October 9, 1998 * October 13, 1998 * October 15, 1998 * October 20, 1998
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Congressional Record of the United States
CONGRESSMAN BERNARD SANDERS
Extension of Remarks to the House of
Representatives
concerning
CHEMICAL INJURY AND SENSITIVITY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HON. BERNARD SANDERS
Extension of Remarks to the House of
Representatives
(Extension of Remarks - October 09, 1998)
MULTIPLE CHEMICAL
SENSITIVITY
[Page: E1992]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HON. BERNARD SANDERS
in the House of Representatives
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1998
~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to discuss the issue of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as it
relates to both our civilian population and our Gulf war veterans.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity or MCS is a chronic condition marked by heightened
sensitivity to multiple different chemicals and other irritants at or below
previously tolerated levels of exposure. Sensitivity to odors is often
accompanied by food and drug intolerance, sensitivity to sunlight and other
sensory abnormalities, such as hypersensitivity to touch, heat and-or cold,
and loud noises. MCS is often accompanied by impaired balance, memory and
concentration.
As a member of the Human Resources Subcommittee, which has oversight jurisdiction
for the Veterans' Affairs, I have been involved in the issue of Gulf war
illness and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. I have been concerned for many
years about the role that chemicals may be playing on human health, not only
in Gulf war veterans and their families, but in civilian society as well.
I have talked to many people who are suffering symptoms not dissimilar from
the symptoms that our Persian Gulf veterans are experiencing because of chemicals
in their homes or workplaces.
As has been well-documented, the military theater in the Persian Gulf was
a chemical cesspool. Our troops were exposed to chemical warfare agents,
leaded petroleum, widespread use of pesticides, depleted uranium and burning
oil wells. In addition, they were given a myriad of pharmaceuticals as vaccines.
Further, and perhaps most importantly, as a result of a waiver from the FDA,
hundreds of thousands of troops were given pyridostigmine bromide. Pyridostigmine
bromide, which was being used as an anti-nerve agent, had never been used
in this capacity before. In the midst of all this, our troops were living
in a hot, unpleasant climate and were under very great stress.
The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have downplayed
the presence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in Gulf war veterans. In the
very beginning, the Defense Department and Veterans' Affairs actually denied
that there was any problem whatsoever with our veterans' health. Then, after
finally acknowledging that there was a problem, they concluded that the problem
was in the heads of our soldiers--of psychological origin. The DOD and the
VA responded very poorly to our veterans' concerns. Tragically, our veterans
were discounted. They were called malingerers.
Ever so slowly, the truth about chemical exposure in the Persian Gulf has
begun to surface. On July 24, 1997, the Defense Department and the Central
Intelligence Agency gave us their best estimate--that as many as 98,910 American
troops could have been exposed to chemical warfare agents due to destruction
of `the Pit' in Khamisiyah, an Iraqi munitions facility.
Not waiting for the DOD and VA, many other Federal, State, and local government
agencies have recognized the existence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
I want to submit for the Record the latest `Recognition
of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity' newsletter which lists the U.S.
Federal, State, and local government authorities, U.S. Federal and State
courts, U.S. workers' compensation boards, and independent organizations
that have adopted policies, made statements, and-or published documents
recognizing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disorders.
[Page: E1993]
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity or MCS is a chronic condition marked by heightened
sensitivity to multiple different chemicals and other irritants at or below
previously tolerated levels of exposure. Sensitivity to odors is often
accompanied by food and drug intolerances, photosensitivity to sunlight and
other sensory abnormalities, such as hypersensitivity to touch, heat and/or
cold, and loud noises and impaired balance, memory and concentration. MCS
is more common in women and can start at any age, but usually begins in one's
20's to 40's. Onset may be sudden (from a brief high-level toxic exposures)
or gradual (from chronic low-level exposures), as in `sick buildings.' The
syndrome is defined by multiple symptoms occurring in multiple organ systems
(most commonly the neurological, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and
musculoskeletal) in response to multiple different exposures. Symptoms may
include chronic fatigue, aching joints and muscles, irritable bowel, difficulty
sleeping and concentrating, memory loss, migraines, and irritated eyes, nose,
ears, throat and/or skin.
Symptoms usually begin after a chronic or acute exposure to one or more toxic
chemical (s), after when they `spread' to other exposures involving unrelated
chemicals and other irritants from a great variety of sources (air pollutants,
food additives, fuels, building materials, scented products, etc.). Consistent
with basic principles of toxicology, MCS usually can be improved, although
not completely cured, through the reduction and environmental control of
such exposures. Many different terms have been proposed in medical literature
since 1869 to describe MCS syndrome and possibly related disorders whose
symptoms also wax and wane in response to chemical exposures.
~~~~~
Acquired Intolerance to Solvents, Allergic Toxemia, Cerebral Allergy, Chemical
Hypersensitivity Syndrome, Chemical -Induced Immune Dysfunction, Ecological
Illness, Environmental Illness or `EI,' Environmental Irritant Syndrome,
Environmentally Induced Illness, Environmental Hypersensitivity Disorder,
Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances or `IEI,' Immune System Dysregulation,
Multiple Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome, Multiple Chemical Reactivity,
Total Allergy Syndrome, Toxic Carpet Syndrome,
Toxin
Induced Loss of Tolerance of `TILT' [see
Dr. Claudia Miller 's Congressional Testimony
on Chemical
Intolerance], Toxic Response Syndrome, 20th Century
Disease.
Akureyri Disease (coded as EN), Asthma, Cacosmia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome,
Disorders of Porphyrin Metabolism, [Benign Myalgic] Encephalomyelitis, Epidemic
Neuromyastenia (EN), Fibromyalgia Syndrome, Gulf War Syndrome, Icelandic
Disease (coded as EN), Mastocytosis, Migraine, Neurasthenia, Royal Free
[Hospital] Disease, Sick Building Syndrome, Silicone Adjutant Disease, Systemic
Lupus Erythematosus, Toxic Encephalopathy.
Listed alphabetically below are the U.S. Federal, State, and local government
authorities, U.S. Federal and State courts, U.S. workers' compensation boards,
and independent organizations that have adopted policies, made statement,
and/or published documents recognizing MCS disorders under one name or another
as a legitimate medical condition and/or disability. An introductory section
summarizes recognition or MCS in peer-reviewed medical literature, and the
last section lists upcoming MCS conferences as well as past conferences sponsored
by Federal Government agencies.
The exact meaning of `recognition' varies with the context as each listing
makes clear. Recognition by a court of law, for example, usually refers to
a verdict or appeal in favor of an MCS plaintiff, while recognition by government
agencies varies tremendously--from acknowledgement of the condition in
publications and policies to research funding and legal protection of disability
rights.
U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry in a unanimously
adopted recommendation of the ATSDR's Board of Scientific Counselors, which
calls on the ATSDR to `take a leadership role in the investigation of MCS'
[1992, 24 pages, R-1]. To coordinate interagency research into MCS, the ATSDR
co-chairs the Federal Work Group on Chemical Sensitivity, which it convened
for the first time in 1994 (see below). The ATSDR has helped organize and
pay for three national medical conferences on MCS: sponsored by the National
Academy of Sciences in 1991, the Association of Occupational and Environmental
Clinics in 1991, and the ATSDR in 1994. The combined proceedings of these
three conferences are reprinted in Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, A Scientific
Overview, ed. Frank Mitchell, Princeton NJ: Princeton Scientific Publishing,
1995 (609-683-4750 to order). ATSDR also contributed funding to a study conducted
by the California Department of Health Services to develop a protocol for
detecting MCS outbreaks in toxic-exposed communities via questionnaires and
diagnostic tests (see entry below on California Department of Health Services).
Officially, however, ATSDR has not `established a formal position regarding
this syndrome' [1995, 1 page, R-2].
