Early in the morning on Thanksgiving eve, just a few miles from my house in Arlington County, Virginia,  Mr. James Bea, 59, was killed on the job.   Mr. Bea and his county-employee co-worker were working at the site of a water main break.  They were removing a set of temporary lights that had been erected to allow others workers to proceed through the night with the sewer line repairs.  Mr. Bea, who had been a county employee for 24 years, was electrocuted and his co-worker suffered serious burns.  

Arlington County issued a news release (11/25/09) and a video story through its AVNetwork  called ““Power Line Tragedy.”   The video release features Mr. James Bea’s boss, Bob Griffin, the director of the Department of Environmental Services (DES), reminding us that public sector employees are often hidden from view, unrecognized for the work they do, and working in conditions that most people would find “deplorable.”   From the county’s video release, I’ve posted at the end of this post the text of director Bob Griffin’s remarks.  

Mr. James Bea’s death is being investigated officially by the Virginia OSH, and hopefully they will help provide the Bea family and his co-workers some answers.  His death gave me the chance to explain to my husband, Jim, that the death of a public sector employee in 26 other States would not result in any official investigation. 

“That’s a big gap…a big loophole, isn’t it?” he said.

Indeed it is.  But the “Protecting America’s Workers Act” (S. 1580 and H.R. 2067) would correct this unfairness and ensure that 9 million workers have OSH protections.  This huge OSH gap affects workers and their families in: AL, AR, CO, DC, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL,* KS, LA, MA, ME, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, NH, OH, OK, PA, RI, SD, TX, WI,  and WV.

Several years ago, Casey Jones (whose husband Clyde worked for the City of Daytona Beach, Florida—not covered by OSHA) and the late Carolyn Merritt of the CSB tried to draw attention to the gap in H&S protection for state, county and local employees.   I’m counting on George Miller, Lynn Woolsey, Patty Murray, Tom Harkin and other Members of Congress to act on S. 1580 and H.R. 2067 early in 2010. 

In the meantime, I’ll listen again to the words of Arlington County DES director Bob Griffin on the death of long-term county employee James Bea, 59:

“He was the type of guy, like a lot of the folks that we have in  DES who are generally unrecognized for the work they do.  Working through the night, in conditions in which most people find deplorable.  Last night in the trench with water.  He ’s the the type of person who was plowing snow, also the type of person you’d not find complaining about the work.”

“He loved his family, he loved his coworkers, he loved working for the county.  It’s an enormous loss, it’s an  absolute enormous loss for us.”

“When you’re saying ‘thank you’ on Thanksgiving, remember the folks who are providing the service that people don’t think about.  The folks that are providing the water, and making sure the sewage is taken away, and the roads are safe to be on.”

“If nothing else, it’s a poignant reminder of how dangerous the job really is, and sometimes that gets forgotten.”

[Excerpt from Arlington County, Virginia's video news release]

*Note: On September 1, 2009, the Illinois Department of Labor received approval from federal OSHA to administer a State Plan for public sector workers.  That’s an estimated 725,000 state, county and local employees who will soon have OHS rights and protections.

By Myra Karstadt

During World War II, the United States was the “Arsenal of Democracy,” and American manufacturing literally won the war.  After World War II and through approximately 1970, Americans manufactured and exported more goods than any other country, and the manufacturing sector’s robust state provided workers with enviable incomes and job security. The United States is no longer the manufacturing powerhouse it was, and these days it sometimes seems the most notable product and export of the U.S.A. is dubious financial instruments.

Even though manufacturing and heavy industry generally may no longer be central to the country’s industrial base, the problem of worker exposure to hazardous chemicals remains.  The decline of manufacturing, where workplaces might have had unions and been relatively large, might even make the issue of hazards of worker exposure to hazardous chemicals more important and more problematic. Workers in industries not thought of in the past as chemical-dependent may be more likely to be working in small facilities and less likely to have union representation and/or access to occupational health professionals, and they may well be unfamiliar with chemical hazards.  In fact, workers in industries not previously seen as primarily concerned with chemicals could be likened to bystander workers, exposed to hazardous substances being used by others in their vicinity but who are themselves unprotected and untrained.

The issue of information needed by workers exposed to chemicals has always been the same: who needs to know what?  

The “who” part of the question is easy to answer.

As noted above, workers in manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries alike may have significant exposure to hazardous chemicals.  Examples of non-manufacturing workers with possible exposures to hazardous chemicals abound.  For instance, people who work in auto repair and body shops may be exposed to asbestos, fibrous glass, talc, plastic resin monomers, and solvents (potentially carcinogenic and/or neurotoxic).  People in other types of repair shops- more common in days of old, when consumers fixed appliances such as mixers, toasters and even TVs rather than discard them- had extensive exposures to various solvents, and repair work of various types still typically involves use of solventsThose who repair appliances- a practice less common than it used to be- may be exposed to high levels of hazardous chemicals, since repair work often involves the use of solvents.   Refurbishing furniture, a popular approach in this Craig’s List and flea-market age, can result in furniture strippers being exposed to methylene chloride.  Housekeeping workers in office buildings and hospitality facilities such as hotels and convention/conference centers may be exposed to hazardous cleaning materials.    

Chemical exposures in non-manufacturing industries may be particularly interesting because those exposures may extend to consumers.  People who fix cars at home, work as artists (stained glass, plastic sculpture) at home, or do fix-it jobs or work with their children on projects involving plastics or solvents all need information on what they’re working with.  The National Library of Medicine has a data base that includes several thousand unedited material safety data sheets (MSDS) and is called the “Household Products Database.”  There doesn’t seem to be an equivalent resource, holding MSDSs and accessible on-line free of charge, available for workers.

So it’s clear that all workers, whether in industrial sectors that have long experience with using chemicals or in sectors that have not usually been thought of as having extensive exposure to chemicals, may well have significant exposure to hazardous chemicals.     

The question of “what” people exposed to hazardous chemicals need to know is harder than the issue of who needs the information.

In the 1960s and 1970s, it was established during Congressional hearings and in government reports that workers generally didn’t know the identity of the chemicals to which they were being exposed.  At that time, it was acceptable practice to have containers in the workplace labeled “Mix A” or “Product 146,” without identification of the chemicals in the containers.  The worker right-to-know movement was predicated on the importance of giving workers the identity of the chemicals to which they were being exposed, so that there would be no more “mystery containers.” 

The federal government has developed two federal worker-right-to-know regulations.  The first, the Hazards Identification proposed regulation, had as its principal goal giving workers chemical identity information.  Confidential treatment for chemical identity was severely restricted, especially when it came to extremely hazardous chemicals such as carcinogens.  The Hazards Identification proposed regulation was “label-based,” with chemical identity information appearing on the label of any container of a product with a covered chemical.  Having a label-based regulation would be particularly helpful for a worker in a small or non-union facility, since the worker would not have to ask permission to see a list or a product safety manual, but would only need to look at the label for the container he was using.

As noted in a previous post, the Hazards Identification proposed regulation, which appeared as a “midnight reg” just before the end of the Carter Administration and the beginning of the Reagan Administration, was withdrawn soon after its publication by the anti-labor Reagan appointees to the Department of Labor.  The idea of giving workers information on the identities of the chemicals with which they were working was anathema to the chemical companies and other big businesses to which the Reagan Administration was highly responsive.

The Reagan Administration’s proposal for dealing with worker right-to-know, the Hazard Communication Standard, became final in 1983, and has been in effect ever since.  That standard not only downplays worker access to the identity of chemicals to which they are exposed, but provides for virtually unlimited confidentiality for any chemical, no matter how hazardous.  Rather than provide workers with chemical identity data, HazCom gives workers the right to see material safety data sheets (MSDSs) prepared by their employers or the manufacturer (or marketer) of a product.  The MSDSs are supposed to provide evaluated toxicity information for chemicals, but safeguards to ensure high quality of those evaluations are seriously lacking.  (In fact, the HazCom standard is a travesty, and needs to be replaced or given a major re-do; some problems with HazCom were identified in my February post on MSDSs, and a subsequent post will deal with that issue in greater detail.)

These days, MSDSs are usually available through product marketers’ websites, but results of a recent preliminary research project established that that is not always the case:  some marketers don’t have Websites, some don’t link MSDSs directly (or easily) with product descriptions on the Website, and some companies require a written request to release MSDSs.  Previously identified problems with toxicity information provided on MSDSs persist: many contain out-of-date or inaccurate information, and data may be inconsistent, even within groups of MSDS from a single company.  Even with some efforts at OSHA to improve MSDSs (proposed regs), the sheets are unlikely to improve meaningfully for workers and consumers without major changes in HazCom and in OSHA’s implementation and enforcement of the regulation.

What are the special problems likely to be for workers in non-manufacturing industries who use chemicals and rely on HazCom for protection against unsafe chemical exposures?  Since workers may well be in small non-union facilities relative to the large facilities used in classic manufacturing, occupational safety and health staff may not be available through the employer.  Similarly, union health and safety personnel may be unavailable to non-union shops (and these days even unions with occupational health and safety staff may have cut back, so even union shops may have a difficult time obtaining the technical assistance they would have expected a few decades ago).  Because both labels and MSDSs may require extensive interpretation to be useful to workers, lack of access to company safety and health staff at the worker’s facility, inability to get help from union safety and health staff, and OSHA’s (and NIOSH’s) failures to reach out to workers with interpretation of training materials, workers in non-industrial settings may have particular problems obtaining and interpreting data on hazardous chemicals.   

