Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are going to shift gears and walk through H 152 with our legislative council.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. This is Michael Grady with legislative council. I believe you all know what PFAS are, And I believe you've probably heard, significant testimony about how they are difficult to treat and or break down in the environment. And consequently, are efforts across the country to try and find treatment, technology, filtration, etcetera, or PFAS, in water and soil and air. H one fifty two would allow ANR to to prevent a one year pilot project for destruction of PFAS without the project requiring issuance of the multiple environmental permits that may otherwise require. And so page two is where the substance begins. This would be added under ANR's authority in title three. They have specific authority there for things like billing out persons, getting contractors. It's also where their permit fee authority is. So it's an appropriate place for it because it encompasses all of the agency's programs. There's a definition section of what an emerging contaminant is. Basically, it's a hazardous material as defined in 10 VSA six six zero two first defined in ANR's rules. And that can include petroleum, toxic, or corrosive substances, substances listed on surplus hazardous materials list, and substances that when released into the environment pose a risk to human health. PFAS is listed underneath the ANR hazardous waste rules as a hazardous material, liquid PFAS waste. The definition of emerging contaminant also includes any constituent for which the Department of Health has established a health advisory. The department does have pretty broad authority to issue health advisories. They have issued them for PFAS or arsenic or manganese, and so they have that authority. It also includes any constituent that the secretary of natural resources determines as an imminent and substantial engagement to human health or natural resources. So anything that may not be on any of those lists or that the Department of Health has determined requires a public health advisory, ANR has the authority to designate it as an emerging contaminant.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Austin, what is the definition of constituent in this context?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's it's basically any any, material. Any

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: mat Thank you.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So then there's a definition of what the pilot or demonstration project is. It's it's prototype equipment or processes on a temporary basis for the purpose of, a, collecting the data necessary for the design of a full scale process to treat or destroy an emerging contaminant, determining the feasibility of using the equipment or process to to treat or destroy an emergency contaminant while minimizing any discharge emission or waste. And you get the authority that ANR would have, notwithstanding the permit or permit amendment requirements of 10 VSA chapter 23, which is air pollution permitting. Chapter 47, which is water pollution, discharges storm water, indirect, all of that. One fifty one, which is act two fifty or one fifty nine, which is waste. The secretary of natural resources may authorize a person to conduct a pilot or demonstration project to treat or destroy an emerging contaminant in accordance with the requirements of the section. So anyone who wants to conduct one of the pilot projects has to apply on a form provided by ANR. They need to describe it describe the treatment or destruction system proposed, any equipment, describe all anticipated environmental impacts, any waste material that may be generated, the length of time requested for the pilot, operations and monitoring that outline how they are going to operate the system and evaluate its effectiveness. And then ANR has review criteria that start on page three and go on to page four that include the fact that they are going to put it out to public notice. The application, it's going to be put out under the general permit public notice. The secretary may require additional monitoring or request additional information before approving a pilot. Secretary shall not approve a pilot, if there's unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. ANR may issue an authorization, but it cannot exceed one year in duration. The holder of an authorization shall provide ANR with a report within three months after the conclusion of the pilot or demonstration that includes the monitoring data and a conclusion on the effectiveness of the pilot at treatment. ANR may place any other condition on the pilot permit, that is necessary to protect human health or the environment, and the holder, shall suspend the pilot, at any time if ANR determines their environmental impacts outside those that were identified in the application. And the secretary may authorize the pilot, to proceed or may terminate it after review of those unidentified environmental impacts. Then you get to section two of the effective date. It takes effect on passage, but I wanna think about that with the agency because remember, it's a one year pilot, cannot be more than one year from terms of authorization. When is the application coming in? Does ANR just want some upfront time to to to develop the application before the application is is effective. So I'd wanna talk to Matt about maybe building in some time for a and r to actually develop the application for potential applicants to develop what they're going to propose.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's a one year pilot permit, not a one year pilot for a particular project. So it would

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. But this goes into effect on passage. Do you want the permit to be available right away? It's not going to be available right away. Right. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I get

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: a good point. I have a question about the notwithstanding all those other chaps. So does that suspend existing permit requirements? Yes. So, for example, the requirement that leachate be trucked out of a watershed would be suspended could be suspended?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. There were if there was a permit requirement for that. But right now, there's no permit requirement. It's just a prohibition in that bill.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, like I said, I was thinking about the Coventry permit that has sorry. I wasn't I get that your world is statute. The permit that exists right now for Coventry requires them not to dispose of their leachate into that watershed. And so would would this, notwithstanding language, suspend requirements of existing permits?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I think you can clarify that by saying it's notwithstanding a requirement for a permit for the proposed pilot project and not for existing permitted activity.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And so that kind of where did this where did this language come from? And I mean, guess I'm wondering, like, was it the product of other what other states have done for pilot projects or conversations with ANR?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: The sponsor asked me to work with certain people to develop it, including ANR. There are pilot projects that are out there. They're long term. I don't really know what they do.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: In this state?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. One's Colorado School of Mines. It's a hydrothermal.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's not limited to a year.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. It's an academic. There's one at Rice that's light activated boron. They are looking for projects to test this equipment, this prop these processes, and these are just a couple of them.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh oh, you mean, like, there's, like, vendors?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Or No. There's more like academics.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Would like to test destruction of PFAS somewhere. Yep. They would this bill would enable maybe that happening here. And so I guess I keep going back to so what's a type four public notice? Remind us of that.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's general permit notice. They provide notice in the, environmental notice bulletin. Secretary provides public comment of at least fourteen days. That's about it. And then there's notice of final decision.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So it's the shortest of the public comment types.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. There's also an emergency one, but yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: K. Yeah. Representative Logan.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Do we know who's who our visitors are looking?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, I don't understand.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Is this for this bill? No. I don't think.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You all are are you here for this particular bill?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Visiting.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just visit.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Are you able to just

