Fax re EP hearing attendees and questions, Feb 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Tuesday 12 of Feb 2002, Mayor Office ->718 595 4544 Page 6 of 14

established decades ago to characterize the potential risk posed by the asbestos contained in solid materials, such as ceiling tiles. Working with a ceiling tile that contains asbestos is entirely unlike working with dust that contains 1% asbestos. Workers can inhale a very significant amount of asbestos when cleaning up dust that contains 1% asbestos or less. Is this loophole in federal regulations exposing individuals to unsafe levels of asbestos? What should the response be?

c. According to NYCOSH’s discussions with the New York City Department of< Environmental Protection, the job of cleaning up offices and apartments, even if the dust contains more than 1% asbestos, does not trigger New York City's Asbestos Control Law. Consequently, employers are not obligated to provide workers involved in the cleanup of office buildings and/or apartments with training about the health hazards of exposure to asbestos or about the appropriate work practices for handling asbestos. Employers are not obligated to provide appropriate personal protective equipment, facilities for decontamination or training about how to properly use such equipment. Is this loophole in federal regulations exposing individuals to unsafe levels of asbestos? What should the response be?

10. At the first Committee hearing last November, Joel Kupferman of the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project gave anecdotal information suggesting that EPA safety information or assurances are inconsistent or contradictory. While EPA “was saying that things were safe, workers in [EPA's] building were given masks to wear.” Meanwhile, transit workers in subways said they were not wearing masks because the “EPA Commissioner said it’s safe.” Would you agree these anecdotes illustrate the EPA should consistently and rigorously apply the ’ stricter federal standard from now on?

il. Even if stricter federal standards were applied, reportedly EPA is using 20-year old methods for collecting and counting asbestos fibers to health risks from dust. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article, civilian scientists and physicians hired by unions, tenant groups, and contractors, and political leaJeis took hundreds of samples inside apartments, offices, and condos using the newest electron microscope tecimology and fiber counting protocols. Purportedly they found “far more asbestos fibers” than the EPA. Why isn’t EPA using the latest technology? Is this technology more reliable?

12. What is the difference between testing using a phase contrast microscopy (PCM) versus transmission electron microscopy (TEM)? a. What is the difference in sensitivity - which is more sensitive? b. Why not use TEM? c. What is the difference in the results?

13. Should the government act on the assumption that these findings with more reliable technology' are correct and that the public health risk is much greater? Has the EPA

4 NYC-WTC_000147415