Environmental Health and Safety Blog | EHSWire

Thousands of 9/11 responders, police officers, firefighters, students, and residents of downtown New York City will now be covered under the $4.3 billion Zadroga Act, which formerly denied any cancer coverage.  The medical fund is named for New York City Police officer James Zadroga, who was the first NYPD officer whose death was attributed to exposure to his contact with toxic chemicals at the site of the attacks. Those in contact with the toxic dust have sought for years to have their cancers acknowledged and treatments covered by the fund.  The government denied any connection between exposure to 9/11 toxins and an increased risk of cancer.



On June 8 ^th, NIOSH (the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) stated that those workers, residents, and student who contracted cancer due to the toxic dust on 9/11 are now considered eligible for free medical treatment for cancers including those affecting respiratory and digestive systems, and other cancers including breast, ovarian, eye, oral, urinary tract cancers, and mesothelioma, melanomas, and lymphomas.

The list of ailments now includes 14 broad categories of cancer and 50 specific types, all of which were formally denied because federal officials stated that scientific evidence showed no link between exposure to 9/11 toxins and disease. First responders have consistently argued that the real reason for denial of coverage is because of cost to the federal government.

NIOSH based its revised decision on recommendations by an expert medical advisory panel who offered their opinions in March 2011. The panel further advised, however, against coverage for brain, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, stating there is not enough evidence to connect them to fall-out from 9/11.

Included in this ruling is the right of cancer sufferers to file claims with the Federal Victim Compensation Fund, which offers compensation to first responders and residents of downtown New York City, as well as students and workers for their out-of-pocket medical treatments, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, NIOSH, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Emergency Response, toxic dust on 9/11, exposure to 9/11 toxins and an increased risk of c, Homeland Security, Air Monitoring, Zadroga Act, Federal Victim Compensation Fund

Dale Wilson, CIH, LEED AP, Sr. Project Manager

"343" is a symbol of great sadness to members of the FDNY and their families as 343 is the number of FDNY firefighters who died on September 11, 2001. That staggering figure is remembered quite readily when recalling the events of that day and during the remembrances that have followed.  However, almost six years later, the lives of two additional NY firefighters were claimed during the demolition of the 9/11-damaged Deutsche Bank Building.

The 41-story Deutsche Bank Building stood adjacent to the World Trade Center and was severely damaged by falling debris and smoke when the Twin Towers collapsed. The damage to the skyscraper was so extensive that it had to be demolished. However, as the federal EPA requires, before it could be demolished, all asbestos-containing materials needed to be removed.

By August 18, 2007, demolition was well underway and the building now stood at only 26 stories tall.  Around 3:40 pm, a massive seven-alarm fire broke out as a result of a discarded cigarette in the asbestos decontamination unit on the 17 ^th floor.  The building had not been inspected by the Fire Department since March, when it should have been inspected every 15 days.  As a result, a crucial but inoperable fire standpipe forced firefighters to raise hoses up from the street to combat the flames.   Inside the building, three firefighters struggled to pull a hose through the deconstructed building. Only one of these men survived. The configuration of the asbestos abatement added to the difficulty of fighting a fire in an already structurally-compromised building.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), an institute within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), completed a description and evaluation of the incident as part of their fire fighter fatality investigation. Several items stand out from the asbestos abatement as contributors to the fire:

• White plastic sheeting was used to partition the floor area into separate zones.  All these partitions created maze-like conditions for the firefighters.


• Numerous zones were under negative pressure, as required for asbestos abatement, possibly drawing smoke and fire into localized areas.


• Stairwell doors were blocked by wooded hatch covers as part of the construction of the asbestos containments.


• Plastic sheeting, construction debris, and exposed lumber in partitions provided additional fuel.

These contributing conditions created by the asbestos abatement project have been recognized by several authorities, and in an effort to maximize safety, New York City enacted a number of new laws to ensure that asbestos abatement projects are conducted safely.  These laws impact the ways that asbestos projects are filed, approved and inspected, and involve new levels of cooperation among the agencies that oversee asbestos and construction safety:  the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP), the Department of Buildings (DOB) and the Fire Department (FDNY).  Most notably, the NYC DEP created the Asbestos -Technical Review Unit (A-TRU) to ensure that asbestos abatement is conducted safely and a new process for filing for asbestos permits called Asbestos Reporting and Tracking System (ARTS).

