Study: mercury costs billions in lost productivity, by Joan Lowy, Scripps Howard News Service, February 28, 2005
http://web.kitsapsun.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=MERCURY-02-28-05&cat=AH
- The diminished intelligence of children exposed to mercury contamination before birth costs the U.S. economy $8.7 billion a year in lost productivity, according to a study published Monday in a government science journal.The study estimates that between 317,000 and 637,000 of the 4 million children born each year in the United States are exposed in the womb to mercury levels above the Environmental Protection Agency's safety level.
The IQ loss to children whose mothers' blood level of mercury was at or above EPA's safety level was subtle and varied depending on the mother's exposure, according to the study in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal published by the National Institutes of Health. The peer-reviewed study was done by pediatricians at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York.
Children with mothers whose mercury levels were at or near the safety level suffer an IQ loss of less than 1 point, while children whose mothers are among the 5 percent of the population most highly exposed suffer IQ losses ranging from 1.6 points to 3.21 points, the study said.
"While this diminution in intelligence is small in comparison with the loss of cognition that can result from other genetic and environmental processes, the loss resulting from (mercury) exposure produces a significant reduction in economic productivity over a lifetime," the study said.
The estimate of $8.7 billion in annual economic impact from mercury was calculated using methodology employed in previous studies of the economic impact of lead exposure, which also lowers intelligence.
The health and societal impacts of mercury "are very analogous to lead," said Dr. Philip Landrigan, a co-author of the study.
"When I started out in pediatrics we used to think of lead as an all-or-none disease - either you had convulsions or other gross symptoms or no symptoms at all," Landrigan said. "Then in the '70s we realized that not everybody was obviously sick, but they were still injured through the loss of a few points of IQ, their attention span was not as long as could be or they had behavioral problems."
Coal-fired power plants, the single largest source of man-made mercury emissions in the United States, are responsible for $1.3 billion of the economic loss, the study found.
Leonard Levin, mercury issue manager for the industry-funded Electric Power Research Institute, said the study relies on limited or flawed data in its calculation of the effect of mercury exposure on fetal intelligence.
"There is a huge uncertainty around whether there is any effect or not" on intelligence from low levels of mercury exposure, Levin said. The study also overstates the number of children exposed and exaggerates the contribution of power plants to mercury pollution, Levin said.
Mercury emissions from power plants, incinerators, industrial processes and natural phenomena like volcanoes settle in water bodies. Microbes transform the deposits into methylmercury, the most toxic form of mercury. The contaminant then works its way up the food chain.
People are exposed to mercury primarily by eating fish, especially large, predatory species like shark, swordfish and some species of tuna.
Activists Criticize EPA Cleanup Plan, by Adam Hutton, AM-New York, February 25-27, 2005
Panel Confronts Post 9/11 Health Issues, by Heather Moyer, Disaster News Network, February 24, 2005
http://www.disasternews.org/news/news.php?articleid=2576
NEW YORK CITY (February 24, 2005) Contaminant testing in Brooklyn has not been ruled out by the panel of experts chosen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review the cleaning methods after Sept. 11. The committee, called the EPA World Trade Center Expert Technical Review Panel, met Wednesday to review numerous public comments made regarding its draft sampling proposal. The proposal aims to retest numerous buildings in Manhattan for signs of remaining toxic dust from the World Trade Center. Many comments made during the meeting called for the proposed testing area to include Chinatown and Brooklyn. Commenters, including the World Trade Center Community and Labor Coalition (WTCCLC), noted that Brooklyn should be included in any re-testing due to satellite photos showing the Ground Zero smoke plume traveling over that area. The coalition also noted that wherever health issues are appearing due to dust, there also should testing happen. "I think when there are health outcomes related to the World Trade Center, then it should be considered (for testing)," said Dr. David Carpenter, a member of WTCCLC's expert advisory panel assigned with reviewing the EPA panel's draft sampling plan. "There are definitely health concerns coming forward in Brooklyn. Health outcomes are the ultimate concern." Since Sept. 11, thousands of Ground Zero workers and city residents have come forward with a number of health issues - including respiratory ailments - due to the toxic cloud of dust released when the towers collapsed and also due to the smoldering fires at Ground Zero. Those fires lasted over three months. The EPA's technical review panel, made up of experts the EPA selected from various fields, held its first meeting last spring. The initial aim was to review the EPA's post-Sept. 11 dust cleaning policy, as well as identifying other areas the health registry could be enhanced to allow better tracking of post-exposure risks by workers and residents. The aim shifted once the panel and the public both heard calls for and added calls of their own for further contaminant testing around the city. Wednesday's meeting was the first since the panel's draft sampling proposal was made public in October. During the discussion between Carpenter and the EPA panel, panelists agreed that Brooklyn should be tested - but that there are limits on the proposal. "There isn't a person here who's against sampling Brooklyn," said David Prezant, panelist and deputy chief medical officer for the New York Fire Department. "But there's a fiscal issue here - we don't have the budget." Arguments and applause about just what the budget of the panel is then ensued, with the number $7 million thrown out as the initial number given to the panel. Prezant continued after the number was offered. "We created a plan trying to find the greatest likelihood of contamination so we could come up with data that could justify more testing. The budget has to both test and clean - you agree that it's ethically irresponsible to test someone's residence and then say, 'you're on your own'?" Panelist Dr. Paul Lioy, professor of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, then