For an index to all NYCOSH in the News articles, click here.

• Fire Dept. Not Coming Clean on Asbestos Risk? - Staten Island Advance, August 27, 2002
  
  
• Do Lower Manhattan Cleanup Right - Daily News, August 23, 2002
  
  
• Health Workshop for S. Asian Workers in N.Y. - News India-Times, June 28, 2002
  
  
• Forget the Forklift: Desk Work is Risky Business - USA Today, June 7, 2002
  
  
• 9/11 Cleanup Zeroes in on Health Risks Facing Immigrant Workers - Church World Service Immigration and Refugees, June 1, 2002
  
  
• Fire Truck Danger: Union Says WTC Dust on Rigs a Health Risk - Daily News, May 15, 2002
  
  
• EPA Rapped for NYC Cleaning Program - Associated Press, May 14, 2002
  
  
• Cleaning Up After 9/11: Respirators, Power and Politics - Occupational Hazards, May 10, 2002
  
  
• EPA to Clean WTC Apartments - United Press International, May 8, 2002
  
  
• WTC Minority Workers' Ills Persist - Newsday, April 28, 2002
  
  
• PSC Pair Honored for Their Safety Vigilance: Profs Are Monitoring CUNY Air Quality, Construction - New York Teacher, April 10, 2002
  
  
• Trabajadores sin protección - Hoy, 8 de abril de 2002
  
  
• Bill: Workers' Comp For WTC Laborers - Associated Press, April 8, 2002
  
  
• Rules For Job Safety Will Be Voluntary - Newsday, April 6, 2002
  
  
• OSHA Backs Away From Controversial Statement On Asbestos - InsideHealthPolicy.com Daily Updates, April 3, 2002
  
  

Fire Dept. Not Coming Clean on Asbestos Risk?

By Robert Gavin
Staten Island Advance
August 27, 2002

http://www.silive.com/news/advance/index.ssf?/xml/
story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/1030455903270242.xml

The Staten Island fire company hit hardest on Sept. 11 may be riding a contaminated truck.

Contrary to Fire Department findings, asbestos was detected in the Rescue Co. 5 truck in testing done after Sept. 11, a report obtained by the Advance has revealed.

The front and rear cabins of the specialized rig -- which returned from the World Trade Center without the 11 firefighters who rode it to Manhattan immediately after the terrorist attacks -- carried asbestos in a compartment near an air-conditioner pipe, and in a right-seat radio section, according to a March 7 study by the LEW Corporation, an environmental company based in Livingston, N.J.

Traces of asbestos, a known carcinogen, were also found in a tools compartment on the rig, the report said.

"Samples were collected of presumed asbestos dust observed at the site," the findings, released later in March, stated. "The bulk samples were collected in various locations observed throughout the truck."

The report contradicts FDNY statements from March, when a department spokesman said only four of the nearly 200 trucks which responded to Ground Zero on Sept. 11 had been contaminated with asbestos. The spokesman also said none of those rigs were from Staten Island. The four trucks that did test positive for asbestos had been decontaminated, the spokesman added.

Word of the Rescue 5 contamination follows the release of tests commissioned by the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project at the request of the Uniformed Firefighters Association (UFA), the city firefighters' union, which found asbestos in excess of federal safety standards in five other trucks.

Compounding the confusion over how many vehicles were actually contaminated, fire officials released a document yesterday stating that six FDNY vehicles that responded to the World Trade Center exceeded federal airborne asbestos levels. All were decontaminated, the document said.

Rescue 5 was among the 11 fire units from Staten Island that rushed to Ground Zero on Sept. 11. Several cars from the Island's 21st Battalion and Division 8 were also at the Trade Center.

"There's a credibility problem with the department. First they said there's four rigs [contaminated], now we're hearing there is a whole bunch of them," said Phil McArdle, a UFA health and safety officer. "We obviously want the thing cleaned up."

Firefighters are torn between "doing their jobs and long-term health effects this is going to have," said McArdle.

The LEW Corporation, which calls itself "the Environmental Company," made no immediate comment when contacted yesterday.

The corporation found materials in Rescue 5's right-seat radio compartment, located in the rig's front cabin, to be 3.8 percent asbestos. Asbestos levels were 1.4 percent in the air-conditioner compartment, which is in a back cabin. And it was .73 percent in the truck's tools compartment, according to the report.

Federal guidelines consider anything above 1 percent to be asbestos-containing, noted Carrie Loewenherz, an industrial hygienist with the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, a not-for-profit organization.

The FDNY document said many of the trucks at the Trade Center were found with "caked debris." While such vehicles could test positive for asbestos in a wipe test, such a finding does not spell peril, it said.

"The fact that asbestos is present does not constitute an immediate health hazard," the department document said. "Asbestos is only a hazard when it becomes friable and airborne."

Even material at 6 percent asbestos is not a health hazard if in caked form, the document said.

Still, Ms. Loewenherz noted, caked asbestos is hardly "behind a wall." And she said no one should be working in asbestos-contaminated vehicles, regardless of the contamination level.

"Even [asbestos] below 1 percent is nothing to sneeze at. Just because it's below 1 percent doesn't mean you're not going to have exposure to it," she said, citing the LEW report obtained by the Advance.

"It's just more evidence that if it was cleaned, it wasn't cleaned properly. It's just more evidence that they haven't been using proper cleanup and abatement techniques. People have been downplaying the possibility of vehicles being contaminated," Ms. Loewenherz said.

Rescue 5 suffered the worst casualties of any Island firehouse on Sept. 11 and was among the hardest hit citywide.

Among the other Island vehicles at the disaster scene were Engine Cos. 152, 155, 156, 160, 161, 164 and 165, and Ladder Cos. 78, 79 and 84.

One Fire Department source expressed concern about firefighters using the Rescue 5 rig until it's replaced, saying, "Until then, it's going to be contaminated."

Copyright 2002 Staten Island Live. All Rights Reserved.

Do Lower Manhattan Cleanup Right

By William F. Henning Jr.
New York Daily News Oped
Friday, August 23, 2002

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/12975p-12314c.html

Next month, the Environmental Protection Agency will finally begin cleaning hundreds of apartments in lower Manhattan.

It's a shame that the agency isn't going to do it right.

The EPA's aim, of course, is to rid these apartments of the asbestos and other toxic materials thrown into the air by the collapse of the twin towers and the fires that burned for four months afterward.

When the EPA announced in June that it would do this, it was reversing the position it held ever since Sept. 11. For eight long months, the EPA insisted no cleanup was necessary. Then, when at last it agreed that, okay, maybe one was, it said the cleanup was "to reduce the safety concerns of residents."

As if the release of hundreds of tons of asbestos, fiberglass, lead, highly alkaline concrete dust and many other toxic substances wasn't a real public health hazard, just the concern of some worrywarts.

The indoor cleanup should have started right after the collapse, at the same time the outdoor cleanup began. It is now too late to prevent the exposures that have already occurred, but it is not too late to prevent future harmful exposures.

How? First off, the scope of the EPA cleanup - limited to residences below Canal St., and then only when the occupant requests it - is too narrow. The contamination is not limited to residences. It is present in workplaces and public spaces and in residences where the owner does not request a cleanup. All contaminated places should be cleaned up on a building-by-building basis.

Then, too, the cleanup must be conducted by properly trained and protected personnel. Our previous calls for protection of all cleanup workers were ignored, with the result that more than 400 day laborers face the prospect of long-term respiratory illness.

As we learned last week, the EPA itself was guilty of a shocking oversight lapse when it permitted a cleanup contractor to spew asbestos into the air by vacuuming downtown streets with improperly equipped trucks.

The EPA should ensure that similar failures do not recur by requiring contractors to prove their workers have been properly trained and equipped. And then theEPA should take full charge of the cleanup.

Though the EPA has the sole responsibility for the cleanup, it perversely rejects its mandated role. Instead, it is calling the cleanup a "collaborative" effort of federal, state and city agencies.

Only the federal government has the resources and expertise to clean lower Manhattan. The EPA can and should call on other agencies to assist in this effort, but not to co-manage it.