U.S. Army, Medical Evaluation Board on US Army Form 3947 (from the U.S. Army
Surgeon General), Army Medical Evaluation Board certified a diagnosis of
`Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Syndrome' for a Persian Gulf veteran on
14 April 1993 [1 page, R-3]. MCS is defined on this form as `manifested by
headache, shortness of breath, congestion, rhinorrhea, transient rash, and
incoordination associated with exposure to a variety of chemicals.' The Board's
report further recognizes that this patient's particular MCS condition began
approximately in April 1991 (while the patient was serving in the Gulf and
entitled to base pay), that the condition did not exist prior to service,
and that it has been permanently aggravated by service. At least five other
active duty Persian Gulf veterans have been diagnosed by the Army with MCS,
as reported by the Persian Gulf Veterans coordinating Board in `Summary of
the Issues Impacting Upon the Health of Persian Gulf Veterans,' [3 March
1994, 4 page excerpt, R-4]. The Army Medical Department also has requested
funding for a research facility to study MCS (reported in an Army information
paper on `Post Persian Gulf War Health Issues,' 16 November 1993).
~~~~~
U.S. Congress in a VA/HUD Appropriations Bill for FY1993 signed by President
Bush in 1992 appropriating `$250,000 from Superfund funds for chemical
sensitivity workshops.' These funds were used by the U.S. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (see above) to co-sponsor scientific meetings
on MCS with various other organizations [1992, 3 page excerpt, R-5] and support
an MCS study (see California State Department of Health Services below).
For FY 1998, Vermont Congressman Bernard Sanders proposed and Congress
appropriated $800,000 to start a new 5-year civilian agency research program
into MCS among Gulf War veterans. Congress also requested that the administration
report back by January 1998 on how it planned to spend the funds (text of
appropriations is quoted in report; see below: U.S. Department of Health
Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research).
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
American Lung Association, and American Medical Association (jointly) in
a jointly published booklet entitled Indoor Air Pollution An Introduction
for Health Professional [US GPO 1994-523-217/81322] under the heading `What
is `multiple chemical sensitivity' or `total allergy'?, these organizations
state that `The current consensus is that in cases of claimed or suspected
MCS, complaints should not be dismissed as psychogenic, and a thorough workup
is essential.' The booklet is prefaced by the claim that `Information provided
in this booklet is based upon current scientific and technical understanding
of the issues presented . . .` [1994, 3 page excerpt, R-6]
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
in its Final Environmental Impact Statement on `Gypsy Moth Management in
the United States: a cooperative approach', people with MCS are mentioned
as a `potential high risk group' who should be given advance notification
of insecticide treatment projects via `organizations, groups and agencies
that consist of or work with people who are chemically sensitive or
immunocompromised.' MCS also is discussed in an appendix on Human Health
Risk Assessment (Appendix F, Volume III of V) under both `Harzard Identification'
and `Groups at Special Risk' [1995, 11 page excerpt and 1 page cover letter
from John Hazel, the USDA's EIS Team Leader, to Dr. Grace Ziem of MCS Referral
& Resources, R-130].
U.S. Department of Education in the enforcement by its Office of Civil Rights
of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which requires accommodation
of persons with `MCS Syndrome' via modification of their educational environment,
as evidenced by several `agency letters of finding' (including San Diego
(Calif) Unified School District, 1 National Disability Law Reporter, para.
61, p. 311, 24 May 1990; Montville (Conn.) Board of Education, 1 National
Disability Law Reporter, para. 123, p. 515, 6 July 1990; and four letters
(along with an individualized environment management program) in the case
of the Arminger children of Baltimore County, MD [in 1991, 1992, 1993 and
1994; 20 pages total, R-7]. These accommodations also are required under
the terms of Public Law 94-142, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (CFR34 Part 300). The Department of Education as a whole, however,
has no formal policy or position statement on the accommodation of students
with MCS.
U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory in being the lead
sponsor of the 11th Annual Life Sciences Symposium on `Indoor Air and Human
Health Revisited.' This 1994 conference was co-sponsored by the US Environmental
Protection Agency and Martin Marietta Energy Systems' Hazardous Waste Remedial
Action Program. The proceedings are published in Indoor Air and Human Health
(Gammage RB and Berven BA, editors, Boca Raton FL: CRC Lewis Publishers,
1996) and contain several peer-reviewed papers of critical relevance to MCS
by DoE, EPA and other federally funded researchers. (4 page excerpt with
table of contents, R-175)
~~~~~
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Agency for Health Care
Policy and Research in a `Report to Congress on Research on Multiple Chemical
Exposures and Veterans with Gulf War Illnesses' by agency administrator Dr.
John Eisenberg (who is also the acting Assistant Secretary for Health). Dr.
Eisenberg proposes spending $300,000 in 1998 for a `consensus building' and
research planning conference, $400,000 for research into the health effects
of chemical mixtures, and $100,000 for an Interagency Coordinator in the
Office of Public Health and Science [January 1998, 7 pages including MCS
R&R press release, R-168]. Congress requested the report in 1998, as
part of an $800,000 appropriation for a new civilian research into MCS (see
U.S. Congress, above).
U.S. Dept. of HHS, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication
Disorders in the funding of MCS-related olfactory research by its Chemical
Senses Branch since NIDCD's creation in 1988; including $29,583,000 in fiscal
year 1998. The Chemical Senses Branch supports both basic and applied research,
with most of its funds going to just five `chemosensory research centers':
the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (860-679-2459), Monell
Chemical Senses Center (215-898-6666), Rocky Mountain Taste and Smell Center
(303-315-5650), State University of New York Clinical Olfactory Research
Center (315-464-5588), and University of Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center
(215-662-6580). Free information is available from NIDCD Information
Clearinghouse, 800-241-1044.
U.S. Dept. of HHS, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in
`Issues and Challenges in Environmental Health,' a publication about the
work of NIEHS, research priorities are proposed for `hypersensitivity diseases
resulting from allergic reactions to environmental substances' [NIH 87-861,
1987, 45 pages, R--8]. It is not clear from the context if this statement
was meant to include or exclude MCS, since the condition was still thought
by some at the time to be an allergic-type reaction. In 1992, the director
Dr. Bernadine Healy responded in detail to an inquiry from Congressman Pete
Stark about the scope of NIEHS research into MCS: `It is hoped that research
conducted at NIEHS will lead to methods to identify individuals who may be
predisposed to chemical hypersensitivities. . . . NIH research is directed
toward the understanding of the effect of chemical sensitivities on multiple
parts of the body, including the immune system.' [1992, 3 pages, R-9]. In
1996, director Dr. Kenneth Olden wrote US Senator Bob Graham that `NIEHS
has provided research support to study MCS. . . . NIEHS has also supported
a number of workshops and meetings on the subject.' [15 April 1996, 2 pages,
R-101]. Dr. Olden also states that `Pesticides and solvents are the two major
classes of chemicals most frequently reported by patients reporting low level
sensitivities as having initiated their problems.'
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Library of Medicine
. . . in the 1995 Medical Subject Headings (MESH) codes used to catalog all
medical references, which started using Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (and
its variations) as a subject heading for all publications indexed after October
1994 [3 pages excerpt, R-10].
