|
Air Today . . . Gone Tomorrow Article
Plan to Test Downtown Dust Draws Ire
By Anahad O’Connor, New York Times, May 25, 2005
An Environmental Protection Agency plan to look for hazardous dust in buildings
near ground zero was criticized yesterday by residents of Lower Manhattan and
environmental advocates, who said it was deeply flawed and unrealistic.
"We're not happy at all with the cleanup," said one critic, Jean Hartman, who
lives in the Independence Plaza North development in TriBeCa. "It wasn't done
correctly the first time, and there are still so many problems with the way it
is going now."
Ms. Hartman's comments came at a public hearing to discuss the agency's plan to
inspect some of the thousands of apartments and workplaces that may have been
exposed to a cloud of dust when the World Trade Center collapsed.
Federal officials said that the plan was still evolving, and that they were
working to address critics' concerns.
"There have been a huge number of additions and modifications to the plan
reflecting that we've accepted recommendations from the public and from the
panel," said E. Timothy Oppelt, the acting assistant administrator for research
and development for the agency, referring to a technical panel of experts who
have been advising the agency. "That includes expanding the boundaries into
Brooklyn, expanding the list of contaminants of concern, and looking for
contamination not only in residential buildings but also in commercial
establishments."
Although the plume of smoke that bellowed from the trade center collapse
traveled several blocks, scientists have not been able to determine how far the
microscopic particles of asbestos, lead and other toxic substances spread after
the Sept. 11 attack. The plan calls for inspectors to clean desktops, carpets
and other spaces in 150 buildings south of Houston Street in Manhattan and along
part of the Brooklyn waterfront, and to test for traces of gypsum, concrete and
slag wool, a type of insulating material, to distinguish trade center
contamination from background dust. If slag wool and other traces of toxic soot
are identified, the government has said, it will offer to clean the site and
possibly the entire building.
But residents, environmental advocates and lawmakers have called the plan
inadequate. At the hearing yesterday, in an auditorium at the United States
Custom House, just a few blocks from where the twin towers once stood, scores of
people complained that the agency would never get building owners to cooperate.
To conduct inspections, the agency must receive approval from landlords,
something critics said was unlikely because of concerns about liability.
"The ability of employers and landlords to veto requests for testing is a key
issue that has to be resolved," said Kimberly Flynn, a coordinator for one
group, 9/11 ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. "If that doesn't happen, the sampling plan is
simply not viable."
Mrs. Flynn and others at the meeting said that the agency should force landlords
to agree to testing. But Michael Brown, a senior official with the environmental
agency, said that most landlords would probably want to know if their buildings
were contaminated, and that it was unlikely that those who were asked to
participate would refuse. Still, he said, the agency has also come up with a
list of "backup" buildings.
Some critics said the zone of buildings eligible for testing should be expanded,
but the E.P.A. said that that was unlikely.
The agency also came under fire for its testing procedures. Under the plan, for
example, if slag wool and other substances are discovered in areas described as
"inaccessible," like some ventilation systems, the government will not offer to
clean it up. The agency is looking primarily for slag wool, and because some
slag wool particles might be heavier than other toxins, residents said it was
possible that buildings farther from ground zero would test negative for slag
wool but still have other contaminants that had traveled farther. Officials said
the plan would be completed in a week or two.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/nyregion/25air.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 |
|
|