 So, just to help everyone keep track of how we're navigating, there's been, our water bill is S96. But there's been a major proposal under discussion. We've had different drafts of it. People from inside and outside the committee have been working on it. And in response to a lot of community discussion with quality, well, numerous partners in the last three weeks. And I think that with significant modifications to the proposal around the team while you're killing, I asked Michael to take the revised drafts and weave them into a new draft. So that's what we have in front of us today. So you don't want to do 49 at 9? It's 49. Oh, 49. I'm sorry. What did you do? Yeah. You just jumped ahead. Yeah. Yes. We have all of them on in front of us. Do you have your 49 people? We do. So we have two drafts today, actually. Yeah, we have two drafts. OK. Well, we have two drafts, but it's down right here. Right now, we're going to need more drafts. OK. So we have a draft. And this draft is based on arts. Community discussion on that. Right. So do you have draft 1.2 February 21st, 1.40 PM? Yes. OK. So I'm just going to step through the changes that you requested. On page 1, lines 12 and 13, there was some concern that the findings were too narrow regarding how PFAS entered the environment. So it now says PFAS may enter the environment from numerous industrial or commercial sources, including when amended during manufacturing from disposal for property change. Should I move on? Yes, please. Page 1, line 18, there had been a subdivision, an entire finding, regarding that there was more research needed to determine the health effects on humans of PFAS. There's testimony that there is research about what the health effects are and that that entire subdivision was not necessary. It was deleted. The remaining subdivisions were renumbered. On page 2, line 8, subdivision 7, as its number now, had an introductory paragraph regarding to adopt a precautionary principle. Some of the interested parties said that should be deleted. Moving on to page 3, lines 13 through 19, this is in the section on public water systems testing for PFAS, the 5 specified PFAS contaminants until A&R adopts a MCLI rule. On page 3, line 13, subsection C, this was the subsection regarding what the water system needed to do if they determined that the PFAS individual leader in combination exceeded 20 parts per trillion. The previous language had the system notifying A&R and then A&R directing the system to implement treatment. A&R just said, let's take out the notification requirement, A&R will just direct them to do it. That was long winded, I apologize. Page 3, line 20, subsection D, this was the subsection regarding providing alternative sources of potable water while treatment was ongoing for the PFAS. There was some concern that it was ambiguous as to when treatment would end. The language did, I admit, relic the alternative sources were to be provided while all treatment was ongoing. So to narrow it, the NASA's, during the period of treatment for implementation of another remedy through these PFAS and the drinking water, the public water system shall provide potable water through other means to our customers. Then a new sentence has added the requirement for a public water system to provide potable water to customers and users of the system through other means shall cease when monitoring results indicate the levels of PFAS, or below the health advisory level. Mr. President, the king of what happened down is that while they were sorting things out and they're supplying potable water to everyone. Should I move on? No questions. On page 6, line 16 in section 5 regarding adoption of a water quality standard, you wanted the date changed from 2024 to 2022, by which time the agency shall file a final rule to adopt the surface water quality standards for, at a minimum, the five PFAS payments. On page 7, line 10 through 12, in that authority for investigation of potential sources of PFAS contamination, there had been a subsection that had been deleted from the original language, and you wanted that returned. And it provides that on April 4, 2020, a public water system shall conduct monitoring to the maximum number of PFAS detectable from standard laboratory methods or list of specific PFAS. And I think that was captured in the notion that, one, it's an investigation, and so we're aggressively seeking information, and if the science gets changing, we don't want to add ourselves to the current list of five when the two months from now will list this one product or whatever it is. Moving down page 7, line 13, section 7, this was that authority that had previously been in session law where the secretary could require any person discharging, emitting, et cetera, to conduct monitoring for any constituent for which the Department of Health has issued an advisory level. I recommended that it seem to be ongoing authority that it should be put in statute because it is comprehensive, meaning it applies to all agency programs. It's not just within one program. I thought I needed to go in one of two places, either the secretary's general authority in Title III or an enforcement authority in Title X, Chapter 201. I didn't really think of this much as enforcement, so I put it in general authority, but if the agency thinks it's better in an enforcement, I think you can go there as well. So we'll check in the party from under the room after we finish the lawsuit. On page 8, there was session law in the previous draft related to that authority for the agency to require any emitter, discharge, et cetera, to do