N.Y.P.D. looks to regulate environmental detectors

By Julie Shapiro

A far-reaching bill before the City Council would make it illegal to possess a biological, chemical or radiological detector without a permit from the New York Police Department.

The bill, Intro 650, met resistance even among its proponents at a Public Safety Committee hearing Tuesday morning. Because of concerns about the impact of the bill on independent environmental health assessments following a terrorist attack, the committee postponed a vote.

In a recent explosion of technology, detection equipment once available only to the military is trickling down into the private sector. The mayor’s office, prompted by the Department of Homeland Security, proposed the bill to control the proliferation of these detection devices, sorting the useful from the fraudulent and minimizing false alarms.

There are currently no guidelines on possession of detection devices, and individuals who detect contamination are not required to notify the authorities. The bill, the first of its kind in the country, requires owners of the devices to apply for a free, five-year permit and requires all owners, whether they have permits or not, to inform the city of any contamination.

“Our mutual goal is to prevent false alarms and unnecessary public concern by making sure that we know where these detectors are located and that they conform to standards of quality and reliability,” said Richard Falkenrath, N.Y.P.D. deputy commissioner for counter terrorism.

The public generally believes the N.Y.P.D. should be involved and aware of these devices, according to Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr., the bill’s sponsor. However, the broad language of the bill caused concern among several members of the Public Safety Committee and the public, who pointed out that it does not explicitly exclude commonplace devices such as smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.

Falkenrath implored the council to pass the broad version of the bill , promising that in its enforcement the Police Dept. would “whittle down” the coverage of the bill. The rapidly evolving technology of detection devices would make it hard for the council to pinpoint which types of devices to regulate, he said.

Falkenrath would not commit to publishing a list of approved devices or approved device specifications, because he said that list could give terrorists information about what the city is capable of detecting. Vallone replied that the council normally does not pass bills with such broad language, but that he would defer to the Police Department’s judgment in this case.

Borough President Scott Stringer, who testified next, was less willing to accept N.Y.P.D.’s reasoning. “This legislation will undermine an important check on the government,” Stringer said. “It would undermine environmental advocates.”

Stringer pointed out that the bill’s requirements would apply to National Hazmat Program of the International Union of Operating Engineers, the first group to sample the air at the World Trade Center site after 9/11. Registration with the N.Y.P.D. would have substantially delayed the tests, Stringer said.

Stringer added that he has never heard of a false alarm caused by private monitoring. “This is a fake emergency that doesn’t exist,” he said. “If it’s not a problem, let’s not try to create one.”

In response to the council’s concerns, Falkenrath gave several examples of the types of devices he wants to regulate. The bill would not require permits for radiation equipment used to treat oncology patients, but it would require them for emergency-room radiation detectors, since terrorists whose experimental weapons go wrong often end up there. The bill also would not regulate industrial safety chemical detectors or detectors used for instruction in university classrooms

Falkenrath emphasized that he wants to keep the application process simple and swift, to keep good devices in good hands.

Vallone was concerned that there is no appeal process for N.Y.P.D.’s decisions. Falkenrath replied that people will be able to resubmit their applications if they make the requested changes.

Citing the widespread concerns about the E.P.A.’s assurances about air quality after 9/11, Vallone asked Falkenrath: “If an independent group wants to verify the air quality, how would the [new] regulations affect that?”

Falkenrath said that said he was less concerned about chemicals like asbestos: “Our interest is in weapons. However, he said, “An independent group could run into a problem.”

City Councilmember John Liu asked about community groups who do air-quality testing in schools and parks. “Obviously no one is opposed to the N.Y.P.D. keeping us safe,” Liu said. “But it seems to me the administration is asking for a huge amount here.” The bill amounts to a “blank check,” Liu added.

Framing the controversy as “public safety versus public health,” Falkenrath said that he was reluctant to include in the bill (for fear of creating a loophole) a guarantee that it would not affect air-quality monitoring in schools.

But Dave Newman, industrial hygienist at New York City Occupational Safety and Health, said unions have a right under federal law to bring in outside experts to test environmental conditions, and that the bill should be explicitly confined to weapons detectors.

Vallone finally postponed the vote to give the committee more time to address concerns with the city. City Councilmember Alan Gerson, who was not at the hearing, told Chelsea Now that he would look into it further. “My immediate reaction is that it’s a little overbroad, or a lot overbroad,” he said.