afternoon everyone welcome to set an education on Friday May 14th hoping to have us finish our work by 3 30 at the latest given that I know other people everybody has priorities other priorities and work to do it's that time of year so Senator Chittenden please know is in a committee of conference with transportation uh otherwise he would be here and Senator Perks look at a graduation okay so committee we are going to look today at age 426 this is an act relating to addressing the needs and conditions of public schools the house has approved the bill with further proposal of amendment and it should be on our notice calendar I think I don't know if we're meeting for token session on Monday but it could be up as early as Tuesday and so we have been working closely with the house and so I've asked Rebecca Wasserman to take us through the changes and then after that we are going to look at the issue of testing for PCBs and schools we know that we are as we'll hear we'll have an update on radon with the house did with our work there we know that there's five million dollars in the budget for radon testing and there's some question out there as to whether or not the language and appropriations is directive as enough to those who'd be responsible for testing to actually test and then finally uh following up on this morning's conversations uh we're going to hear from mark pearl on uh small schools grants so that everybody again sort of knows what they are uh we know that at past second reading today uh the small schools grant component of the tax bill but I would still like to be able to get back to senator uh comings with this committee's either endorsement or not so with that beck uh miss washington please hi good afternoon becky washerman legislative council um so the uh what i will be going through is the draft 1.3 of the um further proposal of amendment that came out of house education for h426 there are three instances of amendment here the first two are similar changes so i'll i'll talk about those together um in the underlying bill the first instance of amendment is in section three of the the bill which as a reminder is having AOE do the facilities condition inventory and assessment the language as passed by the senate had AOE doing this in coordination with the department of buildings and general services and the change in this section is uh changing coordination to consultation so AOE will be doing this in consultation with bgs and it's a similar change in in the second instance of amendment um which um as passed out of your committee there was added a section 10 of the bill which had AOE and bgs looking at uh looking in in coordination at how to use the state energy management program to assist schools with uh implementing the energy conservation measures that are identified in the facilities conditions in inventory and assessment um and it is just changing that role of bgs to be um in consultation sorry in coordination to in consultation with and then uh are there any questions on that okay and then the third instance of amendment is in section 12 of the bill uh this came out of your committee um requiring radon testing in schools um the first change is to the section title which had the department of health in the title um and that was removed since uh this is actually being a requirement on schools and not the department of health um subsection a of of that section was struck out and it's just making a few changes but i it it was struck out just uh because it was confusing to have multiple instances of amendment here but i'll tell you what the the changes are the first is that the testing as came out of the senate was required to be done by january of 2023 and this is extended to june 30th 2023 the requirement for testing um as came out of the senate was just for public schools and this is adding in uh approved independent schools so by june 30th of 2023 each public school and approved independent school has to conduct this radon testing and what they also added in is that if if you go to page two of the amendment is that if a public school or approved independent school is engaged in implementing an indoor air quality improvement project prior to june 30th 2023 then those schools get an additional gear to do the radon testing so they would not be required to do it until june 30th 2024 and then finally in subsection b of that section it requires that the public school provide the results of the tests to uh school employees and uh students and this is just adding in here approved independent schools since this is uh now requirement for both public and schools and approved independent schools and that's that's it questions committee uh i was pleased i talked to the chair of house ed that it was unanimous on the radon which uh was terrific 11-0 um that was that was great okay center lines you're muted i just want to make sure that i'm not um if you're not hopefully you're not saying brian why aren't you calling on me no i was just saying awesome okay great awesome and brian kind of looked the same when you can't yeah and and senator tarenzini was gesticulating awesome so good good good that's good news good news yeah that is good is so uh i think we're making some progress senator hooker anything from you at this point just looking at the um the dates again so if a school hasn't has engaged in implementing the indoor air quality to give them time to finish that um the projects and then test for radon is that the what is the uh yeah i think there was some discussion that it didn't make sense to test for radon before those projects are completed um so they should sort of be done in conjunction with one another um and so that was the reason uh i mean it might be helpful to have someone from senate from house ed talk about it but that was the the testimony if there something to see what the the effects of the remediation are and and for other schools that haven't done such then check the level of radon except it might mean additional remediation hvac and remediation beyond what they do so chicken and egg question you mean if they wait if they're doing the hvac and they find something and then they've got to rework yeah right uh just wondering what whether they talked about that at all but i know that when we were talking about radon and institutions last session one of the things that was recommended was you know to improve the hvac system and that's apparently took care of the problem in many instances so i don't know if you can really determine you know whether or not the hvac system as it would be installed would not remediate the problem i don't know well yeah no so it depends on the test results and then they do they they do an analysis for what is needed for remediation and if it's the hvac system then you know they do it my question is if you just go in and fix the hvac system and maybe you exclude one wing of the school for one because it's a newer wing or something and then you find out that you should have done that too i i don't know i you know i just think this is a question beyond my ken well we will have uh i'm sorry center hooker did i interrupt you okay um uh genie we'll have uh we'll have genie would you uh have somebody from house ed come in on tuesday for uh a little more information on their amendment thank you okay or preferably preferably coopley right like center campion i would like to see Larry coopley in this committee either uh by subpoena or if that's not needed he can certainly happy to have him you're probably probably be golfing though by then so you know uh so uh but i think i don't this looks like where we could be okay but i think we should hear from the house and we'll have genie just also genie if you would put it on for a vote on tuesday um that would be great and uh mrs waserman would you mind sending it emailing it directly to senator perchlick is that uh these this amendment sure i can do that or send it or actually no i can i'll have genie send it directly to him i'll do it i'm happy to do it thank you i apologize for that and i know the um official version should be posted shortly i just heard on the website so um hopefully that'll be up soon oh i see it is it is terrific okay all right any other questions for miss waserman okay seeing none uh thank you so much uh you've been incredible this entire process so uh and i'm sure we'll see you again have a good afternoon have a good afternoon okay uh we will uh it looks like our next witnesses should be here any moment uh we are going to do a walkthrough on uh issues related to pcb so genie do you want to reach out to michael grating and we'll just uh when we come back in just a couple minutes or we can just all hang here whatever people want to do okay well i'm trying to access uh genie yes senator uh they're having difficulty getting into the meeting the zoom link was sent that's not starting can you uh let our witnesses be in touch with them they might be trying to join by the old link i'll remind you would let everybody know that'd be great yeah i did but they must not have noticed yeah michael grady in particular it looks like he's having some difficulty okay thanks it's gorgeous down here i hope it's as beautiful everywhere else yeah i don't know if you were on the center floor when i said this morning i had eric came running downstairs chickens running around in the backyard like crazy a fox and then everybody survived but at the same time uh we've been hatching some eggs that were upstairs and uh yeah it's um it was one of those mornings when you thought you know is this going to be a symptom of the day and then when i forgot to talk to approach with the with money in the budget i thought oh gosh here it goes the whole day oh gosh i know it's funny isn't it well everything turned out everything's turned out so we have a little gray fox in our yard oh you do yep comes in i love the fox they come in to get the cherry tree oh really oh yeah that's great that's great yeah yeah michael grady thanks for joining us sorry about the confusion with the link um so committee uh we are um we've been working for a little bit for a while on again off again and talking about uh pcb testing and it's brought to my attention a couple of days ago that uh approves the language in the budget uh there was some impression that indeed it sort of requiring or at least there was an understanding that schools would be tested required to be tested and but it looks like there might be some vagueness there so uh what mistero grady has is some draft language to share with us but before you do that i'm wondering mr grady is there have you seen the line had a chance to look at the language in the big build that is people are saying is ambiguous um yes i have uh it is uh authority um well to transfer 4.5 million dollars to the environmental contingency fund yeah um and it says the de c and the department of health shall use up to 4.5 million to complete air indoor quality testing for pcbs and public schools and approved and recognize independent schools it doesn't put the mandate on schools to conduct the testing so there isn't that specific mandate it just directs or actually authorizes de c to use 4.5 million dollars to do indoor air quality testing for pcbs and it was my understanding that the agency planned to do it on a voluntary basis so uh so saying shall is the shall and i i don't have the language in front of me i apologize is it saying that the ec shall do this it says that they shall use up to 4.5 million dollars to do the the indoor air quality testing and that is i don't know if you in your opinion if that were to scan what would happen i mean it a number of different things you're saying they they shall do it doesn't mean that they have to lift a finger or does it mean that they need to reach out does it mean that in a year if they've done nothing we could come back and say what's going on well i i think what will happen is that they will set up a a voluntary program similar to how they set up a voluntary program for testing lead and drinking water before that mandate went into place and so schools that want to do it will step back dc will likely inform schools and and organizations that represent schools regarding the availability of of the testing and then schools will apply and the agency will likely set up a schedule for conducting the testing i don't know if they will use all 4.5 million dollars before you return in january i doubt that they will um so you would have the opportunity to get a status report from them uh including how much of that money that they have spent committee before we go into some language here center lines but just to to clarify then uh who who is responsible for reaching out one way one direction or the other for the testing to be initiated so is it the department reaching out so right now that that is all unclear because the language does not specify any of that the detail is not there you may remember the lead in drinking water in schools bill where the detail was very undetailed no it was very detailed it was there was there was a significant amount of detail about how that is going to be conducted this does not have that that level of detail is that is that sorry center lines i just need to enter more genie uh is genie there just i am here so i'm receiving texts uh that people can that are not being allowed in i don't know i am i'm dealing with that okay great thank you you're welcome okay sorry center lines go ahead no that's okay i i was just asking uh if the um the mod if the lead testing language could serve as a model for pcb or is it significantly different um it's it's it's the skeleton would be a model the flesh on it because what the agency would require would be uh um monitoring for for what's called the screening value for pcb um and then then in contrast to the lead in drinking water bill where you have an exceedance and you you go and you fix the issue with pcb they do an evaluation of whether or not the exposure uh requires remediation or not uh and um then they develop a uh control plan or um yeah screening control plan uh to to address the the exceedance and the level of exceedance um and that that could have a vast array of alternatives under it um so it's not it's not an apples to apples issue because you're not dealing with the same type of uh contaminant and the same type of media in which the contaminant is present or the same type of cause because the cause for lead in drinking water was i believe when all was said and done over 90 of it was due to just old fixtures we're here the the array of building materials that could be the source is it's more than just one category of of material like lead in drinking water it could be paint it could be caulk it could be insulation it could be a vast array of of materials thank you okay why don't we uh for those of you who are just joining us apologize for the confusion with the link uh we are working with Mr. O'Grady and I know we'll hear from all of you on situation before us uh language that needs clarification in the big bill um and I think that is what we are going to strive to do uh at least that's our goal at the outset of today we'll see if that changes after hearing from everyone Mr. O'Grady would you mind taking us through uh the language sure um do you have a copy of it or we have a copy that is under I believe if it is that we I'm looking at something under uh the committee assistant put it under Peter Walks name okay which I believe is you know the AN is the ANR BDH proposal right I have um I have called up on my screen uh basically the same language it's just formatted in in legislative format so I'll call that up that's all you don't need to call it up you know we usually just work right from our iPads as long as you're staying focus stick with this thanks okay um so uh what you have in front of you is uh the agency's proposal for fleshing out the four point five million dollars that is in the big bill and the first thing that it does well let me step back generally what this would do is would require all schools public independent and recognized schools that were constructed were renovated before 1980 to conduct screening level investigations of indoor air for the presence of PCBs and once or if PCBs were discovered in excess of the screening levels there would be an evaluation there would be well first there would be a report about the source of the PCBs there would be an evaluation of that report and the potential exposure of students and other people within the school building to the PCBs and um recommended measures that the school could take to address the potential exposures so that's generally what the bill does um the first thing the bill does specifically is it amends um two sections to change the definition of release um related to hazardous materials section one is an amendment to the environmental contingency fund language um in 10 vs a 12 83 the environmental contingency fund is a special fund uh that the agency administers which authorizes disbursements to a and r so they can undertake actions necessary to investigate or mitigate hazardous materials releases so the 4.5 million dollars that's in the appropriations bill it's authorized to be taken out of the environmental contingency fund so this is an important definition for the purpose of clarifying the use of the environmental contingency fund for this monitoring and what the change is it defines a release to also mean the intentional or unintentional action or emission resulting in a spill leak or emission of PCBs from building materials in a building or structure so now with this change it's very clear that a and r has authority to use the environmental contingency fund for the purpose of responding to a release of that kind similar change is made in 10 vs a so two those are the definitions for the solid waste and hazardous waste chapter in law a and r has authority under that chapter to take action to require a person's responsible for hazardous materials released to respond and remediate to that and remediate that release and potentially to be liable and pay for that release so that same definition of release that I just walked you through for the environmental contingency fund is added to the solid waste and hazardous waste chapter in 10 vs a and then you come to section three of the language which is session law and this is the directive for the testing the first thing it does is it clarifies that what the standard is going to be and the for the monitoring and a and r has a rule called the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation's investigation and remediation of contaminated properties rule now what that rule does it provides procedures and requirements for conducting investigations and corrective actions a property where a release of hazardous materials occur so basically that's the standard that that the testing will be will be conducted under that that a and r rule for contaminated properties and that's what subsection a of section three does and then there's subsection b which is the mandate that honor before august 1st 2026 all schools that were constructed or renovated before 1980 shall conduct a screening level investigation of indoor air and their school districts supervisory unions and independent schools of school building for pcbs according to guidelines adopted by d ec and consultation with the department of health so there's a mandate honor before august 2026 they do the screening level investigation for pcbs in those buildings constructed before 1980 the school district school etc that has a sampling result that exceeds 15 anagrams per cubic meter shall conduct a site investigation in in accordance with d ec's rule that rule i just told you about their contaminated properties rule to determine where the source of the pcb contamination is located the site investigation report shall include the school its source area the use of the location the number of students and teachers occupying that location daily in the length of time that they are present then in under subsection d based on that site investigation report the department of health shall provide the school with guidance on the potential health effects and the guidance shall be used by the department of health the guidance provided by the department of health shall be used to evaluate cleanup alternatives and shall be used by d ec to determine whether the school has met the requirements for site closure under sub chapter 10 of that contaminated properties rule i want to be clear site closure is a term of art underneath that rule it does not mean closing the building right and that that might be a confusion that people will like oh my god it says site closure means the school building site closure means that you have met the standard underneath the contaminated rule to stop the investigation and response that's what a site closure is you're no longer a site that has an issue so that's that's what that refers to it's not about closing the school now the school might need to be closed depending on what the pcb levels are that are determined in the screening level investigation but that's you have to first do the test etc etc so i just want to be clear site closure doesn't mandate the building is closed got it um and then the last part of the language that you received from the commissioner i believe the version that you received is x doubt it's the um authorization of positions because those positions are already in the budget um they are in uh section e 100 sub section a four and they create two five year limited service classified positions one at d ec and one at the department of health okay thank you there is one other appropriation in h4 39 there's the 4.5 that i talked to you about from the environmental contingency fund there's another 500 000 in one-time money to be used for the same purpose of pcb um testing in schools committee any questions for mr o grady before we walk through this uh or hear from the commissioner and his team i'm very pleased that we do have a quorum from the health and welfare committee given that this is certainly within their jurisdiction and it would be great to partner and move forward on this um okay so i think uh this will be covered by uh commissioner walk but 2026 seems like an awful long time uh to wait to get to everybody so with that uh mr walk the floor is yours and uh your teams thank you thank you mr chair uh for the record peter walk commissioner of the department of environmental conservation i'm joined today by a and r general counsel matt Chapman and the the manager of the sites management section uh trish capolino uh appreciate the opportunity to be here today i did want to provide a little a little bit of clarity before we get going on sort of the nature of the development of this proposal um when we uh when when it was clear that there was there were going to be some some one-time revenue available to allocate to different purposes we advocated for and the governor proposed to set aside this five million dollars for the testing of of schools for pcbs that we intentionally left that as a voluntary program not because we thought that a voluntary program was ultimately appropriate but because we knew that there would be a desire for and a need for additional discussion by your committee and others um and so the language that you see before you was a uh at the request of senator campion was a collaboration between mr ogre and mr chapman um working with our teams to sort of think about what it could look like if you wanted to move this forward so i just want to clarify there's often we're a little vague sometimes as to where proposals come from i just wanted to be clear that we're this was this is not officially a and r and vdh's proposal it's what we think could work and in response to a request that was made so to my knowledge and and senator campion i would appreciate you to correct me if i'm wrong but i don't believe your committee had seen this language prior to today um but this is yeah it's a good question i don't think we did we had conversations about pcbs uh you know earlier this this session but i don't think the language was shared so this is obviously the education world has had a number of challenges this spring and you all have been very busy so i'm not talking here this was when um i received some outreach from senator campion and senator baruth from the appropriations committee asking sort of um how we might be able to to move this forward if the desire was to make it a mandatory testing program and so looking back on the language that had been developed i thought this was the sort of the most prudent path forward that addresses the various needs that's not to say that this that language addresses two of the primary concerns um that you will hear likely hear from your next witnesses from the education community is in that while this sets up the structure for how the sort of follow on from the testing will occur it does not allocate any resources there we anticipate that that four point five million dollars will likely be spent on testing only and that is just the initial testing that is not the deeper dive testing into where into the actual investigation at a specific location um and so the other there are a couple of variables that we don't fully um that we we just we we don't know yet the first is the number of schools that may meet the criteria that mr. gray laid out