monitoring for a health advisory constituent. I think that should stay as session law, and that is what section 8 is. Though, highlighted language on line six and seven is really just changing our reference. Previously, I had just referenced subsection A, well, subsection A is now that codified law on Title III. So I'm just referencing that on page eight, line six and seven. And those are the changes. And when we do the phase on line seven, page eight, in terms of line seven of these standards, we're talking about sufficient surface waters. Now, when we were talking on page seven, line 14, the authority given to the secretary, it's that two-year authority to require monitoring for any constituent for which a health advisory, that's the interim. Okay. So I'm on page eight, line seven, the reference here to environmental media standards. Those are for the bulk of surface water. No, it's for everything under, it's referencing back to 3VSA 201810. So all of that authority, it's not just surface waters and it's not just PFAS. It could be discharge a mission or release. So a mission is generally in Vermont, an air mission. And it's for any constituent where there's a health advisory. Thank you. If the, what is in place if the administration doesn't meet the deadline set for rulemaking in 2022? Well, I think you're well aware that there's often no consequence or little consequence. I'm not worried about punishing someone for not meeting the deadline. What is the level of protection that's in place in the absence of a timely establishment rule? For the water quality standards, there really would not be one. For drinking water, I think you're going to have the interim protection which will extend until A&R adopts the MCL by rule. Because you have a contingent repeal, but that interim standard remains unaffected until A&R adopts. Yes, there's been on section four, I think it is. Don't worry, I'm just going to say it's clear. The interim drinking water monitoring for PFAS contaminants should be repealed on the effective data of the rules required under section three of those rules are the MCL or PFAS. Is there a standard in place for the monitoring to create that is as the force of something long or require something? It has the force of law, yes. Actually, you know what? Is that an action required? That's a really good point. I think in section two, I think that you could say that section two is enforceable by the agency under 10th DSA chapter 201, because otherwise, I think that's a very good point. I have a question. Yeah, you can mark that division and go back and discuss it, because I think it's a maze under control. I understand myself. That's good to hear. On section nine, the contaminants pilot project out of Leachy, out of Atlanta Hills, can you explain to me where this changes, because I'm under the understanding of that with the conditional permit that's made certain reports, but is that not the case? So I can tell you where this came from. There was actually a bill in the house where the sponsor wanted to review whether or not basically landfill leachate should be processed at the Newport wastewater treatment facility. And in discussing that with the agency, the agency said, well, there's already a permit condition for the landfill to be doing this evaluation that's referenced there. Why don't we report back to you on the results of that evaluation, our assessment of it, and the agency's recommendations regarding that. So we're not changing any practice, or anything that you said. It's just reporting in the legislature. Right, right. And it's not even that the permitted entity is reporting, it's A&R is looking at the evaluation, which is a condition of the existing permit, and then A&R assesses and reports to you. I think the concept there is the evaluation will hopefully determine what alternatives are there and what treatment can be conducted, not just for that landfill, or leachate from that landfill, but hopefully potentially the other, what is it, four to five other landfills in the state. So, I used that question again. We just added this last one with revisions, or let's make sure that rather than a scene report, we get state expertise to evaluate a report and then giving the values to the policy. And the other thing, and people are mentioning it, so some people said how are we concentrating too much on just college trainings, landfill generally, so that maybe that there's an investigation going on there, but there's broad lessons or levels wherever they are, so we don't want to be hyper-focused on what I'm looking at. Well, I'm just going to add a point out on that piece is in the findings on number two. Are we redundant when we say when admitted during the manufacturing process, comma, from the disposal of, or could be said that comms due for the disposal of goods containing PFAS, because we know the disposal is probably going in a landfill at some point, but I don't, I feel like we're double-dipping. We're hitting that point twice and being redundant. Just for me on number two, where it says when admitted during the manufacturing process, comma, from the disposal of goods containing PFAS, comma, or I would almost move the or after the manufacturing process and like cross out from each of them, because it's kind of given when you're already talking about the disposal of goods containing PFAS, we know they're probably ending up in a, I just feel like we're saying, we're just being redundant in that sentence, but that's just a stylistic thing for me. Sure, well, I think the part of the reason it's in there is because it is, well, this is