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: It would be really interesting to hear more about a pilot project.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Like, what what that would ensue.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Why what's motivating this? Are there any particular projects?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, this is yeah. This is for this was motivated by Coventry. Right. They want to try out some technology to dispose of, destroy the leachate after after it's been extracted from leachate.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: But who would be responsible for overseeing that project? Would it be academic partnership? Or I guess I'm curious about, like, some guardrails for who conducts the pilot project. Like, can I conduct a

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: private project? Say you could. This bill would let you apply to do that. Exactly. I mean, yeah, there are

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There's no limitation.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: There's no limitation in this current draft.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But ANR has to do the review to determine whether or not you can do it in a way that's not gonna have unreasonable harm to human health and the environment.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You do that for a pilot project.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. How? I mean, you just using this pilot from Rice University, You're gonna have to ask what what the technology, what the process is, how it works, what's the waste that's gonna be generated, what's the intended effect, What do you do? Like, this one removes the PFAS from the water, and then the water is is allegedly clean and can be discharged. But what do you do with the PFAS? You know, you're you're gonna have to to figure out depending on what the technology or the process is, what the conditions of the pilot project are. I I can't tell you that because I don't know what the the technology or the equipment is.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: What the technical idea? Let's see. Page three, line 13. Describe all anticipated environmental impacts. It's a two part question. Environmental impacts, I'm I'm guessing. You're talking about adverse effects?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Not necessarily because remember, you're not withstanding all those permits that would have environmental that are would regulate environmental impacts. Like, I could see equipment having an emission. Right? And normally, if if it was gonna have a certain type of emission, it would need an an air pollution control permit. But you've not withstanding that. So what are the environmental impacts it's gonna have like that? K. And that's not necessarily adverse because you can have emissions permits for, like,

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: at a sawdust plant. You know? And and that might require it. I'm just trying to figure out where it here. It's very clearly laid out about the anticipated, because of this technology, the anticipated environmental benefit. That's what I'm having trouble finding in that.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's that's I would say that's not specifically identified in the application or overview. I mean, there there is the treatment system describing the treatment system and then evaluating its effectiveness for for what it was permitted for. And, you know, that would probably be the best the effectiveness.

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

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Thank you, chair. So, Michael, did I I don't see in here that this is actually a

[Unidentified Committee Member]: permit application process. It's a and

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: r it doesn't say that they're gonna it just says they're gonna approve the product. It doesn't say they're gonna give them a perfect due.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's an authorization. It's a one year authorization.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's just an author it's not really a perfect per se. I

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: mean, it's a pilot, so I wouldn't create a permit program around a pilot. It's a pilot. If it's There's potential multiple pilots, remember, because it's not limited per site or per type of PFAS contamination. So if somebody wanted to do one in Bennington to treat PFAS contamination in soil, they potentially could apply for that.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I'll tag with you. Thank you. The study or the pilot that you're referring to, does it refer to how long it would take to set this system up and start to show positive results? Is that long enough? Is one year long enough?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the the one from Rice, they have a three year grant, so so I I would think they probably but the one from Colorado School of Mines, they've been doing it for a little bit. And I don't know. I I guess I can't answer that question. I think you're gonna have to ask that question to the people who are proposing the technology or the process.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you, madam chair. And to representative Tagliavia's question, I put similar. There's no authority in here for ANR to extend that permit. So, in other words, it takes six months to ramp it up. They get six months into processing it. The effectiveness hasn't maybe played out yet. That's kind

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: of what I was playing out with the effective date. If you're the applicant, you probably want to have all your ducks in a row before you even put your application in. How is A and R going to manage that? How is Coventry going to manage that? I know. I think you need to talk or I could talk to Matt about how to phase that, you know, make the does he need a phase? I don't I don't know. Maybe he's confident that the applicant's ready or he will just set the permit term on the day of approval authorization. I I don't that's not that's not in here. Right. But, I mean, there you you can get really detailed about that kind of stuff, or you can be very general about it. You you've done it. The general assembly has done it both ways.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm just thinking that if there was a process or a pilot project that was in place, implemented, and it was starting to show success or not, but they needed additional time for it to play out. Could they reapply and extend it?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's not specifically authorized, but there's also nothing specifically prohibiting.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Further questions? You. It's Crystal. Thinking Elaq, it's time to separate you.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You can

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: come sit over here temporarily.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Dario. Yeah. Do it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you, Michael.