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

EPA Ombudsman Opens Can of Worms in NY

By Sandy Smith
OccupationalHazards.com
February 26, 2002

http://www.occupationalhazards.com/

What do you do when you throw a party and the guests of honor don't show up? If you're the ombudsman for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in New York, you have the party anyway.

EPA Ombudsman Robert Martin and Hugh Kaufman, the EPA ombudsman's lead investigator at the World Trade Center, held a hearing on Saturday for people living and working in Lower Manhattan. the purpose of the hearing was to allow the residents and workers to ask questions of the experts who have studied the environmental and health impact of the collapse of the World Trade Center. Some 200 people showed up, but none of the bureaucrats Kaufman invited.

"We invited the leadership of the EPA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Geological Survey, the governor's office, state agencies, the mayor's office and city agencies, but none came," announced Kaufman. "This is the first time this has happened in this type of hearing."

The lack of participants from EPA, FEMA and state and city agencies didn't stop the other attendees from speaking out.

An industrial hygienist with the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) pointed out that early public statements by EPA appear to ignore or contradict information that was readily available to the agency at the time.

"EPA asserted on its Web site on Sept. 21, 'City residents are not being exposed to dangerous contaminants,'" said NYCOSH's David Newman. "It's common knowledge extensive quantities of sprayed-on asbestos-containing fireproofing was present in the World Trade Center at the time of its collapse"

He also noted that EPA collected 143 bulk dust samples throughout lower Manhattan in the first days after Sept. 11 and found that 76 percent had detectable levels of asbestos. Of those samples, 34 percent contained greater than 1 percent asbestos by weight, the regulatory definition of asbestos-containing material.

Thomas Cahill, a professor at the University of California-Davis, said he hopes EPA will test for ultra-fine particles. The Detection and Evaluation of Long-range Transport of Aerosols (DELTA) Group at the University of California-Davis analyzed the dust produced by the collapse of the WTC and found that parts of Lower Manhattan were contaminated by a variety of toxic substances, including highest levels of metals ever recorded in the United States.

The group also discovered that most of the respirable particulate matter was smaller than 2.5 microns, a size that can present serious health risks but is not regulated or monitored by EPA.

Newman noted that data taken from buildings at the World Trade Center found the possible presence of arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, ethane, barium, lead, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, cadmium, mercury, chloroform, chlordane and chromium.

"The message sent out by EPA was that there was no cause for concern and in many instances, workers did not receive specific instruction about personal protective equipment, including types of respirators and filters appropriate for the contaminants to which they were exposed," Newman said. "Respirator use even today among some Ground Zero workers and among most Lower Manhattan cleanup workers remains at unacceptably low and unsafe levels."

Residents who attended the meeting voiced their frustration, many complaining that their apartments are basically unlivable, but that if they choose to move out, they must high penalties to their landlords. One resident said she and her husband cleaned up the common areas of their apartment building and their own apartment using their vacuum cleaner, but their landlord refused to clean the air ducts in the building, which shower them with more dust. They plan to move.

Prior to the meeting, Robert Martin, the EPA ombudsman, threatened to tell attendees, "Residents, workers and Ground Zero platform visitors should wear respirators because of toxic air around the World Trade Center site and it would take multibillions of dollars to do what needs to be done in Manhattan."

Although he did not say that at the meeting, Martin still seems to be in trouble with his boss. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman has ordered Martin's office to become part of the EPA Inspector-General's Office, a move Martin claims is being made to silence him. The matter now lies in federal court, where a judge issued an injunction against the move.

In further WTC news, Whitman, responding to pressure from Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), agreed to establish an indoor air task force to evaluate air quality in Lower Manhattan.

Upcoming Supreme Court Ruling Could Be Blow to Illegal Workers

By Melissa Grace
Daily News
February 25, 2002

http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-02-25/News_and_Views/
City_Beat/a-142533.asp?last6days=1

Sweatshops proliferate around the city and employers allegedly threaten undocumented employees with deportation if they unionize.

Day laborers in Queens are conned by a fly-by night employment agency which — for a $200 fee — offers them jobs at the site of the collapsed World Trade Center.

They then end up standing on a Jackson Heights, Queens, streetcorner where dozens of other laborers are also seeking work.

"It's like that for everybody. You stand on the corner but there's no guarantee you are going to get a job," said the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health's Omar Henriquez, offering up examples of how the city's illegal workforce — estimated by some to be as many as 1 million people — is especially vulnerable.

Union and civil rights groups in New York argue that the status of these workers will be made even more precarious if the Supreme Court overturns a 1998 National Labor Relations Board ruling ordering a California company to pay back wages to an undocumented worker it illegally fired in retaliation for union activities.

The company appealed, claiming that under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, it cannot be ordered to pay an illegal worker.

The board and later a federal appeals court ruled the company did not have to reinstate Samuel Perez, who had used someone else's birth certificate to get his job.

But the company was required to pay Perez's wages from the time he was dismissed until several years later, when the company discovered he was working without proper documents.

Oral arguments in the case, Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. vs. NLRB, were heard by the high court Jan. 15. A decision is expected this spring.

That the Supreme Court is reviewing the case is considered significant. It reopens a debate there on the status of illegal immigrant workers, one the court hasn't broached since 1984.

Since then, the number of illegal immigrants in this country is believed to have doubled, to as many as 7 million.

The case also focuses on a clash between 60-year-old federal labor laws and the 1986 immigration legislation that made hiring illegal immigrants against the law.

In a unusual marriage, New York businesses have joined unions and civil rights groups and filed court briefs supporting the protection offered undocumented workers in the labor laws.

The businesses say that if the law allows rogue employers who hire illegal immigrants to be exempt from federal labor laws protecting workers, the sweatshops will gain another unfair advantage over those who play by the rules.

Equal Opportunities

"For employers, it's about economic competition. They want an equal playing field," said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute at New York University's School of Law and former director of the Immigration Project at the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE).

Jack Glauberman, head of the New York Skirt and Sportswear Association, a trade association that represents 20 city garment manufacturers, said, "We don't feel that companies who break the law should do so at the expense of those who follow the law."

Workers also say the protection is essential.

When people aren't protected, said Nieves Padilla, an organizer with Make the Road by Walking, "They're abused. It happens, people are beaten, they work long hours and they are not paid."

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office has filed papers supporting the NLRB's position.

NYU law Prof. Michael Wishnie said it's not only undocumented immigrants who are at risk.

If employers face no penalty for union-busting with illegal workers, they will go after all low-wage factory workers and dilute the power of unions, he said.

There are dissenters. The Equal Employment Advisory Council, a Washington-based trade organization that represents 350 large American companies, is squarely behind Hoffman's position.

The board's decision, said Ann Reesman, general counsel for the Equal Employment Advisory Council, "creates a perverse new monetary incentive to undocumented workers," and encourages them "to engage in fraudulent conduct that directly violates U.S. immigration law."

WTC Air Quality Questioned at Hearing

By Alex Cukan
United Press International
February 24, 2002

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=24022002-032529-7986r

NEW YORK, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- The controversy swirling around the environmental contamination in and around where the World Trade Center once stood continued in a hearing in New York City sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ombudsman's office.

"We invited the leadership of the EPA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, the governor's office, state agencies, the mayor's office and city agencies, but none came," said Hugh Kaufman, the EPA ombudsman's chief investigator for the World Trade Center Saturday. "This is the first time this has happened in this type of hearing."

According to Kaufman, the hearing was intended to give those who lived and worked in Lower Manhattan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 an opportunity to speak and to ask questions of some experts who have tested or studied the environmental impacts following the collapse of the Twin Towers.

About 200 people attended the all-day hearing at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in Manhattan.

"I'm hoping the EPA will do the measurements to test for ultra-fine particles," said Thomas Cahill, a professor at University of California-Davis who analyzed the dust and smoke produced by the fire and the collapse of the buildings following the crashes of the two hijacked airliners into the Twin Towers.

Airborne particulate matter from the Detection and Evaluation of Long-range Transport of Aerosols (DELTA) Group at the University of California at Davis indicate that parts of Lower Manhattan in the months after Sept. 11 were contaminated with a variety of toxic substances, including metals at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States.

The U.C. Davis group also found that most of the contaminated respirable particulate matter was smaller than 2.5 microns, a size that can present serious health risks but is neither regulated nor monitored by EPA.

People with upper respiratory problems such as asthma could be adversely affected by inhaled ultra-fine particles, Cahill said.

David Newman, an industrial hygienist with the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, a non-profit, union-based health and safety organization in Manhattan, acknowledged the dedication of EPA personnel in their work in Lower Manhattan.

"However, early public statements by EPA appear to ignore or contradict information which was readily available to the agency at the time," he said. "For example, EPA asserted on its Web site on Sept. 21, 'City residents are not being exposed to dangerous contaminants,'" Newman continued.

"It's common knowledge extensive quantities of sprayed-on asbestos-containing fireproofing was present in the World Trade Center at the time of its collapse," he said. "In another example, EPA collected 143 bulk (dust) samples throughout lower Manhattan in the first days after Sept. 11. Seventy-six percent had detectable levels of asbestos, of which 34 percent contained greater than 1 percent asbestos by weight, the regulatory definition of asbestos-containing material."

Newsman cited a third example, saying "information on the probable presence of toxic substances was available under the hazardous chemical storage reporting requirements of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act."

Examination of the data would have indicated the possible presence of barium, lead, chloroform, chlordane, carbon tetrachloride, cadmium, chromium, mercury, hydrogen sulfide, arsenic, and other toxic substances at the U.S. Customs Service, 6 World Trade Center, and of mercury, tetrachloroethylene, PCBs, arsenic, ethane, and other toxic substances at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1 World Trade Center, he said.

Newman maintained that widely publicized statements made after Sept. 14 and later by EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman downplaying any hazard influenced subsequent government response efforts as well as subsequent behavior by workers, employers, residents and landlords.

At one point she had said, "We have found particulate matter in the air, but ... it is not a problem for the general population."

"The message sent out by EPA was that there was no cause for concern and in many instances, workers did not receive specific instruction about personal protective equipment, including types of respirators and filters appropriate for the contaminants to which they were exposed," Newman said. "Respirator use even today among some Ground Zero workers and among most Lower Manhattan cleanup workers remains at unacceptably low and unsafe levels."

Landlords and employers, relying upon EPA statements, have encouraged or forced workers and tenants to return to or remain in offices and residences which, in many cases, have not been adequately tested for contaminants or appropriately cleaned or abated, Newman added.

"Routine safety and health regulations and concerns were ignored and brushed aside after Sept. 11," Newman told United Press International. "It was as if it was disloyal to even bring it up."

"We can't do anything for those who are gone, but we still do something for the rescuers and the residents," he said.

Some Lower Manhattan residents, frustrated with the conflicting statements of government agencies, have refused to attend any more hearings or meetings and have chosen to move out.

"We have been trying to get the health problems addressed but we're leaving and we're just counting the days," Danielle Brickman, a Pearl Street resident told UPI. "I developed World Trade cough about six weeks ago and my high-school-age son developed the cough long before that."

Brickman said that she and her family evacuated after the attacks, but the lung problems from the fires at Ground Zero led her to keep her son in midtown Manhattan. When they returned they tried to get out of their lease but her landlord refused to let them break their lease.

"Basically, we were bombed and we wanted to leave for our safety but our landlord wouldn't let us out and required us to pay more than $3,000 as a penalty," Brickman said. "We have air ducts from the rooftop air-conditioning system that shower us with dust because the landlord refuses to clean the air conditioning system."

Brickman's building staged a rent strike and as a result she can leave in April and pay half of the lease penalty. She and her husband cleaned dust in common areas in their building with a broom and vacuumed their apartment with a regular vacuum cleaner. Brickman worries that after her family leaves someone moving in will open the ducts for air conditioning and dust will sift in on them because they don't know it's there.

The U.S. Geological Survey found the dust created by the collapse of the World Trade Center had a pH of 12 -- as alkaline as drain cleaner.

"The dust 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 we found high levels of glass fibers," Geoff Plumlee, a research geochemist with the U.S.G.S. in Denver, told UPI.

According to NYCOSH, highly alkaline dust when in contact with moist tissue in the body -- the throat, mouth, nasal passages, skin and eyes -- becomes corrosive and can cause burns.

"It's ironic that the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. is now offering grants of up to $12,000 for those willing to move near Ground Zero when they just ignore the health issue of the dust, Brickman said. "People are crazy to move here and take the money, I'm appalled at how they've handled this and how it all comes down to a money and no humanity."

The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. has approved grants of up to $500 a month or 30 percent of a rent or mortgage payment for tenants who sign a two-year lease.

At a hearing of the U.S. Senate subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands and Climate two weeks ago, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat who represents Lower Manhattan, said, "The EPA has failed in its mission to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment by not exercising its full authority to test and clean all indoor spaces where people live and work."

Shortly afterwards, Whitman announced she agreed to establish the indoor air task force requested by Nadler and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democrat from New York, to evaluate air quality near the World Trade Center site.

Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., an environmental scientist with the Hazardous Waste Identification Division in Washington, D.C., told UPI, "There has been a breakdown where the EPA and the city are scrambling to get everything back to normal, and ignoring the law."

"It was contrary to the legally-binding applicable Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Gov. Whitman to claim that there was no significant health hazard beyond the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero, because she had data at that time showing asbestos in surface dust at 1 percent or more beyond Ground Zero," Jenkins wrote in a memo on Dec. 3.

In light of the EPA saying it would look into indoor testing of air quality, Jenkins prepared an internal memo outlining guidelines on testing the air and dust in apartments in Lower Manhattan.

"Wipe tests should be taken on nonporous surfaces and for porous surfaces such as carpets, mattresses and upholstery," he said. "EPA should use ultrasonification extraction where actual samples are immersed in solution to extract particulates," Jenkins said.

"In a study, where carpeting that had been used for several years after asbestos contamination, the ultrasonification extraction was able to measure 100 times more asbestos than using a micro-vacuum," he said.

Jenkins said that in addition to contaminated furniture, upholstery which had been professionally cleaned after Sept. 11 as well as items cleaned by tenants with a standard vacuum cleaner should be tested.

"Following the federal code, a one-horsepower leaf blower at all surfaces followed by fans to keep particulate suspended should be done," Jenkins said. "For indoor air, testing protocol should simulate a child jumping on a couch or rolling on a rug" and "outdoors monitors should be placed low to the ground to simulate the breathing zone of a small child."

Adding to the controversy, EPA Ombudsman Robert Martin and Kaufman told Newsday in an interview that they planed to say at the hearing, "Residents, workers and Ground Zero platform visitors should wear respirators because of toxic air around the World Trade Center site and that it would take multibillions of dollars to do what needs to be done in Manhattan."

However, they did not specially address this at the hearing. Currently, only Ground Zero workers are advised to wear respirators. Whitman has proposed Martin's office be put under the EPA's inspector-general office, a move he claims is intended to silence him. A federal judge has issued a temporary injunction against the transfer.

In addition, one expert, who did not wish to be identified, told UPI that requiring respirators for the public could also cause additional problems because respirators have to be fitted correctly to function properly and those with asthma may not get enough air to breathe.

"I'm experienced in air quality and I have been spending a good deal of time in Lower Manhattan and if I thought I needed a respirator, I'd wear one, but I don't," he said.

"Outdoor air is constantly being flushed. The problem now is indoor air and many places have been closed up since the attacks because of the smoke and in the spring opened windows will churn up the dust and asbestos will not go away until it is removed properly."

Copyright © 2002 United Press International

Plan: Boost Immigrant Safety on Job

By Thomas Maier
NEWSDAY
February 22, 2002

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/ny-ephisp22q2598649feb22.story

Washington - Alarmed about a sharp rise in deaths among Hispanic immigrant workers, the Bush administration yesterday unveiled a plan to improve conditions for what it said are America's most vulnerable workers.

Immigrant advocacy groups, however, immediately panned the initiatives as ineffective.

During a news conference, U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao outlined a series of initiatives intended to focus more attention on improving immigrant worker safety, particularly among Hispanics. She noted Hispanic workplace deaths are much higher than for other groups. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 849 foreign-born workers were killed on the job nationwide in 2000. Of those, 494 or 58 percent were of Hispanic or Latino origin. "It's a growing concern of this administration," said Chao, who is herself an immigrant from Taiwan who grew up in Queens. "Too many of these workers, especially Spanish-speaking workers, have experienced on-the-job injuries and illnesses."

Under the initiatives, three agencies within the labor department will:

Increase training and education efforts to reduce risk factors that stem from language and cultural limitations, which often lead to injury and death because workers cannot understand safety instructions.

