What’s next for NC State’s Poe Hall? Experts talk laws, best practices on toxic chemicals

NC State University’s discovery of toxic chemicals in Poe Hall last year has placed the university in the middle of a months-long investigation.

The News & Observer spoke to experts and dug into the current laws surrounding those chemicals, known as PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls. We looked at what are considered the best practices in such investigations.

PCBs, depending on the quantity present and the length of exposure, can affect the immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among other health effects.

They’re also considered to be “probable human carcinogens,” according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NC State flagged concerns about breast cancer cases in people who spent time in Poe Hall to the state in October. Faculty have also raised concerns.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating. But proving that suspicions are actually evidence of a cancer cluster is difficult, as previously reported by The N&O.

In the meantime, NC State is conducting environmental tests through a consulting group. Here’s what we’ve found regarding those tests.

What is required to be done when PCBs are found?

NC State collected samples of surface materials from Poe Hall and had them analyzed by laboratories, which reported that there were PCBs present in certain building materials.

PCBs were banned in the United States in 1979 but were used extensively in commercial building materials between about 1950 and 1979.

Poe Hall, a seven-story tall building that houses NC State’s College of Education and the psychology department, was built in 1971. Several other university buildings were built around the same time, according to a university timeline available online.

If construction materials are found to contain more than 50 parts per million of PCBs, then they must be removed and disposed of, according to the EPA, which has the primary jurisdiction over the regulation of these toxins.

The EPA allows various cleanup approaches, allowing agencies to determine their own cleanup route as long as it’s protective of human health and the environment, and has EPA approval.

Asked what the cleanup strategy was for PCBs found above the threshold, Mick Kulikowski, spokesman for NC State, said in late February that “our experts will provide us with recommendations after completing their comprehensive testing of the building. Of course, we will also remain in consultation with the EPA throughout this process and comply with federal regulations.”

But though the EPA prohibits the manufacturing of PCBs and requires action if above that threshold, there’s no inspection requirement. This means these chemicals are still present in many buildings constructed prior to the ban.

What did NC State do?

EMSL Analytical of Morrisville reported results to the university in November that showed that some building materials had Aroclor 1262, a specific PCB mixture produced by Monsanto, at levels several times higher than the federal threshold.

A federal investigation opened in February to help determine whether exposure to these toxins is responsible for employee illness.

After these tests, the university shut down Poe Hall and contracted with Geosyntec Consultants, a private environmental consulting group, for more testing.

Kulikowski said the university opted to contract with Geosyntec for environmental tests as “NC State needed to move quickly to further understand the building.”

Geosyntec conducted air sampling and surface sampling. Surface samples were taken by wiping windowsills, desks, elevator buttons, product dispensers, air supply vents and more.

A report with initial results from Geosyntec, shared by the university on Feb. 8, found that concentrations of PCBs, including Aroclor 1262, for each of the 14 indoor air samples collected were below the “established exposure levels for evaluating PCBs in school indoor air environments like Poe Hall.”

Two-thirds of 67 surface samples collected showed undetectable levels of PCBs, while the remaining one-third with detectable levels were generally — in all but one case — “well below the EPA threshold.” These tests were done with the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system off.

So why the varying results? Robert Herrick, a retired senior lecturer of industrial hygiene at Harvard University and a leading researcher on PCBs, said it’s not surprising that different spot samples would show a range of levels of contamination.

The university’s next steps include doing additional tests with the HVAC system turned on. It will also review building materials, with a focus on the components of HVAC systems, to identify the potential sources of the PCBs being detected, according to the Geosyntec report.

The preliminary tests were done with the assumption that the primary mechanism of exposure would be through contacting or breathing in PCBs in dust and that that dust is distributed by the building’s ventilation system, says the report.

What other tests should be done, according to experts?

But Herrick said the HVAC system was not necessarily the primary source of contamination.

The university should be looking at caulking material, paint, old fluorescent lights and “other materials inside the building itself, rather than just jumping to the conclusion that the source is inside the HVAC system,” he said.

Asked if caulk, paint or fluorescent lights had been tested, Kulikowski said “everything that was tested is listed in the report.”

The report does not mention testing those materials.

A 2016 study by Herrick estimated between 13,000 and 26,000 school buildings in the nation contain caulk laced with PCBs.

If PCBs are present or suspected of being present, the EPA recommends testing caulk, paint and other building materials. If PCBs are found above the threshold, they must be removed.

In lieu of testing, building owners can assume these materials contain PCBs above the allowed threshold and make plans to remove them through trained experts, according to an EPA manual.

After taking these steps, the EPA recommends consulting its own coordinators to assess if more action is needed, such as testing indoor air for PCBs.

“The lines of communication with the EPA remain open as we progress through the testing and evaluation process,” Kulikowski said. The EPA did not answer questions sent by The N&O regarding its involvement.

Since the EPA does not require testing for PCBs, NC State is not required to take further action beyond removing the materials already found to contain PCBs above the EPA threshold, according to Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science and the National Toxicology Program.

Birnbaum also spent 19 years at the EPA, where she directed the largest division focusing on environmental health research.

For Birnbaum, even if there is no requirement to conduct further testing, it should be done. She said she hoped NC State would look at other buildings built at approximately the same time as Poe to fully understand what toxins and chemicals, even beyond PCBs, may be in them.

