Air Today . . . Gone Tomorrow Article A Red Flag on Air
Tests at WTC
By Juan Gonzalez, Daily News, March 21, 2002
In the days after Sept. 11, EPA officials
used standards to determine dangerous asbestos contamination that were never intended to
measure health risks, according to a new 43-page memo by a dissident Environmental
Protection Agency scientist.
Cate Jenkins, a 22-year veteran with the
agency's Hazardous Waste Identification Division in Washington, charged that the agency
"misrepresented safety levels and standards for asbestos" and failed to
accurately detect possible health risks to the public.
Jenkins first criticized her agency's
handling of the World Trade Center disaster in late November, arguing that EPA officials
effectively "waived" federal asbestos guidelines by endorsing lenient cleanup
methods.
Her latest memo raises new allegations
that the standards the EPA publicized as benchmarks for judging asbestos contamination in
both dust and air were intended only to measure the presence of asbestos in building
materials.
An EPA spokeswoman roundly rejected
Jenkins' charges yesterday and defended the agency's work. "We have a number of
scientists in the agency who looked at Cate's approach and none of them agree with her
view," said spokeswoman Mary Mears.
In the days after Sept. 11, federal
officials repeatedly referred to two "standards," one for asbestos in dust and
debris and another for asbestos fibers in air.
For dust and debris, the agency standard
was 1% asbestos content. For air, it was usually 70 asbestos fibers per square millimeter
of a testing filter.
The "EPA has performed 62 dust sample
analyses for the presence of asbestos and other substances. Most dust samples fall below
EPA's definition of asbestos- containing material [1% asbestos]," EPA Administrator
Christie Whitman announced Sept. 18.
Whitman was correct about one thing. Most
dust samples were below the 1% standard, but a significant portion were not. Around 35% of
those taken in the first few days were above 1%.
But as Jenkins explains in her memo,
federal regulations never meant the 1% figure to be considered a health standard or even
to be applied to measure dust.
The standard was developed as a way to
gauge whether any building material such as floor tiles or pipe insulation contained
asbestos and should be considered hazardous waste requiring professional abatement.
But any dust released by the breakup of
such materials must be considered hazardous, Jenkins claims, because it came from
asbestos-containing products in the Trade Center.
"She's absolutely correct, this is
not a health-based standard," said Joel Shufro, an industrial hygienist with the New
York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. [Note by NYCOSH: The report's
identification of Joel Shufro is mistaken. He is the Executive Director of NYCOSH, not an
industrial hygienist.]
"People exposed to 1% or less can
have significant exposure with adverse health impacts," he said.
"We have never said it was a health
standard," said the EPA's Mears about the 1%. "We're only using it as a
guideline. We say clean up the dust and get rid of the dust regardless of whether it's 1%
or below 1% it doesn't matter."
According to Mears, the agency sent its
vacuum trucks to clean all dust off area streets. "It's real easy to be a Monday
morning quarterback," Mears said.
One Supporter
One person Jenkins has convinced is Rep.
Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan). "A lot of New Yorkers have been exposed to very bad
health risks, possibly even deaths years from now because EPA put out these standards as
if they had anything to do with health risks," Nadler said.
Jenkins also charges the EPA misused the
70-fiber federal test. It is meant to clear public schools for reentry after an asbestos
cleanup, but it was applied to outdoor air tests collected under very different test
conditions.
"We didn't have a standard in air for
a collapse of this type," Mears said. "The 70 fibers is a conservative estimate
our risk assessors used."
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 |