a matter of fact, I think it's 6.9 million gallons of leachate came to the Montpelier waste bar, too, personally. But I feel like we're putting the blame for PFAS on the landfill in that situation when it's from the manufacturing of the material that just gets used in the process. I mean, we have to dispose of these products. We allow them to be manufactured, we have to dispose of them. It's not my mind on this one. The landfill has, they're kind of stuck with whatever gets thrown away from consumer products. I just think it makes sense more to focus on the manufacturing of it and dispose of all those goods. Yeah, but this is the major flow of PFAS through the environment. So, I get it, and from the very beginning, I appreciate your point. I think I've said many times, this isn't about finger pointing, what goes to cometry is originally largely with every one of us throughout the state. It's our garbage that goes there, but there's a consequence and it flows back in an environment in different ways. And so I'm hoping people are feeling like we're being very even-handed. We're trying to name the major, you know, emissions from commercial industrial sources, manufacturing, goods that are imported to the state that contain PFAS and then there's that flow out of leachate from landfills. So, I think we're being even-handed about what's just explicit about what the major is about in the environment. Any, one thing I wanted to flag, and we can discuss it a little here from others, is from each three lines 1912 on the monitoring, heard a little from, I'll be the second hand from Mr. Wemberg in Berlin. Checked in with CDC about the possibility of revising that monitoring schedule. And so, let me just flow out an emotional check on what we see on this. If you get a negative test that you might go to a slower interval, for instance, if everyone's tested by September 1st, it turns out that you come up with a negative, that maybe you'll re-test if you had a negative would be at a whole longer cycle. And that's easy to recognize, I think it's two years or even six months, I think Mr. Wemberg's concern was if you're negative, why run through a panel six months later, six months later, six months later? But, if we were to learn, maybe, I don't know that we're creating that many more exposures in that kind of six month timeframe. Is there a big cost to it? Well, so that's something for us to learn more about. What's the cost? I appreciate that at this point we're also doubling down. There's this investigation period where we're trying to learn things more quickly. We don't want to ask from sensitive to costs. So, I flag that for myself. Okay, so there are no questions for grade, and I ask Mr. Chapman to introduce our table and talk about the next class. Thank you very much. Who's that? You're welcome. Really? I know you had a great business the last time. I wasn't sure if you were coming back or not. All right, so for the record match and then general counsel, the agency would have to answer this question. So, I'm happy to pick up just on the last topic with respect to the frequency of monitoring it, drinking whereas it would be for this type of contaminant atypical to be on a frequency of six months and less you found it there. Normally my understanding for what I would call sort of like the industrial chemical suite that you and the toxics that you wouldn't expect to sort of regularly occur. I mean, there are things like leg copper, disinfectant byproducts that could happen within a water system that you wanna have fairly regular monitoring over. I don't think PFAS is gonna be one of those things. I think you're gonna basically either, you're gonna find it where you're not and then afterwards it's good to have it on a routine and it's telling the chair earlier this morning. I mean, I think that we were certainly talking about the routine being a period of years. I mean, two does not sound unreasonable. It's a starting point. I think the agency within two years is going to have its rule adopted and will have gone through a public process to talk about what the appropriate frequency is with water system operators and advocates and others. So if we have everyone testing by system number one, let's test number one for everyone and then there's a fifth, a fifth and you found it. Do we have, does it need to be a threshold for, you know, is it zero or is it a low threshold? What's the, you know, I think you could say something like, you could have them retest importance with a schedule or directives established by the secretary and then leave us to basically give directives. I mean, I think effectively what we will do is the testing will be different depending on what we see. If we see presence but not above standard, we're gonna probably require them to test more often than if someone that we see non-detax with and if we see someone above standard, they're going to be at least at the frequency of the person who had it present but not above standard, right? So I think there may be some variability in how we look at this depending on the concentrations that we're seeing and frankly also potential source areas that may be around like that may be at risk to the system. So some flexibility, again, I think these are all things that we're gonna address in the context of the rulemaking process. If we have them in time, that's another question. Should we establish a default for the time being? I mean, I think having a test by September 1, 19 is not unreasonable. I think that any resampling after that, you know, certainly I'm hopeful that by, yeah, let me actually look