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
. . . in the final report by the Regional Director (of Region VI) regarding
OCR's investigation of an ADA-related discrimination complaint filed by a
patient with MCS against the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
for failing to accommodate her disability and thereby forcing her to go elsewhere
for surgery. Prior to completion of the investigation and the issuance of
any formal `findings,' the OCR accepted a proposal from the Univ. of Texas
to resolve this complaint by creating a joint subcommittee of the cancer
center's Safety and Risk Management committees. This subcommittee's three
tasks (as approved by the OCR) are to `identify a rapid response mechanism
which could be triggered by any patient registering a complaint or presenting
a special need which is environment related; develop a `protocol' outlining
steps to be taken to resolve environmental complaints by patients . . . ;
and inform the medical staff through its newsletter of the mechanism and
the protocol so that they will better understand how to address such questions
or concerns.' The OCR has placed the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center `in monitoring'
pending completion and documentation of these changes, but it may initiate
further investigation if M.D. Anderson fails to complete this process within
the 13 months allowed. [27 March 1996, 11 pages, R-99]
~~~~~
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration
. . . in enforcement of the Social Security Disability Act (see Recognition
of MCS by Federal Courts, below), and in the SSA's Program Operations Manual
System (POMS), which includes a section on the `Medical Evaluation of Specific
Issues--Environmental Illness' stating that `evaluation should be made on
an individual case by case basis to determine if the impairment prevents
substantial gainful activity' [SSA publication 68-0424500, Part 04, Chapter
245, Section 24515.065, transmittal #12, 1998, 1 page excerpt, R-11]. In
1997, the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts required Acting SSA Commissioner
John Callahan to spell out the agency's position on MCS in a formal memo
to the court (31 October 1997, 2 pages, R-164; see Creamer v. Callahan below,
under Recognition of MCS by US Federal Court Decisions). With this memo,
SSA now officially recognizes MCS `as a medically determinable impairment'
on an agency wide basis. MCS is also recognized in several `fully favorable'
decisions of the SSA's Office of Hearing and Appeals: in case #538-48-7517,
in which the administrative law judge, David J. Delaittre, ruled that `the
claimant has an anxiety disorder and multiple chemical sensitivity,' with
the latter based in part on the fact that `objective [qEEG] evidence showed
abnormal brain function when exposed to chemicals' [1995, 7 pages, R-12];
in case #264-65-5308, in which the administrative law judge, Martha Lanphear,
ruled that the claimant suffered severe reactive airways disease secondary
to chemical sensitivity and that this impairment prevented her from performing
more than a limited range of light work [1996, 8 pages, R-120]; in case
#239-54-6581, in which the administrative law judge, D. Kevin Dugan, ruled
that the claimant suffered severe impairments as a result of pesticide poisoning,
including `marked sensitivity to airborne chemicals,' which prevent her from
`performing any substantial gainful activity on a sustained basis [1996,
4 pages, R-135]; in case #024-40-2499, in which the administrative law judge,
Lynette Diehl Lang, recognized that the claimant suffered from severe MCS
and could not tolerate chemical fumes at work (as a result of overexposure
to formaldehyde in a state office building), as a result of which he was
awarded both disability benefits and supplemental security income [1995,
8 pages, R-140]; in case #184-34-4849, in which administrative law judge
Robert Sears ruled that the claimant suffered from `extreme environmental
sensitivities,' and particularly `severe intolerance to any amount of exposure
to pulmonary irritants' [11 June 1996, 7 pages, R-156]; and in case #256-98-4768,
in which the administrative law judge, Frank Armstrong, classified the claimant's
`dysautonomia triggered by multiple chemical sensitivities' as severe and
said it `prevents the claimant from engaging in substantial gainful activity
on a sustained basis' [18 March 1997, 8 pages, R-157].
[Page: E1995]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Congressional Record of the United States
CONGRESSMAN
BERNARD SANDERS
Extension
of Remarks to the House of Representatives
~Top~
*
October
9, 1998 *
October 13, 1998
*
October 15, 1998
*
October 20,
1998
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HON. BERNARD SANDERS
Extension of Remarks to the House of
Representatives
(Extension of Remarks - October 13, 1998)
MULTIPLE CHEMICAL
SENSITIVITY
[Page: E2151]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HON. BERNARD SANDERS
in the House of Representatives
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1998
~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to discuss the issue of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as it
relates to both our civilian population and our Gulf War veterans. I continue
the submission for the Record the latest `Recognition
of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity' newsletter which lists the U.S.
federal, state and local government authorities, U.S. federal and state courts,
U.S. workers' compensation boards, and independent organizations that have
adopted policies, made statements, and/or published documents recognizing
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disorders for the benefit of my colleagues.
In a letter from HUD Assistant Secretary Timothy Coyle to Senator Frank
Lautenberg, confirming HUD recognition of `MCS as a disability entitling
those with chemical sensitivities to reasonable accommodation under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973' and also `under Title VIII of the
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988' [26 October 1990, 2 pages, R-13]. This
was followed by a formal guidance memorandum from HUD Deputy General Counsel
G.L. Weidenfeller to all regional counsel, detailing HUD's position that
MCS and environmental illness `can be handicaps' within the meaning of section
802(h) of the Fair Housing Act and its implementing regulations [1992, 20
pages, R-14]. Also recognized in a HUD Section 811 grant of $837,000 to develop
an EI/MCS-accessible housing complex known as `Ecology House' in San Rafael,
CA, consisting of eleven one-bedroom apartments in a two-story complex. This
grant was pledged in 1991 and paid in 1993. [2 pages, R-15] (See also Recognition
of MCS by Federal Courts, Fair Housing Act, below.)
In response to a disability rights complaint filed against the Baltimore
County Parks and Recreation Department (BCPRD) by Marian Arminger on behalf
of her three children, which the National Park Service (NPS) accepted for
review pursuant to both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Acting Equal Opportunity Program
Manager of the NPS ruled that `the BCPRD must accept the determination of
disability by the Baltimore County Public Schools [BCPS, see US Department
of Education, above] regarding the children and their disability of MCSS
[MCS Syndrome]. This will eliminate possible retaliation with a different
conclusion by the same public entity.' [Case #P4217(2652), 1996, 4 pages,
R-102]. The NPS further ruled that `With the determination that these children
are individuals with a disability (MCSS), it is necessary to make reasonable
modifications to program facilities. It appears that discontinuing, temporarily
or permanently, the use of outside or inside pesticide application and toxic
cleaning chemicals is the basic reasonable modification necessary in this
case. . . . Therefore we believe that steps should be taken by the BCPRD
to provide the necessary communication with other affected agencies such
as the BCPS and develop, in consultation with the parents and others deemed
appropriate, a plan for the reasonable modification of the program environment
for these children.'
In its enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, under
the terms of which MCS may be considered as a disability on a case-by-case
basis, depending--as with most other medical conditions--on whether the
impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities. The Office
of the Attorney General specifically cites `environmental illness (also known
as multiple chemical sensitivity)' in its Final Rules on `Non-Discrimination
on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services' (28CFR35)
and `Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations
and in Commercial Facilities' (28CFR36), as published in the Federal Register,
Vol. 56, No. 144, pages 35699 and 35549 respectively [26 July 1991, 2 pages,
R-16]. `Environmental illness,' also is discussed in the ADA Handbook,
EEOC-BK-19, 1991, p. III-21 [14 page excerpt, R-17], jointly published by
the Department and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The
ADA Handbook describes environmental illness as `sensitivity to environmental
elements' and, although it `declines to state categorically that these types
of allergies or sensitivities are disabilities,' it specifically asserts
that they may be: `Sometimes respiratory or neurological functioning is so
severely affected
that an individual will satisfy the requirements to be disabled under the
regulations. Such an individual would be entitled to all the protections
afforded by the Act.'
~~~~~
In recognizing MCS as a medical diagnosis (although not as a `disability')
in the case of at least one Persian Gulf War veteran [Gary Zuspann, October
1992, 3 pages, R-18]. It is impossible to know exactly how many other Persian
Gulf veterans may have been diagnosed with MCS as the diagnostic data recorded
in the VA's Persian Gulf Registry are based on the International Classification
of Diseases (ICD-9CM), which does not yet include a specific code for MCS.
In June 1997, VA released its `Environmental Hazards Research Centers' Annual
Reports for 1996.' These included preliminary data from the New Jersey EHRC
showing that, of the 1161 veterans randomly selected from the VA's Persian
Gulf Registry (living in NJ, NY, CT, MA, MD, DE, IL, VA, OH or NC) who completed
the center's questionnaire, 12.5% `endorsed symptoms compatible with a
conservative definition of MCS' [1997, 5 page excerpt, R-144]. When the NJ
EHRC published its first report on this study, however, in an abstract entitled
`Preliminary prevalence data on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity,' it said 26% of 104 veterans randomly selected from the VA Register
`were especially sensitive to certain chemicals, and 4% reported that this
sensitivity produced at least 3 of 4 lifestyle changes . . . suggesting that
something about serving in the Gulf substantially increased the risk of
developing CFS and MCS' [1996, Journal of CFS, 2(2/3): 136-137; R-177]
[Page: E2152]
In a peer-reviewed memorandum entitled `Review of Chlorpyrifos Poisoning
Data' from EPA's Jerome Blondell, PhD, MPH, and Virginia Dobozy, VMD, MPH,
to Linda Propst, Section Head, Reregistration Branch. The memo discusses
data from several sources on acute and chronic health effects, including
MCS, associated with exposure to Dursban and other chlorpyrifos-containing
pesticides, and recommends many changes (subsequently agreed to by DowElanco,
the manufacturer) in the use and marketing of these products, including the
phase out of all indoor sprays and foggers, consumer concentrates, and all
pet care products except flea collars. Most significantly, the memo documents
that of 101 cases of unambiguous chlorpyrifos poisoning reportedly directly
to EPA in 1995, 38 had chronic neurobehavioral effects (including 4 who also
had peripheral neuropathy), while 50 `reported symptoms consistent with multiple
chemical sensitivity' [1977, 70 pages, R-145].