um the the knowledge about the state of school buildings overall is is is is not perfect right and so we would need to start with a survey to school districts to better understand what buildings might qualify and then move into the into the testing phase the other variable is that while the burlington high school situation is receiving a ton of attention it is also a relative outlier in terms of potential cost uh or we we hope it will be an outlier in terms of potential cost um and so there will be a range of potential remediation costs um running from a sort of low end of 50 000 per school somewhere in there up to um what could occur in the future you know with the burlington high school example and so Trish and her team put together some thoughts based on their conversations with vdh and with uh the the recognized expert in the field at um epa region new england region about sort of what um likely cost might be and sort of best guess might be about three six million dollars in remediation costs and that is that's that's the middle of a potentially very large sort of range of costs um and so those i just i want to be clear up front that that's that's the piece in here that's missing and i think the one of the benefits to the work that you did previously on on the lead in schools and the effort that was taken to both address wanting to lower the standard to make sure the testing was required was the provision of resources that that accompanied that um and i just in the four point five million dollars feels like a lot um but we anticipate testing in each school will cost roughly 15 to 20 000 and that there are probably about 150 schools somewhere in that realm that would qualify under the criteria so that's that's where we get to that 400 or 4.5 million dollar figure so it is there is a lot in front of us and a lot of unknown um but certainly want to make sure that the committee and is going in with eyes wide open into the the challenges that we face um and with that um i'm happy to have matt or trish uh add anything at this point but i think it might be most useful to get into your questions um if if that pleases the committee yeah i think addressing uh questions at this point would be would be great and if we could start with the two things that jump to mind the the date and then i'm trying to understand a little bit around how uh how testing is done in other words we just as you know in the house is concurred with a mandatory test on radon so we've been in the thick of how radon testing happens this i suspect is very very different um much more complicated and uh i would like you know how long it would take to actually get to all of these schools so with that i'll turn the forward i think i think the the if i would get answer this second question first i think that might help frame up the first question so maybe trish if you could walk through uh what what indoor air quality testing for pcbs would look like in schools based on our previous experience and not more complicated and uh jeff if you could mute that'd be great here we go thank you the indoor air testing that i'm sorry trish cup lino of the states management section um the indoor air sampling that normally happens is we have a consultant um we put together a work plan for us to to show where they're going to sample and the type of media they're going to sample there's different analytical methods that can be used we've prescribed one that we think will be the best in order to achieve the standard that we've set the sampling media and pump would be deployed in the school they would run for 24 hours then the consultant would need to go back and collect the sample media and return that to the lab for sampling or for analysis um the consultants that we spoke with have suggested that um they do like to go in and check on the pump halfway through just to make sure it's still operating the way it's supposed to so there is consulting time added into the overall cost that we've looked at but it's it's a 24-hour sample collection in multiple rooms without throughout the school so if i if i may could you say something about uh so these aren't thinking you know again with led we had local officials do it with ray down there are about 20 consultants in the state companies that have consultants that can come in and do this certified work who does it with ray who does it with pcbs who are we looking to are there local companies is this something where we'd have groups coming from out of state this availability kinds of questions right there are um multiple consultants in the state of vermont that we've worked on worked with this on so there are plenty of consultants that have done this um we had discussed doing an outreach and education to any consultants that would be doing this work to make sure that they're doing it in accordance with our standards and the vpa standards and make sure that they're all comfortable with the the requirements that we're looking for but there are consultants in vermont that have definitely done this type of sampling for us in the past and if we were under in I mean in some ways we are in an emergency situation if we had said you know how many schools could we get tested and how quickly could we get these schools tested how long would that take um that's a good question that we've been struggling with only for capacity purposes so if we have um one or two people that we can dedicate to do this um we can have them working on helping schools maybe 10 a week I mean it's it's a lot of work for us to start out with because we do go out and do the surveys with the schools and help them understand what the process is we're planning on contracting with the consultants and having them do the work on the schools behalf so there is a lot of oversight and review of work plans and documentation that will come into us before the work happens um and so that's the timeframe is set out that way so that we can actually accomplish the work um with the staffing that we have now and making sure that we're helping the schools um get through the process the right way and the consulting community is it's not huge up here so sure but 10 a week is 500 plus a year we're looking at about 150 we have a deadline of 2026 it sounds like we could we could certainly move that deadline it's 10 a week that we might be able to look at the work plans right and then the work comes back to us we review the work we work with the school and what we're finding what the potential issues are helping them to understand what the outcome is based on that and so then being able to do 10 new ones on top of the 10 old ones that are continuing that's not really realistic no understand and again we're not looking to test 500 we're just 150 send the reliance please so as you're as you're talking um the deep dive to really evaluate each school is not part of this first assessment that you're talking about correct yeah your initial analysis is is simply that and so your then how obviously records need to be kept and then what happens with the when the when the deep dive takes place and what's the timing on that I just want to get a full picture so that that let me jump in a little bit here that's where the the complications really come in because once we have data that suggests that there's an issue in a school we will also need to begin the process of doing that investigation which will rely on the same people right and so there is a we can generate a bunch of data in fairly short order if that's what we are all we were trying to do but we're also trying to make sure that we can get to solutions at the same time so that's that's part of the complicating factor of all of this is the is the need to proceed quickly with the deep dive part of the rules that you work with or is it a federal requirement what is the is it simply a moral obligation what is what is promoting the quick turnaround when you identify PCBs at the level well I think it starts with a moral imperative yeah I was hoping and then the rule establishes clear timelines for how that process goes forward so it's a state it's a state driven rule there's nothing within any federal guidelines that or are there that say once you identify the PCBs you must proceed there are also federal guidelines at certain levels and I'll have Trish speak to that okay so EPA's guidelines um as as I understand them are not very clear as to indoor air issues they would basically say that once you identify that there's an indoor air impact that you need to determine what the source of that impact is coming from and once you've identified that source and it's greater than a certain concentration then it's um unpermitted and it's not allowed to be in that location anymore and so EPA would require them to take it out and address it which is what's happening in Burlington right now so so there are requirements to report they're not clear timeframe uh requirements that I've seen within the regulations for EPA but they tie back to concentration and building materials center lines yep please go ahead this it's not related to the testing of the process necessarily but any do you have any insight into what I know there's a big debate going on around infrastructure right now and at the federal level but is there any indication that uh school infrastructure needs or this type of remediation will be addressed do you have any insight into that maybe michael or matt or somebody I don't know commission so as center lines I think at this point we're all waiting to see what that uh what the american jobs x specifics look like and what makes it through congress there is uh I have not seen anything to indicate anything that would specifically speak to indoor air quality or contaminants in schools specifically but um brown fields often tend to be fairly popular pieces and if we could expand some of that language to be more about um you know cleanup of unknown contamination then there's some possibility there but that were a were a long way from from knowing we're not a long way but we're months away from knowing what that might look like yep thank you so I'm in contact a little bit here with the probes uh waiting to hear back uh so we make our way through this amendment and timing one of the questions I have is in this really I don't think this is a question for anyone here we can always hear from folks but if you're a third grader second grader and we're saying you know you could be in a school for five years possibly or whatever the you know let's say we we say one year but right now is it's written 2026 you know it sounds based on the conversations around radon we are putting the health of course of children and faculty and staff in jeopardy and to me it goes back to the by war parent you know knowledge is power and knowledge allows me if there are is for PCBs in a child's school I think uh parents are likely to not be concerned with this cost that it's going to cost the school to fix the problem I think they're going to say you're out you're coming home or changing something or for making a huge change and I get that I completely not being a parent but I completely get that so for me getting those numbers and getting families to understand and giving them the opp you know so that they know their options uh is is first and foremost uh in my mind and I think probably we're ready here as well so I think that goes goes back to my previous statement about that this isn't this isn't necessarily our proposal this was a sort of starting point for yeah yeah yeah um you need to hear from other other stakeholders certainly on the time frame associated with this process we we are constrained in terms of the pipeline in terms of managing the work and want to be clear on that but we certainly respect and feel that moral certain need to to to get to work on the testing and provide information to to parents I appreciate that very much and I uh don't doubt it for a second so to that end commissioner I'm wondering if we were to say we want to have you know everybody tested keep it in line with what we're doing with radar which is uh you know little over a year out is that something that uh if we came back and said this is you know let's let's get rolling this is would that work could it be six months could it be I mean what what is the how fast could it be done and if you don't know the answer please feel free to to tell me you know could you have somebody else in to answer that yeah I I there are a number of unknowns that prevent me from being able to feel confident in that process maybe it's a distinction between having the doing the testing and having completed all of the steps in the process by a a certain date if that makes sense because really the testing is is the first step along the way if we think about sort of a course or finer and finer filter uh to so we have however many schools we have in the state now we have some sense of how many might be uh be eligible for testing we filter that get to a smaller number and then continue to filter down until we know which ones need to be remediated I I so I I think um I think it's a challenging question for me to answer with confidence okay um might we ask you to uh come back to us uh I mean we're going to come back to you at some point and say hey we've come to this so if you could come back to us I think the other question for me and I suspect uh others but from just the what do parents need to know immediately again where I'm sitting it's okay tobacco is bad like you know it you're going to make decisions these things like what is it is that first round of testing uh and maybe this is something uh Richard I'm sorry is your last name pronounced uh Kapilino or miss Kapilino if if I just want all the parents in the state to know whether or not their children are being exposed to PCBs what does that look like I mean I'm talking like just know that it's in the school and that it's at a dangerous level hey please if it's just collecting the samples yes we're assuming it's 120 schools then then that can happen probably within a year that means we're not really responding to the results that are coming back and digging into everything and that we have consultants that can get all this work done and sample equipment and everything else so there's a lot of caveats in that but it's just don't just deploying canisters looking at it say positive negative and we're not going to actually address the issues that are associated with it then then that's that's kind of I think what commissioner walk was saying we can provide an analysis of what's there but actually addressing the issue is a separate question I understand that but they could also be done you could for example notify me that you know the PCB level is XYZ at my child's school while also continuing the work that you're doing we could but I would just throw out there that once we notify a school we're usually inundated with phone calls and questions and requests to participate in public meetings and explain what the issue is and what's happening to my child and so in school like Burlington takes up a real lot of my time and my staff's time so it's not that simple I understand but that is I have to say that that's very helpful yeah I think that's you know what we're trying to convey is that the data that if it were just the collection of the data as a first step yeah and that that we could then set you know set that aside as a discrete task and then get to the investigation the remediation and that year long time frame is workable it is the challenge that none of the that they're all of those steps overlap with each other because there is as soon as there is data out and desire and a sense of urgency from the community to address it and that's when that's when the the challenging and detailed work begins and we want to be able to respond to that in a meaningful way quickly and I completely agree and respect that and I know I don't need to say this to anybody on this because as I look at the screen most of the people I'm looking at have children so if not all so I just want to sort of step back from the policy thing you know policymakers here and just think okay as a parent you're sitting watching this what do you need to know again is sort of you know and how do we get that information to them so that they can be empowered to protect their children from harm that's what I'm asking myself and I and I know you all are you know as well commissioner I would just add that I do fear an equity challenge here as well that goes with the resources to pull their children out of school yeah we'll do so and those without them will not and if we are waiting to do investigation or remediation to get through the testing component then we are going to run into issues of equity and so that's part of the piece that that weighs on my mind as we think about the timeline and how we do this work I appreciate that thoughtfulness and sensitivity to that I really do and I'm glad you raised it because if we work to move in this direction then we as that's where we as policymakers have to make sure that we do address that equity piece and it is just it's not just you know the families that can afford to do it can pull out their children but that call children would be you know afforded that same opportunity whatever that might look like quickly putting you know little schools together I don't I don't know committee questions at this time looking around senator taranzini please well I was just going to suggest you know I'm getting the horse before the car here but you know we've gotten pretty good over the last year of doing virtual school so if it had to come to the point where as you just suggested senator camp you know we have to figure out something quickly to do whether it be little schools or whatever you know we have the technology now to to keep our kids home and safe and do virtual schools and certainly this information I mean I've been shaking my head for the last 15 minutes up and down so much it hurts with you talking and I agree with you on everything this information we need to do the testing we need to get the information out there it's it's critically important and it's a more obligation of this committee and the health and welfare committee and the senate in general to do this I think so thank you senator taranzini other questions or comments from committee at this point I see we also have uh Mr. Chapman you're here uh I don't know if there's something that you would like to say you know we've heard from your two colleagues there's new information that they haven't covered no in fact I was here to just answer any questions about the language I mean Mr. O'Grady did a great job walking through it and I frankly don't have anything to add to Mike's overview okay senator hooker please thank you sure at the beginning of the conversation Mr. O'Grady mentioned a voluntary program how does that figure in here I don't see any language about you know who's involved who how these schools get involved who's responsible for the outreach any of that that we talked about at the beginning that's a great question senator hooker we so when when we propose this language to be in the budget it was set up with the idea that we would stand up that voluntary program once the money was available and we could contract for our consultants to be able to do that work and to be able to make it available to it there is the opportunity for schools to test now and there have been several that have been interested and have reached out to to Trish and colleagues at the Department of Health to understand what's needed to be able to test and so there have been schools that have chosen to move forward in that way but we would like to make resources available to them to help with that process and so that was really the idea but we always knew it was going to be a placeholder because of the interest around the topic and wanting to to think about a different way to approach the challenge senator linux so the schools that you've talked with that are going forward you you are working closely with them are you recommending the consultant that they work with and then keeping an eye on the outcomes is our mandatory reporting for PCBs once it's tested Trish I think that's probably right right up your alley we have been contacted by several consultants that have been contacted by schools that want to hire them to do indoor air sampling and the consultants have been asking them to hold off because we have some guidance documents that we're where we'd like to share but we haven't made public yet that goes through the sampling requirements and what to look at inside the school they are not required to share that information with us if they collect the the PCBs and indoor airing to get positive results the consultants not required but is the school required neither one no so I was just going to add on this one I think that's one of the important things about the changes that are being proposed to the definition of release that change brings it in to ANR's existing regulatory structure and then at that point there is an obligation to report if you know that a release has taken place so that sort of this this would sort of close that hole so the fact that you're writing guidance and providing guidance to these folks is great I mean that's that's the right thing to do but it doesn't then require they they don't have to get information back to you okay but that's that's the situation as it stands now and not one that we anticipate continuing because you're right one way or another either this this or some other language will move forward but the the language as it stands now on the budget will enable us to contract with the resources to manage that process and when we contract with those resources they work for us in partnership with the schools and so we would okay that so Mr. Chair is okay if I ask a couple more questions please so I have two questions and I just forgot the first one but that's okay the second one was once we start looking at schools that are part of our public system does this in any way implicate or cause us to consider and I remembered my first one so I'm writing it down to consider such entities as child care centers or publicly public buildings for state employees and so on and so forth I mean it does schools I think are absolutely critical and I'm not suggesting that we divert our attention from that but then I'm wondering if there's been any discussion with about other organizations that are publicly funded or state buildings nobody wants to answer that but you don't have to answer that no center lines that's a great question and I'll start and and back clean up the yes there are there are pcb there were pcbs in use in building products for a long period of time they are we you know and I might actually go through the details but in our large municipal buildings and other things of that nature they are they were built or renovated in the same time frame are likely to be present but the specific child thought on child care facilities like Trisha it's a detail there that might be helpful um we have actually started talking with the Department of Children DCF just to see what they have for facilities that were built before 1980s so I do have that information already and I have kind of poked bgs a little just to think about that issue related to state buildings but it's just been discussion since there aren't really regulations around it right now yeah I mean so what seemed to me child care facilities in particular might be the next the next if not part of the first step so just a thought the and it does cost money to do that we got that but then that also flows back to how one might use ARPA funds we know that some ARPA funds are going directly to child care centers the stabilization funds and we know that other funds are have flexibility at state level so that's a bigger discussion that starts to flow out of this committee but it I think is really related sure great you had your hand up I was just going to say that if you add child cares and it's significantly changes the fiscal requirements because there's approximately there's approximately a thousand buildings that we would need to add assuming that they were you know built or renovated prior to 1980 okay I guess I would just add that for purposes of clarity if you look at the changes again to the definition of release under both it's not limited to schools it's it's expansive to any building or structure and that was intentional we identified the same sort of issue senator alliance that that you've pointed out and and not going to draw a distinction at at who's occupying the building thank you then my last I hope my last question is just trying to get the full picture here but the rules that you have that guide procedures for the deeper dive and then responsibilities how sort of in turn not in terms of intensity and regulation and how do those rules compare with the process because Michael Grady brought up the lead procedures that were quite tight and I'm wondering if the rules that you have with respect to PCBs are equally tight so I guess my question is what does tight mean well I think very prescriptive and I guess that would probably be the way Michael I'm looking to you for your definition well what was in the lead testing bill was first the the deadline then there was a process then there was requirements for if for posting the testing