Problems
with EPA's Scopes of Work
for
Remediation of WTC Contamination
Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D, QEP, CUNY faculty, mclarke@hunter.cuny.edu
Statement endorsed by:
LMTC (
9/11 Environmental Action:
www.911ea.org
(These
comments are in response to the scopes of work for cleaning and monitoring
contractors, which were developed by EPA as an outgrowth of the document TERA
is peer reviewing.)
In
addition to being a tragedy of global proportions, as an environmental disaster,
the collapse of the three
The
collapse itself and the burning of the buildings' contents created an
unprecedented quantity and combination of dozens of toxic and carcinogenic
substances, including organic compounds (e.g. dioxin and furans, PCBs, benzene,
PAHs), heavy metals (e.g., lead, mercury, cadmium and others), fiberglass, and
asbestos. Individually, these substances
have been shown to cause permanent and serious illnesses, such as mesothelioma
as well as other cancers, asbestosis, brain damage, learning disabilities,
asthma and other respiratory difficulties.
Studies have indicated that combinations of pollutants acting
synergistically can result in toxic effects many times higher. Some of these
compounds were released in gaseous form, but much was released as particulate
matter, some of it so fine that it eludes one's coughing mechanism and can
accumulate in the lungs, exposing many to toxics and carcinogenic substances
for decades.
These
toxic and carcinogenic substances were dispersed over a large area for several
months. At different times people could
smell the plume in upper
These
substances did not just contaminate the outdoor air, as USEPA has held, but it
also infiltrated buildings, even when windows were closed. There are no natural cleaning mechanisms
inside buildings as there are for outside air (i.e. wind and rain), so
particulate matter builds up, particularly in carpets, upholstery, clothing,
and draperies. These "reservoirs"
can continue to be sources of contaminants for many years. Mold is also a problem in places due to
inattention to containing the buildings after they were contaminated (both to
prevent spread of toxics and infiltration of water).
EPA's
Scopes of Work for remediation do not take all the above facts into account.
EPA's scopes and standards for abatement have not been peer reviewed by the
scientific community at large. Below are
some of the most substantial problems with the proposed remediation.
Where Cleaning is to
take place
The
boundary for EPA's remediation program is still Canal, Allen and Pike. (EPA told us it was an arbitrary boundary
based on FEMA's unscientific suggestion.)
EPA has taken FEMA's recommendation to limit its remediation program
just to apartment buildings, assuming that all commercial buildings have
insurance that will pay for proper remediation and that the building owners
will actually have proper abatements done.
No schools or government buildings are included in this program, though
the infiltration of contamination did not discriminate. There is no scientific basis for this.
Testing vs. Remediation
1. EPA has decided to give tenants the ability
to have their apartments tested, but not remediated. This presumes that tenants understand the
nature of the contamination and the long-term health risks, neither of which
EPA has been providing in their educational outreach. Choice of testing can preclude later cleanup,
since EPA will only test for the presence of asbestos. The program is still voluntary, depending on
tenants to have knowledge of the program (and its pitfalls) and expertise to
know if their apartment needs remediation.
EPA’s outreach has been limited to a website and a few individuals
making personal appearances at apartment buildings. Worse, EPA’s outreach materials withhold
information about the types of WTC contamination that studies have found in
apartments and they do not provide any information that would motivate people
to register for the cleanup (e.g., health risks, diseases resulting from
decades of exposure to the contaminants residing in dust reservoirs like
carpets). The deadline has been extended
to
2. "Owners and managers of residential
buildings and coop boards can request to have their buildings' common areas and
HVAC inspected and cleaned. If a tenant
association makes this request, EPA will seek agreement by building owner or
manager." (This will result in
fewer buildings having HVAC inspections and abatement. HVAC systems that remain uncleaned pose the
threat of recontaminating apartments that have been cleaned.)
3. "Regardless of whether a building owner
or manager has requested the cleaning of all common areas, the EPA's Project
Monitor will visually evaluate public common areas such as the building lobby,
hallways, stairways and elevator interiors.
If dust is visible, these areas will be cleaned". (What happens if
dust, as in carpets, is not visible?
Also, EPA is not clear about the quantity of visible dust that triggers
a cleanup.)
4. Only if the building owner requests, the
Project Monitor will inspect other common areas including laundry rooms,
utility rooms, compactor rooms and elevator shafts. These areas will be cleaned "as
needed". This term is vague. Will the criteria here, too, be visual
inspection?
5. "If a tenant or tenant association asks
for testing or cleaning, EPA will contact building owner to secure permission
to do cleaning of common areas and HVAC."
Type of Remediation
1. Common areas are still given just visual
inspection to assess need for cleanup.
The problem is that significantly elevated levels of asbestos have been
found in areas that have been cleaned before and where there doesn't appear to
be contamination on visual inspection.
2. "Curtains, fabric window treatments,
upholstery and other materials that cannot be cleaned by wet wiping shall be
HEPA vacuumed two times. Fabric covered
furniture will be vacuumed using a stiff brush attachment " (HEPA vacuuming can vaporize any mercury on
the particulate. This method is not
effective in removing asbestos, as shown in tests at
3. "Window air conditioners will be
vacuumed then removed from their position and vacuumed internally. Filters will be HEPA vacuumed and reinstalled."