However belated, it is good that the EPA has agreed to a partial cleanup of lower Manhattan. But the cleanup will only be effective if it includes all contaminated places, including, in particular, workplaces.

It is not too late to do it right.

Henning is chair of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. www.nycosh.org

Health Workshop for S. Asian Workers in N.Y.

Workers' Awaaz organized the event for the overall economic and social welfare of domestic workers

By Vaishalee Mishra
New India-Times
June 28, 2002

http://www.newsindia-times.com/2002/06/28/dias-top.html

A group of women crowd into a small room with multicolored blankets covering the floor. A middle-aged woman in a green salwar kameez tries to balance in a yoga pose that requires her to stand on one foot with the other leg elevated. A giggle escapes her lips as her leg hits the floor with a thud.

The women had gathered for a health workshop on June 17 in Queens, N.Y., organized by Workers' Awaaz, that advocates economic and social welfare of South Asian domestic workers and workers from other industries. It was designed to address specific occupational health concerns, while also providing general health education. Seminars on yoga, occupational safety and nutrition were offered.

The workshop was the first in a series of community development and educational programs that Workers' Awaaz intends to conduct.

Domestic workers' access to health care is sometimes complicated by economic and cultural factors. Undocumented workers are especially afraid to seek medical care. "Many times they don't have access to information and face language barriers," said Alia Hasan, a community organizer with Workers' Awaaz.

"Since there is no health care in this country that's free, they often can't afford it. When they go to public hospitals with subsidized health care, it takes all day and most of them work six days a week. The only day they can go to the hospital is on Sunday and it's hard to go and see a doctor on weekends."

The workshop targeted occupational health concerns that are specific to domestic workers, such as back injuries from repeatedly lifting heavy loads of laundry or moving furniture, and skin problems resulting from the use of chemicals and solvents.

"I have a lot of back problems," said a 50-year-old participant who works 14-15 hours a day, five days a week. Elizabeth Ouyang from the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health offered tips to prevent back injuries and safe handling techniques for chemicals.

"If you have to carry a heavy load of laundry from the basement, think about splitting it into smaller loads and making a few trips," Ouyang said. The participants also learned how to practice yoga to alleviate physical and mental stress.

"Members of Workers' Awaaz have so much stress, especially those who are mothers," said Mona Chopra, who led the workshop's yoga class. "Many of them have recurring back pain, tension in their shoulders and neck and recurring stress."

Forget the Forklift: Desk Work is Risky Business

By Janice Billingsley, HealthScoutNews Reporter
USA Today
June 7, 2002

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-06-07-work.htm

Working at an office all day can be a real pain, and we're not just talking about your annoying boss.

The discomfort and pain that can come from sitting at a desk all day, doing the same repetitive motions, is very real, says Margareta Nordin, program director of ergonomics and biomechanics at New York University.

"It's a very common problem. Anyone and everyone who has work that forces them to sit continuously without changing posture sooner or later will experience some form of discomfort, which is a precursor to developing pain," she says.

Previous studies have shown that among people who sit all day at their jobs, one of every three will suffer pain at least once a week, with neck and hand/arm pain the most commonly reported.

Working for hours without getting up and walking around, and having a poorly designed workstation that forces you into uncomfortable positions both contribute to office-related pain.

Add to that genetic risks, says Dr. Mark Melhorn, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Kansas and an ergonomics expert.

He says that while 35 percent of the pain experienced by office workers can be blamed on repetitive motion and office design, as much as 65 percent of the pain can be traced to individual risk factors.

"Older people are more at risk for pain because healing capacity drops as you get older. And women are at higher risk than men because they are on average 6 inches shorter, and all their body parts are smaller," he says. "Most everyday objects, like the keyboard layout, are designed for an average-sized man, so you have a larger percentage of women whose hands are too small for the keyboard."

Further, he says, people with diabetes, thyroid conditions and other disabilities that compromise blood circulation are also at increased risk for pain and injury when they are sitting in the same positions for long periods of time.

"Genetic risk impacts how we respond to musculoskeletal stress," Melhorn says. "If you have a person at greater risk for pain and then put them in a job that increases the risk further, you trigger a problem."

The good news, experts say, is that you can prevent these problems before they start with some simple changes in your habits.

First, check you workstation, Melhorn says, so you sit in the most natural position possible. Your elbows should be at your side, bent at a 90-degree angle over your keyboard and your wrists should be straight. Your computer screen should be five to seven degrees below your eye level so you're looking down at the screen, your chin tucked slightly down. This decreases stress on the neck.

Your office chair should support your lower back and have a good-sized seat pad so you can sit comfortably. Your feet should touch the ground with your knees bent at a 90-degree angle.

Before you start work, you can do some simple stretching exercises to get your blood circulating, Nordin says.

"Start with a skeletal stretch. Put your hands over your head and really stretch out. Then take several deep breaths, and let the air out slowly for three to five seconds," she says.

When you sit down at your desk, sit up straight. Lift your shoulders up to your neck and then release them to relax. Roll your shoulders back and forth. Rotate your wrists gently, both in a circle and up and down. Stretch your legs out under your desk. Do this throughout the day.

Also key, Nordin and Melhorn say, is to get up and move during the day.

"Static postures add increased demands on the body which can be just as disadvantageous as heavy lifting," Melhorn says. "And you should take a one- to two-minute rest break every 30 to 45 minutes."

Get up, get a drink of water, go talk to a colleague, Nordin says: "It's not so bad to have to get up and get something from the printer."

Also important is to recognize your symptoms early when they are easy to treat, she adds.

"Most people start out with non-specific pain that is easily treated with stretching exercises and rearranging their desktop," she says, "so you need to take some responsibility for yourself."

What To Do: For some tips on repetitive stress injuries, visit the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. An interesting site for parents about ergonomic recommendations for their children can be found at Cornell University.

© Copyright 2003 USA TODAY

9/11 Cleanup Zeroes in on Health Risks Facing Immigrant Workers

By Thomas Abraham
Church World Service Immigration and Refugees
June 1, 2002

http://www.churchworldservice.org/Immigration/archives/2002/06/9.html

Like many who helped clean up at Ground Zero, the man who identified himself as Manuel complained of a persistent cough. He also had difficulty urinating.

"I knew there was a risk when I took the job," the 54-year-old Ecuadorian immigrant told Newsday in March this year. "But I never realized the magnitude."

Manuel was one of 415 immigrant clean-up workers and day laborers examined in a medical van stationed near the World Trade Center site January and February this year. With no health insurance, and still coughing, most of them came to the van for free tests two months after cleaning up building interiors around the site of the attack.

In interviews with the van's medical staff, workers said they were told to clean offices coated with dust without respirators. Those who brought their own were told by employers not to wear them, most likely to allay fears of asbestos inhalation, according to the van's supervisor Dr. Steven Markowitz. At last month's City of New York conference on risks faced by immigrant the Queens College physician said people exposed to similar occupational hazards usually recover quickly. But some immigrant workers involved in Ground Zero clean up were coughing up blood two months later, he said.

Few remain untouched by the events of 9/11. For the immigrant community, the toll from 9/11 ranges from high-risk work conditions to a backlash of suspicion, fear and hate. For some, the price rose sharply to security profiling, detention without due process, and deportation.

"The backlash demonizes the whole immigrant population in the US," said Omar Henriquez of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. NYCOSH joined the Latin American Workers Project and Queen's College's Center for the Biology of Natural Systems in mobilizing the medical van.

In testimony to the Senate earlier this year, Henriquez pointed out that three out of four tailors, cooks and textile workers are immigrants in some states. Nationally, most taxi drivers, and garment, agricultural and domestic workers are immigrants. And although immigrants make up more than a tenth of the US population, Henriquez told the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, they face a disproportionate rate of accidents and fatalities in the workplace.

"Two or three weeks don't go by without an immigrant worker dying," he said. He added that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has acknowledged a higher rate of on-the-job fatalities among immigrant workers in New York even though California had far more immigrants.

Immigrants of uncertain legal status are even more vulnerable. Church World Service will begin addressing this at-risk population in a new program (see "Putting the ‘I' back in CWS-IRP," page ??) later this year.

