 So, committee, we are back at the leg question. And as we talked about yesterday, the idea is to make just our immediate priority just to skip briefly to another bill that has moved so far down the priority list of people who vanish, which is the childcare piece, the homeschooling piece. Jim and I have tried to capture what I was thinking about. And it's amazingly difficult to isolate, because it turns out people don't. It's not that someone says I'm a parent and this person is going to be the homeschooler for my kid. The person says I'm a parent, and then they make a list of people who will have ongoing instructions for their kids. So the only way to do it would be to have all of those people background change. And for some of the testimony you heard from Redd was that people will use five or six or seven different people to provide math instruction or history instruction. So Jim and I, in drafting, went at it four or five different ways. I just don't see a way to do it at this point. That's as surgical as I was hoping. So the only other way to do it is to rewrite that section of the title to make it clear. But we would probably be expanding the background check in any event, much beyond what I thought. So it wouldn't be a single background check for a set of parents that might be fine. And I don't think that that's necessary. That's not the way I want to go down. So as the sponsor of the bill, I'm making a decision myself to pull the language to one side. If anybody's enamored of the idea now and wants to talk further, we can do that. But for now, I'm just kind of taking that off our list. I will communicate that to Redd. She will communicate it to her people. So that is to say that our priorities are now led, number one, number two, the pre-K bills. And then the ethnic studies bill, which is on our wall, which the House is going to be sending us, I think, next week. Do we plan on taking up either our Senator Roth bill that came in with Act 46? Haven't looked at those yet. But to go back to Act 46, my intention is not to, in general, do anything that. One was just a delay on a year of divorce right there. We will be having that discussion. So let's pick up with Commissioner Levine. Commissioner Levine? Just outside with some water. OK. Yeah, let's just ban for a second ban, Jean. You know what he looks like? Can you pick him out of the crowd? I just saw him in there. Oh, Michael Gray. OK, so this is a sense, yes. OK. If you could make copies for everyone? Yeah, please. So Michael apparently has made some changes since our discussion yesterday. Is Michael in the room? No, do you want him? No, if you want him. Good. He's only available until today. Well, I think these are easy enough to understand. He's changing. But I would like the commissioner. I'll go with him. Do you have more copies of these? For the room you mean? For the room. Yeah. Do you have more copies of this, Jean? I can get. Do you have in mind running 10? OK. Yeah. So we can accommodate copies for people in a few minutes. So... Just the highlights. Maui Costanza Rollins. Why don't we go ahead and swap? Swap in if you would mind. I don't want to wait much longer. Welcome. Thank you. So we have heard great things about your work in this field. So if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself to the record. Sure. I can pass this around. There should be enough for... Let's see. Any selections for the room? So thanks for inviting me. Senator Hardy. And thanks for taking up lead testing in schools. It's incredibly important. I'm Maui Costanza Robinson, a professor at Middlebury College. My background is in analytical chemistry. Basically the science of identifying and quantifying small amounts of stuff like lead in drinking water and environmental chemistry. So I study pollution and health effects of pollution. I've included a bunch here that I think for the interest of time I'll probably skip ahead. I'm sure the Health Commissioner will talk a little bit about the health effects. But Ruth has asked me to focus a little bit on sampling methodology. I guess the take-home message would be that it's not difficult to sample for lead, but it's easy to do wrong. And so there's some important details that I think would need to be in the bill in order to do it right. So I thought I'd provide a little bit of background before getting into what I read in the proposed legislation. And that is important for what I'd want to say about the legislation. So if I'm starting on where does lead in school water come from? Some important points there, and I'm sure some of this you already know. Lead can come into the school in the water supply itself. That's sort of the less likely source of lead in schools. But it is possible. So the more likely source of lead would be in some of these pretty pictures that we've shown here from the solder that's used to connect pipes from the pipes themselves, from the fixtures themselves. And as you'll see from a sampling methodology standpoint, I sort of separate those in-school sources into two categories. One being the external source, which is the actual fixture that you actively are using and interacting with that the water comes directly out of. And then the other category of source would be sort of in the wall. All the pipes, the solder, the valves, the connections that if those were the problem would require a lot bigger remediation than just the external piece. So one of the important pieces that goes along with lead coming from that source is to recognize that when we talk about lead free, it's not actually required to be free of lead. And so the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986 allowed up to 8% lead to be in the pipes and the fittings and up to .2% lead in the solder that holds the fittings together. That was reduced in the amendment in 2011. And the state of Vermont actually was ahead of the curve and made some of those reductions in the allowable amount of lead earlier in 2010. But it is still the case that today when you go and buy stuff on the shelf that says lead free, it is not free of lead. And that is one of the places that this lead is creeping into water. And what goes along with that is the fact that you can have a faucet right here that is delivering good clean water and one right next door can be delivering high lead depending on when that faucet was installed, when the solder that was used, that sort of thing depending on the time frame. So lead is a very localized issue and that will figure into some of what I like about the S40 as written and potential changes is that it is spotty. You can have high lead and low lead in the same building. Getting to the importance of how you sample, there is really three things that I would look for in a sampling methodology and I will kind of cover them each and turn. The first is that the sampling produce a sample that is representative of what children would actually be exposed to. The second is that it be sensitive so that if there is a small amount of lead that you are actually able to detect it. And the third is that it actually provide actionable information so that if there is lead you know what to do about it. So I will cover each of those in turn and I thought I would start with maybe a lesson learned from New York City schools. I have just shown some headlines on this page. New York City schools tested all their public schools. They spent many millions of dollars to sample and they reported this to the media what they thought were very favorable results. They only found a third of the schools had at least one outlet that exceeded their action level and only one percent of all the outlets they tested exceeded their action level. So they thought that was pretty good news. They still had work to do but it was good news. When the New York Times looked into their sampling methodology they found that they were using methodologies that were not consistent with the recommendations put forward by the EPA. In particular they had flushed all of the sampling lines for two hours the night before sampling which I sort of think of as equivalent to cleaning your house before the in-laws come over and then pretending it's like that all the time. It's not my house is not like that all the time. And so they weren't getting a representative picture of what children would be exposed to on a daily basis. Lots of public criticism. One quote in particular from one of the research groups in the nation that's kind of most associated with lead and limiting its children's exposure to lead was quoted as saying New York City schools may have just broken the national record for flawed testing. Another researcher said the results should be thrown in the garbage and the city needs to start over. So it's not hard to test right but it's easy to do wrong and if you're not doing it right there's really no point in doing it. So when they retested it wasn't a third of the schools. It was 83% of the schools. It wasn't 1% of the outlets. It was 8% of the outlets. In one school in Queens the maximum lead level in water fountains under the flawed testing was 35 parts per billion which is still high but when they did the testing properly it was 3,500. So it dramatically