ARTS enables applicants to submit applications and/or receive approvals (or objections) electronically.  During the application process, applicants are asked questions to identify if

• the building’s fire protection systems (e.g., fire alarm or sprinkler system) will be turned off as a result of the abatement work,


• abatement work will result in blocked or compromised egress or whether any components of the fire protection system are going to be removed as part of the abatement


• abatement work entails removal of passive fire protection (e.g., fire resistance rated walls, sprayed on fireproofing, or smoke dampers)

If there is an impact to any of these fire protection items then a comprehensive Work Place Safety Plan must be developed for the project indicating abatement containment areas and systems, obstructed and temporary exits, tenant protection and a description of any measures that will be taken to mitigate compromised fire protection systems or means of egress. As a final item intended to promote life safety during abatement projects, the asbestos supervisor must inspect exits daily to ensure that there are no exterior blockages or impediments to exiting. If any blockages or impediments are identified, work must stop until the blockage has been removed.  Essentially, deconstruction and asbestos-abatement work cannot compromise the safety of workers and firefighters.

As Carrie Bettinger noted in a past EHSWire blog, “ In our society and legal system it seems that, yes, someone (or many) has to tragically die before change and regulation are considered.” In this case, the tragedy was 343+2. Hopefully the A-TRU process and increased oversight from NYC DEP, DOB, and FDNY will prevent another similar tragedy from occurring.

Postscript:  The last of the Deutsche Bank tower criminal trials were completed in July, 2011. More information can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/nyregion/final-defendant-is-acquitted-in-deutsche-bank-fire-trial.html.

Read More

Topics: indoor air quality, health and safety, Construction H&S, EPA, Emergency Response, Homeland Security, H&S Training, worker safety, regulation, construction, emergency response training, demolition, 9/11, Work Place Safety Plan, asbestos, September 11, Deutsche Bank NYC, A-TRU, 9-11, Fire Safety

Dian Cucchisi, PhD, CHMM

As we approach the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, DHS (the Department of Homeland Security) is increasing their focus on utilities and chemical facilities which may become targets for terrorist activities.  In a recent ABC news release DHS Press Secretary Matt Chandler is quoted as saying “While DHS has no specific, credible intelligence of an imminent threat posed to the private sector utilities, several recent incidents highlight the on-going threat to infrastructure in the utility sectors from insiders and outsiders seeking facility-specific information that might be exploited in an attack.” Click here to view the complete Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis note regarding: Insider Threat to Utilities.

With many Emilcott public and private sector clients involved in the manufacture and/or processing of chemicals, we are often called in to assist with regulatory submissions detailing chemical usage, storage, import and export.  Since 9/11, this reporting has grown to include not just environmental and human health hazards but also those that could present a potential risk to our national security. In October 2010, we addressed this new chemical reporting requirement in  EHSWire post “Homeland Security and Chemicals of Interest”.  Starting in the latter half of 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reviewed various databases maintained by regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, to help them identify facilities that may need to comply with the DHS Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard (CFATS).  Compliance with CFATS requires completing and submitting a Top Screen analysis to the DHS.  If a facility is listed in another database for storing using “chemicals of interest” and had not submitted a Top Screen analysis, the DHS sent the facility a letter with the option to complete the Top Screen within 90 days or to write a letter to DHS certifying that the CFATS requirements do not apply to the facility.

The Top Screen analysis is used by the DHS to assign a “threat level Tier” to your facility.  If your facility was assigned to Tier 4, DHS feels that there is a low level of risk that chemicals at your facility would be stolen or used for malicious purposes.  Being assigned to Tier 1 means that the DHS feels that there is a high level of risk that the chemicals at your facility would be stolen or used for malicious purposes.  “Only facilities that submitted Security Vulnerability Assessments and were subsequently notified in writing by the Department they have been finally determined to be high-risk have access via CSAT to complete and submit the CSAT Site Security Plan (SSP).”