Improve reporting methods for tracking immigrant deaths. In a recent investigative series, Newsday reported that at least 874 immigrant worker deaths had gone unreviewed by safety officials in the 1990s. Labor officials will be "renewing relationships" with police, fire departments and local health agencies to make sure the department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration is alerted when immigrants are killed.

Unveil a new OSHA Web site on Monday for Spanish-speaking employers and employees, where workers can file complaints. Officials privately concede that the Internet site is geared more toward advocacy groups needing information rather than for registering complaints.

Updating OSHA's toll-free help line for complaints and information to include Spanish-language services.

But Chao's comments come one week before a U.S. Senate committee is expected to question department officials about risks to immigrant workers. Several government officials and immigrant groups said yesterday that the briefing was designed to blunt criticism the department has been too slow and ineffective in dealing with safety issues.

"Any improvement of the current situation is welcome, but this is not enough," said Omar Henriquez, immigrant coordinator of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. "I don't think this will translate with workers."

Others were even more critical. "What good is it?" said Wing Lam, director of the Chinese Staff and Workers' Association in Manhattan about the administration's new plan. "They need to come up with something more than this. Is this all they are coming up with before [this] hearing?"

John Henshaw, who heads OSHA, said his agency doesn't plan to recommend new legislation or administrative penalties to improve safety, but rather refocus current methods and procedures.

Henriquez says the labor department must push for tougher penalties for employers who threaten the safety and health of immigrant workers and deny them legal rights in the workplace. "Employers know they can get away with not reporting deaths and not obeying the law because the penalties are so light," he said. "It's like a slap on the wrist, it's so insignificant."

Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.

NYC Sanitation Department Admits It Was Slow on Respirators: Crews at Ground Zero and Fresh Kills Landfill Were Not Given Best Safeguards in Early Days of Cleanup

By Diana Yates
STATEN ISLAND ADVANCE
February 19, 2002

http://www.silive.com/news/advance/index.ssf?/xml/
story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/101

Sanitation officials now acknowledge that some workers at the Fresh Kills landfill and Ground Zero did not have respirators as they handled World Trade Center debris.

More than a dozen Sanitation workers and heavy equipment operators claimed they worked for weeks without proper safety gear, allegations the Advance first reported Feb. 4.

Sanitation officials initially denied they'd failed to give workers respirators just after the disaster. Sanitation spokesman Al Ferguson on Feb. 4 asserted in a written statement that workers "received respirators the first day of work."

But in a statement recently faxed to the Advance, Ferguson backpedaled, saying personnel at the dump "received either dust masks or respirators" on Sept. 12.

Disposable, paper dust masks do not afford the same protection from pollutants, including asbestos, as respirators with hi-tech air filters and fitted frames that completely seal off dirty air.

If exposure to asbestos is suspected, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends workers use properly fitted, rubberized masks with P-100 or R-100 HEPA screw-in filter cartridges. The New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health recommends the respirators be regularly cleaned and the filter cartridges replaced once per shift.

Sanitation workers and heavy equipment operators told the Advance that they were not fitted for respirators until the middle or the end of October, about five weeks after they began moving the disaster debris.

Numerous phone calls to the Sanitation Department were not returned.

A union official also modified an earlier statement to the Advance. Two weeks ago, Uniformed Sanitationmen's Association vice president Harry Nespoli said Sanitation workers got respirators the day after the World Trade Center disaster. But in an interview last week, Nespoli said he was talking about the paper masks "that they called a respirator," not the "fitted kind."

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the Sanitation workers and heavy equipment operators said their initial requests for respirators went nowhere.

One tractor operator said that he and at least 14 of his coworkers complained to their shop steward about the lack of proper equipment. That shop steward was supposed to pass the information along to the daytime shop steward, who should have relayed it to a liaison to the union. But somewhere in the chain of command, the complaints got lost.

Thomas P. Maguire, president and business manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 15, did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.

Similarly, Sanitation workers' complaints never made it to those who could advocate for better health and safety practices. Nespoli said the union did not receive a single complaint about workers' lack of respirators in Lower Manhattan or at the Fresh Kills landfill. He said he recently visited the dump and none of the workers complained about the lack of proper safety gear.

As for getting respirators, Nespoli said, "You can't just put a fitted respirator on a person." Each worker must first be tested for high blood pressure or other health conditions that might be aggravated by the use of a respirator. He could not say when the workers were tested or fitted with the respirators.

Some Sanitation workers went without them for more than a month after Sept. 11, despite being in the thick of the Trade Center dust bowl.

Some who worked in Lower Manhattan said they were told to use push brooms to sweep the debris from the buildings near the Twin Towers into the street. When they asked for respirators, they were told the dust masks they'd been given were "standard issue."

Some worked in decrepit bulldozers at Ground Zero or at Fresh Kills, moving piles of debris around while the dust filtered into the cabs of their machines.

Some worked at the barge unloading pad at Fresh Kills, securing the barges for the cranes while the dust rained down on them.

When they went to the supply tent at the landfill where police and federal agents got their safety gear, some were given supplies, some were chased away, and some were told they had to bring supervisors with them to get what they needed.

The most health-conscious among them bought their own respirators. Some got respirators from volunteers or other agencies at Ground Zero. Some managed to convince whoever was on duty in the "Police supply tent" at Fresh Kills to give them one. Others went without.

"Everybody was kind of left to fend for themselves," said a tractor operator who worked in Lower Manhattan and at Fresh Kills.

The haphazard conditions these workers describe is verified by eyewitness accounts of the first few weeks of cleanup in Lower Manhattan. Two occupational safety and health experts -- one working for a federal agency and the other sent by a heavy equipment operators union -- reported grievous violations of standard health and safety practices at Ground Zero. No independent analysis of the working conditions of city workers at Fresh Kills has yet occurred.

Bruce Lippy, an industrial hygienist for the International Union of Operating Engineers, reported that respirators were randomly distributed to workers at Ground Zero. And few were trained in how to wear or clean the respirators they received.

There was little "significant medical testing or respirator fit testing" in the vicinity of the World Trade Center collapse until Oct. 17, said Lippy, when the Operating Engineers National Hazmat Program offered such testing free to anyone working on the site.

Another observer, John Moran, toured Ground Zero on Sept. 22. He reported that, with the exception of the heavy equipment operators, most of whom were wearing the proper gear, "respiratory protection is rare." He noted that "perhaps 5 to 10 percent of the workers are wearing disposable dust masks."

The state Labor Department enforces health and safety regulations for municipal workers. It recently resolved an investigation into health and safety practices at Fresh Kills, prompted by complaints from the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. No violations were issued, said Labor Department spokesman Robert Lillpopp.

No other city workers or unions have made complaints to the Labor Department about working conditions at Fresh Kills, said Lillpopp.

Copyright 2002 The Staten Island Advance.

OSHA Starts Random Inspections Near Ground Zero

By James Nash
OCCUPATIONALHAZARDS.COM
February 13, 2002

http://www.occupationalhazards.com/

Amid continuing complaints that local and federal officials are not doing enough to protect workers in the area adjacent to the World Trade Center (WTC), recently Pat Clark, OSHA's Region Two director, announced the agency would begin a local emphasis program (LEP) in Lower Manhattan.

Local groups such as the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) have charged that many workers cleaning up debris inside buildings near the former WTC are not wearing respirators and other personal protective equipment (PPE), despite the presence of asbestos and other hazards in the material they are removing.

Prior to the announcement of its new LEP, OSHA had done no inspections of buildings in the area because there had been no complaints from workers or community groups, despite OSHA's bilingual efforts to encourage those with medical problems to contact the agency.

"That's really why I decided to take this other approach," said Clark. "If we're not going to get to the places through complaints, then we're going to get in through another door."

The LEP means the agency draws up a list of sites where it suspects the clean up of hazardous material is occurring, and then randomly selects a group of buildings from this universe to visit. Full safety and health inspections may result.

As of Feb. 11, Rich Mendelson, OSHA's Manhattan area director, said 10 sites had been visited and eight inspections opened. Air and bulk samples were taken for asbestos and silica, though results are not yet available.

"We will keep doing inspections for as long as we feel the situation warrants it," Mendelson promised.

OSHA's new LEP comes not a moment too soon for Joel Shufro, executive director of NYCOSH. "Many buildings were heavily contaminated with dust from the World Trade Center," said Shufro. "There have been numerous bulk samples showing contamination of up to 5 percent asbestos in some of the office buildings."

Shufro noted that according to EPA, the dust in Lower Manhattan buildings "must be considered as containing asbestos," although the agency has not publicly stated that the dust contains 1 percent asbestos.

