Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Go back to the House Environment Committee. We are gonna shift gears and walk through with our legislative council the Senate chloride bill, which is this one Two one eight. Two one eight. Welcome, Michael.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. This is Mike Agridi with legislative council. Before I walk through the bill, I wanna give you some context for what the bill is about and potentially who you should talk to about that. I think you have all heard of the term a TMDL, how the state is required to go out every three years and assess the water, so to speak, determine if the waters are meeting the water quality standards. If they're not, identify what's causing any impairment and to come up with a plan to fix. So over the past few years, the agency has been going out and chloride levels and waters is increasing, I would say, across all regions of the state, more so in more developed regions like Chittenden and Franklin County. And there are lakes there are water segments that have been identified as impaired for chloride. This document has there should be eight, but there's only seven on here. No. There's eight. I'm sorry. I just can't count. And so what do you do when you have a TMDL? You come up with a plan for how you're gonna bring that water back into compliance, with the water quality standards. Well, the biggest source of chloride in state waters is road salt from application by state, municipal, and local state, municipal, and, others, private, and then also just people putting salt on their driveways. So the purpose of S two eighteen is to create a program, a voluntary program, voluntary, that commercial SAWD applicators can choose to participate in, in which they are trained on best management practices for application of salt and salt alternatives. Once they complete the program, they are designated a certified commercial salt applicator. And if there are any damages that occur from their application of salt or salt alternatives, they get an affirmative defense that they are not liable. And that affirmative defense also applies to the property owners where they are applying salt or salt alternatives. Now there are a couple of variations. AOT is exempt because AOT already has its own practices. Municipalities aren't part of the commercial salt applicator program. They're gonna be part of a local roads program, but they still receive similar benefit. And there's a report in the bill about the covering of salt sheds, salt storage. It is not a mandate. It is not a requirement that municipalities cover salt or move their salt piles. It's just effectively an inventory. What needs to be covered, what needs to be moved, and what it will cost to do that. There's no mandate on municipality.

[Speaker 0]: This is a bill that we worked a lot on last year, and I guess sounds pretty similar

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: so far. It is. It's very similar. I think the the variation was the affirmative defense was sort of insisted upon in the senate, where in the House it initially was just. Effectively immunity from liability that and I can explain the difference when we get to the affirmative defense. So. With that said, I'm just gonna walk through the bill as passed by the senate. I don't know if that's on your website because I

[Speaker 0]: don't It is.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't had time.

[Speaker 0]: I question, have though. Eight chloride t m dls deals, is that up from last year, or is that the same number as last year?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's up from last year, and it's they haven't actually come up with the TMDLs for all of them. These are the ones that need them. And I think there are three that have actually been developed. And so they're they're all in Chittenden, Shelburne, South Burlington, Burlington, Colchester, Winooski, Williston. But when you look at the map of where the where the chloride is spiking, We'll see that it's not yeah. It's taking the county. It extends up in in to Franklin. Saint Albans looks like it's an issue looks like it's an issue probably in Montpelier. Starting to be an issue in Rutland, not as big of an issue. But it's not just changing.

[Speaker 0]: Representative North. Just a question on what sort of

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: water waves that are impaired, or would

[Speaker 0]: people kind of listening by county? Usually, not by county. Usually, it's contact water.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: When they go out to identify impairments, they go by segment. Segment of? Segment of the water. And so it could be a segment of a lake, be a segment of a stream, river, because they have to look at each segment to determine whether or not the traditional uses of the water are being met, be achieved.