Have you completed your Top Screen?  Did you make any changes to your facility or operations to reduce your Tier level if you were assigned to Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3? Do you have any concerns about the tenth anniversary and your facility?

Read More

Topics: CFATS, Emergency Response, Homeland Security, Compliance, top-screen, chemicals of interest, DHS, threat level tier

Bruce Groves

Why do we care about particles floating around in our air? Small, inhalable particles are themselves pollutants that have shown to cause illness and chronic diseases such as asthma and certain types of lung cancer . Particles are also excellent indicators (or surrogates) for measuring other pollutants such as vapors and gases. By measuring the aerodynamic size of particles in our air, it is possible to identify and sometimes “fingerprint” them so that we can reduce or stop local sources of pollution immediately. The goal AND end result are to develop as clean a living and working area as possible.

What are we doing today?

Today, air monitoring is a piecemeal approach that is government-mandated but generally project related. When the project is over, the problem is essentially considered to be gone. Of course, in areas of high population density or industrial activity, continuous, real-time air monitoring of general conditions does not exist. Other than pollen counts, very little information about these pockets of high pollution and high particulates is available to the public or government agencies. And, the data that is available is generally much later and does not present an accurate picture of today’s problem.

What is the future in environmental air monitoring?

As technology has improved, so have particle detectors and the ease of data transmission and analysis. By 2013, small particle size detectors, such as those found in the Greenlight Environmental Monitoring System, will be consistently deployed in high population areas in such cities such as NYC, Tokyo, London and Los Angeles. These particle size detectors will be coupled with wind-speed and direction detectors and web cameras to pinpoint the exact sources of particle emissions (e.g., construction or industrial equipment, idling vehicles or high traffic transportation corridors) that are creating a measurable increase in local air pollution.

This web of detector stations will form an active or “live” map of a city that continuously measures and reports the concentration of various particle sizes. The “map” will be automatically programmed to provide warning levels and alarms to reveal when and where total particle concentrations exceed warning and safe threshold levels. By locating (in real time) the place, the direction of the pollution source and supporting video evidence, private companies and government agencies can take measures to stop or reduce the indicated pollution sources. Constant real-time monitoring, assessment and action will provide continuous improvement in local air quality that will reduce the onset of disease associated with inhaling dirty air. Warning systems set up through websites will enable agencies and individuals to check on their local air pollution conditions using their computer or smart phone.

What is the first step?

At Emilcott, we have been working with particulate monitoring on job sites for over 25 years. As an extension of our field experience, we’re working on a solution that meets the needs of our clients (private companies and government agencies) -- the Greenlight Environmental Monitoring System. With multiple project implementations under its belt, the Greenlight System’s particle size measurement, assessment and reporting capabilities are demonstrating how real-time monitoring is helping projects get cleaner each day – reducing the liabilities of our clients while giving them the information to keep the public and workers safe.

As the Greenlight System’s next phase of engineering development is outlined, our goal is to have a universal system that will provide comprehensive sampling in potentially high pollution areas so that neighborhood air quality can be improved and the incidence of lung disease is reduced. It will be a future watchdog for providing cleaner air locally where no such means of protecting local air quality exists today.

What do you think the future of environmental air monitoring holds? What are the benefits or challenges that you associate with monitoring and mapping pollutants in a broad geographic area?

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, indoor air quality, health and safety, Construction H&S, EPA, Emergency Response, Homeland Security, Hazardous Waste Management, Hazardous Materials, worker safety, Occupational Health, Air Sampling, Greenlight System, Exposure, environmental air monitoring, Respiratory, Public Safety, perimeter air monitoring

Barbara Glynn Alves

I cut my teeth in the environmental, health and safety (EHS) business helping prepare a group of experts for deposition in civil actions.   It was fascinating work, but I can tell you without hesitation, that not all experts are created equal. If you are in litigation regarding an environmental, health or safety issue, there is a good chance that both plaintiff and defendant counsel will enlist the services of an expert or two. Caveat emptor - shop around!

What is the role of an Expert Witness?

The legal profession relies heavily on the use of industry experts to clarify and support evidence or facts that are at issue. These experts are most often used to clarify the scientific or technical facts of the case.  Specifically, the job of the expert witness is to assist the “trier of fact” (either the judge or a jury) by helping them understand “things” they might not otherwise understand.

