Katrina, How Helping Might Hurt

[Guest guest]

How helping might hurt

Published: September 03, 2006

Star Tribune, Minneapolis, MN

(http://www.startribune.com/562/story/648603.html) H ugh Kaufman, a senior

policy analyst for the federal Environmental Protection Agency, has been

closely involved with the cleanup of hazardous wastes at sites like Love Canal

and

the World Trade Center. A year ago, after Hurricane Katrina devastated New

Orleans, he was widely quoted describing the wreckage as a " toxic gumbo. " In

the Twin Cities last week to visit the State Fair, he contacted the Star

Tribune to discuss its coverage of the Katrina anniversary. Commentary editor

Ringham spoke with him by phone.

Q You said your eye was caught by a photo in the Star Tribune?

A Yes. On the front page on Sunday there was a picture of a volunteer worker

in the contaminated areas of one of the homes in the Gulf Coast, I believe

in New Orleans. And I've seen similar pictures. The person who was trying to

be helpful was wearing a dust mask. The pores in those masks are so large that

they will allow mold, asbestos and toxic air contaminants, all things that

are prevalent in that area, through the pores and into the lungs.

That's one of the problems we identified in response to the 9/11 case in New

York, where you had volunteers going in with either no protection or dust

masks, and for all intents and purposes all the toxic material in the air would

go into the lungs. Now, five years later, a lot of the people are starting to

die off from the health effects of inhalation of toxic materials which are

very similar to the materials that are in the air in New Orleans and other

areas.

Q Why didn't the government step in to stop it then, and why isn't it

stepping in to stop it now?

A One thing the federal government did once Katrina hit was waive all the

environmental and occupational safety rules that would require people working

down there to have adequate protection to protect their health.

Q Why would the government waive those rules?

A Those rules are waived because it will make cleanup much cheaper. If in

fact you follow the rules and you certify cleanup people, properly equipped,

the costs for remediation would be substantially more expensive. And according

to the laws, government really is on the hook for doing and paying for that

type of cleanup. But the federal government has so much money going overseas

that it does not want to budget more money to remediate the Gulf Coast areas

properly.

On top of that, the government wanted to rely on volunteer organizations as

opposed to the government following the rules and doing it themselves. ... And

the people who run the volunteer organizations -- God bless 'em, their

hearts are in the right place, but they're not experienced people in the field

of

remediation where there are toxics, asbestos, etc., involved. So waiving the

rules allowed the government to save billions of dollars and expose hundreds

of thousands of people to the high risk of cancer 10 and 20 years down the

line.

Q I know that some of the cleanup workers are wearing what's described as a

" moon suit. "

A There's a requirement for certified cleaning crews to wear moon suits and

actual respirators, not the N-95 dust masks, as well as goggles, hard hats,

etc. And that's required wear for people who go into these homes that have

asbestos, high mold and toxics. But the volunteers do not wear those, and

they're not trained in how to properly protect themselves and do the type of

remediation they're doing. And according to federal law, they should not be

allowed

in those areas. We're talking about a minimum of 20 million tons of

semi-toxic material and maybe 50 million tons that has to be removed from that

region

of the country.

Q Say that you're a father in Minnesota, and your college-age son or

daughter tells you they would like to join a group from your church and go down

to

New Orleans and help with the relief effort. What would your response be?

A A number of fathers have asked me the same question. And I told them not

to do it, and I e-mailed them articles about the problems. I would recommend

nobody volunteer to do that type of work unless they have adequate training and

proper respiratory protection. You don't want to take that stuff deep into

your lungs, because that's what causes the problems 10 and 20 years down the

line.

Q What do you think ought to be the policy directing the cleanup now?

A I think the policy should be what it always is and always has been up

until the last half a dozen years, which is compliance with the occupational

safety and health and environmental regulations in doing remediation down there

and other places, both after terrorist attacks and natural emergencies. I do

not believe in waiving regulations. That basically is saving the federal

government money at the expense of high cancer rates 10 and 20 years down the

line

for the general public.