 All right, everybody, thank you for coming back. It is 10 to 12 on our clock. And we are taking into this about that H244, which is our bill related to authorizing the natural organic reduction of human remains. And we have with us today Warren Hibbert from OPR. We'll come back, Warren. We have Bob Burke from Veterans Affairs. And I see Chris Bermoud who's been very patient here, to witness this testimony. When we last took this up, we had heard from Chris and from Patrick Healy. We had gotten an email, we had requested the Department of Health for testimony, but they chose not to testify. They did say that whatever came out of this bill that they would be in a position for dealing with whatever regulations they had to set up, it seems like a real hands-off. I'd like to see if we can get them on record for saying that, but outside of an email. So we have an email on record. But Lauren had expressed a desire to testify on this because OPR has an interest in licensing part of this or discussing the ins and outs of this. So I will turn the microphone for Lauren. Welcome back. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me for the record. My name is Lauren Hibbert. I'm the Director of the Office of Professional Regulation. And we do have an interest in organic natural reduction. On whole, we support innovation in our regulated professions. We want to support innovation. We want to encourage scope expansion and growth in the way that programs are operating. And I've been in front of this committee so much. It almost feels like I don't need to give an overview of what we do, but we exist to protect the public. So as long as the public is protected, we can generally support growth. And for funeral service specific to natural organic reduction, we do think that we can protect the public with this new program. We think that it can be safely regulated and should be made available to consumers who would prefer that type of disposition. We have been in communication with the Department of Health about the parts that impact them. We've also conferred with the Funeral Directors Association, which we just appreciate those collaborations. Obviously the history of funeral services has been either burial or cremation. And natural organic reduction is not the first alternative form of disposition that's been authorized. This body incorporated alkaline hydrolysis, which is an environmentally responsible chemical disposition of disillusion rather of remains, but it is still a disposition method. And when that statutory authority and that whole program was added, the definition of crematory was amended to include alkaline hydrolysis, the definition of crematory establishment. And that's in 26, VSA 1211A1. It was also, there was corresponding amendments adding the service to a limited services establishment. And today, a crematory establishment can offer alkaline hydrolysis. It's our understanding that none have, but that doesn't mean that they can't. They can at this point, it's just the marketplace has not made that switch. We would support, as I've said, adding natural organic reduction as a method of disposition, but we would ask that we do it in a different way that the statute be worked on. I would wanna work with Ledge Council so that we can take what has been previously called crematory establishment and cremation and make it disposition and then put endorsements on the disposition that's non-embalming. So alkaline crematory and natural organic reduction because there's going to be new methods of disposition that continually keep coming. And if we just keep adding, it's really just a practical thing. If we keep adding different forms of burying people or disposing of people, then we are going to create a statutory confusion and quite, I mean, this bill is quite long and it's because it's modifying so much of the language. And we think that it'd be possible to do fewer modifications in the future when the next type of burial comes to fruition. So we'd like to modify what, I'm sorry, I just need to switch to my notes here. We'd like to modify what is currently a crematory establishment and make it a disposition facility and then use endorsements or specialties on that title for crematory, alkaline and natural organic reduction. And I'm happy to answer questions about that, but from an operations standpoint, that would help OPR and perhaps Marketplace. Thank you. Thanks for being here. This is quite complex, especially if you don't know much about this industry. So the personnel who work at this industry are licensed. Is that correct? That is. We regulate the business and the individuals in this profession. And by regulating the business, does the business also have to have a type of license? Yes. Okay. And if the business and the individual working at the business needed to expand, would they have to get additional licenses? No. Well, currently the way the bill is drafted, yes, but the way that I'm proposing an amendment, no, they would just apply for a new specialty on their license, but they would still hold the same license. That's what I thought you were getting at. Okay. And will you provide or have you provided? Yes, you have provided a warning for that. Yes, it would be a disposition facility. Okay. Did you submit anything to our committee? I thought I saw you on here, but I guess I don't under documents. You did not submit. I have not submitted anything. I can if the committee would like, but more what I would like to