Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: We're live. Alright. Good afternoon. Welcome to the House Environment Committee. We will be hearing on a couple topics from Matt Chapin. The first is h six fifty two, relating to wastewater discharges from landfills. Welcome back.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Thank you. So for the record, I am Matt Chapin. I am the director of the Waste Management and Prevention Division. I guess it's probably also with this testimony. Good to know that I do a lot of the cross media coordination within DEC on PFAS related issues. So hopefully I can help you out with your deliberations on this bill. I think there's a couple sort of points that maybe were mentioned the last time you had testimony, but I think they're good to reiterate. The Agency of Natural Resources has basically tested every wastewater treatment facility in the state of Vermont, both the influence of those wastewater treatment facilities and the effluent coming out of them. Both the influence and the effluent have detectable levels of PFAS in every one of those wastewater treatment facilities. There's no wastewater treatment facility that has non detectable levels. PFAS, many of them have concentrations that are higher than the drinking water standards that we currently have. We're in the process right now taking a section or several of those wastewater treatment facilities and looking at their collection networks and trying to go up into the system to really figure out where the PFAS is coming from. So again, we did this with a couple of wastewater treatment systems several years ago, and we're sort of expanding that effort to get a better understanding of what the sources of PFAS are in wastewater systems. But our belief is, based on the data we've collected and what other jurisdictions have collected, that most wastewater treatment systems, one of the primary sources of PFAS to those wastewater treatment facilities is coming from common household products, detergents, water from your washing machine when you've washed your clothes, basically the PFAS that we have in everyday items that we use in our homes that end up getting washed out and discharged into wastewater treatment systems, and frankly, equally concerning into your septic system if you live in a rural area. So what do we do with that? Well, so this committee has been a partner with the agency and the state trying to ban PFAS in consumer products, and that's probably one of the best things we can do to both limit the levels of PFAS going into wastewater treatment facilities from sort of you and me, but also going into the landfill. Because the landfill, much like the wastewater treatment facilities, is sort of a passive receiver of PFAS. They don't use it. They don't generate it themselves. They generate it by the things that they collect and from society that get put in the landfill. I think it's worth saying so New England Waste Services of Vermont, the Coventry Landfill, is a complex facility. It has a bunch of permits, a solid waste permit, an Act two fifty permit, an air permit, and a pretreatment discharge permit. And that pretreatment discharge permit authorizes what they do with their leachate, and it also puts the requirements for this pilot treatment project that you all heard about last time on the facility and sort of lays out what the requirements are, what they have to do, what data they need to collect, how they report that back to the Agency of Natural Resources. Under that pretreatment permit, NEWS VT does not have the ability to discharge to the Newport Wastewater Treatment Facility. They would need to come back in and amend that permit in order to be authorized to to do that discharge. Let's see. So I guess it's worth saying that the installed and you've heard this the installed treatment system is resulting in significant reductions up to high 90% removal efficiency of PFAS compounds in the leachate from the facility. And then just so you're aware, all of this data and the reason we're conducting the pilot study is because there are two ways in the water quality world and clean water discharge world we could regulate something. We can regulate them through criteria in the water quality standards, sort of the numeric standard at the end of the