Anything with at least 1 percent asbestos is officially designated "asbestos-containing material" triggering a slew of regulatory requirements. Both EPA and OSHA have stated all workers engaged in clean up operations of buildings near the WTC site should wear proper PPE, including p-100 respirators.

A random walk near the WTC site confirmed the concerns raised by NYCOSH. Several workers were found who were waiting to be hired for ongoing cleanup efforts. All of the workers interviewed were Spanish-speaking males who knew little English, and who said they had worked for contractors hired to clean up nearby buildings since Sept. 11. None wanted his name used because of fears of retribution by local contractors.

Those interviewed said most employers did at least attempt to provide proper PPE. But the workers also cited a range of safety problems, from the lack of shower facilities, to the lack of proper fit-testing and filter replacements for respirators. "If 20 percent of the workers were wearing respirators, that was a lot," said one.

Another stated the real problem stemmed from the failure of workers to adopt a "safety culture," so that many did not wear respirators even when handed out by contractors.

A clean-up effort on the second floor of 189 Dey St., located one block from the current WTC recovery area, may indicate why OSHA decided to launch its LEP. The supervisor on hand at the site, a retailer named "The World of Golf," said E & G Maintenance Co. was hired by the building manager to do the work.

A thick layer of dust covered everything in the showroom as several workers wearing protective clothing prepared to begin cleaning operations. A vacuum cleaner stood beside long display rows of golf clubs coated with dust that could contain asbestos.

One of the workers was wearing a dust mask. No one wore a respirator.

By James Nash

Copyright © 2002 Penton Media, Inc.

Clear the Air: World Trade Center

St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial
February 12, 2002

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/asbestos.nsf/
other/E5681D13F6BA917686256CAD0076A1F5?OpenDocument

A RESTLESS crowd packed the lobby of a New York hotel on the evening of Oct. 3, 2001. More than 1,500 residents of Lower Manhattan had come to confront environmental officials about the aftermath of Sept. 11. When the residents complained of sore throats, skin rashes and burning eyes, they were told there was no reason for alarm.

Fears about contaminants in dust from the collapsed twin towers were dismissed. "It's not a health concern," said Joel A. Miele Sr., the city's environmental commissioner.

Mr. Miele should have known better. By the time that meeting was held, some of America's top scientists had already analyzed the dust. As Andrew Schneider reported in Sunday's Post-Dispatch, the scientists concluded that the dust was highly caustic and potentially a serious health threat. Some of the samples were as corrosive as drain cleaner.

As soon after the attack as Sept. 27, the scientists' work was posted on a Web site restricted to government agencies. Yet as recently as last week, many of those responsible for the safety of residents and rescue workers still were unaware of the study. Meanwhile, public officials, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, continue to insist that the dust poses no special health hazard. A growing body of evidence casts doubt on that claim.

Given the unprecedented nature of the Sept. 11 attacks, some initial glitches in the emergency response were understandable. But serious and persistent questions have been raised about environmental testing and how the results were -- or were not -- made public.

Public health officials, doctors and union leaders all told Mr. Schneider that specific test results were needed to make informed safety decisions for workers and residents. "It is inexcusable for the EPA to have kept silent for so long about such a potential hazard," said Joel Shufro, of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, an advocacy group composed of unions, physicians and others concerned about job safety.

It's hardly the first time that the EPA has been accused of misleading the public or withholding information. Just days after the attacks, Ms. Whitman told New Yorkers "that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." What she didn't say was that her statement was based on tests done outdoors, where contaminants can quickly dissipate. Indoor air, the EPA later decided, was not its responsibility.

Other early tests performed for the EPA showed substantially elevated levels of lead and benzene, as well as PCBs, dioxin and chromium. That was not immediately disclosed. Federal officials later said the results were "overlooked."

This week, a Senate committee began hearings on possible health hazards from the World Trade Center collapse. Among the topics to be explored are questions raised by Mr. Schneider's reporting.

Whatever the committee finds about health hazards in lower Manhattan, it's long past time to clear the air.

EPA accused of inaction at WTC

By Alex Cukan
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
February 12, 2002

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=12022002-012613-3816r

NEW YORK, Feb. 12 (UPI) -- At an emotional hearing Monday in Manhattan, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., charged the Environmental Protection Agency has "created a full-scale crisis of public confidence by not testing indoor areas" following the terrorist attacks.

"It has now been exactly five months since the terrorist attacks and, unfortunately, the people in Lower Manhattan still do not know whether or not it is safe to live and work in the area," said Nadler. "The Environmental Protection Agency has failed in its mission to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment by not exercising its full authority to test and clean all indoor spaces where people live and work."

Nadler said the EPA should not have relied on Lower Manhattan landlords to test the air quality of apartment buildings before allowing residents to move back in.

"Today, five months after the attacks, we learned it was the New York City Department of Environmental Protection that allowed landlords to let tenants back into their buildings but (the) city didn't test the apartments except for some roofs of buildings," Sudhir Jain, of the Lower Manhattan Tenants Coalition, told United Press International.

Jain said, "We only learned over the weekend that the U.S. Geological Survey found the dust is heavily alkaline that could make it caustic to breathe -- no one from New York told us that."

The hearing, which was held by the U.S. Senate subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands and Climate Change, was chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. at the U.S. Customs House in Manhattan.

"A substantial group from the U.S.G.S. through field testing and remote sensing flights found the dust to be quite alkaline, indoor dust samples had a pH level of almost 12 in the leach test, where we take one part dust and mix it with 20 parts water." Geoff Plumlee, a research geochemist with the U.S.G.S. in Denver, told UPI. "On Sept. 27 we gave our results to the emergency responders and government agencies including the EPA and then our results went under a detailed peer review and we put the results on our Web site on Dec. 27."

"The dust 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 we found high levels of glass fibers," Plumlee added.

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.

Acidity and alkalinity in solution is measured on a scale on which a value of 7 represents neutrality and lower numbers up to 0 indicate increasing acidity and higher numbers up to 14 indicate increasing alkalinity.

The EPA has said, "As expected, some asbestos was found in a few of the dust and debris samples taken from the blast site and individuals working in this area have been advised to take precautions. However, most of the air samples taken have been below levels of concern. 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."

According to industrial hygienists at the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health which provides training and assistance to 250 unions, highly alkaline dust, when in contact with moist tissue in the body -- the throat, mouth, nasal passages, skin and eyes -- becomes corrosive and can cause burns."

The U.S.G.S. found that as a result of the mineralization characterization studies, chemical leach tests and mapping its results "provide further support that cleanup of dust and the World Trade Center debris should be done with appropriate respiratory and dust control measures."

Tenants and residents near Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan told UPI that no government agency had told them about the high alkalinity of dust.

"The city Health Department has said since day one to 'use a wet rag" to clean dust in apartments' and now they say 'if you have health problems go see your doctor,'" Jain said.

However, although the EPA. Web site does not mention the pH of dust at the World Trade Center, a spokeswoman for the Region 2 office of the EPA, Nina Habib Spencer, told UPI," We have stated the alkalinity of dust could cause problems -- it wasn't a surprise -- we have always advised that professionals should clean offices and apartments where there is measurable dust and a certified asbestos contractor where there was asbestos."

Nadler said that enough is known to be "alarmed and outraged at the federal government's response to the environmental impact of Sept. 11."

"First, we know that EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman misled the public on Sept. 18, 2001 when she said she was glad to reassure the people of New York that 'their air is safe to breathe, and their water is safe to drink,'" Nadler said. "She made that statement without the indoor data necessary to make such a pronouncement, second, we know that the EPA has made a series of conflicting comments about the presence and quality of hazardous materials, and has even knowingly withheld critical data regarding the causticity of the dust."

Nadler added that the EPA delegated authority to New York City to handle indoor environments, but did nothing to ensure that the city's response was appropriate.

The EPA has said repeatedly that they test air quality outdoors and that any testing indoors was the responsibility of the landlords who owned the buildings.

Many tenants have not been able to either get test results from landlords or find out if landlords did any testing for asbestos or other toxic substances.

"The government tells people they can go back home and that certified contractors should clean anything that may contain asbestos but no one tests for asbestos so a lot of people cleaned apartments themselves and now they tell us that cleaning incorrectly can be worse that no cleaning at all," Jain said. "In my view, Lower Manhattan is going to have to be cleaned right, building by building, apartment by apartment and then tested and certified by the government otherwise people won't stay, it's the only solution."