In its August 1989 Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality, entitled Assessment
and Control of Indoor Air Pollution (EPA/400/1-89/001C), the Environmental
Protection Agency's Indoor Air Division describes MCS as `a subject of
considerable intra professional disagreement and concern (Cullen, 1987).
While no widely accepted test of physiologic function has been shown to correlate
with the symptoms, the sheer mass of anecdotal data is cause of concern.'
[14 page excerpt from Vol. 2, R-19]. In 1991, the Indoor Air Division asked
the National Research Council to sponsor a scientific workshop on `Multiple
Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome' the proceedings of which are published
in Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: Addendum to Biologic Markers in
Immunotoxicology [National Academy Press, 1992].
Describes `chemical sensitivity' as an `ill-defined condition marked by
progressively more debilitating severe reactions to various consumer products
such as perfumes, soaps, tobacco smoke, plastics, etc.' in The Total Exposure
Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study, Summary and Analysis: Volume 1, by L.
Wallace, Project Officer, Environmental Monitoring Systems Division, EPA
Office of Research and Development [1987, 2 page excerpt, R-20]. The Office
of Research and Development (ORD) began conducting human subjects chamber
research at its Health Effects Research Branch in Chapel Hill (NC) in 1992
to identify possible diagnostic markers of MCS. (See also joint entry under
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, above.) In the justification for
its fiscal year 1998 budget, ORD devotes one paragraph to MCS in the section
on Air Toxins, saying that it plans to release `information comparing individuals
who identify themselves as belonging to a particular subgroup (multiple chemical
sensitivity) against established norms for a variety of health-related
endpoints,' and will make `recommendations for follow up to evaluate the
potential relationship between the signs/symptoms reported by these individuals
and objective/quantitative health endpoints' [1997, 3 page excerpt, R-160].
~~~~~
In the ADA Handbook EEOC-BK-19 [1991], 14 page excerpt, R-17], jointly published
by the EEOC and the Department of Justice (see above) and in a Determination
Letter signed by Issie L. Jenkins, the director of the Baltimore District
Office, recognizing MCS as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities
Act requiring workplace accommodation, consisting in this case of a private
office with an air filter, Mary Helinski v. Bell Atlantic, No. 120 93 0152,
17 May 1994 [2 pages, R-22].
In its Final Report: Principles of Neurotoxicology Risk Assessment, published
in the Federal Register by the US EPA's Office of Health Research [17 August
1994, 45 pages for entire report, R-161, or 3 page excerpt, R-162], which
says in Section 2.5.1 on `Susceptible Populations' that: `Although controversial
[Waddell 1993], recent evidence suggests that there may be a subpopulation
of people who have become sensitive to chemicals and experience adverse reactions
to low-level exposures to environmental chemicals [Bell et al 1992].' The
report is `the result of the combined efforts of 13 Federal agencies comprising
the ad hoc Interagency Committee on Neurotoxicology,' including ATSDR, the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Center for Biologies Evaluation
and Research, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Dept of Agriculture, Dept. of Defense, Environmental Protection
Agency, National Center for Toxicological Research, National Institutes of
Health, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the National
Toxicology Program.
Formed in 1994 to review and coordinate the role of federal agencies involved
in research on multiple chemical sensitivity [1 page agenda from 9/14/94
meeting, R-91]. The Work Group is so-chaired by Dr. Barry Johnson, Assistant
Surgeon General and Assistant Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and Dr. Richard Jackson, Director of the National
Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Other agencies represented include the Departments of Energy,
Defense, and Veterans' Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency and two
other institutes within the Department of Health and Human Services: the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences. Draft report is expected to be released
by ATSDR in September 1998 for a 60-day public comment period.
In ADA Watch--Year One, its `Report to the President and Congress on Progress
in Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act,' which recommends that
Congress and the Administration `should consider legialtion to address the
needs of people with `emerging disabilities,' such as those . . . `with
environmental illness who are severely adversely affected by secondary smoke
or other pollutants in public places' [5 April 1993, 8 pages, R-23].
In its report to the President, entitled Operation People First: Toward a
National Disability Policy, which recommends that the federal government
`develop, refine and better communicate methods of `reasonable accommodation,'
in particular, the accommodation needs of people with . . . chronic fatigue
syndrome and multiple chemical sensitivity' [1994, 5 pages, R-24] encouraging
the Deputy Ministers of Housing, Health Community and Social Services `to
begin a consultative process and help to establish some guidelines' spelling
out exactly what services and benefits are available to provincial residents
with MCS, including possible admission to treatment facilities in the United
States [27 October 1989, 2 page letter and 2 pages of press coverage from
the Globe & Mail, R-158].
In a report written for the general public entitled Topics: Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity with sections on What is MCS, Symptoms of MCS, People Diagnosed
with MCS, What Can Cause MCS, Treatments, MCS and the Medical Community,
MCS is Now Recognized as a Disability, Accommodating Individuals with MCS
in the Workplace, MCS is Preventable, and a list organizations and government
agencies to contract for Help and Information. Funding for this document
was provided by the US Dept of Education National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), grant #H224A40002, but a disclaimer
notes that the content does not necessarily reflect the views of the US
government [October 1996, 11pages, R-129].
~~~~~
In RSA's Interim Fiscal Year 1995 State Plan for Independent Living, specifying
that `Services Related to Housing' include `modifications to accommodate
people with EI/MCS' [Attachment 12, 1 October 1994, 7 pages, R-31] and in
an administrative review decisions issued 22 June 1992 in the case of a
vocational rehabilitation client determined to be `severely disabled' by
`environmental illness, allergies.' In addition, training on MCS was presented
to both Vocational Rehabilitation and ILRS counselors at the 1994 state staff
conference.
[Page: E2153]
In the final report of the Attorney General's Commission on Disability,
recognizing environmental illness as a disabling condition [1989, 8 page
excerpt, R-33].
Backed by 25 other Attorneys General from AL, AZ, CT, FL, IA, KS, MA, MN,
MO, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV.)
In a thoroughly documented petition to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, requesting the issuance of safety standards and warning labels
governing the sale of carpets, carpet adhesives and paddings suspected of
causing MCS and other illness [1991, 1 page excerpt, R-32a, 350 pages total].
In its extensive final report on `Evaluating Individuals Reporting Sensitivities
To Multiple Chemicals,' funded by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry under Cooperative Agreement No. U61/ATU999794-01 [September
1995, 6 page excerpt including abstract, advisory panel members, and table
of contents, R-34]. A cover letter sent by the EHIB to the project's Advisory
Panel members notes the extraordinary preliminary results obtained from an
annual survey of random Californians to which questions about MCS were added
for the first time in 1995. Of the first 2,000 people surveyed, 16% reported
suffering from MCS symptoms while 7% (`certainly far higher than any of us
may have expected') claim they have been diagnosed with MCS by a physician.
[3 October 1995, 2 pages, R-100]. Citing personal communication with Dr.
R. Kreutzer, the acting chief of the EHIB (also confirmed with Dr. Kreutzer
by MCS R&R), Dr. Ann McCampbell reported the study's final results in
a letter to the editor published by Psychosomatics (38(3): 300-301, May-June
1997): of 4,000 people surveyed, 15.9% reported chemical sensitivity and
6.3% said they had been given the diagnosis of MCS by a physician [1997,
1 page, R-141].
In its report on California's Energy Efficiency Standards and Indoor Air
Quality (#P400-94-003), which says of MCS that `Its increasing incidence
is suggested as accompanying the increasingly wide-spread use of products
manufactured with potentially toxic chemical constituents. Available information
points to this condition as an acquired disorder usually resulting from prior
sensitization to chemicals in the environment' [1994, 2 page excerpt, R-35].