underestimated. And I think the piece is when you don't do the sampling right it's very hard to bias the results high. It's very easy to bias the results low and that's exactly what you don't want if you're looking to protect children's health. So in terms of representative trying to represent accurately student and staff exposure the big variable to think about is stagnation time so that's the time the water spends in the pipe equilibrating with those fixtures that do despite being lead free still have some lead in them potentially. And so some of the recommendations that the EPA makes I'll refer a lot to the 3T's document which you may be familiar with and I have a reference at the end for you to look up. Avoiding anything that is atypical in terms of system manipulation so that's things like avoiding flushing, avoiding replacing there's the screens, the aeration screens that are right on the end of the faucet you don't want to clean those right before testing. Again that goes into the like pretending your house is clean for your mother-in-law. The other piece in this may influence the timeframe and sort of staffing related to carrying out S40 if it passes is that sampling should take place when the school is in typical use which means during the school year it's not something you can say hey we'll just take care of it this summer because then the water system won't be in its normal flushing mode. So in the work that I've done I forgot to mention in the beginning I've been last year and a half I've been working with the Addison County School District testing all of their schools and so our typical is to go in on a Saturday morning so Friday school had the typical flow regime you have the overnight stagnation time and then you sample on like a Saturday morning before any teachers are working and yes there's teachers we've had to be like yeah I know it's 6 a.m. on a Saturday you need to leave I need to sample so that's just something to consider in terms of when the sampling happens in terms of sensitivity to the presence of lead important variables are the sample size and there's the sampling sequence I was pleased that in the bill as written that it recommends a 250 milliliter sample size for other purposes testing for lead they use a 1 liter sample size and if you look at sort of the diagram I have here you can think about typically it is the faucet the exterior portion just in my sampling experience that's also true for the state 16 school pilot that they did in almost every case it's that exterior fixture piece that has been the primary source so you can imagine that the water that comes out of that first is the highest in lead that's your pulse of lead and then any additional sampling volume that you're pulling from deeper in the system you're effectively diluting the sample so you're reducing the concentration you're losing sensitivity and there's also a representative piece there most kids don't go to the water fountain and drink a liter of water right so that smaller sample size is what the EPA recommends for sampling in schools the other piece is that you should sample from upstream to downstream I didn't see reference to that in the bill nor did I see reference to that in the state's pilot when they had the schools do the sampling so that's something that I think should be considered EPA really wants you to sample from upstream to downstream and you can imagine if you are pulling water from fixture number four for example that's going to pull water along the entire pathway and start flushing all of those earlier sampling points whereas if you sample first from the upstream number one you're not compromising any other sample so that's an important piece that your sampling itself isn't flushing the system in a way that is inappropriate in terms of actionable information the biggest thing here that I would be interested in is if you need to find out the source of the lead is it that exterior portion or do you have to open up the walls a huge financial consideration and in the draft of the bill that I saw I only saw reference to a first draw sample which is a good starting point so the first draw sample as shown here that's the first 250 mils to leave the faucet after that overnight stagnation time that emphasizes sort of the fixture's contribution to lead also that water came through the pipes so it kind of gives you a sense of everything but emphasizes the fixture what I'd like to see is a second type of sample added this was used in the state pilot this is recommended by the EPA it's what I've used in my work and that's a flush sample so you go through the whole school you take your first draw samples then you go through the school again you flush each outlet for 30 seconds that eliminates all that early water and now you're pulling water from deeper in the system so that you can understand is that the source of the lead or not in almost every case I've seen in Addison County Central District that it's that exterior portion so that's great news in terms of a cheaper fix than having to go into the walls excuse me, you can only do that if you found one from the first draw I've done both where I've at the high school I just did all first draw samples and said let's see what we see and then I went back and did flush samples where there were elevated levels from a staffing standpoint it's probably faster and easier to take that second flush sample while you're already there whether you analyze it or not can be a different story you can only analyze those but it's actually collecting the sample takes in getting to the school and getting there early before teacher I think there's different ways you could go about that and do feel free to stop me and ask questions, I appreciate that that's just a little background in terms of specific comments I've included more here I think in the interest of time I'll just highlight a few things from each of these slides one, in terms of support for what I saw I think it's a really awesome start and I really appreciated this is bullet point two that the bill has written or that I saw is introduced suggested testing all outlets that are potentially used for consumption and that word potentially I have underlined because when I first went into the schools I did get a little pushback saying oh well our students don't use those no, our students know to only drink from the bottle fillers oh we tell our teachers this I heard that again and again and then I asked the real experts my school kids and I said where do you drink when you're in this classroom usually they do use the bottle fillers but they said no we sometimes use those classroom sinks I also had teachers contact me all my information is available on the web I emailed all my teacher friends and said hey take a look and they said that's my classroom and I do have kids drink from there sometimes because the bottle fillers down the hall are potentially as important if you're wanting to protect the kids you can't make assumptions about them following the rules all the time or even teachers following the rules all the time so one of the things we talked about here was whether or not to test the sinks in the bathrooms and so it sounds like you would recommend that we do that because especially in locker rooms where kids may be coming in from practice and using those sinks I think there's certainly room to do a larger survey and understand what kids are doing but I do think it should be based on what is actually happening not what we presume to be happening the assumption is they're probably going to use those sinks they're probably going to use those sinks and just one example there's a school in Addison County where there's a hand washing sink that tested had 26 parts per billion and the Department of Health should not be used for food preparation but it's a beautiful big faucet where you can get your water bottle under there it's accessible to students in the cafeteria I'm like change it change it please it's undoubtedly used at some point even though the rules say hand washing sinks are for hand washing only a similar type of thing is with custodial sinks if the custodial sinks are in a closet I'm not worried about them if they as they are at Mary Hogan Elementary if there is a custodial sink that is in the kitchen that is beautifully accessible for putting your big igloo bottle that you're going to take out to the sports fields I think that's important for that to be safe it's just too convenient to be used so I really appreciated that word potentially it's a small word but I think it makes a big difference and I think the other I've kind of covered I'll skip other points on that slide in terms of specific recommendations some of which I've already mentioned adding a flush sample I think would be important the second bullet point page three line five this is regarding the stagnation time standing it talks about the water standing in the pipes for at least six hours the EPA recommends eight for schools because that's more representative of how people aren't in the schools until midnight they're at six but they're not there until midnight and so it's just an atypical and again it would bias the results low compared to