Senate panel reviews H.542 extension as PCB testing funds run short for older schools

The Senate Appropriations Committee on May 20 reviewed H.542, the bill that extends statutory deadlines for air‑quality testing for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in schools built or reconstructed before 1980 and creates a special fund to pay for investigation and remediation.

Michael Grady of Legislative Council told the committee the 2021 appropriations language originally required those schools to complete testing by February 2021 and directed the state to pay for investigation, remediation and mitigation where PCBs exceed state action levels. Grady said the committee’s records show 328 schools in the scope, with 183 having completed inventories, 157 sampled and 46 schools testing above the state action level. He added that 145 schools still need inventories and 171 still need sampling and that “there’s no more money.”

The bill before the committee preserves the testing requirement while pushing deadlines several years forward and creates a special fund intended to accept recoveries from litigation against PCB manufacturers and other contemplated revenue. Grady cautioned settlements vary by state and could take years to resolve, noting Oregon’s recent settlement of about $200 million as an example. “It’s going to take time for that litigation to resolve itself,” he said.

Committee members pressed for budget options and asked whether the environmental contingency fund could be tapped for schools already in the pipeline. One member said it would be reasonable to prioritize assistance for schools that are mid‑testing or have confirmed remediation needs. Grady said prior appropriations have included a one‑time appropriation in the $32–33 million range (including roughly $16 million for Burlington) and smaller annual amounts near $9.5–$10 million, plus transfers from contingency sources in some years. He warned that the special fund created in the bill currently holds no cash and that, without available funding, schools that proceed with testing may face remediation costs themselves.

Members also debated whether continuing or pausing testing would affect litigation. Grady said stopping testing would not erase damages already identified; it could, however, change the scope of claims and negotiation dynamics. A member argued testing should continue for cases already in the pipeline so eligible damages are documented; others urged caution about increasing the known universe of claims without a clear funding plan.

The committee asked staff to report how much remains available in the environmental contingency fund and to provide cost estimates for typical testing and remediation projects; staff said costs vary by facility size and contamination scope and that no single average figure was available. Committee members agreed to defer further action until the next meeting day, when updated contingency‑fund figures and fiscal estimates will be provided.