[Speaker 0]: I expected it rather than just counting. I'm just saying

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: that. Those segments are in those counts. Alright, so the the bill is passed the Senate. The section one is just a purpose section setting forth that that the purpose to establish accepted standards of care for application of salt in a way that provides safe conditions while also reducing the impacts of salt salt alternatives. Page one, line 10. This creates a new subchapter in the water quality chapter entitled 10, chapter 47. The definitions here are pretty intuitive. Apply salt. It means to apply salt to roadways, parking lots, etcetera. But it's not just for winter maintenance. It's also for summer dust control. It does not mean application of salt to transportation infrastructure construction projects. Remember, AOT already has standards for that. In some instances, some types of construction, they need to use salt to stabilize the ground. Then a commercial salt applicator is a person who, for compensation, applies salt for salt alternatives, but it's not a municipal applicator. Page two, line one through three, a master commercial salt applicator is an individual who can be trained to train other persons within their organization. But again, it's not a municipal or state employee. Salt is every form of chloride that you can think of that's used for purposes of de icing, anti icing, or dust control. Salt alternative is everything else that's not containing chloride that's used for deicing, anti icing, or dust control. And trans transportation infrastructure construction project. It's really a project for the construction of roads, parking lots, or sidewalks, or other transportation facilities. Then you get to the creation of the program. ANR, after consultation with AOT remember, AOT already has its standards and other states because there are already states that are doing this, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Adirondack, Park is doing it. So after consultation with them, they shall establish the chloride contamination reduction program for voluntary education, training and certification of commercial salt applicators regarding effective and efficient application of salt and alternatives, provide safe conditions for travel and pedestrians, while also reducing the impacts on water quality. It's part of the program. This is probably the most mandatory aspect of it. ANR is required to adopt BMPs by rule. It's set forth what are the standards that are going to be followed so that a commercial applicator gets that affirmative defense gets that legal benefit. And so they have to do that by July 2027. They have to include measures or techniques to increase efficiency of application. So the least amount of salt is used while also maintaining safe conditions. Page three, line thirteen and fifteen, establish standards for when and how salt alternatives are applied in order to prevent them from entering waters, including cost effective and less harmful alternatives. Whether and how to implement equipment to calibrate, monitor, meter the application. Page four, line one two, three, when sand is an appropriate alternative to salt or salt alternatives, particularly in regard when application will of sand will be less harmful to water quality. They have to come up with record keeping for the commercial salt applicator. This is actually an important aspect because in order to get the affirmative defense, you actually have to keep records of your application. You have to create a and circulate a model form for record keeping, establish requirements for certification, establish a testing requirement for applicators to complete, establish other requirements deemed necessary by the secretary to achieve the Then they offer the training offer the training for commercial applicators and implementation of the bmps on completion, the commercial applicators designate a certified commercial SALT applicator. And that certification is for a two year term. Page five, line three through eight, those businesses that have multiple commercial SALT applicators.

[Speaker 0]: Sorry. Every two thirty, we get the crash.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Those those commercial SALT applicators may hire may get a certified master to to train the multiple employees of the company. And then those multiple employees or the company itself receives the affirmative defense. There has to be an annual summary from a commercial certified commercial salt applicator of winter salt usage. A and R has to establish methods to estimate and track the amount of salt applied. Secretary may revoke a certification for failure to comply. Program has to include requirements for certification of the master. They exclude transportation infrastructure construction projects. Page six. They can elect to implement a program with state agency staff or through a third party vendor or some combination. Then you get to the affirmative defense. So what is an affirmative defense? So so last year in the House version, you just had immunity from liability, and that means that a person really can't even bring an action. If they're harmed, attorney's effectively gonna say, Well, they're immune from liability. We're, I'm not gonna represent you in this action. An affirmative defense allows the harmed person to bring an action, But at that pleading stage or an early stage of the litigation, the person, the respondent, the defendant asserts, I have an affirmative defense because I can prove all of these facts. And then it becomes the a question of, are those facts proven? So you're in litigation. It's not that you're excluded, not that the harm person doesn't even get to to have an opportunity in court. They get to have their opportunity in court, but the defendant can still prove all those things and be judged not to be And so that was important to certain advocates last year. I don't remember their exact name now, the Justice Associates and but they really wanted the the harmed party to have access to to the court and not just be excluded from a remedy. And so that's why you have page six, the certified commercial sought applicator or the owner occupant or lessee of real property maintained by the certified commercial sought applicator has an affirmative defense against a claim for damages resulting from a hazard caused by snow or ice. So the the the one of the key cases where this was tried in another state, the person alleged it was from snow and ice, but then surveillance camera showed the person tripping over like a bush. And so not caused by snow or ice. Right? And so and then the claim damages, any failure or delay in removing or mitigating the hazardous result of the certified commercial applicators implementation of the BMPs. And then it does not apply when the commercial applicator is grossly negligent or reckless. And I can tell you what those two things mean if you want to know. So gross negligence is negligence, the failure to perform a duty. That is the failure to exercise even a slight degree of care owed to another. So stated differently, one who fails to exercise even a slight degree of care or acts indifferently to the duty owed to another may be grossly negligent. It does not require that the defendant be aware of the presence of the risk. Now recklessness is unlike gross negligent. It requires the defendant to know that there's a high risk of physical harm to another but deliberately proceeds to act or fails to act in conscious disregard of the risk. So one is you don't need knowledge or intent. One is you need knowledge or intent of that you were going to cause the harm.