tried to find some common ground between the WTCCLC, the public, and the panel. "What if we tested a few initial areas of Brooklyn? We have to come up with some reasonable compromise here," he said. "What I'm concerned about here are areas where the public can agree and we can move forward instead of arguing for another seven months." Other panelists expressed their concern that this was the first they'd ever even heard about a budget for the committee, which brought applause from the audience. Other panelists scrambled to say that the sampling proposal was not budget-driven. Another point of tension between some panel members and the WTCCLC's own experts was whether the draft sampling proposal should include small asbestos fibers. Morton Lippmann, EPA panel member and New York University professor of environmental medicine, argued that the coalition's comments on expanding the proposal's sampled contaminants were not logical. "The comprehensive testing you're talking about will only offer inconclusive results," he said. "I'm really disappointed with the comments made on short asbestos fibers being toxic - it ignores the research pointing to otherwise." Carpenter argued that the short fibers were indeed toxic according to scientific studies available to the public. Lippman disagreed, and then added that the coalition's comments on adding dioxin and other chemical mixtures to the proposed sampling were also not useful. "This kind of report (from the coalition) just creates uncertainty in the public," noted Lippman. "I can't imagine why you're scaring people at this point with dioxin with what we know now. I'm disappointed in this fear-mongering. We painfully produced this report over many months and it's the only sensible idea for technical evaluation that has come forward." The WTCCLC's other comments on the draft sampling proposal also included recommending the addition of other toxins to the list of contaminants being tested for, and that the selection of buildings to be tested should not just be voluntary due to worries about sampling bias. The coalition requested "a written, legal memorandum describing the powers of various federal, state, and local agencies to gain access to buildings as it relates to protecting the public's health and environmental testing, and how these powers might be combined to help effectuate the sampling and cleanup program." David Newman, panel member and industrial hygienist for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH), thanked the coalition for its valuable presentation and also addressed the EPA panel on just how to receive the comments. "It's inappropriate for us to be defensive. We as a panel do not have a position on anything - we are helping the EPA come up with a plan," he explained. "We need to take Dr. Carpenter's comments into account. It is quite clear that the EPA said (the WTC collapse) was the greatest release of dioxin ever, so dioxin is not off the table (as a contaminant to be tested for)." He added that he was also concerned about the skewed sampling results if the only buildings tested are those whose owners and landlords volunteer. When one panelist then suggested the EPA use its power to gain access to downtown government buildings for tests, the panel's interim chair responded quickly. "I don't think the EPA can go around telling other agencies what to do," said Timothy Oppelt, director of the EPA's National Homeland Security Research Center. The audience responded with outraged shouts of "Why not?" Later in the day, panelist Joseph Picciano added his comments on that issue and how it related to the controversy over the EPA's voluntary testing first done immediately after Sept. 11. That testing and cleaning, which had a budget of $30 million, received major criticism over its lack of breadth and quality. It was one of the major causes of the community outrage in the first place. "Relying on voluntary participation isn't too good," said Picciano, acting director of the region 2 office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. "If it didn't work too well last time, it probably won't work too well this time." The all-day panel meeting also intensely discussed the search for a WTC dust signature - which in reality is a search for two signatures: One for the initial buildings' collapse, and the other for the smoldering fires at Ground Zero. Some panelists remained convinced that a signature could be found and that the success of the sampling plan hinged on it. Currently, scientists at the National Homeland Security Research Center are studying possible signatures. Dr. Jacky Rosati, an environmental scientist with the center, gave a presentation on just where the search is at this point and how soon the signatures could be discovered. "We've developed screening methods for both of these measures," she explained, noting that the search for the building collapse dust signature is much closer to success than the fire signature is. The final results and validation of the center's screening methods are expected at the end of May. Panelist Greg Meeker, research geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey also spoke on the issue. "We know what's in the dust that was collected at the World Trade Center. We don't know how the components will behave when we move from that area, but there's good evidence that the components won't change substantially." The WTCCLC and the public voiced their opinions that the sampling should not wait for a signature to be discovered. Others were not convinced that a signature could ever be found anyway. After a discussion of just how accurate and safe the draft sampling proposal's "trigger" for cleanup being three times the level of background contaminant levels, one panelist expressed her concern over the point of the signature levels in the first place. "I don't see this as a winning situation for the community - the only way they win is if the plan moves forward," said Columbia Universith Professor Jeanne Stellman, inciting much applause from the audience. "It seems like this whole thing is the government making sure they don't clean anything they don't have to." NYCOSH's David Newman agreed and repeated his thoughts on the confusion over signatures. "I will reiterate again that we need a definition of a signature and a list of criteria by which a signature will or will not be established. Then we'll see if the research and data will meet that. But right now, I still don't know what those criteria are." Late in the day, when the public was finally allowed to comment, many had mixed feelings about the panel's response thus far. Most demanded more details on the sampling proposal. "We are encouraged by the info we've heard today, but we'd like to see a full scale presentation of all the details," said Kimberly