pipe. We can also regulate things through what's called a technology based effluent limitation. And that technology based affluent limitation is basically the agency looking at a specific industrial sector and saying, this is the appropriate cleanup or removal technology for these types of dis discharges. So use this treatment technique or approach when you're dealing with, in this case, leachate. So the intent is that we will take the data and the information that's been gathered from this project and use it to develop a technology based standard that will apply to all other leachate generating facilities in the state of Vermont. And just so you are aware, that's six other landfills and 20 transfer stations in the state. So just sort of getting positionally to things. ANR has some concerns about creating a prohibition on treated leachate going into surface waters. We basically are we think that we're doing a good job. We have a permit that is on this facility. It requires a treatment technique. We're getting high levels of removal efficiency. And we don't think that after you've treated something, you should then prohibit if it's been authorized to be discharged. Basically There's no such thing as zero in the world that we live in. This is achieving very high levels of removal efficiency, and we think that if the technology is appropriate, it ought to allow to go forward. We are concerned about water body specific prohibitions. If the legislature decides they want to prohibit these types of discharges, frankly, we should be having a conversation how we manage and eliminate discharges to all surface waters, not one specific surface water body. And then I guess I would say that lastly, and I think it was mentioned, the use of innovative treatment techniques on emerging contaminants, not just at places like Newse, Vermont, but at wastewater treatment facilities or industrial discharges or other sort of places, is challenging. Because our permitting programs are created to basically permit and authorize something that is permanent. That you're basically putting it in and it's gonna be there forever. But a lot of these pilot or innovative approaches, they're intended to go in, be there for a limited duration, look at them in a pilot type scale, and see whether they work outside of a university or a limited setting. And our permitting systems are not really built to do that. The agency supports H-one 152, which is a bill introduced last session in the biennium that gives the agency more flex. It still requires permitting of those pilot systems, but gives the agency more flexibility when we do that permitting so that we can be nimble and adaptive to the types of new technologies that are coming in and being used in these types of facilities. And that sort of concludes, and I'm happy to answer any questions about PFAS generally or the bill before you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Thank you for your testimony. That brings a couple questions to my mind. One is we've heard it's been taking a long time to get this air permit for the R and D piece of what the folks at the landfill would like to be trying for. Well, I can't think of the word they use. But, anyway, incinerating, disposing of the leftovers after they do their pretreatment. So I'm just wondering, like, what's the holdup on the permit? And, like, it sounds like it's been a long time. I don't know the timing, but they they they said it's been a long time coming.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: So my understanding is part of this is the landfill is one of Vermont's few Title V facilities. That means it's a major air emission source. The small contribution of emissions from the system factor into the larger Title V permitting process. Again, this goes back, I think, to the importance of having more flexibility in a pilot setting where we can allow these types of smaller, discrete, limited duration pilot activities to move forward while we're also working on a parallel track with the larger longer term permitting issues that are out there. And I think, honestly, the DARE permit is probably a good example of where flexibility would have served the agency in that particular instance. Because of an r and d permit would have gotten made out of the federal regulatory

