 So it's not reason that neither of the state nor any of its agencies or instrumentalities, including the Vermont State Archives and records administration, shall impact me to the faith because it is a role for my liability, et cetera. So there's a section left that we went through yesterday on the Bronx and College records. So again, those records will be transferred from the agency to the archives. And again, there's protection from liability. Again, the words, the factings of faith that have been added there, too. And then there's this transition provision that says on line 15, on the 4 August 1119, the agency of education shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration with respect to the use and maintenance of education records that complies to the 4 August 1119 rules and the fact. And that should do it. Well, that should. Based on the, let me tell you a tad, I believe this works, but of course music, that's what I thought there was. Yeah. I'm sure we will have some other good opinions. And provide an opportunity. Well, I would say currently I believe the archives has these records. So either it's probably for now or maybe there's an interest understanding already, but yeah. Questions? Are we comfortable with that one? So far? Ted, did you want to speak for the agency? Do you have something written that we can look at as well? I don't. I don't. And we, for the record, Ted Fisher, Vermont Agency of Education, we don't have much to add over what Jim said, just to his last point about the presence of student records in the Kusar Archives. They are, they're all records there. They have agency records stored at the archives currently. And as Jim made reference to FERPA, regardless of the situation in the way FERPA, the compliance procedures for the state education agency. So even if the records are in a third party's hands or in an ally's hands, it still comes through us. So. Ultimately you are, you're the agency's client. I don't know if I would put it in those words, but yes. So we appreciate the committee's attention to the student privacy issues. And we just wanted to note that we would have used a memorandum of understanding in any case for an arrangement of this kind. We're happy for the query on the bill. And then just to reiterate what we mentioned yesterday, we're talking about a last resort option here for, you know, in an ideal world, college work to sadly close. They would have made other arrangements and we're talking about a way to provide the best, but the best entity that can either hold the records physically and reproduce them or find out their party contract to do so. And the agency is not well suited to do that currently. So we would be happy to enter into an MOU with the entity you designated with the Secretary of State's office through the state archives and records. So the agency supports this bill as drafted? As drafted, we support the bill. Questions for the agency? Secretary of State. Good morning for the record, Chris Winters, Deputy Secretary of State. I guess I'll say it one more time. We don't think we are the right place for this. I'm kind of trying to understand this. We need an AOE would delegate to the Secretary of State who would delegate to Parchment. I'm not sure why we don't just cut out the middleman and all of this because we're not going to be able to actively manage these records. We're not a registrar's office. We don't know FERPA. We don't know DePalmas. We don't know what's going to financial aid, all of those things. We think we should not have to pick up the pieces for AOE's bad decision when they took the religion college records in the first place and don't appreciate them dumping them into the state archives. I know it's people who are not in charge now who make those decisions, but it was we advised against it at the time and this is one of the reasons why. So we do think it would be a mistake to put them in the state archives. We would just simply contract with the third party, I believe. I'm not sure where that funding would come from or our resources in order to handle those records and sort those records and get it ready for a third party contract. We don't have that either. We're at about 35, I'm sorry, at a 20 person shop at the state archives, which includes a couple of archivists and a lot of records managers through or for that are dedicated to a whole lot of other things. So we do not support this bill. If you could get an idea of what the appropriation would be, I think we can get back to that. It's possible if there's money to be found. It's possible if there's still some change. That happens without. Are we just talking about a one time, we've cleaned this up so this won't happen again. Is that right? We have not prevented colleges. We've required colleges if they're going to close to lag, not just financially, but so that hopefully would, in that time, someone would start looking at them and talking to them and putting liens on their property to pay for the storage of records. Is that kind of a train of thought of assumption in terms of once they're flagged that that process would begin in terms of looking at the cost of the closing, whatever it was? This is very established for being in the process for enforcements and statute, like as this addresses, it's time to support the markets as many colleges may close down and be able to think about a kind of physical records that's going to apply and be able to start here. So this is a one time. This is just a one time transfer of Burlington College records. And it's a fail safe that helps, even if we do everything, we get everything organized, there's still a Burlington College too. We have a plan. And we have prevented this from happening again. Because we don't have the power to prevent these things. But we have the ability to find a way to prepare for it if it could happen, like just what we're trying to do. We don't have that kind of control over the independent colleges, whereas we do with the state colleges. Yes. And I'll just note that the state archivist testified to this that she has some really good ideas for how we kind of beef up that enforcement based on what some