|
Air Today . . . Gone Tomorrow Article
EPA's New Monitoring Plan Still Inadequate:
Ground Zero's Toxic Dust
By Jenna Orkin, Counterpunch, May 13, 2005
EPA's new, supposedly improved sampling plan to test for residual toxic dust
from the environmental disaster of 9/11 was released Tuesday evening to a
response that ranged from "serious concern" on the part of Senator Hillary
Clinton to dismay among community activists.
"[I]t appears at first glance that the EPA's long-awaited plan has been designed
in a way that is fundamentally inadequate to determine the true extent of WTC
dust contamination," said Congressman Jerrold Nadler of the Eighth District
which includes Ground Zero.
"While we are pleased that EPA agreed to test workplaces as well as residences,"
said David Newman, industrial hygienist for the New York Committee for
Occupational Safety and Health and a member of the WTC Expert Technical Review
Panel which has been meeting with EPA for the last year in an effort to arrive
at a scientifically valid plan, "that is a hollow promise if employers can bar
access for testing."
Newman was referring to an aspect of voluntary testing which many community
activists feel could make it impossible to get scientifically valid results: If
EPA relies only on buildings whose landlords have volunteered to be tested,
those are the buildings that are most likely to have been adequately cleaned. In
office buildings, employees who are worried about what they may be getting
exposed to at work will be at the mercy of the decisions of their employers who
may be afraid of the liability issues that could ensue from testing.
Other problems with the plan include its reliance on a WTC 'signature' which
would supposedly insure that contaminated dust that might be found in people's
homes indeed came from the disaster. Community activists have argued that the
contents of the buildings were diverse and that nature did not obligingly mix
them together into a homogeneous blend. This belief is borne out by experience:
Independent testing performed in the years following 9/11 showed some apartments
to have high levels of antimony; others, high levels of asbestos or lead, etc.
EPA's initial plan as laid out by James Connaughton of the White House Council
on Environmental Quality (the organization that changed at least one of EPA's
press releases following 9/11, turning cautionary statements about asbestos into
reassurances) was to use asbestos as a surrogate for all the contaminants that
might remain in people's homes. This suggestion was denounced by organizations
such as 9/11 Environmental Action and the Sierra Club as well as being severely
critiqued by independent experts. Asbestos was then replaced by two
'signatures', one for the collapse of the towers, the other for the fires that
burned and smoldered for several months. The fire signature idea was abandoned.
The collapse signature has metamorphosed several times. A few months ago it was
to be slag wool. The current plan adds gypsum and concrete; the latter a
contaminant too heavy to have travelled far from Ground Zero. The chameleon
nature of the WTC signature underscores the dubiousness of the whole 'signature'
notion since the essence of a signature is its constancy.
Even if EPA were to arrive at a reasonable plan, there are still problems with
the way it would be executed. Residents who took part in EPA's first cleanup,
begun in September 2002, witnessed equipment that broke down, fans for air tests
that were never turned on or, when they were turned on, were placed facing the
wrong direction. Some community activists, including this writer, have argued
for third party monitoring to prevent a repeat travesty.
Jenna Orkin is one of twelve original plaintiffs in a potential class action
lawsuit against the EPA and is director of the World Trade Center Environmental
Organization. She can be reached at: Jennakilt@aol.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/orkin05132005.html
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 |
|
|
