BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR,

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 

(PEER)

and 

Cate Jenkins, Ph. D.

 Petitioners

Filed With

Lisa P. Jackson

In her official capacity as Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

DOCKET NO:

SUBMITTED BY:

Public Employees for Environmental

Responsibility (PEER)

2000 P Street, NW

Suite 240

Washington, D.C. 20036

Cate Jenkins, Ph.D.

PO Box 2102

Fairfax, VA 22031-2102
2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

ACTION REQUESTED................................................................................................................................................... 5

Current regulatory language ...........................................................................................................................5

Requested revision to regulatory language ....................................................................................................5

II. THE PETITIONERS’ INTEREST...................................................................................................................... 6

III. History of EPA’s Corrosivity Characteristic promulgation and revisitations ......................................... 6

Summary of interlocking U.S. regulations that incorporate the Corrosivity Characteristic ............................7

1980: Original promulgation of Corrosivity Characteristic regulation under RCRA ........................................8

1980: Concurrent incorporation of Corrosivity Characteristic into the List of Hazardous Substances used by 

First Responders............................................................................................................................................11

Department of Transportation incorporates the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic into hazardous 

materials transport regulations.....................................................................................................................12

1993: EPA reevaluates safe pH level for alkaline corrosives, expands the falsification in context of Cement 

Kiln Dust risk evaluation................................................................................................................................12

1996: Reevaluation and reiteration of the falsified pH Corrosivity Characteristic........................................13

2001: Withholding of critical corrosive WTC dust pH data while First Responders and public exposed......15

2007 – 2011: EPA officials admit falsification of Corrosivity Characteristic pH level and need to include all 

materials, but fail to act ................................................................................................................................19

IV. Justification of the Need for the Proposed Action..................................................................................24

The falsified Corrosivity Characteristic pH level of 12.5 does not protect from irreversible tissue 

destruction (chemical burns) ........................................................................................................................24

A pH level of 11.5 and higher is the recognized presumptive safe level for alkaline corrosive 

materials .........................................................................................................................................24

Health effects from exposures to alkaline materials with corrosive high pH levels.......................25

Corrosive components of concrete have been known to maim, kill and cause burns from the 

beginning of time, and have been used to torture humans from ancient Egypt to the present day

........................................................................................................................................................27

Impact of the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic on First Responders and public after 9/11.......................28

Zadroga Act established U.S. recognition that First Responders and the public suffered deadly 

and life threatening injuries from WTC dust...................................................................................29

Research finds corrosivity of WTC dust one of the most important health impacts......................30

Both large and small WTC dust particles would have corrosive, high pH levels.............................32

Extrapolation to the pH of the smallest WTC dust particles...........................................................33

Impact of the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic after implosion demolitions of buildings.........................34

Impact of the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic on residents living near cement manufacturing facilities 

(cement kiln dust) .........................................................................................................................................35

Impact of the ambiguous specification of “aqueous” in the Corrosivity Characteristic definition...............36

V. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................37

List of Attachments..................................................................................................................................................38
3

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to provisions in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) 

section 7004(a), 42 U.S.C. § 6974(a) and its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 260.20, the 

petitioners request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first reconsider and repeal 

the Corrosivity Characteristic regulations pursuant to RCRA at 42 U.S.C. § 6921(a) as currently 

promulgated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 261.22 as Hazardous 

Waste Number D002 for alkaline corrosive hazardous wastes, and second, re-promulgate this 

regulation as specified below so as to adequately protect human health and the environment. 

The Corrosivity Characteristic is a regulation pursuant to the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA)1 republished every year in the C.F.R. since 1980. As we explain below, 

in the original 1980 regulation, EPA knowingly falsified the pH level.

2 known to cause 

irreversible corrosive damage to human tissues (chemical burns) for alkaline (caustic) corrosive 

materials. This safety level was falsely claimed by EPA in its supporting documentation for the 

original rule3

EPA has reviewed and reassessed this falsified pH level over the years, perpetuating the 

fraud, and continues to this day to maintain the Corrosivity Characteristic regulation regulations 

which incorporate this unsafe pH level. The Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

(ORCR) is the EPA program office responsible for the initial 1980 promulgation of this rule

pursuant to RCRA, and has continued to be responsible for its re-evaluation and republication 

to be the same as the United Nations (UN) World Health Organization’s (WHO) 

safety level. EPA claimed the UN WHO corrosive level that they were incorporating into EPA’s

Corrosivity Characteristic for alkaline, caustic materials was a pH greater than 12.5. In fact, the 

WHO threshold for alkaline corrosivity was a pH level greater than 11.5. Thus, the fraudulent 

pH level in EPA’s Corrosivity Characteristic (a pH of 12.5) is 10 times less protective than what 

it should be, namely a pH of 11.5. This UN WHO safety level has remained unchanged, and the 

UN WHO pH 11.5 and above presumptive corrosivity level was incorporated in 1998 as part of 

the UN Basel Convention Treaty containing the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for 

identifying hazardous materials.

 1 Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. Chapter 82, Solid Waste Disposal, Subchapter III-Hazardous Waste 

Management, §6921. Identification and listing of hazardous waste, (a) Criteria for identification or listing.

2 The pH of a material is determined by a simple laboratory test. Materials with a pH less than 7 are considered 

acidic, while those with a pH greater than seven are considered basic (alkaline). The pH scale is logarithmic, which 

means that each change of one unit on the pH scale means a change in 10 times the acidity or alkalinity. Wikipedia. 

pH. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH

3 EPA, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER (May 2,1980) Background Document, Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act Subtitle C -Hazardous Waste Management, Section 3001 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous 

Waste. 5261.22 -Characteristic of Corrosivity. NTIS Order Number: PB81-184 319. Available from the National 

Technical Information Service (www.NTIS.gov) TELEPHONE ONLY (800/553-6847) - document is before 1990.
4

every year in the C.F.R. The division within ORCR with specific responsibility for this 

regulation is the Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division (MRWMD).

Recently, the then director of MRWMD admitted that the safety level for alkaline 

corrosives incorporated into the regulations did in fact misrepresent the UN WHO safety level.4 

He provided the excuse that perhaps those responsible for the original 1980 regulation thought 

the WHO pH level only applied to the eyes and/or that the individuals responsible for the 

original 1980 regulation had failed to examine the supporting materials for UN ILO pH 

determination.5 This same official also testified under oath that EPA had erred by excluding 

non-aqueous materials in the definition of materials regulated by the Corrosivity Characteristic.6

The impact of EPA’s falsified Corrosivity Characteristic regulation is to allow citizens to 

be exposed to dangerous corrosive materials. This is true for exposures to materials that are 

classified as waste materials generated by facilities that are subject to the regulations under 

RCRA. This is also true for exposures to releases from emergency response sites such as after 

the collapse of the WTC on 9/11 as well as exposures to materials transported on highways, 

railways and by air subject to Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. This is because 

the National Contingency Plan (NCP) regulations as well as DOT regulations incorporate by 

reference the RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic regulation as part of their criteria for corrosive 

substances. OSHA regulations also reference the same NCP regulations in their guidance 

documents, and consider corrosive atmospheres to be immediately dangerous to life and health 

(IDLH).

Alkaline corrosive materials can cause chemical burns, particularly of the respiratory 

tissues after inhalation. Further, alkaline corrosive materials defeat the natural respiratory 

protective mechanisms that prevent larger dust particles from reaching the lungs, by killing or 

immobilizing the ciliary cells that line the throat and upper respiratory tract. This results in the 

facilitated transport of other toxic materials directly into the lungs.

The corrosivity of WTC dust has been attributed by medical researchers as a major 

causative factor in the respiratory symptoms suffered by First Responders and others after 9/11. 

See more detailed documentation later in this Petition for Rulemaking.

 4 See the attached written notations of Robert W. Dellinger, former Director, Materials Recovery and Waste 

Management Division (MRWMD), ORCR, EPA, retired as of July 2011 on Dr. Jenkins’ 10/25/06 complaint to the 

FBI over the falsification of the Corrosivity Characteristic regulation.

5 Id.

6 April 22, 2011 deposition of Robert W. Dellinger, former Director, Materials Recovery and Waste Management 

Division, EPA, pp. 175-176.
5

ACTION REQUESTED

Petitioners request the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

revise the pH level associated with alkaline corrosivity that is specified in 40 C.F.R. § 261.22, 

the Corrosivity Characteristic, EPA Hazardous Waste Number D002 from a value of 12.5 to 

11.5, as well as delete the specification that only wastes that are “aqueous” are subject to 

regulation under 40 C.F.R. § 261.22.

Current regulatory language

EPA’s current regulation under RCRA states that a waste exhibits the Corrosivity

Characteristic contains the following provisions:

Title 40: Protection of Environment

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

Subpart C—Characteristics of Hazardous Waste

§ 261.22 Characteristic of corrosivity. ... 

(a) A solid waste exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity if a representative sample of the waste 

has either of the following properties:

(1) It is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5

(2) It is a liquid and corrodes steel (SAE 1020) at a rate greater than 6.35 mm (0.250 inch) per 

year at a test temperature of 55 °C (130 °F)

, as 

determined by a pH meter using Method 9040C in “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods,” EPA Publication SW–846, as incorporated by reference in §260.11 

of this chapter.

(b) A solid waste that exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity has the EPA Hazardous Waste 

Number of D002.

Requested revision to regulatory language

The requested action subject to this petition would revise 40 C.F.R. § 261.22 to read as 

follows:

Title 40: Protection of Environment

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

Subpart C—Characteristics of Hazardous Waste

§ 261.22 Characteristic of corrosivity. ... 

(a) A solid waste exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity if a representative sample of the waste 

has either of the following properties:

(1) It has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 11.5,

(2) It is a liquid and corrodes steel (SAE 1020) at a rate greater than 6.35 mm (0.250 inch) per 

year at a test temperature of 55 °C (130 °F)

as determined by a pH 

meter using Method 9040C in “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical

Methods,” EPA Publication SW–846, as incorporated by reference in §260.11 of this chapter.

(b) A solid waste that exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity has the EPA Hazardous Waste 

Number of D002.

No changes to the List of Hazardous Substances under CERCLA is required, because this 

list incorporates by reference a citation to EPA’s Corrosivity Characteristic at 40 C.F.R. § 
6

261.22. The trigger level for protecting First Responders at hazardous materials release sites will 

change automatically when the RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic is changed.7

II. THE PETITIONERS’ INTEREST

 

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) serves the professional 

needs of local, State, and federal employees—the professionals charged with the protection of 

America’s citizens from health hazards from the release of natural and man-made materials into 

the environment, including corrosive substances. PEER members have both personal and 

professional interests in preventing chemical burns and respiratory consequences from exposures 

to alkaline corrosive materials.

The co-petitioner, Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., has a personal and professional interest in those 

(including herself) adversely impacted by unsafe exposures due to EPA’s falsified Corrosivity 

Characteristic pH safety level for alkaline corrosives. She has, in either her official capacity as a 

Senior Scientist employed by the EPA or in her private capacity, advised and assisted those 

exposed to corrosive materials, particularly after the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC). 

III. History of EPA’s Corrosivity Characteristic promulgation and revisitations

The Corrosivity Characteristic is a current regulation published every year in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). It is based on a falsified safety level benchmark for alkaline, 

caustic corrosivity to human tissues. This safety level was falsely claimed by EPA to be the 

same as the United Nations (UN) World Health Organization’s (WHO) safety level. EPA 

claimed the UN WHO safety level incorporated into the Corrosivity Characteristic for alkaline, 

caustic materials corresponded to a pH level over 12.5. In fact, the WHO safety level was 

determined by the WHO to be materials with a pH greater than 11.5. 

The pH of a material is determined by a simple laboratory test. Materials with a pH less 

than 7 are considered acidic, while those with a pH greater than seven are considered basic 

(alkaline).8

A pH level of 12.5 has no correlation to any human health endpoint. However, it does 

correlate almost exactly to the pH level that exempts the portland cement manufacturing industry 

 The pH scale is logarithmic, which means that each change of one unit on the pH 

scale means a change in 10 times the acidity or alkalinity. Thus, the pH level in EPA’s 

Corrosivity Characteristic (a pH of 12.5) is 10 times less protective than what it should be, 

namely a pH of 11.5. Corrosivity to human tissue means irreversible chemical burns.

 7 No changes to the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations or any OSHA guidance documents would be 

required since they also incorporate by reference the Corrosivity Characteristic regulation.

8 Wikipedia. pH. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH
7

and demolition industries from responsibility for uncontrolled releases (usually airborne). This 

is because calcium hydroxide is present even in aged, weathered concrete at concentrations 

capable of producing up to pH 12.5 leachates for extended periods of time. 

