http//www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/255853p-219099c.html
Several Ground Zero workers sued the federal government yesterday for allegedly lying about air quality after the World Trade Center attacks.The suit accuses officials of the Environmental Protection Agency of making misleading public statements about the level of dangerous contaminants released into the air after the twin towers were destroyed in a terror strike.
The plaintiffs say they were sent to work without proper protective gear, exposing them to PCBs, asbestos, benzene and other known carcinogens.
Among those making claims are city correction officers, a National Guard medic and a city paramedic sent to help with the cleanup. A federal marshal charges he lost two months of work because of shortness of breath and other ailments triggered by his work at the site.
Their attorneys are asking a judge to classify the case as a class action to include all workers sent to Ground Zero after the attacks. Among those named as defendants are former EPA director Christie Whitman and officials from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.
The lawsuit accuses Whitman of authorizing news releases in the day after the attacks that were "false and misleading."
All contents © 2004 Daily News, L.P.
Back to Top Safety and Health Activists Make Plans in Two Washington Meetings, NYCOSH Update on Safety and Health, Vol. VIII, No. 18, November 19, 2004http//www.nycosh.org./UPDATE/view_updates.php?updateid=103
[the first portion of this article, on the National COSH meeting, has been deleted here but can be viewed at the url given above]The American Public Health Association’s annual meeting also was held in Washington, beginning the day after the COSH meeting ended. The Occupational Health and Safety section of APHA held a series of meetings to discuss scientific developments and political and organizational challenges to promoting safety and health.
One subject that particularly concerned members of the OSH section was the recent reorganization of the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which has the effect of belittling the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which is part of CDC.
Until recently, NIOSH, which was established by Congress in tandem with OSHA to coordinate federal research on occupational safety and health, has been an independent unit of CDC. It is also the CDC’s largest unit, with more than a fifth of CDC’s staff. Under the reorganization, NIOSH has become a part a coordinating center that includes elements that have nothing to do with occupational health. The new organization will interfere with the communication between the NIOSH staff and the employers, employees and government agencies that depend on NIOSH expertise.
"The health and safety hazards that are connected with work are different in nature from most of the public health problems addressed by the CDC, with their emphasis on stages of life from infancy to old age, and the downgrading of NIOSH in this reorganization is in conflict with the original Congressional mandate that NIOSH be an independent federal agency reporting directly to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, " said David Kotelchuck, president of the APHA OSH section and a member of the NYCOSH Board of Directors. "If this reorganization is not reversed, it will be a major setback to making workplaces safe and healthful."
A long list of organization have officially opposed the reorganization including the AFL-CIO and five international unions, plus many employers, trade organizations and occupational safety groups. The APHA OSH section proposed that APHA join the chorus of opposition. On the last day of the annual meeting the APHA assembly adopted a resolution opposing the reorganization and calling for a return to the status quo.
How Will the Election Affect the Asbestos Bail-Out Bill? NYCOSH Update on Safety and Health, Vol. VIII, No. 18, November 19, 2004
http//www.nycosh.org./UPDATE/view_updates.php?updateid=103
This week the new Senate minority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), announced that he planned to continue the negotiations over asbestos-injury compensation legislation that had been started by his predecessor, Sen. Tom Daschle, who was defeated in his run for re-election.
Reid told reporters on November 16 that the negotiations are "something we need to do." He explained that even though he was a trial lawyer and trial lawyers had frequently been blamed for the need to change the asbestos compensation system, he would set aside his personal interest because "I recognize that we have problems in our country in a number of areas dealing with trial lawyers, doctors, insurance companies."
"Senator Reid should know better," said NYCOSH spokesman Jonathan Bennett. "Asbestos compensation isn’t a problem because of trial lawyers and doctors, it’s a problem because hundreds of corporations knowingly exposed tens of thousands of employees to asbestos when asbestos was known to be a killer. Anyone who thinks that the companies didn’t know that many of their workers would die slowly and painfully because they inhaled asbestos is ignoring more than three decades of legal factfinding, and literally hundreds of verdicts that not only held the companies responsible for compensating their victims but also required them to pay punitive damages, which are only possible when an employer has been shown to have been deliberately malicious. The only fair compensation system is one that provides all people with asbestos injuries the same level of compensation they can now win in court."
Sen. Reid Will Negotiate on U.S. Asbestos Fund, by Susan Cornwell, November 16, 2004, Reuters http//www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6833007[For an archive of articles and documents concerning asbestos-related occupational and environmental safety and health, visit http//www.nycosh.org/workplace_hazards/asbestos.html]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Talks to create a national fund to compensate asbestos victims will continue, the new leader of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate said on Tuesday.
"I will continue to negotiate," Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters after his election by other Democrats in the Senate. "I think it's something we need to do."
Reid's predecessor as minority leader, Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, swapped proposals for an asbestos compensation fund for months with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican.
The idea was to set up a fund to pay claims while ending victims' right to sue. Daschle and Frist agreed on $140 billion as the overall size of the privately-financed fund, but remained at odds on many details, including how many existing asbestos cases could stay in court once the fund was set up.
Daschle lost his bid for re-election earlier this month.
Some trial lawyers have reaped huge fees from asbestos cases and have been blamed by business interests for a flood of asbestos claims crowding U.S. courts.
"I'm a trial lawyer," said Reid, who is considered a moderate Democrat. "But I recognize that we have problems in our country in a number of areas dealing with trial lawyers, doctors, insurance companies."
Asbestos was widely used for fireproofing and insulation until the 1970s. Scientists say inhaled fibers are linked to cancer and other diseases.
U.S. companies have paid out tens of billions of dollars on hundreds of thousands of asbestos injury claims. Dozens of affected companies, like chemical producer W. R. Grace and Co. and car parts company Federal-Mogul Corp., have filed for bankruptcy protection in the face of asbestos claims.
Company executives and insurers are weighing whether a no-fault trust fund for U.S. asbestos victims can work -- some thought the $140 billion plan was too expensive -- or whether they favor another legislative approach.
An asbestos victims' group that had criticized Daschle for being too concessionary in his negotiations with Frist said it was hopeful that Reid would be a strong voice for victims.
"I feel like Senator Reid is not going to give the companies facing liability an out, over the victims," said Douglas Larkin, a co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.
But many advocates of legal reform, especially in the business world, saw Daschle as an obstacle to an asbestos deal. When Daschle lost on Nov. 2 and Senate Republicans netted four more seats, asbestos stocks shot upward.
© Reuters 2004.
US Insurers Mulling Asbestos Reform Approach, by Susan Cornwell, Reuters News Service, November 15, 2004
http//www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28140/story.htm
WASHINGTON - Large commercial insurers are evaluating whether a no-fault trust fund for U.S. asbestos victims can work or whether they favor another legislative approach as a new, more Republican Congress convenes next year, a spokeswoman said on Thursday.