[Speaker 0]: Remind us how it applies here. Pardon? Remind us how that applies here.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So if the plaintiff, the person that's harmed or alleges harm, can show gross negligence or recklessness, that affirmative defense doesn't apply because you don't award people with protection from liability when they intend, they know that they're gonna cause harm, or they act so so without care to the duty that they that they have that they cause the harm. And then I'm moving on on page six, line 16 to 18. There if you can if you can somehow show liability of the commercial salt applicator through some other toward action or the commercial salt applicator can prove their innocence from liability through another defense, both parties are welcome to show that. So this doesn't exclude them from bringing multiple types of claims or multiple types of defense. But for in order to assert the affirmative defense, the commercial sought applicator or the owner of the property treated by commercial sought applicator, you're now on page seven, has to keep a record describing their application practices. There has to be some factual demonstration that they met the BMPs, that they were actually implementing the BMPs. Now in talking to some of the larger commercial applicators, those significant service areas and equipment, they have GPS and other type, similar type of equipment that measures all bets. And it's probably gonna be fairly easy for them to do that. Again, the case in New Hampshire, the company that was sued, they had all of that and they basically said, Hey, we were doing the BMPs. Now a smaller applicator either doesn't need to be part of this program, but remember, it's voluntary, it's not mandatory, it's offered, or A and R comes up, A and R is required to come up with a model form that they can use for their recording of application. So try not to exclude the small applicator, the one two truck company without requiring them to invest in significant equipment or technology. Page seven, line seven. So remember, this is a water quality program, and and it's intended to reduce water quality impacts. But when you are applying salt or deicing alternatives, you effectively, in some instances, are discharged. And and so this gives you a presumption that you are not discharging and you are not violating stormwater management controls if you are implementing the best management practices, Again, which you have to show with your records showing you were implementing the best management practice. It doesn't apply if the requirements are part of a total maximum daily load. You can't effectively exempt yourself or exempt persons from this TMDL for chloride, or to a municipal separate storm sewer system permit. So a municipality that is subject to an MS four doesn't get this presumption because it's required. MS four is largely, like, how you street sweep, how you clean your catch basins, how you apply salt. So it's almost ironic that all of these TMDLs are in. So it's probably not necessarily because of the municipal applicators because they're aware it's probably because of the private applicators that aren't subject to requirements.

[Speaker 0]: What are twelve sixty three and sixty four?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Twelve sixty three is a requirement to get a permit for a discharge of waste to state waters. Twelve sixty four is a requirement to get a permit for stormwater runoff to state waters.

[Speaker 0]: Now but a private applicator, is it are they required to

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: get the twelve sixty three? Not right now. No. But, theoretically, they could.

[Speaker 0]: And still would if it was subject to a TMDL.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: To a TMDL.

[Speaker 0]: Really I'm not following what they're really gonna get this rebuttable presumption for then.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So they will get it for say, there's salt applied, chloride applied to a parking lot. There's storm water runs off into a water. There's impairment of that water. The the commercial applicator, the owner said, we were following BMPs. We're not subject to a requirement to mitigate that because we were doing what we were required to do.

[Speaker 0]: But then if it that that's if the stream is not under a TMDL.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: If you're under a TMDL remember, TMDL is mandatory. So there are things in that that need to be done in order to come into EPA compliance so that there's a margin of safety that the water quality standard is easily attainable. You you don't you can't really exempt them in that situation.

[Speaker 0]: Because I'm just curious. Like, I'm so otherwise, chloride is a contaminant that they would have otherwise been subject to regulation of?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Possibly. It's it's not right now required, but it is something that if you keep moving in a direction where chloride is impairing your waters, the state's going to have to respond to that in some measure. And that may include mandates on chloride application. This is not that. This is this is trying to anticipate that. This is trying to put this program into place to drive down chloride levels so you are not in that situation where you have to take regulatory action for chloride runoff or chloride discharges. But this is also like, hey, remember, certain parts of the state, this is really a problem. Certain other parts of the state, it's getting to be a problem. In this or to the state where it is a problem and you're moving towards regulatory needs, you can give them some surety until that TMDL kicks in. And I I don't know what the TMDL is gonna look like because it it may be you have to tell a commercial applicator in order to operate. They have to be licensed, and they have to have certain types of equipment, and they have to go through certain types of training. I I mean, that's not what this does, but that's ultimately kind of like, if this doesn't fix it, you're gonna have to move to something. And maybe it's you don't use salt. You know? Maybe you go back to sand. Maybe you find some of the salt alternatives that don't have chloride. But, you know, that's that's possible. I don't know if you have the supply chain for that, but you know? How about are you

[Speaker 0]: aware of other jurisdictions that have entirely moved away from Florida?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I am I'm not aware of entirely. I know that there are some that have been trying different things like beet juice and going back to sand or salt sand mixtures or salt salt alternative mixture sand salt alternative mixtures. You know, until the seventies, you didn't use salt. You used you used dirt, sand.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yep.