What if the current “post-industrial” condition turns out to be only temporary?  What if the U.S. is successful in creating a major manufacturing industry based on “green” technology?  Previous experience with fabrication of computer chips could be instructive as regards safety and health issues.  During the period when chips were being fabricated in clean rooms in the U.S., one thing you could have said about the clean rooms was that it was good to be a chip in a clean room, but not so good to be a worker.  The workers were exposed to a variety of common solvents and exotic materials, such as special metals.  Workers needed information on those chemicals, and it would appear that not much was done by employers to give workers those important data on possible hazards of chemical exposures during chip fabrication.

It’s interesting to speculate about where workers for new industries would come from, and whether those workers would be sophisticated users of chemicals- because they came from manufacturing-sector industries that have laid off many workers who were used to dealing with chemical hazards- or whether the “green” technology workers would be new to manufacturing and, possibly, unsophisticated users of chemicals.  It might be wise for OSHA and NIOSH to begin to plan for new workers with likely specialized needs for information on the consequences of exposure to some exotic chemical products, as well as exposure to solvents of varying degrees of novelty.  
 
So what’s needed now to provide workers with adequate information on the chemicals with which they’re working?  In an ideal situation, we would start from scratch, providing for fully informative labels and support from OSHA (and NIOSH) for publications and data- sharing sessions during which chemical hazards in particular workplaces could be discussed with federal agency personnel.  OSHA would also be providing funding for labor unions and industry groups (or associations) working together in labor-management consortia or separately.  If we’re going to be stuck with MSDSs and HazCom, some careful and, at the same time, aggressive work by OSHA will be needed to get meaningful data out to workers.   NIOSH has a role to play, too, in educating healthcare providers about problems associated with workplace chemical exposures.  Ties will have to be established with EPA, since that agency’s decisions on chemical carcinogenicity can affect OSHA and since EPA does not have a good record providing public information on hazardous chemicals, either in or out of the workplace.

Finally, there’s an important role to be played by unions.  Union health and safety experts have played major roles in advocating for control of toxic chemicals and have worked hard to counsel workers about prevention of exposures to hazardous chemicals.  Unions will have to make sure OSHA and NIOSH, in the hands of leadership sympathetic to workers for the first time in many years, provide resources adequate to ensure that all workers obtain the information they need to protect themselves against hazardous chemicals.

Myra L. Karstadt, Ph.D is a consultant in toxicology, and is located in Chevy Chase, MD.

reported by Mine Safety and Health News: Martin County: New Information  Released, But Information on Mine Seals Still  Redacted

A Labor Dept.’s Inspector General report on the whistle-blower complaints surrounding the 2000 Martin County Coal Co.  impoundment failure in Kentucky, verifies a change in MSHA’s  investigation after the administration of George W. Bush came into power.  In addition, the IG report shows that it  never questioned the lead investigator into the impoundment failure – Tony  Oppegard – who headed the investigation team until the day G.W. Bush was  inaugurated. 
 
The IG investigation was launched after Mine  Academy head Jack Spadaro claimed that Bush Administration officials were  interfering in the investigation into one of the largest environmental disasters  in the eastern U.S.    Spadaro was “second in command” on the MSHA  investigation team looking into the causes of the failure, and was head of the  team when Oppegard was absent.

The IG report shows that after the top  echelon of MSHA changed with administrations, the tone and scope of the  investigation also changed. 

One of Spadaro’s complaints was that MSHA District  Manager Tim Thompson ended the evidence-gathering phase of the  investigation early.  Thompson told the IG he believed he was wrapping  up when he took over from Oppegard.  However, Oppegard told Mine  Safety and Health News that when Thompson took over

“We had  only interviewed about 1/2 of the witnesses that Ronnie Brock and I had targeted  for interview.”

The MSHA accident investigators described to  the IG intense and often heated discussions regarding various facets of the  investigation.  The conflicts included the inclusion of information related to the Martin County Coal Company (MCCC) impoundment approval process, proposed violations against MCCC, the  seal construction in the abandoned mine below the impoundment, access to  investigative records, the inclusion of MSHA District Manager Tim Thompson’s  “postscripts,” he wanted added to the report,  the accuracy of impoundment  maps, the Triad Engineering report, MSHA management influence, and the relevance  and availability of several memorandums.
 
 The document also shows that an MSHA engineer  Larry Wilson believed there were major problems with the Martin County impoundment after a small failure in 1994, and made nine recommendations, some  of which were over-ridden or not considered by a new MSHA District Manager Carl  Boone, who was not familiar with the 1994 failure.  Wilson stated he felt the  impoundment should not have been used anymore and made the nine recommendations  “to make it difficult or unfeasible to continue its use.”
 
Mine Safety and Health  News has been trying to get a completely unredacted version of the  IG report since 2003.  A new request for the report was made on February 3,  2009.  MSHN raised concerns with the Labor Dept. after the newsletter was told on Oct. 9, 2009 that Tom Mascolino [who retired from DOL/SOL/ MSH in 2006] who is now a FOIA contractor for MSHA, was reviewing the IG report before it was  released to Mine Safety and Health News.  A formal  letter of protest was sent to the Labor Dept., since Mascolino was part of  the citation process against MCCC, and was involved in some of the controversies  brought up by Spadaro. 
 
There are still major redactions in the report,  including the entire section on the mine seals, and Mine Safety and  Health News is considering an appeal to U.S. District Court.  A complete story will be in the next issue of  Mine Safety and Health News.

The American Public Health Association (APHA) sent a letter to President Obama urging support from the White House on CDC guidelines on N95 respiratory protection for healthcare workers from the H1N1 virus.   APHA OHS Section members learned last week that three organizations—Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), Infectious Disease Society of American (IDSA), Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC)—-asked President Obama to intervene in federal OSH policy, specifically to:

• modify the federal PPE guidance to allow the use of surgical masks (instead of N95’s) for routine H1N1 patient care; and
• institute an immediate moratorium on the enforcement of OSHA’s requirements for healthcare facilities related to the use of N95 respirators in relation to H1N1 influenza.         

APHA politely rebutted these ideas:

“We support the efforts of public health agencies such as HHS, CDC, NIOSH, DOL and OSHA to engage the National Academy of Sciences’ institute of Medicine to full examine the evidence that has lead to sound federal public health policy.  Thank you for your support for sensible, evidence based policies for protecting healthcare workers and the public.”    

The APHA letter was signed by the organization’s executive director, Georges Benjamin, MD, FACP, and Kate McPhaul, PhD, RN, chair of the APHA OHS Section.

It’s time for me to boast about the most amazing assembly of worker H&S researchers and activists: the OHS Section of the American Public Health Association.   We closed out our 95th year with the association adopting three progressive policy resolutions and electing Linda Rae Murray, MD, MPH as the next APHA president. 

First, CONGRATULATIONS! to the OHS Section’s own Linda Rae Murray who is a 30-year member of APHA—-the largest and most diverse public health organization in the world.  Dr. Murray is the chief medical officer for the Cook County (IL) Dept of Public Health, a general internist who practices at a south side Chicago community health center, and on the faculty at the Univ of Illinois Chicago in the Dept of Occupational and Environmental Health.

Linda Rae’s platform resonates with many of us in the OHS community: 

“If  we are going to make progress toward a healthy nation we have to overcome those issues which divide us: issues of racism, immigrant rights, gender discrimination and workers’ rights.  It is only through unity that we will have the strength to make the changes our country needs.”

Linda Rae’s guiding principles include:

• The United States must join the rest of the industrialized world in guaranteeing the right to medical care to everyone, including those in the country without proper documents.  [APHA supports a single payer insurance plan.]
• We must continue the struggle for full and equal rights for everyone, especially people of color and workers.
• Health is a fundamental human right and a state of social well being.
• Health requires peace.
• Health requires a planet that is whole and sustainable.
• Health requires equity and social justice.

Second, APHA’s membership considered 15 new policy proposals, three of which were developed by the OHS Section.   Our perseverance and in-depth knowledge of the issues paid off.  APHA’s Governing Council adopted all three new policies involving worker health and safety.  The association now has progressive policies on the books calling for

1. the elimination of asbestos and improvements in asbestos-disease prevention;
2. a major overhaul of the workers’ compensation system; and
3. attention on border crossing deaths along U.S.-Mexico lands.

The newly adopted APHA policy on asbestos calls on Congress to pass legislation banning the manufacture, sale, export and import of asbestos-containing products.  That means product to which asbestos is intentionally added and products in which asbestos is a contaminant, such as quarried stone, talc and vermiculite.  Among other things, the resolution urges the US Surgeon General to warn and educate people periodically about the public health issues related to asbestos exposure, and for NIOSH and OSHA to issue an annual statement to alert workers in high-hazard occupations (e.g., vehicle mechanics, construction, shipbuilding) of the adverse health risks associated with exposure to asbestos, and include information on potential early warning symptoms.

The newly adopted APHA resolution on workers compensation, describes the disparities in coverage and care for workers who suffer work-related injuries and illnesses.  It provides a mini-history of efforts to reform the system, none of which have resulted in fundamental improvements, and offers insight into more just and equitable workers’ care and compensation programs in other nations.  The resolutions offers eleven specific recommendations, including:

• the current fragmented workers’ compensation system should be replaced by a national program with uniform coverage of health care and adequate loss-of-earnings benefits for all occupational injuries and illnesses;
• the system should be a more comprehensive system based on disabilty, not impairment, such as exists in The Netherlands, where all employees are covered by a compulsory government administered plan that insures against loss of earnings from long-term disability resulting from any occupational injury or disease;
• the system should include a national standard of coverage for all workers, including part-time workers, contractors, immigrant workers, and employees of small companies;
• the system should be integrated in a seamless manner with the Social Security disability program (SSDI);
• health care for injured workers should be provided by a national health care system independent of industry involvement and insurance industry control;
• the system must have mandatory root cause investigation requirements for all occupational injuries and illnesses; and
• the system must have money set aside for training of occupational health and safety professionals, preventative initiatives based on root injury and illness analysis, worker health and safety training, and mandatory reporting by health professionals.

