. I'm calling it the surface water restoration projects because we don't use the term freshwater in Vermont, and ecological was wasn't really specific to it's a it's surface water program. So what it does is page 26, line eight through 11, it's going to focus on ecological restoration projects in surface waters. And what's ecological restoration? It's the process assisting in the recovery of the structure and function of the natural condition of the surface water, following negative impacts through human actions such as development, including infrastructure and altering rivers and floodplains. And there's a reference definition of dam removal. This is not the same definition of dam removal that's in the dam chapter. This is broader and specifically the when it references dam failure related inundation below the dam and channel instability upstream of the dam, that's not necessarily in the definition of dam failure in the dam chapter. But this is effectively what these projects will focus on, this dam removal, whether or not it will improve inundation risks for channel instability upstream. Surface water is one of the definitions of surface water that's used elsewhere in statute, effectively meaning everything. And then page 27, you will see a directive to ANR on a report 12/01/2027, to adopt a general permit by rule for ecological restoration projects for surface waters of the state. The goal of that general permit is to increase flood resilience, improve water quality, and increase biodiversity for natural resources restoration practices, including dam removal, covert replacement, berm removal, and flood floodplain restoration. In developing that general permit, the secretary shall consider whether all or some of the criteria and multiple other permits are incorporated under this general permit. So effectively streamlining the multiple permits that you might need for a dam removal or a culvert replacement under one general permit. And so those permit criteria that could be considered would be a dam safety order, which is what you need in order to fix or repair a dam or remove it. A wetlands determination or permit, which I think you all know what that is. A rare and threatened species review. There's different standards and permits for T and E actions, but one of those is when you're going to be doing a project in a water, there has to be a review of its impact on T and E species. That will be potentially included in the general permit. Clean Water Section four zero one certification. That's when the project needs a federal permit and ANR needs to sign off that that federal action will meet the state water quality standards. Remember, Green River Reservoir, that then they had to get that four zero one to certify that they met state standards. Stormwater construction general permit. When you're gonna move more than a half acre of of earth earth disturbance in Vermont, you need to do certain practices. Maybe that cuts part of this general permit. And then an insignificant waste management event. When you are moving dirt. Technically, if you don't have a use for it, it's waste. But it can be sent somewhere that used to be called a categorical facility. Now it's called an insignificant waste. And so it can be managed at one place instead of at a certified facility. So you can take it to, like, an empty field that's not a solid waste facility, but ANR will certify it as being appropriate for the disposal

[Unidentified committee member]: of dirt usually.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We made changes to that last year, maybe.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You did that for the, development soils. Remember, they have pores in them, poly aromatic hydrocarbons. And technically, they were violating soil standards, and you needed to treat them as hazardous waste. But they there's pause all over the state that every pretty much everywhere. So if you were holding the disposal to that, it was really difficult to dispose of it. It had to go to a landfill effectively. So you allowed insignificant waste to then disposal for POS when the background level of the POS at the receiving site was the same.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks for that. I remember it's firm. We learned it. Thanks. Representative Austin.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. I just have a couple of questions. On Line 10, where it says human actions.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. What page? We're on page 26. Yeah. Yeah. That's it.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I'm just wondering if we need to remove human because I do wonder if AI honestly, I wonder if AI it's gonna not I mean, human and or something, current technology or something. If I'm going into the there. But surface water, I think of water on the surface. Is that, you're talking about all the water. Right? So surface to me means like a certain depth, like six feet or 30 feet as surface water.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This is because you represent Colchester and you're on Lake Champlain.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Right.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. It's it's all it's all water. A question you may ask yourself is whether or not you want it only to be the in state waters, though, not boundary waters. So it wouldn't sometimes when you define this, you exclude Champlain, you exclude Memphremagogue, you exclude Wallace Pond because of their of their, transboundary nature. You don't have to worry about the Connecticut mostly because can New Hampshire owns the Connecticut.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Let's follow that thread for a minute. I and I representative Austin, I struggled with the word negative because it felt subjective to me, and I wanted to just think about it a little bit more. Like, the human part, I guess I feel like Left from the bottom. Yeah, that sounds kind attitude. Anyway, I think we're going to take more testimony on this section. Let's talk about the