what kids would actually be so I would recommend adopting the EPA guidance on that small thing page three line nine it talks about sampling outlets where the water would be used for drinking or cooking purposes and I would just expand that a little bit and say consumption because there's plenty of schools that have ice makers and ice machines that draw on the same water supply and again are used heavily especially by the athletics teams probably the most important thing that I would kind of just want to raise is considerations regarding the one PBB action level so I was really happy to see a health based standard I've put on this graphic here just a sense of as you've probably heard there is no safe level of lead that has been established so the EPA goal is zero you can't regulate zero you can't prove zero in a laboratory so that can't be the standard but the other the EPA action level at 15 parts per billion the FDA limit for bottled water of five parts per billion those are not health based standards one is a regulatory it's not our problem until level that's the EPA the FDA the five PPB is really a level that was deemed to be practicable it was like we know we can achieve it we know bottled water can get there it wasn't a health based level the one part per billion level the first safety level was put out by the American Academy of Pediatrics and I think that's the most health protective goal that's the right level if you're worried about health my only concern about that level there's some limited science basically in terms of whether that level can be reliably achieved given the fixtures that are on the market so as I've said several times lead free does not mean free of lead so the standards that are used the amount of lead that's allowed in fixtures, pipes solder, etc that can be used I haven't seen a clear demonstration I mean they were not designed to achieve a one part per billion level so I don't know that if a school says oh I had three parts per billion I'm gonna go buy a new faucet it's a lead free faucet I can't say that it is guaranteed to work it may still be too high the evidence that I do have where we do have science I've tested 900 something samples 45% of the samples in Addison County come back that they would meet the one ppb level 45% of the samples of the outlets would meet this one part per billion action level so clearly it is possible I don't know that every faucet out there would be able to achieve that there's one study a 2018 study by again a group that's very well known Mark Edwards he's one of he's an engineer that kind of busted open the Flint case on the national stage this is what he all he does in his life is lead testing he put out a very small study of a small number of faucets and showed that some of them would allow the water to meet that one part per billion standard and another faucet the water came out at three parts per billion and these are all faucets that meet all the federal testing standards for lead free the state pilot of 16 schools they have a lot of data to draw on I'm in contact with the folks of the Department of Health the samples that came back elevated in their pilot they used a 15 part per billion elevated level they either took those outlets offline or they replaced them and I said I don't see you retesting data on the web yet and I just talked with my contact there today and they said yeah we have the data it's not available like I can't send it to you right now but that would be more information than I have access to right now in terms of when they replaced it were they able to achieve one part per billion I know they can beat the 15 I mean the 15 is ridiculously high can are they getting to one routinely with all of their fixture replacements I think that's they would have a lot of data that would support or not let's say they weren't hypothetically where would you suggest you put this hand here I would want to I want data I want evidence right so I think if there's certain types of faucets that are routinely meeting that standard I think there could be a role for having an approved list of sure all these technically meet the standards this is what we approve for use in Vermont schools for example we know it is possible to achieve these because 45% of the outlets are meeting that standard I know it's possible I just don't know if every faucet out there can achieve that the countervailing argument would be if 55% are not meeting it with new faucets then have we set too sensitive by a standard you know testing so I hear you saying we need more data especially the testing data and we have the commissioner here so hopefully that's doable so we your other recommendations are admirably clear so I see you leading us with a question to ask other witnesses exactly that's exactly from a health protection standpoint getting rid of those higher exposures first I mean that will always be a priority so whether it's something that you start with a three or a five and lower it you know I think yeah you want to reduce those higher exposures first if you have limited funds whatever it is of course those higher concentrations but I would say to your question about is the testing too sensitive I would say well the health based standard the health advisory level that the state of Vermont has set is one part per billion so that has to be our goal the question of how can we technically move there is it an approved list of faucets is it further testing to demonstrate what we need to do to achieve it first as you probably didn't see this as new language where it says that the sampling shall be conducted according to the EPA's if we did that does that meet your like second testing and upstream and those things it does almost everything that I've referred to here the three T's document the only from a sampling perspective 100% the three T's document uses the 15 part per billion action level again it's not a safety based standard so that's one place where I would hope this legislation would differ but from sampling methodology that's the gold standard that we have right now second question are so we know that lead free doesn't mean it's free of lead is there a way to find out if a faucet is actually free of lead are there lead free there are truly lead free faucets it's not clear that there's consistent labeling for such faucets so there can stainless steel faucets that can be lead free there's plastic faucets that can be lead free maybe the health commissioner can speak to I mean there might be some trade-offs plastics have some of their own inherent issues as regards health but from strictly a lead standpoint yes there are faucets that are available I've actually asked facilities folks I said can you do have access to these are how much more expensive are I don't have answers to those sorts of questions I don't know and then you have additional some additional considerations these were just things that I flagged either because I didn't fully understand them but I at least had some hint of a worry about their implications one was the building definition exclusion page page 2 lines 17 to 19 it says building means any structure facility additional wing that may be occupied used by children or students building shall not include any structure facility etc that is lead free as defined by the safe drinking water act I couldn't find reference in the safe drinking water act to what a lead free building is certainly lead free components to buildings which would then go back to my comment about lead free does not mean free of lead so I worried that this could mean and I wasn't sure what the intent was but it could mean that if a school was built recently and has all of these newest lead free it's not guaranteeing that it's safe so I just wasn't 100% sure what that exclusion was meant to do and what it would do in practical terms so I just kind of wanted to flag that for the second piece childcare facilities already covered by state law this is on page 3 lines 20 childcare facilities in the state shall test drinking water for lead contamination is required under this chapter unless otherwise required to test for lead in drinking water under the state law my understanding of the current requirements for licensed childcare facilities they're less stringent they allow up to 15 parts per billion lead and so my concern would be it's these youngest children that are most vulnerable due to their developmental stage especially I mean those young kids I would not want state licensed childcare to allow a higher amount of lead than other schools and so I would again I don't know about the legislative process whether that requirement for state licensure is changed or whether you simply make licensed childcare facilities subject to these provisions but I would say the most health protective of the provisions are those that should be used for those child care the first part of the sentence does that the second part is what allows that unless otherwise required so we theoretically we could put a period there unless it involves some we have a lot of trouble in here with dual authorities over various agencies but in this sense we're already in the first part of the sentence we're already in some