and see what we said that the rule needed to be adopted by February 20. So according to the schedule that's in here, we would- It's much better to roll around by February 20, I think it seems that's okay. That is accurate. That being said, I mean, it's fine. So then the basic structure that you're talking about is everyone's up on the first and then if you're a greater than standard, you're gonna be that six month year goal for sure. Yeah, if you're less than standard, why don't you attack and you're gonna be on a longer schedule and if you're a non-attack, you're gonna be on a different schedule still. I believe that's accurate, yes, sir. So one comment and, you know, with respect to subsection C in this section, it says if monitoring results indicate the presence, I would say that if monitoring results confirm an exceedance of the standard, then we direct, right? I mean, again, I think the importance, it's two parts. One is it's important to ensure that it's exceeding the standard and then it's confirmatory. Just because of the nature, I mean, I'm gonna sort of, you understand, we see false positives a lot and we resample to make sure that we didn't have an issue with the sampling when this happens. And, you know, I think it's gonna be an even larger problem with water systems, especially if they're doing the testing and the state's not doing the testing. So we just wanna make sure that we actually have a problem before we tell people they need to spend a couple million dollars on treatment systems. So would you repeat that language again that you would? Something in effect of if monitoring results under this section confirm an exceedance of the Vermont Health Advisory Level of 20 parts per trillion, the agency shall direct. So something to that, I'm sure Mike can, you know, work on the language, really happy to help work on the language. But it's really, I think the important part for the agency is making sure that it's a confirmed. Does it just work to replace, indicate confirmed? Monitoring results under some subsection B confirms the presence of any peak. I think that probably would work, right? You know, I guess, yeah, I'm not gonna be an old saw, I mean, but the 2022 date with respect to the water quality standards of the agency continues to have concerns with that particular date. And the other thing I guess I would mention with respect to. I wanna guess by the way, this may be less reassuring for you to hear than for me to say, but I think the committee was interested in seeing as rapid a progress as possible. If it turns out that it's not practical with different resources, then we would ask, have you told what it would cost to flip the bill? Sure, I mean, that progress. So I think, Senator, with respect to subsection A, the agency's heard the committee's concern and will likely come back to you with what we think we can do, you know, what the region is willing to do and sort of work collaboratively to do and what that would cost. And if the state wants to do something on the expedited schedule like this and what level of resources the state would need to expend in order to get there. So. I think the next comment is on the following sections, section six, and it's with respect to going back to this total oxidizing or PFOS concentration, the agency had the opportunity to talk with the person who developed this test, who actually is the one who, sure this is lines, this is page seven, lines six through nine. I think the hope here is not to use this test to evaluate a representative portion of the public water systems, but rather to study the use of this test as a part of the investigation. This test, so when we talked to the person who actually designed the test, she said, this is not intended to be used for public water systems. She would never use it on a drinking water source that it's intended to be used when you find something through your sort of standard testing methodologies that it's highly unlikely that you are going to find anything through this top assay test if you don't find anything through standard methodology. So again, what this is intended to do is when you see something as far as these breakdown products with respect to PFOS, you're looking to see how many precursor products are out there and how you're going to basically base your treatment. And that's what this test was designed to do. We're trying to use it in a way that is different than how it was designed. And I don't think the agency is opposed to looking at that in sort of let's call it a research type setting as opposed to an applied science type setting. I think that we're not prepared to say, let's just go out and test a representative portion of water systems and see what we get. Because I think based on our conversations, we're not going to get useful data and it's going to be a fairly expensive exercise. And for context, running one 537 for PFOS costs in the range of $1,000. So it's to basically collect the test and run it through the analyticals and get the reporting back. We're expecting that this is going to be somewhere in the 13 to 15, $1,600 per sample. And there's over 1,000 water systems. So to try and do something representative, it's not going to be an insignificant cost to do this. So again, you want to? I think that it, well, ideally I think that, and I'm happy to work on some language, I don't. But basically, rather than saying as a part of the investigation, the secretary shall evaluate a representative portion. Saying something like, as a part of the investigation, the secretary shall evaluate the utility of using total oxidizable PFOS