Federal Election Commission Employees Are Worried They May Have Been Exposed to Asbestos

“Employees and retirees are understandably anxious.”

Sipa USA via AP

This story was originally published by the Center for Public Integrity and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Several Federal Election Commission employees are concerned they may have been unwittingly exposed to asbestos—a known carcinogen and lung irritant—while working at the agency’s downtown Washington, DC, headquarters during the mid-1990s.

A recent asbestos remediation notice taped to the entrance of the FEC’s former headquarters, which the agency vacated in March and is now under renovation, prompted alarmed employees to contact the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents some FEC workers.

Dave Levinthal/Center for Public Integrity

Union officials said several employees recalled extensive interior work at the old FEC headquarters during the 1990s, and they’re worried asbestos could have then been released into the air.

“FEC employees and retirees are understandably anxious and deserve a complete accounting of any asbestos-related work that was done during the time the agency was leasing the facility,” National Treasury Employees Union President Tony Reardon told the Center for Public Integrity. “Workplace safety is of utmost importance to NTEU and the employees we represent, and we intend to help them get answers to their questions and concerns.”

FEC officials said last week they were unaware of asbestos-related concerns related to the agency’s former headquarters at 999 E. St. NW, a nine-story structure built in 1931 that sits across the street from the FBI’s headquarters.

“The commission is committed to safeguarding the health of FEC staff and has asked management to put union representatives in touch with the General Services Administration, which serves as the FEC’s property manager,” FEC spokeswoman Judith Ingram said.

It’s not uncommon for buildings of that era to contain asbestos, which was, at the time, a common construction and insulation material. The substance typically isn’t harmful unless disturbed and made airborne, according to the National Cancer Institute and Environmental Protection Agency.

And at present, there’s no evidence that any FEC employee or retiree was indeed exposed to asbestos during the 1990s.

An internal memo circulated last week among NTEU members acknowledges as much—while also noting that union members “must recognize the possibility that FEC staff may have been exposed to asbestos for unknown periods of time.”

Three top FEC officials who worked at the agency during the 1990s had varying recollections of work being done inside the FEC’s headquarters at that time.

Trevor Potter, a Republican FEC commissioner who served from 1991 to 1995, said he vaguely recalled remodeling at the agency’s former headquarters but “certainly never heard the word ‘asbestos’ mentioned in connection with remodeling.

“I obviously hope that whatever asbestos was present in the building was deeper than the remodeling and not disturbed,” Potter said.

Scott Thomas, a Democratic commissioner who served from 1986 to 2006, said he has no recollection of any asbestos concern at the FEC’s former headquarters during the 1990s or after.

Larry Noble, who served as FEC general counsel from 1987 to 2000, said he had a “very vague memory of some issue with asbestos” but didn’t recall any details.

The FEC is an independent federal agency charged with administering and enforcing the nation’s federal campaign finance laws and employs about 350 people.

In March, the agency moved from 999 E St. NW, where it had resided since 1985, to the upper floors of a modern office building north of Union Station in Washington, DC’s NoMa neighborhood.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate