Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Good afternoon. Welcome back to the Environment Committee. This afternoon, we are going to start with hopefully a vote on H. Six thirty two, the DEC miscellaneous bill, Yes. Version 5.1 up under Michael O'Grady's name. And we have Michael O'Grady here.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. This is Michael Grady, ledge counsel. There were only three changes in the draft from what you saw earlier today. I can just step through those if you would like. Sure. Versus on page 25. This is in that section of law related to dam alterations where you want to have the department notify the project applicant when removal of the dam may be more appropriate. But it previously said that removal of the dam. So that's the only change there. The next is on page 29, where you're not gonna see much of a change, and that's because at the top of page 29, the previous section 19 had been the language related to fire extinguishers being excluded from the hazardous household products EPR program because they and our manufacturers couldn't come to an agreement. That was removed. You direct. Go to the senate. And then the last change is just a technical change. So on, page 32, it had said that the agency of natural resources tire report was gonna be reported to the the hose committee on the environment.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right. Like

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: h o s e. So

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Prefer hose. Thanks for catching it. Great. Final thoughts or questions? Michael or representative Chapin.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'm just gonna offer a damn removal piece. Because there's already what page is that on? Twenty?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Twenty five. That one.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: That's my question. Previously, it said that removal of the dam may be a more appropriate alternative. So I think the original intention was that it sounds like to me, the original intention might have been that all applicants would hear that the dam, it may be a more appropriate alternative. So we're changing that to when.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that was that was the discussion with the agency. And the agency, their point of view is is that it's not appropriate to, I'd you know, notify some applicants that dam removal is an alternative considering the project or or repair, etcetera. It's really when when the dam removal is an actual viable alternative that they should be. And that and that was that's I mean, you've you've just highlighted the two sides of that that discussion.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Either way, it's a May.

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

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: And I guess it feels a little vague to me.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it says the the department shall notify when. Okay.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It may be. And it may be.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. So it's curious to me to shift it from that to when it seems like there's even more discretion.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Certainly, if there's a tiny repair needed, I don't

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: know why we'd be discussing dam removal for a dam that maybe has a very important purpose and clearly. So anyway, I'm comfortable with the language, but I just wanted to take a moment to note that it's already a May with a fail. There's a lot of pieces in there.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It says maybe more because it's still up to the project applicant whether or not they're gonna do the dam removal or if they're gonna go forward with something else. If agency is just saying, hey. Dam removal is an alternative here. It's still the applicant's choice about what they're going to apply for.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'm just wondering if it's also been a lot of discretion for the department to decide. I don't think it's more like, just being a more appropriate alternative. I there's just a lot of vagueness, but I'm okay with it. I just wanted to sort of take a moment to acknowledge all the competing shells and mays.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks. And I'll just say I got a text from the chair of the gov ops committee that they did a straw poll on the emergency language that came to us from DEC as relating to federal changes, and they had a seven four straw poll. I don't think the other two committees have reported a straw poll, but they were fine with the language that as it as it was in the CAFO and the

[Representative Woodman "Woody" Page (Bill Sponsor)]: Mission's repair. Mission's repair. Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right. Any further questions? Let's see. Is there a motion? So you are moving. But do you want to say your motion? I move that we

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: pass h six thirty two as drafted and dropped by parliament.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Seconded by representative Logan. Is there further discussion?

[Representative Woodman "Woody" Page (Bill Sponsor)]: I do have actually a question for Michael. We did remove some pieces from this bill, but what remains are parts that have been brought to us by the agency of Natural Resources. Is that accurate? Or maybe there's were parts that weren't.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There there is one part that wasn't, and that was the dam removal that was brought to you by advocates. Remember, they brought the ecological restoration general permit, and that was refined down to that language about dam removal. Everything else was either in the DEC original introduction or subsequently requested by DEC.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Tire. Right.

[Representative Woodman "Woody" Page (Bill Sponsor)]: So I just wanna be clear in my head that these are things that the administration is asking us to do for them. Yes.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. We actually have h two zero four on the agenda for tomorrow, but that report is taking the place of h two zero four.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm just saying we have h two zero four on the agenda. Oh,

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: yeah. With h two zero four, I thought, was back on the wall.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's my point. We need to take it off the agenda. We have it for tomorrow. We replaced it with the

[Representative Woodman "Woody" Page (Bill Sponsor)]: blah blah blah. Yeah. Alright.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Further discussion? Clerk shall commence to call the roll.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Rep. Austin, yes. Representative Chapin?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Hoyt?

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yes.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Labor? No. Representative Logan? Yes. Representative Morris?

[Representative Kristi Morris (Member)]: Yes.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative North? No. Representative

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Pritchard? No.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Zachowitz? Yes. Representative Pat would be

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: up. Bill.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: And Representative Sheldon? Yes. Seven yes and four no.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Hoyt will be the reporter of the bill. And I think you can actually submit a PDF If you're able to, Kat can Michael and Kat will make sure you have a PDF.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: K. I do need to take some of that highlighting out.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. And so

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I might have fifteen minutes between now and my next meeting?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We'll work on getting you fifteen minutes.

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

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And then it just needs to be into the clerk's office by, like, 03:30. Well or when yeah. We'll just let them know we passed the bill. And then Great. And so we will move on. And your brief introduction and then walk through of six 52 from representative page, and then we'll walk through it with you. Okay. Welcome. Thank you, chair.

[Representative Woodman "Woody" Page (Bill Sponsor)]: I think everyone knows me, but I'm Rutland Page. And Newport is my district, and Lake Memphremagog is within my portion of it. It's in my district. Are you ready for me to We are. Okay. Since we're limited on time, I'm just gonna emphasize a few items so that our legislative council can over the the bill and as well as other speakers that wanna say something. This bill focused on two major items. One is the protection of Lake Memphremagog and the other is prevention of leachate from ever being discharged into the watershed of Lake Memphremagog. And and then my actually another ask is that our state environment environmental agencies take on a greater role in oversight and restrict discharges in the Lake Memphremagog as well as all the tributaries that feed into the lake. And as I think this committee already knows, freshwater is becoming more and more valuable. It's a valuable resource throughout our world. Therefore, we should do all that we can to protect this valuable resource, particularly called Lake Marfermagog. And I hope that you'll continue to take testimony on this on this important bill, and we'll see where it goes. So if there's questions, I'd be happy to answer

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I have some questions, but I suspect that your witnesses are going to cover the topic.