Summary of interlocking U.S. regulations that incorporate the Corrosivity Characteristic 

The Corrosivity Characteristic regulation is used directly to classify wastes generated 

from manufacturing and other commercial facilities to determine whether they should be 

classified as “hazardous wastes” or not. If classified as a “hazardous waste” under RCRA, the 

waste would be required to be managed under the cradle-to-grave RCRA regulations requiring 

proper handling, transport and disposal to prevent exposures to the public.

The Corrosivity Characteristic pH level of 12.5 is also incorporated into the Hazardous 

Substances list under the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and its amending statue, the 

Comprehensive Emergency Response and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund). 9

In 1993, the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic pH level of 12.5 was cited and used to 

evaluate risks to the public living around cement manufacturing plants (cement kilns) for 

possible regulation under RCRA. The Corrosivity Characteristic pH level of 12.5 was 

referenced and used as a basis for not regulating cement kiln dust (CKD) based on any of its 

corrosive effects on the surrounding population.

 The 

Hazardous Substances list contains safety benchmarks to evaluate risks to First Responders and 

the public from any hazardous release site. This includes releases such as from the collapse of 

the World Trade Towers and the demolition of large buildings by explosives (“implosion 

demolitions”). 

The Corrosivity Characteristic pH level of 12.5 is also incorporated by reference into the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations for the transport of hazardous materials as a 

presumptive level of corrosive hazard for alkaline materials.10

At the same time that EPA’s Corrosivity Characteristic is applied to wastes regulated by 

RCRA, the CERCLA Hazardous Substances List, and DOT regulations, other authorities have 

adopted the correct safe pH level of 11.5 and below for alkaline corrosives. Even another part of 

EPA utilizes the internationally correct pH level of 11.5 for presumptive corrosivity (chemical 

burns),

 

11

 9 The Corrosivity Characteristic regulation under RCRA is defined to be confined to solid materials. However, the 

benchmark safety level pH from this regulation is generally applied to both solids and liquids when used for the 

purposes of identifying “Hazardous Substances”

which has diverted international attention away from the falsified pH level of 12.5 used 

10 See October 13, 2008 complaint to FBI from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., “Supplemental Evidence: Fraud in the Conduct 

and Dissemination of Human Tissue Corrosivity Data (pH tests) in the Aftermath of the World Trade Center 

Disaster” at pp. 22-25. http://www.scribd.com/doc/45180410/Jenkins-101308-FBI-New-WTC-pH-Lies-2ndComplaint

11 See May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D.: “Complaint and Additional 

Evidence of Ph Fraud by: USGS, OSHA, ATSDR, NYC, EPA, and EPA-funded scientists; (1) Falsification of 
8

by other parts of EPA under RCRA and CERCLA. The European Union and many other 

countries have adopted the safe pH level of 11.5 established by the United Nations (UN) as early 

as 1971, and subject to the UN Basel Convention Treaty Globally Harmonized System (GHS), 

which the U.S. has refused to sign.12

The following table is a summary of regulations and standards incorporating the EPA 

Corrosivity Characteristic pH level of 12.5, or in the alternative, adopting the correct pH level of 

11.5, for corrosive irreversible chemical burns to tissues

pH LEVELS vs. PRESUMPTIONS OF HAZARDS

Includes federal U.S. regulations which conflict or falsify UN standards

ACIDIC

CORROSIVE

pH range

CAUSTIC/ALKALINE

CORROSIVE

pH range

EPA RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic 40 CFR §261.22 using falsified UN pH levels

EPA CERCLA (Superfund) Hazardous Substances at 40 CFR §302.4(b) incorporating 40 CFR §261.22

DOT Appendix A to 49 CFR§172.101 incorporating CERCLA 40 CFR §302.4(b) (above) with falsified UN pH levels 

0 — 2 2 — 12.5

safe pH range 12.5 - 14

EPA Toxics/Pesticide office, 40 CFR §158, pH ≥ 11.5 presumed corrosive no further testing

UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS), OECD 404, pH ≥ 11.5 set as corrosive no further testing in 1992 version

UN Basel Convention treaty, in effect but US has not signed, UN GHS levels, lists some lime wastes as hazardous

NYC Fire Code – uses DOT 49 CFR §173.136 - 137 incorporating 1992 OECD 404 - mandatory pH ≥ 11.5 corrosive

Canada Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS), – references UN GHS

Health Canada consumer products– OECD 404 and mandatory pH ≥ 11.5 plus alkali reserve capacity criteria- tests

Canadian transportation regulations, requiring placarding for corrosive materials for cement trucks

European Commission – corrosive for pH ≥ 11.5 plus alkali reserve may result in lower corrosive pH level

0 — 2

2 – 11.5

safe pH 

range

11.5 — 14

1980: Original promulgation of Corrosivity Characteristic regulation under RCRA

EPA first promulgated this falsified regulation on May 19, 1980 through publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register.

13

 

corrosive pH data for WTC dust; (2) Historical fraud by EPA of hazardous pH levels since 1980” at p. 44. 

 In the supporting documentation for this rule, EPA's 

hazardous waste program falsified the pH levels (changed the numbers) that the UN World 

Health Organization (WHO) International Labour Organization (ILO) determined would 

invariably result in corrosive permanent tissue damage (chemical burns). The ILO said the level 

was pH 11.5 for alkaline substances for both skin and eyes. But EPA claimed the ILO said this 

level was 12.5, falsifying what was in the 1971 edition of the ILO encyclopedia. In December 

1980, this falsified pH 12.5 level was incorporated into the National Contingency Plan (NCP, 

Superfund) criteria for Hazardous Substances.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45180048/Jenkins-050607-FBI-WTC-pH-LIES-1st-Complaint

12 Id. at pp. 41-43.

13 EPA (May 19, 1980) Final Rule, 40 C.F.R. § 261.22 Characteristic of corrosivity. Federal Register, Vol. 45, No.

98, p. 33122. 
9

EPA’s reason for setting the pH level of 12.5 as the threshold for when materials became 

corrosive to human tissues was explained in the Listing Background Document that supported 

the 1980 RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic:14

Studies indicate that pH extremes above 11.5 and below 2.5 generally are not tolerated by 

human corneal (eye) tissue [Reference] (3). ... These limits were chosen in an attempt to 

balance the following considerations: sensitive human tissue may be damaged when contacted 

with substances exhibiting pH levels below 2.5 or above 11.5: 

...

Upon consideration of these comments and after further deliberation, the Agency has decided to 

extend the range of acceptable pH levels by decreasing the lower limit from pH 3.0 to 2.0 and 

increasing the upper limit from pH 12.0 to 12.5. With respect to the upper limit, the Agency agrees 

with the commenters that otherwise non-hazardous lime stabilized sludges and wastes should not 

be designated as hazardous. Accordingly, the Agency has adjusted the upper limit to pH 12.5 to 

exclude such wastes from the system. 

... 

Although eye tissue is damaged when the pH is above 11.5, normal skin tissue is clearly less 

sensitive than eye tissue. Consequently, increasing the upper pH limit to 12.5 should not 

significantly increase the likelihood of damage to skin. 

...

[Reference] 3. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Volume 1. Geneva, International 

Labor Office, 1971-72. pp. 220-221. ...

Notice from the above that EPA claimed that the pH level of 11.5 was only corrosive to 

the eyes, and not to the skin, citing the United Nation's International Labour Office (ILO) 1971-

72 edition of the Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety15

However, EPA falsified the information from the ILO encyclopedia. The ILO 

encyclopedia clearly stated both irreversible dermal (skin) as well as corneal damage occurs at 

pH levels above 11.5, not 12.5. The ILO never mentioned any pH level of 12.5 in any context, 

nor did any of the references cited by the ILO even mention a pH level of 12.5 in any context.

as its scientific basis for 

making this claim. 

16 

See below a scanned version of this 1971/1972 encyclopedia:17

 14 EPA, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER (May 2,1980) Background Document, Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act Subtitle C -Hazardous Waste Management, Section 3001 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous 

Waste. 5261.22 -Characteristic of Corrosivity. NTIS Order Number: PB81-184 319. Available from the National 

Technical Information Service (www.NTIS.gov) by telephone order only (800/553-6847)

15 International Labour Office (1971, 1972) Chemical Burns. In: Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and 

Safety, Volume I – A – K, pages 220 - 221 International Labour Office, CH 1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, 1971. 

Special McGraw-Hill Edition, 1972, Library of Congress Card Number: 74-39329, International Standard Book 

Number: 07-079555-X

16 EPA cited no other medical studies or any other scientific reference to support its false claim that pH levels up to 

12.5 were safe for alkaline corrosive effects on tissues.

17 See October 13, 2008 complaint to FBI from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit. at 19-20 for more extensive discussions 

on this issue, and quotations from the medical studies cited by the ILO encyclopedia. 
10

How did EPA devise the falsified level of 12.5 as being protective of corrosive action on 

tissues? This is 10 times more corrosive than a pH level of 11.5, the correct safety threshold. It 

is probably that EPA wished to exempt materials related to concrete and cement from being 

classified as corrosive under the Corrosivity Characteristic regulation. The pH level of 12.5 is 

just high enough to exempt almost all wastes from the portland cement manufacturing industry 

(cement kiln dust, CKD) as well as concrete demolition dusts and leachates.18

The 1980 Background Document for the Corrosivity Characteristic justifies the pH 12.5 

level so as to exempt "waste lime."

 These cementrelated wastes usually have a pH level right below 12.5 at the highest. Thus, they have been 

exempted from regulation and deemed safe by the falsified pH 12.5 threshold level in the 

Corrosivity Characteristic for alkaline corrosive materials. EPA even stated their intent to 

exempt these concrete-related wastes in the background documentation for the original 

promulgation of 1980 Corrosivity Characteristic regulation.

19

 18 See May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D. op. cit., at p. 59 for a table of the 

pH levels of concrete and lime-related materials in comparison to household bleach and other common materials. 

 Undoubtedly, the term "waste lime" as used in the 

Background Document refers to cement kiln dust (CKD), the captured stack emissions from 

portland cement manufacture. Although cement kiln dust can used in agriculture or industry for 

the neutralization of acids, it can also cause substantial damage by direct contact to humans,

other living organisms, and the environment. But "Waste lime" (or cement kiln dust) would 

never be regulated as a hazardous waste in the first place if it is recycled and used beneficially. 

It would never cross the RCRA regulatory threshold, because it would be exempt from the 

definition of a waste and instead classified as a raw material. Thus, there is absolutely no need 

to set the pH level at 12.5 in the Corrosivity Characteristic to allow its continued use for other 

purposes, since it is never a ”waste” in the first place when so used, a prerequisite for coming 

under the regulatory purview of RCRA.

19 EPA (May 19, 1980) Listing Background Document: RCRA Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management, Section 

3001 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 261.22 - CHARACTERISTIC OF CORROSIVITY. 

Available from the National Technical Information Service, Product Code PB81184319. www.NTIS.gov

A number of commenters argued that the proposed upper pH limit of 12.0 would include waste lime 

["waste lime" is actually an oblique reference to cement kiln dust wastes] and many lime treated wastes and 

sludges which generally have a pH between 12.0 and 12.5 and which can be put to agricultural and other 

beneficial uses. Many of these commenters suggested raising the upper pH limit to 12.5 while others 

suggested raising the limit to 13.0.
11

For OSW to exempt waste lime (cement kiln dust) for the false reason that it has the 

potential to be used beneficially, without any consideration of the harmful consequences of 

improper disposal, is egregious. Cement kiln dust is a dangerous corrosive material. One 

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) from major cement manufacturer

20

1980: Concurrent incorporation of Corrosivity Characteristic into the List of Hazardous 

Substances used by First Responders

warns that cement kiln 

dust is a corrosive material, with a pH ranging from 10-13. The manufacturer states that

alternate names include “cement lime” and its own trade name for its by-product waste is “New 

LimeTM.” 

EPA’s Corrosivity Characteristic regulation was, within a few months of its original 

promulgation under RCRA in 1980, incorporated into the List of Hazardous Substances under 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) on 

December 11, 1980.21, 22

The safety levels in the List of Hazardous Substance under CERCLA are used as the 

benchmarks for First Responders and the public at all hazardous release sites. There is no 

effective distinction between whether a contaminant is in a liquid or solid form when it is 

specified as a Hazardous Substance under CERCLA.