do is be able to work with Lodge Council to work through what an amendment would look like if this committee was open to it. But I didn't wanna begin that work, which will be substantial unless this committee was open to that work because we can implement the program as this bill is written. I just think statutorily, linguistically, there's a simpler way to do it and a way to build it for the future, not just for this particular issue. Thank you. Lauren, in a case where we would make a general phrase disposition facility and then have endorsements, I'm assuming, I know I shouldn't, but I'm assuming that the language would be written in such a way that if you start with three, if you start with crematory alkaline hydrolysis and natural reduction, that there might be the language of my follow is or any other method that, anticipating that other methods may be developed over time. I mean, that's what you're trying to address here. But if it was that broad, we wouldn't have to keep coming back and adding the simple names even to these as an add-on. I mean, we're trying not to come back with this. I think that you still, I don't think that you would want, let me rephrase, let me stop. I would not recommend that you just allow every type of burial as they come up. I would recommend that disposition facility include crematories, alkaline hydrolysis. That word is so hard for me, alkaline. I know, I know, I know. And natural organic reduction and that that list be amended in future sessions when the next type of burial practice or disposition practice arises, which we know will happen, innovation happens. But I do think that burial and disposition are important. They have health ramifications. They have moral ramifications. They have space ramifications and cemeteries. I think, and those are just the three that come off the top of my head. And you have others here with you that are experts in this industry and I am not one. So I just think that this is a conversation that when the next form of disposition or burial arises, the legislature should contemplate it and should make sure that the public can be kept safe, that it's being done in an appropriate way. So I wouldn't recommend an open door. I would recommend a defined list that can be amended in future sessions. Good, no, that's good, thank you. Any further questions for Lauren at this time? So the question that you have for us is to contact our legislative council to give permission. So just if I was not able to come on the day that you previously had scheduled testimony, I don't wanna hold you up, but I wanted, this is my recommendation. This is the change that I will continue to want. And I just wanted to engage with the committee on timing and how do you want me to do this and just trying to engage with it. The time is now, I mean, it's this bill thus far, it still needs review, it still needs to be scoured a little bit. We had to make choices if we wanna go to a 50 page bill or a five page bill, because I know that Katie had mentioned that just because she was in the bill, too is updating some other language as well. But I'm inclined to, I'll send an email to Katie and you to just sort of say, if you wanna connect, because now we haven't started markup on this yet. So now would be the time to contemplate that particular change. So if it's okay with the committee, I'll just send a note to our attorneys to make that connection. I appreciate it. Okay, go ahead. All right, thank you, Laura. Can I just say one more thing? I just wanna be clear that this change would not require any crematorium or industry that offers crematory services to change their name, to change their advertising. We would define disposition services as crematory services, so that it wouldn't have huge ripple effects on the industry. It would be more a back-end statutory construction, just so that I can soothe my friend, Christopher Malermo, I just want him to hear me say that crematories will still be able to offer and say they're crematories. This is more just what is printed on the license and what somebody applies for. Sure. All right, well, thank you so much. Thank you so much. You're more than welcome to stay at most of the testimony from our friend Bob as well. I planned to. I've never met Bob, so I plan to hear from him. Yes, thank you. Okay, and Chris, your hand is up. Do you want to just comment before we get to Bob? Yeah, I just wanted to, this is really for Lauren. I just wanted to make sure, are you aware of the questions that I raised in testimony prior? I just want to make sure that that's in the pipeline so that everybody involved, whether it's the facility or a funeral service, understands the parameters of how we function once this form of disposition comes to fruition. Yes, I am aware. I watched your testimony. I made quite a few notes. I think a lot of those concerns need to be resolved in rulemaking around this new form of disposition. So we will have rulemaking authority under this bill. We'll have to engage in rulemaking to resolve a lot of the issues, really important issues that you raised. Yeah, perfect. That's all I really needed. Thanks. And just an example of rulemaking versus legislating so that you can have the flexibility to really focus on what's unique to that particular industry. Okay. Well, welcome to Bob Burke. Bob, I'm going to take the opportunity. We haven't seen you much recently, but I just wanted to reintroduce the committee who's here and we'll start with