other states have done to address closing colleges. There's a couple of really good recent examples that were highlighted in her testimony yesterday. Again, with respect to the Burlington College records, we think this is kind of throwing good money after that bad decision was made. We advised against it. We understand ALE's in a bad position. We wish they would have come to talk to us before recommending us in this bill. But that didn't happen either. We don't like being thrown under the bus. We understand. Question. Is that a problem? Just to clarify, would an appropriation make you feel any differently? It would absolutely need to have an appropriation, but we still think whoever gets the records has to have an appropriation. I think to appropriately deal with these very active records for all the students who are coming after looking for those records. We still think it's very much the wrong decision to put it into the SARA. It doesn't make it any better. In our shop, that doesn't make it any better. Thank you. So we have spoken with the state colleges and they have indicated some pretty good reasons why they're also not, we're not finding anybody that wants these records except for independent vendors that will be paid. I think what I view is that somehow, between the two of you, you need to figure out how to negotiate with a private vendor, figure out how much it would cost and then come back and tell us what it is and we find money for it. But I can't get anybody to want to do that. We would be more than willing to consult with AOE on how to connect with a third party vendor on this, but to delegate and transfer to transfer again doesn't make a lot of sense to us. How long would it take you to negotiate that with AOE and are we just gonna come back to the same place or are you gonna do anything about it? I'm not sure. I don't want to promise anything. Because that was one of the things that we considered was to send the two of you off, figure out how you're gonna handle it and come back with us and what would happen is this. So I don't know what that time is gonna do. But if you, you know. I'd love to give it a try. Representative James. I have a question in terms of trying to find a compromise because I feel so uncomfortable voting for a bill that just says, sorry you lose. Is there any progress to be found in the option we talked about yesterday of notify and destroy? Does that make it any easier for either one of you guys if the solution, we talked yesterday, Jim, about whether in the worst case scenario of an independent college, which is really in some ways you could argue not the state's responsibility, saying sorry here's a box of records, whether the solution couldn't be to notify all the students that the records are available for a set amount of time and then they will be destroyed. And not maintaining those records in perpetuity as a responsibility of the state. And I don't know whether that path appeals to anybody on the committee or whether it makes a compromise easier. I don't know enough about student records to know if you can't just give them to the students if they need them to verify their transcripts or diplomas or financially they need an independent registrar function to do that. So I'm not sure that that would work, but I don't know enough about student records. I do know that that's a possible hurdle, but I can't believe there's not an answer. There can't be, it's not, no I'm trying to say, it boggles the imagination to me that there are multiple circumstances in students' lives where for some reason or the other they cannot get that original transcript. I just don't know what the responsibility of the state of Vermont is to look out for that possibility in perpetuity for an independent college that is closed. I know you're up against a hard deadline. The Senate is also looking at this issue. Yeah, I tell you what, I don't have to, we don't have to vote on it now. If you can work with the AOE, and I'd say you have until about two o'clock to come up with something that you can agree upon to address this, I think that you have that time. And I would encourage the AOE to try to find a way as well. I don't think any of us think that just dumping it on you was a great idea, but we're kind of stuck with it. Right now, they're sitting in some boxes, they're not protected, you have protected, nobody wants to be a registrar. So it's not like we've got between this great choice and this great choice, we have between two bad choices at the moment before us. So if you guys can come up with something else so that someone can figure out how we can get this to a private vendor and can figure that out by two o'clock, that would be great unless you have some really good- I agree with everything you say, and I would also just like to point out that we are months away from literally moving those records, and that would be an opportune time to move them out of the state, period. And it would be great if the records experts and the student experts could get together and say, we've got a plan that when the AOE moves, we're going to shift these babies down to a good party vendor and the legislature's going to pay for it. And why I've asked you folks to find out what it would cost to do the Burlington Records, and I've given you the name, I'll have a place to call, and get that information, and then I can look and find an appropriation. But with everybody doing this, I'm left with just going like this. Understood. So I would say between now and two o'clock, if you guys can figure out a way, and we will find an appropriation for it to figure out how we're going to get those records that are going to physically move regardless of where they end up going. Those records are moving. Someone is moving those records because they're moving out of their building. What a great time to only move them once. Let's go side of this job. Because we're voting this out today. It's our last day. Can you work in good faith? We'll see the good faith smile. It's a bureaucracy of conference. India, just an interest of time, we'll do our best. That's what you like to hear. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have the also the commitment I have. I'm happy for you. All right. Okay. Just gonna be the good one. Okay. Okay. And then back to our other easy side. The smile is the best part. I'm away, right? Yes. Just a minute. Walk this way. Come on in. Okay. Let it in my head. Okay. David Englinder. You were going to speak to us about that. I wasn't here this morning. David and Grye as well. Good morning. Good morning, David. Again. Again with the nose. It's great to see you again. Second time today. My name is still David Englinder. I'm the student calls it legal advisor, commissioner of health. And I think I'm again, I don't have a presentation of testimony so much as I come to answer your engaging questions and I'll try to keep my answers brief. Yes. I said some questions to you. I think you guys can send them to the committee. So if you could shoot, it'd be great. So I'm sorry. You've said questions today? I did send questions. What was the means of transmission? I'm here to see them. I'm forwarded something to you at 1006. And Mike, the question is, it's a scatter shot to the folks. What is, how many districts can we expect or people on staff are qualified to do it at the moment? You don't have that one. Oh. What is the margin of error for you? What is the margin of error and given test of reliability when we're just sending folks out together? What's the margin of error? I actually think that would be a better question directed to Brian Redmond in MPC. I still don't have the questions. I did. Madam Chair, when we spoke briefly, you asked the failure rates on the pilot of 1, 3, 5, 15. And I've sent those to Shannon and I've done that. We do have all these things. The last one that you want to share on screen. Yes. Please do. OK. Can you pull it up one minute? OK. You know what, too, we have no way to show the exemptions that were online. It's actually simple as a name on it. Oh, OK. Whatever works for you. Which they would just so you know that when I post it, it has to become a PDA, which is not a great way for that to get captured. I understand. So it can't be sorted. If you have another version that you actually want to send, but just so you know that. Or if we can plug into your computer. Yeah, let's just plug into it. I have it on Excel here. I'm thankful later when it is posted. There's no way that I can post it on Excel. What is it you sent here? Yeah. If you look at it on Excel. That's what you're plugging, since it's not working. So what? Oh, no, I didn't see the way you compute. I do compute measures. Do you have an apple? What do you need? Can I just plug it in? Can I have this? Oh, I have one of those. OK. I really hope my test one is worth it, because this is no model for people. Wow. It's your gas. It is. Oh, jeez. Yeah. So this is the raw data. So we can talk about the data? Yeah. And I think you can put it up as a PDF. Yeah, yeah. You got that. Shall I talk about something in the meantime? Is that not for your computer? I'm sorry? It doesn't. Do you want any of these? Oh, you can just use the same one. So the problem is this. Here, put it to me. I'll do it. Oh, no, no. This one works. Yeah. It depends on what you want. This one works. Oh, I see, I see. Sorry, that's OK. I'm only paying you. Ah, OK. Look at that. That's amazing. I don't even know what that stuff is. I don't even know what this stuff is. I'm sure. In my case, it works on the monitor. Not very good. That's right. The monitor, when it says .001MGL, that's the same as M1PPB. Oh, OK. Maybe I'm going to put it right there. Oh. These are all the ones I say right now. I know. What's that? OK, so this is looking at those locations. That's the total number of samples. The first straw. What is the? The first straw of the flush. OK, so we've got it at greater than one, greater than three, greater than five, greater than 15. So if we back up at the 15, if it's just at 15, Berry City and Richford show up and St. Alden show up as over 15 on first straw, right? And on flush, we have Berry City and Richford that are highly problematic in terms of degree of over the limit. And if we look at over five, we pick up more. Sort of just get at this. So the greater the more. I'm not quite sure what you're what you're saying. What I will say from my own observation is that we clearly don't have a public health crisis at a level of five on the after a tab has run except in a couple of schools. David, in this pilot do you know if schools did all taps or was it left up to their discretion as to which taps to take? So it was left up to their discretion. So to be clear the pilot, this morning people were referring to it as a pilot study. I don't think this wasn't a study. The part of the pilot study was for the pilot. That's an excellent question. We left out the schools a test the test that they thought would reasonably be used for either drinking or food preparation. Or some tested all of them or some really followed that. And the Department of Health did not it would not go into schools and identify faucets or taps and say did you test that. That is really left to the discretion of the school. So if we set our level at five we set our level at five we would have picked up at fifteen we picked up two or three areas, right? If we set the level at five we pick up what do we add? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Ten on first draw. Ten on first draw. Two. And two on flush. If we set it at three which is what the Senate wants to do we pick up one, two, three, four, five. Almost all of them. Almost all of them. Of course the number of taps is the big number there. I'm going to look to Brian I'm going to look to Brian as a practical matter as a practical matter if an attack was replayed so that whether it was whether it was above fifteen or above five the retests were shown that those numbers were below three about available to look through sometimes below one. Exactly. After remediation. After remediation everybody was able to get or just about everybody was able to get below one. I don't think the majority was actually below one but everybody was below three. That for I think one. For the record Brian Redman from Department of Environmental Conservation I don't have the retesting data right in front of me but generally speaking remediation at the tap proved to be effective in the pilot. We did have the experience where there was sort of an acclimation period following the tap installation where actually our first retest samples came back high and the taps needed to get to see routine usage before we actually went back and re-sampled and we had clearance at low levels. I can't really tell you right now we have retesting data we put that together for the senate but I don't have it. So we would pick up the senate picked up two more is that what it did the senate's bill would pick up we figured on the first draw we'd pick up one, two, three we're picking up ten right? If we set it at five we'd pick up ten if we set it at three we'd pick up twelve. The ones that are below and the ones that are below three below five five we'd pick up ten. We're picking up schools schools is a lot of apps. Which in some ways is okay thank you Dylan did you? No, no, no. The screen was blue. It's like a blue screen and that would be anything behind it. See this one to be green. Did they give us the recommendations? Did you give us the recommendations from the Department of Health? So the administration, so in consultation with DEC and AOA the department supports a level of five understanding that that takes into account a whole panoply of issues and not if it's not not nearly health considerations but it's also equally as well as a whole piece. So the record, Brian Redmond I'm the director for the drinking water groundwater protection division within the Department of Environmental Conservation similar to David Englander I haven't prepared pre-written comments but happy to answer questions based on the previous line of questioning Madam Chair I was privy to the questions that you had sent earlier and offered responses on questions three and four and I'm happy to cover those if you'd like to. Okay so the first question that I was able to offer comment is what would happen if we soften language to target remediation only at the fixtures that can be reasonably expected students to drink from or are used for cooking? And the way that we responded to this question was that this gets into the placarding question that was discussed in previous testimony earlier in the week the children might be drinking from and reading comprehension issues during to do not drink the water signs so this is not a policy in the terms of public water supplies that we have adhered to and just to remind the committee of the schools in question 150 of these are regulated as public water supplies so that's not that that's a little bit of concern for us there's also issues with the uses in the schools changing the uses of the specific caps changing from year to year so one fixture not normally in use that becomes a pre-k room for example so that that's also a consideration so I think our recommendation for sampling would be at locations that are expected to serve water for drinking and cooking so expected to serve reasonably expected to serve so we had a question yesterday from an independent college that works with primarily students that can identify with special needs of some sort they identified a part of the building that was a former convent and had bedrooms in a different wing which would make it a challenge for them to address all these little rooms with that that language that you just gave us with that would that help so that they did not necessarily have to draw those taps into into consideration these are bathroom faucets or drinking water on them I'm going to quickly turn to the person bathroom faucets and it's a wing for the way it's for Elizabeth Novotny for the mosaic certain learning center bathroom faucets and it's a wing that is not accessible actually to the students at all these students all have one-in-one supervision they can't go anywhere without an instructor physically present with them so they're not roaming a building at all anyway and the wing is only used for storage nobody uses that wing so but each room does have an in suite bathroom faucet and one of them is divided it has I think both the bathroom in the renovations that occurred over the years I personally read the language currently in S40 to be inclusive of bathroom faucets I can say during our pilot project that was that was somewhat discretionary we relied on school officials to tell us if it was an area where children were consuming water for drinking and I believe the intent on S40 would be to be inclusive of sampling those fixtures the language that would work could be recently expected to be used for drinking and preparing food or take out the word recently we could David and I could follow up with the committee we had prepared language that we thought worked heading into the legislative session we could certainly provide that to the committee and that's something that you actually would have embedded in the senate and ejected specifically no so you could come up with language that would direct us to stay out of the janitor's closet the bathroom shower heads other question oh and then the second question so the second question of error on testing questionable tester reliability the answer that we provided to this question was the likelihood of a sampler introducing lead or family to adequately capture the very first drop of water from this stagnation sample is very low assuming this is the key that they follow the necessary sampling procedures and label the sample containers correctly the same would be true as well for lab reliability that's not the issue reliability and uniformity across the samples would really come down to the use of the tap between samples how long the water sits prior to sampling and if there are issues with particular lead sloughing off from like a water hammer situation that's really that day to day variability and really going to be the most variable component of the sampling I'm going to give you an opportunity as well if you wanted to ask about some of the things that you were wondering about in terms of new technologies right well I'm just going to clarify your last