Report Denies Fogg Museum Cancer Worries

Amidst union concerns that employees at the Fogg Art Museum suffer from an abnormally high incidence of cancer, the University commissioned an independent study last spring--to be released next week--of asbestos and other hazardous materials at the two museums.

The report found that, though three mild human carcinogens are used in small quantities in the Fogg's art conservation laboratory, there is no evidence linking the compounds to any employee illness. The study also gave the museum high marks for health and safety overall.

According to Harvard University Art Museums (HUAM) Operations Manager James A. Moisson, the study "does not indicate that the facility is a hazardous place to work…It's safe to say that things are good."

A union official who agitated for the study has not yet seen a draft of the report and says he remains skeptical about the University's response to the complaints.

The exact number of employees who have fallen ill is a matter of contention.

Stephen G. McCombe, the president of the Harvard University Security, Parking and Museum Guards Union, said at least 10 people who work at the Fogg have cancer. By contrast, the study's director, Kevin M. Coghlan, said only a "handful" of employees, "definitely under 10," had informed the firm during a town meeting and in a questionnaire that they had cancer.

Moisson said there was no evidence of an abnormally high rate of cancer among employees at the Fogg.

"There is no information that there is an extraordinary incidence of cancer [at the Fogg]," he said. "The numbers don't jump out and say there's a cancer cluster here."

Moisson commissioned the study after a union trustee wrote a letter to HUAM Director James Cuno formally requesting an investigation of "the issue of cancer," the extent of asbestos in the Fogg, an inventory of chemicals used in the building and a study of other possible hazardous conditions in the Fogg and Sackler museums.

Moisson said HUAM decided that a study of individuals in the building who had cancer would be "invasive," and instead they opted to "study the workplace to try to discover if there was a connection."

Coghlan said the study found the conservation laboratory's high-tech ventilation system was well-equipped to handle the "thimbleful" of three common chemicals--benzene, sulfuric acid and potassium dichromate--used in restoring artwork and that concerns about asbestos proved to be unfounded. Although small amounts of asbestos remain in the Fogg from its construction in the 1920's (most has been removed over time), Coghlan said it was encapsulated well enough that no particles were present in the air.

"One can coexist with some asbestos," Moisson said. "The gas in your car is really bad for you, but not if it stays in the back."

According to Moisson, the report did say that the museum's handling of hazardous materials in its exhibition shop should be improved, but that the problem did not pose a serious threat to employees.

But McCombe said he felt the University had dragged its feet on the issue, and said that as part of a confidentiality agreement signed with the University, he should have received a copy of the report on Nov. 17.

He said union representatives had brought up concerns about members coming down with cancer and breathing problems during prolonged labor negotiations in 1999, and alleged that Moisson did not adequately follow through on conversations on the topic with Union Trustee Dan Meagher, who subsequently wrote the letter to Cuno. Meagher declined to comment.

Environmental Health and Engineering (EH&E), the company which conducted the study, was selected from a field of four competing firms recommended for consideration by the University's Environmental Health and Safety department (EH&S), in concurrence with a union request that an outside company conduct the study. EH&S Director H. Joseph Griffin said that the internal agency is not properly equipped to conduct the type of study the union requested.