"Hope from the Rubble" appeal funds from the United Church of Christ (UCC) and support from other non-profit organizations made the mobile health van possible at a time anti-immigrant feelings were running high. For Roger Cook of the UCC's National Disaster Ministries and director of the Western New York Council on Occupational Safety and Health, a key issue is the number of volunteers from churches and other faith-based organizations who were exposed at Ground Zero. Like many immigrant workers, they were not properly trained or equipped.

"We need to identify the people who were exposed and give them access to diagnostic services, said Cook, who spoke at May 9 conference on Environmental and Public Health Policy in New York. He added that a registry of out-of-town volunteers at the World Trade Center site would probably be one outcome of the conference.

Cook said churches were drawing on their experience with the Ecumenical Task Force formed to press government and big industry for answers and remedial action at Love Canal which was evacuated in 1978 after toxic wastes dumped over a period of 30 years by Occidental Chemical threatened the community.

Church World Service, which joined the Task Force, is partnering with the UCC and NYCOSH to identify undocumented workers, day laborers and others who cleaned up at Ground Zero without adequate health and safety safeguards. In the wake of the attacks, CWS also funded several northeastern ecumenical and interfaith disaster response programs, and to organizations serving the Spanish-speaking and small-business community.

Already, various communities affected by the World Trade Center attack are coming together around common health and environmental issues. NYCOSH helped to bring residents, labor, public health and immigrant groups into the World Trade Center Environmental Coalition. The umbrella group demonstrated at City Hall last December, at a Ground Zero debris disposal site in March this year, and discussed air quality with commissioners at New York's departments of health and environment.

"It's a golden opportunity to blur the lines between occupational and environmental concerns and those concerned with health consequences," said NYCOSH's David Newman.

The coalition's concerted urging may be paying off, at least for some of the concerned groups. In a sharp about-face, the federal Environmental Protection Agency announced May 8 it would spearhead the cleanup and testing of apartments south of Canal Street in Lower Manhattan. The government will also provide $1.3 million to fund studies on the long-term health effects of 9/11. The studies, by Mt Sinai School of Medicine and the City University of New York, will see if there is any link between air quality downtown, birth defects and premature births.

Whether any of these gains will ultimately help safeguard the health and safety of immigrants is another question. None of the findings from the mobile medical unit translated into any meaningful changes, according to NYCOSH's Henriquez.

Fire Truck Danger: Union Says WTC Dust on Rigs a Health Risk

By Greg Gittrich
Daily News
May 15, 2002

http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-05-15/
News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-150930.asp

Hundreds of fire trucks that responded to the World Trade Center attacks remain contaminated with potentially toxic dust, posing health risks to firefighters, union officials charge.

Although the Fire Department has examined the 200 surviving rigs that were at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, only four were professionally decontaminated, FDNY officials acknowledged. The rest were deemed safe and sent back on the streets.

In contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency has ordered the destruction of 890 cars laced with asbestos from the twin towers.

The fire trucks, being used daily on emergency runs, have been scrubbed and appear almost spotless from a distance.

A closer look reveals that many of the rigs' engines, electrical wiring and air-conditioning systems are coated in dust, firefighters said.

"Our rig was parked on West St. right in front of the financial buildings and survived," said a Manhattan firefighter, who asked not to be named. "Every time we go on a run, it blows dust in our faces. It's not safe."

Union officials are adamant that all of the 500 or so fire vehicles used at Ground Zero — not just the trucks there on the first day — should be professionally cleaned.

"This is a serious health issue," said Thomas Manley, health and safety officer of the Uniformed Firefighters Association. "It's not being taken care of for one reason: money."

Manley and Rudy Sanfilippo, the union's Manhattan trustee, charged that the department decided not to decontaminate all the rigs when it learned it would cost $2 million.

"They told us they don't have the money," Sanfilippo said. "It's pathetic."

The cost of cleaning a truck would be at least $5,000, asbestos cleaning companies said.

"It's been eight months and the trucks are still covered in this stuff," Manley said, displaying a fistful of debris he grabbed from inside of a rig at Chelsea firehouse. "They're not any different from the cars that are being destroyed."

FDNY officials maintain the dust on the rigs poses no health risk. Department spokesman David Billig said the FDNY decontaminated the four trucks that had tested positive for dangerous levels of asbestos.

"We are not planning to decontaminate any more," Billig said.

The twin towers' collapse destroyed 95 FDNY vehicles, including 19 engine trucks and 14 ladder rigs.

Airborne Dust Dangerous

Asbestos is dangerous when it is airborne. Inhaling the material can cause chronic lung disease and cancer. The fiber was used as fireproofing in at least 37 floors of the twin towers.

Federal health and safety officials have said that all the Trade Center dust should be assumed to contain asbestos.

"There is no safe level of asbestos exposure," said David Newman, an industrial hygienist at the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. "You will not automatically become ill after being exposed. But as a matter of public health, exposure should be reduced to the minimum possible level."

Manley said 400 firefighters have complained about respiratory problems since the attacks. "I don't want any more getting sick because the trucks haven't been cleaned," he said.

The union's heightened concern comes as the EPA and city have become more diligent in handling the Trade Center dust.

Last week, city and federal environmental officials agreed to hire professional contractors to scrub the dust out of as many as 15,000 apartments. And two days ago, the city flip-flopped on its plan to return hundreds of contaminated cars towed from around the Trade Center after the attacks. The vast majority of the vehicles are being shredded.

"The odds are these fire trucks should be completely taken apart and cleaned," said Marsha Drachman, president of Spectrum Environmental, a Scarsdale asbestos abatement company. "Every time the trucks are used, they could be spreading contaminated dust."

EPA Rapped for NYC Cleaning Program

By Michael Weissenstein
Associated Press
May 15, 2002

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/
ap/20020515/ap_on_re_us/attacks_air_quality_1

The government could spend as much as $100 million to clean downtown Manhattan apartments of dust from the World Trade Center collapse, but critics say the program may be coming too late to help those at greatest risk of health problems.

Federal and city environmental officials announced last week they would pay for professional cleaning and air-quality testing of the apartment of any area resident who requests the work.

"It would have been far, far better for the EPA to have done this much sooner," said Jonathan Bennett, spokesman for the nonprofit New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. "It would have given people protection from things that are now in their lungs that they can't be protected from now."

Samples of the dust that settled after the trade center collapse show varying amounts of asbestos, fiberglass and caustic concrete powder.

Hundreds of cleaning workers — including many who worked with inadequate protective gear — have reported respiratory ailments and other problems after cleaning dust-laden offices and apartments. Those laborers face a slightly elevated risk of asbestos-related cancer in coming decades, scientists said.

Much of the cleanup work ended months ago, while government agencies were issuing conflicting — but often reassuring — assessments of risks posed by the dust.

The Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) has not estimated an overall cost for the new cleanup program, spokeswoman Mary Mears said.

But industry officials said professional asbestos abatement could cost an average of $4,000 per apartment. The agency also is offering air testing and high-efficiency vacuum cleaning, which could cost an additional $800 per apartment on average.

Census figures show 23,700 occupied housing units below Canal Street, which could drive overall costs as high as $113 million if every resident asked for cleaning and testing.

Mears noted the agency believes far fewer than 23,000 apartment dwellers will request cleanup so the cost will be well below the top estimates. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (news - web sites) has pledged unlimited funds to the cleanup effort.

Despite the concerns of some residents, scientists and EPA officials say the remaining dust poses little health risk.

For downtown residents, the risk of asbestos-related cancer is not much greater than that for the general population, said Dr. Stephen Levin, medical director of the Irving J. Selikoff Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

EPA officials say the program is designed mainly to reassure jittery residents that their homes are safe.

"What the scientists have been telling us is, 'Very low risk, even over a long period of time,'" EPA regional administrator Jane Kenny said. "Really what we're trying to do is to make people in lower Manhattan feel that they're living in a good place and that they're safe in their homes."

The agency said last week that there were roughly 15,000 apartments in the affected area. Mears said that miscommunication between city and federal agencies led the agency to underestimate the number.

Cleaning Up After 9/11: Respirators, Power and Politics

Under the extraordinary pressures of the World Trade Center rescue and cleanup operations, was worker health added to the list of victims?