results and then there was a requirement for response if it exceeded the exceedance level you have some of that in the language that's provided by a and r but not all of it and so that's that's you could use some of what was in the lead bill but as I stated earlier you're talking about a different contaminant with a different source with not as generally as addressable issue as the plumbing fixtures for lead and drinking water right so that's a complicating factor um and isn't is something that I think the rule is supposed to address the contaminated properties rule let me let me start quickly I think that center lines did you want to respond to that no this is helpful and I would I'd really like to hear what the commissioner and Matt I have to say yeah sure thank you um the the the the iraq rule is is a uh is a tested and strong rule to get to lead to cleanups I think there are a number of factors that that that lend itself well to that process because it is you know an investigative process to understand the full extent and the scope with the contamination and then getting into remedial options because it is not a sort of simple uh you know the lead process was relatively simple as mr agri laid out the presence of contamination was likely caused by you know a a fixture that that had you know existing led it and it could be swapped out and the problem was solved that's not going to occur uh likely in this scenario and so that's where this rule comes into play and is as well suited to it where we deal with contaminated sites around the around the state I'm not if you want to add to that I'm happy to yeah I was actually going to say almost the same thing I guess the the rule is very detailed and it's very detailed from a from a process perspective on what people do to sort of investigate look at what the alternatives are and then come up with a solution that's health protective environmentally protective but it's not like the lead process where that was very directive right this is a much more flexible process where you look basically at the data and the science that comes in and make decisions based on that is there a timeline in the rule for remediation there is though there does there is some flexibility for the the secretary to basically look at what the problem is and make adjustments to that timeline based on on sort of the complexity of either the engineering or site specific characteristics so so can I I'm I'm sorry one last question and then I'll stop but when you look at the Burlington High School situation where the testing took place and then obviously the deep dive took place and then how was it that the decision was reached made did you follow the rule the rules throughout um to reach the decision for school closure can you just talk about that a little bit and I don't it doesn't have to be prolonged but I think it's it's what is driving a lot of what's going on well I think there's an apples to oranges comparison being made here because at currently A&R does not have jurisdiction over indoor air releases so the process that is so the the Burlington process is involves a number of factors we've primarily been involved in their renovation programs because of the presence of PCBs in soils around the site um the issue the decision to close and to to ultimately abandon the remodel were not made under our rule because we don't have jurisdiction right that that was not a we didn't force that to occur I guess is is what I'm trying to say so this is this and we we try to get to there are moments when uh you know sites need to you know may need to be closed and fully remediated for some period of time before they can be brought back into reuse but we tried to get facilities cleaned up so that they can be brought back to productive use um but that it's a it's a this current the framework that we're talking about here is not what the Berlin Burlington has followed thank you I'm wondering if uh I'm looking at Mr. O'Grady uh Mr. Walk and his team I think this committee uh and I know that appropriations we know also is under a tight schedule at this point this is where this language would go I'm wondering if uh Mr. Walk you'd be willing to work with uh your team and Mr. O'Grady to and we're not finishing testimony but we think we're going to get somewhere and that timeframe is going to be tighter and it's going to be I suspect uh letting families know in whatever in the best way possible in other words you know if their children are in schools that and are being exposed to PCBs it's it's that kind of direction uh that I'm hearing at this point and we're going to continue to take testimony but I'm I'm looking to you to will you be willing to work with uh Ledge Council to to again maybe bring back some language as early as Monday for us to look at we're happy to work with Ledge Council if that's the chair's desire I think are what we would primarily do is look at the sort of feasibility of of different timelines and provide you with the options and the associated risks associated with those timelines um and the sort of resource constraints and needs um I would also encourage you to hear about that from the the school facilities as well right obviously that's that's a factor that we don't have uh control or input right thank you uh committee I want to shift I'm hoping our witnesses can stay with us but uh we are going to shift to hear from uh members of uh that represent our various school constituencies uh so with that uh Mr. Fanon from the NEA uh welcome back to Senate Ed uh you've been following the topic that we're on uh and uh the floor is yours all righty thank you very much for the record Jeff Fanon from on NEA uh it was actually good to hear from the the DC folks and the commissioner and understand this a little bit better because it's out of my wheelhouse of normal uh I'm I'm a bit deeper in the weeds and uh or over my head perhaps but I think it's a simple matter um Vermont NEA supports testing schools for PCBs I mean we have people who have been affected negatively by the Burlington situation not only in their um uh sort of just where they're teaching and how that's going and all the disruption that's caused but people who had physical issues over the last several years and um not knowing where it came from and they would moderate over the summer for example and then they return to the fall it's not bad it's you start closing the windows when it gets cold and so that would be a cycle that some people had and so it's real it's effective people and uh you know it's hard to pinpoint that it was PCBs but once you get the the information that we've gotten recently from the Burlington High School it it actually has helped so getting the information out is a way to at least acknowledge that there are perhaps our issues and that you're not you know that these rashes or other elements that you have aren't made up um and I think that's really important as we understand chemical reactions and everybody's different everybody perhaps their immune systems are different their bodies are different and they will react differently to uh various contaminants so um we think certainly you should test not only for the staff but for the students you've got young kids who uh young people who have developing immune systems and developing uh systems overall they're developing bodies and we got to be cognizant of that and the role that chemicals and other contaminants play on that maturation process so that's that's really important um I think if I heard um the earlier testimony there correctly it looks like the 26 deadline is a bit far out it seems like we can get there a bit quicker and I think there there is an imperative here to move sooner rather than later this is not good stuff that we're talking about here and I don't think anybody and I'm not suggesting anybody disagrees I think that how we get there is what we're discussing I think everybody wants to get there I think we all agree to that um one thing I thought I heard was uh that once you test and figure out there's a modest level that exceeds a particular point um that then you want to have a plan in place to follow up so that there's not a lot of uh delay if you will and I understand that um but I also heard that each building would present a unique set of circumstances and factors that would go into the plan that you would develop so it seems like um it's great to have an overall structure to a plan but really what we're talking about is very specific tailored uh ways to look at and investigate further and then down the road remediate once the the problem is identified and that's very specific to a school so having an overall structure in place is important but what I think I heard is it's actually more important to have the information quickly and then act upon it relatively quickly thereafter because each one is different and unique to that particular building so I don't know how we it's sort of both concepts we want some overarching structure to the to the to the testing and then results went once they are found and known but then we also need to shift at the same time into a very specific school specific or building specific way to investigate further and then possibly remediate so it seems I'm trying to square the two and I'm not sure I'm the best one to do that but that seems to be too conflicting uh perhaps uh points of of discussion going forward but I think that's uh we can get there I think certainly getting the information is a priority um I also agree with the commissioner vis-a-vis equity and I think that um but I take it at a different and take it in a different direction slightly I think the schools and parents who um have means will force their schools and their school communities if you will to test for PCBs and the schools that don't have means uh won't do that unless and until they're forced to do so by the state and I think that's that's actually a larger equity question and so I think that we as a state have an obligation to make sure that all schools whether um people are have the ability or the means to do it demand testing we that's the role of the state here to step in say hey this stuff this these PCBs are not good we don't want kids we don't staff uh you know being exposed to this contaminant and we as a state think it's a priority to to at least investigate see where the test results are and then begin to dig further and remediate so I think that is an equity issue certainly most definitely but it's an equity issue I think that will go the other way uh which is to say the state should be leading the charge here and I think that's the right approach so with that I'm happy to answer any questions I don't um I am not a chemical or environmental law expert by any stretch no thank you uh questions for Mr. Fanon okay the only other the only comment I think I have and it's more to those that we uh we just heard from and that's you know as Mr. Walk and others are working on you know this some of our options um knowing that you know to quote the I think it was the Vermont digger that said you know this could just be the tip of the iceberg you know to really think uh with colleagues and the administration to know you know to come back and say okay we may need in order to do this work we really may need these additional dollars this many people that kind of sort of all hands on deck so thank you Mr. Fanon appreciate it thank you yep uh Mr. Glawski Vermont School boards association welcome back to senate ed thank you very much chair campion see you thank you for the opportunity to give input on this very important and very serious issue I hope I um am not too just disjointed because um some of the information is um brand new to me today as it is to all of the rest of you so I'm trying to um uh process it I did notice that the appropriation for testing is split into two places in the senate's version of h4 36 and it's in one place in the house version not sure about the reason for that difference but um it was informative to me to hear the testimony um of I believe it was the commissioner who said that that um appropriation of 4.5 million only covers the initial testing and currently there's no um appropriation or plan for investigation and remediation if testing reveals the presence of PCBs that are um above the state screening standard so um as has been um discussed by other others this afternoon um there definitely is a need for some type of orderly planful approach to the investigation and remediation um issues when testing reveals that the presence of PCBs is above the state screening standard it seems like commissioner walks submission that's on your website is heading in that direction with um with the proposal that was