Several environmental groups are calling on the state’s Agency of Natural Resources to take enforcement action against Casella Waste Systems — the company that owns Vermont’s only operating landfill, located in Coventry — alleging it violated conditions of its water quality permit.
In recent weeks, Casella has begun operating a pilot project designed to remove PFAS, a harmful class of chemicals, from its leachate. While the environmental groups have commended the project’s goals, they allege that Casella moved the project forward without final approval from the state, and without giving the public a chance to weigh in.
The Conservation Law Foundation, Vermont Natural Resources Council and national Massachusetts-based nonprofit Just Zero have filed a demand letter to the Agency of Natural Resources, asking the agency to require Casella to stop operating the system, penalize Casella and reestablish the procedure outlined in the permit.
Jeff Weld, a spokesperson for Casella, called the claims “baseless” on Thursday.
The landfill’s leachate — liquid waste that is produced when rain percolates through the system, or when trash decomposes — is trucked to the Montpelier wastewater treatment plant, where it’s treated and later discharged into the Winooski River.
But Montpelier’s treatment plant, like most other facilities in the country, is not capable of removing PFAS, which enters the waterway and eventually ends up in Lake Champlain. To remove the chemicals from the system, Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources set a requirement in 2022 for Casella to remove the chemicals from the leachate before it is trucked to Montpelier.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are found in many consumer products, from carpets to rain jackets to pots and pans, that end up in the landfill. Often called “forever chemicals” because they take thousands of years to break down, PFAS are linked to a range of harmful health impacts, such as reproductive issues and cancers.
The first step of the state’s requirement is for Casella to build a pilot project so the company could test one of several PFAS-removal technologies and monitor its success. If the project didn’t work well, the state could require Casella to design a different system.
The state’s requirements for the pilot project are included in one of Casella’s operating permits that relates to water quality. In April, Casella submitted its plan for the project to the Agency of Natural Resources in the form of a request to amend its permit. The agency responded with comments and revisions, but has not formally approved the permit.
“The next step would have been for NEWSVT to make those changes and resubmit the proposed Pilot Plan, which the Agency would then review and put on notice for public comment as an amendment,” environmental groups stated in the demand letter to the Agency of Natural Resources on Thursday. NEWSVT is the acronym for New England Waste Services of Vermont, owned by Casella.
The permit states that Casella’s plan “shall be treated as an application to amend the permit, and therefore, shall be subject to all public notice, hearing, and comment provisions in place at the time the plan is submitted that are applicable to permit amendments.”
Instead, the environmental groups allege that Casella began operating the facility without receiving final approval.
“It’s disturbing and honestly shocking to see a major corporation showing such disregard for the law and robbing the public of their right to inform a treatment system that has huge environmental and public health consequences,” said Nora Bosworth, a staff attorney for Conservation Law Foundation’s Zero Waste project.
Bosworth cited a communication between her and a member of the Agency of Natural Resources’ staff, Amy Polaczyk, who confirmed to Bosworth in May that the “amended permit will go on public notice for 30 days and comments can be made at that time.” Bosworth shared the emails with VTDigger. The environmental organization had planned to submit comments on the pilot project.
Weld, Casella’s spokesperson, said the environmental groups’ claims are “just another example of continued attempts to oppose any work that NEWSVT performs to manage solid waste effectively for the citizens and businesses of Vermont.” He said the pilot project is fully permitted under solid waste permits and Act 250 permits.
“Both permitting processes included extensive public comment periods prior to the issuances of the permits,” he wrote in an emailed response to a request for an interview. “The January 2023 Pretreatment Permit outlines criteria for pilot testing of treatment technology, but does not mandate or control leachate treatment requirements.”
Pete LaFlamme, director of the watershed management division at the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is housed in the Agency of Natural Resources, said his department is evaluating Casella’s actions.
He said there are “two things going on at once.” Casella is “getting the system up and running in advance of a pilot study,” and the state is “moving forward with the same process of public comment, release of the pretreatment permit that requires them to operate the pilot, and monitoring a number of different aspects about the pilot, and then evaluation of that data as it comes in.”
Casella is operating its pilot project at its own risk, LaFlamme said, because the state could require it to make changes after fully reviewing the permit and public comments. The state has not decided to take enforcement action against Casella, though LaFlamme said the state will inspect the site in the coming days and determine whether it is violating any of its permits.
Bosworth said pieces of the pilot plan raised concerns for her organization. Casella proposed, and is now using, a technology called foam fractionation, in which the PFAS chemicals collect on the surface of gas bubbles that form a foam, which is later separated from the rest of the substance, creating a product that is heavily concentrated with PFAS.
“What was, and is, Casella going to do with the leftover, PFAS-filled foam that comes out of that technology system?” Bosworth said. Some disposal methods, such as burning the residuals, can have negative public health outcomes.
The pilot plan “does not include any air monitoring of PFAS post-treatment, even though evidence shows this treatment technology sends PFAS emissions into the atmosphere,” the organization wrote in its demand letter.
“These are all questions that went unanswered in the pilot plan that the public had a right to weigh in on,” she said.
Asked whether the state would, at this point, require Casella to change the technology it’s using for the pilot project based on the state’s review and public comments, LaFlamme said it could.
