US Environmental Protection Agency

                   World Trade Center Expert Technical

                   Review Panel

                        June 22, 2004

                        St. John’s University

                        101 Murray Street

                        New York, NY 10007

                        Testimony of Paul Stein, Health & Safety Chairperson

                        PEF Division 199

                        On behalf of the NYS Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO

            On behalf of the New York State Public Employees Association, I thank you once again for the opportunity to give testimony before the World Trade Center Expert Technical Review Panel. My name is Paul Stein.  I am the Health & Safety Committee Chairperson of Division 199 of the New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO, popularly known as PEF.  My union represents 52,000 professional, scientific and technical employees of the State of New York.  About 2,000 of our members currently work in lower Manhattan.  I am here today once more  to speak on behalf of approximately 350 PEF members:  most of whom work for the New York State Department of Health (including Health Research, Inc.), some of whom work for the New York State Public Service Commission, and all of whom are scheduled to be moved to offices at 90 Church Street, directly adjacent to the World Trade Center site, by the end of the first quarter of 2005.

            In my statement at the May 24, 2004 meeting of this panel, I pointed out that despite a building-wide testing and cleanup program at 90 Church Street after 9/11 costing tens of millions of dollars, there appeared to be significant omissions in the decontamination and testing done.  Despite repeated information requests going back to December of 2003, New York State officials have not provided any testing protocols or clearance testing results for the air-handling units on each floor of 90 Church Street.  It should be emphasized that these are the same air-handling units that were in operation on 9/11.  Since we did receive testing protocols and clearance testing results for practically all other parts of the building, the omission of the air-handling units was cause for serious concern.

            Recently, through PEF’s own research on the Internet, with additional follow-up, we discovered information that seems to indicate that our fears about the air-handling units are justified.  On the web site of Global Encasement, Inc. http://www.encasement.com/CH136.html , a company which manufactures various kinds of toxic and hazardous material encasement and encapsulation products, is published a “case history” of 90 Church Street.  Two excerpts from this web site read as follows:

90 Church Street is a Federally Owned Building Located Right Next to the World Trade Center Site.  U.S. Government Industrial Hygienists were Shocked to Find that Even After Extensive Cleaning of the Building’s Air Intake Vents, Laboratory Testing Confirmed there was Still Lead and a Number of Other Heavy Metals Present on these Metal Surfaces.  The Cost of Removing and Replacing All of the Intake Vents in the Building Would Be Astronomical.

The U.S. Government, A Long Time Advocate of In-Place Management of Hazardous Materials, Looked for a cost effective Solution and Recommended GLOBAL Encasement’s GE-60 Clear Surface Coat.  After the Coatings were Applied, Hygienists Took Wipe Tests and Sent Them to a Government Lab for Testing.  To Everyone’s Relief, Lab Results Showed that No Traces of Any Heavy Metals Remained on the Surfaces.

            PEF verified by a telephone call to Global Encasement, Inc. that their GE-60 Clear Surface Coat had in fact been used on the air intake vents at 90 Church Street.  When we brought this information to the attention of New York State officials, they seemed unaware of it.  We are awaiting a response from them to our information requests regarding the before and after test results of the air intake vents, the cleaning protocols for the air intake vents, and the process and justification for this use of GE-60.

            PEF consulted several experienced industrial hygiene experts, and none of them had ever heard of an air intake vent contaminated with lead and other heavy metals having been treated in this manner.  They told us that this is not standard practice.  The people working at 90 Church Street do not want to be treated as guinea pigs, testing the efficacy of sealing contaminated air intake vent surfaces, rather than sufficiently cleaning them or replacing them.  Nowhere on its product information sheet for GE-60 does Global Encasement, Inc. recommend that it be used for this purpose on an air intake vent or on any other part of an air handling unit.  No approval of this use by any professional body or testing organization is cited in their product information.  It should be pointed out that many of the air intake vents at 90 Church Street are dampers that have metal slats and hinge mechanisms that rub against each other.  And, of course, the parts that are rubbing against each other are constantly exposed to the temperature and moisture extremes of New York City weather.  Can such a sealant adequately contain the contaminants over time?  The failure to communicate this important information has further raised the fears of the future occupants of the building.

            In the absence of guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency or any other government agency, the 90 Church Street building management was free to improvise and implement what appear to be untested and possibly unsound methodologies for dealing with environmental contamination.  How many buildings in lower Manhattan and other affected locations are still contaminated due to the events of 9/11?  How many buildings were never cleaned?  How many building cleanups were incomplete or ineffective?  How many residents and workers are being put at risk daily?

            PEF calls upon the Environmental Protection Agency to:  1. establish a uniform and comprehensive environmental testing program for all structures in lower Manhattan and other affected locations; 2. establish uniform and comprehensive cleaning protocols; and 3. provide funding for the cleanup and clearance testing of all contaminated structures.  The public health is too important for this matter to be left to individual landlords and public authorities who may not have the expertise, the resources,  or the will to do a proper cleanup.

            Thank you.