Insurers distanced themselves months ago from a failed Senate proposal to set up an asbestos compensation fund, but also said they were willing to work with Senate leaders who were trying to negotiate a bipartisan compromise.
Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota agreed in September to $140 billion for the proposed trust fund, to be financed by asbestos defendant companies and insurers.
But they never agreed on key details including one point insurers considered critical -- whether pending asbestos claims would stay in court or shift to the fund.
Insurers argued any fund had to be a universal solution providing equity and finality. They were also unwilling to contribute more than $46 billion.
"I don't think people should assume we are going to pick up where we left off. I cannot rule out a trust fund but I also wouldn't rule out anything else," said Julie Rochman, spokeswoman for the American Insurance Association.
"A well-designed trust fund is the best solution," Rochman said. "A poorly designed trust fund is the worst solution, because if you are paying into the trust fund and still end up paying in court, it's untenable."
The AIA's board met on Wednesday and members said they needed to weigh hard questions and do more analysis. Another option previously considered would be for Congress to establish medical criteria for asbestos claims.
Insurers also had to reassess the political environment, Rochman said. The new Senate will have four more Republicans than before, while Daschle lost his reelection race. Asbestos stocks shot up after the election as traders anticipated a new push for reform.
It is uncertain who will chair the Judiciary Committee, which oversees legal issues and could resume work on asbestos reform.
Asbestos was widely used for fireproofing and insulation until the 1970s. Scientists say inhaled fibers are linked to cancer and other diseases.
U.S. companies have paid billions of dollars on asbestos injury claims. Their executives have also been debating whether to propose an overhaul of last session's legislation or start over.
"I think the major focus is still whether a deal can be made along the guidelines that were set up by the Frist and Daschle dialogue of a couple of months ago," said Stanton Anderson, chief legal officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform.
W.R. Grace Files Plan to Cap Asbestos, Other Costs at $1.61 Bln, by Bob Brennan, Bloomberg, November 14, 2004
http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=axFKhDtNZ0js&refer=us
Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- W.R. Grace & Co., a maker of chemicals and building materials, said it filed a bankruptcy reorganization plan that would limit its asbestos-related payments to $1.61 billion.
The company said it filed the plan yesterday because it hasn't reached agreement with creditors, shareholders and representatives of asbestos-damage claimants under a one-month extension granted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware. The deadline under the extension is tomorrow.
Lawsuits over asbestos, a fire-retardant material linked to cancer and other ailments, have forced more than 70 companies into bankruptcy since 1982. Such suits may eventually cost U.S. businesses and insurers more than $200 billion, the policy research group Rand Institute reported in 2002.
Shares of Grace and other asbestos-hobbled companies have climbed this year on speculation about legal settlements. They rose further after the U.S. elections on optimism that Republican victories boosted prospects for creation of a fund that would end the lawsuits. Grace shares closed last week at $14.41, almost a sixfold increase this year.
Damage Claims
Under the plan it filed yesterday, Grace would set up a trust to handle personal-injury and property-damage claims associated with asbestos products.
Grace, based in Columbia, Maryland, said it will ask for a bankruptcy court hearing to estimate how much it must provide for funding each of the personal-injury and property claims groups, as well as for administrative and legal costs of the asbestos trust.
Payments for personal-injury claims from people who can prove specific impairment of their health, property damage from use of an asbestos-based attic insulation, and administrative and legal costs would be funded with $512.5 million in cash from a December 2002 settlement reached with Sealed Air Corp., 9 million shares of Sealed Air, and some number of Grace shares to be determined by the court, Grace said. Claims for unspecified health damage would be funded with warrants to buy Grace shares.
Sealed Air shares closed at $52.83 last week, giving the 9 million shares in Grace's plan an estimated $475 million value.
Amounts required to pay proven health claims, property damage and trust costs would be capped by the bankruptcy court, while amounts for unspecified health damage wouldn't be capped, Grace said. If the stock warrants aren't sufficient to fund unproven latter claims, then it would be obligated to pay the additional liability in cash, Grace said.
Grace spokesman Greg Euston couldn't immediately be reached to comment.
To contact the reporter on this story
Bob Brennan in New York at rjbrennan@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story
Glenn Holdcraft at gholdcraft@bloomberg.net
New Study Puts Sept. 11 Payout at $38 Billion, by David W. Chen, New York TImes, November 9, 2004
http//www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/nyregion/09victim.html?oref=login
The families or loved ones of civilians killed on Sept. 11 received, on average, $3.1 million in government and charitable awards. The families of those who died in uniform that day - including police officers and firefighters - received more, their average compensation exceeding $4.2 million. Insurance payments to businesses victimized by the terror attacks, for property damage alone, totaled $7.5 billion.
These figures, some exceeding earlier estimates, others never before captured, emerged yesterday from a formal study that was two years in the making. It aimed to be the most comprehensive accounting of how much victims and businesses affected by the Sept. 11 attacks have been compensated by private and public means - an effort by charities and government agencies unmatched in the country's history.
In all, the study, done by the Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization based in Santa Monica, Calif., found that victims and businesses have so far received $38.1 billion.
Insurance companies accounted for the single greatest share of payments, about $19.6 billion. Government entities, including payments to individual families as well as loans to small businesses near ground zero, gave out nearly $16 billion.
On page after page, the study gives more weight to the sense that the economic response to Sept. 11 has played out in ways both remarkable and uneven - "of a scope and scale never before seen," it says.
And it does not mince words For one thing, it noted that the government was, at times, ill-equipped to handle the crisis, citing in particular the often criticized performance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The study also questioned whether the payouts were fair to all victims, and it asked who should foot the bill in future terror attacks, especially given the fact that terrorism insurance for businesses is now harder to obtain than it was before Sept. 11.
"The system has raised many questions about equity and fairness that have no obvious answers," said Lloyd Dixon, a senior economist with the Rand Institute for Civil Justice, who conducted the study, along with Rachel Kaganoff Stern, an associate political scientist.
Mr. Dixon added, "Addressing these issues now will help the nation be better prepared for future terrorist attacks."
Called "Compensation for Losses from the 9/11 Attacks," the 173-page study is different from earlier efforts in that it looked at the financial aftermath of Sept. 11 from the perspective of the recipients, and not the agency or body handing out the money. The study stated, as part of its tabulations, that $210 million in government and private money was spent to help people who were traumatized.
The study included some of the $20 billion pledge that President Bush made shortly after Sept. 11 to help rebuild New York. And it also took into account the federal Victim Compensation Fund, which paid out $7 billion in awards to families as part of an effort to limit lawsuits against the airlines and other parties.
But the study did not include about $11 billion in federal assistance to New York for cleanup, overtime costs and transportation repairs, Mr. Dixon said. Nor did it include payments yet to come, chiefly from pending court cases and litigation costs, as well as continuing insurance disputes.
Still, elected officials and analysts who have reviewed the report said they were generally impressed with its ambitions and execution.
