Air Today . . . Gone Tomorrow Article|
Panel Is Split on
Ways to Retest Air in Homes Near Ground Zero
By Anthony DePalma, New
York Times, April 1, 2004
A panel of experts began its critical review yesterday of the federal government's cleanup
of Lower Manhattan after the collapse of the World Trade Center, and immediately found
itself torn between the needs of science and the health concerns of residents.
The 17-member panel, meeting publicly for the first time, released the outlines of a plan
to retest 250 to 1,000 of the 4,167 apartments that were tested and cleaned by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 and 2003.
Those efforts have been widely criticized by downtown residents and public officials who
have called them flawed, inadequate and deliberately misleading about the risks posed by
dust from the collapse and smoke from the fires that smoldered for weeks afterward.
No sooner had the retesting proposal been made public yesterday than divisions began to
appear within the panel, which consists of scientists, medical doctors and one resident of
On one side were several scientists who insisted that any retesting follow strict
guidelines to ensure that the methods are comparable to testing that was done after the
The original test results showed that most apartments did not exceed standards for
asbestos, which was used to indicate the presence of other pollutants.
On the other side were members who said the panel should conduct a range of tests, even if
they were not done the first time, to assure residents that their apartments are safe.
"Science is not what brought us here," said Jeanne Stellman, a chemist and
director of the general public health program at Columbia University's Mailman School of
Public Health. "It was community concerns."
Dr. Stellman acknowledged the value of maintaining scientific standards in the resampling,
but said other issues were more important.
Time after time during the all-day hearing at the old Customs House on Bowling Green,
residents, community organizers and panel members questioned the way the original cleanup
had been handled by the E.P.A. And they asked what could be done to ease the concerns of
thousands of people whose apartments were contaminated by the dust, which contained
asbestos, lead, mercury and other hazardous elements.
One resident, Kelly E. Colangelo, testified that the work crew contracted by the E.P.A. to
clean her apartment in Battery Park City did not follow accepted practices. They did not
check the air-conditioner for contamination.. Nor did they run a fan to simulate normal
living conditions while air samples were taken.
Kathy Callahan, the E.P.A.'s deputy regional administrator of Region 2, which includes New
York, defended the cleanup, saying it was both timely and effective in removing
contaminants from the apartments of those who had participated.
The initial testing of the cleaned apartments was done, she said, to "bolster the
confidence that the cleaning was effective."
The federal program to clean up indoor air began in May 2002, and the voluntary enrollment
period ran through the end of that year. Although there are more than 30,000 apartments in
Lower Manhattan, just slightly more than 4,000 residents signed up for the program. The
panel gave no estimate of how much the retesting would cost, or how long it would take.
Paul Gilman, the chairman, said that he had hoped to have the results by June, but that
there could be delays if the E.P.A. had trouble hiring contractors.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic,
environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues,
among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research
and educational purposes.
Take me back to learn more