Representative Howard. Good afternoon and welcome. I am Representative Mary Howard. I represent the Southwest section of Rutland City District 53. Thank you. Hi, Bob. We've seen each other a lot over the years. Chip Triano representing Harvard Standard and Walnut in the Northeast Kingdom. How are you today? I'm good, how are you? I'm good, good to see you. I'm good to see you, Bob. Rhett, Matt, Byron, Virgins representing Northwest Addison County. Good afternoon, Mr. Burke, Representative Lisa Hango. Nice to see you again. The Northern border of Vermont with Canada, so Ward Jones, Richford, Berkshire, Franklin, and Huygate. This is Moonway from the south end of Burlington. I had to think about that. Hello, Mr. Burke, John Kalaki, South Burlington. I'm Joe Bartons, I represent the towns of Thompson, Groton, and Newverg. Good to see you again. I'm Tommy Walz from Berry City. Indeed. I'm Barbara Murphy, serving Fairfax District, Franklin, too. Tom Stevens from Waterbury, I represent Waterbury, Sulton, Huntington, and Beale Score. Bob, we've had you in the past. One of the things of the VA, for the Veterans Affairs, not the big VA, but our little VA. Handles is the young oversight of the physical plant at Cemetery in Randolph, which has been a recurring field trip. So perhaps this spring, we can make our way down there now that we've met again in person and then stop in Randolph on the way back for a free meet. But this legislation, the questions that arose were about this new concept of disposition and whether or not, I think the direct question for the cemetery was whether or not you would need, in addition to your active 50 permit, what would it take, what would we have to understand in order to take, would you, if the family wanted to donate a cubic yard of composted remains, which is what an individual generally would be, how would the cemetery, how would our Veterans Cemetery handle that? So I believe after reading through the active 50 permits from 1991 and on, and I think that Chris had mentioned it before, we are the only cemetery in Vermont that operates in accordance with an active 50 permit. So I did some benchmarking with my colleagues in Washington State, which is one of the places where organic natural reduction is permitted. So at the Washington State Veterans Cemetery, they have a scattering ground. We do not have a scattering ground at the cemetery in Randolph. I would need to construct that. So that would require an active 50, primarily because there's a lot of ledge at the cemetery and drainage and composition of the soils needs to be correct in order to have scattering for remains or some sort of organic natural reduction. Can we take a step back and just, can you explain to us historically why? I mean, I think you may have just answered the question about why this cemetery has an active 50 permit when no one else died. And I hear, I just heard about the sensitivity of the topography of the soils and whatnot and where the cemetery is located. Were there other reasons why it is this way? The history is fairly light in the amount of material to support it. Just one of the things that caught me in reading the land use permit, it says the permit T shall protect the Randolph Center Fire District Wellhead Protection Area. So the majority of the cemetery is located over an aquifier and has a couple of different wetlands and exclusion areas. So, it was originally talked about all corpses shall be embalmed. That was later repealed because that was changed placed in caskets and in sealed concrete structures. All burials will take place above the seasonal high water table. So from reading that and not being involved in 1990 Monument at all took place. My understanding has to be that it was a watershed area and they were providing due protection for that area. So as if this bill passes basically you would need to go, you would need to apply either if you were to accept these remains, if you were to make it a policy that a veteran could donate or have their soil compost spread in Randolph that you would in order to accept that you would need to just apply to adjust your permit. I'd need to apply to adjust my permit but it would be part of the application or the bigger part of the application would be for an expansion and construction of a scattering garden. So it's not, you can't just put it into existing garden beds because you wouldn't do that with chromaens. It has to be a dedicated scattering area. Okay. And so, and how big would that be, do you think? I mean, what does Washington State do, did they say? They didn't say on their area. I mean, it would have to be substantial because you don't want to be adding on to it every two years, five years, 10 years even. So you'd have to, as we did with the cemetery expansion there's a hundred year plan. So you'd want at least a 50 year plan to make an area and then look at, where would it be? What's it gonna cost to maintain, et cetera, et cetera. But until you got, until you found that there was a demand that you needed to provide a scattering garden, the veteran cemetery wouldn't be accepting these remains until all of that process has happened, whether we, if and when we pass this bill it'll just, if someone asks you you'll not be able to receive their remains until you've made that decision to receive the remains and done all the work. Correct. It's very, very seldom that we get a call asking if we have a scattering garden or not. So the demand signal, from a financial