"It is a significant contribution to our understanding of the scope and complexities of victim compensation programs," said Tom Seessel, a social policy consultant in Hopewell, N.J., who has conducted three studies on Sept. 11 relief, financed by the Ford Foundation. Mr. Seessel, though, did say he thought the study could have done a better job in calculating compensation to some businesses and workers.
Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a Manhattan Democrat who has been aggressive in tracking the response in Congress to Sept. 11, applauded the report, and claimed it had done what the government itself had failed to do - provide a thorough accounting of the economic costs of Sept. 11.
The likelihood that the families of uniformed personnel who were killed on Sept. 11 would receive greater payouts has been assumed for some time. But the Rand study demonstrates just how great the disparity has been - a difference determined chiefly by the array of charities set up for police officers and firefighters in the aftermath of the attacks.
The Rand study determined that the families of the more than 400 uniformed men and women who died, out of a total of 2,976 victims, received a total of $1.9 billion. On average, the families received, in addition to a $250,000 death award for public safety officers, an average of $880,000 more in charitable awards than civilians with similar economic losses.
The total amount of money paid out to the civilian dead from Sept. 11, the people on the airliners and in the offices in Manhattan and the Pentagon, wound up at $8.7 billion, with the greatest part of the compensation coming from the federal fund that calculated lost income.
The study also found that about $660 million was distributed to people who sought help because of exposure to dust and other potential health hazards near ground zero. Again, the federal fund, known as the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund, provided the bulk of the compensation - roughly $380 million tax-free. But as a caveat, the study warned that "a major unknown is whether resources will be available to pay for health care for respiratory injuries that might appear in the future."
The study also sought, in certain instances, to break down compensation by geography. For instance, it determined that residents of Lower Manhattan received about $920 million - more than half of it from property insurance. Almost 10 percent of that figure came from private charitable donations.
The researchers also sought to document how much money was paid to people who worked in New York City and filed claims that they had lost jobs or income as a result of the attacks. It found that those workers received a total of $1.7 billion, with money coming from government grants, unemployment insurance - $600 million - and charity, which accounted for $540 million.
But by far the biggest recipients of assistance were businesses - $23.3 billion, to be exact. Of that amount, $7.5 billion came from insurance for property damage, and $9.5 billion for insurance for business interruption. An additional $4.9 billion came from government incentives, such as tax breaks and programs to attract small and large companies.
And yet, should there be a future attack, the study concluded, the circumstances could no doubt be different. Congress may decide not to establish a victims' fund. And despite passage of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act in 2002, which would require the federal government to pay for most of the insurance losses in a catastrophic attack, "purchase of terrorism insurance after 9/11 has been spotty," the study said.
All the more reason, Mr. Dixon said, to plan ahead, because "the more we work this issue, the more we realize that compensation is an important part of the strategy to combat terrorism."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Vote Awaited on Choice of Firm to Restore Fiterman Hall Near Ground Zero, by David W. Dunlap, New York Times, November 9, 2004http//www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/nyregion/09fiterman.html?pagewanted=all
The fate of Fiterman Hall in Lower Manhattan, which has been unclear since the building was badly damaged during the attack on the World Trade Center, may be settled this month with a choice of architects to design its replacement.Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, a downtown architectural firm that designed the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and is working on the new Goldman Sachs headquarters in Battery Park City, has been recommended for the Fiterman Hall project to the board of trustees of the City University of New York, which will vote on the matter in three weeks. Fiterman Hall serves the Borough of Manhattan Community College, a unit of CUNY.
Estimates to replace the building have ranged up to $274 million, though it may be lower. Insurance will pay for some of the project, but full financing - perhaps the key impediment - has not been entirely settled.
Jay Hershenson, the vice chancellor for university relations at CUNY, declined to discuss specific dollar amounts yesterday. But in an e-mail message, he expressed the university's commitment to reconstruction.
"We are moving ahead because there are sufficient funds in place to construct the building, although this will fall short of our ability to complete several critical floors," Mr. Hershenson said. "This will be a serious hardship for the students, but the damaged facility is an eyesore and inconsistent with the revitalization of Lower Manhattan. We are hopeful that the state and city will help us complete the project."
The new building will house classrooms, computer laboratories, offices, a library and assembly and meeting rooms, according to the CUNY board's calendar for Nov. 29. Space will total 377,000 square feet.
The existing Fiterman Hall, 30 West Broadway, was built in 1959 as a 15-story office building, with 300,000 square feet. It was donated to the community college in 1993 by the philanthropists Miles and Shirley Fiterman and was being renovated as an academic center in 2001. The $65 million project was only seven weeks from completion on Sept. 11, when 7 World Trade Center collapsed across Barclay Street, tearing away whole parts of Fiterman Hall, setting fires inside and piling up rubble against the facade.
Since then, a new 7 World Trade Center tower has risen. Last month, still under construction, it reached its full height of 52 stories. Fiterman Hall, however, remains a wreck. Much of its south facade is exposed as a structural skeleton, sections of white brick alternating with gaping dark holes. Black netting shrouds some of the building.
Though best known as I. M. Pei's firm, Pei Cobb Freed is a partnership of designers with distinctive styles. Several years ago they moved their office from Midtown to 88 Pine Street, at Maiden Lane, a tower the firm designed in the 1970's."Their experience should be very helpful in moving our process more quickly," said Antonio Pérez, the president of the Borough of Manhattan Community College. "This is really an opportunity for our institution to be perceived, from a building perspective, as an integral part of the new face of downtown."
Mr. Fiterman died in June, but Mrs. Fiterman was "very excited" to hear that the college was moving forward, said their son, Steven C. Fiterman, a real estate developer in Minnesota and Florida.
"Now, it's even more important that that site have not just a business element but a teaching element," the younger Mr. Fiterman said. "It's really important that education have a place in that part of town."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
E.P.A.’s 9/11 leader to leave, by Ronda Kaysen, Downtown Express, Volume 17 • Issue 24 | Nov. 5 - Nov. 12, 2004
http//www.downtownexpress.com/de_78/epas911.html
Change for the Clinton-Bush panel unveiled the day after the election
Paul Gilman, chairperson of the E.P.A. World Trade Center Expert Technical Panel will resign at the end of the month to the surprise of many and relief of some.
Gilman, also the assistant administrator for research and development for the Environmental Protection Agency, will leave the agency on Nov. 30, according to Michael Brown, a spokesperson for the E.P.A. As head of the panel, Gilman steered 16 government and independent experts in devising recommendations for the E.P.A. to measure the environmental impact of the World Trade Center disaster.
The panel was well received by community leaders who had criticized the agency’s initial response to 9/11 and its subsequent program to clean and test Downtown apartments for asbestos. Gilman and his colleagues indicated in July that they were moving to institute a new testing program that included apartments, offices, firehouses and schools south of Houston St. opposed to the first program, which only included apartments up to Canal St. At the time Gilman told Downtown Express that it would cost about $12,000 per unit and no more than $9.6 million in total.