In its final report on Access for People with Environmental Illness/Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity and Other Related Conditions, chaired by Senator Milton
Marks, that summarizes four years of investigations by the subcommittee,
[30 September 1996, 26 pages, R-109]. The report addresses common barriers
to access in public buildings, transportation, institutions, employment,
housing, and present detailed suggested solutions, both those required under
law and others recommended. It covers the work of the subcommittee, its outside
Advisory Panel, and its MCS Task Forces (on Building Standards and Construction,
Environmental Illness, Industry, Medicine and Health).
In legislation that created a voluntary Pesticide Notification Registry for
persons with pesticide sensitivity or chemical hypersensitivity, as long
as their medical condition is certified by a physician specializing in
occupational medicine, allergy/immunology or toxicology [Florida Statute
482.2265(3)(c), 1989, 7 pages, R-38]. The legislation requires lawn-care
companies to alert registry members 24 hours in advance of applying chemicals
within a half-mile of their home.
~~~~~
Note that pesticide sensitivity registries also have been adopted in CO,
CT, LA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, WA [1992, 6 pages, R-149], WV and WI, but these do
not refer specifically (by any name) to MCS-type illness, and most require
notification only of adjacent properties.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Congressional Record of the United States
CONGRESSMAN
BERNARD SANDERS
Extension
of Remarks to the House of Representatives
~Top~
*
October
9, 1998 *
October 13, 1998
*
October 15, 1998
*
October 20,
1998
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HON. BERNARD SANDERS
Extension of Remarks to the House of
Representatives
(Extension of Remarks - October 15, 1998)
MULTIPLE CHEMICAL
SENSITIVITY
[Page: E2187]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HON. BERNARD SANDERS
in the House of Representatives
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1998
~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to discuss the issue of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as it
relates to both our civilian population and our Gulf War veterans. I continue
the submission for the Record the latest `Recognition
of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity' newsletter which lists the U.S.
federal, state and local government authorities, U.S. federal and state courts,
U.S. workers' compensation boards, and independent organizations that have
adopted policies, made statements, and/or published documents recognizing
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disorders for the benefit of my colleagues.
In (independently) adopting resolutions declaring May 11-17 (July 13-17 in
Washington) as MCS Awareness Week. In Washington, the governor issued a second
proclamation after rescinding the first on the advice of his General Counsel,
just 8 days after it was adopted with approval of the state toxicologist
[1998, 7 pages including both Washington versions, R-178].
In Senate Joint Resolution No. 32 directing the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) to carry out a study of Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome
[1988, 3 pages, R-40]. The MDE commissioned a state-of-the-art review from
Rebecca Bascom, M.D., entitled `Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome Study'
[1989, 132 pages, R-41].
In its final bid document for the procurement of Environmentally Preferable
Cleaning Products by state agencies for use in state facilities, which `will
not replace the cleaning products already on contract; they will be offered
as alternatives.' The product specifications developed by the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Office of Technical Assistance,
include `desirable' (as distinct from `mandatory') criteria that products
contain as few volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as possible and not contain
any added dyes or fragrances. These are justified in Appendix N of the bid
document on the grounds that `A lower VOC content . . . is especially important
for sensitive individuals' and `The Commonwealth recognizes that many sensitive
individuals prefer cleaning products without added dyes and fragrances.'
[1998, 30 page excerpt including Appendix N, R-181]
[Page: E2188]
In a detailed response to a request from Dr. Grace Ziem for workplace
accommodation of an employee with MCS, the agency agreed to (among other
things): make changes in the work schedule; provide a private work area with
floor to ceiling walls; provide multiple carbon-fiber air filtration machines;
conduct staff education on MCS; adopt and post voluntary fragrance free policy
governing all employees; request maintenance staff use cleaning products
only from an approved list; and clean the carpet. [3 pages, 1 April 1996,
plus 1 of follow-up, R-98]
In a comprehensive review of chemical sensitivity with recommendations for
state action commissioned from Nicholas Ashford, Ph.D., J.D., and Claudia
Miller, M.D., entitled `Chemical sensitivity: a report to the New Jersey
Department of Health' [1989, 176 pages, R-45].
In a brochure on `Multiple Chemical Sensitivities' describing the illness
and nine `steps schools can take to promote environmental safety.' Also lists
resource persons and materials [1997 (undated), 2 pages, R-139].
In a letter from the director outlining steps the division is taking to reduce
barriers to access for individuals with EI/MCS [10 January 1994, 1 page,
R-46]. These include prohibiting smoking in restrooms, temporarily discontinuing
the use of certain cleaning and disinfectant chemicals upon special request
of EI/MCS individuals, and switching to least toxic/allergenic cleaning and
pesticide products.
~~~~~
In an editorial from Barak Wolff, MHP, chief of the EMS Bureau, entitled
`Scared to Death' of Having to call 911' and an accompanying article by Dr.
Ann McCampbell entitled `First . . . Do No Harm: The Challenge of Patients
with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities,' both published in the state's Focus
on Emergency Medical Services newsletter [Vol. 15, No. 3, October 1996, 4
pages, R-117]. The editorial and article discuss the need for emergency service
personnel to accommodate people with MCS and they make several specific
recommendations for 911 operators, emergency responders and hospital staff.
In sponsoring and financing a day-long `Town Hall Meeting on Multiple Chemical
Sensitivities' on 24 June 1996 with the full support of the governor, despite
his earlier veto of a legislative proposal for additional funding (see next
entry). Described as `A public forum to discuss the problems faced by chemically
sensitive New Mexicans and to propose state level solutions,' this was the
first state-wide effort to bring together a panel of representatives from
state agencies to `hear from persons with MCS and other interested parties
on the issues of Housing, Employment, Health Care, Pesticides, Schools, and
Access to State Facilities and Services.' [Brochure, program and detailed
fragrance free policy, 24 June 1996, 3 pages, R-96]. Based on the testimony
received at the Town Meeting, the Governor's Committee then issued a `Report
to the Legislature on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity,' including a `Suggested
Public Meeting Policy on Accessibility for Persons with Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity [27 August 1996, 8 pages, R-104]. The report recommends six actions
`be taken now,' including funding the state Office of Epidemiology to study
the prevalence of MCS within the general population'; directing all hospitals
to `establish written protocols for providing barrier free environments for
the use of persons with MCS admitted for any reason'; directing all ADA
coordinators of public facilities in New Mexico to adopt public meeting policies
`to allow attendance by persons affected by MCS'; creating an `MCS information
and assistance' program within State government to `provide ADA coordinators,
housing officials, hospitals and other decision makers with the most complete
and up-to-date information on MCS as well as . . . providing individual
assistance to affected persons via an `800' telephone number'; and `conducting
a study of the housing needs of persons affected with MCS.'
In a `Joint Memorial Requesting the Governor's Committee on Concerns of the
Handicapped to Study Issues Related to Multiple Chemical Sensitivities.'
The resolution specifies that the study focus on `issues of health care,
insurance, public benefits and services, access to government, legal services
and environmental regulation' [Senate Joint Memorial 10-House Memorial 6,
Second Session, 1996, 3 pages, R-91]. A follow-up amendment to the General
Appropriation Act of 1996 requesting $50,000 in funding for this `Memorial'
also was passed by the legislature (House Bill 2 on 15 February 1996) but
then vetoed by the governor on 4 March 1996.
In a $100,000 grant given to the Mt. Sinai Occupational Health Clinic for
MCS research, part of a larger annual grant to the clinic in 1993 [4 page
excerpt, R-47]. The report, including a review of MCS cases seen at eight
occupational clinics in New York State, originally was supposed to be completed
in late 1994 but is now expected in 1997.
In a decision (upheld on appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania)
finding that a landlord must make reasonable accommodation for a tenant who
suffers from MCS, including giving tenant prior notification of painting
and pest treatments (see Recognition of MCS by State Courts, below, for
reference).
In its 1994 Washington State Public Health Report, which says `Several hundred
Washington residents have reported a condition diagnosed by some physicians
as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity' and goes on to discuss common MCS symptoms
and sensitivities. [December 1993, 3 page excerpt, R-55].
~~~~~
In the joint `Final Inter-Agency Report on Chemically Related Illness' issued
by the Secretary of the Department of Health and the Director of the Department
of Labor and Industries, which acknowledges that `MCS has become a focus
of increasing public health concern in Washington state and elsewhere,' cites
the 1987 Cullen definition, and says `Public agencies are increasingly
recognizing a need to address the
public health aspects of the MCS syndrome, without necessarily waiting for
conclusive answers from scientific research' [June 1995, 5 page excerpt including
table of contents, R-54].