[Representative Woodman "Woody" Page (Bill Sponsor)]: I'm sure they will.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you. You will. Thank

[Representative Woodman "Woody" Page (Bill Sponsor)]: you. You all.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is Michael Grady with legislative council representative. Page gave a pretty, succinct but but accurate summary of what the bill does overall, so I'm not going to repeat that. So I'll step you through the the sections of the bill page two, line two, the finding section. There's a long findings here because it really does set up to three components that Representative Page just noted, the ban from a leachate from landfills, the need to protect men from a god's watershed and the directive to the agency to do more. And so the findings are all related to those three points. And I'll just move through quickly, but summarize to the best of my ability. So the first is that Memphremagog is of integral importance to Vermont and Quebec. It's the largest body in both Northwestern Northeastern Vermont and Southeastern Quebec. It provides, drinking water to a 175,000 people. It's an economic driver in Northeastern Vermont and Southeastern Canada, and it's a precious natural resource. And that the the Vermont agencies, environmental agencies, need to take on a greater role in oversight and restriction of discharges that may cause impairments to the flow into Lake Memphremagog as more than a 100 permanent or intermittent tributaries feed the lake. And prior to issuance of the Act 50 permit, there was an Act two fifty permit to New England waste services, which runs the Coventry Landfill. It does prohibit them prohibit the disposal of landfill leachate. There before that, there were 15,000 gallons per day of toxic landfill leachate disposed of, including untreated PFAS in Newport's wastewater treatment facility. Currently, treatment systems are incapable of removing all hazardous PFAS. Therefore, Memphremagog must be protected from chemically contaminated discharges into the lake and watershed that are proven to be harmful to human health and the environment. And PFAS contamination in Memphremagog has been identified by numerous reports by ANR and has measured highest of all surface water salmon pulled for PFOS at Midlake, which is a 70% of the maximum contaminant level. In an other ANR study, it was determined that four species of fish in an informagog were sampled and analyzed for PFOS. And, the city of Newport's wastewater treatment facility measured higher for PFAS than any other Vermont wastewater treatment facility sampled. There's also another USGS, study that found a prevalence of thirty percent of adult brown bullhead had malignant melanoma, and there are no cancerous bullheads found elsewhere in Vermont. PFAS chemicals are proven to accumulate in the environment and bioaccumulate in organisms, including humans. PFAS are proven to cause harmful health effects, including up to 10 types of cancer. As more PFAS chemicals enter the groundwater and surface water, levels of these chemicals will increase, lasting for decades and longer. And then to address the environmental public health concerns for disposal of PFAS for the waters of the state, the state should permanently prohibit the discharge of landfill leachate treated or untreated anywhere in the Metforminagog Watershed, either by direct discharge into the watershed or by discharge into a wastewater treatment facility that discharges into the Memphremagog Watershed. So those are the findings. Then you come to the substantive prohibition. This is 10 VSA twelve fifty nine. This is section of law in the water pollution control chapter entitled 10. Twelve fifty nine relates to discharges, direct discharges to the waters of the state. And you'll see at the bottom of page five that no person shall discharge leachate from a landfill or a solid waste management facility into a water within the Memphremagog Watershed, regardless of whether the leachate has been treated or is untreatable. I wanna stop there. A solid waste treatment facility is management facility. A landfill and a solid waste management facility are two different things. Like your transfer station or your solid waste management district, that is not a landfill. That's a transfer station. It's a solid waste management facility certified by ANR. There is potential for leachate from those facilities, and so this prohibition would apply both to landfill and to those solid waste management facilities where there is PFAS leachate. I just wanted to put that on the table. It's not just technically, anymore, there's one operational landfill in Vermont, but there are many solid waste management facility.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Are there others besides transfer stations?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Any anywhere that's that's managing waste, for all or an ultimate disposition, whether it's disposal or recycling, anything else where they're managing waste. Now it would prohibit a PFAS leachate, and so, that is something that you're not gonna find everywhere. And then on page six, a prohibition on the discharge of PFAS into a water in Memphremagog includes prohibition on direct discharges and the prohibition on the transfer of the leachate to a wastewater treatment facility for subsequent discharge. So I think many of you know that that the landfill has been collecting leachate either under a pilot project or or just permanently now and transferring it to wastewater treatment facilities for some some treatment. There is some treatment that's ongoing, but not not according to many full treatment. And consequently, there is PFAS entering watersheds from the landfill. And this would prohibit both, both that directly discharge from the landfill and a a transfer to a wastewater treatment facility for subsequent direct discharge from that wastewater treatment facility. One of the things to recognize is that the state the agency of natural resources was required to come up with a water quality standard for PFAS or four separate main PFAS chemicals, and that was in 2017. The agency at that time said they needed more time because of the of the complexity of the issue and the fact that they wanted a regional they wanted to work with regional entities to come up with the standard. They they are moving towards that, but whether or not they're implementing it is the question I have for them. And, that's, I think, an important question because you might hear from some advocates that with a surface water quality standard, there is safe discharge because that's what surface water quality standards are supposed to do. They're supposed to be when the discharge is not going to affect the traditional record, the traditional uses of water, recreation, irrigation, public water, etcetera. But I don't know if they're implementing that or when they will implement that. And then it's a policy decision for you all to determine whether or not there should still be a ban even if there is a water quality standard that's supposedly safe. So that that's that's I'm just trying to tee up something that you might hear in opposition to this, but I think that's more of a policy decision for you all whether or not you think there should be PFAS leachate going into waters for the many reasons that are set forth in the findings section of this

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: bill. Any waters? Okay. Members have questions. Representative Chittenden.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Are compost facilities sometimes considered solid waste management facility?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It it depends. After the compost wars, there are some compost facilities that are on farms that are considered farming, and the rest of them or most of the rest of them need to have an ANR solid waste facility certification. They potentially can can qualify for what used to be called a categorical certification, which is technically low impact, low harm categories of waste like road debris. But with the issues that have been coming up with compost, I think most of them have been moved out of that categorical. It's also potentially called an insignificant waste certification. They've been moved out of that and are are getting full certs, especially when they're located where some of them are,

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: which is not proximity to

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: So this could encompass

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That could encompass.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Related to in some cases thinking.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Did you say when does the act two fifty requirement that that be taken out of the watershed?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And The permit or the agreement was 2019. I have a copy of it if you would like.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Started in 2019.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: The permit was actually issued in 2019.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But is the ban expiring? That's what I thought that's why this was coming up.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's partly why I think what certifications are on a on a regular interval. And so every five years, sometimes ten years, you have to go through the same you have to go revisit the process and what condition do you want on an operation of the facility. And that is partly what I I believe this is about.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. We'll get to that, I guess. So great. Any other questions for legislative council? Representative Austin Can

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: you just go over that surface water? I hope it a definition of what you said because it seems like there's a decision that needs to be made there. So

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: the the federal Clean Water Act requires states to come up with standards for how they determine their water is clean or standards that, support all the traditional uses of the water. And there are certain there are different types of water quality standards. Some of them can be very technical. They're called Q Bells, water quality based effluent limitations. And and some of them are more narrative, like how the water supports aesthetics is a standard. And so the general assembly directed ANR to come up with a water quality standard for PFAS, four specific versions of it. And the agency is moving towards that. I just don't know if they've actually implemented them yet.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You know, follow-up on that topic?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Or because It's a different topic. But landscape. Okay. Representative Norm. Thank you, chair. Just a clarification, Michael. It's the last sentence here, six, lines four and five, starting on line three, provision of the transfer of the leachate to a wastewater treatment facility in Vermont for subsequent discharge into a water within the Lake Mount Vernon Watershed. This So for subsequent discharge, does that include after processing if the water wastewater treatment facility had the capability to process PFAS and extract that from the wastewater?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It would So

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: that's not be allowed to be brought to that wastewater treatment?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Currently, underneath this language, it would not be allowed, but that's because there technically is no equipment that I'm aware of that can actually clean it all out.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: So subsequent does mean even after all the processing gets done. I'm Mhmm. So Mhmm. Okay. So this negates the transfer of such leachate to anything within the leak pipe. Okay. May not be large.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: For discharge. You can landfill it. It's hard it's hard to believe, but you can't landfill it. Go to it can go to a hazardous materials facility for for management there.