Flynn of the community group 9/11 Environmental Action. Later, Flynn and some of her fellow organization members gathered during one break to discuss their opinions of the meeting up until then. "They have too high a bar set for cleanup," explained Flynn. "Our guess is that very few units will end up qualified. Plus, there's been very little public process in the signature discussion, which now looks like the cornerstone of the sampling project." Flynn and the other members said they are worried that that cornerstone came from outside the panel. Stan Mark, program director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, is also worried about the testing. "It sounds like they are only testing for one (contaminant), and it goes back to what David Newman said - how do you define the signature? We're really not getting a clear definition from the panel." Flynn added that some of the panelists' defensiveness proves one of the WTCCLC's points. "Dr. Carpenter got pounced on for calling (the panel's sampling proposal) a first draft - but look at the confusion on the panel." Other public comments repeated the request that the EPA panel should be following the issues with the demolition of the buildings around Ground Zero - highlighting especially the demolition of the skyscraper at 130 Liberty Street by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. Many want the EPA itself to take full leadership of the demolition. One speaker said she lives in the building right next to 130 Liberty Street, and anytime someone says there can be no lingering health or dust effects from the still-standing damaged buildings, then that person should come take a swab of her air conditioner's filter. Mark spoke to the panel later on how the testing area should be expanded to up to a five mile radius due to health effects. "(The panel does not) have enough initial data," he explained. "The scope of the testing area is really all the health data. People have been affected up to five miles away. Doctors have testified to the panel before about the health effects and the distance. That's the only real data right now." Another speaker was an example of the health effects. Steisy Gil, caseworker for the Latin American Workers Project, translated on behalf of Maria Sin Fuentes. Fuentes worked as a custodian for months in several of the buildings around Ground Zero. "The only equipment given to her for cleaning was a paper mask and gloves," said Gil. "She and her coworkers had to clean the air conditioners, ducts, floors, computers - basically they cleaned everything with paper masks and gloves. They were also given unmarked bottles of cleaning fluids. "Her problems now are respiratory problems. She can't breathe well, and she now has hand allergies. These are problems she said she'd never had before. Sometimes her hands and fingers go numb." Gil went on to explain that of the 150 workers her organization is working with, many suffer from similar problems. She said many cannot sleep well due to respiratory issues, others have panic attacks, and still others have children who are now very sick due to the dust brought home on the clothing of the parents. One pregnant woman even lost her baby. "There is something going on out there, and we want to know what it is," said Gil. "Don't let this pass to our children." Copyright © 2005-2006 Disaster News Network Inc. All Rights Reserved Back to TopSenator Resisting Cut in Asbestos Claims Fund, Reuters, February 24, 2005
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7730417
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter indicated on Thursday he is resisting Republican attempts to reduce the size of a proposed $140 billion fund to compensate asbestos victims.Specter told a news conference he will meet next Tuesday with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other Republicans to try to resolve differences over his asbestos proposal.
He said some Republicans wanted to reduce the size of the proposed fund, but noted the parties who would be financing it -- business and insurers -- endorsed the $140 billion amount last year along with the then-Senate leaders, including Frist.
"If manufacturers and insurers are willing to pay that ... It seems to me we ought to be able to move ahead," Specter said. He said some other Republican concerns about his proposal were legitimate and he was looking for ways to compromise, but did not elaborate
Asbestos was used widely for fireproofing and insulation until the 1970s. Scientists say its inhaled fibers are linked to cancer and other diseases. Hundreds of thousands of injury claims have been filed in U.S. courts, and dozens of companies have filed for bankruptcy as a result.
Under Specter's plan, asbestos claims would be taken out of the courts and paid from the $140 billion fund instead.
Specter said he would like his committee to vote on the bill as soon as next Thursday, but did not know whether he had the votes for it to pass the panel.
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
Back to Top
EPA May Test in Brooklyn for Trade Center Toxins (Update1), by David M. Levitt, Bloomberg News, February 23, 2005 (Adds search for `signature' of dust in fifth paragraph.) Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is examining whether to test for leftover World Trade Center-related contamination in northwest Brooklyn, agency officials said today.
The decision comes a month after Brooklyn officials, including U.S. Representative Major Owens and City Councilman David Yassky, both Democrats, complained the agency was overlooking toxin-laden dust that rained on Brooklyn Heights, downtown Brooklyn, and other parts of New York's most populous borough following the Sept. 11, 2001, attack.
Further testing could lead to cleanup efforts like those in Manhattan, where the U.S. government has paid for professional cleaning in more than 4,300 apartments to remove traces of asbestos, silica, poisonous metals and other contaminants.
"We're wondering how far into Brooklyn'' testing should reach, Matthew Lorber of the EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment said at a public hearing in lower
Manhattan. "There's always a cost. If we're talking about expanding, we could dilute the number of samples that are closer in vicinity to Ground Zero.''
EPA officials also said they are close to identifying the chemical "signature'' of the dust from the collapse of the towers. The cloud of debris carried pulverized concrete, and bits of fiber insulation made from minerals, known as "slag wool,'' said Jacky Rosati, an EPA researcher. Defining the dust's properties would help identify areas for cleanup.
Ailments
People who live near Ground Zero have complained about elevated levels of asthma and other respiratory ailments that they attribute to the dust.