By James L. Nash
Occupational Hazards
May 10, 2002

http://www.occupationalhazards.com/news/news_loader.asp?articleid=49664

The Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) horrified the nation and the world: 2,800 civilians died in the conflagration, and the subsequent collapse of the WTC buildings created what was probably the most dangerous emergency response, rescue and recovery effort in U.S. history. This disaster and the ensuing fires released thousands of tons of matter - much of it hazardous - into the atmosphere.

As the horrors of that day recede, many in the safety and health community are taking a closer look at how well workers were protected as they labored near the former WTC.

At the center of this re-evaluation of an extremely complex situation is a simple, disturbing fact: Four months after the catastrophe, there were reports that half the workers at Ground Zero, perhaps the most hazardous work site in the nation, still were not wearing respirators.

Cooperation Gives Way to Mistrust

Any effort to evaluate worker protections and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the cleanup effort must begin by recognizing the enormity of the problems faced by men and women who often worked heroically to save or protect others. No one was - no one could have been - prepared to deal with a catastrophe on the scale of 9/11, yet many observers reported that the disaster evoked an extraordinary team effort by those in and out of government.

EPA began taking air, dust and water samples near the WTC soon after the disaster and consistently has stated that it never detected any pollutants from the fire and building collapse that are of concern to the general public.

According to poll results released in March, however, 70 percent of New Yorkers said they did not believe EPA or other government agencies' reports that the air quality around Ground Zero is safe.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., charged that EPA broke the law and misled the public about the safety of air quality in and around Ground Zero. Nadler issued a "white paper" March 8 that he said documents illegal and improper activity. For example, he alleges EPA erred in allowing New York City (NYC) to handle the testing and remediation of indoor air matters, claiming the city did an inadequate job at both tasks. By failing to oversee the city pursuant to the National Contingency Plan, Nadler said, EPA broke federal law.

Along with these concerns, reports about possible illnesses among workers at and near the WTC site began to surface:

• As many as 120 NYC firefighters are suffering from moderate to severe breathing problems probably caused by working at Ground Zero, according to Dr. David Prezant, the Fire Department of New York's deputy chief medical officer.
  
• Preliminary results showed that more than 400 day laborers - building maintenance workers who were examined at a Ground Zero medical van - had nearly identical symptoms of respiratory distress. Those symptoms were possibly related to inhalation of toxic substances in WTC dust and debris, according to Dr. Steven Markowitz, medical director of the operation.

This may be only the beginning. Industrial hygienists familiar with the site identified asbestos as the hazard of greatest concern. Because asbestos-related diseases develop slowly, the real story about workers' illnesses may take years, or decades, to unfold.

For Whom the PELs Toll

Confusion about the seriousness of the hazards workers in the WTC area faced were fueled by many factors. One was the difference between OSHA's permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asbestos and EPA's "clearance level."

Bruce Lippy, industrial hygienist for the Operating Engineers National Hazmat Program, was on site throughout the first five weeks of the cleanup and regularly thereafter. "We found that 60 percent of our [asbestos] samples were greater than the EPA clearance level, and that's the primary reason I urged people to keep their respirators on."

Lippy, along with other occupational safety professionals, relied on an EPA standard, rather than the OSHA PEL, to safeguard workers. EPA's clearance level refers to a test required by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) before an asbestos project can be opened to the public. The level of protection, .02 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc), is used to determine if children may re-enter a school building after asbestos has been removed or abated.

By March 28, EPA had conducted 7,251 air samples for asbestos in Lower Manhattan, with 18 of these samples above the agency's standard.

OSHA's PEL for asbestos is less stringent - 0.1 f/cc. As of Feb. 6, OSHA had conducted more than 1,000 asbestos samples, and results ranged from "none detected" to .037 - well below OSHA's PEL, yet above EPA's AHERA "school child" threshold.

If asbestos was the hazard of greatest concern and if none of OSHA's samples revealed asbestos levels above the agency's PELs, why should workers heed OSHA's advice to wear respirators?

According to OSHA Region II Director Pat Clark, OSHA advised workers inside the "green zone," the constantly shrinking area where the rescue and recovery work went on, to wear respirators because the site was everchanging and filled with many unknown hazards.

While EPA data showed few samples above the AHERA clearance level, the agency's data appeared to conflict with Lippy's results, as well as those of other private groups.

"I don't care what the sampling results say. We have a toxic soup down there," said Lee Clarke, senior safety and health coordinator in District Council 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). It's a view widely shared by other experts.

EPA and OSHA tested for hazards individually, but some health professionals worried about possible "synergistic effects" among these contaminants. Mercury, dust, silica, lead, fiberglass, benzene and many other substances were released into the air when the twin towers collapsed, pulverizing everything inside of them.

Superfund Site?

Many workers cleaning up the inside of buildings outside the green zone never faced the temptation to remove their respirator - because they never had one in the first place. Soon after Sept. 11, EPA stated the air in Lower Manhattan outside the green zone was safe, and no respiratory protection was needed there.

What outraged Congressman Nadler and many New Yorkers was that EPA issued its statements without ever testing air inside buildings near the green zone. Sampling done by private organizations in some buildings found concentrations of asbestos in dust that far exceeded EPA's 1 percent definitional threshold for material containing asbestos.

EPA countered that indoor air quality is outside its mission and that it was up to NYC's Department of Health (DOH) to handle the matter.

In a Jan. 17 letter, OSHA Administrator John Henshaw wrote, "Because materials containing asbestos were used in the construction of the twin towers, the settled dust from their collapse must be presumed to contain asbestos."

In a series of scathing memos critical of EPA's response to the disaster, Cate Jenkins, a senior chemist in EPA's hazardous waste division, argued that asbestos levels in Lower Manhattan were so high the entire area should be declared a Superfund site. According to Jenkins, the asbestos contamination in Lower Manhattan, up to seven blocks away from Ground Zero, is comparable or higher than that found in Libby, Mont., a designated Superfund site.

EPA did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Jenkins' memos.

The economic and political consequences of declaring Lower Manhattan a Superfund site would have been profound, a fact that only fueled suspicion about EPA's pronouncements.

"It's not unreasonable to make the area a Superfund site," said Stephen Levin, M.D., medical director of the Mount Sinai I.J. Selikoff Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

By late January, Levin said he had already seen more than 100 patients who worked in Lower Manhattan and developed various respiratory ailments he attributed to breathing the air without proper respiratory protection.

"The data doesn't really support making it a Superfund site," countered Kelly McKinney, DOH associate commissioner. For weeks, he said, EPA and other agencies collected samples, and the vast majority were below EPA action levels, especially the air results.

The Wild West?

While public agencies and private organizations argued, workers, many of them immigrants or undocumented aliens, hired to clean up the buildings near Ground Zero faced the risk of exposure to hazards with limited protection. This is what led the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) to push for the medical monitoring done at the van outside the green zone.

"We expected to screen for two weeks and see 200 people," Markowitz said. "Demand was so great we stayed open five weeks and saw 500 people."

"What's happening in Lower Manhattan in general is an entirely uncoordinated, haphazard effort," declared David Newman, an industrial hygienist with NYCOSH, in describing the indoor asbestos cleanup process. "It's the Wild West out there."

Newman charged that there have been no protocols or leadership on what kind of testing should be done prior to cleaning up affected buildings, so that the cleanup can be designed appropriately. Nor were there protocols on clearance testing for reoccupancy from any government agency.

Responding to concerns raised by NYCOSH and other groups that government officials were not doing enough to protect workers in the area near the former WTC, OSHA on Jan. 25 began random inspections of buildings in the area.

By late March, OSHA's Clark had good news to report. The agency visited 22 buildings near the site of the former WTC and found cleanup operations in eight of these buildings. OSHA opened 39 inspections and issued eight citations, but all were for safety violations.

"We did a variety of tests - bulk samples and personal samples - for a wide range of hazards," she said. "We found nothing that would have required workers to wear respirators, though they were generally wearing respirators." OSHA detected no asbestos.

Respirator Response

Especially in the early days of the disaster, providing the proper respiratory protection to workers inside the green zone posed a daunting challenge. Here, where a largely unionized and English-speaking work force labored around the clock, approximately 800 federal and state OSHA staffers were on site with them to offer advice, not citations.