In its final report, in an appendix devoted to MCS, the committee says MCS
is `characterized as a condition in which individuals experience symptoms
following exposures at low levels to multiple chemical substances. It is
a chronic condition that is reproducible with challenge, and which resolves
when incitants are removed' [June 1995, 3 page excerpt, R-95]. The committee
included representatives of state government, affected business and labor
organizations, the medical community, and MCS patients. Its final report
also is included as an appendix in the Washington State Final Inter-agency
Report on Chemically Related Illness (see entry above).
In a booklet entitled `Reasonable Accommodation: A Guide for Employers,
Businesses and Persons with Disabilities,' signed by the governor and the
commissioner of the State's Employment Security Department, which discusses
MCS/EI in detail in a section on `Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with
Hidden Disabilities' [March 1992, 34 pages, R-53].
In voting on 30 April 1996 to require a statement about `odor sensitivity'
in all City-sponsored event and meeting notices, followed by a memo from
the City Manager on 8 August 1996 urging `staff who attend meetings to assist
the City in accommodating the needs of persons with sensitivities and to
respect those needs in their own use of personal products,' and finalized
on 13 November 1996 with the adoption of detailed `Procedures to Implement
Clean Air Practices for Meetings' for use by city and commission staff [6-page
memo from Commission on Disability to the Mayor and City Council, 14 January
1996, R-111].
In its Paratransit Operations Newsletter, people with disabilities who use
the Chicago Transit Authority's Special Services and Chicago Taxi Access
Program are asked to `assist people with EI by practicing the following
suggestions: Keep scented personal care products to a minimum; Never smoke
in a Special Services vehicle and refrain from smoking near the vehicle;
[and] If possible, please accommodate an EI person's request to sit by an
open window in a Special Services vehicle if it doesn't inconvenience other
customers who may be sensitive to hot or cold air.' [6th edition, Winter
1995, 2 page excerpt, R-36].
In all public meeting announcements, which include the following notice:
`Please help us accommodate individuals with EI/MCS and refrain from wearing
scented products to this hearing' [1994, 1 page excerpt, R-37].
In a detailed 7-page report from the Director of the Office of Human Relations
to Dr. Grace Ziem documenting the accommodations that the school system was
willing to provide for a teacher with MCS, including changes in her school
assignment and the elimination or control of a wide variety of aggravating
exposures, from the art clay used in her classroom to custodial use of cleaning
fluids, pesticides, carpets, air fresheners, paints, glues, adhesives &
other remodeling materials. They even offered to provide a special parking
space to limit her exposure to vehicle exhaust. [26 April 1996, 7 pages,
R-97]
[Page: E2189]
In an accommodation plan provided under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, adopted for a 6th grade student with MCS asthma and allergies,
specifying that (a) `classmates will be solicited for cooperation in providing
a scent-free environment,' (b) student `will be allowed to self-limit activities
that involve running or other strenuous exercise,' and (c) if student misses
more than two days in a row, `she can request after school help from her
teachers to review missing work' [1996, 1 page, R-138]. List of reasonable
accommodations upheld upon review in 1997 [15 August 1997, 1 page, R-153].
On 19 November 1997, the school basketball supervisor wrote the Central Missouri
Officials Association asking coaches, players and officials to refrain from
wearing perfumes and colognes to games at which this student would be playing
[1 page, R-171]
~~~~~
In a letter to the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (see below) about
the `expressed need for proper living conditions for people with Environmental
Sensitivities' [1994, 2 pages, R-42]
In awarding a $6,500 grant from its Capacity Building Grant Program to Twin
Cities HEAL to establish an office to better serve the needs of those seeking
MCS-accessible housing in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area [1993, 2 pages,
R-43]
In letters to Twin Cities HEAL and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development expressing `an interest in working with HEAL to assist in the
development of suitable housing for persons with chemical sensitivity
disabilities' [1994, 3 pages, R-44].
In a `Dear Resident' letter from Terry Nyman, Air Pollution Control Officer,
to neighbors of `an individual with a disabling condition related to chemical
sensitivities [who] has moved into your area. This individual is extremely
sensitive to smoke and a health care provider has requested that we send
you information about outdoor burning, heating with wood and the health impacts
of breathing wood smoke.' [21 September 1996, 1 page, R-105]. The letter
notes that the NWAPA is empowered to enforce under the WA State Clean Air
Act `to secure and maintain levels of air quality that protect human health
and safety, including the most sensitive members of the population' (RCW
70.94.011, italics in the original) and says `We want you to be aware of
this situation and ask that you read the enclosed literature to see if you
can minimize potential smoke impacts caused by these activities.'
In the City's `Access Policy for People with Environmental Illness/Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity' which requires city departments to `make reasonable
efforts to accommodate persons with EI/MCS' in city programs, activities
and services. [Administrative Instruction #138, 1995, 9 pages, R-48].
In resolution E#1998-35 `Adopting a moratorium on the use of herbicides,
rodenticides and insecticides on City of Santa Fe property until such time
that an ordinance is adopted to regulate the use of such chemical pesticides.'
The resolution notes that exposure to pesticides `can cause very severe symptoms
and prolonged relapses in chemical or pesticide sensitive people, which the
New Mexico Department of Health estimates to be seventeen percent of all
New Mexicans' [27 May 1998, 4 pages, R-176].
In a resolution requesting citizens attending public meetings `to refrain
from wearing perfume or other scented products to allow individuals with
environmental illness and MCS to attend' [1993]. Although the formal resolution
was subsequently rescinded under pressure from industry opponents, the following
notice is still included in all published announcements of public meetings
as required by Chapter 66 of the City's Sunshine Ordinance: `In order to
assist the City's efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies,
environmental illnesses, MCS or related disabilities, attendees at public
meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical
based products. Please help the City to accommodate these individuals' [Section
66.15(d), as amended 2 August 1993, 2 pages, R-49].
In the city's `Public Services Self-Evaluation/Transition Plan' (required
by the Americans with Disabilities Act), which includes several provisions
for accommodating individuals with `MCS, also known as environmental illness,
resulting from acute or chronic chemical exposure' [1993, 6 pages, R-50].
The comprehensive plan requires `whenever possible, purchase and use of less
toxic, hypoallergenic and non-fragrance materials'; reasonable accommodations
for `employees and persons doing business with the City [who] may have this
illness'; and the posting of notices at entrances to public buildings warning
of `construction, remodeling or toxic cleaning activities.' The City also
includes a notice in all City Council agendas and other public program notices,
stating that `Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple
chemical sensitivity or related disabilities should contact the City's DA
office at (408) 984-3000 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order to allow
participation by such individuals, please do not wear scented products to
meetings at City facilities' as revised by the Santa Clara's ADA Committee
[March 1994, 6 pages, R-51].
~~~~~
In a resolution of the City Council (#NS21,285) establishing a Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan (as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act). The comprehensive plan includes provisions requiring `smoke and fragrance-free environments for public meetings, the elimination of chemical air fresheners/fragrance emission devices' in all city-owned and managed restrooms and workstations, the use wherever possible of the least toxic maintenance products and application methods in public buildings, and signage warning of the use of hazardous materials in public areas [1993, 6 pages, R-52].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Congressional Record of the United States
CONGRESSMAN
BERNARD SANDERS
Extension
of Remarks to the House of Representatives
~Top~
*
October
9, 1998 *
October 13, 1998
*
October 15, 1998
*
October 20,
1998
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HON. BERNARD SANDERS
Extension of Remarks to the House of
Representatives
(Extension of Remarks - October 20, 1998)
MULTIPLE CHEMICAL
SENSITIVITY
[Page: E2244]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HON. BERNARD SANDERS
in the House of Representatives
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1998
~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~
Mr. SANDERS. Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to discuss the issue of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
as it relates to both our civilian population and our Gulf War veterans.
I continue the submission for the Record the latest
`Recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity'
newsletter which lists the U.S. federal,
state and local government authorities, U.S. federal and state courts, U.S.
workers' compensation boards, and independent organizations that have adopted
policies, made statements, and/or published documents recognizing Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity disorders for the benefit of my colleagues.