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: Wastewater treatment. Right.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Where at some point, whatever comes down It's gonna be discharged. Yep.

[Representative Woodman "Woody" Page (Bill Sponsor)]: Alright. Thank you for the clarification. Alright.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Any final questions for legislative council right now? Thank you, Michael. Thank you.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So can I go

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You're welcome? Thank you.

[Representative Woodman "Woody" Page (Bill Sponsor)]: You're welcome.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Awesome. We got the clean draft on the PDF for reporters. K.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Alright. Next up, we have Sam Nicolai.

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: Good afternoon, committee. Great to see you again. I'm Sam Nicolai. I'm vice president of engineering and compliance for Casella Way Systems. Glad to testify today. So we oppose this bill, but perhaps not for the reason that you might think. So the bill would, as discussed, would prohibit the potential discharge of landfill leachate treated or untreated, no matter what happens in the Methamphetamagog Watershed. There is no current discharge into the Methamphet Magog Watershed, and there are no plans to change that at any time. To give clarity to the earlier question about act two fifty, so the act two fifty permit was issued in 2019. At the time, it contained a five year moratorium on any changes to go back into the city of Newport. So the moratorium has expired. However, the permanent requirement still remains. So if we wanted to make that change, we would have to go back to act two fifty and get a modification to the permit as well as a permit from the agency of natural resources to make that change. So that's what's happened. Moratorium has expired, but not the permitting requirement to do so. So if the leachate doesn't go to the memphremagogue, what I said, where does it go? Many of you have been to the site, have seen the treatment facility. I'll remind you, we treat on-site and move to PFAS. Bleach shade goes to two locations. It goes to the city of Montpelier wastewater facility, and it goes to the city of Plattsburgh wastewater facility. So the city Montpelier discharges into the Winooski River, that goes into Lake Champlain. City Of Plattsburgh also goes into Lake Champlain. So we oppose the bill not because of any desire to lessen protections on Mentor Magog, but to say Mentor Magog is critically important. It needs to be protected. It's the drinking water source for several $100,000 several 100,000 Canadians. But Lake Champlain is a jewel and needs to be protected and is the water source for drinking water for several 100,000 Vermonters. We don't think meant for mega should have any more or any less protections than Lake Champlain or any other water body in the state of Vermont. So whatever we do as a state, we should regulate it consistently. There's no reason that Memphis may go out should have different levels of protections than Lake Champlain does. We've worked hard to put the treatment facility into play in this country and in in Vermont. You may be aware there's roughly 2,500 landfills in this country. There are about 20 to 30 that have a dedicated PFAS treatment system. Your facility in Vermont is one of them. So we're already in the top 1% in this country of protecting water quality, ensuring that PFAS is removed from the leachate, it's then solidified and and going back into the landfill. We think that's a great solution. We hope that you're proud of that solution. We certainly are. We advocate continuing to do that. Yes. The agency of natural resources as well as the federal government continue to look at standards as to what's appropriate. The permit that I have today is a technology based standard. It says we're going to evaluate the technology, determine what it can what remove, and then implement standards based on that technology. That was done because there was not agreement at the time as to what number should be put into place. That provided a solution, and that solution has allowed the treatment system to go into place in twenty twenty three years before it would have otherwise without a solution to what that number is. There are no surface water criteria in the state of Vermont, and there are no federal surface water criteria for PFAS whatsoever. So we have a PFAS removal system. It's working. I would advocate that the agency of natural resources continues to regulate it. If there are changes this committee or any want to make to improve water quality, then it should be done consistently throughout footprint of Vermont. Let's not pick one watershed to say that it's more important than some other watershed. Drinking water needs to be protected. We all agree that. But it needs to be protected in all the watersheds. We oppose the bill because it singles out from Infamagog and says, we want a different level of standards from Infamagog that we're not going to require for Lake Champlain. We don't think that's a good idea. We think that we should continue to work with the agency, advocate as we need to. We certainly are are doing our part in trying to be collaborative and come up with solutions. We continue to to try to find ways to permit and and expand the technologies. We continue to advocate both at a regulatory and a legislative level, give us tools in order to do that. We were trying to come up with an r and d permitting process that will allow us to evaluate more technologies. So that would be an avenue that we hope that the committee would would consider. And certainly, we hope that the committee and any of those who haven't seen it yet will come to the facility, see the PFAS treatment system, ask good questions, understand what it is and it's not doing. But we firmly believe it's a valuable part of our infrastructure and the state's infrastructure and would advocate that this bill is not the right way to go about getting more protections. And I'm happy to answer any questions that folks may have.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Sure. Yeah. Thanks for your testimony for joining us today. Representative Tagliavia? The treatment that you do for the PFAS currently, where you solidify it, if that was to become standard statewide so that none of the PFAS, the water would be leachate, be sent to any treatment centers, what would that do to, number one, the cost and number two, the ability of the landfill to be able to absorb that additional solid waste?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: The leachate generated by solid waste management facilities other than the Coventry Landfill is fairly small other than probably more towns leachate. So it is true that we would need to be cognizant of leachate that comes from transfer stations, leachate that comes from composting facilities. But I would tell you that those are minuscule compared to the number of gallons that the landfill is producing. So if we had a requirement that was different for the transfer stations or the compost facilities, certainly gonna add cost, but I would tell you that it could be managed. More town might be a different animal. So you do have one other landfill that's still producing leachate. It's certainly not anywhere to the level that an active facility is, but it still produces a sizable amount of leachate. And there would need to be a solution, you know, for that leachate. I can imagine sending leachate from Moore Town into Coventry would not be popular for a lot of reasons and probably not a great solution. And we certainly have not advocated for that solution. But other than Moore Town, I think it's fairly fairly small. And while we should acknowledge that it exists, the amount is is is small enough that we can come up with solutions.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What happens to more town now? Do you know? The leachate. If you don't know, that's fine.

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: We don't. It goes to a wastewater facility and there is no PFAS treatment. I do not know off the top my head which facility takes more tau.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's okay.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: They used to go to Montpelier, and they used to go

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: to Barrie, but I don't know if

[Ken Crosby (stated affiliation: "Biscayne")]: they still are anymore. For the record, I'm Ken Crosby with Biscayne.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. And how's it going with your removal of PFAS? Do you know how it compares to backgrounds that are coming out of our wastewater treatment plants now?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: We do. We have a pretty good handle on that. So we remove in the high 90% for the five regulated compounds. Before we did any treatment, we measured how much PFAS we were contributing to Montpelier. And at the time, no treatment, the leachate represented a third of the mass that went into Montpelier. Two thirds comes from all the residential commercial facilities that go into Montpelier. So that sort of gives you an idea of the level of treatment. Even when there was no treatment, the landfill gave you about a third. Now we're we're down to 99% treatment. You're left with 1%. We are tenths of a percent that are going into the city's facility. So it's no longer even a a direct comparison. Right? So two thirds remains because it's still coming from all the residential and commercial businesses and sources. The leachate is down to tenths of of 1%. The same is true for any other wastewater facility in the state of Vermont. It it is true that at the time they were sampled, Newport and Montpelier had the highest levels. They all have PFAS in them, every single one. And and the agency's reports show that. So that continues to be discharged each and every day in the state and in every other state in this country.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Are you treating all of the leachate with the new process?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: We do. We treat a 100% of the leachate regardless of when it go whether it goes to Montpelier or whether it goes to Plattsburgh. A 100% of the leachate at Coventry is treated before it goes out.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And and yet you are pursuing a permit for r and d because you think there's actually kind of hope for something better?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: Today, we solidify the PFAS and put it back in the landfill. The destruction technologies continue to come along. So five years ago, when we put this into place, a lot of the destruction technologies were really lab and university scale. They continue to improve. So we've always wanted to take a destruction technology, put it in the middle there, and instead of solidifying the leachate, let's actually destroy the compounds. And so our ability to have some level of r and d permitting would help us evaluate those technologies. To be clear, it would change nothing about the permanent permits that would be required for that facility. A 100% of the same permits would be required ultimately for any change in technology at the facility. We've only advocated we need a little more flexibility to evaluate these technologies so that we can figure out if they're good fits for our existing facility and the PFAS that it's managing.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Just

