| 9/11 ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION |
|
| DEMANDS CLEANUP NOW !!!!! NOT COVERUP !!!!! |
TERA Panel to Assess Risk
from WTC Toxins Reflects Bush Policy
to Stack Public Health Panels with Industry Reps
From 9/11 EA's Press Release of 10/20/02
Ignoring the recent outcry over the Bush Administration's move to stack science panels
at the CDC, the EPA has handed the job of determining WTC-related health risks to a peer
review panel stacked with experts who represent or are biased towards industry. In fact
one panelist, Dennis Paustenbach, served as an expert witness on behalf of Pacific Gas and
Electric, the defendants in the "Erin Brockovich" case. PG&E was found
guilty of poisoning the drinking water.
In the view of the organization known as 9/11 Environmental Action, the purpose of this
peer review panel is to rubber-stamp "World Trade Center Indoor Air Assessment:
Selecting Contaminants of Potential Concern and Setting Health-Based Benchmarks," the
document under consideration as it formed the basis for EPA's current cleanup plan for
Lower Manhattan.
Members of 9/11 Environmental Action will be available between 8:15 and 9 A.M. during
registration for the conference at the NY Academy of Medicine at 103rd St. and 5th Avenue
Monday, October 21, to address the problems with the cleanup and the document. We
will also provide background information on the conflicts of interest of many of the
panelists and trustees of TERA, the private company EPA contracted with to conduct the
review. Said Brooklyn resident Jenna Orkin, "It is sickening in every sense of
the word that these so-called experts, who are not beholden to the public, but to
industry, have become the guardians of our health!"
The document, which is based on data that are limited and flawed, justifies the exposure
of Lower Manhattan residents to a hundred times the cancer risk that people at Superfund
sites around the country are exposed to. EPA also rationalizes allowing children to
be exposed to high levels of contamination on the grounds that over time the exposure will
"average out." These exposures have been termed 'unacceptable' by Dr.
David Carpenter of SUNY Albany, internationally recognized expert on neurotoxicology and
children's environmental health.
. . . . . . . . . . .
For more information on the conference, visit the TERA website:
http://www.tera.org/peer/wtc/
See especially the Main Document:
COPC. 2002. World Trade Center Indoor Air Assessment:
Selecting Contaminants of Potential Concern and Setting Health-Based Benchmarks.
World Trade Center Indoor Air Taskforce Working Group. Under Review.
and their Charge for the WTC Peer Review Meeting:
Be sure not to miss the "conflict of interest and bias" statement:
. . . . . . . . . . .
Our 10/21/02 letter to EPA Region 2 Administrator Jane Kenny
The 9/11 EA letter to Jane Kenny was e-mailed to
Jane Kenny and a list of cc's including Kathy Callahan, Joan Dollarhide (the TERA Project
Manager for the peer review) and our Steering committee. I submitted it as comments to
Charge Question # 9 (the "anything else" catch-all question) in order to get us
a slot in the official program to address our objections to EPA's lack of public process
in the peer review meeting. Within a half hour, Joan Dollarhide distributed copies of the
letter to the panelists.
When the period for observer comments to Charge Question #1 opened, 9/11 EA members and
the technical experts raised the question of what the function of this risk assessment
peer review was in relation to the cleanup protocols (and the cleanup itself). We also
launched our critique of the limitations of the data on which the risk assessment was
based. It quickly became apparent that panelists had no idea that the cleanup was
underway. At that point, they began to openly question EPA's representative on the panel,
toxicologist Mark Maddaloni, and they began to express their own questions about the role
of the panel (Lynn Goldman thanked 9/11 EA for the letter, saying she appreciated knowing
our concerns).
Throughout the day, 9/11 EA members and the tech experts addressed the many shortcomings
of the document. We also used the observer comment periods to further inform the panel
about the particulars of the cleanup protocols. More later, here's the letter:
October 21, 2002
Jane M. Kenny
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Dear Administrator Kenny,
We are writing to register our objection that EPA has failed to comply with the proper,
legally mandated public process in its assessment and cleanup of hazardous substances
released in the World Trade Center disaster.
A central requirement of EPA's mandate under the National Contingency Plan is the
implementation of a transparent public process, including the establishment of an
administrative record and the timely circulation of documents for review and comment by
members of the public as well as qualified experts. The fact that a peer review is only
now being conducted of a basic assessment document identifying contaminants and setting
benchmarks -- after contracts for cleanup have already been awarded -- is one
indication of how seriously EPA is failing in its responsibility to implement the process
for proper public and expert scrutiny prescribed by the NCP.