The new APHA policy on the public health crisis of border crossing deaths along the US-Mexico border provides evidence demonstrating how the militarization of the US-Mexico border has created a public health crisis.  The policy includes numerous recommendations for government, health care providers and educators, such as urging:

• the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Border Patrol to comply with international standards of health and human rights by adopting policies and strategies that do not endanger the lives and health of migrants;
• the Border Patrol to comply with the recommendations of the GAO to improve its methods for collecting data in order to accurately record border crossing deaths; and
• healthcare organizations to provide needed acute health care services to undocumented border crossers to take appropriate steps to assure adequate continuity of care to those currently within the detention center system.

The election of Dr. Linda Rae Murray, and the successful adoption of these three policy resolutions demonstrates the vibrancy and relevance of the APHA OHS Section in the movement to advance workers’ rights and health & safety.   

!!Special offer to federal or State OSHA or MSHA employees!!   The first 5 federal or State OSHA or MSHA employees to join APHA (only $16.25 per month) after reading this post can receive a fabulous tote bag (made in the USA) featuring an Earl Dotter photograph from his Farmworkers Feed Us All exhibit.   Just join APHA now, select OHS as your primary Section, and send me an email (celeste.monforton@gwumc.edu) with your mailing address, and I’ll send you a tote bag.    

Will it be you from OR-OSHA, or you from Kansas City-OSHA, or you from MSHA HQ??   Who from OSHA, State OSHAs, or MSHA will be the newest members of our 700-strong APHA OHS family?

Celeste Monforton, DrPH, MPH is with the George Washington University School of Public Health.  She has been a member of APHA since 1997, and served this year as Chair of the APHA OHS Section. 

Cong. George Miller (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) of the House Education and Labor Committee sent a letter to the chair of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) urging him to take immediate action to make public all of their votes.    It turns out that about 99% of the CSB’s votes are conducted through a “paper notation process, in which documents are circulated for individual voting without public discussion between Board members.”  Thus, these paper deliberations are not subject to the Sunshine Act.   Miller and Woolsey’s letter notes that the CSB has taken:

“approximately 720 notation votes since its inception, but with few exceptions, neither Congress nor the public knows the outcome because notation votes are not publicly disclosed or posted on the CSB website.”

Moreover, in a 2002 Inspector General report, the CSB was asked to post its notation votes on a public website.  Cong. Miller and Woolsey wrote, “we are troubled that this recommendation was not implemented.”  Besides chastizing the CSB’s Chairman and Board members, Miller and Woolsey offer worthwhile examples of federal agencies with much more transparent voting records:  the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).  They also give Mr. Bresland some specific marching orders and timelines for making public previous and future notation votes.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee voted out the nomination of David Michaels, PhD, MPH for the position of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. The voice vote crossed party lines, with Republican Senators Isakson, Enzi, Alexander, Gregg, Murkowski, as well as all the Democratic Senators, voting in favor of sending the nomination on to the full Senate.  Senators Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) and Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) recorded their votes as no.

Congratulations, Professor David Michaels!   Read the media release issued by the American Public Health Association, urging swift Senate confirmation of Dr. Michaels.   Georges C. Benjamin, MD, FACP, FACEP (E), the executive director of APHA, notes:

“Dr. Michaels is eminently qualified to lead OSHA.  He has proven his skill at protecting workers in a regulatory setting and has earned the respect of the scientific community for his commitment to science as the backbone of sound public health and environmental regulation.”

Jay Lowry, the editor of FirefighterHourly.com is calling on NIOSH to obtain the input of front-line firefighters before publishing its investigation of firefighter deaths.  In “NIOSH Firefighter Reports Need Overhaul”, Lowry writes:

While the [NIOSH] team does a fine job of gathering facts the presentation [of information], and how it can relate to firefighting on the ground leaves much to be desired.”

The reports subject to Lowry’s critique fall under the NIOSH program “Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation & Prevention”.   Over the last two months, NIOSH has posted 15 reports covering fire fighter fatalities occurring in November 2006 through June 2009.

A loyal reader of The Pump Handle reminded me of a 2007 letter from the HHS’s Inspector General to Senator John Kerry reporting on recommendations made to NIOSH to improve the firefighter fatality investigation program’s effectiveness.   Impetus for the IG’s report stemmed in part from an MSNBC report “Fire chiefs call for action on firefighter deaths.”

Depending on the nature of the fatality incident, Lowry recommends the NIOSH seek reviews from individuals skilled in different firefighting areas of expertise: urban, suburban, rural and wildland.  Jay Lowry is a former firefighter and fire marshall, and a current or past member of the South Carolina State Firefighters Association, National Fire Protection Association, and the Society of Professional Journalists.

by Andrew Schneider, cross-posted from Cold Truth

At last, the world’s oldest public health organization has joined the funeral dirge-paced parade to ban asbestos in the U.S.  The 50,000-member American Public Health Association adopted a resolution at its annual meeting this week calling on Congress to pass legislation banning the manufacture, sale, export, or import of asbestos-containing products including products in which asbestos is a contaminant.  Asbestos, a known carcinogen, annually claims the lives of more than 10,000 Americans.

“With this new policy, APHA is joining the World Federation of Public Health Associations and other international organizations calling for a global ban on asbestos mining, and manufacturing, and the dangerous practice of exporting asbestos containing products,” said Dr. Celeste Monforton, chair of the organization’s Occupational Health and Safety section.  “As the World Health Organization noted in 2006, the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos related diseases is to stop using all types of asbestos.”

Asbestos was banned in the U.S. briefly in 1989, after the Environmental Protection Agency conducted a ten-year study, spent millions in research and accumulated 100,000 pages of justification. The agency announced that it would phase out and ban virtually all products containing asbestos.  But the fledgling ban lasted less than two years.  The well-funded Canadian Asbestos industry challenged the ban.  The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court acknowledged that “asbestos is a potential carcinogen at all levels of exposure,” but nevertheless threw out the life-saving legislation over technical issues. 

In 2007, after six years of effort, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray muscled a new asbestos ban into existence.  The original language of the precisely crafted legislation would have addressed almost all commercial sources of asbestos. However, between Murray signing off on a solid and important bill and the time it was passed unanimously by the Senate, the asbestos industry, primary the automotive and sand and gravel gangs, had Republicans gut it to almost total uselessness. 

Almost 50 industrialized nations have banned the lethal fibers. The U.S. and Canada are the most notable exceptions.  Canada still mines and exports asbestos and too many U.S. lawmakers buckle to the power of industry lobbyists.    Yet like Murray, many continue the fight. 

“APHA set a precedent with strong language aimed at preventing asbestos exposure to eliminate deadly diseases.  We can’t let history repeat itself – it is time to ban asbestos and fund educational and research programs,” says Linda Reinstein, Executive Director of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO).  “APHA renews our optimism that a federal asbestos ban is eminent,” added the head of the asbestos victim’s group.

See ADAO/APHA OHS Section news release here.

The Occupational Health & Safety Section’s Annual Awards Luncheon is always one of the highlights of the APHA Annual Meeting, due its combination of inspiring awardees and creative musical skit.

This year’s award winners won well-deserved recognition for (among other achievements) advancing the rights of chemical workers; developing a health disparities institute; honing methods for worker training; and organizing workers exposed to harmful substances to demand justice and compensation.

Sylvia Kieding won the 2009 Alice Hamilton Award, which “recognizes the life-long contributions of individuals who have distinguished themselves through a career of hard work and dedication to improve the lives of workers.” Kieding began working at the Denver headquarters of the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union in 1973, and spent 25 years making the union’s Lifelines newsletter “one of the most distinguished and powerful educational newsletters in the US.” She currently coordinates a medical surveillance program for thousands of OCAW members in the atomic sector. Although Kieding was recovery from hip surgery and unable to attend the luncheon, cell phone technology enabled her to say a few words of acceptance and hear the thundering applause for her four decades of tireless work as a labor, environmental, and community activist.

Kerry Souza won the 2009 Lorin Kerr Award, which “recognizes a younger activist for their sustained and outstanding efforts and dedication to improve the lives of workers.” Her work includes an innovative program that enhances community health centers’ abilities to recognize and treat work-related injuries among low-income, minority, and immigrant workers, and the development of the Occupational Health Disparities Institute, which has become a significant part of the OHS Section activities at the APHA Annual Meeting. Souza’s tireless work for the section – which, as she noted in her acceptance speech, involves a lot of 7am conference calls – includes extensive program planning and facilitating the participation of young members.

Steve Schrag won the 2009 Tony Mazzocchi Award, which “gives recognition to grassroots H&S activitists in Local Unions or other local organizations fighting for the H&S rights of workers.” As “one of the country’s premier worker trainers,” Schrag uses the action-oriented Small Group Activity Method to “engage workers on both their own health and safety issues and larger policy and political goals.” Since 1985, he has conducted workshops, seminars, and conferences for over 11,000 workers on a range of issues, and his most recent development is a leadership training based on Tony Mazzocchi’s biography. A board member at both ConnectiCOSH and NYCOSH, “he is always at the center of political discussions and developing new training programs.”