Copyright © 2002 United Press International

Impact of the September 11th Attack on Air Quality and Public Health in Lower Manhattan

Testimony of U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Submitted to The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, and Climate Change
February 11, 2002

Thank you, Chairman Lieberman. I would like to thank you and Senator Clinton for holding this field hearing today, and for inviting me to testify, regarding the continuing impact of the September 11th attacks on the air quality in Lower Manhattan.

As the Congressman representing "Ground Zero" and the surrounding area, I am deeply concerned about the environmental and health effects posed by the collapse of the World Trade Center for my constituents, and for those who go to school or work in the area. It has now been exactly five months since the terrorist attacks and, unfortunately, the people in Lower Manhattan still do not know whether or not it is safe to live and work in the area. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed in its mission to ". . .protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment . . ." by not exercising its full authority to test and clean all indoor spaces where people live and work. As such, the EPA has created a full-scale crisis of public confidence.

Yet, all is not lost. The EPA can and must act now to remedy this situation and make Lower Manhattan safe and to restore public trust. Despite statements to the contrary, the agency does currently have the authority and resources to do so, and it must do so quickly. However, if the EPA continues to fail New Yorkers, I will introduce legislation to mandate action.

I am going to begin by being very blunt. We now know enough to be alarmed and outraged at the federal government's response to the environmental impact of 9/11. First, we know that EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman misled the public on September 18th, 2001 when she said she was "glad to reassure the people of New York that…their air is safe to breathe, and their water is safe to drink." She made that statement without the indoor data necessary to make such a pronouncement. Second, we know that the EPA has made a series of conflicting comments about the presence and quality of hazardous materials, and has even knowingly withheld critical data regarding the causticity of the dust. Third, we know that the EPA delegated authority to New York City to handle indoor environments, but did nothing to ensure that the City's response was appropriate. This left New Yorkers to their own, uninformed devices, often without the means to take care of themselves and their families. This is true even as the EPA had its own building at 290 Broadway professionally tested and cleaned. And finally, we know that the EPA has treated New York differently than it has treated other locales contaminated by hazardous materials. New York was at the center of one of the most calamitous events in American history, and the EPA has essentially walked away.

Ms. Whitman's statement, reassuring the public about the safety of air and water, which has been echoed by many at all levels of government, was based only on the EPA's outdoor tests -- the results of which are still in dispute. At that time, there had been no systematic testing of indoor air or dust in residential or commercial buildings by any government agency, let alone by the EPA. In fact, the EPA did not intend to do testing even of outdoor air in residential areas of Lower Manhattan until my Ground Zero Elected Officials Task Force requested that it do so on September 21st. Ironically, the very first public testing conducted inside residences, which was commissioned by our Task Force, commenced on the very day Ms. Whitman made her misleading statement. The results were made available to the EPA on October 12th. The test results showed elevated levels of hazardous materials in these residences. The EPA did nothing and Ms. Whitman did not adequately clarify her statement.

In recent weeks, the EPA has stated repeatedly that the City of New York, not the EPA, is responsible for indoor testing. The City, however, didn't get around to testing inside homes until November and December. The full results of these test are still not available and, according to the Health Department, won't be until the Spring. I do not understand why the results of tests undertaken by a public agency are being delayed for public release. Our test results took less than a month to be released. Nevertheless, just three days ago, the City Department of Health issued a press release regarding this limited indoor testing. Despite a pacifying headline, many the limited data in the press release has caused the scientists with whom we've consulted to believe that full results would directly contradict Ms. Whitman's statement. The release does make it clear, as did our commissioned study, that there were disconcerting levels of hazardous materials in peoples' apartments.

Ms. Whitman's reassurances are deeply confusing in light of other statements made by agency officials and of other information we now have that the EPA has not itself released. For example, in a copy of a January 25, 2002 speech given by Walter Mugdan, EPA Region II counsel, which I have obtained, I find that he states, ". . .a significant number of the WTC bulk dust samples that we analyzed did have more than 1% asbestos." But an Oct 3rd 2001 EPA memo "Confirm[ing] No Significant Public Health Risk" states, "The vast majority of EPA and OSHA samples of air and dust analyzed for asbestos have been at levels that pose no significant risk to residents and workers returning to their homes or area businesses." This statement has been made repeatedly by EPA Region II officials. How are New Yorkers to interpret these conflicting remarks? I can't even tell you what they mean – except that they cannot both be true.

Confusing remarks are one thing, withholding critical data pertaining to the public health is another. We know that it took a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project to get test results showing dangerous levels of hazardous materials in outdoor ambient air. The EPA claimed that this was an "oversight." But now we have a new, frightening bombshell.

According to this Sunday's St. Louis Post Dispatch, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), using the country's best detection equipment and methods, found pH levels in World Trade Center dust that are ". . .as corrosive as drain cleaner" and passed this information along to health experts at the EPA on a "government-only" website. That's right. As corrosive as drain cleaner. (By the way, it took less than 2 weeks in September for these test results to be ready.) I submit this article for the record.

Andrew Schneider, the paper's Pulitzer Prize-winning environmental journalist, charges "the USGS data was not released by the EPA nor apparently were the environmental agency's own test results on the dust." The EPA claims to have released this data to the public, but when Schneider reviewed all of the EPA's statements made since 9/11, he found nothing that warned of these high pH levels. According to the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH), such dust "once its in contact with moist tissue – the throat, the mouth, nasal passages, the eyes and even sweaty skin – it becomes corrosive and can cause severe burns." This is utterly scandalous. We must find out why the EPA hid this information from the public and we must see all the data now. I hope that Senators Clinton and Lieberman will join me in calling on the federal government to explain why New Yorkers were misled, and to demand the immediate release of the full compliment of data.

The EPA has not only provided false reassurances and misleading information. The EPA has also abrogated its responsibility to act. In a statement issued on January 17th in response to a press conference I held, the EPA states that it, "has lead [sic] the effort to monitor the outdoor environment while the City of New York has taken the lead regarding the reoccupancy of buildings. " At least the EPA admits that it has delegated authority to the city. Unfortunately, the EPA has yet to provide any justification for doing so, nor has it provided any evidence of the oversight measures it is compelled to take to ensure that the city is acting in accordance with the strictest federal standards. On January 23rd, I sent a formal inquiry to Administrator Whitman asking for answers to these and other questions about the City's response, which I submit for the record today. It has been over three weeks since the letter was sent and I have yet to get a response.

The EPA might say today, as it has in the past, that it does not have the proper legal authority to take the steps we are requesting to test and clean the areas affected by the collapse of the World Trade Center. It will probably say that the Clean Air Act, for example, does not govern indoor air and that it is therefore the responsibility of the local and state governments, or even that of the landlords and residents themselves. This is, again, all utterly misleading.

Under Section 303 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the authority in an emergency situation to protect human health when there is an "imminent and substantial endangerment" presented by a source of pollution. The intent of Congress is clear in this regard. A Senate Report from 1970 on Section 303 states, "The levels of concentration of air pollution agents or combination of agents which substantially endanger health are levels which should never be reached in any community. When the prediction can reasonably be made that such elevated levels could be reached even for a short period of time – that is that they are imminent – an emergency action plan should be implemented." In short, the EPA should not wait for people to actually get sick before it acts, and it clearly has the authority to act under this law. Indeed, an EPA memo entitled "Guidance on the Use of Section 303 of the Clean Air Act" was issued to the Regional offices on September 15, 1983 outlining these very points. I submit a copy of this memo for the record.

But the Clean Air Act is not the only governing statute. The EPA has the authority to act on indoor air under the National Contingency Plan (NCP) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In fact, I understand that the EPA has indeed been utilizing some of the NCP protocols at Ground Zero – however, they have not relied on this authority, or any other, to test or remediate indoor environments.

As we speak, the EPA is in fact doing indoor testing and remediation in Herculaneum, Missouri and other locales without Superfund designation. We must learn why the EPA is treating New York differently and I ask the Senators present here today to help me find out. This double-standard is unconscionable.

The EPA was unwilling to act on its own, and yet did nothing to ensure that those ostensibly charged with acting did "the right thing." The EPA, on its website and in public press releases referred residents to the New York City Department of Health, which recommended that people clean their potentially asbestos-laden dust with a "wet rag or wet mop." Clearly such cleanup measures are inadequate, as seen by the EPA's own actions taken in its building at 290 Broadway. I again today ask why the EPA applied stricter measures to federal buildings than the City advised for local residences and business equidistant from the World Trade Center.