point of view the demand signal isn't there and even from a service provider standpoint the demand signal is not there to expend the financial efforts to do that. Okay, and I guess it's, yeah, go ahead and represent it. I was just gonna say, when we speak of the context that the few that you have had about a scattering garden and I'm maybe making the wrong presumption but that it would be of crumbings rather than these particular, I mean, this is a very large amount that this ends up generating. This is what we've come to understand that you're not talking about the typical earn of remains that we think of with cremation. So I'm just curious if what you've had people request of you for scattering garden is more in the sense of the earn. Correct. Correct. It remains. Because I think that that's one piece too that is very different in this in that it's the volume that we're discussing of each individual. It multiplies the amount to be disposed rather than diminishing the quantity of our body. Correct. Representative trial. So Bob, do you have any idea of how involved the 250 activity process might be in order to initiate a Cremain's garden or composting garden or and or how long it may take. And I see you smiling and I'm guessing that this is a question that has no answer. Having a little chuckle for myself here. Yes, I can see. You know, the ballpark. Well, first of all, we'd have to come up with a plan, right? So you've got to have your drawings. You've got to have all your surveys done, et cetera, et cetera. Realistically, I'm going to throw out 12 months. And prior to even putting a shovel on the ground, finding funding, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. Well, you mentioned a hundred year plan and it got me a little bit sure. And of course, knowing the VA, the time doesn't really surprise me all that much. But it's not about taking a hundred years to get it done. No, I'm not like this. You're probably with the plan. Yes, right. Exactly. Bob, I have to say that is really one of the honest things when we were talking about the expansion that you just made a couple of years ago where it was like, this is just phase one of a hundred year plan. Where else is there a hundred year plan for anything? Yeah. Well, that's what got the funding. So that's what we did. We also deal with 250 year old cemeteries here in Vermont. So, you know, that's, that's why there's a hundred year. Representative. Is it a problem that people choose this form? They would understand that then their body, those remains could not be dispersed with the veteran. Cemetery. At this point. Yeah, it was there. Okay. At this point in time, I mean, if enough people, again, if enough people, I mean, through their through, it sounds like through their process, if enough people approach the cemetery and say, this is something we want. And this is the same concept of this, of this legislation. There's no. Facility that we're trying to approve or just approving. The concept so that people can then make a business decision, whether or not they would. That they would do this. And I think that so that, so the incoming on the funeral director side and the crematorium side is different than the receptors of the. Where you dispose of the remains. And so. Like everything else, I'm sure it goes hand in hand. But act 250 does not recollect any other cemetery. Is that one. Is that this one? Is that right? Okay. Thank you. That's my that's what they've told me. Okay, thanks. So in other words, another cemetery, every other cemetery could accept these. They could make their own scattering gardens. They can make, they can say, yeah, put them in the woods or put them in this garden here and we'll use, you know, I mean, they can do whatever they need. They would want to do. Of course the family would be just donating them. Right. That's what we learned is that there's no commerce and. Right. But it just seems. I understand the situation in the veterans, but around the water table, but it seems that there must be other cemeteries of the month that are near water tables as well. And this is not putting something in a container. But it's also been. There's nothing in it. It's not. We have, we have a. We went through when I was on our advisory board for land use. We allowed or permitted someone who was doing large animal. And you just kill it up. Eventually you just have. Richard. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So two things that just ran through my mind. The second of which was representative Murphy is actually talking about the process of creating this, which would not happen at the cemetery. The process of creating a compost would happen at. A facility that's contained. In the water, the water, the water, the water, the water, the water, the water table with the water table represented in clacky. And my experience with that 250. And I think this might be the case is that the veteran cemetery in Randolph is large enough. That it would cause. I 250 to be triggered. That's the key. Whereas some other cemeteries that might not. That might be on a water table. That sounds right. Yeah. Yeah. And if I could add something else, I think the one year 12 month. Act two 50 process is optimistic. Yeah. Just from experience from development projects, I've seen it's really more like 18 months to two years. It's just for the paperwork. It's a little bit better if you already have one. So then you're just doing an amendment. So I'm being