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: wanna follow-up for a minute on the volume of the consolidated or solidified whatever remains after you're treating it. How much space is it taking up on an annual basis?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: Negligible. So we produce in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 gallons a day of the foam. So then we then allow that to build up and then solidify it directly with concrete, or we've been passing it through a media, letting the media remove the PFAS, and then taking the media and solidifying it with concrete and putting it back into the landfill. So it's it's not meaningful in terms of the volume that the landfill is taking. So, you know, landfill takes roughly 2,000 tons a day of waste, and we're talking, you know, less than a ton probably per week if that. So it's it's not a meaningful amount that contributes to the landfill.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: He's really cool to me. Representative Todd Levy.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I don't know if you're able to do this, but with respect to the size of this room, how long would it take you to fill up with the the final product with PFAS combined with concrete? How long would it take you to fill this room with that product?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: Months? Four months maybe? Yes? It's it's not meaningful compared to the amount of waste that we're handling for know, you 80% of Vermont's waste goes to this one facility. It's not a meaningful amount. Most importantly, it's going back into a fully double line facility so that we're sure that all that mass is staying right where it needs to be. It is completely a closed loop. PFAS is staying at the landfill whether it's in the waste or whether it's in that concrete. It comes out of the concrete. It goes back into the leachate. It gets treated again and goes back into the landfill again.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Labor.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, chair. Cancerous lesions have been found on the brown bullpen, like methamphetamine. Are you aware of any cancerous lesions found in Lake Champlain of any species?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: I'm I'm not aware for the cancerous lesions question. I'm aware that there's sampling, and that's been done in Lake Champlain as well. It's like, not for Maygog. So why are we seeing PFAS in there? I believe we're seeing it for the same reason that ninety eight percent of American or adults in this country have PFAS in their blood. We have it everywhere. So the lake has been sampled directly across from the landfill, and no PFAS was ever detected in the areas, you know, across the lake. There was, as you see see in the bill, there were detections taken in the middle of the lake, and so there are levels of PFAS that have been detected. So why does not from AGOG have PFAS? The same reason that we have it in drinking water throughout the state that we have in surface waters throughout the state because we've used these compounds everywhere. It's the same reason why we've got them in our blood. We're very comfortable that there is no PFAS coming from the landfill into the lake because there are no discharges into the lake. We are very comfortable that our double line systems are functioning exactly as they're supposed to protecting the lake.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Please.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, chair. ANR and their Canadian counterparts have sampled Lake Metformin, Midlake, and found that PFAS was registered at 2.8 parts per trillion. And yet you're saying there's nothing going in. I guess my question is, is this a legacy PFAS, and where would that be coming from?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: I come back to why does the city Of Montpelier's wastewater plant have two thirds of the PFAS in it that's not coming from the landfill? Why do all the wastewater plants in Vermont have PFAS in them, although they have nothing to do with with landfill leachate? Because we're seeing those compounds everywhere. We're seeing those compounds in rainwater and in crazy locations. They found PFAS in the Arctic and the Antarctic. I'm comfortable that the landfill is doing what it needs to do to protect the lake, and we're doing everything we possibly can to ensure that that is the case. But I believe that you're seeing PFAS in Lake Mount Omega for the same reasons you're seeing in all these other places. Now we've had the news last week of the three Olympic athletes that were disqualified for using PFAS containing ski wax. I just think of it as an example of, you know, even now, we've still got these products all over the place that no one's thinking about, and they're showing up in these crazy locations. And, you know, I view that very similarly. We've got to get these compounds out of our society and stop using them. The life of methamphet may go again has PFAS in it for the same reason that we're seeing it all over the state because we use these compounds and have for decades, not because they're coming from the landfill. That's what I firmly believe.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you imagine a future where we're gonna be able to use the technologies that you're developing to help us remove the PFAS from our surface waters more globally?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: Home fractionation, which is the technology, is used for groundwater and surface water. So, you know, places that have, like, PFAS cleanups from a spill or from manufacturing do use similar technologies. It's not used for wastewater discharges. I don't think you'll see a world that we have that kind of treatment at the end of our wastewater plants. I think they're gonna have to come up with probably different solutions for that. But and to answer your question, I do see, you know, very similar types of technologies. And and where we have a contamination, let's say, an AFFF spill or, know, a manufacturer has to be cleaned up where you have groundwater surface water, I I do think you could have some very similar technologies. You know, 2.8 PPT is below the drinking water standard. It's a really, really low level. So could you treat the lake to try to get 2.8 PPT out? No. Probably not. There isn't any way to to actually treat that. Doesn't mean it's not important. Doesn't mean that we don't need to be trying to find ways to get PFAS from going into any lake, but that's probably not viable to have a lake treatment.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: 2.8 is what's coming out of your

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: no. 2.8 was the detection that was referenced

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, at the lake

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: lake that was sampled.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But can you remind me, though, of the removal, how you're measuring the success of your pretreatment?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: So there are five compounds that are regulated in Vermont for drinking water. Right? We already talked about there's no surface water standard, but there are five that have drinking water. So those are the five that we monitor most closely. We get four of them. We get between 98100% removal. The fifth one is a little bit more difficult. We get 70 to 80% removal most of the time. Certainly, there are other shorter chain compounds. So the list of PFAS is longer than five, but the five that are regulated because they're the ones that have the most concern, those are the ones that we're tracking most closely. And as I said, we're getting high nineties for four and seventy to 80 for that fifth one, which puts us in the mid to high nineties overall.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And are you tracking for any of the others?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: We are. We sample for the full list, which I think is 40 some odd compounds. Yeah. I don't need to imply that we're not actually tracking. We are. We are sampling for them. But we measure success based on the ones that actually have standards that we can evaluate against them.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But are you seeing similar improvements for the

