SmartTranscript of House Environment-2025-02-11-1:15PM

[Speaker 0 ]: Okay. We are live. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Alright. Good afternoon. Welcome to the house environment committee. This afternoon, we are gonna be continuing our conversations about PFAS and extending them also to a discussion about Coventry landfill and planning for its future. And we have, representative Paige with us this afternoon who is a representative from branch. [Representative Larry Labor]: I should first say that, I'm a resident of Newport. I represent Newport. When I first ran, Coventry was part of my district and no longer is. But, certainly, one can see the landfill from Newport and, at times, can can even smell it as well. I'm not an expert, okay, on PFAS or leachate. And I wouldn't just say that last time I was there at Landfill with some of my Northeast Kingdom representative colleagues was around this time, maybe a year ago next month, I think it was. We first heard about a spillage of of leachate there, and we felt it was important to to see, the area where it where it had occurred. We had heard from, some of our constituents about it. And I will say this about the landfill and its personnel. Whenever you call there and talk to, you know, the head engineer, mister Lavey, they are always welcoming and friendly and open for you to go see what's going on there. And that's what we did. There was a group of us, maybe four or five of us, our representatives of labor, the vice chair, was also present. We saw where the spillage had occurred. We saw what what they had done to remediate it. And at the time, as I recall, it was it was cold, and the leachate actually froze, and they were able to collect it and and remove it. And we also got the chance to see the machinery that takes the leachate and removes the p some items related to PFAS. And as I recall, that machinery was from the Australia area. It was imported. I think it's one of its kind. Cost well, at least a million dollars, maybe more as I recall. So that so that I tell that little story just to say how accommodating Casella is and how I think they try to do the best that they can under the circumstance. Despite that, yes, my constituents are concerned, with the landfill. I'm concerned with it as well. I wish it was elsewhere, frankly, and I'm sure everybody does. I have submitted bills in the past. I haven't done it this term asking for the state to try and locate a a new site or to come up with ways to recycle more, reduce garbage, or just find another location that we can send our our trash to. I think the I think there's maybe twenty more years left in in [Matt Chapman]: the usage of the Coventry landfill. [Representative Larry Labor]: And that time is gonna go by rapidly, and we should be planning for what comes next now rather than waiting till the last minute. And I think that's also a fear of of of what may occur. So if there aren't any more quest or if there aren't any questions, I'd be happy to entertain. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Representative Austin has Do does the state compensate Coventry for housing the landfill? [Representative Larry Labor]: It Coventry does receive some money, so I don't know. Cassella. But I don't know that for certain. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: So is it fair to say that your constituents in the area are interested in just that long term planning happening? That's what's Well, [Representative Larry Labor]: they're they're interested in long term planning. They're also interested in, water quality in in the area. You know, as you know, we have Lake Mefframagog. There's a concern that well, particularly with the the spillage that occurred almost a year ago, there was concern that it might be going into the lake. Mhmm. It didn't. Casella did a very good job of handling it. But besides that, there is concerns regarding the leachate [Chair Amy Sheldon]: going into Lake Memphremagog. Right. Any other questions for Representative Page? I just want [Clerk Sarita Austin]: to say a question, but I just do want to say that I'm very grateful for the country for for doing this. This is you know? [Matt Chapman]: Well [Clerk Sarita Austin]: And I always have been. Like, I think, wow. That's really nice that that's they're doing that. That's all I wanted to say. [Representative Larry Labor]: Well, I'll I'll just add on to that. The state should be grateful to Coventry and the Northeast Kingdom for accepting that landfill [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: Mhmm. [Representative Larry Labor]: Because that's the only one. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Yep. [Representative Larry Labor]: And there are probably a number of residents that feel that that landfill is located where it is because it's out of sight, out of mind for most residents of Vermont. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: And it's worth noting that a couple of summers ago, not this past summer, but the one before, this committee actually did a field trip. And most of the then members of it took a quite extensive tour of that facility and would corroborate what you said. You know, it's it's for a landfill. It's it's clean and and well run from the tour. Other yeah. Representative Tugley Villa. [Member Mike Tagliavia]: You mentioned, I believe, a a filtration system or something that is imported to this country to be used there. Was that an initiative that Casella took upon itself to do to try to filter out? [Representative Larry Labor]: I'm sure it it was. You should ask them. But, yeah, I think they they're interested in in being a good neighbor, And that was one of the things that they I believe they took up. And I and I will say this, that and I know we're here from Casella. No. Oh, Yeah. Casella, I think, does try to be a very good neighbor to the community. It does what it can, and I think it does follow, the regulations, as the state imposes on. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Alright. Thank you again for joining us. [Member Rob North]: Thank you. Thanks, [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Bye bye. [Matt Chapman]: Good afternoon. I am going to, if it's alright. I've been through [Representative Larry Labor]: short [Matt Chapman]: presentation, though I'm happy to just make this incredibly informal and answer people's questions. And so for the record, my name is Matt Chapman. I'm the director of the waste management prevention division with the Department of Environmental Conservation. So So I thought I'd go just a little bit of background on what we see as far as waste disposal in the state of Vermont. So Vermont generates around three hundred and seventy thousand tons of of MSW, solid waste, a year. There's a little chart that I put into the presentation. I'm also happy to share a report. This is based off, twenty twenty two data, but we find the data is pretty consistent. We're a few years behind because of sort of reporting and analysis flags with the data. But, so about three hundred and seventy thousand tons a year. It's been fairly consistent over the last several years. And then we generate about one hundred and ten thousand tons of of C and D, both of which often go into the plant there. C and d is? Construction and demolition debris. Yes. Thank you. So Vermont has two permitted and one active and fill up the state. So New England Waste Services of Vermont and Coventry is the permitted and active landfill. They're permitted for up to, six hundred thousand tons per year. They don't operate at that level. They operate normally at about four hundred and seventy thousand tons per year. There's another landfill in Sheldon, Vermont in Northwest that is permitted but not built. It has a build capacity of twenty thousand, tons per year. Just so folks know, eighty percent of Vermont's waste goes to New England based services of Vermont. Twenty percent goes roughly between New York and New Hampshire. Very little to none goes to Massachusetts. Currently, no out of state mixed solid waste, sort of traditional MSW goes to New England to Coventry. There are other types of waste there like sludge development soils from other jurisdictions. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: As in contaminated development soils. [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: Yeah. Yeah. [Matt Chapman]: So there's often this question of, like, why don't we have more landfills in the state of Vermont? And and, actually, if people really want to dig into it, Vermont Public actually did a really great little podcast, yeah, weeks ago, and I'd encourage people there's a link in the the presentation. You can also go to the Brave Little State site and and take a listen to it, but it it was a good little sort of a a picture on on why we only have one operating landfill. The other is the other reference that I have in here is there's a report that the state did in twenty twenty one where we basically interviewed and looked at. And let me step back. You know, when when we first modernized solid waste management in the state, roughly speaking, in nineteen eighty seven, there were a number of different sort of thoughts around what the future might look like, but it really said a few things. One is is that municipalities are primarily responsible for management of solid waste within their boundaries, and it authorizes municipalities to form things like solid waste districts to help manage that material. And I think it envisioned there being regional landfills built sort of throughout the state to manage waste within this. Our findings based on the conversations that we've had with people from solid waste districts and sort of the regulated entities. Vermont doesn't have enough waste, and modern landfills are too expensive to design to think that you can build smaller regional landfills and have them be anywhere near cost effective. So that's a challenge in in sort of the the sort of diffuse management of landfilling in the state. So that I think is is [Member Rob North]: one of [Matt Chapman]: the challenges. So as you're aware, we've got we have one landfill Coventry. It's basically on phase six of its build out based on its current sort of master plan. It has approximately twenty years of permit. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I'm sorry. [Matt Chapman]: Yes. We're distracted. That's okay. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I'd love to hear your explanation for, you know, why we only have one landfill. Sure. You gave a little you touched on scale. Sure. Are there other reasons? [Matt Chapman]: I think it's I think it's scale. It's largely a it's also an an input issue. Right? We generate, roughly speaking, three hundred and seventy thousand tons of trash four hundred thousand tons of trash a year. In order for a landfill to operate, they need trash. Right? They need to be able to fill and and pay for the landfill cells that they open. And and and, frankly, there's we have made a choice as a state that we're going to try to and maybe this is good for me to take a step back and talk a little bit about how waste gets into landfills in Vermont. So we do have a state planning process. So my my division basically does two things. We permit landfills. We regulate them from an environmental and facility operation perspective, and we do solid waste planning in the state. And as a part of that that planning process, it requires each municipality to have what's called a solid waste, implementation plan. So we basically have a set of statewide, let's call them performance objectives or programs that need to be in place ranging from composting to hazardous waste reduction to recycling goals that we have as a state, and and municipalities need to have a planning process that shows that they're meeting these sort of waste stream. They have programs in place to help meet these sort of larger objectives that we include in the state, solid waste plant. And so the locality comes up with that plan. They provide it to the state to that plan and approve it. Once they have an approved solid waste implementation plan, they can now ship waste to a permitted facility in the state of Vermont. No plan. They can't bring the waste to a Vermont permitted facility. So is it fair to say that [Chair Amy Sheldon]: the solid waste management districts are the vehicle by which our towns do this work? [Matt Chapman]: Largely speaking, yes. So, you know, basically, solid waste management districts are I mean, again, probably a bad analogy, but they're they're like a union of municipalities. Right? They are a municipality in and of themselves. Right? So they're their own sort of legal existence. And and in order to satisfy their obligations to basically manage solid waste within their boundaries, certain municipalities have have elected to form districts. Right? So that district then assumes those responsibilities on behalf of its member municipalities. There are some municipalities that form what we call alliances, and those are basically, more, I think, akin to, like, a regional planning commission where there's still, autonomy amongst the member municipalities, but there's a coordination and planning function that exists by the alliance heads that that sort of coordinate amongst those municipalities. And and, for example, in the Mad River, that that's an example. They have an alliance and not a a district in the Mad River area. And some municipalities go it on their own, and have and just basically handle their planning obligations, as a municipality and don't join the district. And, you know, their examples, Coventry, is an example. Canaan is an example. Those are two that come right off the top of my head, but there are others. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Do you know about how many of them? [Matt Chapman]: I can get an exact number for you. I don't want it. It we have been promoting sort of consolidation. I mean, effectively, trying to get municipalities to work with other municipalities to basically, reduce the cost of services. I mean, stop probably a surprise to this committee that the cost of household hazardous waste collection is one of the things you have to do. It's expensive and a driver, and it it's sort of encouraged municipalities to coordinate and join districts over the past ten or so [Member Chris Pritchard]: years. Okay. So [Matt Chapman]: one permitted facility, we're in phase six. Excuse me. Phase six has approximately twenty years of capacity left. It has three years left on its permit. So three years of its permit life, it'll come in in three years for a new permit, and it accepts eighty percent of the the waste in Vermont. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Sorry. Did you say we're in phase six? Yes. [Matt Chapman]: So if you look at the map, what you're gonna see and and you should feel free to do it. So there's phases one and two, phase three, phase four, and then we jump to phase six. And you may be asking, well, what happened to phase five? Phase five is basically a a a planned element in that the landfill. There are two older online cells that you that preexist. The facility life of of this, there's part of the plan is to basically remove those unlined landfill cells, line them, and then fill them in. That there that that is permitted, but there's not sort of a I'll let Casella talk about where that is in their master planning process. Alright. So getting to where does where does the PFAS come from? And I I sort of put this slide up a lot of the time when we're talking about PFAS inputs into a landfill. But I think this is a good example of of what the the sort of large drivers of PFAS inputs into a landfill are. This is from a study that was done at by NewsVT that was provided to the agency that shows, basically, textiles, carpets, and and bulky waste, which are fur basically furniture, are the largest drivers from a mass perspective of PFAS coming into the landfill. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: You said rugs, furniture? [Matt Chapman]: Rugs and textiles. Textiles. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: It's a Jeep Jeep per day. [Matt Chapman]: Grams. It's grams. It is. So and so it's a I mean, again, I think, you know, we can talk a little bit, like I think it's good to get context around some of this. Right? Like, when you talk about grams per day I mean, so grams per day is the mass. When we talk start talking about concentration. Right? We talk about parts per trillion. And I don't I've never done the conversion as to how what one gram is when you take it and and convert it to but it's probably a lot. Right? So and they're and they're different sort of measurements. Right? So [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Wonder wow. This is I shouldn't bring it up in front of this inquiring committee. No. [Matt Chapman]: That's that's good. I mean this get calculated? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Well, how does this get calculated? Today going into the landfill is obviously an estimate based on how many grams are in a sofa. Right. And is Casella doing that? Or So this was [Matt Chapman]: a report that was done in, I think, twenty eighteen by by Sanborn Head, and it it paid for by Casella, but it was provided to the state. And, you know, again, it's there were several reports that we required as a part of Casella's last permit. One of those was basically both the permit that we're currently the term we're currently in. One of the requirements that we we require was that they look at two on-site and two off-site treatment technologies for PFAS and basically do sort of a a desktop sort of lit review of the viability of PFAS treatment at the landfill, and and they did that. The other was to basically look at the sources or inputs of PFAS into the landfill. And this was a part of it's a incredibly comprehensive report, that that same board had put together about PFAS inputs and PFAS in the landfill. And so, again, happy to provide the link if people really wanna dig in and take a look at at the information that was done. But it's I I think it's a a very helpful and useful report. [Speaker 0 ]: Mhmm. [Matt Chapman]: Yes. We'd be glad to do that. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Yes. Thank you. [Matt Chapman]: So as a result of that, and I think the committee has served for a little bit and and talked about there is a a treatment system on there. It's a surface activated foam fractionation treatment system. And what you basically see is here's a picture of the unit itself from the facility. It's the blue box that's up there. And and, basically, what foam fractionation is and I may defer to Sam, the guy from Casella to talk in more detail about this because he certainly has seen, like, the data and is is much they're in charge of the pilot at the moment. But, basically, foam fractionation, the the raw leachate goes in, air goes into the system, it bubbles, the p fas adheres to those bubbles and attaches to the foam. The foam goes out in basically a a waste stream, and then the effluent is is captured with much less PFAS. The literature values with respect to removal is that there's a ninety nine percent removal value of long chain PFASes. Shorter chain, there there's less removal efficiency. And, again, I think there's a calibration process that goes in, but it's fifty percent or more, removal efficiency for your sort of your sort of shorter chain, PFAS. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: What concentration does that result in in the water for I [Matt Chapman]: haven't I have not seen the data, so maybe, miss Nicole, I can talk about what the data is coming out of the the the treatment process. So there's the effluent. Right? The effluent goes off to the Montpelier wastewater treatment facility to be further treated and discharged or to Glassford, and it's treated and discharged there. And this foam ends up being, I think, cap encapsulated in concrete, and the concrete gets landfilled? It it is placed back in the landfill. So that's basically the summary of what I have for you. I'm not I'm certainly more than happy to ask you or answer any questions that folks have. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you, for that. Representative North. [Member Rob North]: Just just so I understand the question you're asking. So it was given sort of foam that has the VPOS in it is taken out of the SAFS system and put back in on top of the [Matt Chapman]: of the So, basically, it's taken and placed in another tank, and then that tank is basically solidified into concrete blocks and that concrete those concrete blocks are then taken and put back into the landfill. I mean [Member Rob North]: And the stuff doesn't reach out of those concrete blocks. The idea that's Yeah. [Matt Chapman]: The the idea is that it's more stable when it's in the concrete blocks than just putting the the just putting the the foam back into the landfill. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Tagliaveen? [Member Mike Tagliavia]: Two questions. Number one, to follow on representative North's question. [Matt Chapman]: These concrete blocks, they're in the landfill. Are they checked in how often for leaking cracks, stuff like that? So once they're back in the landfill, they're sort of they're there. Right? So there's no sort of observation. They kind of go in with everything else, and they're covered. [Representative Larry Labor]: Covered over. [Matt Chapman]: Right? And so we're certainly having conversations with Casella about best management practices for how to manage this treatment media when it goes back into the landfill to make sure that how it's being managed is managed appropriately. And I guess the other thing, to put out there is just, like, I I think and mister Nikolai could talk about this. Exela is, like, actively looking for a number of different better encapsulation and treatment processes for the fractionate than than solidification and putting it back in the landfill. I mean, I think it's important to understand, maybe just from a a procedural standpoint, we're in a piloting phase. Right? It's another question. You know, it's ask. We're we're very much trying to figure out what treatment technologies work well, and that's both from a treatment, but also from a destruction standpoint. Right? And there are very few ways there are a lot of innovative approaches and innovative technologies that are out there to treat and destroy PFAS. All of them need to be tested in a real world environment, and all of them are incredibly innovative at this point. [Member Mike Tagliavia]: One other question. You said there were two permitted locations, and so only one operational. What is keeping the second permitted location from actually opening and being operable? [Matt Chapman]: So I don't wanna speculate on what their what the Northwest Solid Waste District's reasons are for not opening that landfill. You when you look at the permitted capacity, you know, Coventry has six hundred thousand. They have twenty. I I think, you know, the the cost of building out a modern double line landfill with leachate controls, it's going to be very expensive to build out a twenty thousand ton landfill with with the technologies that are required today. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: What do you see the role of state as in planning for the future of our solid waste management? Well, so one of [Matt Chapman]: the things that we committed to doing in in our state solid waste management plan is starting sort of a public process, pub public dialogue around the future of waste disposal in the state. And the plan is is that we would start that dialogue this summer. We're sort of in this preliminary process of planning, like, what would that look like and how can we bring stakeholders into a process to have a conversation. But, I mean, I think it's important. At least historically, Vermont has always, for the most part, let municipalities and the private sector be predominantly in charge of siding and building landfills. So we don't I guess and I should say siding from a macro, not a micro sense. You know? We don't we don't we certainly if someone wants to build a landfill at a particular property, we'll have conversations about distance to surface waters, distance to wetlands, distance to groundwater, sort of how the facility the geology of the facility, but not sort of whether you should build it in Newport or or Bennington. Right? Those are not conversations that the state has traditionally had a role in. But we did the legislature, I [Chair Amy Sheldon]: believe, asked you to look for appropriate sites in the past, and a number of them were identified. Do I have that right? So [Matt Chapman]: I I don't if if that happened, it happened before I it it happened in the sort of nineteen eighty seven past, not in the the recent past. We haven't we haven't had any sort of landfills kind of process where we went out and looked at where landfills are located. We did we did provide you a report in twenty twenty one that basically said, here's here's sort of here's the why there's only one. Here are the sort of limitations associated with building multiple landfills in the state of Vermont. We have not sort of identified properties that you should build a landfill on. That's not something that we've got. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: And have you looked at how other states deal with this? [Matt Chapman]: Yes. And there's a range of different approaches that other states do. For example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has no permitted landfills in it. Right? They have basically, everything is put on trucks and sent to New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Alabama. They have a pretty large radius of where they're sending their waste and trucking their waste to To the state of Maine has one state owned landfill. There are other states that run incinerators. Maine has more. They have one state owned landfill. They have more landfills than just the one state owned one, but they do have one that's owned by the state [Chair Amy Sheldon]: of Maine. We're getting conflicting information from two trusted resources. Interesting. Follow-up on that. Okay. Well, yeah, we'll we'll follow-up on that. [Matt Chapman]: Oh, there are five waste energy facilities in that? Yeah. There are no land filter. There are waste waste to energy. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Energy facilities owned by the state? [Matt Chapman]: The the in Massachusetts, there are five waste to energy facilities. I don't believe that any of them are owned by the state. Oh, in mass. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: In mass. I was thinking Maine back to me. Yeah. Anyway, was did are you aware that any of Vermont's solid waste gets incinerated? [Matt Chapman]: There may be some small amount of waste in the southern part of the state that's going into Massachusetts or or south, and it's incinerated. I think it's a small, small fraction of the waste that we just [Chair Amy Sheldon]: take. How concerned are you about the twenty year life capacity that's been identified in country? God. [Matt Chapman]: I I guess from two perspectives. I've seen other states basically manage their waste in the absence of there being in state permitted capacity. The one thing that I I will say that I do get concerned about more than anything is that in in state in state disposal capacity is incredibly beneficial when there's a natural disaster and we're dealing with flood debris. You know, in twenty twenty three when there was a significant amount of material in Barrie and Montpelier and and and, frankly, in Ludlow and other places, it was invaluable to the state to have the ability to basically consolidate things to transfer stations and work with Coventry and and DoosVT to make sure that that material got into the landfill. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Yeah. And potentially, it's shortens the life of our landfill. Definitely. Representative Taglia. [Member Mike Tagliavia]: Knowing that we have a housing shortage and we have an affordability crisis, if we, as a legislature, fix those, we're lucky enough to take credit for fixing those, and we do have a housing boom. What will that do to your twenty year window for the land theft? [Matt Chapman]: I mean, I think it's hard to say. I mean, I don't it's that's a function of c and d construction and demolition debris sort of generation. You know, there's a lot of efforts to recycle construction and demolition debris that's generated from especially from new construction sites. Again, it's hard to estimate, like, how many of those those sites are gonna be renovations where you see a, you know, knockdown or significant demolition in advance of. So, I mean, it will it'll shorten it. You know, no more natural disasters will shorten that time frame. I mean, there's a lot of things that put pressure on the capacity at a a landfill. So that's why I think we're gonna start the the dialogue process with the public. But, I mean, again, I think from from some respect, I our role in this process is the state is relatively limited as far as as ensuring that there's additional capacity coming online as far as the landfill is concerned. And we're not advocating to step into the role of being a landfill owner operator. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Back to slide two. I said, do you think possible that MERF residue is the same? Oh, it's all out of state. [Matt Chapman]: It is all out of state. We that is one of the the it is a waste stream that was authorized by the legislature to come in outside of a a planned entity. So there is MERF residue that comes in from other jurisdictions and it's disposed of. MERF is a materials recycling facility for our new members. Yes. [Member Rob North]: I'm sorry. What was it? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Materials recycling facility. Yes. Where's that coming from? [Representative Larry Labor]: You know what? [Matt Chapman]: I may let Casella talk about the Murph Rev residue portion of the stream. It's [Member Chris Pritchard]: yeah. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Okay. Representative Chapin and then Austin. [Speaker 0 ]: Can you just talk about I understand you're not, like, leading on trying to find a site. Some of the solid waste districts do that work. Can you talk about whether it's a solid waste district or Casella or another entity was really looking at a specific site. Could you just take us through a timeline of you know, are we talking about a ten year process to being able to accept new solid waste in a in a new facility, or or is it what what does that timeline look like from the permitting percent? [Matt Chapman]: So I've been involved with the expansion of an existing permit multiple multiple times, and that is a three to five year process. I think that if you were starting to build a new landfill sort of on a a virgin an undeveloped site, I think the timeline would be longer than that three to five year process. Probably considerably longer than that three to five year process. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Representative Austin. Do you know of any emerging technologies in terms of waste disposal or recycling that look, you know, possible? Or [Matt Chapman]: There's a lot of emerging technologies out there, and, you know, we seem to have, like, flyers coming from companies on a daily basis talking about some amazing technology that's going to destroy waste. You know, to some degree, we we certainly are up we try to stay up to date with sort of the emerging treatment technologies, what the emerging contaminants are, how you treat for those emerging contaminants. I think I will probably defer to to Sam to talk about what at the facility they've looked at to pilot or implement. We, you know, we normally start from the standpoint of we're looking at what the contaminants of concern are and what sort of values are acceptable in humans or in the environment, as opposed to trying to look at a technology based approach to dealing with it. Having said that, we're actually looking at a tal technology based approach to treat p fas from the landfills. So in other words, rather than looking at a number at the end of the pipe, we would be looking at a treatment technology as the basis for establishing the the effluent limitations on the the landfill. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Like, there's more there. The the so what does that look like? You mean, like, a sort of an assumption that you're meeting the the treatment needs based on the treatment? [Matt Chapman]: Well, it's an assumption that you applied. And, again, there's there's sort of under the Clean Water Act, there's sort of there are multiple, but there are two primary treatment approaches. There's a technology based effluent limitation and a water quality based effluent limitation. And sometimes you have both. And but, basically, there is no effluent standard, at least at the moment. There are no human health based effluent standards for lead chain that exists right now for and so we are using the data that's being developed at Coventry sort of work. We're going to be analyzing that and coming up with a set of standards based on the highest possible removal efficiencies that we can obtain from from technologies out there. And, again, Pete Laflamme is the director of the watershed management division is the better person to have a conversation about that with. But [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Well and you're gonna say that about my next question. [Matt Chapman]: I think [Chair Amy Sheldon]: it's you. But so how closely do you you're sort of saying we. So you're working closely with Casella. You have staff working with Casella how often in the facility, but then who's monitoring Lakeland from Magog, and how does that information get back to us? Sure. [Matt Chapman]: So Casella or excuse me. New CT has a number of different permits. Right? So they're they're sort of supervised. They have a solid waste permit, an act two fifty permit, a pretreatment discharge permit by the Watershed Management Division, and a title five air permit for the air emissions from both methane and other emissions from the landfill. So there's there's sort of a, frankly, they're they're probably one of the facilities in DEC that touches every permitting well, every major media program that we have. There are surface water monitoring efforts in the both the Black River, the Black River wetland complex, and in Lake Memphremagog that are done by both well, that are monitored by ANR personnel in some instances and through through the ambient water quality monitoring efforts that watershed management does, the context of the in lake mine. But now I'm gonna say that's about the extent of what I know, and Pete can probably give you much more detail on what the results are. But, I mean, in effect, we have not seen values in the lake that show that there's some PFAS source discharging into, like, Infomatic or or the blackbird. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Do members have further questions from mister Chapman? Alright. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Samuel Nikolai. [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: Good afternoon. Welcome. Sam Nikolai. I'm vice president of engineering for Casella Waste. I manage our engineering, permitting, and environmental compliance teams and have for about ten years. Appreciate the opportunity. I'll make a few remarks, I think, about landfill siting and tonnage, then I'm happy to make a few remarks about CANTOS and answer any questions that folks might have. We've talked about that the landfill has about twenty years of capacity remaining permitted. I only add that that's based on an assumption that the waste volume stays pretty close to neutral to today. I'm bullish that that will go down, not up. When I look back in my career and say, well, what did our waste industry look like ten years ago? What did it look like twenty years ago? It's very different. Think back two thousand four, what did our food packaging look like, what did the types of materials that we threw away, what do we do with organics. So the the waste time has stayed fairly constant in recent years, a little bit of bouncing up and down. I would tell you, I hope that we see that go down over time. And that twenty years, ideally, gets stretched into twenty five, into thirty. The comment about c and d is a good one. Right? What happens if we boom and we and we create new ways? So we definitely have to account for those kinds of things. We do the best planning we can, but I I do wanna remind us all, we think the industry is just gonna look a lot different in what we produce as a society and how we manage them twenty years in the future. We do have the one remaining area, the phase five area, which I would tell you could theoretically provide another roughly five years of capacity. It has a few permits, but is not fully permitted. So we don't we don't say that we have that capacity available or that it will definitely be used. That those are those are things that will have to be, you know, evaluated in the future. A couple of comments about other states. Matt made a reference to Massachusetts. I think he meant Connecticut. There are no solid waste landfills in Connecticut. They manage them all by incineration. There are a handful left in Massachusetts. I wanna say four. There hasn't been a new one in many decades. Maine has several landfills. It has two really large landfills, one privately owned, one owned by the state of Maine, and actually operated by us. So we're in the role of of being the operator of that landfill, not the owner of the landfill. And all the other states are are, you know, sort of in different ranges. Rhode Island has a single landfill. New York has, I think, about thirty landfills. So you definitely see differences state to state in terms of of how that grows. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: How many of those do you operate in these adjacent states or in the region? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: SELA owns or operates nine active landfills, five in New York state, one each in Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Maine. Hope I did my math correctly. That should be nine. That's nine. The the VPR episode that Matt referenced, I think, was very well researched, so I would encourage folks to take a look at that. The one thing I would add to that, it does talk a lot about the scale and the financial aspects of that. The other thing I would point to is the expertise aspect of it. There was a time in this country where waste management was a public works department function. And when it was a civil type project, it's just about digging and moving waste. It was perfectly appropriate to be in a public works type scenario. That's not the way it has worked today. And so when I look at the thirty odd staff that work on my team, they include chemists, hydrogeologists, civil engineers, geotechnical engineers. So the amount of expertise that has become required to manage these facilities has dramatically changed. And that's not to say that it can't be done by others, but it becomes a real challenge, whether it's a municipality, whether it's a private company, to bring that level of expertise plus the time, plus the dollars. And so that becomes a simple barrier to entry to produce and and run these kinds of facilities. It's not to say that it couldn't be done. There are states that have mobile landfills. If there were another landfill in the state of Vermont, it would certainly be an option. People ask me, well, would Casella take waste to another landfill that was not owned by Casella? Sure. We would. We do it now. In every other state we operate, we move waste between competitor and our own and municipal facilities. If we don't, somebody will come along and take those contracts from us and take it to wherever it makes the most financial sense. It's time and money and effort. So, you know, waste will move as a commodity like any other commodity, and Cassello is not exempt from any of those rules. So, yes, we manage things vertically at at, you know, having collection, having transfer, having landfill. But at no way does that prevent other facilities from from being permitted and being built. I do think the monetary and the expertise barriers are large and that that makes it difficult for the facilities to be built. But it's not to say that couldn't be done. I'll stop there and see if folks have any questions in regards to tonnage or facilities or the landfill. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you. Representative Weber. Thank you. [Member Kristi Morris]: Is there any consideration that giving to [Member Chris Pritchard]: move the waste that's collected in this part of [Member Kristi Morris]: the state by train to a neighboring state that incinerates. [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: So as an industry, we certainly see a significant increase in rail. We see waste moving from the eastern states out to the western states. You see a lot of waste moving from to rail in Ohio, in Virginia, and even further. That's certainly an area I think is of growth. We don't really see a lot of that in Vermont or a lot of opportunities for that in Vermont. We don't have much of the infrastructure in order to do that. Obviously, the the presence of the facility, you know, provides that outlet where, you know, we've got a facility that can provide that safe and effective means. But when you start thinking about long term planning, rail transport is a huge, you know, part of that, and many of the states are learning that that's part of their solution. We wonder, and and others do whether our rail system is gonna be up to the task of keeping up with those kinds of materials, but it's being done, at certain states, and it's certainly a growing area. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: So the the MRF question, how is it that we're getting out of state MRF into our the Coventry landfill? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: You're getting our MRFs. So that that material is coming from the other recycling facilities that Casella operates in the northeast. So Matt referenced, it's an approved waste material. So we sought approval as to to take that residue and bring it from a transportation standpoint to Coventry as part of a a waste management solution. So we operate recycling facilities in Massachusetts. We operate some in Maine. So they produce fairly small amount of waste, which is typically bailed. That's usually the the way we could handle that. And then we transport the bales. And so that represents a small but important piece of of the waste tonnage that we have gotten approval in order to to be able to manage. Okay? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Where does the MERF residual that may be is created in Vermonka? It goes to Coventry. Oh, I see. On the chart, it seemed like it was all out of state. [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: The the so the material the residue that it comes from the Rutland Murph or comes from the Chittenden County facility would ultimately end up as Coventry as waste. It may not be classified that way on that report. [Member Rob North]: So [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I guess I'm wondering because that number was the same in both columns and set out a state. Maybe reading it right, but [Speaker 0 ]: just wanna get that in. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: What so the thirty employees you mentioned, they are working at all all of these facilities, I assume, not just Coventry. [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: I have a team in Rutland that that works on facilities throughout, and then I have, obviously, folks, as you said, throughout the the footprints. Yes. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: So Rutland's your headquarters. And what are you all doing for planning in Vermont for the future Ketan Tree? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: So we certainly are putting a lot of resources right now into PFAS. That's, you know, part of the the the biggest initiatives all the way up to to John Cassello's level, driving toward, you know, providing solutions there. We do have, you know, the long term planning process of, okay, we had another question. How long is it gonna take to to permit whether it was expansion or a new facility? So we recognize that there will be a need for a landfill in the state of Vermont when Coventry closes, whether that's twenty years or twenty five years or something else. I think it's likely a smaller need. I hope that twenty five years in the future, we're landfilling as a society even less than than we are today. And so that will certainly be in our long term planning. I'll admit it's in the long term. Given I'm twenty, twenty five years out, I think we'll, you know, we're more likely to put much more resources into that in the sort of the ten to fifteen year time frame. And then we'll certainly see what happens. Are we gonna see the waste continue to drop? Are we gonna see it trend upward? What new things are we are we going to see in our industry? Again, in two thousand four, there was no organics recycling. There was no construction, demolition, recycling, no architectural waste. So we think that will will change. But to your point, we very much view we're gonna have to provide a solution for our customers, and that solution is gonna have to be done in time to permit it and to build it. And so I think the company's goals are gonna align with the state's goals in that respect. Why would we not have a solution in order to to match our remaining waste? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: First of questions? Senator Boston. Yep. Sorry. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: It's a lot of questions. Can you foresee, like, how to cut back on the waste or what is going into Coventry now? Can you see in the future? Like, you know, just I assume everything that we recycle gets recycled, gets reused again. So everything that goes to Coventry is can't be recycled. But can you see of how to limit what goes to Coventry, like a different way of producing something or building something or something in terms of so so much is not going to the landfill? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: Yeah. That's a great question. I would start with we're not that great at recycling. I look at my own household trying to get my kids to put the right containers and the right materials and the right bin. And I do this for a living, and I struggle to get my own family to put things where where they belong. And we see it all the time. We see contamination and recycling. We see what we call wish cycling. People want things to be recyclable, but we don't actually have a way to recycle it. So then we get things in the bin that don't have actual solution. So we need to find solutions for that, find ways to to provide more opportunities for that recycling. And a lot of that has to do with the outlet. You can only recycle if I can find a place to take it. So I need industries. I need companies who are willing to use recycled fiber, who are willing to use recycled plastic. The more we say to ourselves, we're only gonna ever use highly bleached white paper, and we're gonna require it to be virgin. We can't use the recycled fiber. And, unfortunately, there's a lot of that still that goes on today. We've gotta get a society to the to the place where we say, we're willing to make these purchase choices. We're willing to buy products or even require us to buy products so that it has recycled percent content. And the state can be a leader in that area, and it's and it states purchasing priorities. Create those markets, and industry and private companies will follow and ensure that those materials fill up those opportunities. Yes. There are other areas for diversion. We can improve our architectural and c and d recycling. There's more that can be done with organics. So, you know, it's not only recycling, but I would I would certainly see that as a major opportunity. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: We've taken up a bill that is a result of the act one thirty one process that happened over the off session that contemplates, putting a limit on the recycled try trying to balance, encouraging recycling of materials with limiting up kind of we're trying to limit the amount of PFAS entering the waste stream. And I wonder if you could provide your perspective on what that that equation because we're gonna be asked to make a decision on, should we just ban PFAS in recycled products because of the health risks, or is it better to reuse something and reclaim that material and reuse it and knowing that at some point, it'll probably enter the landfill? Does that make sense? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: It does. Okay. So you, I, and everybody at this table has got measurable concentrations of PFAS in your blood, and you got it and I got it. We're walking on carpets. It's sitting on fabrics and using, like, a microwave popcorn containers. We didn't get it from a landfill. We got it because we chose as a society. So I'm a huge advocate of we've got to stop flow at the source. I'm already going to be serving customers for the next twenty years as everybody gets rid of all their carpets and fabrics. So, yes, we gotta have a solution on the back end to manage that because the landfill's gonna see PFOS containing materials for decades to come. But we've gotta stop it on the front end and get that materials from not being produced anymore and being able to manage it in an an appropriate way. And that's a great start is to say, we wanna extend the band. We want manufacturers to be accountable for where this material comes from. You know, we've got this partial band that is in many ways voluntary. You don't have the same requirements internationally. So, you know, Matt referenced that twenty eighteen report. I I think most of us were shocked when we said we've sampled all these materials, and ninety five percent of them have got PFAS in it. That's crazy. We had no idea in twenty eighteen that was the case. So I don't know if I've answered your question, but I would strongly support ways that we can hold manufacturers and others accountable. It's saying stop using this material, and, really, let's let's have some stringent standards for when the PFAS material that we do have can be used and and and what products. We gotta avoid food we gotta avoid food packaging, things like that. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: That's that would be very helpful. My question extends to what do we allow in recycled products and whether it's better to get that PFAS all out now, or is it better to recycle something knowing there could be PFAS in it, but it's gonna go into something that is not a food product? But I think I'm hearing you say we need to get it out of the we need to get out of our our rooms, our daily lives. [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: We do. There's gonna be a practical nature of almost everything's got some level of concentration. So are we willing to accept small levels? Because then we can take that recycled material and make plastic lumber or park benches or or things like that that aren't food products, that aren't gonna have that level exposure? I think you're going to have to draw the line somewhere because we can't shut down our recycling system. We can't say we're we're not gonna recycle all the plastics that we have because we're concerned that they're gonna have PFAS in them. But we've got to avoid, as you said, the food products, the food packaging, find ways to to reduce those exposures. I think that if you limit, you know, either by quantity or concentration and I don't envy that because how how do you do that? How do you find that that solution? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: And in the yeah, textiles people are, you know, increasingly trying to use recycled material to make textiles or clothing even. And, you know, you're just pointing out many of us have this in us from being in contact with textiles. [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: I could just add. I I I'm incredibly proud that the company has done the work to put the PFAS treatment in, and I hope that you would be too. The number of landfills in this country who have some level of PFAS treatment is really, really low. We're talking maybe a dozen facilities, many of which are, part time or still in in pilot type work. We've got our own pilot work to be done, but the system is running, and the system is treating a hundred percent of the lead sheet that's being generated by Coventry, and we're removing it. We talked about it's going in the concrete. We view that as a short term solution. We think the destruction technologies are gonna come along. And in another couple of years, there's gonna be ways to destroy those compounds, and we support those types of of treatment technologies. But most of those are still lab scale or not proven commercial technologies. So we think there's a couple more years. You know, being able to separate it up now and get it into the solid form and get to the landfill is not perfect, but it's a a hundred percent better solution than not doing anything at all. And I make the same comment in regards to that technology effluent. Yes. It's a little bit weird to say we're gonna set limits based on what the technology is going to achieve. But the alternative is do nothing and wait for somebody to promulgate standards. And seven years later from the initial conversations that we had with the agency in twenty seventeen, there are still no state and no federal standards for what we can discharge. So if we waited and did nothing, we would be no further along. So I applaud the state's leadership in saying, we're not gonna wait. We're gonna do something. Something is better than nothing. And I think we as a as a society and as a state should be proud that we've made these steps. It's not the final solution. There's more work to be done. We all recognize that. But it's a good interim step, and I think and I hope that this committee will recognize that there's value that's being provided there. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Can you give us a sense thank you. We do. I just wanna acknowledge that. And then can you give us a a sense of how much concrete is being created? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: It's fairly small. So we produce in the neighborhood of fifty to seventy five gallons a day. And so you're mixing concrete in a a fairly small container, so a a few yards a day. So it's not significant in terms of the quantity or the tonnage. We can do it, you know, two to three times a week and be able to then take it up to the to the workplace. And that was that actually informed the the choice of the technology that we chose. There were others that would have produced a much higher volume of foam, and it would we've been challenged to be able to manage that level of foam. But the choice of technology allowed us to reduce that amount and keep that at a very manageable level. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: The foam the PFAS? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: The foam is still eventually a liquid. Right? The the foam it creates a foam. It's heavily concentrated in PFAS, and then the foam collapses and gets back down to a liquid. So now you just have a very high concentrated liquid that's got a lot of PFAS in it, but that's what allows us then to mix it with concrete and and seal it into those blocks. But is the foam itself a PFAS that's attracting a PFAS? No. The foam is simply a a very small portion of the landfill leachate liquid form that because we're making it so bubbly, the PFAS likes to hang out those bubbles. We're driving the PFAS to hang out on the bubbles. And then when the bubbles collapse, we have this highly concentrated problem. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Off the bubbles. [Representative Larry Labor]: And [Chair Amy Sheldon]: and so I see there's other questions, but I'm gonna just finish up and to ask about there's a a bill on the wall related to pilot programs for PFAS removal. Are you, well, able to comment on your role in that or interest in that? Or and are you looking for different technologies, or do you think, like, this you're satisfied with the one you have? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: We're supportive of that, Bill. Absolutely. The the way we view it is is kind of what I said earlier. There are destructive technologies that we want to be able to evaluate. And what I think we learned along with, I hope, the agency as well was it was difficult to permit, you know, a a technology that doesn't have a huge track record that we're still trying to figure out exactly how it's going to work. And I have, I think, four different permits for that facility. So the idea of of creating a system where we can at least evaluate technologies, we're limiting the time frame, so it can't go on forever. I believe the bill says it can only be for a year, but it creates basically this opportunity to evaluate technology without having as many, I'll call them hoops to jump through, which you're going to have to jump through again eventually in the long term. There's no question that you will. You gotta get all those permits eventually. But to even evaluate the technologies and see how it really functions, how it works, how it manages in Vermont's climate, we very much view that bill as a a great solution to to enhance that that goal. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: And you would use it to try something entirely different than what you're doing? Yeah. [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: Probably, we would use it to supplement what we have now. So is there another step that we could take to even better concentrate the PFAS? Can it be a can we take the foam out? Can we destroy the PFAS in the foam instead of mixing it with concrete? Could we pretreat the leachate and get some benefit before going into the foam fractionation? So we think of it as, hey. There are opportunities around technology that we've already selected. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Chapin and then Tom Nubian. [Speaker 0 ]: In the way you're managing it now and that home is getting capsulated and then landfilled, is that accessible down the road if there was a technology that enabled you to then take it out and destroy it as you're suggesting might come down the road? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: In the short answer, it would be no. As you as you filled the the landfill, as the roughly fifteen hundred tons comes in, we we lose access to to those materials. And now they'll always be encapsulated within the facility. So we're very confident that even if the leaching is not a hundred percent, if we lose a little bit coming out of the concrete, it goes right back in the loop. We capture it and treat it. We don't wanna wash. Like, we can't be recycling PFAS round and round and round. But if every concrete block captures ninety, ninety five percent of the material, I'll happily manage that five percent coming back around. And that's a great solution, especially in the short term. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Tanley, yes. [Member Mike Tagliavia]: I think you answered my question. [Member Rob North]: Representative Chen, pretty much had the same question. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Norvkin. [Member Rob North]: More basic recycling question different than the Pete's last line of question. And I get asked this by constituents that are now events, which is just in general. In in the mixed recycling that we do here [Matt Chapman]: in Vermont, we throw everything in [Member Rob North]: the blue bins. How much of that how efficient is that process? How much of that that goes in the blue bin actually gets recycled, and how much gets landfilled? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: So the, residual percentage at the MRFs, and that's really what that is. Like, how much material that comes in the front doors of that MRF doesn't actually go into the recycling streams and creates that that residue. It's roughly ten percent, give or take. [Member Rob North]: Only ten percent is is waste out of the recycling. The other ninety percent actually gets recycled. [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: And I I know everybody's time demands are tough, but if the committee can can find time for a field trip, going to see the MRF is high on the list. I think for most people, it's eye opening exactly how much technology goes into and how successful we are in actually sorting all these materials. And kind of to the to the earlier question, that's a great opportunity. Technology is gonna continue to advance. We've started looking at robotics. We've started looking at new ways to get even better with that. Now in a way, the better we get at cleaning up our recycling, the higher the residue gets because we find more material that actually can't be recycled. So there's value to that. But the reality is that this was never supposed to be in that stream to begin with. So when people put a battery in their recycling bin or they put a piece of wood because they don't wanna see it go to the landfill, that can't be recycled. And so that's the solution we gotta get at the front end. Can't solve that at the back end. [Member Rob North]: And just follow-up question then is, it is it true then that one hundred percent of the blue bin, recycled material collected in Vermont actually goes to these, Vermont MERF, site facilities and gets recycled? It doesn't just somehow end up going somewhere else in Delphi? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: Absolutely. A hundred percent of all the blue material must go to recycle the facility, and the state would absolutely enforce an action on us to do that. I will point out that there are split body trucks, meaning the trucks has two containers [Representative Larry Labor]: on it. [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: So it is possible that in your community, you can get material picked up, recycling, and waste, and it's on the same truck. We get asked all the time, I saw them. They put my recycling in their garbage truck. No. It's a a split buy truck. It's got two containers. But a hundred percent of the blue bin material goes to a MRF, and it can't go anywhere else. [Member Rob North]: Thank you, sir. I should ask that question briefly. Yeah. Nice to have a nice firm answer. Go ahead. Appreciate it. Thanks. [Speaker 0 ]: Okay. Hi, Morris. [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: Hi, Neil. Hey, Neil. [Speaker 10 ]: Thank you for coming in. And and, I I am one that, is full support of Casella and the efforts that you you have in undertaking. And my question is similar to to, representative Norris, sort of. And that is, I participate in recycling at in my community, and I know the trash goes in the trash bin. And I know there are tons of people that, everything goes in the trash, that that they don't recycle or separate under at the, burst. So my my question is, I know it gets landfilled just the same. Is that PFAS or the that those materials, if they go into the landfill, is is are we to assume that the, the PFAS is being captured in the leachate then? And and that's how so there and my fear is it's public education and and trying to get people to sort and dispose of it in the proper bins so it does get recycled correctly. But I know there's so much of it that just goes in the trash. And so I'm concerned. I always think what it just seems like such a waste. It's on the it's on the front end, but people aren't taking advantage of it. Is that material when it goes to Coventry and gets landfill, is is are those waste components or chemicals being captured in that leachate? Is that what we're left with? So [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: one of the studies that we did was to try, in addition to to characterizing the concentrations and all those materials, we're very fortunate in Vermont. We have this robust waste study. So Vermont can tell you how many couches get thrown away, how much how many fabrics. So we tied those two things together. We said we know how much waste is coming in. We know how much PFAS is coming in on those waste, and we know how much PFAS is going out of the leachate. So I can measure it. Our best estimate is somewhere between ninety and ninety five percent of the PFAS stays in the waste. So it's sitting in the landfill, not coming out of there. What you see in the leachate is only five to ten percent. Does that five to ten percent have to be managed effectively? Absolutely. And that's the reason for the treatment, for the technology. But as a solution to manage those waste materials, the landfill provides that encapsulation and ensuring the vast majority of that mass stays right where it needs to be. Let's get it out at the front end. Manufacturers stop using it. Let's consumers, let's make better choices about the materials we buy. But to the extent that we have to manage it, it's being encapsulated within the landfill. So it's [Speaker 10 ]: safe to assume that that landfill then will be in operation at least for leachate processing for many years after landfills closed? [Assistant Samuel Nikolai]: The federal and state law requires us at a minimum to run the landfill and monitor the landfill for thirty years after the closure of the landfill. And there is no get out of jail free card on the thirtieth year. If it's still producing leachate and still have to be managed, that Casella is still on the hook. And that could however long that takes, thirty five, forty, fifty years. That's that's the law. My community owns one of those Superfund sites that's still paying that. Well, that's very similar. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Yeah. Further questions? Thank you so much for joining us. I'm sure we'll ask to talk with you again. Thank you. Right, members, we have the break and then we're gonna do some bill introductions. Not missing something in my end. Yeah.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Environment-2025-02-11-1:15PM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: