Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Alright, welcome back to House of Education, 02/18/2026. Turning our attention to H542. This is the PCB testing bill that we've had in front of us a little bit. This is an opportunity now, I think, to if we want to make changes, to make changes and also ask questions about if there are any unintended consequences or anything like that. So I guess the first question for the committee, do you need another walkthrough of the bill, which we could do? Not seeing a lot of yeses or noes here. We'll pause on that. From a high level point of view, this essentially would end the requirement to test for PCBs within the program that was set up in 2021. This does not end the requirement to test for PCBs if you're doing a major renovation or demolition or construction project. Is that a correct statement?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So if you were going to do a construction project and your building was pre 1980, you're gonna do an environmental assessment and that environmental assessment will include a PCB monitoring plan.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And that's required under a whole other separate bit of statute or federal law. Federal law. So, this is not removing that requirement. This is ending the air quality testing program that was set up. I just want to really emphasize that the reason, the main motivation here is because there's no money to pay for it. And there has been no money asked for by the administration. So there's no money to post in the current budget. There's simply the remaining 4,500,000.0 from DEC's special fund to address current needs. This also requires the state to continue to pay for the testing and remediation at those schools that have been found to be under the Vermont created action levels. That's only a requirement if we appropriate the money. Everybody knows that. And that is in keeping with bills we'd have passed previously that basically say the state is required to pay for the costs here. And then it requires some report back from the agency about what's the current status of those that have been affected, how much money is needed to continue to provide them with the remediation and testing that they need. And that if the state lacks sufficient funds from the investigation of all of that, Secretary of ANR will submit reports on the amount of funds the General Assembly should appropriate to ANR to to sufficiently fund the investigation and mediation of the local PCBs in the schools where ANR was positive for the presence of PCBs in excess of the school action levels. So that, I think, mainly sums this up. Anything else?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I think there's the pause. If you tested and you exceeded the school action levels, but there's no money that's there to do the investigation, remediation, or removal. The school is paused from going forward until there is sufficient funds, unless, of course, federal requirements make you go forward with the removal.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And there's nothing to stop a community to go forward to funded within their own budget.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Within their own budget, if they want to, but it would not be funded through this program until ANR made the recommendation and you appropriated the money for the program.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Should a school or district go through a construction or renovation and during the environmental assessment, they find their RPCVs, is it on their own that they have to come up with those funds, or because it was found as part of that, the state helps with those funds,

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: or is it pretty much

[Kate McCann (Member)]: just on their own, I guess?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So the funding that's available is available for those schools that tested positive because of the air quality testing. If you're going forward with your own construction project and you did you did, you applied for your construction aid from the state and you did the master planning, and you probably already got some money for your assessment, but you didn't get money for your response. And that's gonna be something that the school's gonna have to navigate on that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: As they have had to in the past.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: So all of this, any school that was tested under the current law we're talking about moving, they are continued as long as there's money available to be supported in perpetuity, if the money is there.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: If the money is there in perpetuity, yes. They would be until their investigation removal plan was finished, they would be supported. If there was no money, they pause until there is money that's subsequently available. Should there be money ten years from now, they could start back up and start doing that project? Part of what I think the next step of this bill is it's gonna go to appropriations and there's going to be that discussion. How much money is necessary to close out those schools that need to do investigation, remediation and removal? And that'll be a discussion for you and your appropriations committee.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you. This bill would not get appropriations, would not need appropriations, or would it?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: No, I think it would. Because? Because you basically, first, you shut down the testing requirement, which already has funding appropriated to it. You have a funding pause in it. I do think, I can't speak for the clerk and what she would recommend, but I do think she would recommend that this goes to appropriations.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's good. That's good knowing that we should probably move this baby along so that they have time before things get really busy down there as well. Just any other questions on the bill? ANR came in with a number of recommendations that, as Lunch Council has said repeatedly, is more forward looking as to what the future might be. If you read through that, you'll see that. And it mostly centers around if a school is creating a facilities master plan that they should test to make sure that their facilities master plan isn't based on a building that may have PCBs with levels above the state action levels. I guess I'm personally not ready to go to what the future should look like, and that those options for testing always exist. And because the state has raised sort of a heightened awareness of PCBs, probably would test anyway. But I think until we clean up the mess that has been the previous program, that we need to think about the future in the future, but more importantly, like when there's money. That's why I haven't necessarily been advocating to include any of this in H542. Questions, additions, changes? Are people comfortable voting? Or people, I should say, are people willing to vote this afternoon or today, this morning on it since we have it on our agenda? Or is there more you need to hear? I don't wanna shut anybody out. All right, I think we should go for it.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: I mean, I don't know what to say. I feel like this is an impossible choice.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think every choice we've been having this year has been impossible. But

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: you're like, okay, let's vote. I'm literally sitting here being like, I don't know which way I'm gonna vote. And the vote is happening in twenty seconds. I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: mean, if you are saying, could we wait a day? That's fine. Oh, I'd like that. You'd like a day? I'd like a day. I wanna

[Kate McCann (Member)]: absorb both sides a little bit.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay, I am not trying to ramp this through. Speak Yeah, up, that's fine.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I guess that's my question, is what information, as you said, what more information do we need in that twenty four hours to be able to be decided to vote, or is it still gonna be an impossible vote for some people tomorrow, whether you get more information or not?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, mean, people feel the need to either reflect or wanna check back with folks in their area or whatever. Certainly. So no problem. Yeah. I do have a question for you, if

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I may. You had mentioned 1980 and the federal government. Now that, what you just explained, has no bearing on this. Is that correct?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. There's a toxic substances control act, and under that act, PCB manufacturing and distribution, and and subsequent use was banned for buildings constructed construction after 1980. Correct. So anything before 1980 is where that federal law applies and where you have enough you honestly, it comes through your lender. Your lender is not going to take on the potential risk of PCB contamination in a post 1980 building without you doing an assessment of whether or not PCBs are there. And once you've done that, if you exceed a certain level under TSCA, you have certain responsibilities. It might be if it's low enough that you can contain it. But if it's above the 50 nanograms I can't remember the actual scientific standard. But if it's above that 50, then you've gotta get it out. You have an affirmative responsibility to remove that material source of the PCBs from the building.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: With help from the federal government? No.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think for the time being, thank you. We'll we'll if everybody is comfortable, I'm gonna reschedule the vote then. Well, tomorrow, probably after the house floor. Pop back in here for We have a little bit of time left on this discussion. Chelsea, I don't know if you'd like to weigh in at all. You'd be welcome. But if you don't feel the need to, that's fine as well.

[Chelsea (Administration/Agency Representative)]: We expect something in your inbox that's around some different times.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. Alright, so for those of you who may still have thoughts or questions, you can talk to me, check-in with her, Happy to continue to express my opinion on this.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: It basically goes without saying that if administration comes up with the money, then this program will be reimplemented, right, if we voted to

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would say that the answer to that is no.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Oh, okay. So I guess that's the one

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: The question was is if the money magically appeared, it doesn't magically restart the program.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Testing. It would only restart investigation remediation Of and remove

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: those places.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: If you've already tested and you've seen at the school action level.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Would there be a way to amend that, that, like, we want this to happen, that there's funding?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I mean, we could come up with language that says, we can't really hold a future legislature We to could put in a finding and an intent. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I would say the language already does it. It says the state commits to funding to investigate. But if there's no funding and the school is not on the hook itself, And it doesn't have to go forward with investigation remediation removal until the funding becomes available.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think what representative Harple is saying is that and add to that list the restart of the testing program. Which I would say, when we have the problem of having the money available, let's address it there. Yeah,

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: right. I guess the question I really truly need answered in order to vote is how dangerous is this? Who is gonna get sick if we stop this? I really need the answer to that question. You're not gonna get it. No, that's the thing that's stopping.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's the ten year lawsuit that's going on right now. I would just say, think about it if we kept the requirement in for air conditioning and have no money attached to it, what that could potentially create. And, you know, I'll be a little political here, but this was very clearly a real effort on the administration's part. When we tried to shut it down previously, they came in and said, absolutely do not stop this. And then especially down in the Senate, they put up lots of slides about the whole program and levels and impacts and all of that. And they felt it was very important. Yet, they don't seem to think that it's actually important enough to fund. So, that's one way of looking at it. Sort of the opposite. School of construction.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I'll do the math in my head, but maybe.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: That's helpful. All

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: right, thank you very much. All right, We then, if there's no further discussion on H542, we will turn until our next gathering together, which is at 01:15.