··(fJPI:

COMMISSION SENSITIVE ."

[Unclassified]

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

Event: Meeting at Columbia U.

Type of event: Briefing
Date; Oct. 21,2002
Special Access Issues: NA .
Prepared by.EmilyWalker
Team Number: 8
Location: Columbia U.
Participants - Non-Commission: Dr. Robyn Gershon, Dr. Elizabeth Smailes.Dr, Kristine
Qureshi, Erin Hogan of The World Trade ,. Center Evacuation Study;
I
SallyRegenhardand
Monica Gabrielle - Skyscraper Safety Campaign
Participants' - Commission: Emily Walker, Sam Caspersen" Cate Taylpt, George Delgrosso, Ellie
Hartz

At the invitation of Sally Regenhard and Monica Gabrielle oftheSkycraper Safety Campaign,
,) Team 8 setup a meeting with the.Columbia University Study forthe World Trade Center
Evacuation in order to be briefed on the results of their study thus far. Thestudy.beganinZouz
and expects to finish in 2004. Dr. Robyn Gershon led the discussion. Following an introduction
,"

of the participants, includingsome description of the 9..J 1 Private 'Sector Preparedness hearing
and issues we have uncovered including the need for more preparedness, Dr. Gershonpresented
the 'attached Powerl'oint slides which described the .nature oftheir.studyand the reslllts obtained
by the 30 interviews they have conducted thus far. Thepurposeof the study-is "to identify/the
individual, organizational and structural factors that affected evacuation from theWTC on
9111/01". The pieces of the study that were of most interest to the Commission included the
sections on structure factors and preparedness. In addition" the goal of the study is to provide a
basis for policy makers.to use to ','improve the evacuation ,Ofhigh risestructuresunder extreme
conditions". Dr. Gershon highlighted the following issues:

L They were cooperating with NIST andexpected to get thelist.of employees at the WTC
as of April 200 I from NIST so that theycouldselect a sample of 5000 to participate it).a

COMMISSION' SENSITIVE
 COMMISSION SENSITIVE
study. NIST has changed its mind andwill not give them the list due to privacy laws and'
they are struggling as to how to get there sample now.
:.c "_">

2. They are halfway through the study and expect to complete by COY 2004.' They are at
the questionnaire stage.
3. They are following a theoretical model-which appears tohold up in most cases.
4. They are covering only.W'TC 1 and 2.
5. There is somedispute about the number of people who made itout from below the of the
planes impact.
6. There are many-questions on the timeline which makes'it difficult for them when
interviewing to pinpoint the exact time people evacuated.
7. There appear tpbe contradictions to the datathe USf\Todayr,eporter, DennisCouchon,
It'

suppliedas towhere sb'ineof the survivors came from; .Forexample, from their
interview,S, it~ppears that some people in Tower lwereon the lower floors and when
Tower. 2 collapsed, the debris from that Tower impeded their departure from-Tower 1.
.' " ',"'" ',-, - -' -, . " '.' .'. .:":"",- .,.. ,,-,"j>, .,

8. Sally Regenhard interjected that if the firefighters had been given proper communication, '
they could have' gotten more people oJlt'ratherth~n heading upstairs.
9. There was some discussion on the issues related to handicapped employees evacuation
and how this
" slowed-down the process and what steps could be' takento help these people
" ," '" ,','.

in the future.
10. Dr. Gershon saidthat.data currently points to the fact that the WTC towers were terribly
lacking in readiness. Somefire wardens did not know where thestairwells were.
. ;, ..• -.'.

Employees .hadnot practiced evacuation and did not know where the stairwells were.
. '. .

Stairwells were.not labeled.iDoors were locked between floors. Elevators were not
.~'. ' . . . ....... "...' ""'. ' ," . , '. .""'f~;">- " " . ',,, " -".:

marked so peopledidnot know which of the two doors openedtothe floor and which
opened to the wall on particular,fioors. Construction for certain floors re-arranged the
floors and b~ock¢d off certain fire exits etc. Peopledid.notknowwhere
• .-'. . "',' .'-', -I,'
evacuation chairs
were placed for thehandicapped
, ~ ,
(which had been installedafter the~93 bombing).
'. . J

Stairw~Jls'\V~re notlarge enough to evacuate'fhebuildingat.the saw~ time. No ~ne ever

calculated the .amount of space needed for a full buildingevacuation. Also, the fact that
. ' , ' , ~
the interior of-the buildinghad allthe equipment~~le~:~tor~ etc,made the plane impact
even greater. .