The program was called a step in the right direction by many E.P.A. critics, but the agency has not yet approved the plan and advocates are beginning to step up the pressure to have it implemented.
Although some saw Gilman’s departure as a blow, U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler said he is not so sure.
"I’m hopeful with a new chairman maybe we can get the panel to do what it’s supposed to do," said Nadler, who called for the creation of the panel a year ago with Senator Hilary Clinton. The panel, he said, has "dragged its feet." Nadler said either Gilman was responsible for moving slowly or "maybe he was under orders not to do anything." He recalled the E.P.A.’s initial deception to the public regarding W.T.C. air quality.
Last week, prior to Gilman’s quiet resignation, Senator Clinton called on the Bush administration "to take immediate action and implement a comprehensive testing and cleanup program," according to a press release.
"The panel’s work is not complete, but I have received assurances from E.P.A. that the panel will continue uninterrupted after Dr. Gilman’s departure," Senator Clinton said in a statement e-mailed to Downtown Express. Clinton, who got the E.P.A. to create the panel by holding up the Senate confirmation of E.P.A. administrator Michael Leavitt last year, added that "the panel has made progress" during Gilman’s tenure.
Brown of the E.P.A. insists the panel – and the E.P.A. – have been responsive, working on schedule and will continue to do so. "The work of the WTC expert panel is precisely where it should be. It’s where Senator Clinton and the White House counsel designed it to be," he said. "It’s a scientific process. It’s not like a Judy Garland movie. It must be designed to rigorous standards." The E.P.A., he said, will implement the sampling plan when it is finalized. Currently, a draft of the plan is available for public comment.
The nature of Gilman’s departure raised eyebrows among community members. "I was shocked," said Micki Siegel de Hernandez, the alternate community liaison to the E.P.A panel. She spoke with Gilman on the afternoon of Nov. 3 hours after he announced his resignation to his staff – and he made no mention of his impending departure. His omission, more than his departure itself, struck de Hernandez as odd. She speculated that perhaps he did not want the changing of the guards to affect the panel’s work.
Catherine McVay Hughes, the panel’s community liaison, sees Gilman’s departure as a setback. "It will be a loss for the panel," she said. "Dr. Gilman led the panel in the right direction, but there is still room for a lot of improvement in the sampling program and related cleanup." Under Gilman’s watch, the panel has been responsive and supportive to community concern, said Hughes. Whether that will continue with a new leader, remains to be seen.
"Is this going to lead us to the E.P.A. taking proper action or is this going to lead us to have to make a dramatic regrouping?" said Kimberly Flynn, member of 9/11 Environmental Action. Gilman and the panel, she said, were generally responsive to community concerns, although the results that come back each month from the E.P.A. often do not reflect what have been discussed and agreed upon at the previous month’s meeting. "We have two kinds of experiences with the panel. A lot of the panelists agree with the community at the meetings," she said. "In between meetings, ground that the community feels it has gained washes out."
One E.P.A. critic, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, suggested that Gilman’s departure the day after President Bush was reelected might have political motivations. Either Gilman left because it became evident to him that the E.P.A., under the current administration, would never implement the panel’s recommendations or he left because the revised parameters of the plan no longer represented the initial intentions of the Bush administration.
Brown said that Gilman waited until after the election to leave so it wouldn’t be characterized as political. "In the vein of the ‘Godfather,’ he was made an offer that was too good to refuse in September," said Brown. Gilman decided, "The timing would be better if he waited until after the election. He didn’t want others to characterize it as something other than it is," said Brown.
Nadler agrees with the E.P.A. on this much, at least. "A political motivation would be if he left a day before the election," he said.
Gilman will lead "a new consortium of major research universities," said Brown. Whoever replaces him will continue the spirit of the panel. Nevertheless, "there’s only one Paul Gilman," he said.
Gilman is expected to lead the next public hearing of the E.P.A. expert panel scheduled for Nov. 15 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at St. John’s University at Murray and West Sts. For more information, call 800-803-2833 or go to www.E.P.A.gov/wtc/panel.
Ronda@DowntownExpress.com
All rights reserved. Downtown Express
Research Chief Resignation Marks First Departure in Expected Exodus, Inside EPA via InsideEPA.com, Issue Vol. 25, No. 45 , November 5, 2004http//environmentalnewsstand.com/
Following electionEPA research chief Paul Gilman is the first of numerous political appointees expected to leave the agency following President Bush’s reelection to a second term, after many of the appointees postponed their departures until after the election, agency and other sources say.
Gilman, who served as assistant administrator (AA) of the Office of Research & Development, was also appointed as the agency’s top science advisor by former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and continued in that role under current Administrator Mike Leavitt. Gilman sent a memo announcing his departure on the morning of Nov. 3, as it became clear Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) would not be able to win the state of Ohio. The memo is available on InsideEPA.com.
The sources say many appointees delayed desired departures after the White House asked them last year, as the Bush re-election campaign was beginning, to stay with the administration until after the election.
Some career staff may also speed their departures from the agency because of disappointment with the administration’s policy priorities and unwillingness to work again under what they consider an environmentally unfriendly administration, agency sources say.
Sen. John Kerry’s Nov. 3 concession has cleared the way for the Bush administration to begin planning for a second term.
Some EPA sources say an early indication of a post-election turnover may have come in October, when Region II Administrator Jane Kenny notified staff that she would leave the agency at the end of November. Kenny served under former New Jersey Gov. Whitman (R), and joined EPA after Whitman was named agency administrator.
Other sources have suggested in recent weeks that Leavitt would remain in the administration, even though one industry source says Leavitt would like to head the Interior Department (DOI), should current Secretary Gale Norton choose to leave the administration.
While the scope of such departures is not yet clear, historically the second term of an administration experiences significant personnel changes shortly after the election, sources note.
One informed source says the White House would like Leavitt to remain at EPA at least for the immediate future. One EPA source notes that Leavitt has just started in the job and left the Utah governor’s office to join the Bush administration, so he is unlikely to depart unless he is offered a more attractive federal appointment, like the possible DOI slot.
Speculation has also swirled for months over whether EPA air chief Jeffrey Holmstead would leave the agency, with some sources saying Holmstead is "out the door" and others calling such talk speculation. An EPA spokesperson did not return a call seeking comment.
The EPA source says the White House is likely to replace some acting AAs, like Tom Dunne, who is serving as the head of the Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response (OSWER). "They’ll probably pick a new AA for OSWER unless Tom Dunne is so connected" that the Bush administration decides to keep him in place, the source says.
With respect to other agencies, some Republican sources say Bush may move to replace Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, with the list of possible successors including Tom Kuhn, the head of Edison Electric Institute, which represents large utility companies.