Lower Manhattan residents, scientists and environmental advocates continued to assail the EPA's proposal for sampling interior spaces, which it hopes to finish by mid-year, as not
thorough enough.
Suzanne Mattei, who heads the New York City office of the Sierra Club, a nationwide environmental organization, told EPA officials that the threshold for ordering a second cleanup was too high.
"We object to the EPA's plan to use three times the background level as the trigger for cleanup of asbestos, manmade vitreous fibers and silica,'' said Mattei. "Osama bin Laden
should not be allowed to triple the level of pollution in our homes and workplaces.''
The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, which oversaw the removal of debris after the Sept. 11 disaster, has earmarked $7 million to 9 million for EPA to do the reinspections, Brown said. More money probably would have to be appropriated should a second cleanup be needed, he said.
http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2570
NEW YORK CITY Some moments were heated and tense Thursday as the New York City Council Select Committee on Lower Manhattan Redevelopment met to discuss which agencies should be in charge of demolishing Sept. 11-contaminated buildings.
When the Twin Towers fell on Sept. 11, toxic dust and debris were blown into numerous buildings around Manhattan. Numerous Ground Zero workers and Manhattan residents are ill from breathing in the mix of toxic chemicals despite word from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the air was safe to breathe days after the attacks. Several contaminated buildings remain standing to this date.
The building at issue now is the former Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street, which was bought by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) at the end of August 2004. Heavily damaged on Sept. 11, the building has stood empty since the date due to the damage and to the remaining toxins present inside. Those toxins include asbestos, dioxin, lead and other hazardous materials.
The LMDC wants to demolish the building, yet community members, organizations, and public officials are objecting to how safe the demolition plans are. The groups are worried further air contamination will occur as the building is taken apart and want the EPA to take control of the process.
The LMDC released the first draft of the proposed demolition plan in December 2004, and the EPA responded in January 2005 by delaying approval until more antipollution safeguards are added.
"In light of the EPA's recent criticism of LMDC's plan to deconstruct the massively contaminated building at 130 Liberty Street, it is clear that the government agencies involved have yet to put in place adequate precautions to ensure the environmental health and safety of residents and workers in Lower Manhattan," said Alan J. Gerson, City Council member and chair of the select committee.
Other agencies the LMDC is coordinating the demolition with include the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the New York State Department of Labor (NYDOL), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and both the state and city departments of health.
"We understand that it's important to take a leadership role," said Pat Evangelista, World Trade Center Coordinator for the EPA, adding that the EPA has in fact taken a leadership role in coordinating the state and federal agencies involved with the 130 Liberty Street demolition. "The LMDC has said they will not proceed in the plan until it's approved."
The city council members hammered the EPA for clarification on their role in the demolition process, forcing back-and-forth questions and assurances from Evangelista and a representative from NYDOL.
"Please understand that this community has been through so much and has the right to know who's in charge," said committee chair Alan J. Gerson. "The community is trying to understand what 'a leading role' is - what does that entail?"
"We will together be tracking the process and be involved," responded Evangelista. "We will have EPA (representatives) on the ground when work commences and will be tracking activities in that regard.
"The EPA is being consistent. We won't have every authority and are doing the best we can to work with our partners."
That answer is not enough for the community members and other involved organizations who want the EPA to follow the law requiring them to oversee the whole demolition process.
"EPA must be the lead agency," said David Newman, industrial hygienist for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH). "Both Presidential Decision Directive 62 of 1998 and the National Response Plan of 2004 explicitly require EPA to assume lead agency status with regard to issues of environmental health."
NYCOSH has been working with the United Church of Christ since Sept. 11 on funding the testing and treatment of workers affected by the toxic dust released by the buildings.
Newman added the EPA is also suited for the leadership role. "(They are the) only agency with the experience, the expertise, and the resources to ensure that such demolition operations are conducted in a manner that protects public health while ensuring effective removal and proper disposal of hazardous materials."
Other council members concurred that the EPA needs to take more of a leadership role while keeping more open communication with the public in order to restore the trust the agency lost immediately after the attacks.
"This community does not trust you, you need to know that," said Council Member Margarita Lopez. "We have an experience in which you lied to us. Based on that, how do we know we can rely on you? We can begin to believe again if there's a level of communication, a back-and-forth conversation."
Evangelista replied that the agency is committed to moving the demolition process forward. "I'm saying that we will do the best we can in that regard. I suggest that you continue to keep tabs on us and see."
The other agencies working with the EPA and the LMDC voiced their support of open communication and coordination as well.
"We will be part of the process every step of the way," said Robert Avaltroni, deputy commissioner of the NYCDEP's bureau of environmental compliance. "There is no way the DEP and the EPA will let the other proceed without being happy. We will not have a dear ear to anyone."
LMDC President Kevin Rampe also gave testimony before the select committee, noting that he wants the LMDC to be judged on the ultimate result of the demolition, and not on each version of the demolition plan released.
"We full expect comments and changes to the plan, I think that's important for people to understand," he explained. "We recognize that we are dealing with a contaminated building."
He defended the EPA and the other involved city and state agencies, saying the EPA should be applauded for taking a leadership role in the process and that each agency has its own purpose. "Each of the agencies has their own regulatory impact and we need approval from all of them. One group doesn't have all the say."