childcare so we can look at some we can look at all of them even if that comma were changed to a period and it was just full stop and again I don't understand whether you have to change that other law that's why I'm just flagging these for consideration and then the final piece was sort of acknowledging my previous comments about the one part per billion action level I do find out that that's not reliably achievable in all cases and it becomes a two or it becomes a three whatever it becomes I just I like the idea of requiring the state to revisit that science and revisit the technology the Government Accountability Office Research Arm for Congress recently sent a report to Congress this summer saying the federal guidelines basically are woefully lacking in terms of lead and so there's some hope that we would get better lead laws and regulations from the federal level that might give us better faucets or whether that's something that can happen separately at the state level again I'm not a policy person but I like the idea that you would be asked to revisit the science and ratchet down until you can get to that safety-based level rather than this what's feasible currently we know what's feasible we know so many of these faucets are coming back and achieving this level so it's possible and I think everything we can do to drive it in that direction is what I would recommend that was amazing thank you for inviting me thank you we may well be back on the record at some point that sounds great thank you very much so I assume you heard the question about the retesting data yeah and if we have that data I'm gonna have to forward that to you at home and we can forward that on to you good I'll make some opening comments Commissioner Mark Levine Commissioner of Health I did not hear everything in the prior presentation so if there is redundancy consider it planned redundancy it's helpful I don't know how much lead was introduced in the science based aspect of what it does to the human body but lead is obviously would be here talking about it otherwise it's a highly toxic metal it can cause serious and permanent health effects predominantly they involve the brain, the nervous system, the kidneys and we're most concerned about the impact of lead on children's growth and development including their brain development including their ability to learn and their ability to avoid having behavior problems we know that the effects of lead poisoning are preventable but they are also irreversible the science behind lead when we say there's no safe level of lead in the body this is one of those things in medicine and in public health that is pretty black and white there are so many things that are gray but this is black and white and the science is quite clear and I think you heard also that as we get older we're still vulnerable to the effects of lead but the most profound vulnerability is in children and in pregnant women the most common mechanism to get into the human body and especially children's bodies is actually not through water it's through paint and it's through pre-1978 housing of which Vermont has like 70% of its housing stock in that range so that's obviously the highest priority when it comes to avoiding lead poisoning in children when asked about how much contribution water provides the EPA estimates 20% or more the total organic burden of lead in the body may come through that route so not as significant as through paint but not insignificant either and lead is colorless it's odorless, it's tasteless it would not be evident to anyone drinking water that had lead in it that they were doing so unless the water was tested so if you don't test you don't know pretty much what goes on there you've heard the fact that we did a pilot study and there's a report on our website if any of you have not had the chance to read it that basically is Vermont lead in school drinking water testing pilot report from last fall and I invite you it's fairly concise reading to peruse it but we tested 16 schools and we tried to be some of the scientific in our approach to the testing in terms of figuring out who should be in the pilot so some criteria that we used were socioeconomic factors, geography size of the student body if there was a pre-K program in the school if the school is on a public water supply system if there was corrosion control used at the drinking water treatment facility and what we knew about lead levels in kids blood already in those communities and out of these 16 schools five of the schools did show at least one tap that had a level above the EPA level of 15 parts per billion which you've heard is not a health based level the health advisory level is one and every school had at least three taps that exceeded one so again if you don't test you don't know how many out of curiosity how many exceeded let's say three or five I can possibly answer that with a quick look at the table we don't actually have it listed that way I'm sure we could re-analyze the data it's only six dozen schools right if you wanted to find it in between levels what they looked like that still doesn't tell you what they were like after remediation though so obviously this data was compelling enough to us and it now is to both the executive branch and the legislative branch to warrant creating a program whereby all schools have the benefit of this testing and all children have the benefit of drinking water free of lead so I think I will stop my comments there and let you ask me questions I'd like to start with I know that we talked about radon for a couple of years and I know that Department of Health has money from the federal government to test a certain number of schools for you they were confident as I remember that they could test the number but it was a voluntary program and visitors were not asking to be tested because they didn't volunteer to have radon so very low take-up rate for volunteer so this pilot was not voluntary you selected schools but we did not force them to undergo the testing program so they they accepted the testing program but you suggested to them exactly so then my question would be what the senate president pro tem has laid out is immediate testing that is within the current year that we would do all schools in Belmont and I'm wondering did he have an estimate I believe from your department of $860,000 for the testing component yes ours is a little higher and $900,000 range okay and do you have the personnel or would you hire out for that both so the department of health is a certified testing lab and does this work well depending upon the pace of testing and the timeline the department is still prepared to engage other certified labs that are acceptable to us to engage in that effort okay so does that timeline strike you as doable in other words you couldn't get your bottleneck in terms of personnel assuming that the money flows yeah assuming that the money flows it's certainly doable the luxury of time would help with things like making sure our data management system made all of this and we could do all the appropriate reporting to schools, to parents, etc and create that feedback loop that's so necessary to make sure that things aren't just found but they're actually dealt with but again a pace of testing that had a one year time limit would be doable have to remind everyone that one doesn't do this testing during the three summer months because the school is not in use and I think you've heard a little bit about the fact that water is just sitting in taps and it's not flowing all the time so we want to do it at a time that the schools are in use okay and we saw that data lay down on a spreadsheet for us so I'm imagining that your ultimate goal would be to produce uniform data for all of these schools okay could I make one other comment just because I don't get to talk in front of this committee very often and one thing in the health world that is very much 2019 though it should have been forever is the concept of health equity so health equity implies that there are no systemic issues whether they be institutional systems issues whether they be racism whether they be anything that causes a disparity in data from one group to another either for racial or socio-economic or gender based reasons everyone has the same opportunity to be healthy one lesson to be learned from the Radon program is one can have a state of the art program that's designed to impact the future health of everyone in a particular building and have a very low uptake of that program perhaps by communities that have a higher educational level or communities that have more resources to spend etc and you create disparities and inequity across the state because some kids are going to benefit from that as well as teachers who are perhaps in those schools longer than many of the kids and some communities aren't going to benefit so that's why we envision this program including all of the schools in Vermont and everyone has an equal opportunity to have life free drinking water within a time frame that is reasonable so that no kid is going to miss out on this benefit one last question $900,000 for testing does that include you testing once? it does so I can tell