In decisions affirming MCS (by this or another name) as a real illness, handicap
or disability under:
Daubert: Kannankeril v. Terminix Internationals Inc. Third Circuit Court
of Appeals (CA 3), No 96-5818 [17 Oct. 1997, 5 pages, R-148], overturning
a lower court's summary judgement for the defendant (District of NJ, No
92-cv-03150) on a Daubert motion, saying it had `improperly exercised its
gate keeping role by excluding' the plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Benjamin
Gerson, and his testimony on causation--specifically his view that the plaintiff
developed MCS as a result of overexposure to chlorpyrifos. [Terminix had
sprayed Dursban in the plaintiff's home 20 times in 17 months.] The court
described MCS as becoming `sensitized to multiple other chemicals' and said
`It is an acknowledged scientific fact that chlorpyrifos, the active ingredient
in Dursban, is harmful to humans and can cause the very symptoms displayed
by Dr. Kannankeril,' which included headaches, fatigue, numbness, memory
and concentration problems, sleeplessness, nausea, and skin rashes. Even
though Dr. Gerson had not examined the plaintiff or written about the toxic
effects of organophosphates, the court said his `opinion is not a novel
scientific theory' and `is supported by widely accepted scientific knowledge
of the harmful nature of organophosphates.'
Fair Housing Act: United States v. Association of Apartment Owners of Dominis
West et al, Case No. 92-00641 (D. Ha.) 25 August 1993 [19 pages, R-61], in
which a consent order won by the Department of Justice's Housing and Civil
Justice Enforcement Section requires the management of an apartment complex
in Honolulu to take several steps to accommodate a tenant with MCS.
Rehabilitation Act: Vickers v. Veterans Administration, 549 F. Supp. 85,
W.D. Wash. 1982 [4 pages, R-56], in which the plaintiff's sensitivity to
tobacco smoke was recognized as handicap by the VA and the court, but his
request for totally a smoke-free environment was denied on the grounds that
the VA had already made sufficient reasonable efforts; Rosiak v. Department
of the Army, 679 F. Supp. 444, M.D. Pa. 1987 [6 pages, R-57], in which the
court, although finding the plaintiff `not otherwise qualified' to continue
working, implicitly recognized his MCS disability, as did the Army, which
the court found had made sufficient reasonable (albeit unsuccessful) efforts
to accommodate the plaintiff's chemical sensitivity.
Social Security Disability Act: Slocum v. Califano (Secretary, HEW), Civil
No. 77-0298 (D. Haw.) 27 August 1979 [9 pages, R-60], in what is believed
to be the earliest decision of any court recognizing MCS, the US District
Court of Hawaii awarded disability benefits to a plaintiff whose pro se claim
of `chemical hypersensitivity' dated from 1 May 1968; Kornock v. Harris,
648 F.2d 525, 9th Cir. 1980 [3 pages, R-59]; and Kouril v. B
wen, 912 F.2d 971, 974, 8th Cir. 1990 [7 pages, R-58]; Creamer v. Callahan,
Civil No. 97-30040-KPN (D. Mass.), 5 November 1997, [7 pages, R-150] reversing
and remanding the decision of the SSA Commissioner, who agreed that the
administrative law judge's `analysis was flawed with respect to MCS.' The
court ordered the Commissioner to file a supplemental memorandum on SSA's
`position with respect to MCS,' which he did--specifically stipulating that
SSA `recognizes multiple chemical sensitivity as a medically determinable
impairment' (31 October 1997, 2 pages, R-164).
~~~~~
In decisions affirming MCS illness (by this or some other name) as a handicap
or injury in cases regarding:
Housing Discrimination: Lincoln Realty Management Co. v. Pennsylvania Human
Relations Commission, 598 A.2d 594, Pa. Commw. 1991 [47 pages, R-62].
Employment Discrimination: County of Fresno v. Fair Employment and Housing
Commission of the State of California, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1541, 277 Cal. Rptr.
557 Cal App. 5th Dist. 1991 [11 pages, R-63]; and Kallas Enterprises v. Ohio
Civil Rights Commission, 1990 Ohio App. 1683, Ohio Ct. App. May 2, 1990 [6
pages, R-64].
Health Services Discrimination: Ruth, Barbara; June P. Hall; Cricket J. Buffalo;
Susan Molloy; and Cathy Lent v. Kenneth Kizer/Molly Coe, Director, CA. Department
of Health Services, No. 665629-8, 1989 [1 page, R-65], in which the plaintiffs
won the right to receive oxygen treatments for MCS by successfully appealing
to the CA Superior Court of Alameda County which overturned the prior ruling
of an administrative law judge.
Negligence/Toxic Tort: Melanie Marie Zanini v. Orkin Exterminating Company
Inc. and Kenneth Johnston, Broward County Circuit Court, No. 94011515 07,
verdict of 7 December 1995 and final judgement of 28 December 1995 [4 pages,
R-92], in which the jury ruled that the pesticide applicator's negligence
in applying Dursban was the legal cause of damage to the plaintiff, who was
awarded a total of $1,000,000 in damages by the jury. This was subsequently
reduced to $632,500 in the final judgement.; Ruth Elliott, et al., v. San
Joaquin County Public Facilities Financing Corp. et al., California Superior
Court, San Joaquin County, No. 244601, 31 October 1996 [2 page verdict report,
R-112] in which a public lease-back corporation was held responsible for
14 awards of partial to permanent disability based on MCS and various other
health complaints that started after extensive renovations were inadequately
ventilated (half the roof air conditioners did not work). Awards ranged from
$15,000 to $900,000 each (total $4,183,528) Linda Petersen and Eleni Wanken
v. Polycap of California, California Superior Court, Alameda County, No.
H7276-0, 1 April 1988 [1 page verdict report, R-143], in which plaintiffs
were awarded $250,000 and $13,000, respectively, for MCS they developed after
a polyurethane roofing material was installed at two school buildings where
they worked. These jury awards led to prompt settlement of a dozen other
cases against the same defendant.
Tort of Outrage and `Deliberate Intention' Exception to Workers Compensation:
Birklid et al v. The Boeing Company, Supreme Court of the State of Washington,
26 October 1995, No. 62530-1, in which the court issued an EN BANC ruling
in response to a question it `certified' from the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. By unanimous 9-0 decision, the WA Supreme Court found sufficient
evidence of Boeing's deliberate intent to harm its employees from chemical
exposure that the 17 workers who claim they were physically and/or emotionally
injured as a result (including those with MCS) can sue the company for civil
damages in addition to their workers' compensation benefits. (This `deliberate
intention' exception was last allowed by the court in 1922). The court also
found that the chemically-injured workers had a claim under the Tort of Outrage
for recovery of damages arising from Boeing's intentional infliction of emotional
distress. The matter now returns to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington for a jury trial. [25 page decision with a 2 page
background paper from Randy Gordon, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys., R-66].
Workers' Compensation Appeals (State Courts only, others follow):
Arizona: McCreary, Robert v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 835 P.2d 469,
Arizona Court of Appeals 1992 [1 page, R-70];
California: Kyles v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board et al, No. A037375,
240 Cal. Rptr. 886, California Court of Appeals 1987 [9 pages, R-68]; Menedez
v. Continental Ins. Co., 515 So.2d 525, La. App. 1 Cir. 1987 [6 pages, R-69];
~~~~~
Kansas: Armstrong, Dan H, v. City of Wichita, No. 73038, 907 P.2d 923, Kansas
Court of Appeals [9 pages, R-185];
Nevada: Harvey's Wagon Wheel, Inc. dba Harvey's Resort Hotel v. Joan Amann,
et al, No. 25155, order dated 25 January 1995, Nevada Supreme Court [4 pages,
R-93], in an order dismissing the casino's appeal of a district court ruling
that reversed the decision of an appeals officer in favor of a group of 23
claimants. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's finding that the
officer had `overlooked substantial evidence offered by the [23] claimants
that clearly supported a causal relation between their work place injuries
[due to pesticide exposure] and their continuing disabilities.'