Rampe asserted that the LMDC demolition process will continue to invite public comment and to remain transparent.
Issues covered in the hearing switched focus as each speaker came forward. Another concern raised by NYCOSH's David Newman is that the 130 Liberty Street demolition only accounts for the removal of asbestos, and "not other contaminants that are known to be present."
Ann Arlen, member of community activist group 9/11 Environmental Action, spoke on her concerns about the mold in the buildings. "I'm very concerned if mold is not talked about in this process."
Newman also wondered how other as yet undiscovered contaminated buildings in Lower Manhattan will be handled. Linda Rosenthal, an aide from U.S. Congressman Jerrold Nadler's office, read testimony from Nadler and noted a similar issue.
"There are four empty decontaminated buildings downtown - why are they all being treated as separate projects? The EPA has to take the lead. Environmental protection is not a spectator sport."
The building at 4 Albany Street is already being demolished. Another structure set for demolition is Fiterman Hall of the Borough of Manhattan Community College.
Other comments from the public touched on the lack of involvement from the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) regarding the risk of air contaminants entering the city's subway system. Joel Kupferman, executive director of the New York Environmental Law and Just Project, displayed photos of two large subway ventilation grates located beneath the scaffolding at 130 Liberty Street.
"The MTA has not been involved until now," said Kupferman, adding that it wasn't until the continued calls from his office about the ventilation grates that the MTA became involved in the issue.
Kupferman shared his frustration about the public only holding the EPA accountable for its mistakes after 9/11. "If we only focus on the EPA, we're letting all the city agencies get away with slow murder."
He is also worried about how the city's firefighters are being treated, noting that he is both concerned about the firehouse directly next to 130 Liberty Street as well as the other downtown firehouses that were never properly cleaned.
Closing out the meeting, the final speakers represented 9/11 Environmental Action. They also disputed the EPA's honesty regarding their role in the demolition. One speaker took issue with just how open to public comment the LMDC claims to have been thus far, saying the LMDC open meetings don't allow the public to speak. Kimberly Flynn said one of few positives she can see thus far is the change in LMDC's plans since last summer. "We can say that the demolition expected to take place this summer is vastly safer than the one slated originally for this past fall."Fellow group member Jenna Orkin said all the wrangling over who's in charge is pointing to a bigger reason. "What this all comes down to in the end is who gets sued down the road - that's what the EPA is doing," she said. "What the community thinks 'taking a lead' means is responsibility and leadership. What (the EPA means) is to shirk their responsibilities."
Throughout the hearing, Gerson made it clear that any issues brought to him by the speakers would be investigated. "I think we all recognize the profound and potential impact of any building demolition is on its neighbors. We know what we are doing here is unprecedented - lives and health are at stake.
"If we mean what we say, we will all do what we can to protect human life."
Meanwhile, the EPA's World Trade Center Expert Technical Review Panel will hold its tenth meeting next week, where it will continue to review and debate the draft sampling plan aimed at further testing other city properties for remaining contamination. The panel is also still researching a World Trade center dust 'fingerprint.'
Copyright 2005-2006 Disaster News Network Inc.
Back to TopEPA to Oversee Building Demolitions near WTC Site: Residents Concerned about Unleashing Environmental Hazards, by Amy Zimmer, Metro - New York edition, February 18, 2005
http://parex.metro.st/ftp/20050218_1000042.pdf
[For an archive of articles and documents concerning 9/11-related occupational and environmental safety and health, visit http://www.nycosh.org/index_environment_wtc.html]
[NYCOSH points out that the headline – above -- published over the Metro story -- below -- is wrong, but the story itself is accurate. In fact, the EPA refuses to oversee the work.]
Lower Manhattan Community leaders and residents here want to prevent asbestos and other harmful substances from being released into the air during the demolition of the Deutsche Bank building and two others that were damaged on Sept. 11, 2001.
They feel the best way to ensure their safety is for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to oversee the process. Yet, many are unconvinced this will happen despite assurances from the EPA at a City Council hearing yesterday.
Last month, the EPA rejected the Lower Manhattan Development Corporations demolition plan to destroy the building at 130 Liberty Street, which they own. They said the LMDC had inadequate protections against potential environmental hazards. The LMDC will submit a revised plan in the next few weeks, officials said. But many feel the EPA is evading responsibility by not outlining a plan for the LMDC.
"In light of the EPA’s recent criticism of the LMDC’s plan, it is clear that the government agencies involved have yet to put in place adequate precautions to ensure the health and safety of residents and workers in Lower Manhattan," City Councilmember Alan Gerson, D-Manhattan, said.
Although no formal agreement exists on how federal, state and city agencies will coordinate the demolitions management, the EPA will assume a leadership role said its WTC coordinator Pat Evangelista.
"There are regulations across the board and the EPA doesnt have authority over all of them, but were doing the best we can to ensure actions are taken properly," he said.
That’s not enough for some.
"The EPA is the only agency with the experience, expertise and resources to ensure that such demolition operations are conducted in manner that protects public health," said David Newman, industrial hygienist with the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health.
"The EPA has to take the lead," said Linda Rosenthal, district director for U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. "Environmental protection is not a spectator sport."
