Committee presses funding questions, leans toward ANR approach on PCB testing in schools

Members of the certification committee reviewed competing approaches to H.542 on PCB testing in school buildings and signaled a preference for the Agency of Natural Resources’ (ANR) plan while repeatedly raising questions about who would pay for additional testing and remediation.

Michael Brady, Legislative Council, presented a side-by-side comparison of the House-passed H.542 and the ANR proposal. Brady said both would apply to public and recognized independent schools built or renovated before 1980, ‘‘the threshold date when PCBs were phased out and prohibited from use in construction and renovation.’’ He described the core difference: the House bill directs ANR to cease testing in schools and terminate scheduled sampling, while ANR’s plan would repeal the fixed deadline but retain testing as part of facilities planning and construction activities.

The distinction matters for funding. Brady noted a 2023 session law (Act 78 of 2023) that required the state to cover testing, mitigation and remediation for schools that tested positive. He said that law ‘‘is still good law’’ but that H.542’s explicit cessation language would not align with the prior appropriation. Under H.542 as passed by the House, future testing and any resulting remediation discovered outside ANR’s program would become the responsibility of the school; ANR’s plan would seek to handle assessment during the facilities master planning and grant-application process and set up a special PCB program fund to provide grants for assessments and remediation when appropriated.

Committee members repeatedly pressed for specifics about available money. Brady said the school construction fund and the state’s environmental contingency fund have little cash on hand and that money previously appropriated for testing has been spent or allocated. ‘‘Where the money comes from? I don’t know,’’ he said, urging that if ANR remains ‘‘on the hook’’ schools would likely send bills to ANR and that ANR would have to seek appropriations or budget adjustments.

Senator Williams asked whether the state could seek federal help for remediation; Brady replied there is no federal grant program for PCB cleanup in schools, only federal regulatory programs, and that congressional directed spending would be an option but not a standing funding source. Other members cautioned against designating contaminated schools as Superfund sites because that triggers site-control and master planning requirements that would be disruptive.

Brady read program data current through January 2026: 328 schools in the inventory were built or renovated before 1980; 183 have completed inventories; 157 have been sampled; 46 schools have PCBs detected above school action levels; 145 schools still need inventories and 172 need indoor air sampling. He said the program has been costly and that testing results do not always equate to measured exposure for students and staff.

Several members said ANR’s proposal may be the more practical path if funding can be secured. The committee discussed crafting a committee amendment that would fold ANR’s ‘‘A/B’’ options into the bill as an alternative to the House-passed cease-testing language. The committee did not take a vote; members asked for follow-up information, including outreach to experts such as the PCB Superfund Center and models like the Massachusetts School Building Authority.

The committee directed staff to work with counsel on a potential committee amendment and to return additional details about funding options, statutory triggers for the facilities master planning process, and the program’s inventory and sampling numbers.