Given the lack of action, credible information or oversight, I believe the EPA has failed in its responsibility to protect the public health of the citizens of Lower Manhattan. This is quite simply shameful, for public health is the first thing we, as a government, must protect.

In order to ensure a full and fair public assessment on the EPA's actions following September 11th, I have also asked the EPA National Ombudsman, Robert Martin, to investigate these matters. Mr. Martin has been doing so, and I am disappointed he has not been invited to testify and share the status of his investigation with the Committee. However, I understand there is a time constraint today, so I have attached a statement from Mr. Martin to be included in the record. As you may also know, Administrator Whitman is attempting to place the Office of the Ombudsman under the control of the Inspector General, effectively stripping the Ombudsman of his independence and ability to investigate these claims. I sincerely hope that Administrator Whitman will stop her quest to eviscerate the office of the Ombudsman, and in so doing, further undermining the integrity of the agency.

I realize that I have leveled serious charges here today, but I believe I have the moral responsibility to do so. The salient point is that we still do not know the extent of the presence of hazardous materials in some areas of the city. It may or may not be dangerous in many indoor areas of lower Manhattan – we just don't know. I am dismayed that there seems to be an unwillingness on the part of our public agencies to get this information. But given that we do not have all of the facts, we cannot conclude anything. I do know that we must get the facts and act swiftly and appropriately to get the job done right.

We must not fall into the catch-22 of saying there is no evidence of a public health emergency without taking any steps to get such evidence. And the burden should not be on the landlords and residents themselves when the testing procedures and cleanup measures are expensive and must be conducted by properly trained personnel.

The EPA has the statutory and regulatory authority to test and remediate indoor environments in Lower Manhattan, and has exercised such authority elsewhere. I am calling on the EPA today to immediately commence a program of full-scale testing and remediation using the best available technology, and to make a report of all such test results and actions available to the public. The EPA must also issue the test results in a manner which is tied directly to health standards, so that we can truly assess the public health risk posed to the people of Lower Manhattan. And finally, testing procedures should in no way impede the expeditious remediation of hazardous materials found by other government agencies or private researchers. Similarly, should the EPA find dangerous levels of hazardous materials before the full spectrum of testing is completed, cleanup measures should commence immediately.

If the EPA fails to act again, despite its current authority, I will introduce legislation to compel it to do so.

People might say that the measures I am requesting here today are expensive. That may be, but we must protect the public health. And although the cost may be high today, imagine what the cost will be in the future if it turns out that there really are dangerous levels of hazardous materials in Lower Manhattan. Imagine the City's and EPA's contingent liability to lawsuits twenty years down the road. And envision the potential health care costs.

It is in the best interest of the residents, workers, students and businesses for the government to act swiftly and appropriately to address the public's environment and health concerns. We cannot afford to wait while all the agencies point fingers at each other. There is still time to right this situation.

And time is of the essence. My office has received numerous complaints from people experiencing adverse health effects such as headaches, nosebleeds, and respiratory ailments. The symptoms are so widespread that they have been dubbed "The World Trade Center Flu." Public confidence is at stake. People know when they are sick, they know when something is not right, and they know when they are being lied to. I sincerely hope that we do not have another "Love Canal" on our hands, but the best way to avoid that is to do the necessary testing and cleanup now.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both chambers of Congress, and with all interested parties, to ensure that New York City is safe and prosperous for many years to come.

Driving With Dangerous WTC Dust?

By Julie Scelfo
NEWSWEEK
February 11, 2002 (Cover date: February 18)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/703740.asp?#fallout

New York City officials have reversed a decision made in December and announced that owners of cars and trucks recovered from the World Trade Center would be permitted to retrieve their vehicles. Earlier, the city's health commissioner said the vehicles were potentially contaminated with asbestos and therefore unsafe to return to their owners. Why the turnaround? "Since the fall, data has been presented to the health department collected by a number of agencies, including the FDNY, NYPD, FBI and EPA, and those samples indicated that there were undetectable to low levels of asbestos found in samples taken from the cars," says Greg Butler, a spokesman for the New York City Department of Health. But insiders from at least three of those agencies say they are familiar with the tests, and that some have shown levels of asbestos at triple the EPA's standards for contamination. "We're amazed that they're returning the cars," says one official. "I think it's very disturbing," says an EPA source. "I wouldn't feel comfortable driving a vehicle removed from Ground Zero."

More than 900 vehicles have already been recovered and transported to the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island. Last week recovery workers reached the deepest levels of WTC parking garages where, remarkably, hundreds more vehicles remain mostly intact and are now being removed. But like those already at Fresh Kills, they are coated with the fine powder of pulverized building material. The health department has provided cleaning instructions that the owners will receive when they are notified to pick up their cars. But Joel Shufro, executive director of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, argues that returning the cars puts people at potentially grave risk. "Who's to say what's going to happen to one of these contaminated cars? There's nothing to stop someone from just driving one around or getting rid of it on eBay."

Government withhold data on dangers in NYC dust

By Andrew Schneider
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
February 9, 2002

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/

NEW YORK - Even as the dust from the collapsed World Trade Center was still settling, top government scientists were determining that the smoky gray mixture was highly corrosive and potentially a serious danger to health.

The U.S. Geological Survey team found that some of the dust was as caustic as liquid drain cleaner and alerted all government agencies involved in the emergency response. But many of those on the front lines of protecting the health of the public and workers cleaning up the site say they never got the information.

"I'm supposed to be in the loop, and I've never heard any specific numbers on how caustic the dust actually was," said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of the Mount Sinai Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine. "There is a large segment of the population here whose physicians needed to know that information that USGS submitted. Exposure to dust with a high pH could impact everyone, but especially the very young, the very old and those with existing pulmonary disease." Census data show large concentrations of young and elderly living near the World Trade Center site.

The EPA's office in New York said it repeatedly told the public that the dust was caustic because of the cement that was pulverized when the towers collapsed. But an examination of all the EPA's public and press statements made since Sept. 11 found nothing that warned of the very high pH levels found by the Geological Survey scientists. Nor did the statements disclose the specific levels that the EPA's own testing found.

"We've not heard of EPA or anyone else releasing information on specific pH levels in the dust, and that's information that we all should have had," said Carrie Loewenherz, an industrial hygienist for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, which provides assistance to more than 250 unions.

"It's the specific numbers - those precise pH levels - that we need to make the appropriate safety decisions for the workers, and they were never released," Loewenherz said. "The dust, once it's in contact with moist tissue, the throat, the mouth, nasal passages, the eyes and even sweaty skin, it becomes corrosive and can cause severe burns."

Most of the samples taken by USGS' team had a pH of 9.5 to 10.5, about the same alkalinity as ammonia. Two samples that were taken inside a high-rise apartment and in a gymnasium across from the wreckage of the World Trade Center had a pH of 11.8 to 12.1 - equivalent to what would be found in liquid drain cleaner.

The degree of acidity or alkalinity in a material is expressed as a pH measurement. Neutral pH - like water - is 7 on a 15-point scale. Lower than 7, to 0, is an indication of acid. Higher than 7, to 14, the top of the scale, is alkaline. Levels near either end of the pH scale can harm the health of people and animals.

Bruce Lippy, Loewenherz's counterpart with the operating engineers union, is responsible for the 300 workers running heavy equipment at ground zero.

"Part of the dilemma we faced was not knowing precisely what was in the dust," Lippy said. "We knew it was caustic but had no information on exactly how caustic it was. I was trying to get people to wear the respirators, but if I knew how high the pH levels were, I could have been more persuasive in convincing the workers of the dangers."

Only a handful of the 100 or so workers sorting wreckage and loading trucks on the site over three days last week were seen wearing respirators or protective masks.

Scientists rush to Manhattan

Like the rest of the world, the USGS team watched the storm of dust roll across Manhattan after the terrorist attack on Sept. 11. With its world-class laboratories and sensors that can detect minerals on a distant planet, the Denver-based team was already making arrangements to get NASA's infrared sensors and aircraft over ground zero as the EPA and the U.S. Public Health Service requested its help.

Responding to requests from the White House science office, the NASA team flew over Manhattan four times between Sept. 16 and Sept. 23, while USGS scientists collected samples of the dust from 35 locations below.

Back in Denver, more than two dozen scientists using the world's most sophisticated analytical equipment ran the samples through extensive testing.

The Geological Survey's test results were posted Sept. 27 on a Web site restricted to government agencies.