Gerson said a broadcast-based emergency warning system for workers and residents was needed as part of the demolition.
Evangelista said these concerns would be addressed in the revised demolition plan.
Council Sorts Out Who Will Demolish Contaminated Buildings, NY1.com, February 17, 2005
http://www.ny1.com/ny/Search/SubTopic/index.html?&contentintid=48281&search_result=1 #
The City Council held a hearing Thursday to sort out which government agencies are responsible for the demolition of three buildings contaminated by the World Trade Center attack.A Council committee heard testimony from representatives of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, and the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, an advocacy group for worker safety.
"This community -- District One, District Two and District Three, that's the community that I'm talking about -- do not trust you," said Councilwoman Margarita Lopez while addressing the World Trade Center Coordinator for the Environmental Protection Agency, who testified at the hearing.
"I guess I would suggest you should continue to keep tabs on us, and I'm confident you'll see our efforts our genuine and comprehensive," responded EPA WTC Coordinator Pat Evangelista.
The committee addressed concerns about the health and safety of residents and workers in the area when the buildings are brought down.
At issue is which agency should oversee demolition of the former Deutsche Bank building, as well as another building still owned by Deutsche Bank and a third building owned by the City University of New York.
"We must always, at every turn, err on the side of precaution, not on the side of economy or expedition, recognizing that lives and health are at stake," said Manhattan Councilman Alan Gerson.
"We take these concerns very seriously, and we are doing all that we can to address them as the process of taking down these buildings continues," said Evangelista.
The committee also questioned the head of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which bought the Deutche Bank location for redevelopment at the World Trade Center site. The LMDC's initial demolition plan was not accepted by the EPA and is being revised.
"The public is going to see that process and sometimes it's going to be ugly, but what we want to be judged on is the ultimate plan which we implement," said LMDC President Kevin Rampe.
The committee is also looking into an emergency warning system to be used during demolition of the buildings, and precautions to protect the subway system, which runs below the former Deutsche Bank site.
One thing everybody involved in the debate does agree on is that the buildings do need to come down in order for the re-development of Lower Manhattan to continue. But environmental and occupational safety watchdog groups are concerned about the process that will be used to do that.
"The head of LMDC said they are going to take the most cautious approach, and it's unprecedented, the fact that he even admitted that. We're calling for the full, strictest precautions," said Joel Kupferman of the New York Environmental Law Project.
Just how agencies overseeing the demolition interpret "strict precautions" will likely will be a source of contention through the entire process.
Copyright © 2005 NY1 News. All rights reserved. Back to TopAFL-CIO Worried by Asbestos Plan Reopening, by Susan Cornwell, Reuters, February 16, 2005
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=7651204
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The AFL-CIO labor group is "deeply disturbed" by calls from some senators and business interests to reopen parts of a plan to create an asbestos compensation fund, the organization's legislative director William Samuel wrote in a letter released on Wednesday.
"We are ... deeply disturbed by the statements of some senators and some business and insurance groups calling for reopening agreements reached in the last Congress ..." the letter from Samuel to all 100 U.S. senators said.
Under a proposal by Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, asbestos claims would be taken out of the courts and paid from a $140 billion privately financed fund instead. Some Republican senators have criticized aspects of the draft, including an idea, agreed in the last Congress, that claimants could return to court if the fund ran out of money.
Samuel's letter said Specter's latest draft "includes important provisions strongly supported by the AFL-CIO," but there were important issues remaining to be addressed.
"The AFL-CIO will strongly oppose any attempt to push through, on a partisan basis, legislation whose main purpose is to bail out companies at the expense of victims," Samuel said.
Asbestos was used widely for fireproofing and insulation until the 1970s. Scientists say its inhaled fibers are linked to cancer and other diseases. Hundreds of thousands of injury claims have been filed in U.S. courts, and dozens of companies, such as Federal-Mogul Corp. and chemical company W.R. Grace & Co., have filed for bankruptcy protection as a result.
The AFL-CIO said it likes Specter's proposal to bar insurers, such as workers' compensation insurers, from placing liens on asbestos trust fund awards to prevent double payments.
But it wants to improve some of the fund's award levels and make sure there is enough start-up money for the fund, which is to be financed by business and insurers. The labor group said more work also is needed on a provision that appears to limit the legal rights of people with diseases caused by other airborne minerals.
Republicans and business interests have criticized several aspects of Specter's draft bill, including that it might allow some claimants to be compensated twice.
Some companies, such as auto parts maker Federal-Mogul, have complained that payments companies would have to make to the fund would exceed asbestos-related costs they now face.
Some senators say they are trying to forge a bipartisan compromise.
Lawmakers have been working on resolving asbestos litigation for several years. Samuel's letter said labor would continue to work toward fair legislation but warned against a retread of old proposals that failed to advance earlier. They were favored by Republicans but had little Democratic support.
Specter's latest proposal, meanwhile, has not been embraced publicly by either Republicans or Democrats.