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: the others? For many, there are some shorter chain ones that don't respond well to foam fractionation, so you definitely see some lower levels of removal. Now that kind of goes together. The longer chain are regulated because they're the most dangerous. So the longer the chain, the harder they are to destroy and the worse they are for the human body. The shorter the chain, the less damaging they are. So we do see good removal from others. Some, you know, don't respond as well to treatment. I still come back to we're still providing treatment, which is better than 99% of any other facility that that is in this country. It's a great first step. As technologies continue to improve, I hope that there will be ways to continue to get after some of these shorter chain ones that that don't respond as well to treatment.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: K. Further questions for mister Nikolay? Not seeing any. One more from Senator Austin.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So in this testimony, it says there are current needs as reports from the ANR, the Department of Fish and Wildlife reporting PFAS contamination of Lake Benthamaga water. So the contamination, I mean, is that not accurate? Or I mean, we got a raise to contamination. Is that not accurate?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: So the landfill itself and the agency of natural resources have sampled surface water, downgraded from the landfill and the lake, and not found any PFAS whatsoever. There was a sample that's referenced there that is accurate that was collected mid lake that did show a detection of PFAS in that I think it's it's 2.8, 2.8 PPT. My advocacy is you have PFAS in the lake just like you have PFAS everywhere else, and you're seeing that. But all the evidence that we have, including our own sampling and the AG Natural Resources sampling of the lake right across the landfill shows no detections of PFAS.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So to reach contamination, what would the levels have to be? Is I mean or is there PFAS everywhere and everything is contaminated?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: So PFAS is a man made chemical. Right? There there's no it's not naturally produced. So any PFAS that you see anywhere is contamination, right? It's not supposed to be there. There is no naturally occurring PFAS. But because we've used it all and it's in these carpets, in these furniture, in the fabrics, you know, how do all of us have it in our blood? Because we are walking around our homes with carpets and breathing the dust and eating the food off the food packaging. So any level is contamination.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: We don't want it there. It is below the drinking water level. So, for instance, it would be legal to drink it at that level. Again, we want zero, right? We don't want any PFAS anywhere but to answer your question, that's, you know. Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks so much for your testimony. With that, we will move on to just in order of the agenda. Peggy Stevens. Via Zoom. Welcome. Okay.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: Can you hear me?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We can.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: Okay. I'm sending a request to share my screen.

[Peggy Stevens (D.U.M.P.)]: While Polly's doing that, I'm just going introduce us. And thank you for inviting us to testify today on H-six 52. And I think that you'll hear that our testimony refutes much of what Mr. Nikolai just offered to you. We want to emphasize that all of our statements are evidence based, and they're largely informed by ANR research and reports and other science research reports. We also want to acknowledge the partnership of Don't Undermine Memphemagog Purity, or DUMP, and Memphemagog Conservation Incorporated, MCI. Both are grassroots volunteer organizations focused on protecting the watershed and water quality of Lake Memphremagog. It's a precious international resource. And the alliance of those two groups is an example of international cooperation at its most essential. I think we are going to offer you many reasons why Memphremagog should have more protections at this moment than any other water body in Vermont. And that does not mean that we are not very concerned about the water quality of Lake Champlain, which is a drinking water resource for several 100,000 Vermonters, and 215,000 Canadians. So in total, about 400,000 Canadians are drinking. Their drinking water comes from water that's been contaminated with Vermont's leachate. So I'm Peggy Stevens.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: And I'm Polly Jones. And Peggy and I have been working with STUMP as well as with legislators like you and the state's solid waste management and water quality divisions in recent years to shine a light on the concerns we have for Lake Memphremagog's water quality. We are also concerned about PFAS chemicals in the waste stream and the threat to our environment from PFAS in landfill emissions. We've come to realize that the only way to make real environmental change is through legislation, and we thank you for listening to us. Our presentation today focuses, of course, on house bill six fifty two, the bill to prohibit discharge of landfill leachate, whether it's treated or not anywhere in the Memphremagog Watershed. Sponsors, representative Woody Page and representative Larry Labor are joined by 19 bipartisan co sponsors. We feel that this degree of support is evidence that when it comes to protecting our environment, political party is irrelevant.

[Peggy Stevens (D.U.M.P.)]: H-six fifty two is founded on legislative authority, prioritizes public health and safety, environmental protection, environmental justice, and considers economic impacts of action or inaction for the Memphremagog Watershed region. We've included Polly, it's the previous slide, I think, that gives us the aerial view.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: Yes, excuse me.

[Peggy Stevens (D.U.M.P.)]: We've included this aerial view to show the proximity of Vermont's only land flow in Coventry to the South Bay, the Black River, and the lake where the waters flow north. While Vermont contributes 75% of the water in the lake, 75% of the lake lies across the border in Quebec. In previous presentations, we've delved into the precarious siting of the landfill which is uphill and surrounded by hundreds of acres of protected wetlands and a state wildlife management area.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: Now we can change. You've heard it said that PFAS are ubiquitous. We heard it today, implying that there's nothing to be done about them, but that's a fallacy. There's plenty that can and must be done. For example, H652 would prevent the discharge of landfill leachate in the watershed. Leachate, even after its current treatment, contains many harmful PFAS chemicals that accumulate and persist in the environment and all living things in that environment. So while landfill contaminants are unfortunately not the only threat to the lake, prohibiting discharge of landfill leachate into the watershed is the most immediate and effective way to curb additional harm to the water quality.

[Peggy Stevens (D.U.M.P.)]: Why H six fifty two and why now? The Act two fifty moratorium on leachate disposal into the watershed is reaching its expiration date. Also of concern, a dump public records request for information provided twenty twenty ANR interoffice communications discussing the reasonableness of discharging treated leachate directly into the Black River. Another concerning message in email, was about the possibility of leachate being imported to the landfill, which would increase the environmental burden on the region and increase exponentially the amount of leachate potentially to be discharged into the watershed.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: Existing Vermont state law, historical international treaties like the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty and the Stockholm Convention, all support the environmental and moral imperative to protect water quality. The unanimous motion by the National Assembly of Quebec in 2021 strongly urges Vermont to adhere to the law of these treaties for the benefit of Lake Memphremagog. The lake, as it has been said over and over, is the drinking water reservoir for now 185,000 Quebec neighbors, many of whom are also family and friends. The lake is also potentially the lake itself also potentially charges the wells on both sides of the border, of course, depending upon the geology.

[Peggy Stevens (D.U.M.P.)]: The threat of leachate discharge to the health and well-being of all living creatures in the watershed, especially humans, cannot be overstated. PFAS, or quote unquote forever chemicals, which are the focus of concern here, enter our bodies most commonly through contaminated food and water, but also through inhalation and dermal contact. They remain in our bodies for decades and longer because their chemical bonds do not break down, causing serious, even fatal, health effects. The current leachate treatment method, the SAF system, does not capture many harmful PFAS chemicals, allowing them to escape into the environment.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: We know that landfill PFAS can escape to our environment via leachate discharge, but also runoff breakouts through landfill liners and caps and through air emissions. Evidence from the state and news Vermont reports indicate PFAS chemicals found in leachate have also been measured in landfill groundwater monitoring wells for years. Evidence exists that PFAS contamination is already present in Memphremagog surface water and also in its aquatic life. The experimental SAP system on-site has been shown in other applications to achieve removal rates of between 7099% for long chain PFAS. But removal rates for some short chain PFAS are below 30%. Short chain PFAS are as or more harmful as long chain PFAS. So clearly, many PFAS chemicals are escaping capture. David Burns, who is the lead scientist for the SAF system we are currently using, is quoted as saying, Of course, there is no suggestion that the treated landfill leachate should be used directly as potable water or allowed to discharge or otherwise migrate into receiving waters reserved for drinking water use. In 2021, the Vermont DEC and the Vermont Vermont Fish and Wildlife tested for PFAS in 19 sites in Northern Vermont. PFOS, just one of approximately 15,000 PFAS chemicals was measured in Memphremagog surface water as we have heard today, Mid Lake at 2.8 parts per trillion. It is the highest of any surface water sampled in the study. 2.8 parts per trillion is 70% of the maximum contamination level of four parts per trillion. And for your information, one part per trillion is equivalent to one drop in 20 Olympic size swimming pools. That that gives you the idea of how toxic PFAS are. You may have heard that these levels are trace amounts. However, trace amounts are hazardous. For PFOS, there is no safe level of exposure without risk of negative health impacts. In four species of fish, PFOS was present in their tissues at significant levels. PFAS in fish tissue is measured in micrograms per kilogram or parts per billion. As you can see, if you convert parts per billion to parts per trillion, the level of PFOS in these fish is concerning and demonstrate harmful bioaccumulation. We must do everything possible to limit further contamination of the lake. H six fifty two will benefit the water quality by prohibiting the discharge of any more PFAS chemicals found in leachate into this already contaminated ecosystem.