submitted today as I um indicated seeing that for the first time today um I think as your as the discussion so far um shows it is an extremely complex issue uh the the document submitted by um ANR requires site investigation and source identification for any result exceeding the state standard um in accordance with um ANR's investigation and remediation of contaminated properties rule and I did take a look at that rule briefly and just would note that it with its appendices it's over 50 pages long so um need a little more time to try to digest that um I did have a concern that it um putting putting it in this um regulatory structure may possibly subject school districts to penalties so I like some um clarity about that and um I think overall the submission um by commissioner walk illustrates the high level of complexity to this issue I appreciate his um reference to equity and also um Jeff Fannin's reference to equity and think that it's extremely important to take the time that's needed to give this process the detailed thinking it deserves on the technical details and also on the equity issue so that the issue of PCBs in schools is addressed so with that I would just ask um to be included in um any additional conversations whether they're happening you know during the what's left of this um session or in some type of work group that would maybe work over the summer um thank you very much for inviting me today thank you so um just uh to clarify because we're looking at requiring testing in schools um perhaps as soon as during this next year are you in support of that I think it it needs to be there need to be a lot of more details added um about the investigation and the remediation and and also um an appropriation added for investigation and remediation um in order to make this um a complete plan so no not at this point is that accurate I would need more details in order to really answer your question okay so we're looking at this just for our witnesses who may have come in before Mr. Fannin or after Mr. Fannin we're trying to take a step back you know your parents your your you have children in schools this is information we're moving toward like we need we want to get this information to parents you're overseeing the school board association I'm wondering if you believe and I don't think I'm trying not to complicate it should parents have this information if their children are going to a school or teachers are in schools teaching as soon as possible within this year they should have this information as soon as possible yes um but it but we have to think about what happens after they have the information absolutely I'm thinking right now though if they don't have the information and if they were to uh become ill get cancer child gets harmed that that's sort of where we're at right now but I agree we do need to take that next step um around what happens once that information is had questions for Mr. Glawski thank you Mr. Francis uh superintendent association welcome back thank you uh good afternoon Jeffrey Francis from the superintendent association how is my audio function okay thank you very much so um first of all I want to express my appreciation to the committee and also the witnesses that preceded me I've learned a lot about um the approach that the state is contemplating just as a result of what I've heard today um three things occurred to me in the testimony the first is that um the general assembly appropriately is focusing on the what which as uh senator campion just articulated as a desire to get reliable information out to parents in a timely way which I think is um very very useful and appropriate those of us that are serving the school communities um are compelled to deal with the how um and that's what I've tried to wrap my brain around this afternoon there's two things that um that I'm regretting one is that I took note of uh commissioner walk's submission and saw that the date on it was February and I frankly wish that the conversation that we're having today had started then and secondly um I'm wondering and I'm sure that uh you've got secretary french scheduled on this topic but as the person who's responsible for overseeing the operation of vermont's public schools I think it'll be really important to hear from him um because what I've heard so far and again I do appreciate the everything all the work that's gone into this to this point was at first I I thought we were going to deal with a regulatory approach and then it sort of progressed into a programmatic approach from the state's perspective in terms of testing and so on and so forth what I'm interested in and what the superintendents with whom I work with will be interested in and what the facilities people with whom I work with will be interested in um are the logistics the financing and the education delivery in the context and I don't want anyone to interpret anything I'm saying as not being cooperative toward the purpose that senator campion articulated and also contending with what I think is going to be an extraordinarily challenging um project I think that and other witnesses have alluded to this that uh PCBs will make lead and radon look very simple in terms of what we're doing and the reason is when tasser occurred and PCBs are identified there's going to be and and other witnesses have indicated this there's going to be um a pretty profound reaction from community to community in places where PCBs are identified so when I talk about logistics and senator tanzini alluded to this earlier himself he said are are we not adept at um remote learning um but you're gonna I mean if you consider burlington as an extreme case and I think it is a useful case and back away from that there's going to be all kinds of operational considerations um that are going to have to be contended with around questions like how will we educate kids if you get into serious remediation projects for PCBs and I think we should anticipate that um how will you do that in an equitable way and ultimately how are you going to provide funding support for um districts that have to engage in that remediation so I'm not saying that uh in terms of discouragement or um defiance or lack of cooperation I'm just telling you based on my experience and observation what I think ultimately you'll be getting into so in my mind the challenge for the general assembly and I'm going to take a liberty here would be if you're intending to move on this bill in the next week you want to get the ball started on testing but you do not want to forgo any of those other considerations that I've offered because in the absence of a plan for logistical details funding details and educational details you're going to be basically picking up pieces while you're dealing with PCBs and you know um I think I have a reputation for speaking relatively straightforwardly and that's what I'm trying to do here I think that when you hear from Secretary French um he can bring more information in with regard to logistics alone I'll leave this way everybody on this um call has familiarity with a school or a set of schools um what I've been uh engaged in over the course of my career is trying to understand all schools and you know what you're going to encounter in Springfield for example if PCBs were identified there is quite different than the Burlington experience which would be quite different than the Middlesex experience and so on and so forth when we embark on this and I am not discouraging you from moving forward we have to be prepared for all of it and that's what I think you need to be thinking about and I'm going to stop there Senator Taranzini thanks Senator Kimmy and I appreciate your your comments Mr. Francis I really do I uh at the end of the day though I just can't wrap my head around the fact that we've heard a lot of good testimony today but uh at the end of the day we have thousands and thousands of kids a couple of mine included a couple of Senator Chittenden's and others they're in these schools and I think that uh we would rather know sooner than later I think that we can move quickly with plans we are getting two billion dollars from the federal government and there's a lot of ideas of how to spend that two billion dollars a lot of it's already been spent uh and one could argue should some have been spent here versus there or whatever that's for another day but the fact of the matter is I'm all for moving forward at 100 miles an hour to get to get these tests done and make sure these kids are healthy and you know I think whether it be and I'm a brand new senator whether it be more time has spent on this over the summer in a study committee if that's permitted or however it's done but we need to figure out how to test these schools keep the kids and faculty safe and ensure that um this isn't a problem going forward I came from an elementary school and Senator Hooker might remember but I came from an elementary school when I was there in the early 90s uh that we had six or seven teachers within a year uh were diagnosed with different types of cancer and our parents were scared to death to send their kids to school kids were taken out of Rutland Town School uh teachers were sick I mean it was a terrible time in the mid 90s uh when you think about what that our our municipality went through it was never found to be they never found the cause and they you know it was it could have been totally coincidental that five or six or seven teachers all had cancer at the same time but very suspicious uh and um anyways the I'm I'm delaying here but I think it needs to be done and I'm really passionate about this center campaign that we figure out a a path forward thank you very much I appreciate that so Senator Francis uh or Secretary Mr. Francis yes uh all of the above uh so I'm gonna ask the same question of you that I asked of Sue Siglowski just to be fair for clarification you support testing immediately uh get this information to parents while at the same time we would you know the perhaps it's the uh work with Senator Ballant who can uh in her authority as pro tem can set out summer program studies or what have you to to make sure that we're ready to address but you are on board with this immediate testing so that parents can know yeah yeah so yes I'd like to respond to that before I I want to make sure that Senator Tarzini doesn't think that anything I said contradicted anything he said so that's the first thing too I you know this this is the first day of testimony on an extraordinary complex issue my response to you senator campion is I would suggest that you move forward with the with immediately with the voluntary testing program that was originally envisioned by the administration get that work underway and then utilize the time between now and however long it takes to put the type of planning into place that I think is going to be required in order to have what I'm referring to as a comprehensive program that deals not only with testing and response to the testing but also logistical planning from planning for remediation and most significantly making sure that through whatever follow-up actions are required you can educate kids in the state equitably as you proceed and I think that that that is an approach that could be successful if that's the approach that you decide to take I don't think that it's a good idea to say we're going to test every school produce the results and then figure out the rest of the details later including the money I I do not think that that is a prudent approach and just for the record I I do think and then senator chinden I think we're this is I don't think this is as complicated as everybody some want to make this this is do we let parents know do we let their families know do we teach you know teachers and staff no uh senator chinden I'll say two things one I completely echo everything senator taranzini said and the second thing is uh to mr francis I can get behind not a mandatory testing of every school but I I want to revisit a concern that was raised when I joined I I'm hesitant to support a voluntary approach because of the discrepancy and the importance of equity and I would could support a more intelligent targeting approach where if we have buildings that based on the construction the era that they were built based on how what we know about when they were built that we would focus and strategize the testing and prioritize the testing but I would sitting in this vantage point and the with the responsibility to provide equitable access to educational opportunities and safety standards I'm hesitant to leave it to a voluntary approach to school districts so so final mr francis final word because we have a hard 330 stop and we have two