Students, families, and staff in schools across Vermont are in the dark about whether they’re being exposed to a known carcinogen.
Nearly a quarter of schools failed to conduct required testing for radon, an odorless, colorless gas that is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S.
At Orange Southwest schools, testing for radon “just didn’t happen,” an official there said. In Winooski, schools weren’t tested for radon because the estimated $20,000 cost was prohibitive, officials said. When radon turned up at Brighton Elementary School in the Northeast Kingdom, mitigation wasn’t completed for almost a year, officials said.
The lack of radon testing in Vermont schools has been widespread: A memo released by the state auditor’s office in February showed that nearly one in four public schools had not completed testing by the end of January, seven months after a mandatory deadline.
Schools’ failure to test for radon showcases the shortcomings of a 2021 Vermont law that aimed to protect the health of Vermont schoolchildren. As a result, many of the state’s children may be learning in an environment that exposes them to radon.
The 2021 law made radon testing mandatory for Vermont’s public and approved independent schools, but it did not require reporting to the state, making it difficult to track whether schools complied. The law didn’t provide funding for radon testing, either, and some schools said they did not test because of the cost.
For schools that detect high levels of radon, there is no requirement to mitigate, although most schools that had high levels said they chose to undertake mitigation.
After the auditor’s memo was released, a state legislator who helped design the radon requirement said in an interview that legislators “didn’t do the due diligence” when they wrote the law.
The auditor’s memo comes as Vermont legislators consider ending a state program that tests for PCBs, a class of chemicals that is associated with cancer and other health risks, citing the cost of the program.
Radon is an invisible, odorless gas that forms when radioactive elements in bedrock and soil break down. While its presence is common outdoors in low concentrations, it can build up to dangerous levels inside buildings, according to the World Health Organization.
Long-term exposure to radon increases the risk of lung cancer. It is the second-highest cause of lung cancer in the U.S. after smoking, and the main cause of lung cancer in the U.S. for people who don’t smoke, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Along with schools that didn’t test, the auditor’s report tracked schools where testing showed radon levels above 4pCi/L of air, which is the threshold at which the EPA recommends taking action to reduce radon levels. Even levels lower than that threshold can increase the risk of lung cancer, and the EPA recommends that people “consider” action for levels above 2pCi/L. The auditor’s memo only named schools that detected levels over the 4pCi/L threshold.
One in seven homes in Vermont have radon levels above the EPA action threshold, according to the Vermont Department of Health. The department recommends that everyone test their home for radon. Home testing through the health department typically costs $25.
“We had hoped the state would provide financial assistance”
While the majority of schools tested for radon, nearly a quarter hadn’t tested by January 30, seven months after the legal deadline. That means staff and parents don’t know whether they or their children are being exposed to a known carcinogen.
Some schools that did not test before the auditor’s report cited the cost of testing, while others pointed to administrative oversight.
None of the schools in Winooski School District completed the testing. That was because of cost, according to Miriam Greenfield, the district’s director of communications, who estimated that testing would cost the district about $20,000.
“We had hoped the state would provide financial assistance, as this testing is mandated at the state level,” Greenfield said in an emailed statement. “While we continue to advocate for support, we have moved forward to ensure compliance and to prioritize the wellbeing of our school community.”
Greenfield said testing is now scheduled to take place in March.
Other schools cited miscommunication and staff turnover to explain why they didn’t test.
At Orange Central Supervisory Union, Superintendent Jaquelyn Ramsay-Tolman didn’t know that most of the schools in her district had no testing records until the auditor’s office reached out to her in January. Ramsay-Tolman is in her first year at the district.
“The law really came into play at a period of high turnover for us, and what we think might have happened is that testing happened in some locations and not others,” she said. The district has now scheduled tests at those schools, she added.
At Orange Southwest Supervisory Union, Superintendent Michael Clark said that the testing didn’t happen even though the maintenance director was aware of the requirement.
He said the schools tested in late February and are awaiting results.
Many of the schools that had not tested by January 30th said they conducted or scheduled testing after the auditor’s memo was released.
“Every school district is under a microscope right now”
Of schools that tested for radon, about 9% detected levels at or above the EPA action level, according to data provided by the state auditor’s office.
Even though the law doesn’t require schools to take action if they find high levels of radon, the vast majority of schools that detected high levels of radon said they took steps to lower levels.
Mitigating radon levels can be cheap and simple or complex and costly. It is sometimes as simple as adjusting an HVAC system but can also involve drilling under a building to install a system that directs the radon gas outdoors before it enters the building.
At Burlington School District, communication specialist Russ Elek said the district faces an especially costly mitigation project at J.J. Flynn Elementary School.
“It’s really important work, and as every school district is under a microscope right now in terms of our budgets and redistricting, I think it’s important to understand that there’s a number of unfunded mandates that schools are responsible for,” he said.
While some schools with high radon levels said they conducted swift mitigation efforts, others took much longer to address the issue.
At Brighton Elementary School in the Northeast Kingdom, the district did not complete mitigation for almost a year in one room after testing in January 2024 detected radon concentrations above the level at which the EPA recommends taking action, according to director of facilities Daniel Pickering. Pickering said the delay was due to the time it took to coordinate, plan and fund mitigation. Testing after mitigation showed radon levels below the action level, he said.
“We didn’t do the due diligence”
The legislature considered and failed to pass bills on radon testing in schools in 2016, 2018, and 2019.
In 2021, the radon testing mandate was added as a last-minute amendment to a larger bill. The law put the responsibility for testing directly on schools. It did not require them to report testing results to the Department of Health.
It was a strong contrast with legislation on lead in schools’ drinking water, which had passed just a few years prior, in 2019. That law laid out clear procedures and penalties: schools had to test every three years. If a lead problem was found, they were required to fix it and notify staff and families within 10 days. The state provided funding to help with required fixes, and schools that didn’t comply could be fined.
In less than three years, 98% of schools completed the required lead testing, and students’ exposure to lead dropped substantially, according to a state report.
The radon testing mandate contained few of those guardrails or supports.
Sen. Andrew Perchlik, D/P-Washington, one of a group of senators who introduced the radon amendment to the 2021 bill, said at the time that he trusted schools to carry out the testing because it was relatively inexpensive – “only like a thousand dollars, even for a bigger school.”
Testing costs can vary widely depending on a school’s size and layout. Figures provided to VTDigger by schools ranged from about $425 to more than $8,500 to test a school.
In an interview following the auditor’s report, Perchlik said not requiring schools to report results to the state was a mistake.
“We didn’t do the due diligence about ‘how are we going to know if it was done properly or done at all,’ and that’s an oversight,” Perchlik said.
Sen. Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden Central, who now serves as senate president pro tempore, said at the time that he supported the amendment but that legislators might later need to provide funding for radon mitigation efforts.
“I would hate to see us in a situation where we had a strong vote for this amendment, as well as the PCB testing, and then we denied money at a later point to districts, should they find themselves in financial difficulty because of it,” Baruth said on the senate floor at the time. The legislature is now considering whether to end the state’s PCB testing mandate due to a lack of available funding.
The amendment passed the senate unanimously at the time.
“Our report really is the accountability right now”
Tim Ashe, deputy state auditor, said that what happens next is in the hands of communities, legislators and state agencies.
Michelle Thompson, public health industrial hygienist at the department of health, said in an interview that the department’s focus is on providing schools with information but not on continuing to monitor whether schools test. She said that monitoring would require funding from the legislature.
In an emailed statement, the agency of education similarly indicated that they did not intend to monitor whether schools tested.
“Our report really is the accountability right now,” Ashe said. “At its core this is about keeping kids and teachers and staff safe.”
