Newly released 9/11 documents claim that the US Environmental Protection Agency asbestos cleanup guidelines were impossible to follow and that residents faced cancer risks as high as 1 in 10.
Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, New York City has released over 170,000 pages of previously sealed documents. Among them is an internal memorandum from Dr. Cate Jenkins, a senior scientist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This is not to say she was disseminating EPA information or advice. On the contrary, she was something of a hindrance to the agency and, in the years following the attacks, went on to accuse the EPA of downplaying the alkalinity of dust at Ground Zero.
In this memo, dated 9th December, 2001 she warns that official guidance on asbestos contamination in Lower Manhattan was dangerously flawed and that the health risks to residents, workers, and first responders were far greater than the public were being told.
She criticised the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for instructing building owners to test settled dust for asbestos content of 1% or higher. If dust exceeded that level, owners were told to hire professional abatement contractors.
The problem, Jenkins wrote, was that interior dust layers were far too thin to be scooped up for testing. Only ‘bulk’ samples – thick enough to put in a bag or jar – could be analysed for percentage of asbestos. Thin surface dust, or even invisible layers, required ‘wipe’ or ‘microvacuum’ samples, which are measured in asbestos structures per cm², a metric which can’t be converted into a percentage.
She wrote.: ‘The NYC DEP gave impossible and unsafe instructions to owners of buildings. Furthermore, the instructions violated the standards set by the federal EPA.’
She also pointed out that the DEP’s 1% threshold completely contradicted the EPA’s own stance that asbestos levels should be’non-detectable.’
The EPA had already announced it would apply the strictest standard under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), which effectively meant zero detectable asbestos in the air.
Using real-world data from the Ground Zero Task Force, Jenkins calculated projected air asbestos levels under various scenarios – and published the following cancer risks:
| Scenario | Projected Cancer Risk |
|---|---|
| Volunteer at Ground Zero for 2 weeks | ~1 in 100,000 (mesothelioma) |
| Resident in contaminated building with poor cleanup | ~1 in 100 (mesothelioma) |
| New resident moves into partially cleaned apartment | ~1 in 10 (mesothelioma and lung cancer) |
| Janitor cleaning buildings for 3 months | ~1 in 5 (mesothelioma and lung cancer) |
| Firefighter working rescue for 1 month | ~1 in 30 (mesothelioma and lung cancer) |
Jenkins based her estimates on studies correlating cumulative asbestos exposure to disease. She emphasised that the fine, powdery WTC dust was more easily resuspended than typical asbestos materials, meaning even routine activities like broom sweeping or vacuuming could send dangerous fibers back into the air.
She also warned that even HEPA vacuums were largely ineffective at removing asbestos from carpets, removing only about 60% at best. Standard industry practice, she noted, is to discard carpet entirely , but this was rarely done.
Jenkins concluded by urging aggressive testing and professional abatement wherever elevated asbestos levels were found. She wrote that landlords should be contacted and certified abatement professionals should be brought in. She also encouraged affected individuals to contact health and environmental agencies, elected officials, and non-profit organisations for assistance.
She concluded: ‘This memorandum is not intended as any final risk assessment. My attempt was intended only as a point of discussion prior to more rigorous assessments.’
Leave a Reply