Second, we object to EPA's delegating to a private company its responsibility to assess
community and worker risks from exposure to World Trade Center contaminants. As a private
entity, Toxicological Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA) is exempt from the full
measure of accountability that is fundamental to EPA's mandate to protect the health and
safety of the public.
Third, the specific choice of TERA to conduct this review raises serious concerns about
whether the health and safety of the public will consistently be the decisive factor in
the panel's deliberations. We note that the Board of TERA is dominated by trustees who
have close ties to industry, and in several cases are direct representatives of such
industries as ExxonMobil and the Rio Tinto Mines. We question whether representatives of
ExxonMobil and Rio Tinto, whose operations release many of the same toxins of concern in
the WTC, can serve in a disinterested and objective fashion.
We have similar concerns about the inclusion on the peer panel of individuals with close
ties to, or who are directly employed by, major polluting industries regulated by the EPA.
In any number of cases these individuals are being asked to weigh the hazards of chemicals
their own companies or clients produce or discharge into the environment.
We consider it unacceptable that TERA's conflict of interest policy excludes
representatives of EPA-regulated industries only if the individual has a "direct
personal financial investment benefiting from the outcome of the review." At the same
time, it tends to disqualify some of the most knowledgeable experts who, simply by virtue
of their investigations, may have "taken a position" in defense of public health
and safety.
In connection with the upcoming WTC Peer Review to be conducted by TERA, we would
appreciate your response to a number of specific questions:
1. Under what authority was EPA acting when it charged TERA with carrying out this peer
review? NCP regulations are explicit about requiring formal notice to the public, public
comment, and a formal written, published response to all public comments on any cleanup
action. What steps did EPA take to notify the public about the peer review meeting? How
will comments provided to TERA be made available to the public?
2. Last February, The World Trade Center Tenants' Coalition (WTC RC) met with NYC DOH and
ATSDR about the results of indoor testing these agencies carried out jointly. At that
meeting, WTC RC got agreement from the agencies that no conclusion could be reached about
the presence and levels of contaminants in any particular residence in Lower Manhattan
beyond the 59 apartments involved in the study. The fine print in the executive summary of
the ATSDR/NYCDOH study confirms this:"Results from this investigation do not
necessarily reflect conditions that would be found in other buildings, at other times just
following the collapse, or after the sampling period. The measurements reflect conditions
present at the time of the sampling (November 4-December 12, 2001) in the buildings and
areas sampled."
Given the serious limitations of these data, why is ATSDR data/study being used so
extensively to determine contaminants of potential concern?
3. Was there any attempt by EPA to conduct representative sampling on mercury?
4. The document under review states that a "concerted effort was made to identify and
review additional souces of WTC-related data [...] from environmental organizations and
the private sector." Please clarify approximately what percentage of the data
evaluated was obtained from the private sector as compared to data obtained by government
agencies. Please indicate approximately what percentage of the data evaluated was obtained
outdoors and what percentage indoors. Please clarify whether there were any significant
disparities in results when comparing data from private and governmental sources, and from
indoor and outdoor results.
5. What steps did EPA take to ensure that the panel put together by TERA would be fully
representative of the public interest and would not be subject to the bias of members who
are employed by or have close ties to industry?
6. Please provide us with details on EPA's relationship and contracts with TERA and any
parent organizations, affiliates, or trustees. We intend to file a FOIA request for the
peer review contract and other information, but your cooperation would be appreciated as
it would greatly expedite the process.
7. Should members of the peer review panel arrive at the conclusion that the
"health-based benchmarks" under consideration are not sufficiently protective of
human health, what steps will EPA then take to make the appropriate alterations in its
cleanup protocols?
As we did in our letter of June 20, 2002, to which you have not replied, we are
again calling upon EPA, as the lead agency in the cleanup of hazardous substances released
in the destruction of the WTC, to immediately institute a legitimate public process for
all matters pertaining to that cleanup. In doing so, we are asking for nothing other than
that your agency obey the federal environmental and worker safety laws that govern its
response to disasters that pose a threat to human health and the environment.
We are grateful for your consideration and await your early reply.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Flynn
on behalf of 9/11 Environmental Action
(A hard copy of this letter will be faxed to Senators Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer,
and members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, to US Representatives
Jerrold Nadler, Carolyn Maloney and Nydia Velazquez, and to City Council members Alan
Gerson, Margarita Lopez, James Gennaro, and Christine Quinn)