New Hampshire: Appeal of Denise Kehoe (NH Dept. of Labor Compensation Appeals
Board), No. 92-723, Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1994, 648 A.2d 472, which
found that `MCS Syndrome' due to workplace exposure is an occupational disease
compensable under NH's workers' compensation statute and remanded to the
Compensation Appeals Board `for a determination of whether the claimant suffers
from MCS and, if she does, whether the workplace caused or contributed to
the disease' [3 pages, R-71, see also]; (2nd) Appeal of Denise Kohoe (NH
Dept. of Labor Compensation Appeals Board), No. 95-316, Supreme Court of
New Hampshire 13 November 1996, in which the Court again reversed the
Compensation Appeals Board, finding both that the claimant had MCS (legal
causation) and that `her work environment probably contributed to or aggravated
her MCS' (medical causation) [5 pages, R-127];
Oregon: Robinson v. Saif Corp, 69 Or. App. 534; petition for review denied
by 298 Ore. 238, 691 P.2d 482 [5 pages, R-67]; Saif Corporation and General
Tree v. Thomas F. Scott, 824 P.2d 1188, Ore.App. 1992 [6 pages, R-89];
South Carolina: Grayson v. Gulf Oil Co, 357 S.E.2d 479, S.C. App. 1987 [6
pages, R-88];
West Virginia: Arlene White v. Randolph County Board of Education, No. 93-11878,
18 November 1994 decision of Administrative Law Judge Marshall Riley, Workers'
Compensation Office of Judges, reversing denial of MCS claim for temporary
total disability and medical payments by Workers' Compensation Division [7p,
R-131]; Julie Likens v. Randolph County Board of Education, No. 93-14740,
4 April 1995 decision of Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Smith,
Workers' Compensation Office of Judges, reversing denial of MCS claim for
temporary total and medical disability by Workers' Compensation Division
[8p, R-132]; and Barbara H. Trimboli v. Randolph County Board of Education,
No. 92-65342-OD, 10 June 1996 decision of Administrative Law Judge Terry
Ridenour, Workers' Compensation Office of Judges, reversing denial of MCS
claim for temporary total disability and medical payments by Workers'
Compensation Division [5 pages, R-133].
[Page: E2245]
In decisions affirming MCS illness (by this or some other name) as a work-related
injury or illness in:
Alaska: Hoyt, Virginia v. Safeway Stores, Inc, Case 9203051, Decision 95-0125,
Alaska Workers' Compensation Board 1995 [21 pages, R-73].
Connecticut: Sinnamon v. State of Connecticut, Dept. of Mental Health, 1
October 1993 Decision of Nancy A. Brouillet, Compensation Commissioner, Acting
for the First District, Conn. Workers' Compensation Commission. [10 pages,
R-106]. The commissioner, citing testimony from Dr. Mark Cullen, among others,
found `the great weight of medical evidence supports the diagnosis of MCS
syndrome causally related to the Claimant's exposure while in the course
of her employment' in state office buildings with poor indoor air quality.
She ordered payment of temporary permanent disability benefits as well as
payment `for all reasonable and necessary medical treatment of the Claimant's
MCS syndrome.'; O'Donnell v. State of Connecticut, Judicial Department, 22
May 1996 Decision of Robert Smith Tracy, Compensation Commissioner, Fourth
District, Conn. Workers' Compensation Commission. [5 pages, including cover
letter from plaintiff's attorney, R-107]. The commissioner recognized MCS
`caused by numerous exposures to pesticides at work . . . and exacerbated
by repeated exposure to other odors and irritants at work' in a Juvenile
Court building. Because `this claimant has been given special accommodations
since March 1992 when she was granted an isolated office and the stoppage
of spraying of pesticides' that allowed her to continue working full-time,
no monetary benefits were awarded.
~~~~~
Delaware: Elizanne Shackle v. State of Delaware, Hearing No. 967713, Delaware
Industrial Accident Board in and for New Castle County, December 1993 [21
pages, R-142] awarding total temporary disability benefits and `one attorney's
fee' based on the IAB's finding that the claimant's work exposure (in a state
correctional facility built by prison labor) had `caused her present respiratory
symptoms' and that this `has sensitized her to other odors.'
Maryland: Kinnear v. Board of Education Baltimore County, No. B240480, Md.
Workers' Compensation Commission, 28 June 1994 [1 page, R-75].
Massachusetts: Sutherland, Karen v. Home Comfort Systems by Reidy and Fidelity
& Casualty Insurance of New York, Case No. 023589-91, 8 February 1995
decision of Mass. Department of Industrial Accidents [21 pages, R-74]; Steven
Martineau v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co, Case No. 9682387, 15 May 1990 decision
of Administrative Judge James McGuinness, Jr., Mass. Industrial Accident
Board, ordering that the employer pay for disability benefits as well as
`all costs, including transportation, lodging and meals, incurred or to be
incurred in the course of seeking and obtaining reasonable medical and related
care . . . including treatment rendered by and at the Center for Environmental
Medicine.' [18 pages, R-125]; Elaine Skeats v. Brigham & Women's Hospital,
Case No. 02698693, 24 October 1996, decision of Administrative Judge James
McGuinness, Jr., Mass. Industrial Accident Board, ordering that the employee
`compensate the employee for expenses incurred in the course of satisfying
the historic and prospective prescriptions of Doctors . . . prompted by her
industrial injury and relative to: intravenous therapy, vitamin and nutritional
supplements, message therapy, air conditioning, air purification, air filtration,
masking, water filtration, allergy bedding, laboratory testing and mileage
travelled.' [14 pages, R-126]
New Mexico: Elliott, Erica v. Lovelace Health Systems and Cigna Associates
Inc, No. 93-17355, 8 November 1994, decision of Rosa Valencia, Workers'
Compensation Judge, finding that MCS was triggered by glutaraldehyde and
Sick Building Syndrome for which employer had been given timely notice. Also
supported Elliott's refusal to return to work in the buildings that made
her sick buildings as `reasonable under the circumstances.' Decision granted
3 months of temporary total disability pay followed by permanent partial
disability for `500 weeks or until further order of the Court' [15 pages,
R-113]
New York: Crook v. Camillus Central School District #1, No. W998009, 11 May
1990, decision of Barbara Patton, Chairwoman, NY State Workers' Compensation
Board specifies `modify accident, notice and causal relationship to multiple
chemical sensitivity' and awarded continuing benefits of $143.70 per week
[1 page, R-108].
Ohio: Saks v. Chagrin Vly. Exterminating Co Inc., No. 97-310968, 18 September
1997 [2 pages, R-151], decision of District Hearing Officer Arthur Shantz,
recognizing claim of chemical sensitivity; and Kelvin v. Hewitt Soap Company,
No. 95-599131, 5 June 1996 [2 pages, R-152], decision of District Hearing
Officer Steven Ward, recognizing claim of multiple chemical sensitivity as
`occupational disease' contracted `in the course of and arising out of
employment.'
Washington: Karen B. McDonnel v. Gordon Thomas Honeywell, No. 95-5670, 22
October 1996 decision of Judge Stewart, WA State Board of Industrial Appeals,
recognizing `toxic encephalopathy' as an acceptable diagnosis for MCS-induced
permanent partial disability [2 p, R-118].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Special Note: The information which
Congressman Sanders cited is from the quarterly
newsletter, ``Recognition of Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity,'' which may be ordered from:
The MCS Referral & Resources Professional Outreach Resources Page
___ P2. Recognition of MCS. Lists policies, statements and rulings by U.S. and Canadian government authorities (at the local, state, provincial, and federal levels), U.S. courts, and independent organizations that recognize MCS, plus summary of medical literature on MCS. Edited by Albert Donnay, MHS. Published by MCS Referral & Resources, updated quarterly. Patients and non-profits: ==> $20. Professionals and corporations: $60.
click here for more
information
MCS Referral & Resources
Albert Donnay, Executive Director
508 Westgate Rd, Baltimore MD 21229
Phone: 410-362-6400,
Fax: 362-6401
Internet:
http://www.mcsrr.org
E-mail: donnay@mcsrr.org
Source: The Congressional Record at Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Congressman BERNARD SANDERS:
http://www.house.gov/bernie/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Congressional Record of the United States
CONGRESSMAN
BERNARD SANDERS
Extension
of Remarks to the House of Representatives
~Top~
*
October
9, 1998 *
October 13, 1998
*
October 15, 1998
*
October 20,
1998
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~Updates~
~~Return
to Welcome~~
~How Can I Help?~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~