Longtime Northeast Kingdom resident Henry Coe recalls taking his “worst” trash to Nadeau’s dump in Coventry in the 1960s: “I would bring kerosene and paint. I was part of the problem. I was poisoning a river. If you’re as old as I am, we all used to do that.”

Times have changed, says Coe, who is now secretary of the citizens group DUMP (Don’t Undermine Memphremagog’s Purity).

Today, that dump has grown into a 78-acre landfill, operated by Casella Waste Systems. The only operational landfill in Vermont (dubbed Mount Casella by locals), it sits on a 627-acre parcel that abuts wetlands and, most importantly, the Black River, which empties into Lake Memphremagog, the drinking water source for 185,000 Quebecois.

About 70 percent of the state’s trash ends up there, mostly from the northern two-thirds of the state. Every day, approximately 100 trucks bring waste to the landfill, dumping over a half million tons of waste annually. Another 25 percent is trucked from other states (N.Y., Mass., R.I., N.H., Conn.), much of it contaminated soil, medical waste, coal ash, sludge, asbestos, and construction debris.

In summer 2017, Casella applied for a permit to add a 51-acre expansion to its current operation. According to Casella, it is not seeking to expand the capacity of the landfill but to increase its longevity, and it has not requested an increase in the amount of waste it can receive. In early October, Casella received preliminary approval from the state for its request. However, Casella still must clear the Act 250 permitting process and receive a wastewater permit.

The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), of the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), is requiring both Casella and the state to collect more data. The DEC must develop surface water standards for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalky substances (PFAS). PFAS, which were used for water- and stain-resistant products and nonstick cookware, among other uses, have been phased out in the United States, but these “forever chemicals” continue to persist in the environment and can cause negative health effects, such as liver damage and kidney disease.

Casella will have to test PFAS levels in the landfill’s wastewater or leachate and explore options for pretreating the leachate to lower the PFAS levels. Leachate—or, as some call it, “garbage juice”—forms from rain and snowmelt percolating through the landfill to the bottom, where it is collected in pipes and holding tanks built into the mound.

Concern over the leachate contaminating the water supply prompted more than a hundred citizens from Vermont and Quebec to attend a public awareness hearing in Newport on September 10. Over 70 percent of Lake Memphremagog’s 31 miles are in Canada. Its watershed, however, is primarily in Vermont. Four rivers, the Clyde, the Black, the Barton, and the Johns, empty directly into the lake on the US side. Two of these, the Black and the Clyde, are located next to the landfill and are the primary concern of citizens on both sides of the border. Testing in August that revealed elevated levels of PFAS chemicals in the groundwater near an unlined, closed portion of the landfill only served to amplify concerns.

At the hearing, organized by DUMP, a panel of representatives from the ANR, Quebec’s Memphremagog Preservation, and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) laid out their positions related to Casella’s application to expand the landfill. Casella management was invited to be a panelist but declined to attend. Those attending aired a number of concerns, which the DEC later addressed, point by point, in a responsiveness summary, available online. Altogether, 70 formal comments received during the official comment period either questioned or opposed the landfill expansion. One comment was in favor of the expansion.

Citizens expressed concern that Casella was doing its own testing for PFAS in the leachate, and they requested independent, third-party testing of all samples taken prior to treatment and also after the leachate is treated at wastewater facilities. In the responsive summary, the DEC’s Solid Waste Management Program noted that in January 2018 it had contracted an “independent environmental consultant for PFAS sampling of landfill leachate and wastewater treatment facility influent, effluent and sludge,” with the results summarized and available online.

Over 12 million gallons of leachate were recovered from the landfill in 2018. Casella estimates that the expansion could generate an additional seven million gallons of leachate a year. Casella vice president Joe Fusco said, in a August 8, 2018, Seven Days article (“Should Vermont’s Only Landfill Get Bigger?”), that “leachate from the landfill is not going to make it into the lake,” citing the two layers of heavy plastic liners, separated by 18 inches of soil, and test wells that, he said “would catch any kind of leak, so to speak, from the landfill well in advance of any kind of environmental damage.”

CLF attorney Jen Duggan disagrees. “We need a full investigation to see if the lined areas are leaking, testing the groundwater, and ensuring there’s a plan in place to clean up the lined and unlined areas that test for metals and contaminants,” said Duggan. “Liners are not fail-proof and … will deteriorate over time. This waste is going to stay in the ground for a long time.” The EPA has also stated that at some point all landfill liners will leak.

The recovered leachate is trucked to wastewater treatment sites, such as in Newport and Montpelier. These inorganic toxic chemicals, together with heavy metals, pass through the treatment facilities and are released as effluent into state waters.

How did Vermont come to rely on a single, privately owned and operated landfill?

Until the passage of Act 78 in 1987, most Vermonters’ trash ended up in unlined town or municipal dumps. In the wake of Act 78 over 400 landfills around the state closed, but many of which were closed without any remediation. Act 78 requires liners for all new landfills and systems to collect and treat leachate. The Act also established a state Solid Waste Management plan and set up the Solid Waste Districts.

As Vermont shut down this unregulated and potentially hazardous and loose system of trash disposal, the solid waste sector shifted toward privatization and consolidation. We have gone from 50 municipal and 14 privately owned landfills in 1989 to a single private business today: Casella’s New England Waste System. Inevitably, a divide between public safety, public accountability, and private sector profit has arisen. Private business profits from the amount of trash hauled and dumped at the expense of reduction, reuse, and recycling. This move away from public to private waste management lies at the heart of most citizens’ concern over Casella’s expansion.

State Oversight Limited

Chuck Schwer, director of ANR’s Solid Waste Management and Prevention Office, and Cathy Jamieson, ANR’S manager of the Solid Waste Division in the DEC, are quick to point out that they have no oversight or influence in where landfills are sited. That is a private sector decision.