Counsel seek experts based on their knowledge, training, education, skills, reputation or experience in their field of expertise in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence 702 (FRE 702). As with all expert witnesses, EHS experts are generally asked to perform a variety of different tasks, depending on counsel’s strategy for the case:

• Review documents


• Conduct independent investigations


• Perform research – particularly on regulations


• Prepare an opinion about the facts


• Present an expert report – written or orally


• Give a sworn deposition


• Testify at trial

How do you shop for an EHS expert? 

Cautiously! Litigation is expensive in both professional fees and time so it pays to use the most qualified and suitable expert available.  In addition to following FRE 702, your counsel should also consider the expert’s ability to write technical documents, the level of support the expert can provide to research the facts of the case, and their comfort level providing these services in the legal forum and within a litigious and, perhaps, emotionally charged environment.

Also, to better illuminate a witness’s expertise, there are several independent certifying boards that can help you and your attorney through the vetting process. The organizations listed below use a fairly elaborate and strict certification procedure and have required continued maintenance actions of their designees.  Each one of these organizations gives additional information about their specific certification requirements and process on their websites. Their areas of expertise are also clearly explained, particularly if you are in need of a specialist.

• The American Board of Industrial Hygiene certifies professionals in the practice of industrial hygiene. ABIH is responsible for ensuring high-quality certification application and examination processes, certification maintenance and ethics governance and enforcement.


• The Board of Certified Safety Professionals certifies professionals within several designations – all related to safety in the workplace.


• The Institute of Hazardous Materials Management offers several professional certifications that demonstrate various levels of knowledge, expertise, and excellence in the management of hazardous materials.


• The Board of Environmental Auditor Certifications certifies four designation of EHS professionals which demonstrates the competency, professionalism, and ability of EHS auditors.


• The American Board for Occupational Health Nurses (ABOHN) is an independent nursing specialty certification board and is the sole certifying body for occupational health nurses in the United States and awards four credentials:  Certified Occupational Health Nurse (COHN), Certified Occupational Health Nurse - Specialist (COHN-S), Case Management (CM), and Safety Management (SM).

For both counsel and client, I recommend spending time to do research and find qualified EHS professionals who can help you win your case.  Ask for detailed CVs, referrals, samples of published writings and the achievement of board certification. As an EHS consulting group with professionals who have achieved CHMM, CIH, CSP, PE, CHMP and CHST designations, Emilcott is often asked to provide expert witness services in a wide variety of environmental, health and safety legal matters.  We take certification from independent sources seriously, as do our clients.  In fact, attainment of a professional certification has always been a requirement for our senior technical staff.  Working with the legal profession has only reinforced that philosophy.

Have you ever worked with an EHS expert witness? What did you think of the experience?

Read More

Topics: OSHA, indoor air quality, EHS, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Construction H&S, Emergency Response, Homeland Security, H&S Training, Hazardous Waste Management, Compliance, TSCA & R.E.A.C.H., Lab Safety & Electrical, Fire Safety, legal, law, experts, expert witness

Capt. John DeFillippo, CHMP, EMT-B

The health effects from airborne hazards are a frequent topic in many health and safety courses, especially in hazardous substance and hazardous waste training.  This is because so many of these exposures may not show up as health problems for decades! Consider asbestos. While it’s not harmful to the touch, inhalation can be fatal, but it can take 25-30 years before asbestosis or mesothelioma can develop. Both are chronic and often deadly diseases of the lungs.

The lungs are amazing. It surprises most people to learn that the lungs have the largest surface area of any body organ -- about 80 times more area than the skin, or about the size of a tennis court!  As we breathe, our lungs are in constant contact with the outside world and that is a lot of contact area. They need to be protected.

Over three million American workers are required to wear respirators to protect themselves from hazardous airborne contaminants.  Not surprisingly, OSHA has some pretty strict rules when it comes to protecting our lungs . Despite this , it is estimated that more than half of the respirators worn are not worn in accordance with OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.134

Did you know that…

• If workers are wearing respirators, a written program is required?