testing for public water systems or something to that effect. So that it is. So are you just trying to get to, you're trying to avoid the random testing where it's going to cost a lot of money and not provide us any useful information? That's what you're really, so you're trying to do the more targeted. So this test was not designed to do what this legislation is saying to do with it. And there's a desire to see whether it has utility in this field and what the extent of the utility of this methodology is. And I don't think the agency is opposed to that. I think it's the difference between trying to scope out what the utility of this methodology is, versus using it in an applied setting to try and actually get information from it in a sort of applied context. That's helpful. This section immediately below lines 10 to 12, this is a bit of a bilge of suspenders from your point of view. It's because we also say the maximum of the two-cost potential sustainer of other programs. So that's going to go to 537.1 or... Right. Well, the section below is going to get you the, between 35 and 40 PFAS compounds that currently are detectable through 537. Not, I mean, I don't, the total oxidizable PFAS test is a complicated test. And what it basically does is take precursor compounds and break them down into their daughter products and you see a percent change. And the comments that we receive from the person, the person who developed this test is, because of the nature of how PFAS chemicals work, sort of an industrial setting, you're not going to see any of the parent compounds unless you see the breakdown compounds. They're just, they're not so pure that you're not going to see these multiple spectrums when you're looking at them. So in other words, you're going to see something in 537. And the way this test is intended to work is once you've found PFAS there, it helps you sort of identify the buckets of how many carbons are in these other sort of parent products and it was intended to be developed. So you can then refine your understanding to what treatment technologies because how you treat for some PFAS product, some PFAS are different than how you treat for others. And so that was how this test was designed. This is intended, this is say, use it on a cross-section of potentially clean drinking water sources, we're just not, and the test was not built to do that and it may yield, this test is basically like, it forces extractions and breakdowns that will probably never occur in the environment. That's what it's built to do. So, we're just, we just don't, she did not recommend, in fact, told us she would never use it in the context of a drinking water application. Thank you, noted. We'll look for more feedback and maybe a short change in words. And then my, I think last comment is, we probably should include a reference to section 2810 in 8003A and ensure that if someone either fails to monitor or fails to comply with, that it's an enforceable offense under the Uniform Environmental Enforcement Statute. So where's that, section seven? So that would be section seven. And it would be adding a new section to just basically extend, we have a sort of a applicability section in the Uniform Environmental Law Enforcement Section that says here are the sections that are enforceable and it would be adding this citation to that list. Those are the comments that I have. That's good. Any other questions for Mr. Chavez? Mr. Chavez. Thank you, Mr. Chavez. Good morning. Good morning, good morning. I do appreciate you two of you guys going back, but no, it really is helpful, I think to the committee, I know that Johnny can talk in that amount of time. Absolutely. That's why I roughed it down to you, right? So fast. I will, I'll start with section six, A and B. And I think that we are in the process of consulting with experts related to TOPA and other methods. I think that one of the things we've talked about is that there is a rush to close data gaps associated with analytical methods to evaluate total load, total PFAS exposure. So I think that there is some disagreement in terms of where you can use it, how far away the method is to be able to use it for certain applications. I think that we agree that, you know, we, there's not an intent to use this test method as a regulatory method, but as part of the investigation. So I think that, you know, this type of test, even though it may not, it helps you identify what the total load might be. So even though you may not, you know, if you're not, if you don't expect to see any PFAS, if you don't have any PFAS, you wouldn't see anything with the TOPA. If you do have PFAS in the water, you can see the potential additional load. And so we still think that using methods that move us toward being able to better see the universe of PFAS that we may be exposed to is important. I think one of the, you know, we would feel comfortable with language in section A that would, that second to last sentence, I would basically say as part of this investigation, the secretary shall conduct a pilot to evaluate a representative portion of public water systems for those PFAS that are not quantified by EPA certified laboratory methods using TOPA or other test methods. So something along those lines where it, there, you know, we certainly don't want to ask the agency to do something that is not gonna be helpful, but we do think it's critical that the state begins investigating to look at the total PFAS exposure that Vermonters are exposed to. So my understanding, limited understanding, to a lot sizeable PFAS concentration test is, it is, in a