Antonio de Marco Rasteiro won the 2009 International H&S Award, which “recognizes individuals with outstanding achievement in the field of occupational health and safety outside the United States.” Rasteiro worked for 21 years at the Shell Brasil S/A pesticide manufacturing plant in Paulinia, Brazil. After learning about the risks of pesticides and realizing that many of the illnesses suffered by plant workers were probably linked to their occupational chemical exposures, Rasteiro and other former workers created the Associação dos Trabalhadores Expostos a Substâncias Químicas (Association of Workers Exposed to Chemical Substances), or ATESQ, to demand compensation. Together with the Sindicato Químicos Unificados (United Chemical Workers) and under Rasteiro’s leadership, ATESQ has been fighting for more than five years and has raised the profile of their case and the broader issue of worker exposure internationally. Like many of his colleagues, Rasteiro suffers from hypertension, hearing loss, and prostate and lung cancers. In his acceptance speech, Rasteiro told the audience that more than 51 former plant workers have died at ages from 28 to 60, compared to an average regional life expectancy of 75; he himself does not expect to live much longer, but “I do not intend to give up the responsibility that was born inside me, guided by my conscience.” Rasteiro told the group that he expects this award from APHA to strengthen their struggle.

Congratulations to all of the 2009 award winners! You can read more about the honorees and the awards’ history in the award program, and learn more about past honorees here.

After the awards were given, it was time for the traditional skit. This year’s creative masterpiece featured unscrupulous corporate executives contracting the “greedy swine flu,” which consists of an unusual constellation of symptoms (including pustules). A healthy dose of Occupational Safety and Health spirit allows vaccine-production workers to create an altruism vaccine that alleviates symptoms not only of the virus but of the executives’ dismissive attitudes toward worker welfare. Songmaster Luis Vazquez captured the visionary spirit with new lyrics to John Lennon’s “Imagine” (which we hope to be able to post here shortly – stay tuned!). Finally, the event closed with the traditional sing-along of “This Land is Your Land.”

As always, the Occupational Health & Safety Section’s Annual Award Luncheon captured the spirit of the section and of the movement for health and safety: staunch dedication to the cause of worker’s health and safety, a visionary spirit, and a willingness to combine a serious purpose with a spirit of fun.

It’s a tradition for APHA’s Occupational Health & Safety section to invite top officials from OSHA, MSHA, and NIOSH to a “Talking Heads” session at each APHA annual meeting. The session “The Future of Occupational Safety and Health in the Obama Administration” featured Jordan Barab, Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA; John Howard, Director of NIOSH; and Gregory Wagner, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy of MSHA. The room was packed with an audience eager to hear how this new leadership plans to address worker health and safety issues that haven’t been getting enough attention in recent years.

John Howard, who was also head of NIOSH for several years during the Bush administration, characterized the change in administrations by saying that “it’s gratifying to be in the position of having your science wanted.” He emphasized that green jobs are not enough, but that “green and safe is what we need.” He also reminded the audience that there are many hurdles that have been put in place over the previous decades by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government, so progress will still take lots of time and effort.

Greg Wagner told the crowd that it’s time to put the “H” of “health” back in MSHA, and noted that part of the reason the regulatory process takes so long is that there are many opportunities for public involvement. He called for greater participation from miners and urged the audience members to get involved, too.

Jordan Barab rattled off a list of things OSHA has already done: fined BP a record $87 million, issued several egregious violations (five will be issued by the end of the month, compared to four during all of last year), and ended the quotas for alliances and voluntary protection programs, to allow the agency to focus on enforcement. He said OSHA will be hiring more staff to deal with inspections, standards, and whistleblowing; holding a conference on immigrant workers; and turning attention to the problems of violence, stress, and fatigue.

The audience had a lot of questions and comments about how the agencies should go about rulemaking, enforcement, and recruiting the next generation of occupational health and safety professionals:

Rulemaking, Enforcement, and Research to Practice
In response to a question about how to speed up rulemaking, Barab said that they’re looking at getting rules out of the Department of Labor faster and in discussions with the Office of Management and Budget about that agency’s role. Wagner noted that MSHA has been more successful in getting rules out because its stakeholder groups are more limited and well-defined, and stated that their agency is trying to speed up the process by reducing the number of “bites of the apple” that each agency subgroup gets.

On the enforcement side of things, Wagner explained that MSHA will work on using predictive modeling to better target enforcement, with the goal of predicting where the next disaster may occur and averting them. Barab gave the BP penalty as an example of how OSHA is getting out the message that it’s going to be hard on lawbreaking employers, and said the agency would avoid as much as possible the practice of downgrading willful citations (which we saw all too frequently over the past several years). He noted that the lack of a confirmed Solicitor of Labor is a problem.

Celeste (who was moderating the session) asked the audience what they wanted from NIOSH, and one response was “research to practice” – that is, making sure that research gets applied in the field rather than just sitting in someone’s filing cabinet. Howard responded that research-to-practice is embedded in both internal and external research, and that he hopes to fund RtP centers similar to NIH centers that work on translating research into clinical practice. Later in the discussion, he also told the audience, “I can’t ask for appropriations, but you can.”

Recruiting the Next Generation
One question regarding how to get more young people involved in occupational health and safety generated lots of comments from audience members as well as the panelists. NIOSH funds Education and Research Centers and the Occupational Health Internship Program, and Presidential Management Fellowships are available with the Department of Labor. Wagner pointed out that government jobs are attractive in a bad economy, and MSHA is hiring right now. Barab mentioned that funding extramural research is a great way to get young investigators involved in the field, and that he lists this as a priority to appropriators.

When Celeste (who was moderating the discussion) asked how many people in the room had gotten their start through an ERC, OHIP, or New Directions grant, several hands went up. The fact that several actual young people approached the microphone with questions or comments also seemed like a good sign; one of them suggested that the agencies improve their websites, because she’d found it difficult to find what she was looking for online.

Towards the end of the program, someone asked about the state of the bureaucracy at OSHA. Barab said he’d been favorably surprised, and “we’re trying to unleash the inner Labor Department.” Overall, the feeling in the room was one of excitement and optimism – and it was clear from the tone and content of the questions that the occupational health and safety community will be holding the new leadership to very high standards.

If you went to this session, what kind of feeling did you get from it? And, whether or not you were there, what questions or comments do you have for the leaders of these agencies?

As is always the case at APHA, there are far too many fascinating presentations for one person to see – so I hope those of you who are also here in Philly will add comments about some of the sessions you’re attending and what you’re learning. Yesterday, I attended a session on health and safety in healthcare, which brought up some populations and scenarios that are too easily overlooked when discussing healthcare workers’ health and safety:

Elayne Kornblatt Phillips highlighted the risk of bloodborne pathogen exposure for hospital auxiliary workers and hospital laundry workers. Although nurses account for the majority of needlestick injuries, auxiliary and laundry workers can also be injured by improper disposal of sharps or by sharps piercing the sides of disposal containers. Laundry workers can also be exposed to bodily fluids, and their risk could be reduced by washing laundry before sorting it (rather than doing the sorting first, which is standard in the US) and running laundry through a metal detector to catch metal items tangled in sheets and gowns.

Holly Carpenter of the American Nurses Association spoke about nurses who serve as first receivers for patients exposed to chemical hazards. Although chemicals dissipate between when the exposure occurs and when the patient arrives at the hospital, and nurses don’t tend to be as heavily exposed as first responders, it’s important for them to have procedures and equipment in place to deal with these situations. Hazard vulnerability analyses, emergency management plans, incident command systems, and PPE are all important for nurses dealing with patients who’ve had acute exposures to pesticides, meth labs, workplace spills, industrial cleaners, and vehicle accidents (particularly those involving overturned tractor trailers).

Jennifer McGowan from the University of Illinois-Chicago discussed an evaluation of health and safety curricula for homecare workers, who care for elderly and disabled patients in their homes. Her team was evaluating whether different agencies’ trainings adequately address hazard control through engineering, administrative, and personal interventions. One interesting point she made was that some training programs take a client-focused rather than worker-focused view – for example, explaining how to keep clients safe from infections without also teaching about how workers can protect themselves from infections (comprehensive training will, of course, include both).

If you’ve learned something interesting at the meeting, let us know in the comments – and, of course, you can read about many more sessions at the APHA Annual Meeting Blog.

Each year, the Public Relations Society of America gives a Silver Anvil Award, which “acknowledges the very highest level of achievement and is the established icon of the ‘best of the best’ public relations practices.” The latest Silver Anvil has just been given to the communications firm Edelman for its work for Imperial Sugar following the 2008 explosion at its Port Wentworth, Georgia facility, which killed 14 workers and severely injured another 32.

While we here at The Pump Handle have focused on the company practices that allowed for a dangerous accumulation of combustible dust, Edelman was considering another question: “Would Imperial be seen as the helpless victim of a disaster or as a company poised to rebuild?” Edelman was considered an award-winning success because its PR work helped achieve an outcome favorable to Imperial Sugar: the restarting of production at the Port Wentworth facility and stabilization of its stock price.

The writeup of Edelman’s achievements also mentions “turn-on-dime responsiveness,” but the Savannah Morning News’s Larry Peterson has a different perspective on the company’s responsiveness:

Edelman’s Atlanta-based Steve Behm has fielded questions about whether Imperial did all it could have to prevent the disaster.

Behm’s replies have varied widely.

They have included detailed answers, terse denials, refusals to comment and sometimes almost identical statements on different topics.

He also led a campaign to discredit Graham H. Graham, a former company executive who became a whistle-blower witness against Imperial.