[Peggy Stevens (D.U.M.P.)]: Lake Memphremagog has the dubious distinction of being the only water body in Vermont that is home to cancerous brown bullhead. The sick fish on the left exhibits the black cancerous lesions. You'll also find kidney and liver lesions inside the afflicted fish. USGS surveys from 2014 to 2017 found that thirty to forty five percent of adult brown bullhead in the lake had malignant tumors. These sick brown bullhead have only ever been found anywhere in the world in environmentally contaminated waters. While no causative link has been made to PFAS, there are many potential contributing factors, including environmental contaminants found in landfill leachate. Landfills worldwide are among the top four industrial environmental polluters. The Coventry Landfill is no exception. This graphic shows the pathways in which PFAS and landfills can escape into our environment, even in a lined landfill. Vermont's environmental justice law protects communities from disproportionate environmental burdens such as polluted air and water. The pollution of Lake Memphremagog's water quality is documented. Our environmental justice law also protects marginalized communities and requires that the voices of vulnerable residents be incorporated in decision making processes. The communities in the region nearest the landfill are among Vermont's most economically challenged and remote. The landfill is out of sight and out of mind of the municipalities in Vermont that generate the most waste. The entire Tri County Northeast Kingdom contributes merely 7% of the waste disposed, yet there is 100% of the environmental burden. It is only just to send the leachate produced from that waste back to the regions that generated it. Even after leachate is trucked off-site, PFAS chemicals will continue to contaminate region.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: Discharge of landfill leachate into the watershed is not the only way PFAS enter our environment. Even the most well constructed landfills eventually leak. State landfill inspection reports again confirm breaches in landfill caps leading to breakouts releasing leachate and gas emissions to the environment. And as I've said earlier, test results have documented the present presence of PFAS in landfill groundwater monitoring wells for many years. It's also important for us to know that groundwater and surface water are one system. The environmental injustice of citing Vermont's only landfill at the head of Lake Memphremagogue cannot be overstated. Even after landfill closure, leachate will continue to be produced and require management for decades to come, perpetuating environmental injustice long after another Vermont waste management facility is established away from this watershed.

[Peggy Stevens (D.U.M.P.)]: Landfill gases are an often overlooked and an even more hazardous byproduct of waste disposal. PFAS and air emissions are present in concentrations that can exceed PFAS and leachate. If you smell a landfill odor, which many in the region do, you're inhaling landfill gases, including odorless PFAS. Landfill gases cause health concerns, particularly for those living nearest to the source. These hazardous gases are carried on prevailing winds for miles before they land on soil and water. The point being that PFAS will continue to enter our surface water even after disposal of leachate is prohibited. This is one more injustice this region will be living with until the strictest monitoring standards and emissions controls are required by the ANR. This means that well after leachate discharge into the water is prohibited, the Memphremagog region will continue to be subjected to hazardous PFAS emissions from the landfill.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: Environmental contamination affects our regional economy. Our lakes, especially Memphremagog, attract tourists and recreational enthusiasts. Boating, swimming, and fishing are all designated uses requiring regulatory protections. Concerns about contamination erode public confidence. Acting now will demonstrate that our state government is committed to protecting our most precious finite natural resource, clean water. H652 is also an expression of respect and concern for our Quebec neighbors, who are members of our historically tight knit international economic community. The cost to taxpayers of prohibiting leachate discharge treated or not into the Memphremagog Watershed is zero. While the cost of inaction resulting in further contamination requiring future remediation is immeasurable. Is this risk to our local economy worth taking? H six fifty two is simple and economical, a solution to an existential problem.

[Peggy Stevens (D.U.M.P.)]: Take a quick scan of the timeline of action taken by both DUMP and MCI since 2018. This timeline of protective actions is not reflective of the hours spent preparing for countless public meetings or providing written and oral comment and testimony. It does document efforts by both environmental organizations leading to the introduction of this bill, H. Six fifty two. If you see over on the right on the timeline, the H. Six fifty two and the parallel resolution that is now circulating in Quebec, both are after the same goal: to prevent the future discharge of landfill leachate into the Memphemaga Watershed. What's not on this timeline are actions taken by MCI over 20 ago. Starting in 2004, MCI began working with Quebec municipalities to obtain a five year moratorium, 2005 to 2009, prohibiting NUSBT from discharging leachate into our lake. Finally, in 2010, sixteen years ago, and thanks to continued pressure from MCI, the Waste Management Best End Landfill in Maygog was closed, and leachate has been trucked out of the watershed ever since. What an achievement. What will Vermont do to match that? If the shoe were on the other foot, and instead the lake flowed from north to south, with Quebec contaminating Vermonter's drinking water, we would demand and expect action. H652 is the obvious next step, prohibiting discharge of landfill leachate treated or not anywhere in the watershed. Remember David Burns' quote: Of course, there is no suggestion that the treated landfill leachate should be used directly as potable water or allowed to discharge or otherwise migrate into receiving waters reserved for drinking water use. That's it for our presentation for now. I don't know if you want to turn to our friends from MCI or whether you want to entertain questions.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you for your testimony. The slide deck I was looking at has one more slide, but do

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: members That's have reserved in case you have that question.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Do members have questions?

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Austin. So have other lakes been tested for PFAS? And if if so, what what is the

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We're gonna hear from ANR at 03:00. Okay. Probably better, ANR. Okay. Yep. Others have questions for don't undivine Memphremagog's purity. Thanks so much for your testimony.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: Just a moment, please.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Are the others joining also by Zoom? Robert and Antonio?

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: Yes, we're here.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Stop the share if that's possible.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: No, this is their slides. These are the slides for MCI. Can you see them?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No. Not yet.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: Oh, okay. Just a moment then and I will redo.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right.

[Polly Jones (D.U.M.P. — Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity)]: Can you see them now?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yep. We can. Yeah.

[Antonio De Fruscia (MCI — Memphremagog Conservation Inc.)]: Thank you. So MCI is a citizen led environmental organization in Quebec founded in 1967 working I'm for the sorry. Yes. Sorry.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I just I I need you to, please introduce yourself for the record.

[Antonio De Fruscia (MCI — Memphremagog Conservation Inc.)]: Yes. Yes. Of course. I'm very sorry. So I'm a Tony de Frucia and I will be accompanied by Rob North and we are board members of MCI. So I will begin the presentation and have a webinar will have final remarks at the very end.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great, go ahead.