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
Back to TopSen. Frist Voices Support for Asbestos Trust Fund, by Mark A. Hofmann, Business Insurance Daily News, February 16, 2005
http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=5050
WASHINGTON --Creating a new national trust fund to compensate victims of asbestos-related diseases is the only asbestos liability reform that can win Senate approval, the Senate majority leader said Wednesday.Speaking at breakfast at the U.S Chamber of Commerce in Washington, Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said that using a medical-criteria approach under which claimants could not pursue asbestos injury suits until they had met a specific medical test of impairment would not win enough votes for passage. "I believe strongly that a trust fund is the only criteria that will pass," he said.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has been circulating draft legislation that would set up a $140 billion national trust fund to replace the current litigation-based system for compensating victims of asbestos-related disease. Not all the details of the fund have been worked out, though, and some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle remain skeptical of Sen. Specters approach.
"Ive encouraged Arlen" not to proceed with a bill that cannot win the support of the Judiciary Committee, said Sen. Frist.
Sen. Frist said the size of the fund, a bone of contention last year as senators dealt with an earlier version of the bill, pretty much has been agreed upon. The $140 billion should be viewed "not as a floor but as a ceiling," he said.
c. 1994-2004 by Crain Communications, Inc.
Back to TopIn a Seep of Trouble, by Sam Smith, New York Post, February 13, 2005
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/39855.htm
February 13, 2005 -- In a stunning miscalculation, 421 contaminated sites across the state including 14 in the city designated safe by environmental officials are now feared to be leaching deadly chemicals into schools, homes and other buildings nearby.The state Department of Environmental Conservation is now launching a mammoth effort to retest the sites, re-clean them if necessary, and inform residents if toxins have breached their homes and schools.
The faulty calculations, which originated at the federal level, led state officials to believe it was more difficult for chemical vapors to move through soil and into buildings than it actually is.
"The models applied in the past under-predicted the potential that [toxins] could emerge and get into indoor spaces," said DEC Commissioner for Air and Waste Management Carl Johnson.
In addition, new toxicity information has shown two chemicals trichloroethene, or TCE, and tetrachloroethene, or PERC were more dangerous than previously thought.
This means that for thousands of people around the state, their risk of everything from respiratory ailments to cancer has just become more extreme.
The DEC wants to retest 421 sites including 14 in the city because of their concentration of TCE and PERC or their proximity to schools and homes.
The agency won't say when the air and soil testing will begin but has said it may call on owners of the contaminated sites to pay for the retesting and additional costly cleaning even though they were told their cleanup work was done.
"They are opening a big can of worms," said James Periconi, former chair of the environmental-law section of the state Bar Association, who predicted a raft of lawsuits from property owners unwilling to do more clean-up and homeowners exposed to toxins.
The 14 city sites include six adjacent to homes and two near or below schools.
On 99th Street in Ozone Park, Queens, PS 65 sits across the street from a former manufacturer of airplane parts that spilled hundreds of gallons of TCE, a degreaser and carcinogen, into the ground.
The area was cleaned and tested, but as the state has learned, there could still be toxins rising into the school.
"That's very scary," said Jackie Mendez, who was picking up her niece Jennifer. "The testing should be done quickly so it doesn't hurt the kids."
At Holy Child Church on Staten Island, which runs a preschool and sits atop another prioritized site with TCE and other chemical contamination, parishioners were looking for answers.
"I've always been worried about it," said Annette Hernandez, who also lives next to the site. "But they did some work on it and said everything was fine."
The miscalculation first became apparent at a site in Colorado five years ago, where, based on scientific modeling, officials believed there was no threat of vapor intrusion. Testing in the field proved otherwise.
The issue hit closer to home in 2003 in upstate Endicott, where the DEC similarly found the modeling was wrong at a site contaminated with industrial waste from an IBM plant.
The DEC is the first state environmental agency in the nation to take such a sweeping approach to retesting sites.
For NYPD Detective Leo Pereyra, the DEC's proactive approach just means more bad news.
Pereyra and his family bought their house in Glendale, Queens, a year and a half ago.
A guilt-ridden real-estate agent told them after closing that a former drycleaning warehouse next door had leaked perhaps thousands of gallons of PERC a carcinogenic chemical into the ground and under his home.
Pereyra had equipment installed in November 2003 in his basement to vent vapors collecting there. With news of retesting at the site of the spill, he's unsure if the equipment is doing the job.
"We felt comfortable because we installed the system," he said. "My wife is pregnant now with our second child. Now this is starting all over again. Is this system doing its job or are we being exposed again?"
Copyright 2005 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.
Grand Jury Accuses W.R. Grace of Hiding Cancer Danger from Miners, by Bob Anez, Associated Press, February 7, 2005
Lingering Threats: Contamination May Still Lurk Near Ground Zero, Part Three of Three, by Michelle Chen, The New Standard, February 7, 2005
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?items=1448&printmode=true
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_91/epatocommunicate.html
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to dole out any information it gets about contamination at 4 Albany St. to Community Board 1.
Heeding concerns from local residents about possible contamination from the demolition of the Deutsche Bank-owned building, the agency will report any contamination alerts to C.B. 1 as it receives them. In a Jan. 19 closed meeting between representatives from the E.P.A. and C.B. 1, the two groups hammered out a plan to improve lines of communication should one of the monitors at the World Trade Center disaster-damaged building detect contamination levels that meet the E.P.A.’s work stoppage criteria.