NC State said in January it hadn’t yet determined if it would do testing beyond Poe Hall. The N&O asked this week if that has been decided.

What laws have been considered?

Birnbaum faulted U.S. environmental regulations for being too lax.

“In our country, things can be put on the market with almost no testing whatsoever ... and once you have chemicals that are useful and they’re all out there, it becomes very hard to get rid of them,” she said.

The EPA could pass more stringent requirements, but this would require multiple rounds of public comment, as well as review by multiple federal agencies, where it’s likely strong objections would crop up, she said.

“It takes a very long time, if it can happen at all,” she said. A more expeditious route is through federal or state legislation or public agitation, she said.

Some states have taken action to impose more stringent laws on PCBs in buildings, with Vermont perhaps being the leader. It was the first in the nation to pass a law requiring schools built or renovated before 1980 to test their indoor air for PCBs.

There have also been federal attempts to control PCBs, with Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey publishing a report in 2016 on PCBs in schools and calling for legislation. He sponsored a federal bill on PCBs in 2021, but it has languished.

North Carolina has not passed legislation regarding PCBs in buildings. Democratic Rep. Pricey Harrison, who is vice-chair of House environment committee, told The N&O that regulating contaminants “seems to have been a problem under Democratic and Republican control,” of the General Assembly. Currently, Republicans control the legislature.

She said on Wednesday that she spoke with GOP colleagues last week who seemed interested in pursuing changes, but declined to share names or details until she could build bipartisan support.

Should the state decide to look into PCBs, it would likely need to study the issue first before proposing any action.

“Testing the multitude of buildings in the state is gonna be very expensive ... a budget breaker,” Harrison said.

The consultant

Herrick, the PCBs researcher, said that based on his review of the report, he did not believe that Geosyntec “did a very thorough investigation of all the possible sources” and said that it did not seem Geosyntec was qualified to be doing these tests.

“There are many many companies who are skilled and experienced at doing indoor investigations in office buildings, looking at all kinds of things, including PCBs, and Geosyntec is not one of them,” said Herrick.

“They’re very heavily skewed towards geology and engineering. What they are notably lacking is anyone proficient or certified in industrial hygiene,” he said. The Geosyntec report was certified by a professional geologist and an engineer. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, industrial hygiene is the field devoted to anticipating, recognizing, evaluating and controlling environmental factors which may affect workers.

Asked about Geosyntec’s qualifications and whether it worked with certified industrial hygienists, Kulikowski said: “The project team includes individuals with expertise in environmental engineering, toxicology, and industrial hygiene, many of whom have a Ph.D. in their areas of specialty.”

He said Geosyntec “has experience with projects involving the presence of PCBs in building materials and the evaluation of PCBs and other constituents in indoor air.” The N&O emailed Geosyntec on Feb. 29, but the company didn’t respond.

David Carpenter, a public health physician and PCB expert who has testified as an expert witness against Monsanto, contends the Geosyntec analysis “was done very badly.”

Geosyntec’s report showed PCB mixtures had been found on desks. Carpenter said there should never be any results showing PCBs on a desk, as desks tend to be cleaned. That means there is an ongoing source of exposure, he said.

The Feb. 8 report shows PCBs found in eight commercial mixtures, which are made up of various PCB congeners, or compounds. The report does not break out the concentration of all individual 209 PCB congeners in existence.

Geosyntec’s measure “does demonstrate that there are significant levels of these” commercial mixtures “and that’s surprising,” Carpenter said, as you cannot have those PCBs in the air without having a lot of the other, non-commercial-mixtures PCBs, he said.

Carpenter said this does not necessarily mean Geosyntec is not reliable, but it could also be that it was told to report solely on mixtures, which he said is a much cheaper analysis than a full analysis of all PCBs.

“There are plenty of consulting companies that are perfectly well equipped to do a measurement of all the PCBs. I suspect the problem here is that whoever hired that consulting company was trying to save money” and so they told them to do a more limited analysis, he said.

To date, NC State has paid $14,922.50 to Geosyntec for services relating to Poe Hall, Kulikowski said last week. NC State has also paid Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, a law firm, a total of $28,347.75 for legal representation related to Poe Hall, he said. Kulikowski said the firm has “expertise in working with consultants to develop compliance and remediation plans.”

Asked whether Geosyntec tested individual PCB congeners (with results not being shown in the report) and whether, if not, it would test those, Kulikowski said “the Feb. 8 report from Geosyntec is comprehensive of their initial phase of investigation.” and contains “recommendations on next steps.”

Birnbaum echoed the need for more detailed tests.

“While the commercial mixtures were what were used 50-some years ago, that isn’t what we have today,” as the composition of these mixtures change with time and exposure, she said.

So it “would really be nice to see the analysis of what specific PCBs are detected there,” she said.

This is also particularly important from a health standpoint, she added, because different PCBs have different effects. She also said it is important to take various samples, with the current reporting appearing to be too limited.

“There’s a lot of work that remains to be done here,” she said.

NC Reality Check is an N&O series holding those in power accountable and shining a light on public issues that affect the Triangle or North Carolina. Have a suggestion for a future story? Email realitycheck@newsobserver.com