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: DAM sector. My understanding is that dam owners have to do whatever they want with their dams, whether they want to repair them or not. Is that inaccurate or can the state come in and say your dam that could flood and kill thousands of people? You have to do something.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So there's authority in the dam chapter for an unsafe dam order. Yep. The the state can require action to be taken to repair a dam that proposes a risk of failure, or breach, and so that there is that authority.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Thank you. Representative Sarita Austin.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. While we're talking about definitions here in the dam removal definition, I'm wondering, it not dams that people would like to remove that aren't at risk of innovation or channel instability? There could be other just purely, like, biological reasons or or aesthetic reasons even for wanting to remove a dam. And so we'd still wanna have them be able to

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I would recommend talking to the advocates or the DEC scientists about that, about whether or not every dam creates some in streams instability upstream. I I don't know. I'm not I'm not her scientist. And I didn't draft this language. Well, I I did, but it wasn't originally drafted by me.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Since this all comes under the heading of the surface water restoration projects, find the definition of dam removal to surface water restoration just to get more broadly. I think that's maybe Larry's or, yeah, I don't know. Yeah. Maybe I

[Unidentified committee member]: put more to your mouth. But

[Unidentified committee member]: I mean, I I think dam removal is the removal of a dam. So if we have we know what a dam is, then we know what we need to remove it there.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Why do we need a definition of dam removal?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I do think there are sometimes questions about whether something is a dam.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But doesn't doesn't that mean we need a definition of dam?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: We do have a definition of dam, but some some dams aren't dams. Some dams don't need a permit to because they don't impound enough. And so my favorite are the golf course dams. Like, your water hazards are generally created with dams, but they don't impound enough water to require permit to to alter. And so some dams aren't dams. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But then then they wouldn't be part of this anyway.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, they right. Right. Potentially. Yeah. I think this section really is about streamlining permitting for a dam removal because dam removals are are involve a lot. They involve stream all. They involve water quality. They involve T and E analysis, they involve moving the material that you dredge from the water course. I mean, they involve a lot. And Can you streamline that into one process that doesn't require 10 permits?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes, or 10 definitions. So, we're just noodling on them a little bit. I appreciate that summary. Let's keep going.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So on page 27, line 17, this is also a new section under the surface water restoration projects. It directs DEC in coordination with the multiple stakeholders involved with the environmental review process required for dam to look at, basically what should be considered before a dam order is, is granted. So there's the unsafe dam order. That is there's a risk of failure. There's a risk of harm. But then there's another dam order section where you apply to build a dam, repair a dam, any pretty much renovation, anything that

[Unidentified committee member]: you're going to do to

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: a dam that's not an unsafe dam order. And the standard for that dam order is a certificate of public good. The EEC needs to look at a long list of criteria to determine whether or not that action is being proposed, construction, repair, alteration, breach is is within the public good. One of the things that's not in that list is whether or not dam removal would be the best public good.