The USGS findings were "evaluated by our technical experts and found to be consistent with the findings of EPA's Office of Research and Development," said Bonnie Bellow, the agency's spokeswoman in New York.

"The USGS data was also discussed by an interagency group of scientists, epidemiologists and health officials," Bellow said.

But neither the EPA headquarters nor its New York office would comment on what came out of these discussions or which EPA results they were "consistent" with.

The USGS data on pH levels were not released by the EPA, nor apparently were the environmental agency's own test results on the dust.

"It is extremely distressing to learn that the EPA knew how caustic samples of the dust were and didn't publicize the information immediately, or make sure that OSHA publicized it," said Joel Shufro, executive director of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health.

"If we had known at the time exactly how caustic the dust could be, we would have been in a better position to make informed decisions about respiratory protection to recommend and about the urgency of ensuring that workers and residents followed those recommendations," Shufro said.

"It is inexcusable for EPA to have kept silent for so long about such a potential hazard."

Dust weakens strapping youth

John Healy Jr. is 15, big, taller than his father. He looks as strong as a bull. But when he talks, wheezes and deep coughs punctuate his words. He and his father, John, live in an apartment overlooking what was the World Trade Center.

"Something is tearing him up, hitting his lungs hard," said his father. "He had asthma when he was younger, but he was fine until after Sept. 11. If I knew the dust was that caustic, there's no way I would have brought him back here."

John goes to Stuyvesant High School, a 10-story building for the brightest of the bright. It's one block from the collapsed buildings and beside the Hudson River, where barges are being filled with debris destined for sorting at the Fresh Kills landfill.

"I need to go to this school, and I need to live here to do it, but something in that dust is just hurting me," the teen said as he looked down at the pile of pills, throat sprays and inhalers in his two large hands.

His father looked out the narrow dining room window at the brightly lighted carnage bellow. A light film of dust coated the window.

"I can't understand why the government didn't tell us what was actually in the dust," Healy said. "Were they afraid we were going to panic? I needed that information to decide what was best for my son. I needed it."

The teen's malady and other serious problems are being seen by physicians throughout New York.

"What we're finding is incredible irritation to the lungs, throat and nasal passages," said Herbert, from Mount Sinai. "Some of the tissue is cherry red, vivid, bright, and we've never seen anything like it before.

"There are a large number of clinicians and public health specialists who are struggling to reconcile the health problems they're seeing with the exposure data they're being given," Herbert said. "The high pH in the dust may be a part of the answer. If the government had these pH readings of 11 and 12, the public and their physicians should have been told.
"Any credible information the government had relating to health issues just should have been released," she said. "There is no justification for holding it. You don't conceal the information from those who need it."

A dubious honor

Mark Rushing and Tori Bunch have the debatable honor of having lived in one of the sites that USGS tested. In fact, their apartment on the 30th floor of a building overlooking the World Trade Center tied for highest pH - 12.1 - of the dozens of sites where samples were collected.

"It's obvious to those of us living here that the government - city, state and federal - wanted things to return to normal as quickly as possible. The economic losses were great," Rushing said. "But no matter how you view it, that's no excuse for the government, any government, to conceal hazards from the people they are charged with protecting."

Rushing and Bunch found a new apartment as far from the World Trade Center as they could get and still be in the city. The apartment is on the lowest floor available.

Even within the EPA, professionals believe the agency did a disservice by not acknowledging and releasing the Geological Survey's data.

Cate Jenkins, a senior environmental scientist in the hazardous materials division at the EPA headquarters, said: "The pH levels the USGS documented were far too high for EPA to ignore. They insisted that all the information regarding health and safety was being released to the public. Well, that's not true. There's nothing, internally or in public releases, that shows the agency ever disclosed specific pH levels."

Late Thursday, the EPA's Bellow told the Post-Dispatch: "We have no specific data on pH levels." Bellow added, "This is all the available information on the subject."

Late Friday, the EPA responded to the question of why it didn't collect its own pH numbers.

"EPA had enough information about the alkalinity of the materal from the World Trade Center without doing further analysis," Bellow said.

The question of why EPA didn't release the data it had had remains unanswered.

The EPA is in a no-win situation. No government agency had been prepared for the enormity of the terrorist attack on New York. Tight budgets - federal, state and city - ruled out planning and drills for an unfathomable event of this size.

Even most critics say that no amount of preparation could have kept the workers fleeing the twin towers - and the rescue workers racing to save them - from sucking in lungfuls of toxic dust and smoke.

But it's what the EPA and OSHA and the New York state and city health departments did after the dust settled and the smoke cleared that has generated the most criticism.

On Monday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat who represents the people in lower Manhattan, is holding a congressional hearing to determine who dropped the ball. He is expected to announce that legislation will be introduced to "force EPA to do the proper testing inside offices and apartments and release the finding in a form that would be of value to the public and their physicians."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., has scheduled a Senate investigation of the issue.

Less than a week after the attack, on Sept. 16, EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman told New Yorkers: "There's no need for the general public to be concerned."

That was the same day that USGS and NASA flew their first sampling missions over the city.

The EPA said its boss's comments that there were no dangers from dioxin, benzene, PCB or asbestos - all cancer-causing agents - were based on thousands of outside air samples. Last month, the Post-Dispatch reported that high levels of asbestos were found in many apartments and offices. The EPA said its regulations did not call for indoor testing.

Hundreds of firefighters, paramedics and police officers are sick, suffering what some physicians call "ground zero coughs." Their problems may have come from unprotected exposure the first week of the attack.

But hundreds of other people - workers, students and residents - who fled the area and stayed out for weeks and then came back also are suffering major respiratory problems.

The few Christmas decorations that adorned light poles in lower Manhattan have been removed. But the metal poles still bristle with air monitors and vacuum pumps sucking in air almost around the clock, searching for asbestos fibers, chemicals and traces of heavy, toxic metals.

For the most part, the EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration say they're finding little, if anything, for New Yorkers to worry about.

They are talking about contaminants in the air, which is the main pathway for toxic materials to enter the body.

But the EPA pays little or no attention to indoor contamination.

Late Friday, the New York City health department issued a brief statement, with very few details, about both indoor and outdoor testing done by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. This well-respected research arm for the Department of Health and Human Services, found pulverized fiberglass in almost half of the samples it examined. However, New York health officials released no specifics on the levels of toxic material found, and no one could be reached for comment.

Attention is being paid to keeping the contamination on the site. Trucks hauling debris from ground zero pass through an EPA drive-through shower before they reach the streets. City street sweepers and washers drive a seemingly endless circle up and down the streets of lower Manhattan.

But even blocks from the collapse, massive windows on offices and cornices on many apartment buildings are still caked with dust.

"We made this analytical effort because we were concerned about the likelihood that the composition of the dust could be potentially harmful to the rescue and cleanup workers at the site and to people living and working in lower Manhattan," said USGS team member Geoffrey Plumlee, a geochemist who determined the pH levels.

"We shared our findings with EPA, FEMA, the federal emergency response coordinator and everyone else we felt was appropriate. We anticipated that the results would have been shared with the people on the ground, those at risk, but it looks like the information never got to those who needed it."

Scents and Sensitivities: What to know before buying a Valentine's Day perfume

By Francesca Lyman
MSNBC
February 6, 2002

http://www.msnbc.com/news/702445.asp

Perfume, according to marketing claims, will help us attract a romantic partner and make us feel sexier. But giving a bottle of cologne or perfume for Valentine's Day may not be healthy for your intended, say some experts. Certain fragrances and their chemical constituents can trigger an allergic, rather than an aphrodisiac, response.

IN MATTERS of love, asserts an article by one of the world's leading makers of flavors and fragrances Haarmann & Reimer, "The way to the heart is through the nose."

But as much as perfume can elicit pleasure, it can trigger allergies and irritation. If your love interest suffers from asthma, rhinitis, allergies, dermatitis or a growing range of chemical sensitivities, a bottle of perfume may very well repel more than attract. According to some allergists, dermatologists, pulmonary specialists and nurses, a growing number of patients - as well as health care practitioners - seem to be suffering from sensitivities to fragrances.

Fragrance sensitivity is also emerging as a growing workplace allergen. "People often joke about it, people wearing offensive perfumes," says Carrie Loewenherz," an industrial hygienist for the New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health. But, she adds, for people sensitive to it, it's no joking matter.

Take Lauren Colburn, an Atlanta, Ga. newspaper researcher, for example. She had to shift to the "graveyard" shift — a real hardship — to avoid people wearing perfumes and fragranced products. "But more sensitive people are speaking up about it, and I hope the perfume industry is listening," she says.

