Buildings F, E, and D: Reconstructing Teacher and Student PCB Exposure at Burlington High School
By Paul E. Rosenfeld, M.S., Ph.D., Principal Environmental Chemist, RoseyFields LLC, Santa Monica, California
Where teachers and a student allege they were exposed
The Austin v. Monsanto litigation centers on specific classrooms and offices at Burlington High School, Building F (the highest recorded PCB levels on campus), Buildings E and D, where individual plaintiffs, current and former teachers and one former student, worked or attended class for years before the school’s 2020 closure. Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, M.S., Ph.D. of RoseyFields LLC addressed the resulting individual exposure reconstruction (Austin v Monsanto Co., No. 2:23-cv-272, D Vt).
A building-specific, not just school-wide, exposure question
Because PCB concentrations reportedly varied substantially between different buildings and even different classrooms within the same school, a scientifically defensible exposure reconstruction requires location-specific data tied to where each individual plaintiff actually spent their working or school hours, rather than a single school-wide average concentration applied uniformly to every plaintiff regardless of which building they occupied.
The alleged historical timeline
The underlying complaint alleges that Monsanto was the sole U.S. manufacturer of PCBs for commercial use between 1929 and 1977, that PCBs entered the school through caulking, paints, and electrical equipment such as transformers and lighting ballasts, and that building materials became secondary contamination sources as they absorbed PCBs originally released from these primary sources over subsequent decades (Austin Complaint, ECF No. 1).
Quantitative exposure methodology reflected in the case record
Consistent with the general PCB exposure methodology described in this series’ Vermont schools case study, publicly available descriptions of this litigation reflect an analysis incorporating Average Daily Dose calculations, hazard quotients, EPA default exposure assumptions, and statistically supported upper confidence limits, integrating air, dust, and exposure-duration variables for the specific individual plaintiffs at issue.
Why individual health complaints require individual exposure data
The plaintiffs’ alleged health conditions vary considerably, cognitive symptoms among the Building F teachers, thyroid conditions and reproductive complications for the former student, and Graves’ disease and related symptoms for a teacher who worked in Buildings E and F, meaning each plaintiff’s specific location-and-duration exposure history, not a single school-wide narrative, must support whatever individual causation opinion a medical expert ultimately offers.
Distinguishing the environmental exposure question from the medical causation question
As in Dr. Rosenfeld’s other litigation work, his role addresses what concentration of PCBs each plaintiff was exposed to, for how long, and through which pathway, a distinct scientific question from whether that exposure caused any specific plaintiff’s cognitive symptoms, thyroid disease, or reproductive complications, a question properly reserved for medical and toxicological experts evaluating the individual medical record.
The litigation’s procedural posture
This case has proceeded through multiple stages of federal litigation, including denial of a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claim in April 2024, a ruling that allowed the case to continue toward the discovery and expert-disclosure process in which environmental exposure reconstruction plays a central role (Austin v Monsanto Co., Doc. 35, D Vt Apr. 12, 2024).
A companion matter addressing the same general contamination pattern
A related Vermont federal case, Rubman v. Bayer AG, involving similar negligent misrepresentation claims against the same corporate defendants over PCB contamination at a different Vermont school, has been cited by the court in Austin as presenting closely parallel legal and factual issues, illustrating that Vermont’s PCB-in-schools litigation extends beyond Burlington High School alone (Rubman v Bayer AG, No. 2:22-cv-181, D Vt).
Why building-material-specific data strengthens, rather than weakens, an exposure claim
Because PCB concentrations in caulk, paint, and light ballasts can vary enormously even within a single building, an exposure reconstruction that incorporates location-specific building-material testing data, rather than a single aggregate concentration, produces a more scientifically defensible, and more individually tailored, dose estimate for each plaintiff.
Why this level of individual specificity matters for the broader Vermont schools litigation wave
As roughly 90 additional Vermont school districts pursue similar claims, the building- and classroom-specific exposure reconstruction methodology developed in the Burlington High School matter offers a template for the individualized dose assessments those subsequent claims will likely require. See RoseyFields.com for further detail on Dr. Rosenfeld’s PCB indoor air and dust exposure assessment work.
References
1. Austin JW, Austin RD, Cruz RL, Hill RJ, Lyons A, Pobric G, Haselman J v Monsanto Company, Bayer CropScience L.P., Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia LLC. Case No. 2:23-cv-272, US District Court for the District of Vermont; Opinion and Order, Doc. 35 (Apr. 12, 2024).
2. Rubman, et al. v Bayer AG, et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-181, US District Court for the District of Vermont.
3. Burlington School District v Monsanto Company, Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia LLC. US District Court for the District of Vermont, filed 2022.
4. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Polybrominated Biphenyls. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol 107. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2016.
5. US Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions. 40 CFR Part 761.
6. Vermont Agency of Education; Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. PCBs in Schools Testing Program. Montpelier, VT: State of Vermont; 2021.
7. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.
8. Gonzalez J, Feng L, Sutherland A, Waller C, Sok H, Hesse R, Rosenfeld P. PCBs and dioxins/furans in attic dust collected near former PCB production and secondary copper facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environ Sci. 2010:113-125.
9. US Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC: US EPA Office of Research and Development.
10. US Environmental Protection Agency. PCBs in Building Materials, Including Caulk. Washington, DC: US EPA.
11. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (Negligent Misrepresentation).
12. Rosenfeld PE. RoseyFields LLC: PCB Indoor Air and Dust Exposure Assessment for Educational and Institutional Buildings. Santa Monica, CA: RoseyFields LLC; 2026.
13. US Environmental Protection Agency. Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models. 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W. Fed Regist. 2017;82(10):5182-5235.
14. US Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Overview. Washington, DC: US EPA.