Seems like some of us have different definitions of what constitutes success.

I was looking into the points of the opposition to the appointment of Dr. David Michaels as Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA. Some of topics came up repeatedly, Ergonomics, PEL updating,  and regulatory beliefs. I expected this, and desired to understand the resistance to updating these critical topics in protecting worker’s health and safety. However, a common thread that accompanied a majority of the opposition pieces diverted me. The idea was that Mr. Michaels wants to take your guns away. I could not believe this would be the basis of the argument against the OSHA head’s nomination. So here is my exploration of this diversion:

What kind of power would the head of OSHA have to take away your second amendment rights? None, or sort of. But this makes sense, think about it for a second before you come to any conclusions. A recent Appeals Court ruling found that an Oklahoma law allowing employees to keep guns in their cars at work was constitutional. Okay, so this is sounding normal to guns rights people, and concerning to some health and safety people (as well as business people planning on lay-offs.)

So what does OSHA say about guns in the parking lot?  Nothing yet. But, one parking lot gun cleaning/showing off incident a la Plaxico Burris, and you could have a General Duty Clause citation under new OSHA leadership. .

What else is at issue here? Um, workplace violence, pretty sure that is one of the leading causes of Occupational fatalities. Good luck convincing the NRA that taking away guns is the solution. After all, they are one of the groups actively opposing Mr. Michaels’ appointment. My question would be is a gun an administrative control, or PPE at work? Sorry, that was not funny. There are definitely a lot of valid perspectives on the effect of OSHA guidance on guns in the workplace. Guns do pose a serious hazard in the workplace, whether it is a criminal, an irresponsible owner, a simple mistake or a mentally unstable employee/employer.

It is obvious there is already a robust campaign to preserve gun rights in the workplace. Here are some of my concerns about this:

1. What about layoffs, and the unstable emotional state this causes? Does easy access to guns, right in the parking lot reduce the amount of time one would have to think about their actions?

2. Do second amendment rights apply to private property, or dare I say, is this taking away property owners’ rights? Despite court rulings, if a property owner requests that no guns are brought on to their property, whose right is it to deny this request?

3. In a workplace violence situation, how do you control vigilantism from creating additional fatalities (not everyone has aim, and most people have no idea how to aim when breathing heavy and nervous, and even more people have perceptual issues in an emergency and mistake the bad guys, i.e. friendly fire)?

4. Security and providing a safe workplace is the employer’s responsibility, right? How can we improve in this area? -I mean convenience stores, cab drivers, gas stations, hospital E.R.’s, etc. Surely there are solutions that can reduce exposure to the hazard effectively, and certainly more than increasing the overall risk by putting more guns into the mix.

5. How are employers to verify guns on property are safely and securely stored? Would this be an fair or unfair burden on employers?

I am admitting this is a very limited discussion of the issue, but from a safety perspective we need to have a solid understanding of how this affects the safety (freedom from unacceptable risk) of our workplaces. I can see 50,000 words not doing this justice, and I plan on giving the issue a lot more thought. Just some late night fun, now that I am fully diverted. . . I need to make a slurpee run. Or,  now that I read all of the opposition to Mr. Michaels stance on workplace safety, including guns in the workplace I can go and read his perspective.

I feel like I’m pretty up on the push for green jobs (creating jobs in the building and installation of wind turbines, construction of energy-efficient buildings, etc.) but this morning at the APHA meeting, I learned something about the occupational health angle of this movement. At a session from the Blue-Green Alliance, Walter Jones of the Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund of North America and TJ Lentz of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health spoke about making green jobs safe jobs.

So far, it seems that the shift toward greener buildings hasn’t done much to make the construction or maintenance of these places safe for workers. (One positive point is that the use of safer paints and solvents can reduce workers’ as well as residents’ exposure to fumes.) Designers of buildings don’t generally pay much attention to the ways that their plans will affect the way workers interact with them, and design schools don’t tend to include occupational health and safety in their curricula. Jones noted that between 1990 and 2003, 42% of all US construction-related fatalities were linked to design.

Problems include a lack of anchor points for workers to tie off to when they’re working off the ground, and parapets that meet building code requirements (being at least 30 inches high) but not OSHA requirements (39 to 45 inches). When it comes to wind turbines, fall protection is also crucial, and the inside of the tower is a confined space – but designers rarely address anchor points or tower access and ventilation issues.

Occupational health and safety advocates are working to get safety issues on designers’ radar. The American Association of Safety Engineers has begun working on a standard to protect workers involved in windpower facilities, and NIOSH runs a Prevention Through Design program. As we all throw our support behind green jobs, we should make sure that “green” includes worker health and safety.

Earlier today, the Senate Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing on the use of burn pits for trash at military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan – a practice that may be exposing thousands of soldiers and civilians to carcinogens, respiratory irritants, and neurotoxins. A particularly large burn pit at the Balad Air Base in Iraq has been getting a lot of attention, but the use of burn pits seems to be widespread at these military bases.

As DPC Chair Senator Byron Dorgan pointed out in his opening remarks, burn pits are the kind of thing you’d expect to see at a makeshift base, not at the major military installations that we’ve built in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last six or seven years. (Senator Dorgan noted that the Balad Air Base houses 20,000 troops and has “good paved roads, two large swimming pools with diving wells, two PX’s that look like huge  American-style supermarkets, five mess halls, and a full-service movie theater complete with a Dolby surround sound system.”) Witness Anthony Szema, MD, Chief of the Allergy Section at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Northport, NY, explained to the committee that bases should replace burn pits with incinerators as quickly as possible because incinerators burn trash at higher temperatures and thus create far less harmful smoke.

Lt. Col. Darrin L. Curtis, Ph.D., P.E. (Ret.), a former bioenvironmental engineer with the US Air Force, testified that while he was stationed at the Balad Air Base, he worked with members of the Army’s Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM) on conducting air sampling. He expressed concerns that the sampling was not accurately capturing the burn pit’s smoke plume, which shifted frequently with the winds, but CHPPM used the results to publish a risk assessment stating that “adverse health risks are unlikely.” The Department of Defense has relied on this report to conclude that “long-term health effects are not expected to occur from breathing the smoke” at Balad Air base. Lt. Col. Curtis and the other witnesses had a very different assessment of the situation, though.

More than a year prior to the publication of the CHPPM study, Lt. Col. Curtis wrote a report warning that the Balad burn pit posed an acute health hazard, with the possibility of long-term health hazards, for exposed individuals. “The smoke hazards [at Balad] are associated with burning plastics, Styrofoam, paper, wood, rubber, POL products, non-medical waste, some metals, some chemicals (paints, solvents, etc.), and incomplete combustion by-products,” he explained. He hoped that by notifying Air Force and Army officials about the problem, he could help hasten the construction of incinerators – and in the meantime, all he could do for the servicemembers complaining of headaches, nausea, and respiratory problems was to tell them that their exposure would be included in their medical records.

Incinerator construction doesn’t seem to be a priority, though. Rick Lamberth, a former KBR employee and Army reservist who has served at various sites in Iraq and Afghanistan in both military and civilian capacities, noted that KBR is responsible for waste management under its Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, but he has watched KBR personnel flout the rules on waste disposal:

While working for KBR, I witnessed KBR employees dump nuclear, biological, chemical decontamination materials and bio-medical waste, plastics, oil and tires into burn pits in direct violation of military regulations, federal guidelines, and the LOGCAP contract Statement of Work. …

Under the LOGCAP contract, waste disposal by private contractors must comply with Army regulations, federal EPA, and the Defense Logistics Agency’s regulations for waste and hazmat removal and disposal. The contract states that work must comply with federal, state, and local requirements concerning hazard identification and control activities. These activities include surveys, hazard assessments, training, medical monitoring, worker protection, occupant notification, and proper solid waste disposal. Army regulations require that waste management at Army installations outside the continental United States must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. These regulations require that facilities be designed, operated, and maintained so as to protect the health and safety of service members, family members, civilian work force, and contractors. Solid waste management at these facilities must be in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) as well as all applicable regulations and requirements of the EPA.

The LOGCAP contract Statement of Work outlined more specifically how waste was to be handled at military installations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The LOGCAP Statement of Work explicitly conforms to Army Technical Bulletin 593 (Guidelines for Field Waste Management), which allows for the use of burn pits “only in emergency situations until approved incinerators can be obtained.” Additionally, the Statement of Work further provides that any surface burning or “burn pits” must minimize the environmental effects on the base camp. It also requires that the “contractor shall minimize any type of smoke exposures to the camp population.” Certain hazardous waste materials are specifically prohibited from being disposed of in burn pits, including PCBs and nuclear, medical and biological waste. Guidelines also prohibit disposal of petroleum, oils, solvents and lubricants in burn pits.

Senator Dorgan emphasized – and other Senators echoed – that Congress has so far failed in its responsibility to oversee work by KBR and other military contractors. Such a lack of oversight not only costs taxpayers money; more importantly, it also has implications for the health of thousands of servicemembers and civilians stationed at military bases. The DPC lacks the authority to conduct such oversight, so Senator Dorgan recommends the creation of a body similar to the Truman Commission. (See this article by DC Bureau’s Adam Lichtenheld for more on what Congress ought to be doing.)