As Bush gears up for a second term, sources also indicate that even high-level officials who stay on may not do so through the end of the administration. According to a former Office of Management & Budget official, White House regulatory chief John Graham may leave the White House two years into the second term, possibly to start a private consulting firm. OMB would not confirm this, and Graham declined to comment on the record.
Agency and other sources also say many agency career staff are likely to leave following the president’s re-election, noting that a high percentage of EPA’s staff is close to retirement age and dissatisfaction with the idea of working under a Bush White House again may prompt departures. EPA staff "are going to be jumping off buildings" over the idea of a second Bush term, one industry source says.
Hundreds of people have been tested and treated for respiratory problems - or "World Trade Center cough" - since New York City's twin towers fell, most of them suffering from asthma-like breathing difficulties. Some people, however, maintained persistent but unidentifiable coughs that could not be picked up using standard chest computed tomography (CT) scans.
"These people had symptoms that just didn't fit the typical pattern. They weren't treated at first because there wasn't any objective evidence of what was wrong," says lead author David Mendelson at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, US.
So Mendelson's team turned to a technique called end-expiratory CT. In a normal chest scan, patients are asked to take a deep breath and hold it. In end-expiratory scans, patients take in a deep breath and release it slowly. In a healthy individual, the entire chest should be seen on the scan as an even grey colour - the CT representation of moving air.
The doctors scanned 29 rescue and recovery workers with unexplained symptoms. In 25 of these they saw splotchy black patches deep down in the finer, branching tubes of their airways. Black spots mean that air is trapped and stagnating in the lungs, making it difficult for the patients to breathe freely.
Pulverised cement
In order to gauge the severity of the air-trapping pattern, the authors developed a visual scale that ranged from 0 to 24. Mendelson says that smokers would probably fall somewhere between 0 to 4 on his scale. The World Trade Center rescue workers, however, averaged 10.55.
The extent of air trapping was found to reflect the amount of time each worker was exposed to the dust and debris of the buildings' collapse.
The most likely culprit behind this type of airway disease is pulverised alkaline cement, says Mendelson, who presented his findings at the Radiological Society of North America's meeting in Chicago on Tuesday. All of the subjects are now being treated with anti-inflammatory drugs.
Richard Russell, of the British Thoracic Society in London, UK, is not surprised by the degree of lung tissue damage caused by exposure to the fine cement dust, which is capable of penetrating deeply into the lungs and damaging the delicate tissues found there.
But he warns that the rescue workers' breathing problems might be permanent "This is a physical problem that's not going to go away with simple anti-inflammatories," he says. "We'll just have to watch and see if the patients get better over time and make sure they're not smoking."
© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
Critics Say Unclear EPA Role At Ground Zero May Undermine Cleanup, Clean Air Report via InsideEPA.com, Issue Vol. 15, No. 23, November 4, 2004
http//environmentalnewsstand.com/
EPA critics say the agency's recent reluctance to outline its possible indoor cleanup responsibilities for parts of Manhattan affected by the World Trade Center attacks three years ago may undermine upcoming efforts to test the area for contamination, since property owners and businesses may avoid testing if it could require them to pay for cleanups.EPA last month revised its plan for testing indoor air in lower Manhattan in response to recommendations by an agency-convened panel of experts, which included broadening the geographical scope and type of pollutants to be tested. But a coalition of labor unions, community groups and environmentalists is strongly opposing the agency's revised plan, saying it does not include an adequate cleanup commitment by EPA, which could undermine the testing effort if it remains unclear who will pay for an eventual solution at the site.
EPA is seeking comment on the draft sampling plan and will discuss public response at an advisory panel meeting Nov. 15. EPA will begin recruiting Manhattan participants for the expanded testing next year, an agency source says.
The coalition of local activists, including Sierra Club and 9/11 Environmental Action, sent an Oct. 26 letter to EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt calling on the agency to affirm seven key "principles," including expanded testing of Manhattan and a pledge of responsibility to clean up where warranted. Agency officials are saying they will address EPA's role in possible cleanups after the testing effort is complete.
But the group's effort is drawing support from key New York lawmakers Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democrats who both issued statements last week calling on EPA to pledge to a cleanup.
While agency critics and congressional sources acknowledge EPA is significantly expanding its testing plans, they are concerned the plan lacks any detail on how EPA and New York City officials will handle a cleanup if warranted by the testing information. The agency has not affirmed its authority to gain entry into commercial buildings and require or conduct cleanups, several critics say, and may disqualify for cleanup buildings that have high levels of specific WTC-related contaminants but do not meet a proposed agency threshold for cleanup.
But agency officials say they are planning to outline cleanup responsibilities once a key WTC expert panel requested by Sen. Clinton and chaired by EPA science advisor Paul Gilman reviews results from the testing effort and makes its recommendations. Determining a strategy for cleanup responsibilities now would "not be time and energy well spent" given the number of scientific uncertainties related to the testing effort, a key agency official says.
EPA's revised testing plan issued Oct. 21 would significantly expand the geographical region to be studied by the agency, and would include commercial businesses and public buildings such as schools and firehouses, as well as controversial contaminants such as lead. The agency's earlier plan focused only on re-testing already visited residences, but was strongly rejected by the agency's WTC advisory panel as too limited.
EPA's response to the environmental aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks has sparked controversy over the past few years, with Sen. Clinton and other key lawmakers pushing the agency to address outstanding concerns about public health risks associated with the site. Agency officials say there is no strong scientific evidence of significant long-term risks to residents but that the agency is working to address citizens' outstanding concerns.
Several sources say the efforts by environmentalists and the senator were timed to seek a response from EPA on cleanups before the presidential election. One congressional source says Clinton is expressing her impatience with EPA's progress on testing. "Now it's time for the EPA to back up [its] plan by committing to doing testing and cleanup," Clinton says in a Oct. 26 statement.
But agency officials explain that while the revised plan "doesn't speak to cleanup," EPA will proceed to cleanup if there is strong evidence from the testing that people are facing significant risks from contamination, even if the contaminants at issue are not part of any specific WTC "signature."
As part of the expanded testing effort, EPA will try to establish a "signature" or chemical marker that will serve as an indicator of World Trade Center-related contamination.
The agency source says EPA has repeatedly clashed with some New York city officials regarding responsibility for cleaning up WTC contamination. Several sources say city health officials fear that findings of high lead levels -- whether associated with the WTC attacks or not -- would trigger city requirements to remove the lead and could even lead to possible lawsuits from residents. Gilman has met with city officials several times -- most recently in October -- to try to reach an agreement with city officials, the agency source says.
The agency is trying to determine if it has the authority to test in buildings against the wishes of the owner, the source says.
But a key WTC panel member says lack of clarity over who will be responsible for cleanups as a result of testing may act as a "tremendous disincentive" for participation in the voluntary testing program, which already is facing weak participation and may provide only limited findings.