 Corrosive "Hazardous Substances" were defined by reference to any 

substances meeting the RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic under 40 C.F.R. § 261.22:

23

 20 LaFarge North America, MSDS for Cement Kiln Dust, 

 There is only one set of pH levels for 

alkaline as well as acid corrosive materials, the Corrosivity Characteristic pH levels. When First 

Responders see the Corrosivity Characteristic pH level of 12.5, they assume it is applicable to 

solids as well as liquids, because no alternative pH level for solids is given. In addition, 

internationally, no distinction is made between the pH levels for corrosivity for solids vs. liquids.

http://www.lafargena.com/MSDS_North_America_English_-_Cement_Kiln_Dust.pdf

21 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (December 11, 1980) U.S. Code, 

Title 42--The Public Health and Welfare. Chapter 103--.Subchapter I--Hazardous Substances Releases, Liability, 

Compensation. 

Sec. 9601. Definitions. For purpose of this subchapter-. . . (14) The term ``hazardous substance'' means . . . 

(C) any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921) . . . if it exhibits any of the characteristics identified in 40 CFR 

261.20 through 261.24.

22 CERCLA was an amending statute to the original authority, the National Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA is 

also loosely known as “Superfund.”

23 See May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D. op. cit., at pp. 37-38. 
12

Department of Transportation incorporates the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic into 

hazardous materials transport regulations

The falsified the pH level for its Corrosivity Characteristic is also contained in the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT incorporates by reference all substances on this 

same Superfund/CERCLA List of Hazardous Substances into the DOT List of Hazardous 

Substances and Reportable Quantities under 49 C.F.R. § 172.101 Appendix A. As explained

above, this CERCLA Hazardous Substances list incorporates the falsified RCRA Corrosivity 

Characteristic A. Although DOT has animal testing criteria for corrosive materials, it allows the 

use pre-existing data from an old test procedure that allowed the application of dry materials like 

dry cement to the skin of animals that do not sweat.24

This has resulted in exposures without warning to First Responders and the public 

attempting to assist persons embedded in wet concrete after highway accidents, not an infrequent 

occurrence.

 Thus, trucks transporting wet concrete and 

similar corrosives are not required to display the DOT warning placards. 

25

Canada, on the other hand, does require placarding of ready-mix cement trucks with 

corrosive hazard warning,

 There was no warning to First Responders or bystanders who attempted to rescue 

the occupants. Adequate placarding of these trucks warning they contain corrosive materials 

might result not only in the taking of better precautions, but also the better control over and 

training of the drivers to avert the numerous accidents involving cement trucks.

26

1993: EPA reevaluates safe pH level for alkaline corrosives, expands the falsification in 

context of Cement Kiln Dust risk evaluation

because Canada has not falsified the pH level relating to alkaline 

corrosive materials.

In 1993, under the RCRA authority, EPA again utilized the falsified pH 12.5 safety level 

to justify not addressing the corrosive inhalation exposures to surrounding communities exposed 

to cement kiln dust (CKD) emitted by cement manufacturers. Furthermore, EPA expanded upon 

the fraudulent pH levels associated with human health effects in its 1993 Report to Congress on 

Cement Kiln Dust (CKD). In this 1993 report, EPA claimed that a pH level of 12.5 was not only 

safe for the skin, but to all human tissues (including the eyes and lung).27

 24 See October 13, 2008 complaint to FBI from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at pp. 22-25. 

 This was at the same 

25 See May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D.: op. cit., at pp. 60-63.

26 Health Canada, Environmental and Workplace Health. Concrete; classification with respect to corrosive 

properties. “The Worker's Compensation Boards across Canada annually receive numerous claims relating to skin 

burns resulting from exposure to concrete and related products. . . . Concrete is not exempt from the WHMIS 

supplier label and MSDS requirements of the HPA / CPR.” http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/occup-travail/whmissimdut/_substance/concrete-beton-eng.php

27 EPA, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER (December 31, 1993) Report to Congress – Cement Kiln Dust Waste. 

Chapter 6, Potential Danger to Human Health and the Environment, p. 6-4. 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/ckd/cement2.htm
13

time that EPA acknowledged in this same report that CKD leachates had pH levels from 11 to 

13, and that ground water had been and could be contaminated at these levels. 

After EPA's 1993 Report to Congress asserting that only pH levels over 12.5 were 

hazardous, EPA's 1997 risk assessment for CKD never even mentioned any corrosive inhalation 

or skin contact hazards.28

1996: Reevaluation and reiteration of the falsified pH Corrosivity Characteristic

 This risk assessment only addressed exposures to inert particulates 

(dust), heavy metals, and dioxins. 

In 1996, EPA published a Hazardous Waste Characteristics Scoping Study.

29

For the first time, this 1996 Scoping study admitted that the 1971/1972 edition of the 

WHO ILO encyclopedia stated that pH levels of 11.5 and above were related to chemical burns. 

However, the 1996 Scoping study made the new false claim that this pH level of 11.5 was 

required only to protect eyes from corrosive burns. This claim is an entirely new falsification for 

the benefit of the 1996 Scoping Study. There was absolutely nothing in the 1971/1972 edition of 

the ILO encyclopedia, any of its cited references, or any other source that states that a pH level 

of 11.5 is only required to protect the eyes, not the skin. See the earlier photographic scan of the 

section from the ILO encyclopedia, and the following excerpts from the 1996 Scoping study.

The 

purpose of this “study” was to re-evaluate the Corrosivity Characteristic regulation which had 

been published and maintained by EPA since 1980 without any changes, and to determine 

whether changes were needed. EPA decided that the Corrosivity Characteristic regulation did 

not need any changes, repeating and reinforcing the original 1980 false claim that a pH level of 

up to 12.5 would protect from corrosive burns from alkaline corrosives. 

30

 

Major results and conclusions from the evaluation of potential danger to human health and the environment 

from the management of CKD are presented below. ... The pH of CKD leachate measured in laboratory 

tests typically ranged from 11 to 13. High pH levels in ground water and surface water may result in a 

variety of adverse effects, including the mobilization of certain metals and other constituents that could 

pose toxicological problems, human tissue burns (at pH levels above 12.5 or more), corrosion in pipes, and 

objectionable taste in drinking water. In addition, high pH levels could cause a wide variety of adverse 

ecological effects.

28 EPA, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER (1997)Technical Background Document: Population Risks from Indirect 

Exposure Pathways, and Population Effects from Exposure to Airborne Particles from Cement Kiln Dust Waste. 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/ckd/cement4.htm

29 EPA Office of Solid Waste (November 15, 1996) Hazardous Waste Characteristics Scoping Study. 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastetypes/wasteid/char/scopingp.pdf 

EPA Office of Solid Waste (November 15, 1996) Notice of Data Availability on the Hazardous Waste 

Characteristics Scoping Study. Federal Register, 61: 58549. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html

30 EPA Office of Solid Waste (November 15, 1996) Hazardous Waste Characteristics Scoping Study. 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastetypes/wasteid/char/scopingp.pdf 

EPA Office of Solid Waste (November 15, 1996) Notice of Data Availability on the Hazardous Waste 

Characteristics Scoping Study. Federal Register, 61: 58549. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
14

EPA originally proposed pH limits of 12.0 or greater and 3.0 or less, and a majority of

commenters argued that these limits were too stringent. ... EPA agreed with these commenters 

and promulgated pH limits of 12.5 or greater and 2.0 or less in the 1980 final rule.

The more stringent proposed pH limits were based on studies of eye tissue damage. These 

studies indicated that pH extremes above 11.5 and below 2.5 generally are not tolerated by 

human corneal tissue.8 EPA decided that basing pH limits on eye tissue damage was 

unnecessarily conservative. Thus, eye damage is a hazard not fully addressed by the corrosivity 

characteristic.

...

[Reference 8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Background 

Document: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle C-Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Wastes, Section 261.22-Characteristic of Corrosivity, May 2, 1980, p. 5. 

The 1996 Scoping Study even admitted to knowledge of the testing methods for skin 

corrosion in the U.N. Basel Convention Treaty (“full thickness destruction of human skin”). 

The ability of some substances to damage human tissue, however, may not be adequately 

indicated by a pH measurement. Other regulatory and advisory bodies (e.g., DOT, OSHA, Basel 

Convention) use criteria based on full thickness destruction of human skin.

This Scoping Study did not admit to any knowledge that the U.N. Basel Convention pH 

threshold for alkaline corrosivity was 11.5. Staff at EPA responsible for the Scoping Study31

had an even greater knowledge of the effects of different pH levels on the skin than they did in 

1980. The same staff were participating as representatives on United Nations (UN) Basel 

Convention negotiations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

(OECD) workgroups and meetings. The UN and OECD efforts resulted in international 

consensus guidelines in 1981 and treaties in 1992 which stated that a pH of 11.5 was the 

presumptive level for corrosive effects on both skin as well as eyes.32

The 1996 Scoping Study also repeated and compounded the false claim in the 1980 

Background Document that the pH level needed to be set at 12.5 to enable the continued 

agricultural use of lime-stabilized sewage sludges. However, by 1996 there were 2 new events 

to establish this as a false pretext. The first was the promulgation of a new regulations in 1985 

that exempted all sludges that were reclaimed from the RCRA Characteristic Listings (which 

includes any Corrosivity Characteristic sludges).33, 34

 31 EPA’s division responsible for the 1980 Corrosivity Characteristic regulation and 1996 Scoping Study was 

formerly called the Hazardous Waste Identification Division (HWID) under the Office of Solid Waste (OSW). The 

names of the division and office was changed to the Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division 

(MRWMD) under the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR). The staff person in MRWMD with 

primary responsibility for the 1996 Scoping Study and Corrosivity Characteristic regulation, who also represented 

EPA at the Basel Convention consensus development is Greg Helms. The division director for MRWMD from 

2001 to 2011 was Robert W. Dellinger.

32 See May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at pp. 35-36.

33 EPA Office of Solid Waste (January 4, 1985) Hazardous Waste Management System; Definition of Solid Waste, 

Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 50(3) 613-668, at pp, 663 – 664, 651.
15

There was a second event that would have already exempted lime stabilized sewage 

sludges from the RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic by the time EPA's OSW drafted its 1996 

Scoping Study. The 5/19/80 preamble to the Federal Register notice which finalized the 

Corrosivity Characteristic regulation stated that as soon as comprehensive standards were in 

place under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the disposal, reclamation and use of sewage sludge 

as an agricultural amendment, it would transfer authority from RCRA to CWA.35 Such 

comprehensive regulations did in fact come into effect in 1993 under 40 C.F.R. § 503 of the

CWA.36 The 1996 Scoping Study should have taken this into account, stating there was no 

longer any reason to have the pH level at 12.5 to accommodate the agricultural use limestabilized sewage sludges, since now RCRA would defer regulation to the CWA.37, 38

2001: Withholding of critical corrosive WTC dust pH data while First Responders and 

public exposed

 

Because of its historical falsification of the presumptive pH level that would cause 

irreversible tissue damage, EPA and other responsible officials were in a tenuous position after 

the collapse to the World Trade Towers on September 11, 2001. EPA had never before issued 

any warning to the public because of the alkaline, corrosive properties of dust from implosion 

demolitions of large buildings, and there is no evidence that EPA tested the dust for its pH after 

these demolitions, even when sophisticated testing of other pollutants had been performed.39, 40 

In addition, EPA had issued its 1993 report on cement kiln dusts (CKD) from the manufacture of 

portland cement (used for concrete), wherein EPA definitely claimed that pH levels up to 12.5 

were safe for the respiratory system.41

 34 As of 1985, lime-stabilized/treated sewage sludges were exempted from RCRA hazardous regulations by the 

newly promulgated "Definition of a Solid Waste." These regulations exempted all types of sludges from RCRA 

regulations if they were reclaimed and only hazardous because they were a "characteristic" waste. "Reclaimed" was 

defined in 1985 as a subset of the broader category "recycled." "Recycled" includes use, reuse, as well as 

reclamation. "Use" is not the same as "reclaimed." Thus the "use constituting disposal" provisions do not apply to 

sewage sludges that are processed with value added and sold as soil amendments/liming agents.

 EPA’s Corrosivity Characteristic falsified pH safe level 

35 EPA Office of Solid Waste (May 19, 1980) Part III. Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and 

Listing of Hazardous Waste. Action: Revisions to final rule and interim final rule and request for comments. 

Federal Register, 45(98) 33084 – 33133, at pp. 33101 – 33102.

36 EPA, Office of Water (Feb. 19, 1993) Federal Register, Vol. 58, p. 9387.

37 Precedents were already set for such deferrals from RCRA to the CWA, because in 1990 there was a major 

deferral of the § 261 Corrosivity Characteristic under RCRA to the CWA for sewage wastewater under the § 268 

RCRA Land Disposal Restriction. In 1990, OSW deferred regulating wastewaters that met the RCRA Corrosivity 

Characteristic under the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions to the CWA and Safe Drinking Water Act authorities.