answer in question even if the methodology is good because I agree it seems like I've been reading through the three T's it does sound a little hard because you're not supposed to spill any and you're trying to get these fairly distinct amounts so I'm just imagining someone three containers kind of being very ready and I'm sure people could do that so but also reading that you could do everything correctly and get a false negative and so the re-testing kind of the annual testing we've just heard some testimony and also have been provided some reading materials it seemed to emphasize that even though you might get a low reading one year that's really not any kind of confirmation you're not going to get a high reading next year methodology is that right I would generally agree with that statement similar to what I just said there are a lot of variables in the sampling for example you may replace a fixture and get a low reading and then you come back and retest that same fixture a year or two later water temperature and stagnation time are big factors in the reading that you're going to get I think it would be a false sense if we said that we could rest assuredly over time that fixture replacement will take care of all the issues when we know there are other lead containing components in the delivery system to the drinking fountain or the faucet the solder, the pipes, the fittings the valves, all the plumbing components that are old and have some amount of allowable lead content in that amount has been greatly reduced in Vermont since 2010 at the federal level in 1986 and Vermont further reduced in 2010 but as we all know we have a lot of old buildings in this state I've got a couple more questions do we have any lead service lines coming to the schools? to the schools not that we are aware of there is the possibility that there may be lead goosenecks but we don't have a comprehensive assessment of lead service lines in the state we have been rolling out two funding opportunities who are revolving loan funds to get a better handle on lead service line inventory, the two communities that took advantage of that were Springfield and Eddington but that's also in the municipal water supply context not necessarily in the school context what do they find? Eddington has lead service lines so they have those all mapped and publicly available now it's a really exciting project of what was produced out of that project and we're hoping we've been touring it around the region actually and we're hoping that that can serve as a model for other communities we do know EPA is taking a hard look at the lead and copper role we haven't seen action on it we've been promised action yet but what we're hearing is that there's going to be a greater emphasis on understanding and inventory lead in the future or revisions EPA one more Madam Chair I'm curious is it reasonable that we in addition to water testing that we could your department, some department could undertake an inventory of the actual lead the metal, the element lead that exists in the infrastructure of water delivery systems in schools and I have just been poking into this on how one might do that it seems to me that X-ray fluorescence XRF technology seems to be fairly sophisticated hearing that some of this SDD technology kind of a newer handheld you could essentially go and point out a faucet and say is this 8% brass or lead or is this below the 0.25% does something like that make sense to kind of do in tandem to really just say we want to get the lead out and the way we're going to do that is to remove the element lead from our school drinking water supply kind of regardless of whether we get a low reading in one year on what we know in the future that would be cutting edge for us there's nothing in place in that regard now I will say one of the issues from where I said within the agency we regulate the public water systems the actual plumbing and infrastructure in the interior of the building is under the state plumbing code so it's not really jurisdictional for us so that could be a question for the state plumbing inspectors it's not an area that we currently have jurisdiction over but your jurisdiction would compel someone to change that infrastructure you kind of have jurisdiction by proxy I mean if you have jurisdiction over the water and the water level is coming up because of the infrastructure and we say you have to remove the infrastructure based on an action level then you essentially do have jurisdiction over those parts under the federal letting copper rule it first drives a whole host of different notifications that must occur treatment system evaluations the per tap replacement isn't necessarily a direction that we have been involved with this is a new direction for us under the federal letting copper rule you're really looking at treating the water for its overall corrosivity and potentially adding corrosion control treatment to cope the inside of the piping materials so that isn't available to reach into the drinking water so it would be a a different approach that we currently utilize with under 50 schools that we do regulate I just wanted to check one thing we have a gentleman here who's a water here a water okay so I want to make sure that we have time for him so that we can end it noon I know other people have applications I got two words did the pilot show evidence that we have issues with distillate systems or mainline systems or did it really point strictly to fixtures as to the culprit in the pilot it was the fixtures as the culprit again we should take another look at the retesting data we are operating off a higher standard there are samples where the fixtures for example, Berry City has some they had some samples that were in the two or three to four range even in the flush samples but in large the sampling in Berry City looked very good but there are some levels that if you're driving the standard down we would still be actively working with them in remediation where in the pilot we were we're talking about this later today more we have our attorneys coming in from here today we're going to be looking at a markup on the bill we are, yes