OSHA personnel from around the country volunteered to help the over-worked staff from OSHA's Manhattan area office, an office that was obliterated by the Sept. 11 attack. Everyone from OSHA escaped from their WTC headquarters just before it collapsed. For months, OSHA's Manhattan area staff worked long hours out of a tiny, makeshift office approximately 2 miles uptown from Ground Zero.

Antonio Pietroluongo, OSHA's assistant area director for safety, said that by Sept. 15, he was working 17 to 20 hours a day at Ground Zero. "My best therapy was to be back at work," he said.

Observers on the scene confirmed that OSHA personnel labored long and hard to ensure the safety of everyone involved in rescue and recovery at the former WTC. "The people at OSHA worked very, very hard, and they excelled at being safety professionals," said Michael J. Fagel, Ph.D., CHCM, a technical support specialist contracted to the Department of Justice's Office of Domestic Preparedness. Fagel was at Ground Zero from Sept. 17 through Nov. 24.

An early challenge was determining which type of respiratory protection was appropriate. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), along with EPA and OSHA, decided on half-face, negative-pressure respirators with P-100, organic vapor/acid gas cartridges.

Thousands of samples collected subsequently have reinforced that this initial choice was correct," said Lippy of the Operating Engineers.

NIOSH, along with many safety equipment manufacturers, helped to meet a second problem: obtaining and transporting thousands of respirators to New York in a hurry, at a time when the nation's air transportation system was at a standstill. NIOSH officials contacted the International Safety Equipment Association, and manufacturers quickly sent respirators and other kinds of PPE to New York and Virginia, where the Pentagon had been hit.

"We were sending stuff out by the truckload," said Ron Herring, director of marketing for MSA, a Pittsburgh-based manufacturer of safety equipment that helped lead the respirator effort.

Acting on its emergency response plan, Draeger Safety, another Pittsburgh safety equipment company, did not wait to be asked for help. By Sept. 14, according to marketing communications manager Shelli Cosmides, Draeger had sent out four truckloads of equipment to New York City, including 10,000 respirators.

North Safety Products of Cranston, R.I., sent out a truckload of respirators the afternoon of Sept. 11. Because the company is located so near New York City, the shipment was one of the first to arrive at Ground Zero.

Many safety equipment companies also donated products and services. For example, LouAnne Koerschner, business operations manager at St. Paul-based 3M, said the company donated $1 million in products, including 65,000 respirators.

During the first weeks after the attack, OSHA reported it was distributing 4,000 respirators a day; by early March, the total figure had risen to 113,500.

Choosing the right kind of respirator, transporting sufficient numbers of them to New York and distributing the devices to the workers who needed them showed what could be achieved when businesses and government agencies cooperated.

"There was no turf," Fagel said. "It was, 'What do you need?'"

Like Loose Neckties

Safety and health professionals soon discovered that it was easier to get the right respirators on site than it was to get workers to wear them or wear them properly.

From the very beginning of the operation until months later, many observers pointed to poor compliance with the requirement to use respirators as one of the most serious safety and health shortcomings at the site. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directed attention to this problem in its Oct. 6 report on the early response to the disaster, noting, "respiratory protection is rare."

According to data compiled by Lippy, from Oct. 2 to Oct. 16, respirator use by heavy-equipment operators was never above 50 percent and at times dipped to 20 percent, despite intense education efforts of the union.

A slightly different story comes from Robert Adams, the director of health and safety for the city's Department of Design and Construction (DDC), which managed the site. "We've had compliance as high as 80 percent, and then it has dipped down to 50 [percent]," Adams said in a Feb. 1 interview. "It's an ongoing issue we address routinely every day."

Bob DiBaro, health and safety director for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' Local 804, thought he could explain the discrepancy in reported respirator use. "We had 60 percent to 70 percent compliance when the inspectors were walking around. In reality, I'd say it was 30 percent to 40 percent."

Lippy complained that, on top of the long hours and discomfort of wearing the devices, poor role models abounded at Ground Zero. Supervisory personnel from many organizations on site regularly entered the restricted zone without respiratory protection.

"Respirators were worn much like loose neckties, hanging below the neck," Lippy said. "Compliance at Ground Zero was generally terrible."

Regulations Out the Window?

By all accounts, OSHA personnel worked diligently passing out respirators and teaching workers to perform positive and negative fit checks in the early weeks of the recovery effort. OSHA, however, did not perform the fit tests required under its respirator standard until December. Respirators are not fully effective without fit tests.

According to Lippy, fit tests for the respirators were not widely offered at Ground Zero until Oct. 17, or 36 days after the attacks. At this point, the Operating Engineers arranged for medical testing and quantitative fit testing with the help of 3M in a special mobile vehicle stationed near Ground Zero. MSA later pitched in, spending $150,000 to fit test thousands more after 3M left the site.

"OSHA worked very hard," Lippy said, "but one has to ask why, if its own standard requires this, it took 36 days before it happened?"

A number of labor representatives privately complained that during health and safety meetings held on site, OSHA had too little authority. "Because this was such a horrendous situation, enforcement agencies adopted the attitude that all regulations went out the window, and that was totally irresponsible," AFSCME's Clarke contended.

OSHA may have had little choice. Ultimate control of the site remained in the hands of New York City. At first, the Fire Department of New York managed the response. Later, it was DDC. The emotions surrounding the loss of so many NYC firefighters may have contributed to a crucial decision that hindered the enforcement of normal safety and health standards at Ground Zero: The site was always considered to be in a "rescue and recovery" mode.

Because Ground Zero remained an emergency site, OSHA never had jurisdiction to impose fines for worker safety violations.

"There's no legal impediment against them enforcing," said Donald Elisburg, a long-time OSHA expert who co-authored an initial NIEHS report on the response to the WTC disaster. "But it was a matter of OSHA's policy interpretation, one that goes back many years, that at a rescue and recovery site, they did not engage in enforcement activities."

In addition, the unprecedented complexity of the operation required the use of four contractors, making the safety effort more difficult.

Safety and Health Plan Delayed

If OSHA's enforcement role at Ground Zero was circumscribed, it may be unfair to blame the agency.

In addition to the politics of emotion that required calling Ground Zero a rescue and recovery site long after any hope of saving lives had vanished, OSHA's lack of clout could reflect the Bush administration's emphasis on a cooperative approach with business. The terrorist attacks, and the resulting surge of patriotic national unity, did not increase the appetite in Washington for a confrontational approach toward private industry. Still, many safety and health experts, particularly those with labor ties, questioned OSHA's failure to compel the use of respirators.

One labor representative, who described himself as a strong supporter of OSHA, attended the daily safety meetings and complained that the agency had little clout in decision-making.

"Bechtel, and then Liberty Mutual, called the shots," he said, referring to the two firms that supervised safety at the site. "They gave their run-down of what they felt were the issues, like who should wear what kind of masks. OSHA really had no participation in that." Enforcement of respirator use, he added, "never came into play."

The site had no safety and health plan until Oct. 29, nearly seven weeks after the attacks.

All of the contractors involved in the rescue and recovery effort at Ground Zero declined to answer questions about safety or any other aspect of their operations at the site. Liberty Mutual also declined to comment on its operations, referring to a long-standing policy of protecting the privacy of its clients.

OSHA's Partnership Agreement

A turning point in OSHA's role at Ground Zero came Nov. 20 with the signing of a partnership agreement between the agency, the city of New York, contractors and other organizations. Prior to then, OSHA compliance officers acted primarily as consultants, offering advice and assistance - and no citations - to workers and employers.

In the partnership document, OSHA officially agreed to not issue fines or citations for any kind of violation, including failure to wear respirators, while the contractors promised to address the concerns of the compliance officers.

NYCOSH's Newman pointed out that, under the agreement, workers lost the right to file complaints and that its "no citation" element violated OSHA's rules concerning such agreements.

OSHA's Clark countered that it was only one of OSHA's "internal directives" that barred it from dropping its enforcement powers in a partnership agreement. She argued that the WTC disaster presented a unique set of circumstances that justified this departure from past practice.