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: framework

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: It of Title would allowed the very discreet and limited emissions from this pilot system to move forward, while the larger issues associated with the Title V permit sort of moved in parallel with it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: And I guess I'm I have a hard time understanding. So the r and d permit, what is it short circuiting? And if I'm a neighbor, why am I supporting that?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Let me let me pull

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: up h one fifty two. No. It's not done yet, but, like, I'm just curious.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Sure. I mean so I think that it is intended to and let me actually get the language up. But it's intended to basically authorize or allow for limited duration permits that the agency would need to review, and there would be There would be notice in common on them. It just, again, would not be the type of notice in common that a full full permit would have. So And all of that sort of it's laced out in H-one 152 about the scope of what the application requires. It's still a permit. It's just not what we normally go through for a scale operating permit for a wastewater discharge or a landfill permit. Again, our permit systems are created for sort of these longer duration, five year, ten year permits for facility operations as opposed to a six month, twelve month limited operation of a treatment system nested within sort of that larger facility.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Thank you. Do other members have questions? Yes, Representative Morris. Thank you, Madam

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Chair. Matt, how does the post treatment discharge of the leachate from the landfill compared to every other wastewater discharge facility around the state?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Is it comparative? The concentration of PFAS in the leachate after treatment is in many cases lower than the F1 for most many wastewater treatment facilities. And I haven't sort of lined them up and looked at what percentage or what we're talking about. But as I think was said in last week's testimony, If you look at the discharge in Montpelier, it represents a very, very, very, very small fraction of the total PFAS load in Montpelier's wastewater discharge after treatment.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: We're focused on the. Bleachate's probably got some other things in it that, influence and effluent at a regular treatment plant doesn't have. But how do we know what those things are? Does the pretreatment help get those out, or is it really just PFAS?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Well, so this particular pretreatment permit is focused on PFAS and then making sure that the leachate goes to a wastewater treatment facility. The wastewater treatment facility is going to pick up some of the contaminants. I think, I I hope everyone in here understands the technologies that we use in wastewater treatment. They're good at dealing with pathogens and metals and some other things, and less good picking up some of the more complex chemicals that go through in wastewater, pharmaceuticals or other things. So I'm certain that there are things in leachate, things that we likely aren't even testing for, that end up getting in that effluent or in that leachate that ultimately ends up getting discharged. It's a challenge, I think, it's fair to say. Things like metals and other things, wastewater treatment facilities are that's part of the reason why we send them to the wastewater treatment facility to deal with EOD and some of the other sort of things that wastewater treatment facilities are good at treating.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Final questions on age six fifty two. Representative North. Thank

[Rep. Rob North]: you for coming in. So clarify for me if this bill passed and what would it prevent or what deleterious consequences side effects would it have?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: So I don't know that this represents beyond the precedent it sets with the legislature coming in and prohibiting a treated discharge into a single water body, I'm not sure that practically it changes anything right now. Right now, NewsVT, the landfill doesn't discharge into the Lake Mint from Hagop Watershed. So it would mean that it would be discharged into the Lake Shankle.

[Rep. Rob North]: Based on the testimony I've heard from you thus far, it sounds like you're already meeting.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: No. Well, yes. Yes. They're not discharging to the Newport wastewater treatment. Correct.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: That's a requirement of existing permits.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Correct. So this really doesn't change. I should say that the existing permits authorized where you can take the leachate in Newport is not one of those places.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: That's their Act two fifty permit, not the ANR permit.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: The pretreatment the pretreatment discharge permit authorizes what what facilities take the J to.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: So that was an ANR requirement? It is.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Might and also an act two fifty requirement. It was it was also the it's a moratorium was placed in the Act two fifty permit.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Further questions?

[Rep. Rob North]: Well, one more. And maybe this isn't the right you're maybe you're not the right person to ask it, but it it just in reading the text, the new text that's being added on starting at line 19 on page five, the the first sentence only refers to leaching. That seems like the primary sentence in the new section k one, no person self discharge leaching from a landfills or solid risk. But then the second sentence changes the subject to the prohibition of the discharge of PFAS into the water, like, where we can make a watershed. I'm just wondering why the change from leachate to PFAS, and then the third sentence goes back to talking about leachate again. If we just continue with the same subject, leachate, leachate, leachate rather than leachate PFAS leachate, this is not what we're really trying to get at.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: So I He's not the drafter.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: I'm not the drafter, but I will note that I noticed the same issue and wondered if the committee were to decide to pass this bill, you might want to consider addressing the very issue representative North where it's because I'm not certain how someone might interpret the sort of prohibition on the discharge of PFAS that's sort of nested in the middle of that sentence.