[Antonio De Fruscia (MCI — Memphremagog Conservation Inc.)]: Alright, as I was saying, so MCI founded in '67 working for the protection, conservation and improvement of Lake Minvermagog and its watershed for the benefit of present and future generations. MCIs work is mainly based on scientific knowledge to inform and sensitize the public and make the various actors aware of their responsibilities in order to ensure the environmental health of Lake Memphremagog and its watershed. We are pleased to participate and support dumps initiative with the House Bill H six fifty two. One of MCI's central efforts has always been to protect the lake from environmental contamination. Thank you, Polly. Concern about landfill leaching containing harmful chemicals such as PFAS and about its discharge into the watershed remains a priority for our organization. We would like this. We like to take this opportunity to highlight three important facts in the following slides.

[Representative Woodman "Woody" Page (Bill Sponsor)]: Next slide, Polly.

[Antonio De Fruscia (MCI — Memphremagog Conservation Inc.)]: So MCI is actively working with Quebec municipalities surrounding Lake Memphremagogue, as well as the City Of Sherbrooke to encourage the adoption of resolutions aligned with the intent and direction of House Bill H652. The Canton Of Stansted adopted such a resolution in November 2025 and other municipalities are expected to follow shortly. The resolution outlines outlines several critical points, such as. Next slide. The importance of Lake Memphremagogue. As as was mentioned before, the lake serves as a very important water water drinking source for over 185,000 Quebecers and supplies water to five municipalities. Lake Memphremagogue represents a natural and cultural jewel of the Eastern Townships shared between Canada and The US. Second, leachate contamination threat. Vermont's only landfill generates leachate containing many pollutants of inorganic compounds such as ammonia nitrogen and heavy metals, organic compounds, volatile organic compounds such as hydrocarbons, emerging contaminants such as PFAS and obviously pathogens. The lake flows from South United States to North Canada, making upstream contamination a critical concern for Canadian communities. Thirdly, actions taken undertaken to protect the lake. So these are all what are mentioned in the resolution. So a ban on discharging leachate into the watershed was implemented in November 2019. But a formal opposition from Quebec municipalities dates back to 2004, with an initial moratorium enforced from 2004 to 2009. Also, concerns risk that leachate discharge can resume after the current moratorium expires. Again, presence of contaminants that pose dangers to public health. PFAS contamination already detected in fish species within the lake. Conventional treatment process cannot fully remove these persistent contaminants. New processes to treat them are yet to prove their performance and reliability. Lastly, international treaty obligation, the resolution invokes the boundary water treaties of 1909 and reminds elected officials on both sides of the border of their shared responsibility to protect this trans boundary water resource. Next slide, please. So in 2021, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion calling for an end to any leachate discharging to the Ming Permago watershed. This is a motion before the Quebec National Assembly calling on the government to one, recognize that black methamphetamine is a vital natural resource supplying drinking water as mentioned already, acknowledge and support the moratorium banning the discharge of treated leachate from the Newport water treatment plant into the lake, And additionally, the concerns of citizens and elected officials and environmental groups about what happens when the moratorium expires and take note of a joint declaration by regional elected officials calling for a long term ban on bleach treatment at the Newport facility. Ultimately, the motion asks the Quebec government to officially take a position in favor of a permanent ban on leachate discharge into the Manfremagog Watershed and to formally advocate for this position with the with the Vermont State government. Next slide, please. As Peggy was mentioning. Sorry. Okay. As Peggy was mentioning, Quebec permanently closed its own landfill called Beston in the watershed in 2010 to protect this shared drinking water source. So the Bestin Landfill located in Magog, Quebec was owned and operated by Waste Management until operations ceased in 2009. In 2007, Waste Management sought to expand and modernize the site to meet stricter standards adopted by the Quebec Minister of the Environment. A united opposition from municipalities, MCI and partners emerged with key concerns about contamination risks to Lake Memphremagog watershed and drinking water supply. Municipalities diverted their waste elsewhere, rendering waste management's proposed expansion economically unviable. A permanent closure was achieved in '20 in 2009. The site remains a potential environmental threat, requiring ongoing vigilance and environmental control. Waste waste management is legally obligated to capture and treat the leachate off-site from the best land landfill. So MCI continues today monitoring activities to ensure transparency and protect Lake Memphremagog.

[Robert Benoit (MCI — Memphremagog Conservation Inc.)]: Can you hear me?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. We can.

[Robert Benoit (MCI — Memphremagog Conservation Inc.)]: Alright. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for inviting your neighbors from Quebec and for listening to our on bill h six five two. This remind me of the world of your former president, mister John F Kennedy, in May 1961 in Ottawa. Mister Kennedy says geographically made us neighbors. History made us friends. Economy made us partner. And necessity made us ally. Especially, I will emphasis on necessity made us alive. It's famous quote sum up our relationship for so many years about this lake. If you're in politics today, we understand that you want to leave a better world after you leave. Being in politics myself for many years, that was my goal anyway. One may ask why this bill is so important now more than ever. The question is quite simple. The solution are complex and numerous with the warming up of the world. Throughout human history, country have gone to war to protect their territory and their goal. No country are going to war to protect their water, which had become the goal of modern time. In French, we say, it's when the well go dry or polluted that we realize how important water was. Let's work together to protect the lake or health or economy. There we share and the well-being of children and grandchildren. Thank you very much for the invitation today. We are now open for questions.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you so much for your testimony and for joining us. I have a question. Guess I'm wondering if Quebec has a drinking water or service water standard for PFAS and PFOS? If they do, what is it?

[Antonio De Fruscia (MCI — Memphremagog Conservation Inc.)]: The government has all answer the question. There is a proposed standard for drinking water, was announced last year by the Canadian government, but for drinking water. But at the moment, it covers, I believe, 20 molecules of PFAS, and so that remains to be. It's up to the provinces to enforce these new norms, but but when it comes to PFAS in surface water, the standards are yet to be brought forth.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You know what the standard for the drinking water is? You said it covers 20 types of PFAS chemicals?

[Antonio De Fruscia (MCI — Memphremagog Conservation Inc.)]: Well, yeah, I don't have the numbers at hand, but there's like a total amount, a summation that is there's specific molecules where there's standards and there's a cumulative amount. But I'm sorry, I don't have the numbers on hand.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. That would be interesting to get. If you are able to share that with us, that would be great. Okay. Do members have questions? Other questions? Thanks so much for your testimony.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We will now welcome Paul Burns.