Several agency critics are concerned that EPA may try to remove lead from the list of contaminants it will test for. A source with 9/11 Environmental Action says that the community will fiercely oppose "any no signature/no cleanup clause, where an exceedance of one or more [contaminants of potential concern] known to be prevalent in WTC dust does not trigger cleanup."
Agency officials say they will test for lead, but that background levels of lead in lower Manhattan buildings may obscure actual WTC-related public health risks.
EPA Science Advisor Stepping Down, U.S. Newswire, November 4, 2004
http//releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=39405
To National Desk, Environment ReporterContact Cynthia Bergman of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 202-564-9828 or bergman.cynthia@epa.gov
WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Dr. Paul Gilman, EPA's Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development and the Agency's Science Advisor, has announced that he is stepping down at the end of November to accept a private sector opportunity.
"Paul Gilman is a man of clear thinking, sound policy judgment and impressive scientific expertise," said EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt. "His ability to translate complex scientific analyses into public policy decisions is rare and has been deeply appreciated during his service."
Significant accomplishments during Dr. Gilman's tenure at EPA include the increased use of peer review for scientific and technical work products, the launch of the international Global Earth Observation System of Systems initiative and an expansion of the Agency's use of emerging scientific tools like genomics and computation.
Dr. Gilman said, "Those who conduct research, perform science and develop technology at EPA are members of a high-performance, world-class team. It has been my great privilege to serve them and all Americans over the past three years. Together we have advanced ways in which to better protect human health and the environment."
Prior to Dr. Gilman's confirmation in April 2002, he served as the director for policy planning for Celebra Genomics, a bio- information and drug discovery company known for having decoded the human genome. He also has served as the executive director of the life sciences and agriculture divisions of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences and as associate director of the Office of Management and Budget's Division of Natural Resources, Energy and Science.
An acting assistant administrator will be named before the end of November.
EPA accused of conflict of interest over chemicals study, by Geoff Brumfiel, Nature 432, 6 (04 November 2004); doi10.1038/432006ahttp//www.nature.com/cgi-
taf/dynapage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v432/n7013/index.html Study of pesticide effects on children under a cloud.[WASHINGTON] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is under fire from a watchdog group for accepting US$2 million from a chemical-industry lobby organization to study the effects of pesticides and household chemicals on children.
The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based non-profit body, says the funding represents a clear conflict of interest for the EPA. "The concern is that the regulated industry, which makes the products being tested, is buying access to the study's design, data and findings," says Jane Houlihan, the group's vice-president for research.
But Paul Gilman, assistant administrator for research and development at the EPA, says the money comes with "no strings attached". He adds that the cash-strapped agency would be unable to do the research without the money. "Is ignorance better?" he asks.
The dispute concerns the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, a three-year investigation that was originally designed to look at children's contact with commercial pesticides. When EPA scientists wanted to expand this to include chemicals commonly found around the home, they approached the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry lobby group representing 135 chemical manufacturers, according to Carol Henry, the council's vice-president for research.
Henry says that the ACC agreed to give an additional $2 million to include chemicals found in everything from furniture coatings to cosmetics.
The ACC was willing to fund the study because it believes it will ultimately lead to sounder regulations, says Henry. "If you don't know how chemicals get to various individuals, you have to make a lot of assumptions under the regulatory procedures," she says.
Gilman adds that although the industry group will have a right to review the study 45 days before publication, it will have no influence on the research findings. "We're being very open and public about this process," he says.
But Houlihan remains concerned. "The EPA's research budget is over $500 million a year, so you have to ask why the agency is relying on the lobbying arm of its own regulated industries for such a small sum of money in a study that could be critical to children's health protection," she says.
© 2004 Nature Publishing Group
Bad funding, Nature 432, 1 (04 November 2004); doi10.1038/432001bhttp//www.nature.com/cgi-taf/dynapage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v432/n7013/index.html
The research of an environmental regulator is unlikely to win public trust if it relies on money from industrial lobby groups.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hasn't violated any laws by accepting US$2 million from a chemical-industry lobby group to help it conduct toxicology research. But it is crossing a line that a regulator in the world's wealthiest nation should not have to.
As reported on page 6, environmental groups claim that accepting the funds represents a clear conflict of interest for the EPA, which is tasked with regulating companies that are members of the American Chemistry Council, the lobby group in question.
The study under scrutiny will examine the pathways by which young children are exposed to pesticides and household chemicals. The decision to accept the money is driven, EPA officials say, by a desire to conduct as comprehensive a study as possible, given constraints on the agency's research budget, which has remained essentially constant for almost a decade and is expected to dip slightly this year. The lobby group's cash will allow EPA scientists to analyse samples for the presence of potentially toxic compounds that they would otherwise have to leave out of the study. The agreement between the EPA and the chemistry council attaches no constraints, they add.
This is not a unique case the EPA has struck agreements with dozens of companies to study a vast range of environmental problems over the past decade. But $2 million is one of the largest sums ever accepted by the agency from an outside source and, in this case, the source has a direct interest in the outcome. Even if the wording of the agreement protects the research from any direct interference, it is hard for officials to argue that it doesn't give the appearance of compromising the agency's independence as a regulator.
Administrators at the agency may have little choice but to make deals with industry in order to move essential research forward, but there are ways to limit the appearance of impropriety. For example, industry could agree to give to a general research fund, rather than picking and choosing specific projects to support. Or it could partner universities or environmental groups on projects that all parties agree are important. Such moves would allay some of the concerns of environmentalists, and allow industry groups to support the science that they believe will ultimately lead to better regulation.
But above all, it is essential not only for trust but also for adequate regulation that the EPA's science budget be increased. The agency's mission requires it constantly to address questions of exposure and toxicity that are politically controversial, scientifically complex and poorly understood. It has been apparent for years that its research budget of about half-a-billion dollars a year is inadequate. Congress must give the cash-strapped agency the resources it needs to properly implement the plethora of mandates that it is meant to enforce. This idea is not so radical it is supported by industry and environmental groups alike.
© 2004 Nature Publishing Group Research director resigns on heels of Bush victory, by Marty Coyne, Senior Reporter, Greenwire, November 3, 2004 -- 245 p.m.http//www.eenews.net/Greenwire/Backissues/110304bn/110304bn.htm
EPAIn the first of what could be a number of changes at the U.S. EPA under a second Bush administration, the agency's top research official stepped down from his post this morning just as news of President Bush's re-election was announced.
Paul Gilman, EPA's assistant administrator for research and development, offered few details about his decision to leave EPA effective Nov. 30. In a formal announcement, Gilman said he informed President Bush of his decision this morning, following up with an e-mail to agency employees this afternoon.
The Bush administration has met fierce criticism from environmental groups and many in the academic community for its positions on a range of environmental issues, most notably climate change. The administration has among other things resisted calls to regulate carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, despite growing scientific consensus that human sources of CO2 are contributing to global warming.