you that the estimate was based on a cost of about $20 per tap an average and this is again, schools are all different sizes of 50 taps per school and two samples per tap so about 45,000 tests $20 it's not exactly back to the envelope but it's also an estimate based on what we know about sizes of schools and you're right there has to be a requirement for obviously post remediation testing in place I'm believing it is but I'm not 100% sure if you could get back to that question it doesn't so are we talking about 1.8? well no but it depends again where the level is well what I'm thinking is if we use our pipeline as an example in terms of the number of faucets that would have to then be retested so let's say 30% retested that would be a large number well let's find the envelope let's say it was 5 for school 5 taps for school we're talking about more than 900,000 then we're talking 1. something so we will need, we have JFO up next Stephanie? there you go metric that she's developed and she made out for us I mean didn't we just hear from the previous testimony that you had to retest more than half the taps 45% of the taps were at one part per million per billion so 55% would have required retesting and so we're talking about more than 5 taps but you don't know what level those other taps were greater than 15 or greater than 3 I think 7% of ACSD taps failed the 15 did you say 7? 7% failed the 15 24% failed 5 ppb action level and I got my 45 wrong 65% failed 65% of taps in ACSD is representative of other schools but useful so 900,000 is an inaccurate number we'll need something that's an initial test then questions for the commissioner? so when you said two tests that was the math that I thought you said did you mean the preliminary test and then the flushed test? no the way the testing is done you do a preliminary test yeah that's true so those are the two tests not a preimposed so you at least get the two good tests that's all I have on that question I had a question which I've been asked by a constituent why we weren't testing that before or were we oh yeah so this has been a movement across states that's been probably since early to mid 2010 era as opposed to forever and ever so we're aware of probably a dozen states now that have got formalized programs in place all within the last several years so we just decided we needed to do this pilot because there's evidence emerging around the country that this is a problem a potential problem so we're requiring the independent schools to test for lead but the public schools or the school that was on a municipal water system was just assuming that it was safe because the municipal water was being tested for lead and correct me if I'm wrong but that's the same requirement that the home would have who was not on a municipal water system would you like to clarify please Brian Redmond I'm the director for the drinking water and groundwater protection division within the department of environmental conservation so just to clarify we're really looking at in terms of schools child care facilities the difference of something in terms of schools two types those that are served schools that are served by their own well in and of themselves are public water systems we refer to them as the non-transient non-community water systems there's about 150 of those in the state of Vermont 148 to 150 that number fluctuates those schools are obligated to test under the federal lead and copper rule which has been discussed a little bit today that is the standard of the 15 parts per billion your average Vermont school small rural Vermont school will be required to test five samples under their obligations under the federal rule it is not a program one of the key differences between what we're discussing today and what's required under the federal rule it's not a TAP specific program that same rule regulates public water supplies throughout Vermont your community water supplies your Burlington's your berries down to very very small water systems a lot of very small water systems in Vermont those are schools in those communities that are served by municipal water your statement was correct that the testing is done to diagnose the larger geographical area and the schools themselves are not sampling sites it's a risk based approach to understand the proximity of the water and the potential for lead to leach out so we look for the worst case scenarios which is happens to be single family residences of a certain era so that is where the municipal water supplies are testing so the schools there's no obligation of a school that's receiving water from a public community water system to test all TAPs and this is why the conversation that we had yesterday about the report that we got from Jim was just those schools that were considered public water supplies so in my district Middlebury wouldn't be part of it because that's a not a public water supply ripped in would be because they're on a well and so and it's not TAP specific so it's not getting at the lead in the TAPs can I ask another question of the commissioner so one of the things you mentioned actually a talk to professor Stanza Robinson about this too is notification to parents and you know it's obviously something we want to notify parents after the fact of the results and what schools are doing to remediate those results my understanding at my conversations with professor Stanza Robinson but also as a parent it's also pretty important to let parents know ahead of time that you're testing saying we are doing this testing we are being proactive we are following the law so do you see that as something we should include in the legislation so that we make sure we have our pilot testing program operated exactly under that thesis okay and we actually have model letters for the superintendents and school systems to utilize so that everybody was on the same playing field before we even did this okay so that's we agree okay excellent and then another question is we had a conversation yesterday here about the efficacy or preference for using rulemaking process versus actually just laying it out in statute and we had you know a little bit of unsureness part of it was because of the timeline is so tight with the for good reasons that we're trying to do this quickly to make sure our kids are safe but we also are requiring you to work with the secretary of ANR to create rules is that even possible in the timeline and what is your preference in terms of rules versus statute yeah so from the outset this has been a very important and strong collaboration between ANR and their subsection of DEC Health and the agency of education we're sensitive to the timeline issue and have been apprised by the other agencies about the fact that things take time using the process is this the time we may introduce yeah so I mean we we actually in working with the governor's office also came up with a proposal that did not involve room making and it did involve statutory change yeah which we can maybe this David England first we in terms of the lack rate we can adopt as opposed to rule making the other option in terms of rule making the other option in terms of rule making the other option of rule making if you're worried about speed is of course the authority in the departments to engage in emergency so much to do is don't take that but but but rule making goes into effect in the moment with their file it can go into effect with their file so there are several of those not sure this would qualify as an emergency that that does say but you can take some thank you very much so did I understand that you can share that with us this afternoon yes but not really okay that would be great we can have a couple of different approaches other questions for the commissioner well thank you really appreciate and if I could just personal note it's wonderful to see your two agencies working together but also the legislative branch and the executive branch in service of let's call it an emergency something that I was surprised and alarmed to hear about as was the pro tem as was the speaker so to see everybody working in concert including the appropriations committee and to have a glide path for it is very rare but it shows that the panel work together I appreciate that and agree Stephanie want to join us because Stephanie has squared the circle and has a cool proof yeah those numbers that never change this is a draft fiscal note it's okay unless you change it well so this has been put together a little bit quickly but we did have discussions with the department of health last week to understand the initial question was how much would it cost to test all the school buildings out there and so the health department gave you a $900,000 my number was $800,000 to $850,000 I think that's a little bit of a is it 425 buildings the average of 50 taps per building that number will probably get refined a little bit next week the agency of education has sent out a survey to ask about the number of taps in schools so we'll see what the result of that is I think the surveys do back tomorrow or Friday at the end of this week so I don't know if that'll it will help refine that but it might help refine that number