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Paul Burns. I'm the Executive Director of VPERG, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. I appreciate the opportunity to offer some brief testimony on this legislation today. Most often, when we are testifying on PFAS, it's in a different committee. But we organizationally have played a significant role in the General Assembly's consideration of various bills and recent laws that have been passed dealing with PFAS pollution and potential restrictions on the use of PFAS in manufacturing processes associated with many different products. That's fundamentally really what we're talking about today. PFAS, how does it get into the lake, to the watershed, to the landfill? I mean, it's ultimately these are a family of chemicals, as you've heard, 15,000, 16,000 different individual chemicals making up the family of PFAS chemicals. It may be more than that as we sit here. We have great concern about these chemicals in our environment, in wildlife, in our own bodies because of the harm that they can and do cause. And so, I appreciate the fact that you're considering this legislation today, obviously designed to prohibit the discharge of leachate treated or untreated into the Lake Memphremagog watershed. VPERG, our preferred method of dealing with this problem is upstream. That is, stop using EFAS wherever possible as you're manufacturing various kinds of products. And in fact, in this way, we found common ground with Casella and others who, in a sense, receive these chemicals in various products that are disposed of. And so, I appreciate, you know, in that respect, we have a common interest here in trying to move upstream to the degree that we can and try to prevent workers from being exposed when they're creating these products, people being exposed when they use these products, and then ultimately the disposal and the problems for our environment, our water, and ourselves after that. So I think all that's probably fairly obvious, but it's just useful to provide that context, I think, how we think about this issue, how we approach it. And that's why we've worked with all of you and your predecessors to address products as varied as textiles to personal care products, firefighting equipment to plastic synthetic turf, and many other uses of PFAS, nearly all of which one day will end up in a landfill. That's how we get rid of stuff that we don't need or want anymore here in Vermont, and most of that, obviously, is going to one landfill still operating in the state. So, it is a heavy burden we must recognize that we, as a state, as a policy matter right now, have placed on this region of the state, these communities in this watershed near the landfill. So we are sympathetic to some of the testimony that you have already heard today, some of the concerns that have been raised. As much success as we might have in addressing PFAS in products that are used or sold in Vermont, for the foreseeable future we will have leachate coming out of a landfill that has PFAS in it, as well as a kind of a contaminated soup of other chemicals as well. As a state, again, recognizing the heavy burden that we've put on that part of the state, we look not just at the upstream solutions, but then if this is a problem now and for the foreseeable future, we need to be thinking about treatment and treatment processes and how we can have the best possible treatment so that the material that does leach from a landfill is handled in the most responsible way possible wherever is disposed of. To be clear, we do not, we are concerned about whatever community, whatever water body, whatever watershed is the recipient of leachate from our one remaining operating landfill. And the answer is not really to protect one watershed and sacrifice another. I'm pretty sure we could all agree on that. We should maximize our efforts upstream, keeping the toxins out. We should use the best possible treatment technology before the leachate material is discharged anywhere. And while this bill is imperfect in the sense that it is saying no more discharge of leachate in this watershed, the Memphremagua Watershed, because it will still come to Montpelier, it will still come someplace else. It's not unfair to say that this region of the state is receiving heavy burden, having contributed ultimately very little percentage wise to the problem to begin with. That is a truth here, and it's not a bad thing to recognize that reality, it seems to me. It is also potentially true that forcing that material to another part of the state for ultimate treatment and discharge may itself spur further and better treatment, better answers to this material. As an earlier witness said, it's somewhat out of sight, out of mind. The Lake Mendenhagwe Watershed in this part of the state where the landfill is, and if it's treated and discharged there, most people in the state will never give it a thought. So, And I'm cognizant of that, and I'm concerned about that. And while I think, again, a prohibition on the discharge in just one region of the state is not a perfect policy solution for the state, But I think that that can help to drive, my hope would be, better answers. And so I am sympathetic. I understand the rationale for that. The testimony that you heard is true about the risks there. The people who drink that water have legitimate concerns about possible contamination, in Vermont and in Canada. So, we support this legislation for those reasons, but I do so with the idea that it's don't want to just see it go to Montpelier or other places and be discharged. Mean, that's not a great answer, and shipping this stuff in trucks does create its own hazards and risks as well. So, it's not ultimately the best answer, but having less to begin with, improved treatment processes that I think could be spurred on through this legislation, on balance, we think that that makes sense. So, that is my testimony, and I appreciate the opportunity to share it with you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Thanks. Thanks for your testimony. Do members have questions? I see I see your hand, Peggy. I'm just gonna see if folks have questions for mister Burns. Not seeing any. What would you like to say, Peggy Stevens?

[Peggy Stevens (D.U.M.P.)]: I think it's time for that slide, Polly, because what Mr. Burns just said is just so true. This particular issue shines the light on a much more complex issue that must be addressed. We are not about kicking this can down the road and not caring about what happens to the people on the receiving end of wherever that leachate does get discharged. The point is that right now what NewsBT is doing in its treatment system is not up to the standards of what's possible, including what the SAF manufacturer says. They say the SAF treatment should be one step in a treatment train that must end in destruction technology. I don't know why the NUSBT is being permitted to use the SAF system out of sync with what the manufacturer recommends. Okay? And so this this diagram here is just one example. There are other destruction technologies that are operational now, yet, yes, they're in their kind of nascent developmental stages, but they they are out there and they are being used. Okay? So the foamate oh, I wish I could point. The the the foamate is what comes out of the top of that tank there that the furthest to the right, and that is what is supposed to go to destruction. Right now, it is being encapsulated in an absorbent resin that is then being contained, I think it's what Mr. Nicolai said, in cement. Unfortunately both of those leach the PFAS back into the environment in the landfill, concentrating the amazing amounts horrifying amounts of PFAS, PFOS and PFOA in particular, that are two of the five Vermont chemicals that they're targeting. And the point is that those should actually be going to a hazardous waste facility according to the EPA, being put back in the landfill. And at the bottom of this diagram here, what the effluent, the water, the treated leachate that comes out of the soft system that Doctor. Burns says should never be understood to be considered potable water or allowed to discharge or migrate to a drinking water reservoir. So there is an optional polishing step that involves, in this particular drawing, resin beads that can soak up and hold the remaining PFAS in what leaves that SAF system. I don't want to get any really further into the weeds. This is a very complex subject, as you obviously understand. But the point is that what needs to happen in Vermont's future, and hopefully the near future, is that the news VT folks will be required to implement the SAF system the way it is meant to be implemented by the manufacturer, meaning it is one step in a multi step treatment train that ends in destruction technology. And that's because we do care about what's going into Lake Champlain right now. We do care about the people, both Americans, Vermonters, and Quebec neighbors who are drinking from that water. And I don't want anyone to think that we don't care about those people. We just know that this is one doable step right now that can make a really big difference in preventing further PFAS contamination. Thank you very much.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright, thanks for that. I'd love to give Kisela a chance to respond to that, something that we were maybe not all aware of.

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: So the third item was for a PFAS groundwater stream, so if the only thing that you were treating for PFAS, as it was described, you could put a polishing step on. Our challenge is that the foam fractionation only pulls out PFAS, so I still have leachate that needs to be treated, which is why it goes to a wastewater plant. In theory, we could build a new wastewater plant at the landfill and treat all of the leachate so that it could be clean drinking water and then we would then discharge out the landfill into the South Bay. So it's sort of odd. I mean, if we were to go down that path, we would produce clean water and then discharge it into the Lake Memphremagog, which is what this bill says we don't want to do. So that was the path we went down five years ago was let's worry about the PFAS and let's send the leachate to the wastewater plant so it can continue to be treated. It is true that another path could be do 100% treatment at the landfill with then the desired discharge. That makes sense.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay, that's not what I was expecting you to say. I guess I was imagining that you would have said that's why you want to move towards being able to I mean, destruction incinerate. I assume it's in some sort of super clean incineration process is what destruction means.

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: Yeah. So you got you got two remember, we're separating two different things. So we got the foam, and that's what we want to do destruction on. We want that foam to get destroyed. That's where the PFAS is talking about.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And that's not what this diagram is talking about.

[Sam Nicolai (Casella Waste Systems, VP Engineering & Compliance)]: That diagram is talking about the rest of the PFAS that's still not getting treated, those short chains that are troublesome and everything else that's in the shape, yes, in theory, you could build a wastewater plant at Coventry and treat the rest of that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So in the interest of time, what I wanna do is take a five minute break and then welcome Kevin Burke with ANR to join us. So take back at the top of the hour at 03:00.