In July, more than 4,000 academics signed a petition circulated by the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists decrying the administration's environmental policies and calling for more independent scientific analysis of policy. Administration officials dismissed the document as making "sweeping generalizations based on a patchwork of disjointed facts and accusations" (Greenwire, July 9).
Gilman, who defended EPA's science as recently as late last month before a conference of environmental journalists, took effort to praise his staff for the soundness of its work, noting increased peer review of agency science and a better balance of members on scientific advisory panels. "You have taken several significant steps to strengthen the use of your high-quality science in agency decision-making," he said in the staff e-mail.
In recent statements, Gilman has included among his staff's greatest accomplishments the confirmation of links between human health and exposure to fine particulate matter (PM). Through more sophisticated measurement and air modeling tools, Gilman said EPA has been able to achieve even greater certainty about where and how individuals are exposed to PM.
"This is another text book case study of how people inside and outside government can collaborate to do the right science," Gilman said of the PM work in his resignation e-mail to EPA staff. "This work is informing agency decisions and will help people breathe easier and live longer."
Before joining EPA, Gilman served on the staff of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) for 13 years. He was sworn in as EPA's research chief in April 2002 following a stint as policy director for Maryland-based Celera Genomics, best known for its work in sequencing the human genome. Prior to Celera, Gilman was National Academy of Sciences executive director of life sciences and agriculture, and the White House Office of Management and Budget's associate director of natural resources, energy and science.
Charles Jeffress Resigns as Chief Operating Officer, United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Press Office, November 3, 2004
Washington, DC, November 2, 2004 – The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) today announced that Charles Jeffress has tendered his resignation as Chief Operating Officer (COO). Mr. Jeffress was appointed to the position in June 2002. Board Chairman and CEO Carolyn W. Merritt stated "Charles served with us during an important period of growth for the CSB. We thank him for his two years of service to the agency and we wish him well in the future."
The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. The agency’s board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in safety management systems.
The Board does not issue citations or fines but does make safety recommendations to plants, industry organizations, labor groups, and regulatory agencies such as OSHA and EPA. Further information about the CSB is available from www.csb.gov.
For more information, contact Daniel Horowitz at (202) 261-7613 / (202) 441-6074 or Sandy Gilmour at (202) 261-7614 / (202) 251-5496.
Critics Say Unclear EPA Role At Ground Zero May Undermine Cleanup, Clean Air Report via InsideEPA.com, Issue Vol. 15, No. 23, November 4, 2004
http//environmentalnewsstand.com/
EPA critics say the agency's recent reluctance to outline its possible indoor cleanup responsibilities for parts of Manhattan affected by the World Trade Center attacks three years ago may undermine upcoming efforts to test the area for contamination, since property owners and businesses may avoid testing if it could require them to pay for cleanups.
EPA last month revised its plan for testing indoor air in lower Manhattan in response to recommendations by an agency-convened panel of experts, which included broadening the geographical scope and type of pollutants to be tested. But a coalition of labor unions, community groups and environmentalists is strongly opposing the agency's revised plan, saying it does not include an adequate cleanup commitment by EPA, which could undermine the testing effort if it remains unclear who will pay for an eventual solution at the site.
EPA is seeking comment on the draft sampling plan and will discuss public response at an advisory panel meeting Nov. 15. EPA will begin recruiting Manhattan participants for the expanded testing next year, an agency source says.
The coalition of local activists, including Sierra Club and 9/11 Environmental Action, sent an Oct. 26 letter to EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt calling on the agency to affirm seven key "principles," including expanded testing of Manhattan and a pledge of responsibility to clean up where warranted. Agency officials are saying they will address EPA's role in possible cleanups after the testing effort is complete.
But the group's effort is drawing support from key New York lawmakers Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democrats who both issued statements last week calling on EPA to pledge to a cleanup.
While agency critics and congressional sources acknowledge EPA is significantly expanding its testing plans, they are concerned the plan lacks any detail on how EPA and New York City officials will handle a cleanup if warranted by the testing information. The agency has not affirmed its authority to gain entry into commercial buildings and require or conduct cleanups, several critics say, and may disqualify for cleanup buildings that have high levels of specific WTC-related contaminants but do not meet a proposed agency threshold for cleanup.
But agency officials say they are planning to outline cleanup responsibilities once a key WTC expert panel requested by Sen. Clinton and chaired by EPA science advisor Paul Gilman reviews results from the testing effort and makes its recommendations. Determining a strategy for cleanup responsibilities now would "not be time and energy well spent" given the number of scientific uncertainties related to the testing effort, a key agency official says.
EPA's revised testing plan issued Oct. 21 would significantly expand the geographical region to be studied by the agency, and would include commercial businesses and public buildings such as schools and firehouses, as well as controversial contaminants such as lead. The agency's earlier plan focused only on re-testing already visited residences, but was strongly rejected by the agency's WTC advisory panel as too limited.
EPA's response to the environmental aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks has sparked controversy over the past few years, with Sen. Clinton and other key lawmakers pushing the agency to address outstanding concerns about public health risks associated with the site. Agency officials say there is no strong scientific evidence of significant long-term risks to residents but that the agency is working to address citizens' outstanding concerns.
Several sources say the efforts by environmentalists and the senator were timed to seek a response from EPA on cleanups before the presidential election. One congressional source says Clinton is expressing her impatience with EPA's progress on testing. "Now it's time for the EPA to back up [its] plan by committing to doing testing and cleanup," Clinton says in a Oct. 26 statement.
But agency officials explain that while the revised plan "doesn't speak to cleanup," EPA will proceed to cleanup if there is strong evidence from the testing that people are facing significant risks from contamination, even if the contaminants at issue are not part of any specific WTC "signature."
As part of the expanded testing effort, EPA will try to establish a "signature" or chemical marker that will serve as an indicator of World Trade Center-related contamination.
The agency source says EPA has repeatedly clashed with some New York city officials regarding responsibility for cleaning up WTC contamination. Several sources say city health officials fear that findings of high lead levels -- whether associated with the WTC attacks or not -- would trigger city requirements to remove the lead and could even lead to possible lawsuits from residents. Gilman has met with city officials several times -- most recently in October -- to try to reach an agreement with city officials, the agency source says.
The agency is trying to determine if it has the authority to test in buildings against the wishes of the owner, the source says.
But a key WTC panel member says lack of clarity over who will be responsible for cleanups as a result of testing may act as a "tremendous disincentive" for participation in the voluntary testing program, which already is facing weak participation and may provide only limited findings.
Several agency critics are concerned that EPA may try to remove lead from the list of contaminants it will test for. A source with 9/11 Environmental Action says that the community will fiercely oppose "any no signature/no cleanup clause, where an exceedance of one or more [contaminants of potential concern] known to be prevalent in WTC dust does not trigger cleanup."