Given the weak hand OSHA held at Ground Zero, the partnership agreement may have been the best deal the agency could get. Clark argued that even if OSHA had tried to use its enforcement powers, the companies could have fought the citations in court, leaving workers with little immediate protection.

The agreement succeeded in giving OSHA more clout at the WTC site, according to DiBaro and others. "There was a significant difference after the partnership agreement," he said. "OSHA teamed up with the outside companies, and they did inspections together."

In March, OSHA released data indicating its approach at the WTC may have succeeded in some ways. Private contractors working at Ground Zero had a lost workday injury and illness rate of 2.1 per 100 workers through Dec. 31. This compares with a 4.3 national average for construction work.

Given the extraordinary hazards of the WTC site, the numbers suggest a genuine achievement, particularly with respect to safety hazards.

Yet, it appears the partnership agreement had little effect on respirator use, and if workers were exposed to significant health hazards, it could take many years for the illnesses to show up.

The 90 Percent Solution?

Defenders of the safety and health compliance effort at Ground Zero argue that it was a uniquely challenging environment, given the complexity of the various tasks, the multiple contractors and the pressures of the situation.

Lippy and others, however, point out that at the Fresh Kills site in Staten Island, where the Ground Zero debris was sorted and inspected, respirator use was reported to be consistently near 90 percent.

"The irony is that the debris is pulled by workers from one of the most dangerous sites I have ever seen, and then wetted and hauled to a site where the debris is carefully sorted by workers who are wearing protective equipment much more consistently," Lippy said.

DOH's McKinney countered that the partnership agreement at Fresh Kills was virtually identical to the one in force at Ground Zero.

Several observers said Fresh Kills was managed just as if it were a HAZWOPER site, "Why," Lippy asked, "could we get 90 percent respirator compliance at Fresh Kills and only 30 percent at Ground Zero?"

EPA to Clean WTC Apartments

By Alex Cukan
United Press International
May 8, 2002
http://upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=08052002-104047-2874r

After saying for eight months that there was no significant health risk from the dust from the collapsed World Trade Center, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday that it will clean the dust from apartments in Lower Manhattan.

"We are pleased that the EPA has decided to accept responsibility for protection of residents of Lower Manhattan," said Joel Shufro, executive director of The New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH), a coalition of unions and health professionals. "This is not only a step in the right direction, it is a reversal of EPA's policy."

During the 34 weeks that have passed since the attack on the World Trade Center, workers, residents and students in Lower Manhattan have been exposed to dust that is contaminated with asbestos, fiberglass, lead, highly alkaline concrete dust, and many other toxic substances, according to NYCOSH.

By the end of May, the EPA will have a hot line available for those who live in the estimated 15,000 potentially contaminated apartments in Lower Manhattan, to request testing and professional cleaning.

"This is to assuage concerns from residents in Lower Manhattan who continue to have concerns over air in their apartments," said Mary Mears, spokeswoman for Region II of the EPA. "The plan -- covering Manhattan residential units south of Canal Street and the Manhattan Bridge approach, river to river -- was developed by the multiagency Task Force on Indoor Air in Lower Manhattan created by EPA Administrator Christie Whitman."

Asbestos had been found in some of the dust and debris samples taken from Lower Manhattan.

"Most of the air samples taken have been below levels of concern and based on the asbestos test results received thus far, there are no significant health risks to occupants in the affected area or to the general public," the EPA had said last fall.

The dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center was largely composed of particles of glass fibers, gypsum, concrete, paper and other building materials so it's not surprising that the pH level was high or that high levels of glass fibers were found, according to Geoff Plumlee, a research geochemist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver.

"Most of the U.S.G.S. samples had a pH of 9.5 to 10.5, two taken inside a high-rise apartment and in a gymnasium across from the World Trade Center had a pH of 11.8 to 12.1 -- equivalent to that of liquid drain cleaner," said Plumlee.

"It is a shame that these measures were not taken at a time when they could have prevented the heavy exposure to the toxic dust that covered Lower Manhattan," said Shufro.

"For nearly 8 months, the EPA has denied that it has authority to protect people from exposure to toxic substances indoors," said Shufro. "Now the EPA is taking responsibility for protecting Lower Manhattan residents -- an action which it could have taken months ago."

If asbestos is found in an apartment, workers would have to use abatement measures such as wearing moon suits and respirators. The EPA said it didn't know how many people would request the professional cleaning or how much the cleaning effort would cost. Four private contractors will be assigned the work and paid by the federal government. No timetable for the cleanup was provided by the EPA.

No cap has been set on the funding for this effort, provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mears said.

"It's better late than never, it's a big step in the right direction but many problems remain and there are many details that have to be worked out," Sudhir Jain, of the Lower Manhattan Tenants Coalition, told UPI. "Schools, businesses and common areas have not been addressed, and there needs to be some type of oversight function."

The New York City Health Department advised tenants to clean apartments themselves using a wet rag or wet mop, but many tenants who attempted to do became ill.

"When we cleaned our apartments, we'd get sick, and then we couldn't continue cleaning," Indira Singh, a Pearl Street resident, told UPI.

According to Shufro, the EPA plan should include the appointment of an independent advisory committee, with the authority to intervene if government agencies are not acting to protect public health, including representatives of tenants, workers, students and elected officials.

"The EPA plan lacks any provision for oversight from outside the same government agencies that have shirked their responsibility for all this time," Shufro said. "The EPA plan also lacks any protocols for testing, cleanup and post-cleanup clearance. Such protocols must be produced and published."

Copyright © 2002 United Press International

WTC Minority Workers' Ills Persist

By Margaret Ramirez
Newsday
April 28, 2002

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nymedi282686683apr28.story

More than 400 immigrant workers hired to clean buildings near the World Trade Center site continued to suffer respiratory and other symptoms months after their first exposure to the dust, a Queens College physician reported yesterday.

Dr. Steven Markowitz, who supervised a medical monitoring van near Ground Zero for two months, gave preliminary results of examinations of 415 building cleanup workers.

The mobile health unit was a joint project of Queens College's Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Latin American Workers Project. It was established for immigrant workers and day laborers hired to clean office buildings near Ground Zero after the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

From Jan. 14 to March 1, the van's medical staff offered free health examinations, which included breathing tests, collection of blood and urine, and interviews about work history.

In late February, nearly all the workers still had health symptoms, which either first appeared or had worsened after Sept. 11, Markowitz said.

"One of the most striking findings is the persistence in symptoms, even after they stopped work and were no longer exposed to dust," Markowitz said during an immigrant labor conference at the CUNY School of Law in Flushing. "Many had stopped working [near Ground Zero] two months earlier, and when they came to the van, they still had symptoms."

Generally, he said, most recover quickly after such acute occupational exposure, and those with persistent symptoms usually are few in number.

"That usual pattern did not happen in this case," Markowitz said.

Of the 415 people examined, almost all were Hispanic immigrants, mainly from Colombia and Ecuador. Virtually none of the workers have health insurance or a personal physician.

Most workers performed indoor building cleanup for six to 12 weeks near Ground Zero, Markowitz said, and had stopped working there about two months before the medical van opened.

In interviews, workers said they were given mops, rags and bags and told to remove inches of dust that coated the floors, walls and desks in offices.

Most said they were not given protective equipment. Some workers who brought their own respirators said employers told them not to wear such protection. Markowitz said he believes such advice was meant to calm workers' fears about inhalation of asbestos.

Symptoms of sick workers fall into two broad categories, he said. Most had irritation of the upper airways, including chronic cough, coughing up of blood, sore throat, nasal congestion and chest pain. The respiratory symptoms are attributed to crushed glass in the dust.

Markowitz said others are more puzzling. Those include headache, fatigue, dizziness and poor appetite.

"We have no idea what substance in the dust is causing that," Markowitz said.

Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.