optimistic. Optimism. We gathered that. I believe that I believe that it's easier to get an active 50 permit for housing for the, for the deceased. Then it is. Absolutely. Yeah. You don't have to hook them up to be this whole water sewer. Right. So, um, I don't know what you're talking about. So Bob. You can tell it's getting to be the end of the week. Okay. So just one more thing and it's something that, that kind of weighs on me a bit. Um, you know, because we're, we're referring to it as, as compost. And organically it is, but it's, it's still human remains. So I don't think it's appropriate to dump it in the woods. Can't you just dump it in the flower beds? I don't think that's appropriate. That's my opinion. I mean, if we're interring, we're, we're laying to final rest veterans. I think it's important. Not only where it's done, but how it's done. You know, I'm not throwing roadblocks, but I'm just saying there is a different intangible dimension. And I think if I could add to that, thank you for bringing that up and I apologize. For my cavalier comment about compost, but that's kind of how this was brought to us. When representative Partridge spoke to us. So. I do feel in your case with the veterans ceremony, a cemetery that it is a little bit different. I think it's a little bit different than other burial grounds as we've been told to call them. And also I would think that a religious cemetery would also fall in under that sphere of. Not calling it compost. It is to be the remains are to be revered. And I think it's a little bit different. But I think it. Very. Reverently. Whereas some people really do want their remains. Composted in their garden. In their flower garden. So I do think that this is a very special case. So I, I apologize. If anything was. Well, and I think that technically from, from a pure scientific and technical standpoint, it does meet the definition of, of compost. But it's just, you know, I, I draw the line that it's. Composted human remains. I don't, you know, it's organic reduction, just like leaves or, you know, animal carpuses, things like that. It surely meets the definition. And so I just think that there needs to be a recognition. And that's, you know, again, the personal choice of so much of what we try to do, you know, where people are. Finding, finding in this particular case, what's sacred to them. What their late level of that is. Chris Plermo, if I can ask you a question, because this is really. I think this is not, I think it's a little bit more of a concept of what the model is, the labor system for, the labor system for primators and for crematorium, disposition, facility operators, but you. Tell me a little bit about the, the permitting process of like, do you need a permit to move a body from a crematorium to a funeral home or to a cemetery or to a place of disposition. or death certificate, it has a place of final disposition in a crematory or the active premation in Vermont is considered final disposition. So whether you scatter ashes, bury ashes, or keep them at home, the state doesn't care because the act of final disposition is taking place. You know, the same is true for alkaline hydrolysis. And with natural reduction, you know, there's gonna, the act of natural reduction is going to be the final disposition. So whether, and it'll be treated the same way as a crematory is in your statute or at least your proposed statute, so that once that reduction has taken place, whether you scatter them in the woods, or you take them to a burial ground that can accommodate natural reduction compost, that's an extra step that a family can do, but the the act of reduction is considered final disposition. Does that answer your question? It does, but if you were to take, if you were to take the, well, I guess any remains really to cemetery, is there permitting there to? I mean, I'm just thinking about what does this add any paperwork to, you know, when a composting or reduction center has to deliver or the folks have to come and pick up a cubic yard of compost. Right. You know, do they need, you know, who is there? It sounds like there's no permit needed for that transaction. So typically what happens now is when, when cremation has been completed, we get a certificate of cremation from the crematory, which says that it identifies the individual, the container number, the date of death, the date of cremation, and that cremation permit as funeral directors, we bring that with us to the final place of disposition so that if we're going to the veteran cemetery or we're going to Holy Cross cemetery in Duxbury, we bring that form with us. They receive it. Typically on the back of the form, they write down the date of internment, the lot and section number, and that either gets filed in their personal files as a permanent record or goes to the town clerk as a burial transit permit would be for cascaded remains in a cemetery so that there is a record someplace saying that this individual was buried or scattered in a burial ground. But that's an extra step that we do just so that there is some sort of record of what happens to those remains, but if the family took them home and set them on the mantle, there's nothing beyond the active cremation that would tell anybody that. So when a person goes to a natural reduction facility, I'm assuming that they will get some sort of paperwork that says this is when it happened, this is the release, and if that family takes that cubic yard of composted human remains