Agency officials say they will test for lead, but that background
levels of lead in lower Manhattan buildings may obscure actual WTC-related public health
risks.
http//www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=6703526
[For an archive of articles and documents concerning asbestos-related occupational and environmental safety and health, visit http//www.nycosh.org/workplace_hazards/asbestos.html]
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stock in chemical and other companies battling asbestos litigation rose on Wednesday on President Bush's apparent reelection and expanded Republican majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Last month, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist vowed to continue efforts to establish a multibillion dollar fund to compensate asbestos victims, but acknowledged the issue was stalled in Congress.
But with the prospect of four more years of pro-business Republican government following Tuesday's election, Wall Street seemed confident such a fund would be established and ease the liability of companies targeted with asbestos lawsuits.
The shares of USG Corp., a construction materials company operating under bankruptcy protection since June 2001 because of asbestos claims, were up $2.98, or 13.43 percent, at $25.17 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
Bankrupt chemicals company W.R. Grace and Co. saw its stock rise $1.49, or 14.07 percent, to $12.08 and packaging maker Owens-Illinois Inc. was up 99 cents, or 5.51 percent, at $18.96.
Stock in defense, construction and energy company Halliburton Co., which last month posted a quarterly loss on $230 million in asbestos-related charges, rose 97 cents, or 2.73 percent, to $36.51.
And diversified manufacturer, Crane Co., which also cited asbestos liabilities for its recent quarterly loss, saw its stock rise 83 cents, or 3 percent, to $28.54.
In October, Frist said he was not giving up on proposals to set up a special fund to compensate people who have been sickened by the fibrous mineral, while taking away their right to sue.
Frist and then-Senate minority leader, South Dakota Democrat Tom Daschle, had swapped proposals for an asbestos compensation fund for months. The two leaders agreed on a sum of $140 billion as the overall size of the proposed fund, which would be privately financed. But they remained at odds over other issues, including how many of the hundreds of thousands of existing cases would be allowed to play out in court once the fund was established.
Daschle lost his bid for reelection in Tuesday's general election, so the status of the issue is up in the air.
Proposed asbestos legislation involves one of several limits on lawsuits that the Republican majority has been unable to pass through Congress in the last two years. The others include curbs on class action suits and medical malpractice claims.
© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.
Many Saw Free Air-Conditioner in Post-9/11 Clean-Air Program, by James Barron, New York Times, November 2, 2004 http//www.nytimes.com/2004/11/02/nyregion/02fund.html
In the spring of 2002, as the weather warmed up for the first time since the 9/11 attack, federal and state officials announced a plan to reimburse New Yorkers who replaced air-conditioners damaged by dust and debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center. People who bought air purifiers to rid their apartments of microscopic particles from the fallen buildings would receive government money as well.
Because so much time had passed and because the problem was believed to be so widespread, the government offered to pay without requiring proof that the recipients had actually been affected by the catastrophe. By May 2002, the program was even promising cash advances to people who could not afford air-conditioners or air purifiers, without requiring them to present receipts.
It was an honor system of sorts, one that relied on the belief that people shaken by a national tragedy would not turn around and use it for personal gain - in this case, a free air-conditioner as warm weather approached.
But a federal audit released yesterday suggests that that is exactly what happened.
About 62 percent of the people who were reimbursed for air-quality products were not eligible, based on a sample of 4,435 applicants. Given that as many as 225,000 people asked for money back, the finding could mean that roughly 140,000 people used the program improperly, according to Dennis White, an official who worked on the audit for the Department of Homeland Security.
The audit showed, according to Representative Carolyn B. Maloney of Manhattan, that the agencies that arranged the reimbursements "did not run a sound program with proper or clear guidelines on what people should do about potential contaminated air or how to properly utilize the programs that were meant to help them."
The audit criticized the Federal Emergency Management Agency and New York State, saying that they "reduced managerial controls and increased the risk of abuse." In all, the audit said, decisions by agency and state officials "greatly increased the number of apparently fraudulent applications."
Some people who applied for - and received - money were miles from ground zero. And a program that had been budgeted for $15 million ballooned to more than $45 million.
The money was paid out under an effort known as the Individual and Family Grant program. By April 2002, seven months after the 9/11 attack, the program had received 17,000 requests for assistance, but had approved only 3,500. Before long, a fresh round of applications came in from Chinatown and other parts of Lower Manhattan. Some applicants had seen misleading advertisements from appliance companies implying that the program would provide air-conditioners at no cost.
To cope with all the applications - and with what state officials say were pressures from New York's congressional delegation to speed the payments - the emergency management agency and the state relaxed the rules. The audit said that inspections to check on air-conditioners were dropped "for valid practical reasons," and that officials made other decisions "to reduce paperwork."
The audit said the agency and the state "took action to address suspected fraudulent applications" once problems had been identified. The audit also said there was no evidence that anyone who was eligible had been denied air-quality equipment.
The audit stemmed from a request by Ms. Maloney and by Representative José E. Serrano of the Bronx, both Democrats. They, in turn, said that the request was prompted by an Associated Press dispatch filed on Feb. 20, 2003.
That dispatch quoted an emergency management agency official as saying that New Yorkers had taken advantage of the program. The dispatch also quoted the official, Brad Gair, as saying that 90 percent of the applications had come from people who were not suffering from the effects of contaminated air. "Now we have people way out in Queens or upper Manhattan where there was no potential for air-quality impacts," he was quoted as saying.
But the audit said the 90 percent figure was not based on reliable methodology. The audit said the figure was based on an assumption that the only people eligible for the air-quality money were the 25,000 people who lived in Lower Manhattan and qualified for a home-cleaning program. "It was not reasonable to assume that they were the only ones who were affected by contaminated air," the audit said. "I.F.G. officials believed that residents in other parts of the city also may have suffered from contaminated air and would be eligible for air-quality items."
The audit focused on rules that were supposed to prevent ineligible purchasers from receiving money - safeguards that Mr. White said were relaxed in the post-9/11 confusion. He said it had been difficult to tell whether people who were reimbursed had owned air-conditioners before 9/11, as required.
"We believe there was a high incidence of people who were not damaged by contaminated air who got air-conditioners or other air-quality items,'' he said. He said that however many there were - and there was no way to tell - the audit did not mean that large numbers of air-conditioner buyers had committed fraud.
A spokeswoman for the emergency management agency, Cindy Taylor, called the audit "a thorough report."
"At the end of the day, it's an intricate program to administer," she said, "and we agree with some of the findings. I think FEMA worked to balance the interests of helping disaster victims, and did a good job in helping the victims.''
For its part, the Labor Department said it had run the program under guidelines from the federal agency.
"All modifications to the administrative plan were approved by FEMA before implementation," said a spokesman for the Labor Department, Robert Lillpopp. He said that his department had initially asked for more oversight of the application process, but that "based on congressional interest in the program, the process was changed so that claimants could receive payments faster."
Representative Serrano said that the audit "again shows the mismanagement that occurred in FEMA's response to the disaster."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company