For soldiers and civilians sickened after exposures to toxic substances on military bases, getting compensation is an uphill struggle. Rick Lamberth has “suffered from shortness of breath, spit up bloody mucus, skin rashes, and … been diagnosed with a non-organic sleeping order” since returning from Iraq and has sought treatment from the VA – but the VA has claimed that his conditions existed prior to service, even though a pre-deployment physical found no health problems. L. Russell Keith, a former KBR medic who served at Balad for more than a year, now exhibits the signs and symptoms of Parkinson’s, and his doctor’s opinion is that the atypical nature of his neurological problems (namely, occurring on only one side of his body and at a younger age than usual) suggests that they are due to exposure to toxins. Mr. Keith has filed for compensation under the Defense Base Act, but KBR has fought it and the appeals process is likely to continue for many more months. In the meantime, he cannot work and is without health insurance. He’s quickly burning through his savings to pay for medical treatment.

In short: KBR is failing to comply with the terms of its contract and Congress is failing to exercise appropriate oversight. Those serving at Balad and other bases with similar burn pits are exposed to a host of toxic substances, and when they develop health problems that are likely related to their service they struggle to get treatment and compensation. It’s wrong on many levels, but there’s very little happening to fix it.

UPDATE: The National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama includes provisions related to the use of burn pits, including a prohibition on their use for hazardous and medical waste unless the Secretary of Defense sees no alternative.

Beth Griffin was a Research Assistant at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University when she was splashed in the eye with fluids from a rhesus macaque.  She acquired a Cercopithecine herpesvirus 1 (B virus) infection and died 42 days after exposure.  She was 22 years old.

Every day, high school and university students walk into science laboratories.  They may be students fulfilling a curriculum requirement, interns, or budding researchers.  Will they have received safety training unique to the potential biological, chemical, and physical hazards they may encounter in their lab environments?  Will they have received training that they understand given their ages and limited experience working in a lab?

To ensure young scientists learn safe lab practices, the National Institutes of Health has published a truly one-of-its-kind laboratory safety training developed for students.  This training, called STAR-LITE (Safe Techniques Advance Research – Laboratory Interactive Training Environment), is web-based and available for free.

STAR-LITE is built on a video game platform.  It allows users to determine their own fate as they step through a series of lab experiments.  The training covers biological, chemical, and physical hazards, safe work methods, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment.  It includes lesson plans for teachers to download for classroom use.

Thank you NIH.  You’ve demonstrated an innovative (and fun) way to teach an otherwise ignored subject.

STAR-LITE is dedicated to Beth Griffin and all young scientists and their families who have needlessly suffered exposure to preventable lab-based accidents.

Any day now, the leaders at DOL, MSHA and OSHA should be letting us know formally their plans for proposing and issuing worker health and safety protections.  This formal notification comes in the form of the Department’s semi-annual regulatory agenda, which pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is supposed to be published in April and October.   Secretary Solis’ first reg agenda was issued (a little late) on May 11, and I’m sure her second agenda is almost ready to hit the streets.

When the Labor Secretary’s first agenda suggested that MSHA didn’t foresee any substantial regulatory action on respirable coal dust until 2011, I griped.  I also complained about the OSHA plan, including the absence of a timetable for proposing a rule on combustible dust and offering instead an unnecessary and delay-inducing pre-rule step.  OSHA proceeded with that disappointing plan.

My colleagues urged me to hold off with my criticism and cut the Labor Secretary and DOL’s top officials a little slack.  “Celeste, they need a little time to settle in.  Give them a chance.”   OK.  I’ve been patient.  Secretary Solis has been on the job for more than 8 months.  She’s had her own staff  setting the direction for MSHA and OSHA, so the “settling in” period should be over.  This forthcoming regulatory agenda will be a true indication of the Obama Administration’s commitment to a forward-looking regulatory plan that recognizes that worker H&S regulations in the U.S. are at least a decade behind similar industrialized countries.  I hope that I’m not compelled to write a blog post next week explaining why OSHA’s and MSHA’s plans are sadly reminiscent of those published under G.W. Bush.

I admit it: I have a soft spot for hockey players.   It probably stems from my Michigan upbringing, including my family’s winter-time ritual of making an outdoor hockey rink, and the annual trek from Detroit to Nantias Sport Shop on Wyandotte Street in Windsor, Ontario to buy new hockey skates and gear for my male siblings.  Brothers Roger and Dave wore (Bobby Orr’s) Boston Bruin jerseys while brother Tony favored Chicago Blackhawks’ (Keith Magnuson’s) colors.*

Last week’s KidsPost—a favorite WashPost section at my house—featured a hockey history lesson that merged worker safety and labor rights.  In Masks: saving goalies for 50 years, I was reminded that 50 years ago, hockey goalies (professionals and amateurs) never wore protective face masks.  My brothers and their friends in the 1970’s didn’t wear any head protection at all, following the example set by the pros.  In fact, you were considered a sissy if you suggested wearing a helmet was a smart thing to do.

The KidsPost article explained that Montreal Canadiens’ goalie Jacques Plante was sick and tired of getting hit in the face with the puck (and probably sticks, too.)

“He got hit in the face with a shot in a game against the New York Rangers (in 1956), he decided enough was enough.  Plante had used a mask in practice, but the Canadiens coach, Toe Blake, would not let him use it in games. Blake was afraid the mask might cut down on Plante’s ability to see the puck.  But Plante told Blake he would not go back onto the ice without his mask.  Since the Canadiens did not have a backup goalie, Blake had to agree or forfeit the game.”

“Some players and coaches thought Plante was a sissy to wear a mask. Remember, in those days, none of the players wore helmets.  But the Canadiens and their masked goalie won several games in a row.  Soon Plante and other goalies were wearing masks for every game.”

Masks: saving goalies for 50 years jogged my memory about a great workers’ rights film called Net Worth (1995).  It recounts the history of the Detroit Red Wings’ Ted Lindsay and his efforts to organize his fellow hockey players to form a union—-they intentionally called it a players’ association.  Mr. Lindsay (and his teammate Gordie Howe) were superstars in the National Hockey League (NHL).   Lindsey believed they had the clout to convince other players (on the QT) that they needed to exert their collective power over the owners.  He thought that with as little as one key player from each team agreeing to be part of the union association, they could act make reasonable demands of the wealthy team owners for a mimimum salary, pension and other fair benefits.

In Net Worth, there’s a powerful scene in which Lindsay is trying to convince a player why it’s in his interest to support the union  players’ association.  He reminds the player that he doesn’t have a high school diploma and once he’s washed up (or has a career-ending injury) his wife and kids will be in the poor house.  The film exposes the tension between players who genuinely understood what Lindsay was saying, but also feared that if the owners got wind of their union-plan, they’d be fired and replaced with hockey players from the minor leagues or Canada’s hinterlands (where hockey players were a dime a dozen.)   Red Wing forward and team captain Ted Lindsay recognized that that view was unsubstantiated; if these potential replacement workers were seriously great players, they’d already be on an NHL team.

The Toronto Maple Leaf players were the first to vote (unanimously) to organize.  The NHL Players’ Association was formed in 1967, thanks in large measure to the foresight and courage of Ted Lindsay.  His efforts were not without personal sacrifice.  As Roger D. Monforton, 85, the patriach of my family tells me, the Detroit Red Wings’ General Manager and Coach, Jack Adams, retaliated against Lindsay and Glenn Hall, trading them to the Chicago Blackhawks (last place) and New York Rangers, respectively.  [Scoundrel.]

Just like my soft spot for hockey players, I have a fondness for true stories of an underdog victory.  As a hockey- and Ted Lindsay-fan writing for Wikipedia notes:

“Mr. Lindsay played in Chicago for three years before retiring in 1960.  Four years later, his former linemate, Sid Abel, was the coach and general manager of the Red Wings and enticed the 39-year-old into making a comeback.  He played just the one season, helping Detroit to its first regular season championship since his trade seven years earlier.”

Check out Masks: saving goalies for 50 years for photos of Boston Bruins’ goalie Gerry Cheevers’ mask on which he painted a black stitch at each place where he was hit in the face with a puck.  Watch Net Worth and appreciate the professional and personal struggle workers face when trying to organize for better working conditions and equality against powerful interests.

====

*My oldest brother Lou was not much more for hockey—but a powerful cross-country skiier.

Celeste Monforton, DrPH, MPH is a research professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health.  She’ll soon be pulling out her hockey skates for winter recreation at Fairfax Ice Arena.  Her brother Dave will attest that winters in southeast Michigan are not as cold as they were 40 years ago.  It’s impossible now in the Detroit region’s climate-changed environment to make in your own backyard a natural outdoor hockey rink.

by revere, cross-posted from Effect Measure

An employee was pulling cable under a building when a venomous snake bit him. Startled, the worker jerked away from the snake and stood up. As he did so his head met with a long rusty nail that penetrated his skull and lodged in his brain. He fell forward and struck his head against a pipe. Two years later the man’s speech is still slurred, and he has balance problems.

If he’d been treated immediately for the snakebite, he would have been fine in a few hours. If he’d been wearing a hard hat instead of a cloth company cap, the rusty nail and the pipe would not have dented his head.

You can read the whole story here.

Now go back to your business and think about how many times workers crawl under or over or through obstacles without head protection. Maybe the worker is next to heavy equipment for only a few minutes, just to deliver a tool to the operator. Or maybe it’s a construction site, and you’re not that worried about a wall going up and then crashing on top of two or three workers. Never happened before. You can think of a dozen of so such events that have never happened where you work.

Be a champion for proper head protection at work. Doesn’t matter because you’re a contractor and aren’t required by law to follow safety rules set by OSHA? You’ve gone without head protection for thirty years, so nothing’s going to happen now? It gets hot out here. Who wants to have a heavy-duty hat on his head?

You know the answers. Support  safety, especially head safety. When a worker suffers a severe head injury, your company suffers.