more witnesses final word you have money allocated I think you could go to a comparative risk analysis which is what senator chinden just described we've heard witnesses from the department of environmental conservation talk about surveying schools in order to make determinations about what target schools might be again I'll close this way I don't want anybody to misinterpret what I'm saying because I am supportive of environmental safety in schools I you know try to think through from start to finish all the details and how it works for the public education system and the children and families that it serves and the employees that work in it overall and my firm belief is that you need a comprehensive program that um asks questions and answers them before you just start thank you for the opportunity to testify thank you mr nichols uh appreciate you uh sticking with us on this uh I don't need to cheat up you know where we're at good afternoon I might be the person who missed the most of the testimony on this because I've been in the board meeting all day so I'm going to share my thoughts I'll try not to repeat anything oftentimes the usual suspects as you folks call us get together and talk about these things we didn't have the opportunity to do that with this bill so for the record j nickles executive director of remand principles association it's likely that our members probably spend more time in the building than anybody else our our principles work full year they don't work part year you know like teachers do and other people like along with custodians they work full year but they're in there a lot of nights and stuff too a lot of weekends summertime so we put a lot of time in the buildings I myself had nine grandchildren really 8.75 got one coming here in a few weeks and most of them are in school so I fully understand the problem from that perspective as well so that all said you know as we did with len and radon we take all this very seriously we think that the safety administrators faculty and staff and course students is paramount I want to say I agree with Jeff Fanon's testimony and that we need to take this seriously and that was also echoed by miss lasowski and mr francis and I don't want to be negative but I do want to share a couple concerns I questioned the timing a little bit of the pcb work in terms of this the first I've heard about this as an issue this legislative session has been the last couple days so maybe I've completely missed it if I have I apologize I just want to make sure that we don't run into something that's not well planned out sometimes the most expedient path is to fire without aiming I just want to make sure we take a little bit of time to aim and I think senator chitin and you tried to promote him to senator francis and secretary francis but mr francis I think they they both hit on something there it may need to be targeted to the places that we think have the most need first so I think you have to have a pretty thorough plan you also have to make sure that we're going to be able to provide kids with the free and appropriate public education although I'm not an expert on PCBs I do wonder about our state having a standard that is so much more stringent than the EPA standard which appears to be the standard used by the other 49 states if I'm incorrect about that I'd love to be corrected I don't have a problem with a voluntary or even a mandatory testing program but my real major point is that the major points are if a school district ends up with a major PCB issue like seems to be the case in burlington high school who pays for the mitigation what is the funding source are we potentially looking at knocking down dozens of schools dozens of school buildings I had a board meeting today and I talked to 15 principals and at least six of them are in big schools that are thinking oh my god this could easily be us our buildings were built around the same time I think you're absolutely right I mean I think it is that serious I really do and I think for me it's as I've said it's again if I were a parent I'd want to know if I had a spouse in the school if I you know working full-time in any capacity I'd want to know and then let people take that knowledge and make their decisions as well as all of us start to make a plan to you know do exactly what you're talking about whatever it is raise a building mitigate but to me and this is where I struggle a little bit I think is and I'm not saying this is what you're saying but a little bit of my takeaway from previous witnesses was you we well maybe I know this is I don't want to put on previous witnesses but waiting while we get to that plan when again the the impacts of PCBs are so serious on one's health especially as we learn from the radon conversations kids as they're developing you know their lungs you know their little heart you know all these things and all this all these chemicals which we have created these problems say for radon of course it's it's natural in the environment but it's it's I want parents to know and maybe I'm speaking a little bit too much with my heart and not with my brain but I want parents to know I want them not to have to wait to get this information and I know I've utmost confidence in us as Vermonters that we will really rise to the occasion to fix whatever is actually found. Senator Tinden. Mr. Nichols you're not mistaken this is the first time I and for this session I recall really diving into PCBs but at the top of mind for many in the state when our largest high school is now not going to be reopened because of it. I would just I would think what I'm hearing and I missed a lot of this testimony too Mr. Nichols so I might be recovering ground already already addressed but I think if we can commit to testing and collecting this information while simultaneously developing a mitigation approach the kid the school where my kids go has asbestos tiles it is known by all parents it is also deemed safe as long as you don't disrupt it so if we can accompany this this this a preparation to test for all these things with clear guidance on how it can be safe for kids to go there so that we're not reacting to the results without having thought through how it can be mitigation approaches to make people feel safe and have to not have to raise buildings so on a dime I fully support that. I think that's I think a little bit more I want to share that I think that's part of my point senator is that if we're going to do this we need to be thoughtful about all aspects of it we need to realize that we've got kids that are so let's one thing was mentioned you know we did remote learning really well well you know we did do it really well comparatively well we've got a ton of kids who cannot get on a line effectively we've got teachers who can't get online effectively and we lost a lot of kids during the during this remote learning every principal will tell you especially in our more rural areas that they had kids that effectively dropped out and they had kids that were second third fourth graders that were left to home home alone trying to navigate bad internet to be able to access their education so I don't want to see a school back to that I just want us to be thoughtful if we get a closed x y z school for a month or a year what are we going to do with those kids that's all with the with the mitigation strategy fully on board with we need to find out what's going on but let's be thinking about what we're going to do to support those kids during that time you know I'm worried about the last thing I'll say and I'll short my testimony I'm worried about broadband and I've spoken about this and I've testified in many committees uh and I've written written broadband statements supported approach for any Brock tried to take we've got a lot of kids that we're talking about four or five years before they have adequate broadband so for them remote learning does not work because they don't have access to it and so that's not really going to be an option for a number of our kids thank you uh senator tarenzini yeah thank you senator campy I I think what senator chinan said is proportional I think it's a reasonable response look at we we obviously have to have a plan after we test right because um if it comes back you know terrible in school a well the classrooms are going to be empty parents most of the parents aren't going to send their kids to the school right so you have to have a plan and I too like senator campy maybe I'm thinking a little bit emotionally with my heart because this is an issue that's compassionate about especially with having kids in the school and being a former former school board member and so on but you know it's it's one of those things that you can't you can't see taste smell or whatever it's like you know if the building was slowly on fire we wouldn't let the kids sit in that building would we you know so you know I'll stop there but I appreciate the conversation I just I too wish that we had and I'm not blaming anybody but I wish we had had time uh weeks ago where this information to have started this conversation a little sooner because it's certainly something I'm pretty passionate about and we you know I could seriously make some headway with I think yeah now I think I actually in some ways think uh we're still okay with timing but I think we all agree it would always good to have more time but I think we can probably accomplish uh a first couple steps on this uh committee we do need to shift uh because we uh I'm afraid there is a meeting regarding S-13 that I need to attend uh but I also want to give everyone an opportunity to hear from Ms. Parker and Mr. Peral anything uh final Mr. Walk I'm looking to you Mr. Nichols thank you very much very much appreciate it uh as you know we'll be working with you on this uh I'm wondering uh commissioner if you again you've you've been listening and I know you're not our ledge council but I think you've been taking in the maybe the direction that we're moving in which again is knowledge is power get this out there as soon as we can to parents while simultaneously uh and I'll talk to the pro tem about this perhaps setting something up uh for this summer so that we can get ready in other words we know the results worst case scenario it's going to be pretty bad out there and we need to make sure that we continue to educate children we need to continue to you know make sure kids are safe all those kinds of things but I do think we can get there it's going to take some time energy and money but uh I think the big top priority thank you senator I would just add I think the conversations you've heard today are are reflective of the real challenges of the full gamut of this challenge we as as parents uh my sister is the Vermont teacher of the year from 2020 we all have you know concerns about uh the safety of our school environments the the the the functional reality of this situation is that if we go out and we do testing and every community that has a test result that's above the standard is going to want immediate action and that immediate action is not going to be satisfactory and it's going to involve a lot of further investigation and investigation and work that if we as the state fail to think through effectively we're going to cause bigger more challenging issues for our school communities than simply the provision of information and so that's that's what we're certainly supportive of I think what you've heard as put you know potential options from from folks today is to stand up the logistics of the program and on a you know whether it's on a voluntary basis or a timeline with some work to to come in the future to allow us to stand up the infrastructure and get the program in place so people can uh really do this work and do it thoughtfully and effectively there are a number of considerations that you could take into account and we're happy to think through some of those options um and present them to you but I do you know just to remind the committee and all the witnesses that this the work that that that is listed under my name was a simply a sharing back of a draft that was nobody and if anything I mean this was some confusion I was under the impression that the language in the big bill took care of this and so it's for the record this is not a reflection on commissioner walk whatsoever that it has a February date on it in no way should be connected to him if anybody should have a double check or triple check it should have been yours truly with making certain that uh the language in the big bill really did was mandatory I still think in some ways it sent a mandatory message but that's neither here nor there at this point I still think we