• A medical evaluation is required for anyone who wears a respirator?


• A fit test of each respirator worn must be conducted initially AND annually?


• The workplace must be evaluated to determine the hazard so that the proper respirator (there are many) can be selected?


• These rules, and others, apply to what many people refer to as “dust masks”?

Proper respirator usage training is also required. Why? Because wearing the wrong type, wrong size, or an improperly fitted respirator can be more dangerous than not wearing one at all. For example:

1. Wearing a filtering respirator in an O₂-deficient atmosphere, or the wrong cartridge, can mislead you to believe that you are protected…when you are not!


2. A mask with even the slightest poor fit allows contaminates in and may actually increase exposure levels.


3. Not everyone can wear a respirator. Because a respirator restricts your breathing, people with certain medical conditions can be seriously harmed by wearing them. This is why being medically cleared prior to use is so important, and required.

Not complying with the rules designed for occupational safety can be costly… and not just in fines and penalties. Too many workers have destroyed their health by failing to protect their delicate, vital lungs. And, it’s not just at work. Working around the home and yard can also present respiratory dangers, too. If you are not sure that you need more than a “dust mask” ask someone who can help.

Have you been properly trained to use your respirator and fit-tested to make sure it is actually stopping hazards from reaching your lungs?Are you confident that you are using your respirator properly and that the respirator that you have selected is the best for the contaminants you are exposed to?  How about the person next to you - are they in compliance?  Hopefully you and your workmates can answerYES! to these questions. If you have any questions about respiratory protection, please ask me!

Read More

Topics: OSHA, indoor air quality, Personal Protective Equipment, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Construction H&S, Emergency Response, Homeland Security, H&S Training, Hazardous Waste Management, Hazardous Materials, Compliance, worker safety, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety, Lab Safety & Electrical, emergency response training, Fire Safety, environmental air monitoring, Respiratory, Occupational Training

Dian Cucchisi, PhD, CHMM

Has your facility received a phone call from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asking you to provide information on the chemicals that you use and what measures you have in place to ensure that those chemicals do not fall into the wrong hands?  If so, you are not alone.  (If not, read on to be prepared!) The DHS is currently reviewing other government databases to determine what facilities in the United States are using “chemicals of interest.”

Prior to September 11, 2001 our nation concentrated on nuclear bombs and chemical/biological warfare as potential weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us.  On September 11, 2001 we watched as two jet airplanes were flown into the World Trade Center causing the deaths of more than 3,000 people.  Rewind the clock back to February 26, 1993.  Most of us remember the first bombing of the World Trade Center when nitroglycerin, ammonium nitrate, and smokeless powder were mixed together to create the bomb.  These are just two examples of the use of common industrial chemicals to create weapons of mass destruction.

In response to the growing awareness that chemical manufacturing facilities (as well as other facilities that store certain chemicals) may be potential targets for attack or theft by individuals wishing to use the chemicals in terrorist acts, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) passed the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) on April 9, 2007. On November 20, 2007, DHS published Appendix A to CFATS providing a list of chemicals known as Chemicals of Interest (COI) and their threshold quantities. 

The CFATS require all facilities that manufacture, use, store, or distribute chemicals above the threshold quantities listed in Appendix A to complete a screening process known as the “ Top Screen” within 60 days.  The Top Screen is used by the DHS to assign the facility to one of four risk-based tier levels ranging from Tier 1 (high) to Tier 4 (low).  The DHS will notify the facility of the need to complete and submit a Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA) and a Site Security Plan (SSP).

The DHS reviews the databases maintained by agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine if there are other facilities that may be required to submit a Top Screen.  Facilities that have not submitted a Top Screen may be notified by the DHS.  The facility will then be required to complete the Top Screen or notify the DHS in writing that the CFATS do not apply to their facility.

If you are a chemical manufacturer or perhaps just a user of qualifying amounts of chemicals, have you heard from the Department of Homeland Security? What did you think when you did hear from them?  If you haven’t even heard of CFATS, are you going to do anything to be prepared?

Read More

Topics: CFATS, EPA, Emergency Response, Homeland Security, chemical manufacturer, top-screen, chemicals of interest, anti-terrorism