PSC Pair Honored for Their Safety Vigilance: Profs Are Monitoring CUNY Air Quality, Construction

By Liza Frenette
New York Teacher
April 10, 2002

http://www.nysut.org/newyorkteacher/2001-2002/020410safety.html

A pair of faculty health-and-safety sleuths has earned an award from the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health for their work tracking and solving problems at the City University of New York - particularly in areas affected by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Dave Kotelchuck and Joan Greenbaum, Health and Safety Committee co-chairpeople for the Professional Staff Congress, received honors at the NYCOSH annual awards celebration in New York City in April. Their work took on urgency in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York City, when the 47-story No. 7 World Trade Center toppled into the side of Fiterman Hall at the Borough of Manhattan Community College. Fiterman Hall, the largest classroom building at BMCC, was severely damaged and remains closed. Since then, Greenbaum and Kotelchuck have been involved in uncovering many health concerns at that site.

Their credits also include building a membership structure with active health and safety committees on CUNY campuses. Addressing indoor air quality and problems with construction have kept them busy.

PSC President Barbara Bowen said the pair has "taken our efforts in this area beyond where I ever imagined or hoped - and of course no one could have anticipated how they would be called on by the catastrophe of Sept. 11. What accounts for their success, I think, is that they've found intellectual as well as a political urgency in their work."

She noted that both have called on their academic training in public health and environmental design "in order to become fierce, informed advocates for our members."

Kotelchuck is an associate professor in the environmental health and safety department at Hunter College. Greenbaum is a professor in the computer information sciences department at LaGuardia Community College.

Fiterman Hall has not reopened while CUNY decides whether to clean and rebuild it, or raze it and start anew.

Dioxin in Fiterman Hall

Dioxin has been detected, in some cases at high levels, in Fiterman Hall, said Kotelchuck, who also serves on the NYCOSH board. Dioxin is a cancer-causing substance found in herbicides, produced by incineration of chlorine-containing plastics, as may have happened in the intense fires at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, Kotelchuck said. He and Greenbaum have found many BMCC members experiencing physical problems and psychological stress. They helped PSC initiate action with four other unions to urge the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to study several workplaces, including Stuyvesant High School and BMCC. Preliminary results are expected in May.

Elsewhere in the CUNY system, problems are monitored by committee members who are "our eyes and ears on every campus to find out about problems and resolve them," Kotelchuck said.

"We are receiving many reports of problems such as air ducts which have not been cleaned in years; construction being done during working hours, and leaks and molds," Greenbaum said. "All of these problems are serious as they affect our members' difficulties in trying to go about their normal teaching responsibilities." The committee is also monitoring repairs at Queens College, new ventilation diffusers in teacher offices at Brooklyn Educational Opportunity Center, and mold remediation in a LaGuardia photo lab.

The NYCOSH award, Kotelchuck and Greenbaum said in a prepared statement, "is a recognition both of the greater level of these activities by our union, and the accomplishments of our campus and CUNY-wide health and safety committees during the past two years, under our new union leadership."

Trabajadores sin protección

By Rodolfo Castillo
Hoy
8 de abril de 2002

http://www.holahoy.com/internet.nsf/All/pg027116.htm

"Todos sabemos que los trabajadores inmigrantes deberían estar mucho más protegidos de los peligros por medio de una reglamentación fuerte, en vez de una promesa para implementar directrices voluntariamente", dijo Omar Henríquez, coordinador de programas para la juventud y para los inmigrantes de NYCOSH.

NYCOSH, un comité que trabaja en favor de la seguridad y salud de los obreros representa a más de 250 sindicatos, ambientalistas y activistas que trabajan por la salud y la seguridad de los trabajadores en su lugar de trabajo. Funcionarios de la administración Bush dijeron el viernes que las directrices a seguir para reducir los accidentes de trabajo en industrias no especificadas deberán ser adoptadas voluntariamente por los empresarios.
Las medidas adoptadas de inmediato generaron críticas de las organizaciones que agrupan a los trabajadores, diciendo que se ha hecho poco para aliviar los problemas de seguridad en el año anterior. John Sweeney, presidente de la coalición AFL-CIO, acusó a la administración Bush de "servir a los intereses especiales de las corporaciones, ignorando las necesidades de los trabajadores".

Estas medidas entrarán en vigor en vez de las regulaciones obligatorias propuestas por la administración Clinton, las que podrían haber costado $4.6 millones al año a los negocios, para brindar mayor seguridad en los sitios de trabajo.

"Este plan mejora el reglamento antiguo porque puede prevenir lesiones costosas antes que éstas ocurran y alcancen un número mucho más alto de trabajadores en riesgo", dijo Elaine Chao de la Secretaría de Trabajo, pero los funcionarios de ese ministerio no dijeron cuántos trabajadores serán cubiertos, diciendo que los detalles serán dados a conocer en los próximos meses.

"El plan es demasiado pequeño y llega muy tarde", dijeron algunos defensores de los trabajadores. "Los trabajadores necesitan protección para evitar que sufran lesiones reforzando las regulaciones, no por medio de directrices voluntarias", dijo Jonathan Bennett, vocero de NYCOSH. Benett dijo que más de 600.000 trabajadores resultarán perjudicados.

Durante las audiencias públicas que tuvieron lugar en Washington recientemente, el reportero de Newsday Thomas Maier dijo que investigó durante 10 meses y que "muchas de las muertes de trabajadores inmigrantes en el lugar de trabajo nunca fueron investigadas".

La serie publicada por Maier en Newsday incluyó el informe sobre la muerte de dos obreros salvadoreños en una planta de reciclaje de Babylon.

Arturo Rodríguez, presidente de una asociación de trabajadores agrícolas dijo que en las granjas los trabajadores corren el riesgo del cáncer debido a los pesticidas.

Lesiones y cuidados de salud a obreros significaron 50 mil millones de dólares a la economía del país, de acuerdo a la Academia Nacional de Ciencias.

La nueva política incluye un programa diseñado para educar a los trabajadores inmigrantes, principalmente hispanos. Expertos en ergonomía dicen que los programas educacionales podrían ayudar a los trabajadores para reconocer los riesgos en el lugar de trabajo, pero que resultará difícil reforzar las medidas de seguridad.

"Ayudar a los trabajadores hispanos es muy importante", dijo Cynthia Roth, ejecutiva de una corporación de tecnología ergonómica en Syosett, Long Island. "La clave para incrementar la productividad y ganancias de los negocios es educar a los trabajadores acerca de la seguridad ergonómica".

Algunos empresarios de Long Island dijeron que "administrar un negocio cuando existen demasiadas regulaciones resulta improductivo".

Bill: Workers' Comp For WTC Laborers

ASSOCIATED PRESS
April 8, 2002

http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-nywork082659938apr08001421.story

Albany - A new bill in the State Legislature would extend workers' compensation benefits to rescue and recovery personnel at the World Trade Center in an effort to deal with any long-term health affects from debris.

"All those clean-up workers are experiencing these other-than-normal infections, and it was the result of some unique work," said State Sen. Guy Velella, (R-Bronx) chairman of the Senate's labor committee. "If they do happen to be contaminated, they should certainly be covered."

The bill would classify any ailment linked to the trade center as an occupational disease, providing the same benefits as if a worker had suffered an injury on the job. A preliminary list of possible health problems includes pulmonary fibrosis, interstitial lung disease, bronchitis, cancer and gastrointestinal disorders.

Among the substances that escaped from the 1.2 million tons of debris at Ground Zero were asbestos, benzene, dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). These are linked to cancer, although experts say in many cases the exposures were low enough that the risk appears to be small.

A few hundred firefighters who raced to save victims of the terror attacks are on medical leave or working light duty because of respiratory illnesses, including asthma, persistent cough and diminished lung capacity, according to firefighter officials.

"I don't think anyone knows the extent to which people are ill," said Joel Shufro, director of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. "We do know that of the firefighters, one quarter of them have had respiratory problems."

Shufro, whose organization helped sponsor medical exams for workers in a camper near Ground Zero, said it will be a challenge in some cases to trace particular diseases to the trade center.

The bill is sponsored in the Assembly by Catherine Nolan, a Queens Democrat and the chairwoman of her chamber's labor committee. She said insurance companies have resisted the legislation, but she wanted to move quickly after learning that workers' compensation cases for rescue workers from the 1993 terrorist bombing of the trade center were still being argued.

"We have to make provisions for workers who will come in five or 10 years from now with diseases that probably will be caused by this," Nolan said.