"If there is an exceedence that’s not a blip, meaning there’s lead or asbestos and it’s going on for a few days, then we will need to notify people and give them the opportunity to decide what they want to do about it," Madelyn Wils, C.B. 1 chairperson, said in a telephone interview. "If that should ever occur we would want to go on a building by building basis to notify people."
Wils expects a notification process to be a joint effort between the board, the E.P.A. and the Downtown Alliance, a Business Improvement District.
Wils may be confident that the new E.P.A. measures will improve lines of communication between the community and the agency, but others are less optimistic. David Newman, an industrial hygienist for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health Administration and a vocal critic of the 4 Albany St. demolition, was unaware of the new agreement.
"I speak to a large number of community activists on a daily basis, none of whom has mentioned any new provisions," he said. "So I have to assume that community activists have not been included in the process and are not aware of it and that gives me pause."
Deutsche Bank began demolishing the 10-story building in December as a condition of sale to developer Joseph Moinian. Because the company is not relying on public funding for the demolition, it is not obligated to participate in a public review process like the nearby Lower Manhattan Development Corporation-owned Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty St.
Contamination monitors surround the building and sit atop its roof, alerting workers if contamination levels exceed E.P.A. standards. Deutsche Bank-hired environmental consultants send daily reports to the E.P.A.
At a Jan. 10 C.B. 1 meeting, board members and neighborhood residents expressed concern to Deutsche Bank representatives that no community response system was in place should a contamination crisis arise.
"We don’t have any information of what’s happening at 4 Albany St.," Newman said. "They’re chugging along quite rapidly and we don’t know anything about their plans at 4 Albany St. There’s been no public process at all."
There has already been one incident that stopped work at the site. On Jan. 7, the Albany St. monitor detected a lead exceedence, causing a work stoppage. Mary Mears, a spokesperson for the E.P.A. contacted Wils to alert her to the news.
"I went ahead and called Madelyn Wils and that’s when she and I decided we better formalize this more," Mears said.
Work on nearby Con Edison wires, not the Deutsche Bank demolition, caused the lead exceedence.
Despite the new measures, Mears does not expect a major incident requiring an evacuation to ever occur because the numbers are based on a full year of exposure, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
"The likelihood that [an exceedence] would actually mean that a block would have to be evacuated is extremely slim," she said.
Newman, however, is reluctant to trust the E.P.A.’s risk assessment. "I’d like to see their hazard assessment and risk assessment so I can evaluate [Meers’] comments," he said. "I can’t evaluate them in the absence of information. Her characterization of the situation is not helpful in the absence of data."
Deutsche Plan must change, agency rules, by Ronda Kaysen, Downtown Express, Volume 17 $ Issue 36 | February 4 - 10, 2005
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_91/deutscheplan.html
Thousands Rally to Demand Low-Income Housing in City, by David W. Chen, New York Times, February 3, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/nyregion/03rally.html
9/11 Sick and Injured Describe Ongoing Health and Financial Struggles, by Sandy Smith, Homeland Response, February 3, 2005
http://www.homelandresponse.org/full_story.php?WID=12948
Appellate Court Reject Landlords' Challenge to New York City's
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Law,
February 3, 2005
Congress Members Request Health Care for 9/11 Rescue Workers, Residents, by Jessie Bonner, Kansas City Infozine, February 02, 2005
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/5673/
The thousands of people exposed to the dust and debris that fell after the attacks on the World Trade Center three years ago are still in desperate need of medical attention, said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., Wednesday.
Washington, D.C. - Scripps Howard Foundation Wire - "The president told us that he would never forget," said Maloney, who was joined at a press conference by people who lived and worked near Ground Zero and have contracted respiratory illnesses."Even with thousands still sick, the federal response is still woefully inadequate," Maloney said.
The group traveled to Washington to attend President Bush's state of the union address and to call on lawmakers to create a long-term health insurance program for those who are suffering from exposure to dust, smoke and toxic chemicals released after the collapse of the World Trade Center."
Tonight, they will put a face to the numerous health effects of 9/11," Maloney said.A study by the Government Accountability Office estimated the dust and debris could have affected 250,000 to 400,000 people.Of the 61,087 people listed with the World Trade Center Health Registry, nearly half said they had experienced shortness of breath and sinus problems. More than a third reported problems with wheezing, a persistent cough and throat irritation.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., called the Bush administration's response to the dust and asbestos contamination in several downtown New York buildings "criminal negligence." He urged the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out a comprehensive cleanup of buildings affected by the fall of the World Trade Center. He said some contaminated buildings should be torn down. Nadler, whose district includes Ground Zero, said, "The EPA is mandated by law to clean up buildings after a terrorist attack."
Kelly Colangelo, who lived 12 blocks from the World Trade Center, said she has suffered from rashes, headaches and chronic coughs. "Over the years, my life has been busy with doctors visits," Colangelo said, adding that she wondered if she would be part of a cluster of cancer victims in 10 to 15 years because of her exposure to hazardous materials. Colangelo was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the EPA filed by a group of recovery workers and downtown residents to demand further testing and cleanup as well as the creation of a fund to pay for medical monitoring.
People who sought help due to exposure to dust and other potential health hazards near Ground Zero have received $380 milli