[Speaker 0]: I'd get rid of salt while I go through this.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And I I can connect you with some resources, whether it's the New Hampshire go pro go go green snow pro program. Or I worked with a guy in DC who's like salt salt guru.

[Speaker 0]: Like an advocate for salt or someone who's interested in reducing salt?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: He he's he's head of RFK's old organization, Waterkeeper. Riverkeeper?

[Speaker 0]: We we are interested in learning more about salt reduction overall. I'll just say that coal prices run out of salt now. Yes. I think a number of towns have run out of salt. So it'd be interesting to see what everything they've seen. Your budget should probably go down, but I don't Pritchard, did you have your hand?

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. I'm just wondering why, I mean, you've given some specific areas, Michael. I'm just wondering why we wouldn't try to focus on an area, implement this program, see if it actually works. Because this what this bill is doing is it's implement implementing it statewide. Am I correct? It's it's

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: just Remember, it's not it's not a mandate for I understand. But I mean, part of the discussion was so last year was, what are you gonna do about Sunnyside Brook? Which is in Colchester right by

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: I

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: think it's, like, between Saint Michael's and Costco. Do you do you go to a mandate? You go to just a mandate in that in that area. But is it big enough for a mandate? Aren't commercial out care

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: think

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: operating outside that area? Probably are while also inside. You go to something that's voluntary and implementable with a legal benefit for both the applicator, and you'll probably get more diffuse buy in. So you will get a bigger benefit. When when New Hampshire started their first year, they had they had three? Three people go through the training. And this past year, I think it was 1,600. And so it it ultimately becomes a benefit to both the applicator and the product. Just had two more.

[Speaker 0]: It's okay. Yeah. We're not even through the bill yet, but sure.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Go ahead. So

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: and and maybe this maybe some question you can answer, but I I'm just curious as to once this is implemented, there must be an expectation of when we actually see a change.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You know, it's it's that's that's a great question. It's a question that's asked to people that do these programs. And the the answer isn't maybe as satisfying as you you like because the amount of salt used and the amount of runoff depends on the winter that you have. Like this winter, you're having what somebody called an actual Vermont winter. And so there's towns that are using more salt or running out of salt. This all thaws off, there'll probably be more chloride. So you will see a spike just like you see with summers with heavy precipitation, the phosphorus spikes. But over time, when you look at some of these graphs, it's like, hopefully, over time, it it will decrease. I I can't give you an exact answer because it depends on the rain, and you you can't count the rain.

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: K. And the last one, I guess, was, you know, part of this process, I would think, would be verification. So I'm just wondering, and I and I don't see it, Bill. What I'm assuming the ANR, but who follows who follows through on this and verifies it? And how many FTEs might additional FTEs might that take? So As we know they kick their they can't do any more. So obviously, they're gonna verify this. It's gonna involve with the suit.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: More more

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: folks to be hired to oversee it. So right now,

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: there's no money in the bill because I realize there's a contingency clause. But last year, JFO did an estimated fiscal note, and they confirmed those. So ANR would need 350,000 for program implementation, including a onetime $200,000 for contracted services and then a 150,000 for one permanent classified position. And then AOT would look for about $200,000 to do their component, which we haven't gotten to yet, and one permanent classified position. So overall, two permanent classified positions, which after implementation would be about $300,000 total. Would be ANR one fifty eight.

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: Thank you.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And there is a provision in the bill as well that says ANR can choose to implement it through contracting instead of through staff. So they can achieve it for a more cost effective way through contracting. And so there are contractors out there that do it, and they do it remotely. Like, there's there's a I can't remember if it's the trainers in Minnesota or Wisconsin, but they do it for those states up there. The training? The training.

[Speaker 0]: We had them in last year. Yeah. I think we had them in last year. Online. Mhmm. Yeah.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: We did. And enforcement is enforcement. ANR has enforcement staff. They've got they've got cops, for lack of a better term. And so those people are still there. They have enforcement attorneys that are still there. They that's not changing. This is just part of

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah, but it's quite enforcement and verification is two separate things.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Enforcement is complaint driven at ANR, and so it's kind of like there is a complaint. You go out and verify if there's a problem. You bring enforcement.

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: But I'm talking about verifying progress on reaching our goals of reducing salt reduction.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's every three years you gotta go out and measure the waters to determine if they are meeting water quality standards. And if they're not, they measure every two to three years. They they they literally monitor all of them.

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: And the masters will have a certification, like a card,

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that has that has to be determined because the requirements for the master is something that ANR needs to do in their room.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: With respect to the testing, is there evidence out of New Hampshire? You said there was three originally and then there's 1,600 participating in this. Does New Hampshire have verifiable evidence that this program is working?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: They have evidence that there's less road salt usage, and they have some evidence of declining chloride levels, but it's not as it's not as demonstrable as you probably would like it to be.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Brings up my other thing. It seems like it's this is a heads eye win, tails lose, where, yep, there's a little bit of evidence that we're gonna mandate it now. This is the mandate. Yeah. That's why I said there's a little bit. It looks like it's working, but we want to make it work better, everybody has to do it. So all of sudden it is a mandate.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. We're not in debate with legislative council.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm saying that I'm not trying to debate them. I'm just trying to say that's what this is just that first step. So this bill.

[Speaker 0]: We could just keep watching.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I have I have a response to that, but it's a little glib, but so

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: I hope.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So moving on to page eight. You're in education and outreach. A and R through staff shall conduct education outreach to let commercial applicators know the training program, know the affirmative defense, but also to let members of the public who use salt or salt alternatives know of the potential harm to the water quality, pests, and wildlife from excessive application. And then you come to page eight line 14. This is the a and r report on management of salt and sand storage. You can see what they are reporting on on page nine. It's an inventory of the facilities in the state used for storage. An estimate of the number that are currently covered. Estimate that are not covered and are within 100 yards of surface water or drinking water source. That's another thing solved getting into your wells and your public water systems. I forgot to mention that. Page nine, line six, an estimate of the number of facilities that are not covered and are more than 100 yards from surface water drinking source. And then an estimate of the total cost to cover or move, including an estimate of the time necessary to cover or move all facilities requiring over a movement, and an estimated annual amount of funding that would be needed. Page nine, line 13. This is the program for municipal solid applicators. Municipal, transportation, public works employees are trained, annually through the Vermont Local Roads curriculum that AOT implements. This would require ANR in collaboration with AOT to identify and make changes to the Vermont Local Roads curriculum needed to support municipal solid applicators, including training for the best management practices. And so then on page 10, you see notwithstanding the provisions that say municipal employees may be sued under 24 VSA nine zero one a. A municipal employee shall have an affirmative defense against the claim for damages resulting from hazard. And then it's all the same criteria that the commercial applicator had. It can't be it's it's because you were the the claimed hazard was snow or ice, but you were applying them according to the DMPs, and any failure to delay or delay in in removing the hazard was because of the DMPs. You don't get it if you're grossly negligent or reckless, and it is not an exclusive defense or action. But the municipality on page 11, line one through eight, needs to keep a record just like the commercial SALT applicator. Now remember I said that the state can do it this through the state employees or through a contractor. But what will ultimately, hopefully, if you have a thousand people participating or 500 participating, will be a fee, and that fee will help support this program. But what that fee should be, the General Assembly is asking ANR to recommend it to you either by the state or a third party vendor. And so that'll come back to you 01/15/2027. That's before the program is up and running. And so you'll get to determine on page 12 any fee that you're gonna charge for applicators in this program. Section six is the contingent funding. As I think you probably know, both appropriations committees are taking funding for new programs out until it comes down to the end, and you determine what you wanna include and what you don't wanna include. The act takes effect on passing.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Are there questions for Michael on this bill? The senate vote was was it 29 to one on the

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: 29 to one? Yep. There

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: were a lot of questions about demonstrating the need, show me graphs, how many people in New Hampshire did it, what's the demonstrable evidence in New Hampshire, graphs where documentation was handed out on the floor, that answered most of the question.

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: Do they have a fiscal note?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Here it is.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Rep. Christopher 'Chris' Pritchard (Member)]: On your number.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. 218, you probably find it on the senate committee's website. Or, actually, it should be under because of past body, it should be under the just the bill page.

[Speaker 0]: Right. Further no further questions on this. Do you Michael, if you I I I know I'm gonna ask at the last minute on these two walk throughs. If you don't wanna do the next one, I understand. If you wanna do it, that's great.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I just read it for the first time in over a year about five minutes before I came in, so I would like to refresh myself more than that.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. That's great. Fine. Thanks.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I was in also probes on PCBs on in schools. And before that, I was in a secret meeting. Before that, I was in This is the eighth group.

[Speaker 0]: Thanks. Alright. Members, do you have is there further discussion before we adjourn

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the afternoon? Not seeing anything.