World Trade Center environmental data report, 2001-2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

hazard to the public, suggests Dr. Stephen Levin of Mt. Sinai Hospital. “Instead, the city set an arbitrary line at Canal Street,” says Levin. “But that is a political, not a medical or scientific boundary.”

Recommendations: Data is critical in managing emergencies. Investments should be made in making sure that adequate environmental data is available.

(3) Clear Chain ofcommand to protect health and safety.

The authority for the Ground Zero site changed many times, and it was unclear which agency was in charge of which functions. Occupational health protections suffered, and some environmental health questions fell through the cracks - such as protecting residents from hazardous indoor dust.

Critics suggested that there ought to have been a lead agency for environmental health, to coordinate among the various other agencies. (Lioy; NRDC; Jerrold Nadler’s Ground Zero Task Force)

Had there been such an agency at Groimd Zero, this would have made sure respiratory protection was emphasized from day one. “The way it was at Ground Zero, we couldn’t throw workers off the site if they didn’t comply,” says EPA’s Steve Touw.

“There ought to be solid interagency agreements worked out beforehand to insure good coordination,” says Paul Lioy, “and perhaps under the Department of Homeland Security there can be much better pre-planning and coordination.

Recommendations: Needfor effective pre-planning, coordination, and (most important) enforcement mechanisms to insure standards are enforced.

(4) Open communication with the public.

“I don't think we understood at the time the magnitude of the risk communication challenges we faced,” says New York City DOH’s Kelly McKiimey.

However critics say that the public shouldn’t be kept in the dark about real or potential environmental hazards. Public officials should not make reassuring statements before they have the information. “EPA came out way too early about the safety of the World Trade Center site,” say critics like scientist Alison Geyh.

At the same time, federal agencies shouldn’t withhold data, as some charge the EPA did under the guise of “national security” in fighting terrorism. The EPA’s OIG report states that the agency never suppressed any data it could have made available to the public. However it is clear that many scientists and nonprofit groups had to file Freedom of Information Act requests to get information because the agency wasn’t forthcoming with its data. “We had trouble getting clearance to put data up on the web and had to clear it through the White House counsel for national security reasons,” says EPA’s Steve Touw. “Yet we had nothing to hide; it was just one or two people in the White House trying to keep it close to the vest.”

Nor should ‘terrorism’ be used as an excuse to hold back information, as it has been in some instances—an issue raised by journalists. For example, the Society of Environmental Journalists, on behalf of its 1200 members, signed a letter to Secretary Tom Ridge at the Department of Homeland Security, along with other organizations also representing scientists, librarians, privacy

104

NYC-WTC_000145022