38 See May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at p. 36.

39 See May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at pp. 45-52. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45180048/Jenkins-050607-FBI-WTC-pH-LIES-1st-Complaint

40 See October 13, 2008 complaint to FBI from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at pp. 26-27, 32, 57-60.

41 See earlier discussions of EPA’s 1993 report to Congress on cement kiln dust.
16

of 12.5, incorporated into the Hazardous Substances List under CERCLA, had been used as a 

referent safe level after other hazardous release sites, long before the collapse of the World Trade 

Center (WTC).42

It would have broken all precedents for EPA to have claimed that WTC dusts were 

hazardous because of the high pH levels, undoubtedly above 11.5, but lower than the falsified 

12.5 pH threshold in the Corrosivity Characteristic. Most importantly, if EPA did reveal to the 

public any pH testing results for the WTC, and these pH levels were 11.5 and higher, the 

international community would know that the claim that the levels were not hazardous was a 

false statement.

 Thus, EPA was essentially locked in to perpetuating its false claim that pH 

levels up to 12.5 were safe, and that there would be no corrosive burns until the pH level 

exceeded. 12.5 when the WTC collapsed on 9/11.

43 Even those in other parts of EPA would quickly recognize that EPA was 

falsely claiming WTC dust was not corrosive if there were any pH levels above 11.5, because 

beginning in 1984 EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) issued 

regulatory guidelines setting the pH level at 11.5 for presumed corrosivity for both skin and eyes. 

In 1998, OPPTS issued new test guidelines for skin and eye corrosivity, again stating that for 

alkaline chemicals, a pH level of 11.5 is presumed to be corrosive.44

After 9/11, it is quite probable that EPA and OSHA did have immediate field data for the 

pH of WTC dust, and pH levels were higher than 11.5, but not higher than 12.5. The OSHA and 

EPA regulations require immediate field testing for pH by all On Scene Coordinators (OSC's) 

(federal, state, city). Regulations and protocol also require that these personnel be trained to test 

for pH levels (both corrosive acids and alkaline material), as well as have the necessary 

equipment for pH tests pre-packed long before any hazardous material release site such as the 

collapse of the WTC.45

The OSHA, EPA, and NYC On Scene Coordinators would have compared the pH levels 

they were finding to the criteria in the list of Hazardous Substances under CERCLA. Any field 

test results of pH would have been compared to the falsified safe level of a pH of 12.5, not the 

true safe level of 11.5. Thus, there would have been no imperative or regulatory requirement to 

assess the dust for corrosive properties.

 42 See above discussions where the Corrosivity Characteristic was incorporated into the Hazardous Substances List 

for First Responders in 1980.

43 See earlier discussions of the United Nations Basel Convention Treaty that incorporated the OECD consensus 

standard affirming that it was presumed that alkaline materials with pH levels of 11.5 were corrosive, causing 

irreversible tissue destruction.

44 See May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at p. 44.

45 Id. at p. 25 for documentation of the requirements and training for pH testing at hazardous release site.
17

On September 13, 2001, EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman claimed all the 

monitoring data from EPA testing showed hazardous substances "below background levels."

46 

"Background level" is an unambiguous term, meaning that there is first, adequate testing of all 

hazards, and second that levels are the same as without the polluting event.47, 48

Later, pH test results taken by the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) were released to the 

public on February 10, 2002 through a widely syndicated press article. In this article, EPA's 

Bonnie Bellows denied any early field testing of pH of WTC dusts in this press story, claiming 

"We have no specific data on pH levels."

 But EPA in 

none of its press releases or public statements in the days, weeks and months after 9/11 ever 

mentioned the corrosive, high pH levels in WTC dust.

49

A day after this press story reporting that USGS had found pH levels over 12 in WTC 

dust, the issue of the high pH levels of WTC dust was addressed at a Senate field hearing.

 Dr. Jenkins, co-petitioner, who was quoted in this 

same press story, can attest for the fact that no pH data was included by EPA in any of the 

monitoring data made available to the public (including the daily hard copy releases only 

available by visiting the EPA NYC reading room) in the aftermath of 9/11, because she assisted 

citizen groups in interpreting this data. 

50

 46 EPA Administrator Whitman told a local TV station on September 13, 2001: “We've had concern, we're going to 

continue to monitor. But right now, as I will tell you, everything we're getting back from the sampling that we're 

doing, is below background levels.” Note that EPA was working closely with OSHA at this time, and Whitman 

made no differentiation in her 9/13/11 statement between Ground Zero and more outlying areas of Manhattan. 

 At 

this same hearing, Dr. George Thurston, an EPA-funded researcher at New York University 

(NYU) announced that he had tested the smallest particles, those most dangerous particles which 

could reach deep within the lungs. He claimed that these particles were neutral, neither alkaline 

See New York Daily News, June 25, 2007, “Damning questions Whitman must be made to answer” at: 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/06/25/2007-06-25_damning_questions_whitman_must_be_made_t.html

See archival footage in Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11. Sundance Channel and CBS News 

Productions at: http://www.sundancechannel.com/films/500013415/

47 EPA RCRA Glossary of Terms. http://www.epa.gov/region8/land_waste/rcra/rcraglossary.html

Background - The concentration of a substance in an environmental media (air, water, or soil) that occurs 

naturally or is not the result of human activities. In exposure assessments, the concentration of a substance 

in a defined control area, during a fixed period of time before, during, or after a data-gathering operation.

48 This statement by Ms. Whitman went far beyond the ambiguous misleading statements in EPA’s press releases 

that were edited by the White House. Ms. Whitman was not referring specifically to zones outside of Ground Zero, 

and she was also claiming by making the statement that all pollutants of concern had been tested and were below 

background levels.

49 Andrew Schneider (February 10, 2002) “Part 1: Public was Never Told That Dust From Ruins is Caustic. Part 

2: Roiling Dust Cloud Filled USGS Scientists with a Sense of Urgency” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 

http://www.stltoday.com/help/archives/

http://www.stuypa.org/environment/resources.htm (follow link on page to Word version of press article)

50 United States Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works (February 11, 2001) Field Hearing Before 

the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, and Climate Change. 

http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/107s/80397.txt
18

or acidic, stating that they had different chemical properties and a different pH compared to the 

bulk of the aggregate dust tested by USGS.51 Dr. Jenkins initiated an extensive email 

interchange with Dr. Thurston and Dr. Chen at NYU from February 13 to February 21, 2002, 

wherein she question the validity of these claims about the smallest particles being neutral.52 Dr. 

Jenkins requested telephonically that Dr. Thurston provide her the analytical test methods he 

used to determine the pH of the smallest WTC particles, but he declined. Later, when Dr. 

Thurston and Dr. Chen published their result in the December 2002 Lancet medical journal,53

they also did not provide their analytical test methods, and have not to this day. Their Lancet

publication directly attempted to justify EPA’s false warnings that the air was safe, because they

claimed (without any supporting laboratory documentation) the smallest dust particles were not 

caustic and corrosive with a high pH level:

One property of the dust that probably contributes to its irritancy is its caustic nature. The pH of 

most of the suspensions of the bulk World Trade Center settled dust was greater than 10, which 

is irritating to mucous membranes. However, the dust’s alkalinity decreased with decreasing 

particle size, with particles less than 2.5 μm at about neutral pH. The caustic, alkaline large 

particles and large fibreglass fibres that were caught in the eyes, nose, and throat were probably 

responsible for the chronic cough of the residents and workers near Ground Zero. Thus, although 

the caustic large dust particles caused temporary nose, throat, and upper airway symptoms, they 

were effectively caught by the body’s defenses. Conversely, the fine dust that did reach the deep 

lung was lower in concentration and much less caustic. Therefore, although the public had severe 

acute symptoms, the overall dust exposures probably did not have many cumulative health 

implications for the general population in lower Manhattan 

. . . 

However, most symptoms in the general population were apparently related to the larger, 

unregulated, alkaline dust particles. These large particles did not penetrate deep in the lung to 

ultimately have severe or long-term health implications, but were very alkaline and irritating, 

causing obvious respiratory symptoms. The differences in the characteristics of small and large 

particles could explain why the government declared the outside air “safe” even though the public 

had eye, nose, and upper airway symptoms.

When EPA itself later tested the smallest WTC particles for their pH, they diluted the 

dust samples almost 600 times with water.54

 51 Thurston, G. D. (2/11/02) Statement of Dr. George D. Thurston, Sc. D. to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the United States Senate Re: the Air Pollution Effects of The World Trade Center Disaster. 

 This nearly 600:1 dilution is an extraordinary high 

http://www.senate.gov/~epw/107th/Thurston_021102.htm

52 See May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at pp. 14-16, as well as 

the endnotes that contain the full text this email interchange, involving USGS scientists as well. 

See also October 13, 2008 complaint to FBI from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at pp. 28-30, 35-38.

53 Lung Chi Chen, George Thurston (December 2002) World Trade Center cough. THE LANCET Supplement, 

Vol. 360, s37 – s38. www.thelancet.com

http://www.impact-kenniscentrum.nl/doc/kennisbank/1000010669-1.pdf

54 EPA (December 2002) Toxicological Effects of Fine Particulate Matter Derived from the Destruction of the 

World Trade Center. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Office of Research and 

Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. 

http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/wtc/WTC_report_7b3i.pdf
19

ratio of water to solids. This testing was also performed in November 2001, almost 2 months 

after 9/11, with the samples unprotected from the atmosphere. The official SW 846 EPA method 

for determining the pH of solids requires a 1:1 ratio of solids to water. In other words, the 

laboratory was using extreme dilution to guarantee that they did not find a high pH. This is 

extremely dishonest. This is fraud that can be easily understood by the public.55

2007 – 2011: EPA officials admit falsification of Corrosivity Characteristic pH level and 

need to include all materials, but fail to act

EPA officials have admitted that the pH level of 12.5 in the Corrosivity Characteristic 

regulation was at least “misrepresented” from the ILO encyclopedia, but deny that it was 

intentionally falsified. EPA began a preliminary effort to draft an issue/options document to 

address Dr. Jenkins’ concerns over the falsified, unsafe pH benchmark, but dropped the effort 

due to “other priorities.” An EPA official also stated that the limiting language in the 

Corrosivity Characteristic regulation to “aqueous” materials was an error.

At some point after receiving a copy of Dr. Jenkins’ May 6, 2007 complaint to Congress 

and the FBI over the falsified pH level in the Corrosivity Characteristic regulation,56

On page 5 of Dr. Jenkins’ May 6 Congress/FBI complaint, Mr. Dellinger circled the pH 

levels of 12.3, 12.4 and 12.04 found by the USGS in 3 respective WTC dust samples. On page 

10, Mr. Dellinger wrote in the margin “11.5 seems to be international std.” 

Mr. 

Dellinger made handwritten comments on this document, underlining many of Jenkins’ 

assertions about falsifications and misrepresentations. (See attached.) These handwritten 

comments indicate his acknowledgement and admission that the U.N. World Health 

Organization ILO encyclopedia had been misrepresented by EPA in 1980, but did not admit to 

any deliberate falsification.

On page 13, Jenkins asserted several times that EPA had falsified the UN ILO 

encyclopedia by claiming it stated a pH level of 12.5 was safe, when in fact the ILO 

encyclopedia stated clearly that any pH level of 15.5 and above was corrosive to human tissues. 

Mr. Dellinger wrote in the margins “strong term” and “again, very strong words.” 

On page 32, Jenkins wrote “However, EPA falsified the information in the ILO 

encyclopedia. A photographic scanned version is provided on the next page from the 1971-1972 

 

J. K. McGee, L. C. Chen, M. D. Cohen, G. R. Chee, C. M. Prophete, N. Haykal-Coates, S. J. Wasson, T. L. Conner, 

D. L. Costa, and S. H. Gavett (2003) Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in 

Toxicological Assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 11(7): 972. 

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.pdf

55 See October 13, 2008 complaint to FBI from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., p. 29, 37-39.

56 Dr. Jenkins contemporaneously sent Mr. Dellinger a copy of her May 6, 2007 “Complaint and Additional 

Evidence of Ph Fraud by: USGS, OSHA, ATSDR, NYC, EPA, and EPA-funded scientists; (1) Falsification of 

corrosive pH data for WTC dust; (2) Historical fraud by EPA of hazardous pH levels since 1980” 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45180048/Jenkins-050607-FBI-WTC-pH-LIES-1st-Complaint
20

edition of the ILO encyclopedia.” In the margin, Dellinger wrote “is it possible someone simply 

made a mistake?” This is a direct admission by Mr. Dellinger that the ILO encyclopedia was 

misrepresented, albeit his excuse that it might have been a mistake. It is not credible that this 

was a mistake by EPA in 1980, since EPA repeated the error/falsification in both 1993 and 1996, 

as documented earlier, even expanding upon the error/falsification.