Michael Grady is going to come in our attorneys and go over where we are with bills it's going to be a markup time I thought that it's not a question I would like people to also feel free if you can hang around and walk outside of the room with other questions of our committee we tend to get really deep into detail and we at some point have to back out and make a broader decision so I want to make sure that people are comfortable so that we can make the higher level decision about this and identify what you just need to go into rule that we stop micromanaging you okay yeah, I mean this is not necessary we have something at one related to something that's not we're going to cancel that but we'll definitely have you come back at one and we're going to we still have, we're hoping we have representative Cooper seeing if he can work out something between the AOE and the Secretary of State the son of a former Secretary of State is working with them right now so so if you could hang around and I would love to get a gentleman here who's actually a water operator to talk about thank you very much for giving me the time my name is Richard Kenny Chief Water System Operator for the County Parkford I've been doing that for 31 years I take 32 minutes to the water systems there I'm also a contract operator for the Child Care Center in Norwich I've been doing that for 21 years anyway prior to my moving up here to Vermont I worked in the municipal water system and I started this business in 1973 so virtually I'm 46 years and counting in these water systems I'm also past president of the Green Mountain Water Environment Association I'm still a board of directors to them that's an association the state association that deals with a membership as the water a professional who basically design maintain repair the water systems and so I'm one of the hosts of different committees with the state and such so coming from I'm also a taxpayer another hat I'm going to use this because I'm struggling a lot crazy with this bill on things it's been moving very fast on itself the main concern the main concern I have at this point is the actual level this is as a water system operator on it lowering a first drawer action level anything lower than what the federal standard is is going to cause major confusion with the general public with water system operating session myself and any other sort of thing something that doesn't seem to be addressed here in anything I've seen so far is the fact that you have two actually different tests that's going on here a first drawer leg sample a two different ones our first drawer sample is just as you've heard before generally speaking it's the worst case scenario we're looking at how the water system is operating and the corrosion aspect of the thing how corrosive the water is in relation to to the lead contents in specific places I've been doing lead sampling for the town I think it started in 1993 I can't remember exactly what the day is on obviously I have I have 40 systems 40 houses that I have to have in one system in the Hartford system, I have 20 we've made the limit all the way through so we're monitoring so it's 20 so at the bottom one thing the EPA standard at 15, understandably it's an action level limit on it to see what's going on because again as Brian said we cannot control the interior plumbing of houses yet we are responsible for the quality of the water to the last half that's in the safe drink water what I would propose and it seems to be that most people are looking to set a lower standard leave the 15 parts per billion alone leave the first draw leave it alone lower the standard for a flush thing first of all everything that you've seen so far in reality on the kind of thing you flush the line out number one the first thing you want to do anyway on it and we've been advocating this all along for years is flush the line to have cold water don't use the hot water for cooking these are just things that we do on a try to do in between basically what it prepares we're too busy trying to put out firefighters in water systems as opposed to situations on the thing so nonetheless this would actually address the two issues on the thing and it might actually help get the word out to customs do you remember is that students only drink the water half a year first of all 180 days out of the year apparently plus they're only here 8 hours a day in school 8 hours a day they're drinking water at their homes or somewhere else so in reality when we're talking about the amount that we're even looking at and quite frankly I'm glad you brought it up because this is not a crisis it's great that it's bringing it up it's great to have a conversation on it but the sky is not falling on it if you look at the results that we've actually been seeing even on the pilot on a flush sample we're getting down very low even just into a nothing so my proposal my request as I said before is to leave that 15 plus or a million leave that first year alone if you need to drop the standard on anything drop it on the flush on the flush somewhere along the line there needs to be some sort of comprehensive dally flushing program because the whole key about everything regarding this thing is we talk about the first drill well the first drill comes out in the bay is that I walk up to a water fountain I don't know and the water's been sitting there and I'm going to get the first high lead somebody else walks up to it they're going to get a whole lot less the next person goes up they're going to get a whole lot less it's going to be as you use the water that's the whole thing about lead it's one of the few contaminants out there that we can actually it needs to have contact on it so you don't really necessarily we can fix 90% of the problems out there maybe better than 90% of the problems out there right now by just having a good flushing program inside the dally flushing program open the faucet until it's full I understand this might be very difficult to control but that's where it is and I didn't really dig real deep really deep into the details of the bill but I did not see anything in there as far as on that filters personally