COMMISSION ,SENSITIVE 2
 COMMISSION SENSITIVE
, 11. Sally Regenhard interjected that the Port Authority-did not follow NY fire code. She
feels that even though they state, that they exceeded-the NY Code, this isa false
statement. 'She feels that the PA should not-be above the law and that they should have
accourit~bility. In addition, she IS concerned over the fact.that the'new \yTC 7 building is
following the s~me path as the previous buildings in terms of not 'applying ,the NYC fire
code. She felt this should be pointed out.
12. Dr. Gershon felt that OSHA standards were usable but theywere not enforceable. They
did call fhr at?-evacuation plan. Th~y feel that, different regulations are needed for
buildings above 1O·s,torieswhich could coverover 700.~buildingsin
.
NYC. She does NOT
". )

feel that skyscrapers are safe places to work.

13. Dr.Smailes spoke about the interviewsand the kind ofdata they-have found from their
focus groups. She saidthatolder people who had previously been in events, particularly
the military-and National Guard," showed evacuation leadership.and galvanized people.

Background:
Attachment 1: Agenda of Meeting
Attachment 2: PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment 3: Assessing the Impact of Research on Disaster Survivors
Attachment 4: Support Services Brochure

[Unc1assified]

C'OMMISSION SENSITIVE 3
 CPHP NCDP
Center for Public National Center for
Health Preparedness Disaster Preparedness
Columbia University Columbia University
 The
World Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
Cohlrnbi,,, l.;i"'~".",:r~.;t·
...
MAILMAN t'CHOOl.
OF .!'VIH.lC HIL·U.TlI
 The
\'Vorld Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
Cohlfn.bl;.~ tlnivi·r~.it ..v
MAH •.M.A N SCHOOl.,
OfI'O)}UC !U: ..UTH
 The
World Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
C()jumbl~' t.jn;'~·cr~:it:1'
MAn"MAN SCHOOL
Of' POIH,lG HL",LTH

Questionnaire
Sample Frame Participatory
Development Data
Identification Processes Action
&
and Strategy & Analyses

Identification
of Risk
Reduction Strategies
& Recommendations

Preparation Feedback to
of Participants &
Reports Stakeholders
Co l c m b i e lJn.~v{~rt·i{y
M,AH.M,\N SCHOOL
OF' rOIH"Ie Ii !CALI' I-!
 The
World Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
Co lu m b i » tJni.v~:'r~:ity
MAn:'MAN SCHOOL
Of' l'IJJHotG liL"CTH

South

North
 TI.lc
\-Vorlel Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
Co l u m b i o t}n~ver&it.y
MAtLMAN SCHOOL
or r-o ar.rc HEALTH
Th.e
World Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
 I'he
World Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
C()h.l.,nbiu tln;"v{"t":,<-:itl/

MAl LMh N SCHOOL

OF' I'UIH.Ie HL ....LTli
 The
World Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
Co lu m b i o l}t~iv""f;!lty
MAlt_MAN SCHOOL
Ofl'I.J:UUC:; IIEALTH
 The
\'Votld Trade
Center
EVacuation
Study
t.rn'iVi~ t"~,l ty
Col·\l"O'"lhil~
MAn.MAN SCHOOL
Of l'tJ6LTC H}~ALTH
 The
\Vorld Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
C:olurnbi,~ Un~v~:r~.it'!:
M<\JLM.A N SCHOOL
OF P1JJl.UC fn<:·,"-!TlI
 The
World Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
Co lu m b il~lJn i''''~r~.i ly
MAILMAN SCHOOL
runt-Ie HLALTli
 The
lVol"ld Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
ColUOl.hin. tJnivi~r·d(y
MAILM.AN SCUOOL
OF PU&LtG liE. ...LTH
 The
World Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
C(lo-h-lrnbil~ tJnivtr.ti~"'·
MAILMAN SCHOOl.
Of \'UIH.tC !iEALTH
 The
World Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
Co l o m b t o tJt'~V(~t'"!.:ity
M ... ILM ....N SCHOOL
OF NJal~l c H t:A r.r' 11
 The
''''odd Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
COll<.1.0~lhil:t, tJn~V~·t'~ i.t y
M.AI'LMAN SCHOOL
Of' ,'VBLle !H~ALTII
 The
World Trade
Center
Evacuation
Study
Co.Iu m b i e t}ni-,,'er,'!lty
M ...
.,x t.MAN SCHOOL
OF l'U:6LIC lfl' ..'O'.LTH
 Meeting with the 9-11 Commission
Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 11 :00 a.m.

Agenda

Purpose: To provide an overview of the World Trade Center Evacuation Study and
preliminary findings and recommendations to the 9-11 Commission.