On page 33, Mr. Dellinger points to the photographic scan of the WHO ILO encyclopedia 

from 1971/1972 and writes in the margin “Someone could easily have misinterpreted this 

language, assuming eyes were more sensitive than skin and did not refer to the sources of info 

cited below [the references used by the ILO]” This is a false excuse by Mr. Dellinger for the 

misrepresentation by EPA. There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of “eyes” in the ILO 

encyclopedia. One of the 2 references cited by the ILO was clearly restricted to skin testing. 

Further, as explained in the next paragraph on page 33 of Jenkins’ Congress/FBI complaint, 

right where Dellinger could see it, the eyes are not more sensitive than the skin to corrosives, and 

animals were not tested historically by the eyes, only by the skin. Mr. Dellinger continues his 

excusatory tone in his next comment in the margins, saying “a lot of speculation going on” 

On page 34, Mr. Dellinger shows that he needs to check on what Dr. Jenkins is saying, 

writing “is this true” and “check with Charlotte [Mooney]. Would CKD equate to a 

‘characteristic by-product’ or ‘sludge?’ ” Importantly, Dellinger writes on the same page “It 

seems that agency made a policy call to exempt these wastes by raising the pH level of the 

corrosivity characteristic. This was done in public manner, no law suit was filed, no petitions 

have been received asking us to change pH to 11.5.” It is not the public’s responsibility, or even 

ability, to detect such falsifications by EPA in the first place, nor should they have to submit 

petitions or bring law suits to force EPA to perform its duty to act honestly in the protection of 

the public and environment from man-made hazards.

On page 35, Jenkins documents that current EPA staff responsible for the Corrosivity 

Characteristic were fully aware of the pH 11.5 international standard before 1996, so they 

knowingly perpetuated the fraudulent pH 12.5 level through the 1996 Scoping study. Dellinger 

writes “how does Cate know this – they maybe had a better opportunity to know this, but not 

necessary actually had the knowledge.”

On page 38, Dr. Jenkins stated that because of the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic, 

First Responders after 9/11 would have compared their pH test levels of WTC dust with the 12.5 

pH level in the List of Hazardous Substances under CERCLA and found no exceedances. Mr. 

Dellinger wrote “my recollection is that they required all responders to wear protective 

equipment. This entire analysis is specious!” and “This accusation is outrageous.”

On page 39, Mr. Dellinger defended the CKD regulations which ignored the corrosive 

high pH levels. He stated that since CKD wastes were regulated to a very limited extent for 

metal contamination, they did not need to be regulated for their corrosive effects. Dellinger says 

the regulations require that CKD be managed “better.” Dr. Jenkins asserts that this is nonsense 
21

on the part of Mr. Dellinger, since health effects from the corrosivity of CKD are different from 

health effects of metals in CKD. Reducing metal exposures to CKD may be inadequate to

sufficiently reduce acute or long term chronic corrosive exposures. The corrosive aspect of the 

CKD goes entirely unregulated. 

See the attached copy of Mr. Dellinger’s handwritten notes for his other accusatory and 

excusatory comments on Dr. Jenkins’ May 6, 2007 complaint to Congress/FBI. To top it off, 

beside the very last paragraph in Dr. Jenkins’ FBI/Congressional complaint, Mr. Dellinger 

claimed it was the responsibility of the health practitioners to know themselves that WTC dust 

was corrosive, writing in the margin “Why weren’t the health workers familiar with these studies 

[cited and discussed in Jenkins’ FBI complaint]” so as to know how to effectively treat First 

Responders medically. This amounts to assigning blame to the victims of a fraud by saying they 

should have detected the fraud themselves in the first place and thus prevented the health 

injuries.

Mr. Dellinger also spoke with his key staff on the allegations brought by Dr. Jenkins. On 

July 26, 2001, Gregory Helms prepared a declaration under penalty of perjury.

57

On August 16, 2010, Mr. Dellinger testified

He stated that 

although he had no role in the original promulgation of the Corrosivity Characteristic regulation 

in 1980, he was “the Agency’s resident expert on the RCRA corrosivity characteristic 

regulation” and that Dr. Jenkins had “solicited his opinion” because of that role. He testified

regarding “receiving from Dr. Jenkins early in 2007 a document that she identified in 

conversation as raising a concern about the corrosivity characteristic regulation . . . and later in 

2007, a document in which she was questioning the validity of the corrosivity characteristic and 

suggesting that this regulation’s initial promulgation may have been tainted.” He stated that he 

started investigating the matter “on his own initiative,” started preparing an issue paper, and had 

a “couple” of conversations with Mr. Dellinger about the issue, but dropped the effort because of 

other priorities. See attached.

58 as follows regarding the impact of the 

falsified safe pH level in the Corrosivity Characteristic.

Second, irrespective of whatever pH standard EPA might have developed, the dust generated by 

the collapse of the WTC would have been the same, i.e., the concrete of which such dust was 

principally composed would have been no different. Furthermore, EPA consistently advised first 

responders to wear respiratory protection, because it was obvious that, irrespective of the 

prevailing pH standard and whether or not the concrete dust was considered a hazardous waste, 

inhaling such dust posed a substantial health risk.

Finally, I have examined what I understand were Dr. Jenkins' disclosures of EPA wrongdoing to 

the FBI, and I have found such disclosures logically and factually flawed, and, to the extent they 

purportedly represent evidence of Agency wrongdoing, of no meaning whatsoever.

 57 Declaration of Gregory Helms (July 29, 2011).

58 August 16, 2010 Declaration of Robert W. Dellinger under penalty of perjury, former Director, Materials 

Recovery and Waste Management Division.
22

Mr. Dellinger later admitted to the false statement in his August 16, 2010 declaration 

under penalty of perjury, saying that it was not EPA, but claiming instead it was local officials

who told First Responders to wear respirators.59 

Q: So you can tell me when EPA advised over time the first responders to wear respiratory 

protection? Can you?

A: Oh, I probably shouldn't have said "EPA consistently advised." It would have been their -

- should have been their -- you know, their practices, standard practice.

Q: You're saying it would have been whose standard practice?

A: Anybody that would be going into those buildings.

Q: So you're not saying someone -- at the moment you're not saying someone would have 

advised them of the danger, you're saying they would have known from their own experience and 

practice?

A: That would be my expectation.

Q: Okay. So would you like to retract your statement that "EPA consistently advised the first 

responders to wear respiratory protection"?

A: I wouldn't say "EPA."

Q: Okay.

A: Yeah, I probably would change the sentence.

Q: Okay. And if you were to word it to be consistent with your own knowledge, what would 

you say?

A: Well, the -- I don't know what you would call the supervisory people, you know, that were 

there, but the -- when there's heavy dust like that, they have -- the fire fighters and police have 

access to equipment that would have provided them protection from this dust.

Q: Are you aware that the U.S. EPA did issue a public statement that basically downplayed 

the air-inhalation health risk from the dust?

A: Well, I know from watching television that when people were coming out of the hole their

supervisors were telling them to keep those respirators on.

Q: You want to answer the question I asked you?

A: Can you ask it again?

Q: Are you aware that EPA issued a public statement that downplayed the risk, health risk 

of inhaling the dust?

A: No, I'm not aware of it.

Q: Okay. Do you recall a controversy arising about the White House Office of 

Environmental Policy Editing EPA's public warning statement to take out the meat of the 

warning?

A: No, I do not. I don't remember that.

Q: Okay. Now, on the last page of your declaration, page 6 at paragraph 29 you say, or 

someone says over your signature: "Finally, I have examined what I understand were Dr. Jenkins' 

disclosures of EPA wrongdoing to the FBI, and I have found such disclosures logically and 

factually flawed, and to the extent they purportedly represented evidence of Agency wrongdoing,

have no meaning whatsoever." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you the author of that exact language?

A: Not the author of the exact language. But from my standpoint, the fact that our pH range 

of 2 to 12.5 is what it is, it wouldn't have changed anything. The concrete dust is still concrete 

dust.

Q: I guess I don't follow your logic. If the science showed that a pH of 12.5 or more was 

extremely harmful, perhaps immediately dangerous to life and health as they say, to humans, and 

the EPA standard didn't reflect that fact, are you saying the fact that concrete dust is concrete 

dust means no harm would come from that air?

 59 April 22, 2011 deposition of Robert W. Dellinger, former Director, Materials Recovery and Waste Management 

Division, EPA, 169-173.
23

A: No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that the concrete dust is going to be at

whatever pH it is at. And whether we said that the pH should be no greater than 12 or no less 

than 2.5 or whatever, it wouldn't have made a difference to the concrete dust.

Q: Well, I think we're concerned about making a difference to the first responders --

A: Well --

Q: -- and whether they would take more protective measures.

A: -- as long as they had respirators on, they'd be doing fine. It's not like somebody was 

out there saying, oh, shoot, the pH of this stuff is not quite 12 -- over 12.5, so they don't need 

respirators.

Q: How do you know what people were saying to the first responders?

A: Because I heard it on television. I heard the supervisors of those people saying that, 

"Keep your respirators on when you're dealing in the" -- you know, when they were down in the 

hole.

Q: When you say "down in the hole," you mean sort of the, what shall we call it, where the 

building collapsed?

A: Yes.

Q: So have you read the testimonies of the first responders?

A: No, I have not.

Q: Okay. Have you read the allegations of the first responders in their lawsuits?

A: No, I haven't.

Q: Okay. How many times do you think you heard someone talking about respiratory 

protection on the television?

A: Pretty much every time somebody came out there without having a respirator on.

Q: Are you saying you were watching the television day in and day out for this purpose?

A: No, I'm not saying that.

Q: Okay. So how many times did you observe this?

A: Several.

This deposition testimony raises an interesting question. Was there any national 

broadcast coverage wherein local officials told First Responders in “the hole” to wear respirators

or “that when people were coming out of the hole their supervisors were telling them to keep 

those respirators on”? 

Regardless of whether EPA or other officials told First Responders to wear respirators, 

they were unlikely to be highly motivated to do so, since the caustic, corrosive pH of WTC dust 

was never mentioned to First Responders. The other pollutants at Ground Zero rarely exceeded 

OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits, and if they did, they were related to long-term, cumulative 

expose types of health risks. OSHA defines corrosive atmospheres (which include airborne 

corrosive particulates) as being "immediately dangerous to life or health" (IDLH).60 If First 

Responders had in fact been told to wear respirators, they would have been more motivated to do 

so if they had been informed of the corrosive, high pH of WTC dust, and the fact that alkaline 

corrosive atmospheres do not necessary give the physical sensations (burning sensation) of being 

corrosive.61

 60 OSHA (May 5, 1995) Standard Interpretations - Response to IDLH or Potential IDLH atmospheres. 

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21788

61 See later discussion in the justification section of this petition for documentation that corrosive alkaline 

atmospheres may not provide physical warning signals, such as a burning sensation.
24

Further, Mr. Dellinger never addressed the problem that others, like citizens working in 

lower Manhattan, residents and laborers, in addition to First Responders, were also exposed to 

WTC dust for long periods. There was no official entity, EPA or otherwise, who instructed them 

to wear respirators, much less train them in the use of same or supply them with the proper 

respiratory protection. In fact the opposite was true. Workers and residents in lower Manhattan 

were explicitly told they did not even need to wear dust masks, much less approved respirators.62

IV. Justification of the Need for the Proposed Action

The falsified Corrosivity Characteristic pH level of 12.5 does not protect from irreversible 

tissue destruction (chemical burns)

The falsified RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic pH level of 12.5 results in unregulated 

hazardous exposures to the public and First Responders corrosive alkaline materials, which result 

in irreversible tissue damage (chemical burns).

A pH level of 11.5 and higher is the recognized presumptive safe level for alkaline 

corrosive materials

A pH level of 11.5 and over has been established by the international community 

beginning in 1971 under the UN World Health Organization (WHO).63 The WHO stated both 

irreversible dermal (skin) as well as corneal damage occurs at pH levels above 11.5. This pH 

11.5 and higher presumptive level has been re-iterated in many subsequent international 

consensus standards. The UN Basel Convention treaty was amended in 1998 to include a 

presumptive trigger level for alkaline corrosivity at a pH level of 11.5.64 In 2002, the UN 

ratified the OECD Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals 

(GHS). The GHS states in many places that a pH level of 11.5 and higher is classified as 

corrosive to tissues.65

 62 Jenkins, C. (July 4, 2003) “Comments on the EPA Office of Inspector General’s 1/27/03 interim report titled: 

‘EPA’s Response to the World Trade Center Towers Collapse’ A DOCUMENTARY BASIS FOR LITIGATION” 

http://www.877wtchero.com/pdf11.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45169489/Jenkins-070403-Documentary-Basis-Litigation

63 International Labour Office (1971, 1972) Chemical Burns. In: Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and 

Safety, Volume I – A – K, pages 220 - 221 International Labour Office, CH 1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, 1971. 

