Is the State abandoning its responsibility for the Post Mills landfill?

Twenty five years ago, the unlined landfill on the southern edge of the village of Post Mills had been shut down for over a decade. With no impermeable cap to keep rain and surface water from seeping through the enormous pile of garbage in an oxbow on the east branch of the Ompompanoosuc River, pollution was seeping unabated into the aquifer under and around the site.  Contaminated residential wells had been abandoned and nine households needed to use bottled water. Residents sued the landfill owner. The owner sued the State of Vermont. Then, in August, 2000, the parties to the various lawsuits agreed to a settlement in which the State took responsibility for the landfill, which included installing and maintaining a cap, developing a clean water supply for the nine households, and monitoring groundwater quality.  The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) had at its disposal, to pay for those tasks, nearly a million dollars collected from the owner’s insurance policies and an escrow account.

The Post Mills landfill became unique in Vermont as the only one where the State has taken direct responsibility for maintenance and groundwater monitoring. ​This responsibility was established through the 2000 Settlement Agreement and reaffirmed in 2002 through the landfill’s “Post Closure Plan.” ​With sole control of the fund established by the Settlement Agreement, ANR managed all activities required of a landfill owner/operator.

Now, a generation later, with the groundwater at the site still polluted, including with PFAS “forever chemicals,” and the settlement fund nearing depletion, ANR may be walking away from the responsibilities it took on.  Understanding the situation requires recounting a bit of history.

1974 - 2020 ​

The Post Mills landfill was operated by Frank Barker’s corporation from 1974 to 1989, initially serving Thetford and seven nearby towns. Vermont’s Act 78, passed in 1987, required all unlined landfills to close by July 1990. With landfills shutting down, ANR faced an impending waste disposal crisis and it looked for landfills with ample remaining capacity as a stop-gap measure. In Post Mills it saw one that was less than half full. In 1988, ANR amended the landfill’s operating license in “response to the emergency need to redirect the flow of solid waste...”  The amendment authorized the landfill in Post Mills to accept waste from distant counties, including Bennington.  Many years later we would learn that high levels of PFAS were in Bennington’s waste. When the landfill stopped operating after 15 years in August, 1989, it was a bit more than half full but 25% of the total waste volume had been directed there by the State in the previous 12 months.

Groundwater contamination was detected in wells as far back as the early 1980s. Residents sued for relief and in 1995 the landfill owner sued the State, alleging joint liability due to the State’s 1988 emergency waste directive. In 1998, ANR issued an Administrative Order requiring the owner to cap the landfill and start “post closure care.”

The 2000 Settlement Agreement resolved lawsuits and created a $957,000 fund held by the State. ​The settlement fund included $680,000 paid directly to the State from the owner’s insurance. The remainder came from the owner’s escrow payments during the years of operation. ​The State agreed to cap the landfill, monitor groundwater, and construct a clean water system for affected residents. In 2001, 12 years after the landfill shut down, an impermeable cap was installed, and nine residences were finally connected to clean water. ​ 

In 2002, ANR drafted a post closure plan for the landfill, which according to its Solid Waste Management Rules must be in effect until “the threat to public health and safety and the environment has been eliminated.”  ANR said in the plan that it “assumed responsibility for performing a number of required activities at the landfill site.” It said that it “will manage all activities associated with post-closure care,” including biannual groundwater testing, through 2022. Overall, the plan included the actions required of an owner or operator of a closed landfill. 

Since testing for PFAS began in 2018, levels in some monitoring wells at the landfill have exceeded Vermont's enforcement standard and been far above federal standards. Known as “forever chemicals,” PFAS require monitoring in perpetuity. 

2020 - present

After Frank Barker’s death, his estate was the sole shareholder of the landfill corporation. The estate was closed without ownership being transferred. In 2020, Green Mountain Economic Development Corporation (GMEDC) was granted permission by state probate court to reopen the estate and become its administrator. GMEDC planned to redevelop the site as a solar project.  Its entry onto the scene as a prospective owner was welcomed by ANR, which had taken on all the responsibilities normally required of a landfill owner/operator. 