way, going after the unknown, if we have, if the known PFAS is our test to standard laboratory methods. That's right, yeah. It's the unknown ones that we would otherwise see, even if we're not trying to identify, we're trying to determine presence or absence, is that the distinction in our line? I think, you know, in my mind, it's trying to, yes, it's trying to identify what are the other PFAS that we may be exposed to that are not quantified by these, the EPA test method, 537.1. So we're not looking for levels, but we're looking for presence or absence? I think that we want to know all of that, but I think recognizing that, you know, we are, you know, we are, there are data gaps, but I think that there are lots of opportunities for the state to evaluate that. And so, by requiring them to look at, to do a pilot, to look at TOPA, and other potential test methods that get us to a better sense of both the presence of other PFAS and the amount, that's something that we would support and we think is important. And the distinction between A and B is that, with, you know, we know how to quantify, you know, however many PFAS it is, it changes and EPA is gonna be updating its test method. You know, those are certified methods and we can actually quantify, you know, the PFAS that we're, that folks that are in public water system, water. So you're, the acronym involved a little, I'm assuming, about TOPA, now it's TOPA. So it's the A assay, what's the A assay? It's assay, yeah, it's top assay or some people refer to this TOPA. Okay, got it, Bob? Yeah. Revolving. Good name? Okay, great. Anything else? That on section B, that's saying section 6B, I think that there is online 12. I think the sentence should end PFAS detectable from standard laboratory methods, period. I think at one point there was discussion about whether or not we would list out specific PFAS but because that is evolving, I think the requirement to monitor for the maximum number of PFAS from standard. You might get data, so. That's right. Go around and solicit. Maximum number. With the model test. That's right. Good. Then the other section 2B on page three, line nine. Because the rulemaking deadline is February 1st, 2020, I think that we would be okay with having a less frequent testing interval because there will be a rulemaking process where we'll have an opportunity to discuss what the frequency ought to be. So two years was mentioned. So if you want to wait for. I think that is fine because only because there is a deadline to complete the rule well before that two year deadline. And I think during that rulemaking process, there'll be a dialogue about what is the appropriate frequency. So I'm just trying to back up to the direction where they rulemaking to make sure that the preference is something like this so that we can ensure. So then we'll all agree that we should expect the rule to address this. We're thinking of already. Each and more on 13, on the 4th of February 1st, 2020, they file a final proposal. As part of the rulemaking to set a maximum contaminant level, there will need to be a component of that rulemaking that will have to be a monitoring requirement. And I think that's it. Any questions? Thank you very much. Committee, do you have any other questions on this and anyone that you feel like we ought to hear from that we have in region people and people have been speaking to others so far. And as we're closing in on final drafts, just make sure that anyone says, oh, I have this question right in the address is yet to come. Make sure that we know the question is and find out from who you'd like to hear in order to address it. Mr. Chairman. This is an observation. Since there's now an interim standard authority that requires testing by September 1st, do you want to have the date on page seven, line 10 requiring testing for all PFAS move to September 1st or have multiple sampling events taking place? Ideally, I think having folks test once for everything probably makes more sense than having two dates. So the key off is, so September 1st is the first round of tests, excuse me. Well, what's your recommendation? I think the recommendation is the date side of the consistent. September 1st, I've heard the median as to what the actual date should be. So September 1, 2019, line nine. That's what you're talking about. I want to make sure. Line 10. Page seven, line 10. Okay. It's changed a lot, one, 2020 to September 1st, 19. Thank you. So number one, 2019 online. Thank you. What is your name? So I don't know if there's any people who move more broadly. There have been people listening that have been voluntary, but not necessarily chipping in. So it's just, we're coming to sort of a almost, but not quite a, if not, speak now. Speak now to the last note that you want to participate in the discussion prior to a vote next week. Yes, please. I'm going to identify myself. Alison Brown, faculty, Mayor's, American Cancer Council. We would offer an opportunity next week to testify on this, probably the new draft that we've come out of this conversations end. Yes. It's an opportunity to offer comments by phone briefly next week. Okay. So we will, if you speak to June, we will schedule that testimony. Thank you. Anybody else? With that, I think we're set for the next round of edits. More testimony. If anyone, we'll try to get a copy out as soon as possible so people can review. It's like, okay, I'll have us aim for a vote on this bill in the first half of next week. It seems like we're pretty much there. Anyone have any reservations at this point? Questions, concerns? Okay. Great. We'll do that.