Vermont schools report major disruption, millions in local costs from statewide PCB testing program

Representative Conlon, chair of the House Education Committee, opened the Jan. 22, 2025, hearing with an update request on the state’s PCB testing and remediation program and its effects on districts across Vermont. “This program was created ... it’s a mandatory testing program for all schools in Vermont, and it is to test for the presence of airborne PCBs,” Conlon said.

The program, created in recent years with Department of Health action levels and a 2020 budget requirement that expanded testing, has already required some schools to relocate programs, undertake large mitigation projects and spend local funds up front while reimbursement and a long-term funding strategy remain unsettled. “We’ve now spent $416,000 from our local funds in order to test, and even just determine the scope at this point of the remediation efforts,” said Katie Sutton, interim superintendent for the Hartford School District.

Why it matters: Committee members heard that the testing program has produced significant operational disruption, raised health anxiety among staff and families, and created large, immediate budget strains for districts. School leaders urged clearer state direction on testing scope, reimbursement timing and a long-term facilities strategy so short-term mitigation spending does not become wasted if buildings are later rebuilt.

More detail from districts

Katie Sutton described three Hartford schools on the testing list. Two — Hartford High School and the Hartford Area Career and Technical Center (HACTC) — have actionable findings that forced relocation of programs. Sutton said HACTC had to relocate three programs, including one off-site culinary program, and that outfitting a commercial kitchen cost “upwards of $60,000.” She told the committee that Hartford submitted its reimbursement application Nov. 13, 2024; it was accepted Jan. 1, 2025, but the district had not received reimbursement as of the hearing.

A superintendent from North Country Supervisory Union (name not specified in transcript), representing an area with multiple affected schools, described a sequence of testing, temporary measures and large mitigation work. The district identified five schools with PCB-containing materials and closed a pre-K room after levels exceeded the Department of Health’s action thresholds. The superintendent said mitigation work initially scoped for the career center was approximately $5.1 million, later described as a roughly $6.1–$6.2 million mitigation project for multiple wings, and that overall remediation spending in the high school reached about $8.2 million. "We got 6 wedding tents and we got them set up. In 7 days, we had ... plywood floors, sheetrock walls, electricity pipes, wireless, like the whole 9 yards," the superintendent said, describing the emergency classroom work the district performed to avoid remote learning.

Districts reported other costs and operational impacts: testing a high school’s rooms cost about $80,000 for the initial survey; ongoing periodic retesting will add recurring costs; some districts face unreimbursed invoices (North Country reported about $53,000 in pending PCB-related costs not yet approved); and a move by the state to a reimbursement model has forced districts to cover upfront expenses.

Regulatory and long-term risks

Committee members were told the problem is not only disruptive and costly but also legally complex. At least one witness said that, by statute, certain PCB findings can qualify as a “chemical release,” which triggers reporting to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and can impose a four-year remediation deadline if EPA determines a response is required. That creates urgency for some schools and complicates the question of whether districts should invest in temporary fixes or seek capital solutions.

State response and funding

Committee members were reminded that the Legislature previously set aside $30 million for remediation during the late-COVID education planning period; witnesses said those funds are largely spent and that the House twice sought to pause further testing until a predictable remediation funding source was in place — a pause that passed the House but died in the Senate. Witnesses said some state-level coordination occurred (regular meetings with agency leadership were mentioned), but districts told the committee they have received inconsistent information about which materials will be tested, whether the state will pay leases or modulars for displaced classrooms, and the timing of reimbursements.

What school leaders asked the committee to do

District representatives asked for clearer, predictable funding and a statewide facilities strategy that accounts for remediation and long-term capital needs. "If we have to redo the high school, then why aren't we taking that $8,200,000 and putting it in a pile and ... constructing a new high school?" the North Country superintendent said, arguing that short-term mitigation without a long-range plan risks wasting public dollars.

Quotes attributed in this article come from testimony and answers during the Jan. 22 House Education Committee hearing. The committee scheduled a separate briefing from the Department of Conservation (conservation agency) to present program-level context and said the governor’s budget address would address funding questions.