I think should not promote putting filters in on anything filters if they are not maintained they're more harm than good so and you put a filter on a fixture and you walk away and say this is great on it you don't know how long that filter is going to sit there and it will also become a problem itself on a thing until you see it sampling down also you need a sampling plan you need a good solid sampling plan per place I'm virtually following what protocol that we had to go through back in 1992 or whatever it was on a thing when safety went when this came out with the sampling the lead sample guidelines on it develop the sampling plan identify the crucial places on a thing the first round yes we're going to spend some money on the first round you really don't have to spend a whole lot of money on the second, third and fourth round there's no reason to keep throwing lots of money on these things as long as we identify that a flushing program and a flushing plan is being followed on it and that's where it goes back to again goes back to whoever's in that that building, that school whether it however it is consolidation of drinking one thousands in fixtures that is all for that because the more you can actually push towards one fixture being used that's going to be it you're going to take the way of convenience and so be it, that's key on it and again placard putting sands up a thing just run the water for 30 seconds prior to drinking or something of that nature things of that nature that should be that would help also but I'm not sure after a while people just forget about you leave a sign up for so long and people just don't involve reading anymore that's again I'm going to take up a lot of time on this thing but those are my key things, the other thing too is of course my taxpayer had on it on it that's what we're going to generate it's going to cost money initially but what we have the numbers that I've looked at right now are strictly for public schools I take care of this on the contract for the child care center in Norwich they are a 501c3 non-profit but the project they're going to have to eat this whenever it comes to one thing I already have it in place as far as things are concerned because they of course it's a child care center they follow so to speak my procedures are already anyway meaning that they're running water and as soon as you stop running water it's by most of the issues are going on I will by the way be doing further sampling on it which I have not, I do have to do because they're an AT&T so they're not transient public board system that's why I'm there they were required to lead sampling every three years I believe it is I have to take five samples and my first two samples have been final so that's okay well that's pretty much all it is but go ahead I'm sorry I just want to have two questions one is if a child comes into a fountain let's say a child is flush and then some child doesn't come for another 45 minutes does that, does the water increase again how long does it take for the water to get back to 15 after flush I don't know that question I think it's going to be specific where we go back to again a sampling procedure sampling plan and such a thing because I'm not really convinced about a and even though I went from the town apart for it I've had some unofficial discussions on it so I'm actually here on my own behalf on it, on things on it and that includes the amount of water by this association we have any time to discuss this but I'm sure that I can speak for that actually I think you'd have to do some testing that way not to get crazy with testing because once again all the testing is a snapshot of what's happening but you've got to take your best shot of the thing perhaps it's best to take a run the water whatever case on the thing and go back an hour or two later this is such a baseline you've got to set a baseline you can't just take samples all over the place sporadically, all over the place because you have nothing to go back on so take it go back in two hours and see what the limit is on the thing on it but it's going to be a case by case I think you're going to have to be more specific they're going to have to get it's again it's in the details that's where we're at on it but my biggest thing here and my main reason is that 15 bucks per million is just kind of confused what are we going to tell my customers if their kids are going to school and they hear and all this other stuff on the thing and the limit for the school has been dropped down to three parts per million or whatever number that you guys decide on the thing and yet the public water supplier who's damn that's where they're drinking water from in a thousand, is at 15 possibly it throws it's just crazy stuff on the thing I can definitely you know explain to them that the first draw and the flush but when you when this bill puts everything together it's going to drive us crazy and it's going to drive everybody else crazy here too because I can't see and who knows what's going to happen coming down from EPA if they have to get to the limits on the thing maybe they're going to come down and drop it to five or something like that I mean some of these numbers the White River Elementary School was part of the pilot plan they're part of my system, the town part of the system on it most of those were below the first draw was they had everything less than one and they had one at one on it which is fantastic on that they had flushed I'm sorry they had flushed their first draw they had a couple at three parts per billion in this rule if you go and say three parts per billion is the action level their flushed is showing great but their action level is said three which means they're going to have to do something it's nuts it's crazy so you're recommending that the first draw be a 15 and then we can lower to another standard that would be my suggestion I'm going to leave that up to you folks I feel five three that's up to you guys I'm not going to get into that part of it because I think that I'm going to I agree with the concept of the bill I understand that they want to think lead is not good nobody wants to drink