Special McGraw-Hill Edition, 1972, Library of Congress Card Number: 74-39329, International Standard Book 

Number: 07-079555-X

64 United Nations Environment Programme (February 5, 1992) Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary 

Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, Annex IX, List B, Waste B2120. 

http://www.basel.int/text/17Jun2010-conv-e.pdf

65 United Nations Economic Commission, Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of 

Chemicals (GHS). http://live.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev01/01files_e.html
25

The pH scale is logarithmic, like the Richter Scale for earthquakes. A change of one unit 

on the pH scale represents a tenfold increase in alkalinity or acidity. Thus, a difference in a pH 

safety level of 12.5 vs. 11.5 is highly significant.

The first readily available documentation of the "rule of thumb" that it should be 

presumed that an alkaline pH level of 11.5 causes corrosive chemical burns to both the skin and 

eyes comes from the United Nations' (UN) World Health Organization (WHO) International 

Labour Organization (ILO) in its 1971 edition of the Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and 

Safety.

66 A scanned photographic version appeared earlier in the section on EPA's 1980 

falsification of this reference. The relevant language from the ILO encyclopedia is again given 

below:

Burns, chemical

Most chemical burns result from the action of corrosive substances which destroy tissue at the 

point of contact. The skin, eyes and digestive system are the most commonly affected parts of 

the body. The corrosives may be either acid or alkali, the main feature being the hydrogen or 

hydroxyl concentration. Extremes above pH 11.5 or below 2.5 are not tolerated by the body 

and will almost always result in irreversible tissue damage. An outstanding feature of 

chemica [sic] burns is the fact that tissue destruction is progressive: acids tend to be neutralised 

by the available or exposed tissue whereas alkalis continue to cause damage unless neutralised 

by other means. 

Health effects from exposures to alkaline materials with corrosive high pH levels

Corrosive alkaline materials cause irreversible tissue destruction, which is the same thing 

as what is commonly called “chemical burns.” Corrosive airborne dusts and mists act directly to 

cause tissue destruction and scarring in the upper respiratory system, and deep within the lungs if 

particles are small enough to penetrate deep within the airways. The following are the United 

Nation’s (U.N.) Environment Programme (UNEP) descriptions of the effects of corrosive 

substances on the respiratory track, skin and eyes:67

Corrosion of the respiratory tract is defined by destruction of the respiratory tract tissue after a 

single, limited period of exposure analogous to skin corrosion; this includes destruction of the 

mucosa. 

...

Skin Corrosion is the production of irreversible damage to the skin; namely, visible necrosis 

through the epidermis and into the dermis ... Corrosive reactions are typified by ulcers, bleeding, 

bloody scabs, and, by the end of the observation at 14 days, by discolouration due to blanching of 

the skin, complete areas of alopecia, and scars.

...

 66 International Labour Office (1971, 1972) Chemical Burns. op. cit.

67 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2005) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and 

Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), First Revised Edition. 3.1.2.6 Specific considerations for inhalation toxicity at p. 

112; Chapter 3.2 Skin Corrosion/Irritation, Chapter 3.3 Serious Eye Damage /Eye Irritation at p. 137; 3.2.1 

Definitions at p. 123. http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev01/01files_e.html
26

Serious eye damage is the production of tissue damage in the eye, or serious physical decay of 

vision, following application of a test substance to the anterior surface of the eye, which is not 

fully reversible ...

OSHA defines corrosive atmospheres (which include airborne corrosive particulates) as 

being "immediately dangerous to life or health" (IDLH). This is true even if the physical 

manifestations of the corrosive effects are delayed.68 A person inhaling corrosive alkaline 

particles or mists will not necessarily detect (with their senses) any chemical burning sensation 

of their respiratory tract and lungs.69 This is because corrosive substances will deaden the 

senses. OSHA states that prolonged airborne exposures to irritants or corrosives may produce 

little or no symptoms of irritation.70

Alkaline corrosive substances will inactivate and/or kill the ciliary cells that line the 

respiratory tract. Cilia are tiny hair-like structures that move mucus up and out of the respiratory 

passages (mucociliary escalator). These ciliary cells are the first line defense for the clearance of 

toxic substances from the throat, bronchial tubes and lungs.

 Thus, the person will not know they are in a dangerous 

situation and take steps to prevent the exposure.

71, 72

An alkaline pH as low as 9.76 has been shown to inactivate ciliary cells, and a pH of 

10.15 has been shown to destroy the ciliary cells in respiratory tissues.

 The killing or deadening of the 

ciliary cells that line the upper respiratory track and move particles up to the esophagus, 

preventing them from reaching the lungs, results in not only larger particle exposures deeper to

the lungs of the corrosive materials themselves, but also to any other toxic materials that are 

present in the air. This increases the toxic properties of other pollutants by facilitating their entry 

into the body through the respiratory system.

73, 74

 68 OSHA (May 5, 1995) Standard Interpretations - Response to IDLH or Potential IDLH atmospheres. 

 In one study on 

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21788

69 Bos, Peter M.J. MSc; Busschers, Marloes MSc; Arts, Josje H.E. PhD (2002) Evaluation of the Sensory Irritation 

Test (Alarie test) for the Assessment of Respiratory Tract Irritation. Journal of Occupational & Environmental 

Medicine. 44(10):968-976. http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-200210000-

00017.htm;jsessionid=F7TMsbLQnvY1gy1Lgg1J8WnplCy1Q5YjkGmnLcyGv0GX9jFp1Vyx!-1119014599!-

949856145!8091!-1

70 OSHA. CONFINED SPACE HAZARDS. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20070528170531/http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/smallbusiness/sec12.html

Irritant (Corrosive) Atmospheres ... Prolonged exposure at irritant or corrosive concentrations in a 

confined space may produce little or no evidence of irritation. This may result in a general weakening of 

the defense reflexes from changes in sensitivity. The danger in this situation is that the worker is usually 

not aware of any increase in his/her exposure to toxic substances.

71 McMahon JT, Aslam R, Schell SE. (2011) Unusual ciliary abnormalities in three 9/11 response workers. Ann 

Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 120(1):40-8.

72 OSHA. Occupational Exposure to Cadmium, Section: 6, Title: Section 6 - VI. Quantitative Risk Assessment. 

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=820&p_table=PREAMBLES

73 Holma B, Lindegren M, Andersen JM. (1977) pH effects on ciliomotility and morphology of respiratory mucosa. 

Arch Environ Health. 1977 Sep-Oct, 32(5):216-26.
27

human lung tissues, a pH of 10.5 inactivated ciliary cells, and a pH of 11 killed them.75

Corrosive components of concrete have been known to maim, kill and cause burns 

from the beginning of time, and have been used to torture humans from ancient 

Egypt to the present day

 

Compare these pH levels to the presumptive pH level of 11.5 for corrosivity to skin and eyes. A 

pH level of 10.5 is ten times less alkaline than a pH level of 11.5. In other words, a pH level of 

11.5 is not a protective level for the destruction and/or immobilization of ciliary cells in the 

respiratory tract. 

Regardless of the definitive scientific research and international standards establishing 

that pH levels of 11.5 and above are corrosive to human flesh, this fact has been known 

throughout human history, and is part of the basis of current maiming laws in the U.S., derived 

from common law and a British 1837 statute. An alkaline “corrosive” substance is also called a 

“caustic” substance. The U.S. statute specifies any “throwing or pouring” of a “caustic 

substance” on another as a Title 18 Section 114 maiming assault.76

The corrosive effects of calcium hydroxide (lime, present in concrete dust) and calcium 

oxide (quick lime, present in the concrete dust from the WTC because of the high temperature 

fires) have resulted in its use to torture and maim since at least ancient Egypt, where men were 

punished by being forced to drink a water slurry of lime. Saint George, the Dragon slayer in the 

year 303 Common Era, was fabled to be tortured by being drenched with lime. During the 

Middle Ages, dissident Christians were tortured by the Catholic Church with quick lime (calcium 

oxide). Quick lime was the first chemical warfare agent in the Middle Ages when it was 

catapulted into cities under siege, or thrown onto other ships in sea battles. In World War 2, the 

Germans used quicklime to torture Jews. In 2007, quicklime was used to torture a physician, and 

in 2006 Christians were tortured in Uzbekistan with quicklime.

77

Even brief, non-intense contact with lime (calcium hydroxide) in the dry form has cause 

burns to the skin. Adolescents whose only exposure to lime was a relatively brief contact with 

lime used to mark a goal line in a football field resulted in “caustic ulcers” of the sensitive skin 

of the scrotum has been reported in the medical literature.78

 74 Andrew P. Worth and Mark T.D. Cronin (2001) The use of pH measurements to predict the potential of 

chemicals to cause acute dermal and ocular toxicity. Toxicology 169: 119–131.

75 C. Clary-Meinesz, J. Mouroux, J. Cosson, P. Huitorel, B. Blaive (1998) Influence of external pH on ciliary beat 

frequency in human bronchi and bronchioles. Eur Respir J. 11: 330–333. 

http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/reprint/11/2/330

76 See October 13, 2008 complaint to FBI from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at pp. 2-4 for more extensive 

discussions, and citations to current state law as well.

77 Id. at pp. 10-15.

78 Gelmetti C & Cecca E. (1992) Caustic ulcers caused by calcium hydroxide in 2 adolescent football players. 

Contact Dermatitis 1992: 27: 265–266. Synergy, Medline, ISI, Chemport, CSA, www.blackwell-synergy.com 
28

Impact of the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic on First Responders and public after 

9/11 

EPA’s falsified Corrosivity Characteristic had a dramatic impact on the evaluation of the 

safety of dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center after September 11, 2001. After 

9/11/01, EPA addressed the health consequences of the WTC collapse under the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP) authority, which encompasses the Comprehensive Emergency 

Response and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) authorities. The CERCLA List of 

Hazardous Substances which incorporates the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic safety level for 

alkaline corrosives (pH 12.5 and higher) would have been the referent standard.

After 9/11, it is quite probable that EPA and OSHA did have immediate field data for the 

pH of WTC dust, and pH levels were higher than 11.5, but not higher than 12.5, because 

regulations and protocol require that these personnel be trained to test for pH levels as well as 

have the necessary equipment for pH tests pre-packed long before any hazardous material release 

site such as the collapse of the WTC.79

On September 13, 2001, EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman claimed all the 

monitoring data from EPA testing showed hazardous substances "below background levels."

 The OSHA, EPA, and NYC On Scene Coordinators 

would then have compared the pH levels with the list of Hazardous Substances under CERCLA, 

which incorporates the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic pH level of 12.5, not the true safe 

level of 11.5. There would have been no imperative or regulatory requirement to assess the dust 

for corrosive properties.

80 

"Background level" is an unambiguous term, meaning that there is first, adequate testing of all 

hazards, and second that levels are the same as without the polluting event.81, 82

 

Chemical burns from calcium hydroxide have commonly been reported. though almost always in adulthood 

(1-10) and frequently, though not always (11, 12), occupationally. ... An 11-year-old boy presented with 

roundish erosive lesions, tending to coalesce, with polycystic well-defined uninfIamed borders, on the 

upper 1/3 of both thighs, especially the left (Fig. I). Symptoms were limited at presentation to a mild 

burning sensation. The history revealed that erythematous lesions had first appeared quite suddenly a few 

hours after a soccer match and that they had quickly become erosive and burning. History also revealed 

that during the football match, the boy had fallen on the white marked-out touchline {the line that marks 

the boundaries of the field of play). In this way, he had come into contact with powder containing calcium 

oxide, subsequently hydrated by sweat.

But EPA in 

79 See May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at p. 25 for 

documentation of the requirements and training for pH testing at hazardous release site.

80 EPA Administrator Whitman told a local TV station on September 13, 2001: “We've had concern, we're going to 

continue to monitor. But right now, as I will tell you, everything we're getting back from the sampling that we're 

doing, is below background levels.” Note that EPA was working closely with OSHA at this time, and Whitman 

made no differentiation in her 9/13/11 statement between Ground Zero and more outlying areas of Manhattan. 

See New York Daily News, June 25, 2007, “Damning questions Whitman must be made to answer” at: 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/06/25/2007-06-25_damning_questions_whitman_must_be_made_t.html

See archival footage in Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11. Sundance Channel and CBS News 

Productions at: http://www.sundancechannel.com/films/500013415/

81 EPA RCRA Glossary of Terms. http://www.epa.gov/region8/land_waste/rcra/rcraglossary.html
29

none of its press releases or public statements in the days, weeks and months after 9/11 ever 

mentioned the corrosive, high pH levels in WTC dust.