but somewhere in that $800,000 $200,000 is the cost of just that initial testing it doesn't contemplate another round of testing for anything that would be found over whatever the limit is and has an initial remediation and it does not include any remediation cost estimate in it there's the two testing that's the initial two testing not included is any remediation or retesting after remediation first round of remediation so you were saying this to indicate that this was not no remediation no cost for the actual cost of the school to replace the faucet or the plumbing in the first response is what I would characterize that if I could could you revise the fiscal note to take into account the likely amount of retesting we can probably put a chart together if it based on the different levels and percentages that I've heard here today on what that might be in terms of the potential costs right because I don't see how we can respond to it and I provided in the bottom the note about where the child care programs are but the home based programs and the center based programs are now so two questions does this include the child care centers? the building count does not include the child care centers as I understand it that would be an additional cost as well if you were going to actually include the child care centers as part of this initial testing that initial testing cost would go up and any retesting would go up to the point that we heard from testimony earlier we would want to include those I would assume in order to make sure that they are tested at a better safer level if you're bringing them in as a new standard in a new potential and then on the back you have administrative costs and I was going to actually ask the commissioner if this then didn't so the administration yesterday brought to the appropriations committee additional FY19 expenditure requests and their request was 1.3 million dollars for the lead testing piece 900 for the initial testing and then they have 400,000 dollars for the data management and two time positions and that piece hasn't the detail on that I just got about a couple hours ago so that hasn't been vetted on our yet but that's just to give you the what's within that 1.3 million dollar request the two component pieces so the child care programs is now on my mind and I don't there are home based programs and we you know we have a pretty good count of those they do change but that's a that that would be an additional if you want us to revise the fiscal note to include that we can do that too if you could and you know because we're considering different you need to know the costs of all the various avenues it's tough to say we're not going to test child care centers we're going to wait until the kids are 5 years old yeah especially given the condition you said about developing brains when the survey went out to the schools does that mention every faucet in the schools so the the survey was from the secretary of education and I believe he asked each school to report back or each of the superintendents and principals to report back for every building from the number of potable water taps in the school so I don't know how that will you know what the result of that will be but you will you might want to have him in it as I recall it was I think please respond by Friday of the 25th I'm wondering if potable water taps means the same thing the potential consumption is what we're talking about a bunch of those didn't include sinks in the water or the hose outside so in other words I'm thinking the 850 is actually like we'll we'll retest well so right so then you're you know this is what happened when we got working right on our number kept going up and up and up the the good news is the money is there we have one time funds available that the governor of the appropriations committee and leadership has said we could use so that's one thing but our long term goal is to address lead and radon so one of the things I want to make sure doesn't happen is that I personally want to make sure doesn't happen is that some link in the chain loses their nerve and says well let's stop after lead and leave radon where we able to have so if you want to be accurate about it I want to strike well down in the top and we have that one time I mean I do I mean all of these are estimates the yeah the 50 tap per school estimate is from the sample I don't know how representative that is of all the 400 school buildings I don't know how representative that is of the child care centers will have to get beat on that type of thing so I don't know about this but so there are clearly some schools that have already been tested and have probably been tested well I mean the schools you're working with and then the ones that were in the pilot study so is it fair to say we would subtract those out or I think that's the difference between my 800 to 850 in the health departments 900 maybe initially of the initial building count that I think that's where small differences right now yeah Brian Redmond Department of Environmental Conservation it wouldn't be a subtraction for the NTNC these samples would need to be in addition to their obligations under the law right different sample volumes different sampling methodology I was pointing at I understand that who's tested some schools in Asin County not the ones that have been tested under your program which I understand is totally different yeah and there are I do believe there are a handful of schools that have tested outside the pilot as well there may be another dozen schools that after the pilot was announced and was completed wanted to opt in and use the protocol yeah it's obviously difficult to come out with a risk of unnumbering the results of those exactly so Stephanie if you wouldn't mind I think we understand what you've done here it was just the yeah if you could redo it in light of the statistically predictable retesting so that's the second round for those tabs that were remediated and then child care centers if we included those what would that add so we can come up with an estimate for that do you want just the center based or do you want all licensed child care which includes the home based child care and both estimates I mean child based is there are a number of things that are different about those programs I don't know if this is one of the differences we want to allow but it would be good to know the actual and we have to any other requests on the note that comes back thank you very much appreciate it so I'll say this for the commissioner of the room heard it the first time I said it but this is our number one priority for this committee we'll try our best to move this this bill is not going to stop here it's going to make at least one more stop in another committee maybe two other committees so we'll do the initial work on it we got great suggestions for revisions today I'm going to ask Michael Grady to just drop those into the bill and keep notes for anything you want to talk about with witnesses or in markup and we'll again we'll be looking to try to move this out like that at the beginning of February and keep it moving at an accelerated pace any other questions about that they think we're just finding where's David I said you think we're the house with all these findings so it's supposed to be general we don't find trade how many times have we been helping out would you like to walk us through this if I had my glasses I would love to walk maybe does anybody have some readers we can ask other people what they think of this I think my glasses are down the hall they'll bring somebody else to kill time how long will it take 35 seconds if I could see my watch I could tell sorry I'll tell you and the preamble this other version do you the governors do you tend to talk to this and this is what he's going to go through and to the extent you could run your eye over that let us know what you think of it as compared to like currently in the bill that would be great don't worry about the findings no I'm just kidding you could definitely skip over the findings I've said most of them we will drop I know you wouldn't anyways but I'm just saying you would be on all the back there's no way to find them the horrible thing the horrible thing is it just slows down because of the findings is it like one person gets a sign to produce the findings and that's like the whole thing so the committee would have debate and if I really didn't like the bill I'd hit the findings hard and you could start stripping and taking up days it was a good delay tactic he still lose but so if you could again introduce yourself and then show us what you're doing my actual title is I'm the senior policy legal advisor commissioner of health I'm delighted to be before you the proposal as you'll see is fairly other than the findings is fairly stripped down and leaves a lot of the work to the agencies and to work with schools and to the pride well so briefly so if we're starting we have the brief definitions we have 1232 which is the deadline and actually we become more sanguine as we've had discussions with our lab folks and we think we can do it January 1 of 2020 and at June 3 we were concerned about the