Velella said he sponsored the bill at the urging of unions. AFL-CIO officials said they did not know how many workers have had trouble securing workers' compensation.

Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.

Rules For Job Safety Will Be Voluntary

By Matthew Miller
Newsday
April 6, 2002

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-bzosha062657600apr06.story

As part of a new Labor Department policy, the Bush administration said Friday that it will issue voluntary guidelines aimed at reducing repetitive-stress injuries in certain unspecified industries.

The new ergonomics policy generated harsh criticism from labor groups, who said the administration has done little to alleviate worker safety problems in the past year.

The guidelines come instead of mandatory regulations by the Clinton administration that would have cost businesses $4.6 billion a year to make workplaces safer. The tougher Clinton regulations were overturned by Congress last year.

"This plan is a major improvement over the rejected old rule because it will prevent ergonomic injuries before they occur and reach a much larger number of at-risk workers," said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao in a statement. Labor officials did not provide the number of workers covered and other specifics, saying details would be developed over the next few months.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration officials said the guidelines would be designed around practices already used in some industries to prevent injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome and back strain.

OSHA administrator John Henshaw said the plan would be "comprehensive and practical" in its attempt to reduce workplace injuries.

But labor advocates said the plan was too little and too late.

"Workers need protection from ergonomic injuries through enforced regulation, not voluntary guidelines," said Jonathan Bennett, spokesman for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, a labor advocacy group.

Bennett said 600,000 workers had lost time due to ergonomic injuries since the Bush administration pressured Congress to throw out the Clinton plan last year. Such injuries cost the U.S. economy $50 billion annually in work-related costs, according to the National Academy of Sciences.

John Sweeney, president of labor coalition AFL-CIO, accused the Bush administration of "catering to corporate special interests" and ignoring worker needs.

The new policy also includes new enforcement standards for targeting ergonomic violations and an outreach program designed at educating Hispanic and other immigrant workers.

Ergonomics experts say that educational programs could help workers recognize some workplace dangers, but that enforcing guidelines designed to protect them would be difficult.

"Helping Hispanic and immigrant workers makes a great deal of sense," said Cynthia Roth, chief executive of Ergonomics Technologies Corp. in Syosett. "The key to increasing worker productivity and business profitability is educating workers about ergonomic safety."

Roth warned that the "enforcement pieces of the plan will be tricky," saying that OSHA would have a difficult time prosecuting violators of the guidelines because they were not legally binding regulations.

Leslie Bennett, who represents management interests as an attorney for McMillan, Rather, Bennett & Rigano in Melville, said he is unsure how effective voluntary guidelines will be.

"Guidelines are not an active enforcement vehicle," said Bennett. "Workers need some form of regulation."

Some business interests seemed pleased with the proposed guidelines being used over the more expensive regulations. The National Federation of Independent Businesses lauded the approach as a "helping hand."

Huntington business attorney Andrew Ligit said "it is more expensive to run a business when you have more regulations."

Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.

OSHA Backs Away From Controversial Statement On Asbestos

InsideHealthPolicy.com Daily Updates
By Kevin Maurer
April 3, 2002
© Inside Washington Publishers

After issuing a statement that triggered strong criticism, OSHA has distanced itself from the findings of a literature review conducted by a second-year medical resident concluding that short asbestos fibers do not contribute to asbestos-related disease. OSHA, which referred to the resident's findings in its April online newsletter, stresses that the conclusions do not represent agency policy.

Medical experts and union officials are puzzled by the findings of the literature review. Many safety and health experts argue that the debate over the hazards of asbestos exposure is not resolved and say it is "irresponsible" for OSHA to issue conclusions that are debatable.

In the April 1 issue of Quick Takes, an electronic agency newsletter, OSHA reported under the headline "Short Asbestos Fibers Not Linked To Disease" that "an extensive review of the scientific literature over the past 60 years found no reliable evidence indicating that short asbestos fibers contribute to asbestos-related diseases." The findings stem from work performed by Dan Barnett, a second-year resident in preventive medicine at Johns Hopkins University.

Some medical experts refuted Barnett's conclusions, noting that the debate over the health effects of short fibers has not been resolved, and that there is compelling evidence that short fibers do have an impact on the health of workers exposed. Union officials also questioned why OSHA issued the conclusions, calling the move "irresponsible."

However, an industry source says the resident's conclusions are consistent with their understanding of the issue.

Barnett completed the review as part of a two-month internship with OSHA's Office of Occupational Medicine. One of the program's requirements is to research a topic and present it to staffers, according to an agency spokesperson. Barnett was working on asbestos-related issues before coming to OSHA and decided to continue his research at the agency, says the spokesperson. OSHA did not assign him the literature review. It is unclear how Barnett conducted the review, and OSHA could not provide specifics at press time.

According to the newsletter, Barnett found "that both epidemiological and animal data indicate asbestos-related lung disease is associated with longer, thinner fibers." The agency notes that Barnett conducted the review "in light of concerns expressed in the wake of the World Trade Center disaster about the potential threat of lung disease among workers and residents who might have been exposed to short asbestos fibers." Barnett did not return calls at press time.

An OSHA spokesperson said that the conclusions expressed in the newsletter are not a statement of OSHA policy. Responding to the outcry by some stakeholders, OSHA released a statement saying, "...the article on asbestos in the current issue of Quick Takes, the discussion was based on a literature review that was presented to OSHA staffers in February. The review does not represent a statement of policy by OSHA. This brief article was presented for information only to our readers."

However, an organized labor source argues that OSHA is treating a significant health issue "casually" by releasing the results of Barnett's review in the newsletter. The source also says that it appeared the review did not undergo peer review, and added that the agency's decision to publish the conclusions pose a "serious question of judgment." Many OSHA staffers did not support the conclusion, said the union source.

Occupational medicine researchers expressed doubts about the review's conclusion. Rokho Kim, an adjunct assistant professor of occupational medicine at Harvard's School of Public Health said that he could "not believe" Barnett's conclusions, adding that "the current conclusions in the occupational medicine community agree that small size asbestos is hazardous to a worker's health."

Yasunosuke Suzuki, research professor in the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine for New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and a recognized expert on the issue, also disagreed referring to his paper "Asbestos Tissue Burden Study on Human Malignant Mesothelioma," published last year in Industrial Health.

Suzuki concludes that "short, thin asbestos fibers should not be excluded from those contributing to the induction of human malignant mesothelioma," a disease caused almost exclusively by exposure to asbestos according to the paper. Suzuki further concludes that since short, thin fibers "were the majority among asbestos fibers detected" in the lungs of his subjects, these fibers "should not be categorically excluded from carcinogenic fibers."

In addition, Mearl Stanton concluded in his 1981 paper, "Relation of Particle Dimension to Carcinogenicity in Amphibole Asbestoses and Other Fibrous Minerals" that "it is conceivable that sufficiently abundant fine short fibers can defeat the phagocytic activity and also induce tumors." He adds, "What is perhaps more likely than the existence of a narrow range of sizes within which particles are carcinogenic and outside of which they are not, is that the probability of tumor falls as particle diameter increases and length decreases."

But an industry lawyer argues that the "findings are consistent with my knowledge of the issue -- they are supported by other scientific literature that shows only those fibers with significant aspect ratios are related to disease causation."

David Newman, an industrial hygienist with the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH), said that the group is "concerned that OSHA has chosen to address this issue in such a brief and offhanded manner." Newman adds that the agency's brief article "mischaracterizes" the debate over the apparent dangers of exposure to asbestos short fibers. "It is NYCOSH's understanding that the scientific debate is still unresolved," he said. NYCOSH would like to see OSHA conduct a public debate on the issue.

Michael Wright, director of Health, Safety and Environment for the United Steelworkers of America, said, "It's hard to comment on what appears to have been a verbal briefing, but what I know of the asbestos literature leads me to conclude that we certainly cannot declare short fibers safe." While Wright notes that the results appeared "in an item buried in an internal OSHA newsletter" that was "not a published study or a statement of regulatory policy," he argues, "given that it did appear in print, it would be useful if OSHA clarified its official view."

© Inside Washington Publishers