Regardless of whether EPA or other officials told First Responders to wear respirators, 

they were unlikely to be highly motivated to do so, since the caustic, corrosive pH of WTC dust 

was never mentioned to First Responders. The other pollutants at Ground Zero rarely exceeded 

OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits, and if they did, they were related to long-term, cumulative 

expose types of health risks. OSHA defines corrosive atmospheres (which include airborne 

corrosive particulates) as being "immediately dangerous to life or health" (IDLH).83 If First 

Responders had in fact been told to wear respirators, they would have been more motivated to do 

so if they had been informed of the corrosive, high pH of WTC dust, and the fact that alkaline 

corrosive atmospheres do not necessary give the physical sensations (burning sensation) of being 

corrosive.84

Further, citizens working in lower Manhattan, residents and laborers, in addition to First 

Responders, were also exposed to WTC dust for long periods. There was no official entity, EPA 

or otherwise, who instructed them to wear respirators, or anyone to train them in the use of same 

or supply them with the proper respiratory protection. In fact the opposite was true. Workers 

and residents in lower Manhattan were explicitly told they did not even need to wear dust masks, 

much less approved respirators.85

Zadroga Act established U.S. recognition that First Responders and the public 

suffered deadly and life threatening injuries from WTC dust

The Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 201086

 

Background - The concentration of a substance in an environmental media (air, water, or soil) that occurs 

naturally or is not the result of human activities. In exposure assessments, the concentration of a substance 

in a defined control area, during a fixed period of time before, during, or after a data-gathering operation.

establishes that the U.S. 

recognizes that both citizens living and working in lower Manhattan have suffered deadly and 

life threatening injuries from WTC dust. On August 26, 2011, the final regulations were issues 

82 This statement by Ms. Whitman went far beyond the ambiguous misleading statements in EPA’s press releases 

that were edited by the White House. Ms. Whitman was not referring specifically to zones outside of Ground Zero, 

and she was also claiming by making the statement that all pollutants of concern had been tested and were below 

background levels.

83 OSHA (May 5, 1995) Standard Interpretations - Response to IDLH or Potential IDLH atmospheres. 

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21788

84 See later discussion in the justification section of this petition for documentation that corrosive alkaline 

atmospheres may not provide physical warning signals, such as a burning sensation.

85 Cate Jenkins (July 4, 2003) “Comments on the EPA Office of Inspector General’s 1/27/03 interim report titled: 

‘EPA’s Response to the World Trade Center Towers Collapse’ A DOCUMENTARY BASIS FOR LITIGATION” 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45169489/Jenkins-070403-Documentary-Basis-Litigation

86 James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, P.L. 111-347. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr847enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr847enr.pdf
30

implementing the Zadroga Act.

87

Research finds corrosivity of WTC dust one of the most important health impacts

The boundaries in Manhattan wherein residents and workers 

are eligible for compensation for health injuries after 9/11 extend from about a mile or more

from the center of Ground Zero.

The following excerpts are from medical research publications that directly cite the 

caustic, high pH of WTC dust as a major causative agent in the injuries to First Responders 

exposed to WTC dust. Many other studies document the respiratory effects of WTC dust 

without explicit attribution to its corrosivity.

Pollution studies demonstrate a significant epidemiologic link between the exposure to airborne particulates and 

adverse health effects. The WTC collapse produced a massive exposure to respirable particulates, with the larger-size 

dust fractions having a pH ranging from 9 to 11, leading to an alkaline “burn” of mucosal surfaces.88, 89

Responders to the 2001 World Trade Center (WTC) terrorist attacks, who were exposed to caustic dust and toxic 

pollutants following the 9/11 disaster, suffer from asthma at a rate more than twice that of the general US population, 

according to new research presented at CHEST 2009, the 75th annual international scientific assembly of the 

American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP)90

The cloud contained pulverized glass and cement, insulation fibers, asbestos and numerous toxic chemicals. “It 

caused acute inflammation of the airways and the lungs,” Dr. Prezant said. “That inflammatory impact has been 

persistent.” An expert not involved with the study, Dr. Byron Thomashow, medical director of the Center for Chest 

Disease and Respiratory Failure at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia hospital, said: “The drop-off in lung function 

initially is really quite significant and doesn’t get better. That’s not what we’ve generally come to expect in people with 

fire and smoke exposure. They usually recover.”91

 87 Department of Justice (August 26, 2011) James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Final Rule, 

28 CFR Part 104, Docket No. CIV 151, RIN 1105-AB39. 

http://www.justice.gov/civil/docs_forms/911%20VCF%20Final%20Rule%20to%20OLP-%2008%2026.pdf

88 Michael D. Weiden, Natalia Ferrier, Anna Nolan, William N. Rom, Ashley Comfort, Jackson Gustave, Rachel 

Zeig-Owens, Shugi Zheng, Roberta M. Goldring, Kenneth I. Berger, Kaitlyn Cosenza, Roy Lee, Mayris P. Webber, 

Kerry J. Kelly, Thomas K. Aldrich and David J. Prezant (October 9, 2010) Obstructive Airways Disease With Air 

Trapping Among Firefighters Exposed to World Trade Center Dust Chest, 137: 566-574. 

http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/137/3/566.full.html

89 Thomas K. Aldrich, Jackson Gustave, Charles B. Hall, Hillel W. Cohen, Mayris P. Webber, Rachel Zeig-Owens, 

Kaitlyn Cosenza, Vasilios Christodoulou, Lara Glass, Fairouz Al-Othman, Michael D. Weiden, Kerry J. Kelly and 

David J. Prezant, (April 8, 2010) Lung Function in Rescue Workers at the World Trade Center after 7 Years. New 

England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 362 No. 14, p. 1263. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/362/14/1263

90 American College of Chest Physicians (November 3, 2009) World Trade Center Responders Plagued with 

Asthma, Reported Asthma in 9/11 Responders 2X Greater Than General Population. 

http://www.chestnet.org/accp/article/world-trade-center-responders-plagued-asthma

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/169768.php

91 Denise Grady (April 7, 2010) Lung Function of 9/11 Rescuers Fell, Study Finds. New York Times. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/nyregion/08lung.html
31

Upper respiratory symptoms (cough, nasal/sinus congestion/drip, sore/hoarse throat) have all followed a similar 

evolution during the four years following 9/11/01. On Day 1, more than half of our work force experienced all of the 

above symptoms. One year later, more than half of our rescue workers were still reporting upper respiratory symptoms 

and 2 – 4 years later, about 25% were still struggling with daily or frequent symptoms. Particulate matter analysis has 

shown a highly alkaline pH of WTC dust (like lye), which is extremely irritating to upper and lower airways.92

However, there are a number of reasons to expect lower airways also to be at risk from the dust cloud. First, it has 

been shown that alkaline dust impairs nasal clearance mechanisms, and most WTC dust samples had a pH greater

than 10 (very alkaline). Second, the nasal filtration system is optimally functional during restful breathing. However, 

WTC rescue/recovery workers, as a consequence of their work activities (moderate to high level physical exertion), 

were breathing at high minute ventilations where mouth breathing predominates. Third, although only five percent of 

the WTC dust was smaller than 10 microns in diameter, the extraordinary volume of dust in the air meant that the 

respirable fraction (particles less than 10 microns) represented a significant amount of exposure. Finally, although only 

a small percentage of particles larger than 10 microns tend to impact in lower airways, the huge magnitude of the WTC 

dust cloud meant that a small percentage of particles that penetrated deep into the lung may have added up to a 

significant exposure. In fact, in a study of 39 firefighters from the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) 10 

months after exposure, it was demonstrated the WTC dust did make it down into the lower airways, as particulate 

matter (>10 microns) consistent with WTC dust, with associated increases in inflammatory cells and cytokines in 

induced sputum.93

Measurements of settled dust documented that these particles were highly alkaline (pH 11),12 and this property alone 

has been shown to be associated with respiratory effects. Occupational exposure to inhaled alkaline material induces 

chronic cough, phlegm, and dyspnea as well as upper respiratory tract symptoms. Exposure to alkaline dusts in a 

residential population has been described to produce similar symptoms.94

Dr John Howard,95 Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

told the BBC on September 1, 2011 that lung tissue had been scarred by exposures to the caustic 

WTC dust.96

Dr John Howard, Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, told BBC News it was "plausible" 

that people would die of exposure to the dust. He singled out damage to the lungs - interstitial fibrosis - as one of the 

most serious effects. "You lose capacity to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide, and essentially your lung is forming a 

scar inside so you have less ability to breathe." . . . Researchers found a high proportion of highly alkaline particles 

 92 Fire Department, City of New York, Bureau of Health Services, WTC Medical Monitoring and Treatment 

Program (September 2007) A Six-Year Assessment: September 2001 – September 2007. 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2007/wtc_health_impacts_on_fdny_rescue_workers_sept_2007.pdf

93 Dr. David Prezant of the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program and the Albert 

Einstein College of Medicine and Chief Medical Officer, FDNY (September 8, 2008) Respiratory Health 

Consequences Resulting from the Collapse of the World Trade Center. NIOSH Science Blog, CDC. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/blog/nsb090808_wtc_guest.html

94 Joan Reibman, MD, et al. (May 2009) Characteristics of a Residential and Working Community With Diverse 

Exposure to World Trade Center Dust, Gas, and Fumes. J Occup Environ Med., 51(5):534-41. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19365288?dopt=AbstractPlus

95 Dr. Howard was appointed by President. Bush to be a special coordinator to handle the medical issues afflicting 

9/11 rescue workers, and introduced the World Trade Center (WTC) Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program, 

which offered medical help and screening to emergency workers.

96 David Shukman (September 1, 2011) Toxic dust legacy of 9/11 plagues thousands of people. BBC News. 

http://by156w.bay156.mail.live.com/default.aspx?rru=inbox#fid=1&fav=1&n=1046200702&rru=inbox&mid=8413f

3f1-d4a9-11e0-9f6f-002264c15478&fv=1
32

from the pulverised concrete, but also asbestos and heavy metals like lead and mercury from thousands of computers 

and lights.

A new study was published last week by consortium of researchers headed by the chief 

medical officer for the Fire Department on New York.97

Both large and small WTC dust particles would have corrosive, high pH levels

 Although not conclusive at this time, 

there was a 19% increase in cancer rates in firefighters exposed to the caustic dust and smoke 

from the WTC collapse. This early increase in cancers may be related to caustic high pH of 

WTC dust, which, as explained above, would defeat the natural defense mechanisms of the 

respiratory system, allowing excessive amounts of WTC dust particles to enter the lungs, 

deadening or killing the ciliary cells that would normally transport dust particles up and out of 

the respiratory tract.

There are no valid documented studies of the pH of the smallest, respirable size particles 

of WTC dust. There are only tests of the bulk, aggregate dust containing both small and larger 

particles. It is not possible at this time to conduct new laboratory tests for the pH of the smallest 

particles WTC dust. This is because WTC dust containing or other similar alkaline material 

neutralize over time. Tests must be performed promptly and the sample must have been stored 

properly before testing.98

This hypothesis is consistent with the allegations of co-petitioner Dr. Jenkins in her 

October 13, 2008 complaint to the FBI,

 

99 wherein she alleged the laboratory test results of WTC 

dust for its pH had to be both suppressed and falsified. When testing was performed by EPA 

months later, the laboratory methods were rigged and intentionally designed to give false neutral 

results, both by diluting the WTC dust nearly 600 times with water before testing, obviously

diluting any corrosivity, and testing only after the sample had time to neutralize by atmospheric 

exposure.

100

 97 Rachel Zeig-Owens, Mayris P Webber, Charles B Hall, Theresa Schwartz, Nadia Jaber, Jessica Weakley , 

Thomas E Rohan, Hillel W Cohen, Olga Derman, Thomas K Aldrich, Kerry Kelly, David J Prezant (September 3, 

2011) Early assessment of cancer outcomes in New York City firefighters after the 9/11 attacks: an observational 

cohort study. Lancet, Vol. 378: 898. 

http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673611609896.pdf?id=4d037fefcb72946c:a5ae5d1:132

313d980f:466f1315092748298

Sydney Ember (September 1, 2011) Study Suggests Higher Cancer Risk for 9/11 Firefighters, New York Times. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/health/research/02cancer.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=print

98 The calcium hydroxide and/or calcium oxide in WTC dust (components of concrete and pulverized glass 

particles) are neutralizes by a reaction with atmospheric moisture and carbon dioxide from the air, a chemical 

process called “carbonation.” A WTC dust sample would need to be stored in a sealed container (preferably a 

sealed glass ampoule) and/or protected by a carbon dioxide absorbent (sodalime) for preservation before pH 

analysis.