The fragrance industry says it is. Products are thoroughly tested before being marketed to assure their health and safety, says Glenn Roberts, spokesperson for the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, an industry-sponsored group that does testing of chemicals.

A COMPLEX MIXTURE

Once distilled simply from flower essences, perfumes today are complex mixtures of natural — botanical- or animal-derived — materials and synthetic chemicals. More than 5,000 different fragrances are used in perfumes and skin products, in hundreds of chemical combinations, according to the American Academy of Dermatology. But because the chemical formulas of fragrances are considered trade secrets, companies aren't required to list their ingredients but merely label them as containing "fragrance."

That's a problem for the medical profession in determining allergies, says dermatologist Howard Maibach, a professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. The great quantity and variety of chemicals, as well as the absence of ingredients on the labels, makes it difficult to pinpoint causes of allergies or irritation, he notes.

The rising tide of fragrances in myriad products, from skin lotions to tissues to cleaning products to candles, is also adding to the problem, says NYCOSH's Loewenherz.

Additionally, about 95 percent of perfume ingredients are not composed of flower essences or natural products as people generally imagine, but synthesized from petrochemicals, which give off volatile organic compounds, vapors emitted from compounds like solvents, wood preservatives, paint strippers and dry cleaned clothing.

VOCs are known to produce eye, nose and throat irritation, headaches, loss of coordination, nausea, damage to liver, kidney and central nervous system, according to EPA. Some can cause cancer in animals or are suspected or known to cause cancer in humans. And while adverse health effects from VOCs typically occur at far higher doses than what would be found in fragrances, they nevertheless can be potentially dangerous in tight indoor spaces, Loewenherz says.

In the early '90s, the Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a study to identify the compounds found in many fragrance products and identified 100 to 200 chemicals — including fragrance chemicals, additives and contaminants — in each. In more than half the products tests, they found ethanol, limonene, linalool, ß-phenethyl alcohol, and ß-myrcene, few of which have tested for cancer causing properties.

In reviewing the compounds, the researchers found "a paucity of available data for most of the compounds reviewed." Although the study found "relatively low toxicities overall," some of compounds have "toxic effects [on animals] at low doses," the report concluded.

Nevertheless, the researchers cautioned against panic. While the chemicals are present in fragrances, the doses are typically not high enough to cause health effects in humans, says Lance Wallace, the researcher at EPA who worked on the study.

The report also suggested that further study was needed to determine which people were at risk for developing rashes or other "sensitivities" to certain compounds or fragrances.

A bigger problem, Wallace says, is that current testing fails to address why some people are becoming increasingly sensitive.

"Questionnaires done on people affected by sick building syndrome, such as those afflicted in government buildings, tend to show about 30 percent of people having reactions to chemical odors of various kinds, including perfumes," says Wallace. "We need better real-world exposure studies to find out why and how we can prevent it."

That should be an issue not just for the already chemically sensitive but for the average healthy person as well, says Betty Bridges, a registered nurse who founded the Fragranced Products Information Network, a Web page with information about chemicals used in scented products and their health effects.

"Many of these fragrance products by themselves would not be expected to be problematic, but we're getting dosed from so many sources, such as hair sprays, nail polishes, skin lotions and scented products in virtually everything," says Bridges. "Toilet tissues, cleaning products — even cigarettes — have fragrance ingredients in them."

Perfume doesn't just enter the body by being inhaled, but also can be ingested or absorbed through the skin, affecting the skin, lungs, nervous system and brain. Among trends found:

Skin allergies to scents are rising steadily (with perfume allergies second only to nickel contact dermatitis as a cause of skin irritation).

"The vast majority of the public does not have a fragrance allergy," says Donald Belsito, a dermatologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center. However, allergic reactions to fragrances are on the rise, he says, increasing from 9 percent to about 12 to 13 percent of dermatitis patients over the last decade.

The incidence of respiratory sensitivity to fragrances is also growing, although this has been less studied. For Dr. Michael Segal, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at Harvard Medical School, one of the more serious health concerns is for asthmatics. If airways become constricted, an episode can be life threatening, he says.

"Perfumes are fine for the large majority of people who do not have asthma, and most ingredients in perfumes are probably fine even for most people with asthma," says Segal. The problem, he says, is that some ingredients in perfumes trigger asthma attacks, since perfumes can contain so many potentially allergenic ingredients that can add to other ubiquitous irritants, from tobacco smoke to exhaust fumes.

Perfumes can also trigger migraines, according to the American Medical Association.

Fragrances are also a growing issue for people sensitized to other environmental chemicals. "I'm seeing more and more environmentally sensitized people," says Dr. Morton Teich, an allergist who has practiced in New York City for more than 30 years. "I suspect that's because our environment — indoor as well as outdoor — and our food is more polluted, and our immune and endocrine systems are simply overloaded."

FPIN's Bridges says that complaints on health effects from fragrances have increased during the last few years, noting that her Web site gets 1,500 new visitors each month and that complaints to the Food and Drug Administration, which keeps a registry on adverse reactions to cosmetics, has jumped from 3 in 1996 to about 100 last year.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Health Network, an advocacy group based in Larkspur, Calif., has petitioned the government, asking that synthetic fragrances put on the market without adequate testing carry a warning label. The group commissioned an industry laboratory specializing in tests for the fragrance industry and found 41 ingredients they claimed were "toxic to the skin, respiratory tract, nervous and reproductive systems, and [in some cases] known to be carcinogens." They also charged that several ingredients contained "no toxicity data" or "inadequate data."

In November 1999, the group filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration, the agency with jurisdiction over cosmetics, to have the fragrance Eternity by Calvin Klein declared "misbranded."

Since the petition was filed, says Bridges, more than 1,000 consumers with health problems from exposure to fragrances have written to FDA support EHN's petition. To date, however, FDA has not responded to the petition. An FDA spokesperson says it is still "under review," but not considered a priority.

NO PREMARKET SAFETY TESTS REQUIRED

"As a regulatory agency, we are concerned about the safety of cosmetics, says an FDA spokesperson. But the agency has no authority to require cosmetics to be safety tested before marketing. However, if the ingredients and final product in a product haven't been substantiated, then a warning label can be required on a product stating "the safety of this product has not been determined."

The FDA also noted that even cosmetics that claim to be "fragrance free" can contain perfume to mask other odors: "Fragrance free" only means that a cosmetic "has no perceptible odor." The agency explains: "Fragrance ingredients may be added to a fragrance-free cosmetic to mask any offensive odor originating from the raw materials used, but in a smaller amount than is needed to impart a noticeable scent."

INDUSTRY'S SAFEGUARDS

Despite the lack of FDA safety testing, RIFM's Roberts provides assurances that safety is insured in a four-step process. "First, we have a long history of cosmetics ingredients use to go on; additionally, EPA requires safety testing for any new chemicals coming on the market," he says. Additionally, "RIFM does its own safety testing of chemicals — we've tested about 90 percent to 95 percent in use — and many fragrance and cosmetics companies do their own testing."

Besides this, says Roberts, FDA collects complaints from consumers, "and from their records, that's less than 1 complaint per million users."

Those efforts by the industry haven't stopped people from demanding fragrance-free environments, however. Some hospitals ask staff to refrain from using fragranced products, says Segal, because of their potential effects on people with asthma or other conditions.

The American Nurses Association (ANA) instituted a fragrance-free meeting policy, says Susan Wilburn, a specialist for occupational safety and health for ANA, "because so many nurses have been coming down with headaches, nausea, and other adverse reactions to perfumes."

ANA's own research, she says, found that many perfumes contain preservatives, as well as pesticides, "specifically added to repel bugs attracted to the scents."

In response to the perceived problems of fragrances in the air, Roberts says that his industry group has begun the first study to examine fragrance inhalation. "We're spending a lot of money on this," he says, "to understand the systemic effects of fragrances on organs and nervous system, what happens when fragrances are inhaled."

To report an adverse reaction to the FDA, call FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors at 1-202-401-9725, or file online. You may also send your report in writing to: FDA, Office of Cosmetics and Colors (HFS-100), 200 C St., SW, Washington, DC 20204.

Francesca Lyman is an environmental and travel journalist and editor of the American Museum of Natural History book, "Inside the Dzanga-Sangha Rain Forest" (Workman, 1998).

Click on any of the boxes in the left margin to learn more about NYCOSH.

Click here to send an e-mail message to NYCOSH with comments or suggestions for additions to this site.