Where: Elinson Conference Room,

600 West 168th Street, 4th Floor Center, New York, NY 10032

For more information, please call Ms. Erin Hogan, Project Coordinator at 212-342-0262

Factors Associated with the Evacuation of Dr. Robyn Gershon

the WTC : Preliminary. Findings

11:30 - 11:45 Interim report on psychological impact Dr. Elizabeth Smailes

of interviews

11:45 - 12:00 p Open Discussion Open

1.
1
..'.'
•.
~:.,.-•••.•.
" .. .' '.'"'......'~:.~.,.".~
..~-,,'
.'','.
'".,"
Preliminary',.'...•
:-
......•.•..
••......
-•'...•
',~
.'....•.•...
,'...•.....
_'-._
.._..:._''_._
Finding$: ..•....
_
..L _:•.
'_.'.'
:.~
•..
' _~L,~
In-:.:'_
••~_"

.
c: "Deptfr Interviews (N=30)
":.. - " ,"-'" ",

• Theab~enceof leade;ihip or direction led to dela~s

!.;e!!.~/!!r!'l
emerged c,;. prior experience
,,', Employers, for the most part, did not provide emergency
training .
Trah'lingthat was proVide~:lwas cursory
• COmmunication failures·d~layedevacuation slowed down
others
.' Individuals with disabilities
Helping others
• Uniformed s~ivices pre~ehc~Was calming provided a
• People were unfamiliar w~hthe building focused goaL,

• Once outside, confusiollo~how to vacate immediate area

2
3
 MAILMAN SCHOOL
OF PUBLIC HEALTH
~ ;) I

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF RESEARCH ON DISASTER SURVIVORS

The Second International Conference on Urban Health
October 16, 2003
Elizabeth Smailes, Ph.D, Tracy Durrah, DrPH., Robyn R.M. Gershon, DrPH, Bridgette Murphy, M.S., Erin Hogan, B.S., Vitoria Raveis, Ph.D., Fredrick Matzner, MD
Introduction
Survivors of disasters are often recruited to participate in research related to the disaster. However, little is known about the impact of

I
participation in such research on disaster survivors. We developed a protocol to minimize and track the potential adverse effects of Figure 3. Mean of PTSD symptoms
study participation on World Trade Center evacuees' well-being. o for each assessment time (N=30)
Study Design

I I
~ 2.6

A detailed protocol was developed for use when conducting in-depth interviews, which involved 30 survivors of the World Trade Center
Evacuation. As part of this protocol, participants were asked to complete the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (Weathers, ~ 2.4

t:
1993) two weeks prior to participating in the in-depth interview (T1), directly following the interview (T2), and then two weeks after the
interview (T3).
~ 1.8

Demographic and Work Status Information 'tl 1.6

Interviewees were an average age of 43 years old; 60% were male; 63% were white; 70% were college graduates ~ 1.4.L...-_~ __ ~ __ ~ __ --I

On average, interviewees worked 45 hours per week and had worked for an average of 5 years with their company at WTC
68% were from companies with less than 500 employees, and 59% were senior management PTSD Assessment Times

Figure 1. Evacuation Risks

63
Figure 2. Health Outcomes Following the
Figure 4. Mean of PTSD symptoms across

EVC::::U:::::::::O:: jl-====ll~o 1 . 1 7j
25 3 times for each WTC intervie\Nee (N=30)

ii::::~ ... _~~~

Prior life event affected evac ~ :

Medical problem affected evac ~~~~~L __ -t.. +---~

o 20 40 60 80 b1~
~E:::?"-~... "--~---=~.-=-=~~~~

Percent ~o~ ~ ~
Results 24 Hour 2 Week 24 Hour 2Week
A number of participants reported prior traumatic life events, as well as I Head AchesHead Aches Stomach Aches Stomach Aches
PTSD Assessment Times
evacuation
Figure 2. Interviewees reported no significant change in frequency of health symptoms between the 24 hour and two week
Conclusions
follow-up, (head aches: (! (28) = 1.00, Q. = .33; stomach aches: (! (28) = 1.44, Q. = .16).
Among this sample of disaster survivors, PTSD symptoms decreased
Figures 3 and 4. On average interviewees reported at most experiencing minimal PTSD symptoms two weeks prior to
following the interviews. These results suggest that the implementation of
participating in the interview (T1 ), directly following the interview (T2), and two weeks after the interview T3. T1 Mean=
a detailed protocol may have been beneficial in preventing an adverse
2.05; T2 Mean= 2.08; T3 Mean= 1.80, where response item 2 was 'a little bit.'
impact of the interview on participants.
The results of a paired samples t-test indicate no significant elevation in symptoms from the screen to following the
interview (! (29) = .31, Q. = .76).
For more information please contact Dr. Elizabeth Smailes,
Interviewees reported a significant drop in PTSD symptoms between the interview and the two weeks after the interview (!
ems37@columiba.edu, (212) 342-0264
(29) = -3.61, Q. < .001).