99 See October 13, 2008 complaint to FBI from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit.,

100 Id. at pp. 37-39. 
33

Extrapolation to the pH of the smallest WTC dust particles

As described in the historical perspective of the Corrosivity Characteristic and its impact 

on First Responders and the public after 9/11, there are no credible tests of the pH levels of the 

smallest WTC dust particles, those which can stay suspended long enough to reach deep within 

the lungs. Tests cannot be performed at this late date, because WTC dust would have neutralized 

by exposure to the air and moisture. Thus, in order to extrapolate the pH of the smallest WTC 

dust particles, all that is required is to establish whether or not there was some compositional or 

chemical difference between the largest and smallest particles.

The pH tests performed by the U.S. Geological Society (USGS) for bulk aggregate WTC 

dust found pH levels over 12 for some WTC bulk dust samples, 101

Concrete was the presumed major contributor to the corrosive, alkaline properties of 

WTC dust. The concentration of concrete in the larger WTC dust particles can be compared to 

the concentration of concrete in the smallest WTC particles. If there is no difference in concrete 

concentrations between large and small particles, it can be assumed that the pH levels would also 

have been the same. There are 2 credible studies that determined the concentration of concrete 

in the smallest WTC dust particles, and the concentrations of concrete in the larger particles.

even after improper dilution 

of samples with a weak acid in a 20-to-1 ratio before testing. 

102 

The concentration of concrete was the same or larger in the smallest WTC particles. The 

DELTA research group at the University of California at Davis, reported 21% portland cement in 

the smallest respirable-sized WTC dust particles (0.09 to 0.26 microns), along with 15% 

aggregate (sand and gravel that were mixed with the cement to form concrete). That means that 

the net “concrete” content of the smallest WTC particles was around 38%.103

 101 Id. at p. 14 for a table of the USGS pH results released in 2006 (earlier USGS reports were contradictive as 

explained in Jenkins’ 10/13/08 complaint).

 The larger sized 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45180410/Jenkins-101308-FBI-New-WTC-pH-Lies-2nd-Complaint5. 

102 Both the Delta Group at the University of California at Davis, and MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc. are highly 

prestigious groups, having received numerous EPA grants for similar studies on fine particulates. MVA was a major 

contract laboratory to EPA in the evaluation of WTC dust after 9/11, but performed its study of the concrete content 

of WTC dust independently. Dr. Millette of MVA was an expert witness on behalf of the Department of Justice and 

EPA suit against W.R. Grace for the Libby, MT asbestos Superfund site.

See The DELTA Group, for the Detection and Evaluation of the Long-Range Transport of Aerosols. University of 

California at Davis at http://everest.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/faculty_profiles/thomas_cahill.html

http://daviswiki.org/DELTA_Group

See also MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc. at 

http://www.mvainc.com/

http://www.mvainc.com/staff/jim-millette/

103 See October 13, 2008 complaint to FBI from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at pp. 29, 54-55.

See also internet available version of results in Esquire Magazine (March 20, 2007), “Now We Know” and “The 

Bag: A Breakdown” at: http://www.esquire.com/features/Know9_11

http://www.esquire.com/features/breakdown0407
34

particles (2.5 to 12 microns) had a similar concrete content of 34.5% concrete (22% portland 

cement and 12.5 aggregate). Another independent research group, MVA Scientific Consultants, 

Inc., also found that the smallest WTC dust particles (0.5 to 2.5 microns) contained 26.5% 

cement particles in samples about 1⁄2 mile away from Ground Zero.104

From these studies, it can be concluded that since the concrete concentrations found in 

the smallest WTC dust were comparable to the concrete concentrations in the larger particles, 

that the pH of the smallest particles would be comparable to the bulk, aggregate pH levels of 

WTC dust. Newly pulverized concrete from buildings has been shown to have pH levels from 

11 to over 12, which is a generally recognized fact.105

As stated before, First Responders at any hazardous release site such as the WTC have as 

their reference the Corrosivity Characteristic as incorporated into the CERCLA Hazardous 

Substances List. No effective distinction is made whether the release is a liquid or a solid. In 

fact, there is no alternate safe pH level for solids in the Hazardous Substances List, only the 

Corrosivity Characteristic which ambiguous states as a criteria “it is aqueous.” If the genuine 

safe alkaline pH level of 11.5 were part of this list, First Responders would have been trained 

and aware before these disasters what the recognized corrosivity standard is and take action to 

avert exposures.

Impact of the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic after implosion demolitions of buildings

EPA and other authorities have never issued any warning to the public because of the 

alkaline, corrosive properties of dust from implosion demolitions of large buildings, and there is 

no evidence that EPA and others have tested the dust for its pH after these demolitions, even 

when sophisticated testing of other pollutants have been performed. In addition, there has been 

no testing of the dust for the pH after these implosion demolitions in published scientific studies

even though sophisticated measurements of other toxic materials was performed.106 In fact, 

these events are billed as spectator events, with the public becoming engulfed in the ensuing dust 

clouds containing fine, pulverized concrete.107

In November 2007, co-petitioner Cate Jenkins assisted residents before a pending 

demolition in Florida. Concrete from the structure to be imploded was tested for its pH by the 

building owners, and levels were found over 11.5, the international standard. After the 

implosion, citizens tested the settled dust and found pH levels over 12.

 

108

 104 Millette, J. R., et al. (2002) Microscopical Studies of World Trade Center Disaster Dust Particles. Microscope 

50:l, 29-3.

Immediately after the 

105 See table on p. 46, May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit.

106 See May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., op. cit., at pp. 45-52.

107 Id. at p. 47 for 2 photographs of spectators becoming covered by the dust cloud after on such demolition.

108 Id. at pp. 57-60.
35

demolition, children were stationed in the rubble from the newly collapsed building to stage a 

mock rescue operation by the local fire department.

If the Corrosivity Characteristic pH level was not falsified, and instead set at the correct 

pH level of 11.5, precautions would be taken at these demolitions to protect the public. Concrete 

before demolition, and the dust after demolition will almost never have a pH level higher than 

12.5, the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic level. Thus, action is never taken to control 

exposures for the reason of corrosivity.

Impact of the falsified Corrosivity Characteristic on residents living near cement 

manufacturing facilities (cement kiln dust)

Similarly to the situation of concrete dust generated by implosion demolitions, the dust 

from cement manufacturing facilities (cement kiln dust, or CKD) will also rarely have a pH level 

higher than 12.5. However, this dust will have pH levels exceeding 11.5, the genuine 

international standard for presumed corrosivity.

One Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) from major cement manufacturer109 warns that 

cement kiln dust is a corrosive material, with a pH ranging from 10-13. It provides the proper 

warning prominently on the MSDS: 

. . .

 109 LaFarge North America, MSDS for Cement Kiln Dust, http://www.lafargena.com/MSDS_North_America_English_-_Cement_Kiln_Dust.pdf
36

However, in a 1993 report to Congress on the hazards of CKD, EPA claimed that a pH 

level of 12.5 was not only safe for the skin, but to all human tissues (including the eyes and 

lung).110 EPA's 1997 risk assessment for CKD never even mentioned any corrosive inhalation 

or skin contact hazards.111

Impact of the ambiguous specification of “aqueous” in the Corrosivity Characteristic 

definition

 As a result, EPA only requires monitoring of certain toxic metals 

around cement manufacturing sites, and does not mention or regulate the dust for its caustic, 

corrosive inhalation hazard. If EPA adopted the genuine, internationally recognized pH level of 

11.5 and higher as unsafe, CKD exposures to the public living near these cement manufacturing 

sites would be tested and regulated.

This petition not only requests that the Corrosivity Characteristic regulation be changed 

to a pH threshold level of 11.5 for alkaline corrosive materials, but it also requests that the 

Corrosivity Characteristic regulation be changed to explicitly include all materials, not just the 

ambiguous specification that it be “aqueous.” (40 C.F.R. § 261.22(a)(1).) In practice, when the 

Corrosivity Characteristic is used pursuant to the CERCLA/Superfund requirements in its List of 

Hazardous Substances, or under other regulations such as the Department of Transportation 

placarding and handling requirements, no real distinction is made between water or non-water 

containing materials. This is because on human contact, water-free alkaline materials quickly 

absorb water from body tissues, particularly the respiratory tract. 

It is important to make this change in the definition of a material subject to the 

Corrosivity Characteristic to prevent any misunderstanding that a pH level of 11.5 and above is 

the internationally recognized presumptive hazard threshold for alkaline corrosivity. Robert W. 

Dellinger, former Director, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division (MRWMD), 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR), EPA, the division responsible for the 

original promulgation of the Corrosivity Characteristic regulation in 1980, its reassement in 

1996, and its continued publication annually in the Code of Federal Regulations, testified on 

 110 EPA, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER (December 31, 1993) Report to Congress – Cement Kiln Dust Waste. 

Chapter 6, Potential Danger to Human Health and the Environment, p. 6-4. 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/ckd/cement2.htm

Major results and conclusions from the evaluation of potential danger to human health and the environment 

from the management of CKD are presented below. ... The pH of CKD leachate measured in laboratory 

tests typically ranged from 11 to 13. High pH levels in ground water and surface water may result in a 

variety of adverse effects, including the mobilization of certain metals and other constituents that could 

pose toxicological problems, human tissue burns (at pH levels above 12.5 or more), corrosion in pipes, and 

objectionable taste in drinking water. In addition, high pH levels could cause a wide variety of adverse

ecological effects.

111 EPA, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER (1997)Technical Background Document: Population Risks from Indirect 

Exposure Pathways, and Population Effects from Exposure to Airborne Particles from Cement Kiln Dust Waste. 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/ckd/cement4.htm
37

April 22, 2011 that EPA had erred by restricting the regulation to materials that were 

“aqueous.”112

A: Okay. I do not feel culpable, and I don't think anybody else should feel culpable of that 

because there has been -- let's see, it's 2011 now. So it's 20 -- 2001; 21 years, and nobody to my 

knowledge has asked that that particular test be changed. And, as I mentioned earlier, the test 

applies only to liquids. It doesn't apply to solids. So it's irrelevant.

Q: So you are saying now that you believe that your analysis is sufficient to say that no one 

employed by EPA at any time in this process from 1980 or whatever on made an error or has any 

liability or engaged in misconduct?

A: The only error that would have been made was that they did not apply the corrosivity 

characteristic to liquids.

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, EPA should convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the 

Corrosivity Characteristic regulation. Should you wish to receive any supplemental materials, 

please let us know.

Respectfully submitted this 8th day of September, 2011

__________________________________

Paula Dinerstein, Senior Counsel

Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility (PEER)

2000 P St., NW Suite 240

Washington, DC 20036

202.265.7337

pdinerstein@peer.org

www.peer.org

__________________________________ 

Cate Jenkins, Ph.D.

Post Office Box 2102

Fairfax, VA 22031

703.691.2757

jenkins.cate@live.com

 112 April 22, 2011 deposition of Robert W. Dellinger, former Director, Materials Recovery and Waste Management 

Division, EPA, p. 175.
38

List of Attachments

International Labour [sic] Office (1971, 1972) Chemical Burns. In: Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and 

Safety, Volume I – A – K, pages 220 - 221 International Labour Office, CH 1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, 1971. 

Special McGraw-Hill Edition, 1972, Library of Congress Card Number: 74-39329, International Standard Book 

Number: 07-079555-X.

May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., “Complaint and Additional Evidence of 

pH Fraud by: USGS, OSHA, ATSDR, NYC, EPA, and EPA-funded scientists; (1) Falsification of corrosive pH data 

for WTC dust; (2) Historical fraud by EPA of hazardous pH levels since 1980.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45180048/Jenkins-050607-FBI-WTC-pH-LIES-1st-Complaint

October 13, 2008 complaint to FBI from Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., “Supplemental Evidence: Fraud in the Conduct and 

Dissemination of Human Tissue Corrosivity Data (pH tests) in the Aftermath of the World Trade Center Disaster.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45180410/Jenkins-101308-FBI-New-WTC-pH-Lies-2nd-Complaint

Robert W. Dellinger, former Director, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, EPA, hand-written 

comments on Jenkins’ May 6, 2007 complaint to the FBI and Congress.

August 16, 2010 Declaration of Robert W. Dellinger (under penalty of perjury)

April 22, 2011 Deposition of Robert W. Dellinger, former Director, Materials Recovery and Waste Management 

Division, EPA, pp. 161-176.

July 29, 2011 Declaration of Gregory Helms (under penalty of perjury)