Submitted by Griffith Publishing
Producers of HealthWorks publications since 1991

Source: Occupational Health & Safety

“How can it be safe with this line so fast?” …. “Come to the plant and you will see.”  …”when a visitor comes they slow it down and when they leave they speed it up.”  “The line is too fast.”  “People say their hands hurt a lot.”  ….”Many people are injured and then they fire them.”

These are the voices of 455 meatpacking plant workers in Nebraska — not 100 years ago in Sinclair Lewis’ time, but from surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008 by the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest.    In their 94-page report, The Speed Kills You, the group set out to “assess the health and safety conditions in the Nebraska meatpacking industry from the perspective of the workers who live it every day.”  According to the Nebraska Dept of Agriculture and the Nebraska Cattlemen Association, the State ranks first in red meat production, with red meat exports generating more than $1 Billion. 

Following a series of news reports, Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns (now U.S. Senator) and the Legislature passed in 2001 the “Non-English Speaking Workers Protection Act,” reinforcing fundamental labor rights, such as the right to a safe workplace, adequate facilities (restrooms) and the ability to use them, complete and understandable information about terms of employment, etc.  The Nebraska Appleseed report, however, found:

• “Many workers knew they had rights (91%) but less than 30% thought those rights made a difference.”
• 14% of workers reported some safety improvements over the past 10 years, but 52% reported there were ways in which their workplaces had become less safe.
• “62% of workers said they had been injured in the past year.  As predicted by the U.S. GAO 2006 study, this is far higher than the officially reported rate.”
• “Speed of work—including line speed and an adequate number of staff on the line—was the biggest concern among workers surveyed and the most common issue cited in responses to open-ended questions.  73% of workers surveyed stated that the speed of the line had increased in the past year.  At the same time, 94% said that the number of staff had decreased or stayed the same.”

Besides the obvious physical toll of the line speed, the report describes extremely degrading conditions for workers that also affect their overall health:

• “Many written responses referenced supervisors screaming, employers’ apparent indifferences to safety concerns, and a failure to treat workers as human beings.  ‘They scream at you, they humiliate you.’ ‘They scream at you a lot.’ …’I know of three people who urinated and pooped in their pants and afterwards they [supervisors] just laugh at you.’”

Can it really be true that in the U.S., individuals at work are not given the simple decency of being able to use a restroom when they need to?   

In response to The Speed Kills You report, the American Meat Institute disputed the research, saying that  Bureau of Labor Statistics data notes that the incidence of:

“reported injuries and illnesses for 2007 fell nearly 8 percent from previous years.”   

Hmmm…..there’s something fishy here when the data submitted to BLS says injuries are going down substantially, yet 62% of the surveyed workers say they have been injured in the last year.  Perhaps through OSHA’s NEP on recordkeeping special enforcement program on recordkeeping the investigators will identify the reason for the discrepancy between what the industry says is happening with injury rates, and what injured workers themselves report.   Moreover, OSHA should also assess whether its six-year long ALLIANCE with the American Meat Institute (AMI) genuinely made any difference for the WORKERS employed in the industry.  OSHA’s website hypes up speeches and meetings between senior officials from OSHA and AMI, but is short on evidence that these activities made a significant difference for workers in the plants.   The Speed Kills You report suggests otherwise.

These Nebraska meatpacking workers indicated:

“76% disagreed or strongly disagreed that their supervisor applied the company’ s safety policies all time. While 57% felt they could talk to their supervisor about work conditions or safety, 80% disagreed that their supervisor really cares about employee safety, and 53% reported that their supervisor did not speak their language.”

Has anyone seen a statement from Nebraska Senators Mike Johanns (R) or Ben Nelson (D) responding to the Appleseed report?

Yesterday’s House Education and Labor Committee hearing on Nevada OSHA – and state OSHA plans in general – had both disturbing and encouraging moments. The hearing centered on a review of the NV-OSHA program by federal OSHA, which identified numerous problems with the state agency’s practices. Several Members and witnesses focused on the case of Orleans Hotel and Casino, where on February 2, 2007 employees were told to enter a confined space, even though they were not trained to do so. Travis Koehler and Richard Luzier were overcome by fumes and killed, and their co-worker David Snow was seriously injured.

In his opening remarks, Committee Chair George Miller said, “It is clear that there is something terribly wrong with Nevada’s OSHA program,” and used the Orleans case as an example. Prior to the February 2007 tragedy, Orleans owner Boyd Gaming had been cited for violations substantially similar to those involved in this case – and yet, even after their failure to correct hazards that killed two men and seriously injured another, Boyd Gaming escaped a willful violation. Complaints to federal OSHA about the case alleged that this outcome could only have resulted from a back-room deal. And one of those complaints, Congressman Miller explained, came from an inspector on the case, who suffered professionally after speaking out:

The lead Nevada OSHA inspector who recommended willful violations against the Orleans took the extraordinary step of filing a complaint with federal OSHA officials after a deal was made. He resigned his position shortly thereafter. He was counseled that assisting in a complaint against the state could result in an adverse personnel action.

The inspector pointed to “extensive irregularities” in the Boyd Gaming deal and said that the deal could only be the result of OSHA protecting the contractor from bad publicity and a wrongful death lawsuit by the workers’ families.

The first witness to speak to the committee was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – a rare occurrence, but fitting since Senator Reid represents Nevada and is concerned about his state’s alarmingly high rate of workplace fatalities. But the witness who had the greatest impact on me, and probably on most of the hearing attendees, was Debi Koehler-Fergen, whose son Travis was one of the two workers killed at the Orleans Hotel and Casino. Travis Koehler was 27, and died while trying to save his co-worker.

A compelling speaker even as she fought back tears, Deb Koehler-Fergen spoke about both the systemic problems with Nevada’s OSHA program and the individual human tragedies that these problems cause:

I believe the Federal review of the Nevada State plan accurately reflects the fact that NV OSHA utterly failed not only my son and Richard, but the other workers who died and all workers in the state of Nevada….People go to work every day with the misguided notion that they are being protected by their employer and an agency whose job it is to keep them safe. I know my son trusted his employers. He would never have dreamt that on that fateful day he would be called upon to intentionally be put in a deadly situation.

Although she detailed many problems with NV-OSHA, from inadequate training of inspectors to the downgrading of willful violations, one thing that particularly struck me was her description of how she was treated by Stephen Coffield, who was at the time the acting chief administrative officer of NV-OSHA:

When we arrived to pick up the report I was told to come in the back lobby area and he would be right down (reporters were expected to be coming to the front door and going to their office). Instead of inviting us to his office he stood by the back elevator explaining why they reduced the citations while employees were walking past us watching me cry as I was understandably upset. At no time did he offer me a chair or to go to a private room while I digested what was going on around me. He did not show me common courtesy and was the most unprofessional encounter I have ever had.

Stephen Coffield is now the head of Nevada’s OSHA program; he sat at the witness table during the hearing, and responded to a few questions but did not testify. His callous actions toward Ms. Koehler-Fergen may not have been a direct violation of policy, but they demonstrate a disturbing lack of regard for victims’ family members. During her testimony, Ms. Koehler-Fergen handed a copy of the “Workplace Tragedy Family Bill of Rights” to Donald Jayne, Administrator of Nevada’s Division of Industrial Relations and the state plan designee for Nevada’s Occupational Safety and Health Program, who testified at the hearing and was seated next to her at the witness table. Congressman Miller noted that families can contribute very important evidence to workplace-fatality investigations, that and Members on both sides of the aisle get upset when family members are cut out of the process.

Acting OSHA head Jordan Barab described some of the steps federal OSHA is taking in response to the findings on Nevada OSHA’s problems. NV-OSHA has until November 20th to put together a detailed corrective action plan, and one year to address federal OSHA’s recommendations. Federal OSHA will also conduct evaluations of every state that administers its own programs, and the target date for completion of those evaluations is April of next year. To help states that are struggling to adequately fund their OSHA programs (state OSHA programs are funded partly by their states and partly by the federal government), the President’s FY2010 budget includes an increase for state plan funding of nearly 15%. (Jordan Barab’s testimony makes a good backgrounder on the state-plan system, for those who want to learn more about it.)

Both Democratic and Republican Members who spoke at the hearing agreed on the need to fix Nevada’s state OSHA plan, and Donald Jayne assured the Committee that the state was determined to address the problems identified by federal OSHA.  The question is, will something that seems urgent now get the sustained work that it needs once the spotlight has moved on to another issue? In concluding her statement, Deb Koehler-Fergen said of Nevada OSHA: “While I want very much to believe they are willing to address all of the issues and make a more effective agency, I personally have a wait-and-see attitude.”

by Bill Hoyle

A 1987 New York Times investigation of OSHA’s 17-year performance revealed chronic failures to issue new regulations and enforce existing ones.  [See "Is OSHA Falling Down on the Job?"   by William Glaberson, Sunday, August 2, 1987]   OSHA lacked the staff capacity to issue new rules.   The system of chemical regulation was broken.  Announced fines grabbed headlines only to be routinely reduced to a small fraction of the original amount.

Fast forward 22 years.  Despite the strides taken by Jordan Barab, it is largely déjà vu all over again.

The OSHA PELs are so out-of-date that most people in the U.S. were not even born when they were developed. (The average age in the U.S. is 37.)   Most OSHA PELs are 41-years-old (dating back to the ACGIH’s 1968 TLVs).  The system of one chemical at a time regulation has never worked.  NIOSH has also been largely missing in action from making recommendations for urgently needed new OSHA rules. 