need clarification I think we need to make clear to everybody what we're going to do I think this committee is moving in the direction of mandating some kind of timeline perhaps some kind of uh comparison you know some kind of uh you know comparative risk analysis I'm not sure but but certainly moving forward with with uh a mandate and then while that's going working with the pro tem's office to again deal with really what's going to have to be all hands on deck because I'm not disagreeing that parents once people find this out uh it's going to be a problem but I don't want to I'm sounding feeling like we're sounding a little bit like I don't know a cigarette company circa 1950 when they find out they're going to stop smoking so let's not put the you know the label on I'm saying put the label on literally let people know and yes we are going to respond but we are and and will respond as we always do we I do believe that in partnership with this administration we'll we'll fix it I mean I I really do I we have infrastructure dollars that are coming in we have good partnerships with our federal delegation I know I don't want to speak for the governor but I'm sure the governor cares about this uh I think we get there but let's put the label on let's let people know and let's deal with it committee anything final I will wait to hear back from uh mr walk and others with the draft that kind of again gets us moving in that direction mr grady if you would work with the commissioner that would be great and then hopefully by sometime either over the weekend or monday we can again just get something going senator lines please I was just going to say I think we really do need to move forward and um having the release information there that gives that that gives reports to a nr for me is critically important but then moving forward but as you said mr chair with a study in place to look at the logistics and how we're going to the process how to proceed you know maybe it's uh there's some prioritization that could be suggested and that's probably an a on our suggestion once uh initial investigations take place then prioritizing available funds you know for those that have the greatest um exposure within their buildings so if I may senator lines there aren't available funds right so it's not a prioritization exercise it's an identification exercise well I when I say available funds I'm implying that we need to find them I mean that would that's a number one step so I don't know where they come from but we are going to need to find them and maybe it will be some unnamed source from the federal government okay I'm going to need to end it there uh thank you all uh appreciate everybody's willingness mr gritty uh you're on muted you have a question I just wanted to get a little bit more clarity about what you want in the draft but I I guess I can work with the commissioner and Matt Chapman and bring you back something that you can refine okay I appreciate that and I'm happy to be in touch over the weekend or after we finish today thank you all that's a terrific important conversation uh mr praul and miss parker thanks for being with us uh we are uh it was raised this morning when we were in this committee that uh we still need a little more information on the small schools grant uh we are uh as I didn't hear any questions from committee members or senators I don't think on the floor today when it passed second reading but we uh are hoping to just get a little bit more information so that senators are comfortable uh agreeing with uh committee of finance uh and if not uh I'm happy to to share that as as well there's also the question which we uh I worked on for Tuesday um this is a funding issue that was raised uh by the chair of finance yesterday we're going to have um uh Chris Rupin I believe who's from your office on you know on Tuesday to talk to us about what exactly you know this uh uh the funds that are related to retirement and health care that are in the ed fund that sort of thing just so senators will have that information we know it's not in our jurisdiction that's the appropriations committee but but um back to sort of our theme of the day information is power so uh center lines you're unmuted do you want to have a question before we get started no okay with that Mr. Pope and Ms. Parker if you don't mind just bring us back to the small schools grant what uh ways and means uh their goal our finance committee also passed this out on second reading today uh give us just a little bit more information and then we'll open it up for questions thank you so maybe I can start on mark mark from the giant fiscal office um when act when act 46 passed school districts that were receiving a small school grant were allowed to continue that grant um indefinitely if they merged voluntarily those districts that did not merge voluntarily did not get that benefit what this bill would do is extend that benefit that's available now to the districts that merged voluntarily under act 46 to those districts that did not merge voluntarily so I'm gonna put them on the same a level playing field the way it would work is we would look back to the small school grant that was made available in 2020 and that grant would be made a permanent grant for the districts that are currently having to apply for the small school grant every year um the only way they would lose that grant is if they decided to actually close that school that's the same provision that's in law right now for the districts that merged voluntarily we took a look um at um some historical information to try to get an idea of what this would cost and it turns out that it's pretty much a wash some school districts would receive a slightly larger grant as a result of having a small small smaller calculated small small school grant in 22 compared to what they had in 20 and for some districts would be the other way around but it looked like it was pretty much a wash the advantage to the districts the districts that actually would lose a little bit of money under this um the advantage to them is that this would become a permanent grant for them as opposed to an annual grant that they have to apply for each year so i'm not sure yeah essentially it would just add in a little bit more planning you know if they know exactly how much they're going to be receiving each year then they can budget for that and plan more accordingly so that's one other advantage and because because small schools keep getting smaller it's you know it will enable them to hang on some more money so overall the grant statewide including both all the districts that are eligible for either emergency support grant or small school grant it's about eight million dollars out of the education fund annually so it's not a huge program but it's important to the districts that get it yes senator chendon it's eight million now um and that's eight million dollars which is a big chunk of money how has it been over the years has it do you have any type of longitudinal perspective of has it grown shrunk fluctuated does it ever blow the sands of time it's been it's been getting a little bit smaller each year i think the only information i have in front of me is f y 20 was eight point four million twenty one eight point two and for f y 22 it's projected to be eight point one so it's coming down a little bit but that's also break the little bit because districts that merge voluntarily had to convert it into a merge of support grant so they're keeping the same amount they don't lose anymore follow-up chair campion please so i might have missed something and i know i wasn't here yesterday could could you help me understand why we started talking about this this morning and what the question is before us thank you no i appreciate that so in the miscellaneous tax bill today uh one of the things that finance did was they are restoring the small schools grant and as mr pro raised and so what senator comings asked us to do is to take a look at the language make sure that we're comfortable with it it's um for the record i mean i'm comfortable with restoring it uh it's finances put some work into this i think it makes sense on a lot of levels and that's that's where we're at so we started looking at it yesterday we came in this morning into committee and i think uh we just needed a little more time and a little more discussion around it just to make sure everyone was comfortable but you probably i don't know to be honest i don't remember if you were on the floor today yes of course you were on the floor today because uh but senator at that point senator comings also took us through the process a little bit and uh just looking to make sure that our at least the majority of our committee is is okay with restoring this so one more follow-up please absolutely yeah this is i feel like this came up in the context of s 13 and uh my question is is because this would be on the table what if we readjust the weightings that's going to put into question these small school grants this eight million dollars if we're going to be adjusting for the morality of a school district and giving them more money is that a correct impression from these discussions with s 13 small school districts so far i i think you're thinking of the excess spending provision that's in s 13 um this is this is part of um help me out brian here this is part of 436 it isn't s 13 because one of the factors in the weighting city is looking at geography and small schools and how resources are distributed so i think that it would be something that the the report looks into and something that we would continue to study as a study group um so it's a little preemptive to say exactly how that would work out until we actually really dive into it as a study group this summer um so we'll probably know more in a year or so that helps at all last question sure no no go for it so is this eight million dollars part of the 50 million dollars that's been thrown around in some emails today that of the 50 million more dollars we're putting on the ed fund i'm i'm struggling with why we're discussing this eight million dollars yeah i know that this has been part of the education fund for for years now it's not part of the additional money that's coming into the education fund in the uh house in the senate past budget yeah there's no connection i think some there might be out there that there might be a connect but there's no connection to those two and on tuesday we're going to understand better when we hear from uh chris roup about the 50 million and the history of that and and why it was put in all that kind of thing right okay you know this is not really a fiscal issue it's more a policy question right right it's whether whether you want to extend the benefits made been made available to voluntarily merge districts to all districts right center hooker so um thank you what would possible negative aspects of including this be um i can't think of any really negative aspects of it except that you know this this was provided as an incentive for districts to merge voluntarily and so now it's very available to those districts that were required to merge by the board of education so one argument is that you know they they aren't entitled to the benefit because they didn't voluntarily merge the other side of the argument is that well whether you merge voluntarily or involuntarily we're all merged down and we ought to level the playing field and these schools are already getting these grants would be getting these grants would have to apply for them annually yes they apply for them annually and um you know and they may not qualify in future years or um you know in this this would make their the grant permanent as long as the school remained open okay thank you anything else for either uh mr corral or uh miss parker and does anyone have any concerns with me again talking to senate finance without uh being okay with this okay thank you all um thank you both uh committee uh i really appreciate it i know that some of these issues uh that we're dealing with um are hard they're uh in some ways easy uh it but without a doubt it's hard this time of year uh so appreciate the time appreciate uh everybody uh pushing forward with this and um stay in touch on that senator tarenzini please well i just two things quick i first of all you got my blood pressure out pretty good today this afternoon and second well i wish i wish you hadn't waited until the end of a session to tell me about this no tie policy and committee i mean i just i can breathe now i know exactly i know have a good weekend thanks everybody thanks for a great week okay bye bye yeah thank you and take care thanks you too uh genie i have to go i'm afraid