GMEDC needed assurance that it would not be held liable for pollution it didn’t cause. To limit the liability of a prospective owner planning to redevelop a brownfield, Vermont has a program called BRELLA. ANR guided GMEDC through BRELLA, a process that is still incomplete after five years.  It involved two phases of environmental site assessment and confirmed the presence of PFAS chemicals in monitoring wells, above Vermont’s mandatory enforcement level. Another “emergent contaminant,” 1,4-dioxane, was also detected.   

So far, more than $28,000 of the approximately $80,000 in public expenditures on the BRELLA process has come directly from ANR. The rest has come from federal grants passed through ANR.

Current Outlook

Sampling and lab analysis for PFAS in groundwater is very expensive compared to other contaminants. And since PFAS do not break down under normal environmental conditions, there is no end point in sight for testing.  GMEDC has decided it cannot afford the high perpetual monitoring costs for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane and has abandoned its plan to take ownership of the landfill.

With GMEDC’s withdrawal as prospective owner, the BRELLA process has effectively ended. ANR has approved funding for a post closure plan “report,” but it acknowledges there is “no viable strategy for implementation” of a new plan without an owner. 

ANR’s Solid Waste Management Rules say that an operator of a closed landfill is responsible for continued maintenance and water testing until contaminant levels are below the state’s groundwater enforcement standard for 5 consecutive years. The rules also require an amended Post Closure Plan, but ANR has not implemented one since the original plan lapsed two and a half years ago, despite behaving as de facto operator for 25 years.  Specifically, there is no plan to implement recommendations from the BRELLA environmental assessment, which include adding PFAS and 1,4-dioxane tests.  

Meanwhile, water testing costs are rapidly depleting the settlement fund.  ANR continues to sample some of the monitoring wells for PFAS but it doesn’t follow a required plan, nor has it ever tested for 1,4-dioxane. ANR staff say they will continue to test but suggest that they are under no legal obligation to do so, implying that their rules regarding Post Closure Plans don’t apply because the State isn’t the legal owner. ​With the plan expired, ANR says it now manages the site under the 1998 Administrative Order. ​ That Order specifies the contaminants to be monitored but, since neither PFAS nor 1,4-dioxane were on regulators’ radar in 1998, they are not included. 

Of the nearly $80,000 in public money spent on BRELLA, $18,305 was taken from the settlement fund, without consultation with the Town or the affected residents who were parties to the Settlement Agreement. Use of the settlement fund for a purpose other than that of the Settlement Agreement is ethically questionable, at best. 

After a petition requesting a meeting was signed by 81 Thetford residents, a year ago Thetford’s Selectboard called a special meeting with ANR staff.  Residents stated concerns and asked hard questions including whether the State would stand by its previous commitment to responsibility at the landfill. With no ANR decision makers present, those were mostly deflected with an invitation to submit written questions. When the Town Manager submitted those questions, the responses that arrived weeks later shed no light on ANR’s intentions.

An uncertain future

In an April, 2025 filing submitted to the Public Utility Commission, Thetford’s Selectboard stated its interests, including maintaining the aquifer to drinking water standards around the village of Post Mills, “where the Town Plan anticipates development to meet the State’s ongoing housing crisis.”

The Selectboard’s filing adds this:

“We are concerned that ANR has not made a commitment to the Town that it will continue to take responsibility for post closure activities, including water quality monitoring. We are concerned about the lack of clarity concerning the inevitable depletion of the settlement fund that has paid for those activities to date.” 

At a minimum, Thetford is left with unanswered questions:

Will ANR draft a post closure plan for the landfill (not just a report) and will the plan include the recommendations of the final BRELLA environmental report?  

Will the State implement the plan?  If not, then what was the point of spending nearly $80,000 in public money, including over $18,000 poached from the settlement fund?  

What will happen when the settlement fund is depleted?