[Rep. Rob North]: Excellent. So why is that happening there?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Excellent. Alright. Thanks so much for your testimony on this. And then we're gonna shift gears.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Shifting gears.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Our PRO for redemption. Bottle redemption PRO.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: So I'm happy I I I mean, I have listened to the testimony the committee has taken over the past few days. I mean, I think that from the agency's perspective, we support the bill where it is now. We support the changes with respect to the timeline and also the flexibility with respect to either increasing or decreasing the number of redemption opportunities. And I think from it was raised sort of late, but I think it's a very good point. There are lots of areas, especially in Chittenden County, probably in Rutland City, many places in Chittenden County where you have a number of retail locations placed right next to each other, and where we want to have reverse vending machines in Hannaford's, it's next to the Shaw's, it's next to another store, and the density in that. And so having some flexibility there, while at the same time making sure that places in Orange County and Essex and Orleans County have the distribution of facilities that we think is important. But I'm happy to answer any questions with respect to where the committee that the committee has on the bill.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Yeah. You for that. I guess, you know, we're hearing from redemption centers of the concern about sort of the uncertainty of the the changes and the uncharted territory that we're headed into with the setting up of the PRO. We've tried to put some bounds around that by investing in existing facilities or utilizing them. And, we've taken testimony that the largest ones for sure will be where they're working with redemption centers presumably to hopefully come to an agreement, that's good for both of them. I guess I'm curious what your thoughts are in terms of that, the redemption center fears.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: So I guess a few things. One is that before I came in, I checked with our analysts who basically is our conduit for information sharing between the redemption centers and just asking, have we gotten any concerns from people calling in, asking where the bill is at? And we have not. And so I want to say that the concerns that were raised are not illegitimate. This is change, and change is difficult. And I think that to some degree, we're looking at creating fairly significant systemic changes to how the bottle bill is approached. On the other hand, I think that the existing system has a lot of challenges and is in desperate need of reform and modernization, and that the only way we start the transition in this system is by creating the PRO and telling it to go out and come up with a plan and create certainty where currently there is uncertainty. Think the challenge with any EPR program is that you start with not having a system in place. In this particular case, we have a legacy system that we're trying to make better. And so I certainly don't want to either discount the concerns because I think the world will be different after this system is in place. And I hope that it's different in a better way for everyone, including the gentleman who testified.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Questions for Matt on the redemption PRO? Representative Austin.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Just help me understand how possibly putting this gentleman out of business makes it better. Guess I don't I I I don't understand it enough to see how that I I guess I would

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: say I don't know how this puts him out business. It requires existing infrastructure to be used to the maximum extent possible. It requires investments in automation and technology by the PRO, and it requires fair compensation for retention centers for the services that they're being provided. And I think that I'm recognizing that the world that exists tomorrow is going to be different than the world that exists today. But I think even the gentleman who was testifying recognized that the existing system isn't working that great and that changes probably need to come. And I think that the challenge, of course, is that if you step back and look at things from a macro sense, I think it's actually much worse than when you look at it in any individual situation, because you look at the system as a whole and you're not I guess I would just say from the agency's perspective, we're not giving Vermonters the level of service they deserve in the existing system.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Further questions from my colleagues? Representative Morris.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: You, Madam Chair. Thanks, Matt. One of the concerns from the redemption people was that the current home England fee of 3.5¢. The bill proposes to negotiate that between the PRO and the redemption centers. And the concern was that that could lower even though we want to modernize it and enhance, the concern was that co mingling fee could come in under 3.5¢, and that's where the heartburn was raised. Do you have a comment on that or what's your perception of negotiations recognizing you don't do policy but you create rules? Well,

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: I think that the system is created in a way that that there are going to be and we talked about this. I mean, the the two sort of drivers in my understanding are the two big drivers in how you can make money or, frankly, what your costs are are, well, it's it's space, it's labor, and then it's throughput. Right? And all of those things are going to have to take considered when those negotiations take place. I guess I'll just say from the from the agency perspective. From my perspective, I've always looked at fair compensation as meaning that I'm looking at it as sort of like the same thing as a a utility model. Right? People need to cover their costs and make a fair rate of return. Right? And if they're not getting that, I would expect that I'm going to hear from them. And that's where the agency and its oversight capacity has a role in making sure that the system is fair and it's treating people fairly. Your perception is that you would be approving plans? Yes. And I am assuming at the end of the day, are going to be comments on the plan. There's a comment period. And if individual redemption centers, either through the stakeholder process that's embedded in here before the plan makes it to the agency or through a notice and comment process that exists during the plan review and approval. If they think the system is unfair, the agency's gonna hear about it It has a role in basically responding to those issues.

[Rep. Rob North]: Thank you. You're welcome. Further questions?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Thanks for joining us. Is Casey Harrington here? And for a second, I'm curious just to go back to h six fifty two for a second. People have thoughts on this bill? Just in continuing the conversation or finished.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Still thinking.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: All right. Well, we have it scheduled for discussion.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Folks are not ready to

[Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair]: do that now. Let's take a five minute break and see if we can get our witness over.