capacity of the lab and now we feel like we do have now I say the lab I'm referring to Department of Health we're confident at this point that we can do the lab and that but the proposal also allows for the lab if it finds that we have a glut at one time that we can contract out for it there's an exception for schools that are have already tested whether it be for the pilot program or whether on their own initiative so long as the testing protocols are roughly comparable to the ones that are that have been used by the Department of Health that are consistent with the C with the three T's in the EPA document Linda are you glad that you used the velveteer I noticed that too we're all from New England I think we're both from New England I think except he and I were both born in the same town so we're not going to talk about that right now so this this proposal does not have it does not actually have so we're looking at 12 30 so we're at the top of page top of page 2 12 33 it doesn't it doesn't actually have a remediation limit as the commissioner described there is no safe level of level of lead in water so it would have this would abide by the Vermont water supply rule which today is 15 but as described earlier the 15 is not is not a health-based level 5 isn't a health-based level but it could be subject to the water by rule and in this place of course the General Assembly could choose could choose another level of its of its desires B provides any outlet for which a test result is found to be equal greater than the action level shall be discontinued its use until such time as the outlet test below the action level so that you can see that that requires retesting post remediation but also the importance of as soon as we know that there's lead above a certain level in a tap it has to be stopped immediately and this is not what we put off until tomorrow in 12 34 it requires that that that every parent to guard and be notified of the of the results either either by mail directly or put on its website I think it's wise to include in some of these non-proposal is the idea that we should be informing parents and guardian that this testing is taking place here it says most people I thought I heard you say either so like this way of doing it I think in the bill that we have it says posting on the website most parents are not going to so we should if nothing else we should pop out that sentence and stick it in the bill for direct verification but what this proposal says is each school shall provide information under results of the testing directly and the center brought the importance of providing warning to parents beforehand as well and that's not here but it's actually a critical point the department proposes that the department of health would actually create a form that schools could fill out in that way uniform information being provided to parents and guardians and their community so it's something that's very similar understandable so parents aren't getting you know data sheets something very similar that very clearly has boxes that schools would fill out the proposal requires remediation steps if any outlet has about lack of another school inform the parent guardian and any of the steps that are being taken will be taken to remediate the presence of lead the last section 1235 is general rulemaking authority given by the commission to look with A&R as well as AOE to adopt rules as necessary that the purpose of implementing administering or enforcing requirements of this chapter such a broad rulemaking authority that just to deal with things that are unforeseen but to have more rules have more teeth than a statement by by a commissioner that these are things that need to be abide because as we all rule rules are enforced like they are laws so my very quick scan and my spot memory of the bill itself it seems the bill covers almost everything you have here but more specifically is there some approach here that you prefer and if so why so well by having instead of having so this proposal provides that the department of health working with A&R would create the sampling protocol as opposed to having a law and that allows as I said hopefully briefly and quickly before is it does allow it to have the best possible protocol that is sensitive to new data to new science as well as to you know how they're actually working in schools as opposed to prescribing specifically what how it's actually done on the ground yeah so we're back to senator parent's question about enumerating the statute versus rulemaking or before I take or before we're just establishing by protocol questions anyone right now the bill just says the EPA's protocol yes you'd rather just have you because if you want to differ from the EPA protocol you would that would give you the ability to do something it would say we would use EPA's protocol but sometimes just hypothetically from what could do things better than EPA it seems to me that we could add language to the specific language that we already have in the other draft that says should there be better protocols in the future we something we would direct the agency or the department of health to use the best protocols possible or something that would give like future flexibility as I would prefer the more prescriptive approach at this point that sets out the parts per billion and the protocol rather than just if nothing else for public awareness of what we're doing and that we actually took action and that we have standards for what we're requiring you guys to do and then allowing that flexibility in the future things get better yeah I lead that way as well soon because I think ultimately if there is any fighter in this bill it will be able to part per billion standard and we if you follow the progress of toxics bills through the housing senate we know that they attract all sorts of arcane attempts to stop them and weaken them this has so much juice behind it I have a hard time succeeding but that doesn't mean somebody won't argue that 15 parts per million should be the standard because it will save us a lot of money and there's no real reason to worry beyond that so I would also like a standard in the bill I suppose I'd also like the protocol for testing in the bill for much the same reason that you can by controlling the testing you can ultimately control the price at the risk of questions of children's health what could we have all the time I skipped over that thank you so let's counsel wanted to create a whole new chapter in 10 BSA and yours I noticed is in 18 BSA and it's amending the existing chapter why did you pick that chapter because we this is because we really see both the department of health and the agency of natural resources really see the department of health as leading this program so we really felt this it exists in 10 language it's sort of neither here nor there but the way we imagined it as we were drafting together is that we would be the lead and that would be the point of contact for much of this work thank you very much my pleasure thank you for having me thank you Mr. let's start with that committee I just thought we could make it very prescriptive for this timeline for this first testing so that it's clear how quick it's happening and then we'll have to worry about rules but then give them the authority to set the rules of protocols for the ongoing testing and we could say there can be no weaker than these rules we do that with federal guidelines you can't under under issue so we can do a similar kind of thing okay so it seems to me that everything is coming along like gang busters but we doubled our estimate potentially if we had all the time let's just say general 1.4 can just have 65% of that cost on top of the other one we can have some of that child care centers which we'll double that not maybe not double it but we'll have 10 to 5 and it doesn't need to say choose your own adventure we haven't chosen our adventure yet I don't know what we'll ultimately come down on in terms of the universe that we're looking to address I've been assuming universal buy-in from the administration and the speaker it may be that we pick a path where ultimately somebody goes off the bus in terms of how much money we're spending or how broadly we're casting the net I'd like to start with the strongest possible bill if that means the price tag is higher than someone else can be in charge of rationing protection down the road I think what we're talking about is poison it's maybe more of an issue in a child care center in a high school just because of the difference in the children that would be there I lean toward what we ask Stephanie to put together the most all-inclusive cost that's where I would see myself on that's what we'll straw over each of those decisions very rarely hear me say this but I would agree with that approach on this one since it's such a serious problem if we didn't go the route of keeping it with AHS and the Department of Health I wonder if we should put some money inside the PSAs for people who are on wells of which we have many in Vermont especially if they have children they should test their own water just making them aware I don't remember when PFOA and maybe the Commissioner