I'm sorry first of all thank you very much for making time to come up here and speak about the view of by the way it works did I hear you say that when you test the child care center it's a first draw only test that's the requirement okay and why then should it be different for what's the action level the first draw test for a child care center 15 same thing it's exactly I've got to follow the standards that the state actually I will be in my next round I'm going to be a couple of what happens out of the same way I'm going to want to try to do it anyway I'm going to be curious thank you do you is that the gear involved in some statewide I forgot the name of the organization we're not water environment association and so through that do you know how many lead service lines not exactly but is this something that's going on in Vermont my guess is I can only speak for my water systems and quite frankly my system in Hartford that takes in a white room junction wildland Hartford village on it I don't know because we will be proactive in taking out but I'm going to pretty much say because some of my system was put in back in 1907 in 1910 and it's still in there before I showed up in 88 in Vermont in Hartford they went out and did quite a few removing lead we didn't have any lead service lines per se they didn't do it to remove the lead they did because the galvanized iron was popping holes and things so we knew that of course in the interim they got rid of it that was good for me because they went through a whole lot of them as far as we just went through the thing once a lot of them last year we go down, we have a little on a line, we dig down we actually at that particular house matter of fact we could change it at that particular time I took three samples at that particular house one first drawer one flushed and one they took out of their refrigerator because that's where one was taken order from the thing and I didn't pull the numbers on a thing but they all came back fine incredibly fine and this was already again it was in there since 19 instances we replaced the entire line so we are proactive in that but I don't know of anybody short of you know you can look at you can pull up records if they have records and if they are showing that the water systems psi is galvanized there is a very strong chance that you are going to have a lead gooseneck because that's the way you connect the pipes, you have a big pipe here and you have another pipe coming in here so what you do is you make a tap and you take this lead, nice lead gooseneck the entire variety that's why they actually made these things back in before I got involved in this business so if you were in in a school if the first drawer is a little higher and the flushed drawer is lower and the reason the first drawer is higher is because it's been in contact you were saying that it's a thing about lead it's going to be in contact for the most part what the water has been in contact with that's causing that first drawer to be higher oh I'm going to guess it's going to be the flushed drawer that's where it usually is when you think about later I can do the math on this thing but it takes I should have done the math on it for a half inch pipe but I know how big it is there's six gallons of 12 inch pipe but I can't remember what it is anyway there so how much you're catching you're capturing and I think with predominantly you're capturing what's in that picture itself on the thing now as it's going to the thing too is that when you have a hot cold together on the thing and there it happens to be hot sometimes hot water you have more lead possibility of more lead coming out of hot water because of the contact time because of the temperature because of things that not necessarily contact you know hot water I'm not part of that usually they're glass lines but more just because of the temperature because of time and time and things of that nature and the thing that you're going to see that so I'm going by what I've heard I've never I've never taken a sample from a hot water side and say oh yeah so I have nothing to go by except for what what you've been promoting or advocating on the thing on it so once again I mean if if the limit on when a flush is lower it's set for if you set the limit for flushed only and we could actually as public water systems almost help promote that for that possible anyway it's the only because well it'll promote itself then because now you're getting it where if the stuff is going going home to home with the students and they were showing flushed on the thing now they're going to do it more they might not you know you know pay attention to us as much or again we don't we're not out there every single day with the public relations we just don't have the time many years ago we were we were really taking for granted nobody thought that water that was just going to case the thing back when they took out open reservoirs and everything else and now all of a sudden we get into the I get phone calls you know on it and I'm sure they've run these phone calls too on all different types of things so once again this is it's just not one more that we need we need to find it and what I would suggest if you do say say it's not actually put a number in there 15 if EPA decides to drop it I guess it drops I guess I'm going to go back in the case if EPA leaves it whenever they decide on that that's only a few few folks some of us are a little concerned about the federal government right now well yeah yeah but I also am aware of the time there's an opportunity for people to talk to you outside of the room I'm here all day, I'm here as always to show off my record and let you know what I want and we will be looking at ongoing these two issues one is the student records and the other is this one we have our attorney coming in at two and I go to a radio coming in I had originally written that I had originally taken the age belt in terms of school belt I've never written on F40 it appears that we may not be able to sort that out by the end of today so we're probably going to do that together unless we can move forward on that so take a break see you next time