Leahy, 62, taught at Sky Valley Education Centre. She was oblivious to the fact that the walls of her classroom were spewing out a very dangerous chemical. With time, she developed uterine cancer and stopped going to school.
Certain members of the faculty and staff were also diagnosed with peculiar symptoms, including cognitive impairments and six-year-old female kids getting their periods.
Across aging school buildings nationwide, students and staff unknowingly face health issues linked to lingering industrial compounds called polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). They were heavily used during the early 1940s in numerous construction industries.
Banned over 40 years ago, these toxic chemicals hide in plain sight within school infrastructure. However, a lack of standards around inspection and communication of results keeps helpless parents in the dark. Through this blog, we will shed light on the hidden impacts of unchecked PCB exposure.
What are PCBs, and Why Are They Harmful?
PCBs constitute a group of man-made organic chlorinated chemicals used in industry and products like paints, floor finishes, and electrical equipment. This class of chemicals was the perfect choice for such industries because of their non-flammability, durability, and insulating properties.
They are not prone to catching fire, they have no odor, and their lifespan is extensive. In the construction industry, they were deployed to prevent caulk and insulation from drying out, thus prolonging the durability of building materials. And, hence, such mixtures were used to build schools and government offices so that they remained functional for extended periods.
TorHoerman Law states that PCBs have a significant ecological impact and bioaccumulate in the environment, especially in the adipose tissues of organisms. This leads to their presence in food chains.
In addition to causing neurotoxicity, prolonged exposure to these chemicals poses the risk of cancer, liver damage, vision, and memory issues. In 1979, the Toxic Substances Control Act banned the manufacture of PCBs.
However, PCB-containing products that were produced before the ban continue to exist even today. Over decades, PCB-laced caulk, light ballasts, and other materials in older buildings leach toxins into the air every day.
Schools built before the 1990s face elevated legacy contamination risks, especially with limited ventilation systems.
Extent of the Problem: PCBs in Schools
Recent pilot inspection programs in Vermont were carried out in 2022. Primary exposure routes stem from ventilation systems transferring toxicants from building materials into occupied spaces. Deteriorating caulk or sealants prove to be the most common source.
But risks often go undetected until major renovations trigger mandated testing.
In Vermont, schools are now obligated to conduct PCB testing and implement corrective measures if elevated levels are detected. Enacted in 2021, Act 74 requires that all schools constructed or renovated before 1980 must assess their indoor air quality for PCBs by July 2024.
Moreover, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) holds the power to mandate schools to implement solutions aimed at reducing exposure to PCBs if levels are detected at or exceed the designated school action threshold.
Nationwide, likely thousands more schools contain concerning levels while lacking programs or standards around proactive testing and risk communication.
Exposure to PCB may occur via ingestion, direct skin contact, or inhalation. Given the fact that human bodies accumulate PCBs, prolonged and frequent exposure is a matter of grave concern.
There may be several secondary sources inside schools that carry the PCB menace. These sources include various classroom items such as tables and chairs, carpets, paper, paint, and dust. These entities can absorb and release PCBs over time.
Consequently, these secondary sources may perpetuate ongoing exposures even following the removal or remediation of primary sources.
If you have or know of a child exposed to PCBs at school and, because of that, suffered health-related issues, you may be eligible to file a PCB exposure lawsuit.
Challenges in School Remediation
Removing toxic PCBs from aging school buildings poses expensive and complex challenges that are often beyond districts’ means. Cost estimates per remediation project can be daunting price tags for cash-strapped systems.
This financial burden hits lower-income schools the most, as their older buildings face higher contamination risks, entrenching environmental inequities. Identifying all PCB trouble spots also proves tricky, with limited records on where banned products got installed almost a century ago.
With such high costs, traceability issues, and equitable access barriers, most districts cannot tackle complete remediation alone. Strategic support policies and resources are needed to help disadvantaged schools inspect, test, and replace toxic components before students and teachers suffer more health consequences.
Without standardized state and federal requirements around risk communication, those spending hours in affected buildings go unaware of documented toxicant dangers.
Groups like America Unites demand updated policies preventing schools from hiding secrets in their air vents and wall joints.
The Path Forward: Remediation and Regulation
Addressing decades of accumulated PCBs in America’s aging schools requires proactive solutions: inspection mandates, federal guidance on safe limits, public reporting, and funds supporting removal. Projects demonstrating efficacy can help build momentum.
To assist in the assessment of potential inhalation exposure issues, the EPA formulated standards to monitor the exposure levels of PCBs in indoor schools. National standards could also drive large-scale testing and training programs, empowering staff to prevent exposure routes.
While regulations and oversight continue to evolve, some argue against overreaction before fully quantifying lower-dose consequences. However, others counter that the precautionary principle dictates preventing ambiguous chemical risks where evidence indicates potential developmental harm.
Ongoing advocacy hopes revelations of PCB dangers spur engagement on reasonable mitigation reforms.
To conclude, the accumulation of PCBs within aging school buildings constitutes both a public health issue and a microcosm, illustrating the need for improved environmental policies.
Outdated chemicals permeate public spaces, with repercussions realized slowly across generations. Science and research indicate the likelihood of neurological and physiological impacts, warranting intensified inspections, scheduled remediation, and transparent communication programs.
Equipped with emerging lessons on health impacts, key stakeholders, from school agencies to educators to families themselves, can collaborate constructively to envision policies that place children’s well-being first.