[Unidentified committee member]: And

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: so what you see here on page 28, and I admit it could be a little bit clearer, but they will look at the identification of improvements that shall address all the public safety and environmental impacts of a project. They will develop specific criteria that the Department of Fish and Wildlife will look at when they do investigations on the impact of a proposed project on fish and wildlife. Because right now, they're only directed to do an impact on the fish and wildlife habitat, not the actual fish and wild. And then they will be directed to determine whether the greatest benefit to the people of the state shall include ecological restoration and effectively removal. This is really what this last section is about, is whether or not removal, if not transparent that that's what it's about, but that's really what it's about.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: North. Thank you, chair. In that last section, subsection three, determination that the greatest benefit to the people, underlying people, of the state shall include a list of things. I don't see anywhere in that list of things, the the cost of removal, the tax burden associated with that, and the economic impacts.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So so all all of that Big impacts that people Hold on a sec. So remember I told you that there was this determination that has to be determination that fits in the public good, and the factors for that are in 10 BSA ten eighty six. Now it's a long list. I'll read some of them to you. It clue it includes the the effect of proposed project will have on fish and wildlife on forest, the existing uses of the water, whether it will create any hazard to navigation, fishing, swimming, or public uses, the creation of any public benefits, attainment of water quality standards, any applicable state, regional, or municipal plans, its effect on the municipal grand list and revenues. And in the case of the proposed removal of a dam, whether it was incident to generation of electric energy. So it doesn't have a specific cost other than the effect on the grand less than municipal revenue.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Got some economic impact, tax burden, customer approval, that kind of thing. There.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You you can you could do whatever you like.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Not usually, but wow.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: In my experience. The committee, I need the committee.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, I think I mean, so I think then it extends to what are the costs of having a DAM in place, too. So, think, yeah, there's a cost to removing it, but there's a cost to having it there. And so if you want, it's like that's the whole idea of a certificate of public good and what's best for the state. I think to me, it's included and implied. But this section is still open for input. You want to noodle on that, you're welcome to. Representative

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Chapin? It's my understanding that you sort of received a lot of this language put it in here for this section also. So I guess I'm curious about your opinion whether this particular section, Game Order Review, what are the pros and cons to having it in this format versus just amending the list you just read us and adding to that list the considerations around removal?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, list and this process doesn't contemplate the streamlining of all the different permits and criterion to one review or or one general permit. So I understand the logic of that, and that that, to me, makes sense. If you want dam removal and potentially the cost both pro and negative to be considered as part of a dam order or underneath the new general permit, I would just specifically say that this this gets you lost a little bit in that language, in my opinion. And if you just wanna say dam removal, culvert replacement, etcetera, floodplain restoration shall be considered for their benefit and public good and a determination, I I think that that's a little clearer.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think we will vote for clearer and appreciate your edits to this section to help us find clarity.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. You would keep it in this section, but you would just make it clearer.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Or you cross reference the two of them back and forth so that they're linked.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yep. So we'll look to you for guidance on that.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Should I move on? Right.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: And I'll just have Oh, yes. Representative Austin. I just I'm just assuming if a dam is unsafe unsafe, I it doesn't matter how much to me it costs to repair it or whatever needs to be done, that that will that will supersede, you know, anything, whether the municipality wants it or not or whether the municipality has to pay for it or not.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So when there's an unsafe dam, any 10 people can petition the department to take action and to investigate whether or not action is necessary. And if there is the order, the person owning the dam, they have to comply with the order. And if they don't, then the department can take action, and the department then can seek costs from the down owner.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: But why doesn't why isn't the department the one responsible for determining what if you can't get 10 people to to No.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: The 10 people just petition. So almost every environmental law in the state is complaint driven.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Interesting.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right? And it's like, there's cows in the stream. There's fine sewer overflow. There's

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: But we're talking about public safety. So it can't it can't be determined by 10 people whether they think it's unsafe or not.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. They just petition for the department to do an investigation as to whether or not

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: But what if they don't petition? What if no one petitions?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So but there is a process that the state is inspecting dams. Right. That that separates us. So this is not part of this bill.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I know there's I have a I had an assumption there was something there, but I just needed to clarify it. So thank you. Yep. I

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: do wanna say with regard to dam safety and dam safety bill, talked to Ben Green last night, and he emailed me after midnight, so he was on it. But the question of whether or not you can mandate that a federal flood control dam or any federal dam, who does the EOP for that, he said no. You can't mandate that because the feds control that.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: But I'm lost with even the question because damn owners were giving them no responsibility over EOPs. EOPs are the downstream municipalities. So we can we can totally mandate that downstream municipalities and state government EOP for what if. But let's talk about this later.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Like a fundamental flaw to me, the question.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You have to look at the Plug Control Act and it says anything related to it, the US Army Corps of Engineer controls. And so What