4. "Intake/discharge registers of HVAC
systems (if present) will be removed/cleaned.
Only the first foot of duct work will also be vacuumed, then the
register will be reinstalled and covered with plastic." This will ensure that contamination can remain
in HVAC ducts.
5. Only "[t]he first foot of all exhaust
duct work (including stove, dryer and bathroom vents) will be
vacuumed." Again, this is not a
scientifically-derived or protective protocol, but one developed for
convenience. The contamination that is
left in these duct systems also constitutes a long-term reservoir.
6. "Baseboard heaters will be cleaned. Protective covers on finned radiant heaters
and baseboard heaters will be removed to expose heat elements. Fins are to be brushed and vacuumed to remove
dust." (My suggestion: wet cleaning, then wet wipe sampling)
7. No specific mention has been made of cleaning
electronics, computers etc. that have internal fans that take in outside air,
and are known reservoirs for dust.
8. "Cleaning clothing and accessories
(handbags, shoes, etc.) is the responsibility of the resident. The Cleaning Contractor will not open and/or
clean inside drawers, cabinets, breakfronts, etageres and similar enclosed
storage and display spaces.' These will
remain contaminated.
9 'As part of the Cleaning Program, the
Scheduling Contractor will contact the New York City Department of Health
(NYCDoH) if mold is observed in a residence or residential building. The NYCDoH will then contact the resident to provide
recommendations on how to address the affected areas." (This leaves cleanup of mold to the
resident!!!)
10. "If a HVAC system requires cleaning,
then the Monitoring Contractor shall prepare a scope of work for the cleaning
the HVAC system or portion thereof. The
scope of work shall be provided to DEP and EPA within 2 business days of the
completion of the HVAC system evaluation."
(This will guarantee a hodge-podge, case-by-case methodology for
cleaning HVAC.)
11. HEPA vacuuming may well volatilize any
mercury bound up in particulate matter in dust.
No mention is made of this possibility or how to ameliorate the impact.
Type of Testing
1. Testing is just for asbestos, and precludes
cleanup if asbestos is not above EPA's threshold (based on one in 10,000 cancer
risk. EPA's usual health standards are
based on one in one million cancer risk.
(Other contaminants could be quite high, but testing would not show this,
since only asbestos is measured.)
EPA
says that it has chosen a one in 10,000 cancer risk over 30 years for NYC
(rather than the usual lifetime one in a million risk) because excessive
particulate matter in samples has clogged the filters on which they are trying
to find asbestos. This finding should
indicate that further cleaning is warranted with restesting based on a
clearance standard equivalent to the lifetime one in one million risk, not that
people should be exposed to a greater risk! If clogging of sampling filters is a problem,
EPA should operate 3 samplers side-by-side for one-third the time.
2. For clearance testing, "Residents have a
choice between two forms of airborne asbestos testing, modified-aggressive and
aggressive" (as if they know the difference in results). EPA's fact sheet says: 'Modified- aggressive testing simulates the
normal air movement you would expect in a room where a fan or air conditioner
was running. In aggressive testing, a
one-horsepower leaf blower is used to direct a jet of air into all corners of
the residence before testing is begun.
(The way this is written, a lay person would choose modified testing
every time, regardless of the fact that aggressive testing is the method
specified for proper asbestos abatements and would be more precautionary.)
3. "Wipe samples will be collected at 10
percent of the residences where sampling only has been requested, up to a
maximum of 13 residences, as instructed by EPA. This sampling will consist of
the collection of 3 wipe samples each for dioxin and mercury ". Considering that thousands of buildings were
contaminated, this tiny number of samples for dioxin and mercury is not
scientifically valid. The locations of
the wipe sampling are also not specified.
Would any be inside of ductwork on horizontal surfaces? Would any be in other reservoirs for
dust? Wipe samples are not suitable
technique for sampling soft surfaces such as upholstery and carpets.
4. "Common spaces will be sampled without
the use of forced air devices (fans, leaf blowers etc)." This ensures that common areas will have a
less effective remediation than inside apartments. There is no scientific basis for this.
Transparency of Process
EPA
has gone about the remediation reluctantly.
It delegated collection of indoor data to NYCDEP, who delegated it to
landlords, most of whom have not complied.
It waited until February to even begin the process of determining which
contaminants are a threat to public health.
Thus far, it has crafted new standards without the usual peer review and
public comment processes. Although a closed
conference, under the auspices of TERA, occurred the end of October, the lack
of input from interested informed scientists is also problematic. The TERA peer review does not include these
protocols, which ostensibly were written subsequent to this document that
justifies selection of contaminants of potential concern.
EPA has specified that all
data shall be provided to EPA Indoor Air web database. Researchers need the data; methods can be
devised so that the data can be shared without compromising residents'
identities.)
We urge that EPA's scopes
undergo careful, public review by independent scientists and that said
scientists be invited to make a presentation on an alternative course of
action, taking into account the Precautionary Principle, that in the face of
partially quantified dangers, government must err on the side of caution in
protecting the public health.