The largest barrier preventing communities from investing in a local or regional landfill is the cost. Federal rules don’t allow communities to “control the flow,” meaning they can’t require that their waste stays in their community because that prohibits the free flow of commerce for private business. So, for example, if Casella controls the routes, they will transport the trash to Coventry, bypassing any regional landfill they don’t own. A community could have an approved site and all the permits they need but not be able to get the trash they need to break even on their investment. Private enterprise rules.

Jamieson oversees regulated facilities and ensures they meet the state’s solid waste rules. Her office also promotes programs, with the Solid Waste Districts, that reduce waste and toxicity like universal recycling, and diverting materials from the landfill, like public collections for old electronics, paints, batteries, and items containing mercury. Her focus is keeping more waste, especially organics, out of the waste stream.

When I asked if there was a state plan for diversifying and becoming less dependent on a single, privately owned landfill, both felt that question was beyond their purview and belonged with the legislature and the administration.

Meanwhile, DEC is working with other states to figure out what can be done about toxins in the leachate, especially PFAS. This is an area where the EPA is not doing much, so states are left on their own to figure it out, including determining safe drinking water standards. Both Schwer and Jamieson emphasized that options for treating and breaking down toxic waste is a major expense issue. They hope Casella will either invest in a wastewater facility to treat these toxic leachates, or at least do a cost analysis.

Another key party in opposition to the landfill expansion is Memphremagog Conservation, Inc., (MCI). MCI president Robert Benoit reminded the audience at the September public forum that Vermont and Quebec signed an Environmental Cooperation Agreement on Managing the Waters of Lake Memphremagog in September 1989, which was updated in 2001. Improving the lake’s water quality is a primary objective of the agreement and at the core of Canadians concerns about the impact of the landfill expansion on their drinking water, which comes directly from the lake.

Benoit’s organization has been working on cleaning up Lake Memphremagog for over 50 years. MCI asked why Vermont stopped testing the water going into the lake in 1994, and asked that whatever gets treated and released into the lake be tested for chemicals. “In a river we say dilution is the solution to pollution but in a lake there is no dilution—and it builds up.” MCI wants Vermont to live up to its commitment to keeping the lake water potable for the Quebecois.

Duggan pointed out the unlined landfill areas are already leaking pollution into the groundwater and it is known there are PFAS in those areas. DEC’s Jamieson acknowledged the levels of PFAS in those areas to be in excess of the drinking water standards which is 20 parts per trillion (ppt). The unlined area identified registered 116 ppt of PFAS. Jamieson stated that ANR will likely require additional testing to determine whether that contaminated groundwater is moving farther away from the unlined landfill.

Duggan also asked the state to fully implement Vermont’s recycling law in order to determine what capacity we actually need: “This is a massive expansion that will allow more dumping for another 22 years. Let’s implement our composting and recycling laws before we authorize expansion.” She stressed Vermont’s ability to reduce its waste stream, pointing out that Vermonters reduced waste by 40,000 tons between 2014 and 2016.

Duggan also noted a recent state study finding that 67 percent of our total waste could have been recycled or composted, making it clear that diverting waste from the landfill could easily reduce our need for additional landfill space. Other environmental groups, including Vermont Natural Resources Council, VPIRG, the Toxics Action Center, Clean Water Action, and Vermont Conservation Voters, all agree with CLF that Vermont should proactively implement recycling and composting programs before expanding landfill capacity for more waste.

The next step in the permitting process for expanding the landfill is the Act 250 review, conducted by the District 7 Environmental Commission in St. Johnsbury. DUMP, MCI, and the City of Newport have requested party status in those proceedings. On October 28, DUMP spokesperson, Charlie Pronto submitted an official request to the District 7 Environmental Commission for party status in the Act 250 hearings. As of the date of this article, DUMP had not been notified of its status.

Meanwhile, to demonstrate their strong opposition to the ANR approving Casella’s application to expand, the Newport City Council voted unanimously to discontinue taking any leachate from the landfill at their wastewater plant until the leachate can be proven safe from PFAS. The city council with Mayor Paul Monette also sent a letter to the Act 250 District 7 Environmental Commission indicating their opposition to the landfill expansion. Coe called this a courageous vote for Newport: “Knowing it would increase taxes, they acted on behalf of future generations and in keeping with the city’s promise ‘to cherish this lake.’”

Newport’s four million gallons of leachate will, however, now have to be trucked to other wastewater plants that Casella has contracts with, like Montpelier, Burlington, and Plattsburg, New York. But Coe hopes Newport’s bold action will send a strong message to the other communities taking the landfill’s leachate and inspire their education and solidarity in the interests of public and environmental health.

Researching this crucial environmental topic has been an eye-opener for me. Although I lived in the Northeast Kingdom for many years and remember well the days when Nadeau’s landfill was where we took our household garbage, I had no idea that today, two-thirds of Vermont send their trash to this single, for-profit landfill on the shores of one of Vermont’s most spectacular natural wonders, a deep glacier lake that connects us to our Canadian neighbors to the north.

How will this expansion affect Vermont’s recycling goals? By expanding the landfill’s capacity and lifespan, how much are we weakening our mandate to ban disposal of all food waste by July 2020 and subverting our Universal Recycling Law? The legislature has already approved a one-year suspension of the mixed paper disposal ban and pushed back compliance dates for organics collection (see WasteDive’s, Dive Brief by Cole Rosengren, June 14, 2018) Can economic and environmental interests find mutual ground and common cause? Stay tuned for more next issue on how this all plays out. And contact your legislators to ask questions, share your thoughts and ideas, and put this issue front and center this session.