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: do they do in EOP? How are they No.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: They tell the municipalities to do the EOP.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And do they already tell them to do

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: it? They

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Like that's already in statute and required?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I have not found that mandate in statute. I found it in their guidance documents.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So, yeah, we can do this later, but I think Yeah, we're just trying to

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: get the state to help municipalities do their EOPs. Yeah. Or we could call it something else. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You can't tell them to camp plan is what your point is. Yes. We'll figure that out.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So moving on to section 19. This is that emergency rulemaking that you're looking for input from gov ops about, and it gives agencies, in addition to the existing emergency rule standards, to go to emergency rule if an amendment to a federal statute rule of policy will materially conflict with or threaten the ability of an agency to implement a statutory regulatory program fired under Vermont law. So that, you're unchanged. You're waiting for gov ops to give you input on. Page 31, line seven, this is a new section. This is the section that excludes from the Household Hazardous Products EPR program. And you will see on page 32, line eight, single use and rechargeable handheld fire extinguishers from the manufacturers or their representatives collect the extinguishers from municipal household hazardous waste collection program. Effectively, there's already a manufacturer run EPR program for those single use rechargeable extinguishers, then they're not going to be covered by the program.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So is is there such a manufacturer?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's my understanding. It's it's I've been told that they do run a program. And they're You might wanna hear from their representative.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Might. And he's right behind you. So we welcome a comment from the representative from industry.

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: Bill Smith with government relations lobbying for Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association, other than the

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: commercial fire extinguishers. Of you are here already, but like the one in the corner over there,

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: it's one of my

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: here and maintains it. So it's a little different take on what we were proposing. We were just proposing that if you were subject to the fire code and had to maintain these, that keeps them out of the waste stream anyway.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And for that limited subset of fire extinguisher and their manufacturers, they could say they could. Now this goes beyond that.

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: This is basically all fire extinguishers in the state of Vermont. If there as I read this, and I just got this this morning. It seems to say to me that any fire extinguisher manufacturer, if they collect their extinguishers from the salt waste, that they're not considered covered household hazardous waste. Even if they never I can't speak for the ones that sell into the residential market, I'm wondering is this going to be effective to do what you want by having said I forgot we heard Steve Duke from Vermont Fire Exchanger over in Paris. He does with the locals. That's very ad hoc. So this is

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: gonna mandate it happen.

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: I'm just I need to hear from them and say, do you want to do this? Is this the way to do this? Or would you just prefer to be the type of exemption that's based on being covered by the fire code and having a maintenance one, which seems a little simpler to me just comparing them now. But I guess Jeff Terry will be up here at 10:30 if you want to hear from him.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: He's actually in contact with the actual manufacturers right now,

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: so I guess I'd ask if you could hear from him

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: to see if they have an official answer.

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: This is a little different take to me. I don't want to get ahead of my client, but I also want to understand what's driving this and why is it different.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I guess I'd ask the committee. So, the language came from ANR, and it was because ANR's concerns that some extinguishers still wind up in the waste stream and are still posing risks at solid waste management facilities. So regardless of the fact that they might be governed by the fire code, a management plan, maybe that's not being met or complied with, and the waste cartridges are winding up.

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: Okay. So I It makes me think of one thing and I guess obviously you need to get through the bill and then come back to this if needed, but it seems to me that wouldn't that put on a good actor if you will like Steve Duke to say oh I'm just collecting my amyrex once today. I'm not collecting those single use because that's kitty. It could complicate it for the solid waste districts by saying, you know, you're only collecting your brand now or are you collecting all of them? And what happens if someone says,

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't wanna collect kitty.

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: I'm just gonna collect all of ours you have. Would they be in compliance with this, or would they be out of compliance?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I'm not the enforcer, so you'd have to talk to ANR about that situation. But I would think if the program with manufacturers not running any program, then it would be subject to the overall household hazardous. Okay.

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: But having to document that program with ANR would be a requirement generated by ANR by rule?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: They could do it by rule. They have rulemaking authority for that program. They also have the ability to interpret and issue guidance if appropriate.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think that this represents, like, ANR is trying to meet the reality of what's happening at some of these, but also their reality of finding them in the waste stream. They're in the waste stream. So I appreciate your client's perspective on it, and I sure they take most of them back, but somehow we got a problem that they're showing up, and they're dangerous. They're hazardous for the people who have to handle them. And so somewhere in here, we'll find a path forward, I suspect. And, yeah, look forward to hearing from both ANR on this and your client.

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: Is there a timeline for hearing about this? Could you talk generally about post op testimony, the bill in general, or on this issue?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This issue is still open and looking to close the bill as soon as possible, but we do have some yellow sections we're still talking through, and this is one of them.

[Bill Smith (Fire Extinguisher Manufacturers Association lobbyist)]: Yeah. Thanks.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Yes. Appreciate it. Thanks, Mike.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Moving on, to the next section, section 22. That's that section you discussed with Matt yesterday. It's in that municipal prohibition on on management of waste that you're adding on page 34 that a person shall not transfer possession of a waste tire to an unlicensed solid waste hauler for disposal, and violation of this shall be a violation of subsection a. Why is this here in municipal law? It's because that's what you the general assembly you've given municipalities the ability to to do a lot of their own enforcement over solid waste issues, like burning of waste, roadside disposal, things of that nature. And so to follow that same format you're putting in here, so a municipality, if they found someone collecting tires from someone and they're not a licensed solid waste hauler, municipality could bring a civil violation against that person. It's just like for burning trash or throwing trash or you even got the snowmobile trash in here and the water vessel trash. So this is since I live trash enforcement, it's gone. Yep. So yeah. And then the last section is the emissions repair program. I was not in house transportation when they took testimony. One of the things that I heard was provided in that testimony was that there's been little demand on the program because DMV has been waiving the emissions violations. If you get a waiver, you don't need repair. And so but apparently waiver is going away. The waiver authority is going away. So I don't know how that informs your Transportation Committee's recommendation or what you wanna do, but that that, I think, is part of the dynamic here.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you know how the waivers work?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I would recommend you talk to Damian Leonard. I don't want to speak out of term. I don't think it's a vigorous process.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Is it, like, person by person, or is it categorical? Is it I I Got it.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: For today, man.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chittenden.

[Representative Chittenden (guest)]: So this is more of a comment. So what I'm hearing is, hypothetically, if there's been waivers for a number of years, we might actually have a huge need for this program relatively soon if waivers are going away. Waivers going away? Here's a question for you. Are waivers going away because of some statute or something?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know exactly why the waivers are going away. I do know that they don't necessarily know how many waivers they've issued.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How do I get a waiver?

[Representative Chittenden (guest)]: Do you know if the waivers are relative to income level?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I don't know.

[Representative Chittenden (guest)]: Wow. Thanks to be something here that we don't wanna

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: we wanna leave to the transportation committee.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Damien was there for the testimony. He does inspection. Talk to you about

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay, Damien. Please. Thank you. This afternoon. Okay. Great. Are we I will say it did seem that if we keep the program, we would like to hear and I know Neil's up next. Maybe he has thoughts on how to improve it so that it gets out for the purpose it was allocated for in a more streamlined fashion.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: So did you read this note from Air Quality and Climate Division?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I did not.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: The HR? Rutzer. So it might answer somebody's question.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay, great.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Do I send it to you?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sure. All right. Thank you, Michael. We're going to take a five minute break, and then