The time is overdue to fundamentally reframe the problems and solutions for the functioning of OSHA and NIOSH. The appointments of John Howard, Jordan Barab and hopefully David Michaels are important, but not nearly enough to bring about needed change.  A revitalized and refocused OHS movement is the key to real progress.

Bill Hoyle was Investigations Manager for the U.S. Chemical Safety Board until his retirement in 2008.  Prior to joining the CSB, he was a 15-year member of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union.

Editors’ Note: Read the 1987 NYTimes story “Is OSHA Falling Down on the Job?” and give us your reaction in the comment section below.

DC Bureau, a project of the nonprofit Public Education Center, has published a stunning four-part series, “No Contractor Left Behind” on the errors by KBR and the Pentagon that allowed National Guard troops to be exposed to high levels of the carcinogen sodium dichromate while stationed at the Qarmat Ali water plant in Balad, Iraq. Adam Lichtenheld, with reporting by Byron Moore, investigates who knew what when about the orange dust that coated Qarmat Ali – and how the government failed to help soldiers who have developed cancers and other problems since being stationed there. Part I of the series introduces us to the soldiers:

Between April and September of 2003, the Indiana Guardsmen and their comrades from West Virginia and Oregon were subjected to a deadly health threat that would not be tolerated in any workplace in America.

Six years later, these once-vigorous soldiers now find themselves feeble and fraught with worry. Two have died from cancer. Another is in end-of-life hospice care. Dozens more suffer from frequent respiratory problems and chronic illnesses.

As part of a massive push to restore Iraq’s oil production following the US invasion, contracting giant KBR was tasked with rebuilding the Qarmat Ali water plant, which treated water that was injected into oil wells. National Guard troops arriving there to provide security to KBR employees found the facility coated with orange dust that swirled through the air during frequent windstorms. Soldiers began suffering from severe nosebleeds, nasal infections, and skin abrasions – but when they reported their symptoms and asked whether the orange dust might play a role, they were told it was only a “mild irritant.”

In fact, the powder was sodium dichromate, a highly concentrated compound of hexavalent chromium and a potent carcinogen. It’s sometimes injected into piping systems as an anti-corrosive, but few sites in the US use it these days because of the health risks associated with it.

As Lichtenheld details in Part II of the series, “Company records, alongside sworn testimony from former employees, show that KBR identified the presence of sodium dichromate, a known poison, at Qarmat Ali months before it took action.”

An internal KBR memo dated June 2003 shows that Iraqi oil company employees notified a KBR industrial hygienist of the presence of sodium dichromate at the plant. Former KBR safety manager Ed Blacke said he requested information on the orange powder soon after arriving there in July 2003, but was told it was a “non-issue.” He testified before the Democratic Policy Committee that he was chastised for raising concerns about co-workers’ illnesses within the company, and was forced to resign after he continued to question his superiors’ lack of action. But the company did realize something was wrong:

On August 7, KBR released a memo documenting “serious health problems at water treatment plant with a chemical called sodium dichromate,” a problem “that seems worse than initially indicated” having exposed those working at the facility “to something that may be very dangerous.” The chemical, the memo read, “could have been dumped on the ground for quite a long time.”

After KBR found that 60 percent of its workers were exhibiting symptoms, a medical team tested their blood and discovered elevated chromium levels four to 10 times higher than normal.

In response, the contractor dispatched environmental specialists to test the air and ground around Qarmat Ali for sodium dichromate. In the soil, they found “extremely high levels” of up to 16,000 parts per million – nearly three times the amount that is considered “actionable” under the Military Exposure Guideliens.

But finding evidence of a problem was not the same as publicly admitting to a problem:

In an e-mail dated September 3, 2003, Bruce Keyston, an employee in KBR’s Health, Safety and Environmental Department, wrote:

“We must be careful from a litigation standpoint how we address the chemicals. My basic premise that we cannot say sodium dichromate is a known human carcinogen still stands.”

Company attorney William Bedford, who counseled KBR personnel in the field on how to proceed at Qarmat Ali, also played down the chemical’s toxicity. “It appeared not to be something that was…an obvious carcinogen or something that had an acute exposure problem to it,” he said in his deposition.

KBR then undertook remediation activities at Qarmat Ali, and completed them on August 30, 2003. It continues to claim that it responded appropriately, although Lichtenheld notes that KBR spokeswoman Heather Browne “did not respond to questions about the three-month window between when KBR personnel were first notified of the chemical and when the company decided to stop work and remediate the site.”

It wasn’t just National Guard troops who were suffering; British soldiers and employees of KBR and the Iraqi Oil Company also had symptoms similar to what US soldiers experienced. The National Guard troops are the ones we would expect the Army to be taking care of – but, as Lichetenheld writes in Part III of the series, the Army fell far short of expectations that it would look after its own:

Weeks after KBR mitigated the danger at Qarmat Ali by paving over its chemical-laden areas, the Army began testing its soldiers for possible sodium dichromate exposure. They told Schultz and his Indiana comrades that it was merely a routine physical.  “My nose started to bleed profusely for 10 minutes,” Schultz said. “The doctor told me it was simply because of the dry air, though I never had a nosebleed from dry air like that in my life.” He remembers undergoing an array of tests, but he never got the results. “We were simply told that we flunked the physical,” he said.

Schultz and Kimberling were among the relatively small group of exposed soldiers that were actually tested by the Army. Due to constant site rotations under project RIO [Restore Iraqi Oil], by the time the Army’s medical team arrived at Qarmat Ali in October, only the Indiana unit remained. “There wasn’t a system in place in 2003 that identified where each individual soldier was every day of the operation,” said Army environmental engineer John Resta. As a result, only 137 out of the 600 potentially exposed military personnel—less than thirty percent—underwent testing for sodium dichromate poisoning.

The Army published some of its findings, stating that there “was not a significant exposure from sodium dichromate at Qarmat Ali.” Epidemiologist and former EPA official Dr. Herman Gibb testified before the Democratic Policy Committee that the testing was done too late after exposure had ended and used an insensitive blood test. He estimates that the concentrations of airborne sodium dichromate could have been 80 – 200 times OSHA’s limit. Nonetheless, the Department of Veterans Affairs has relied on the Army conclusion and denied medical benefits from exposed soldiers. Many of the soldiers who were stationed at Qarmat Ali are now too sick to work, and desperately need those benefits. Others have already died. Lichtenheld writes:

Since returning home to Pennsylvania, [former combat engineer Glen] Bootay has been hospitalized numerous times, as he wages a battle on two fronts—a disease that prevents him from holding a job and a VA that continues to deny him care, including paying for the life-saving treatment he received at Mayo. He is only 30 years old. “I believe my battle with illness would have been different if I had been told by the Army that I was exposed to sodium dichromate,” Bootay told the DPC between labored breaths. “I am fighting for my life and desperately need these [health] benefits.”

“But,” he added, “I wonder if I will live long enough to receive them.”

Bootay’s anxiety has become reality for some servicemen. Sgt. First Class David Moore, a platoon leader and 20-year veteran of the Indiana Guard, died in 2008 from a rare form of lung disease after returning from Iraq, where he made routine visits to Qarmat Ali. Another Oregon infantryman, Nick Thomas, succumbed to leukemia at the age of 21 after serving guard duty at the Basra water plant. These deaths have provided other veterans with a gloomy reminder of their possible fate.

When our soldiers have been exposed to a dangerous carcinogen in the line of duty, notified tardily – if at all – of their risks, and then denied medical benefits, we might expect Congress to step in, both to investigate how such a terrible thing could be allowed to happen and to ensure that suffering soldiers and their families get the help they need. Here, too, though, the response has been inadequate, as Lichtenheld shows in Part IV of the series.

Before they gained the majority in 2006, Congressional Democrats criticized their Republican colleagues for failing to launch sweeping probes into corruption and mismanagement by military contractors. Once in power, however, the party didn’t seem to have the time to investigate the Qarmat Ali situation or other instances – like faulty wiring at military bases – in which poor work by KBR has endangered or ended soldiers’ lives.

Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota has been holding hearings under the auspices of the Democratic Policy Committee, but since the DPC isn’t a standing committee it lacks subpoena power and can’t require that witnesses testify under oath. Lichtenheld reports that Dorgan has pushed for the creation of a special select senate committee, which would have subpoena power, to investigate contractor abuses. For the moment, though, Congress isn’t punishing KBR or forcing it to mend its ways – and in the meantime, the company is still being awarded new contracts.

Senators from the affected soldiers’ states are at least making some progress toward getting necessary treatment for troops exposed to sodium dichromate. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia has been assured by Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki that soldiers who served at Qarmat Ali will receive special medical monitoring. And, Lichtenheld reports, legislation is also in the works:

In response to the incident at Qarmat Ali, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) proposed a bill calling for a registry that would track exposed veterans and qualify them for health benefits. Fellow Indiana Democrat and Rep. Baron Hill has introduced a similar measure in the House. Their legislation caught the attention of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, which held a hearing on military chemical exposures last week.

Lichtenheld notes that it took three decades for the military to start awarding health benefits to Vietnam veterans sickened after exposure to Agent Orange, so the slow response to soldiers suffering after serving at Qarmat Ali isn’t surprising. Still, it seems that our government ought to learn from past mistakes, and do the right thing for these soldiers before any more of them die.

The full “No Contractor Left Behind” series is well worth a read:
Part I: KBR, the Pentagon and the Soldiers Who Paid
Part II: KBR’s Negligence
Part III: “Just Suck It Up and Move On”
Part IV: Congress’s Powerless Probe