NYC Law Department release
Independent mirror · updated as the City releases more · v1.2.6
← Document results/DEP Box 08/NO INFO
Document / 111 pages

World Trade Center environmental data report, 2001-2002

Machine-extracted title · confidence 90%

Large volume technical report containing environmental data and analysis related to the World Trade Center disaster site cleanup.

NYC-WTC_000144916–000145026

Folder label: “NO INFO

Page image
Scanned page image, NYC-WTC_000144979
OCR text

OCR status: ok · source: pdftotext

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

probability of giving people cancer over a 70 year lifetime. We were not equipped to deal with a low probability event with high probability consequences.”

Interior environments A significant vacuiun here was that the agencies didn’t address the hazards right under people’s noses—in interior spaces—as Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the congressman whose district includes the neighborhoods surrounding Groimd Zero, would charge in congressional hearings months later.

I The dust in people’s apartments J I / came up as an issue, early on, Touw says. “Within the first few days, I? someone at the Red Cross was worried about windows blown in with debris and dust,” he says. “So someone asked, ‘Steve, is EPA going to clean for people?’ Typically, though, we don’t clean s * *- * V people homes—^unless there’s a mercury spill or pesticides £ misapplied, although Superfimd could under certain circumstances I , come in.”

Photo: EPA

However, says Touw, had the city asked for this federal response within the first few days, it could have gotten 100 percent reimbursement. So he did ask the city, he says.

“If we had to do it all over again, we should have made sure it got done. It would have been a huge project, but [doing interior cleanings] would have been easier to do early on than after the fact.”________________ Having asked Kelly McKinney, however, he says, the decision came back, “’No, we were not going to be cleaning buildings, and this was to be the responsibility of building owners.’ Instead the city Department of Environmental Protection would address the dust on exteriors of buildings. “If there was a public complaint, the city could then address.”

“In hindsight,” says Touw, “I think we could have done a better job. If we had to do it all over again, we should have made sine it got done. It would have been a huge project, but [doing interior cleanings] would have been easier to do early on than after the fact.”

By law, though, it is a local decision, Touw reiterates. “Setting the record straight, though, we became the whipping boy for senators and congressmen, when it was up to the city to make the decision. Why did the city make that decision? There was a lot of political decision making in play. The city and state had the resources and equipment, but they just needed to pay overtime.”

61

NYC-WTC_000144979

OCR can misread numbers and units. Confirm readings against the page image before using them.

NYC-WTC_000144979Source: NYC Law Department, mirrored locally

Related records

Browse subjects →

Ranked by indexed similarity. Reasons describe shared subjects and filing context; check the source records.

Same-box records

Filed elsewhere

More like this page

Similar subjects in other documents. Similarity does not establish the same event, measurement or conclusion.

Page similarity is temporarily unavailable or this page has no indexed vector.

Buildings in this record

Machine-extracted building matches; verify each source. Buildings, never households.

Others also read

Readers open these alongside this record — through an Ask answer, the same folder, or indexed similarity. Not a claim they are about the same event.

NYC-WTC_000104853 · Box DEP Box 36

Facsimile cover sheet transmitting documents regarding environmental work at 102 Greenwich Street.

Cited alongside this record in an Ask answer

Compare copies and versions →