and goes to the cemetery or someplace where they can scatter it, they would hand that paperwork off so that there's some record of that final placement. Great. Now, thank you for that clarification. Sure. Any further questions for our guests right now? I think our next steps are to connect Lauren and so the third one on this is Katie McLean. And to do a review of what would make this workable in its best form for OPR, and then we'll return to this soon thereafter. We'll have more conversation about this. I mean, represent working. Well, and I'm not sure that these are the individuals who can maybe speak to this thought, but I just in my time at the post office, we quite often through registered mail did receive bodies and it passes, remains, and it just left me thinking that the transport of a cubic yard is going to be a very different process. And the weight and scale of that is really much more than anyone I think here is picturing. And so just the process of where this would be disposed of, you know, the distance of travel, there's a lot more to this that I think, again, the witness who spoke really to the process, to the disposition. Right, there's a concept here of the business part of it. Well, then even just as a family member, I mean, how do I go collect? I mean, it's a matter. Well, you think that there's an aspect of this that if you're going to choose to do this with your loved one, you've already figured that out, right? I mean, we can do it. We can ask the question anyway. But when we're talking about handling the remains respectfully, and if we want that to really be part of this, it's kind of like, at least understanding what that is when you put it. So perhaps we can talk to yeah, exactly. Explain what the business practices of where this is, where this has happened already. That's the thought of, yes, there's a lot of different ways to think about it in a in any light, but certainly the most respectful way. Yeah, this is the best way to start the conversation. Would that be in the rulemaking for more or no? I don't know. It could be. I would be interested to hear the business model and how it's operating in Washington. I haven't heard that, but that could be something that would be in rulemaking. And I agree with Mr. Burke. Regardless of disposition, these are human bodies. I do think I was trying to say this in my earlier testimony. I do think we need to always be considering the safety of the public, of our water supply, of the financial records. There's a lot of money involved in the funeral industry, funeral space, and also the respect for the human body. I think that's a very serious thing. So I would need to understand what the business model is, how they help families who make this choice move the composted human remains to the final. I understand it's not the final disposition legally in terms of the statute, but to the final resting place of the the composted human remains. I do think that's interesting. Maybe it's something that we would rule make about. I just hadn't thought of it until this moment. The way we work sometimes. Representative Chris Flaro. Yeah, and I just not to add a new wrinkle to this, but one of the things that we find more frequently now is the fact that funeral homes and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner are seeing an increased incidence of unclaimed remains. And predominantly that is cremated remains. But nonetheless, families for a variety of reasons don't fulfill their obligations in terms of finalizing arrangements or picking up cremated remains. And there is some statutory provisions now that allows after three years of funeral home or the OCME's office can appropriately make arrangements for final disposition of those remains. But what do you do with compost? Somebody walks away and doesn't complete their obligations to see it through the end. How does a funeral home or even a facility that's doing this on their own deal with a yard or more of a composted human remains? And that's a discussion that's going on within the funeral directors in Vermont is just that if this comes to fruition, do we need some paperwork that says that the family would need to be obligated to pick up these remains at the facility? Because if they come back to the funeral home and the family doesn't come and pick them up or abandon them, what are we going to do for three years with a yard of compost? So there's this endless conversation of what happens. This is all new territory, and we don't need to reinvent the wheel. But I think conversations with the three states that have a practice, Colorado in particular in Washington state, would be really fruitful to see how they've handled this. And where do we go with this? Because at the end, our role is getting those who've died where they want to go and families where they need to be. And we want to make sure that we get it right. So thank you. Thank you. All right. Committee, anything else on page 244? Bob and Lauren and Chris, thank you so much for coming in today. And good to see you all. Thank you for the information. We're going to probably pick this up again next Friday. But in the meantime, I will connect Lauren and Katie McLean. We will perhaps hear from the people who testified with us about these questions and maybe make a determination with Lauren about where the line gets drawn between the need for legislation against rules and regulations, even for issues like this. So thank you all. Have a good weekend.