remembers when the PFOA thing in Bennington hit a bill went through natural resources I believe made it all the way where it required a sequence of testing of wells and there were sedentary substances that they were supposed to test was lead one of them no environmental conservation lead is one of the constituents as part of the mandatory testing provision but that's only for new potable water supplies so if a homeowner is drilling a well it wouldn't get to everything that's existing out there and approximately 55% of Vermonters are served by their own wells so I mean I have my well I have just my water and I have all kinds of nasty things in it so to come to this the issue might not even be your well and then where would for some kind of public education like how would a homeowner go about it's 20 bucks most people probably don't need to get paid the 20 bucks they've got them to test their own but is it possible for the private system to find the $20 test yeah it is I mean I don't know I've done it but you said paper yourself yeah I'm just going to mention that I'm assuming maybe I'm wrong but the Department of Health probably already has some kind of educational outreach on if only the paint side oh good yes but does that educational campaign include water? I mean I have to get a sheet like I have the Parliament I have to get a sheet because it's pre-1970 but we've never thought to test the water and we're on city water but much more like we consider to go through to make sure it's safe so this is David Inletter so in our safe homes program most exposure has resulted in pre-1978 paint chips so when we request it we will go into a homeowner and find the source that we think it is so we don't require testing so testing is so the Department of Health offers offers well offers water testing for residents that does include the land but if you're within 5% so 55% a lot of wells and about 5% roughly 5% are tested and do we do education and PSAs on that but we've not been we do education and PSAs on water as well on water testing generally okay so they're covering that base it's not said it couldn't be beat up man especially in this particular child has a greater than 10 micrograms of this left in the blood you go into the home and do this total assessment as you heard from the professor once on their own tested they need to know the testing protocol that's the sort of thing we could probably urge the Department to do and the Department to voluntarily alter what they're producing to speak to this okay so one stitch that's dropped is Michael Grady was not here nor was Jim I hope to have Jim keep an eye on all these things so if you could ask Michael Grady if he's able to come is he able to come okay okay well I try to keep an eye on the things that I thought should go into the bill anybody else who asks maybe stopping the message to come here please Grady and then we'll give him those additions we'll help him produce another version we'll send you that version send the commissioner and anybody else you'd like to have copy so that you can see as we go along and I'd also like to with these new I'd like to check back in with the chair of appropriations make sure that Jim understand we may be talking about other other issues thoughts yes so I we talk about visiting our visits because an expert that I consult that is in the room the second suggestion I got was north country union north country supervisory union would be that's up in the Newport area that's too far not my favorite superintendent in all of them I wonder if Carl can speak to why it would be good spot no aspersions cast north country or its children anyway not to say we can't go we'll just not meet with the superintendent there was a school in particular J that has a pre-K program that we thought would be of interest and how equity you met program and how it translates to the kids going into the elementary school Samantha Stevens yeah and kidding aside happy to happy to go there I think one of these games is a logical place for us to reach out to so if you'd like to if you'd like to do initial setup work logistics and anybody have any objections to that being our first spot first come first served if you want to have us come out to your community I'm going to ask the committee to go to somewhere in Chittin County putting that together and I'll describe that to you later on but probably we could do at least one more priority in Washington we're in Washington every day yeah James and I talked about going to Orwell which is kind of on the board of the two districts and they have a really good pre-K program there that it's a public-private partnership it's in the school that it works with a private child care center and I've heard good things I have not personally visited but I've heard good things one thing that may be a little dicey is there one of the gray areas they were absorbed by both of them they're still apparently they emailed us last night so they are still I think that's fine we'll just be ready for maybe an extra year for yeah and I'm happy to reach out to them and the superintendent if you don't mind that's fine I haven't met her personally but I'm happy to reach out to her yeah if we could do something for your community exactly right on the edge on the way we could stop other places whatever I don't know how much time we're talking about it's conceivable even though those are pretty far apart we could do both in one day so we could get permission from our morning committees to be absent and go to let's say if it's Jay in the morning have lunch then drive for a meeting in Orwell I don't know if we'd make it down to Orwell probably Chitton it's hard to get through efficiently okay well then let's think of it as two I think it would have to yeah or if we I mean we could pick someplace else that's closer too just a thought that I had they may not want us we'll see we could just leave right after morning committee get to Orwell whenever we get there do what we need to do then we're all going home from that so we're not keeping it on a Friday let's do it on a Friday then we'd be close to the home then we would just go home and on the back that would make it that would be key for us you know a fancy car a fancy car I call shock on you then we have like night rider do you remember that? you do? where would you like to go today? what kind of car is it? it's a Mercedes ooh y'all can come in my mini van okay so that's good so that's our first two stops and just go ahead and begin working look for available dates if you just bring a couple dates back into the committee so we make sure that we find one that works for everybody and then I will get permission from Pro Tem for us to be gone at that point to make sure there are no important votes or you know because we'll miss floor time if it's afternoon or Tuesday but if it's Friday how close is Shoreham? yeah is it in the Addison Central? yeah Shoreham is in Addison Central Orwell is now in whatever Rotland oh it's Slate Valley oh that's Slate Valley yeah but they're in my senate district Orwell is actually in Addison County two years so I think that's all we have to do today so just a quick note on tomorrow I was going to be why you get so big votes that's why you get so big votes I'll just if you have something you want to make sure gets dropped in you can stick around and talk to them and do that I think I so for tomorrow we have the Governor's budget address at 2 but we'll be in here at 1.30 so you'll need Susan Sightley another one of the senior suspects who helps us out with independent colleges and then it has us back in 3.30 on this bill I think that should be okay I may be a little later because I've been asked to come to the booktime office immediately following so if that's the case Debbie will go ahead and start at 3.30 and then on Friday because as I told you I was thinking about dropping my John Homeschoolers going to thin up what we have scheduled for Friday I'm going to put more lead testimony in there so hopefully we can get a revision from Mike and revision from Stephanie I'm going to see if they can do that on Friday so that we have a current bill to go up on the website on Friday and then people on the weekend can be checking in on that okay comments, new business just a question so are we meeting tomorrow at 1.30 before the governor's budget and then we go from here to the floor at 1.50 some of you is going to be keeping track of time and then my second yeah the testimony on the pre-K bill I have a constituent who was mentioned yesterday who is our regional coordinator and I'm trying to get her to come in and testify is that okay? absolutely so Jeannie and I will do the schedule for next week I'll try to make one day purely pre-K and then we'll be doing the lead well let's say lead and pre-K because I don't think we should start on the ethnic studies bill until it comes to us from now but that will I think get voted out of committee and might reach us the week after next so next week we'll be pre-K and lead and then hopefully get close to a form where we might both let go out but in other words there will be a day for pre-K and just be in touch with Jeannie and Jeannie great thank you