World Trade Center environmental data report, 2001-2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

The report’s five conclusions, according to the committee, include:

• That “EPA acted properly in its response to the World Trade Center collapse, as well as in its communications with the public regarding exposure risks faced by workers and residents near the catastrophe”; • That the Administration “did not suppress any public health information or data. EPA’s commimications reflected the prevailing coordinated views expressed by agencies weighing in on the risks posed by asbestos; • That “EPA went beyond its statutory obligations in its attempts to protect public health; • That “the Council on Environmental (Quality’s "influence" on EPA's communications was a proper function delegated to it by the President for coordinating environmental health and safety decisions and information between EPA and OSHA. • And that “On matters of indoor air in the fall of 2001, it was proper for EPA to defer to New York City, which was assigned the lead role.”

Time will be the best judge of whether or not the government did enough to protect the public health.

But Ground Zero neighborhood advocates argue that the EPA’s insistence that exposure to World Trade Center dust would not be likely to pose “short term or long term health risks” has already been proved wrong. Eric Goldstein, attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, calculates that at least 30,000 people were affected by short-term illnesses. The New York Firefighters Union points to thousands of members suffering from chronic illnesses, some of whom have even gotten sicker, not better, over time.

There is nothing that can be done now to bring back the lives of those lost in the towers, nor to bring back the health of those survivors or rescuers who were injured. But 9/11 should serve as a “warning shot” for the future. And there’s one issue everyone should agree upon: As long as environmental health is regarded as a disposable item, no lessons will be learned for the future.

Footnotes:

(I) Palmer, Brian CNN Online, Oct 1,2001 httoazzv '.cnn.com/2001ZU SZ10/01 /rec.alr.aualltv/l

(2) Palmer, Brian, CNN Online, 11/04/01

http:Z/www.cnn.comZ2Q01ZUSZl lZ04Zrec.environmental.concerns/

(3) Lyman, Francesca, MSNBC Online 9/26/01

http:./'Stacks.msnbc.comZnewsZ634336.asp?0cb=-4-l 552104&cp 1=1

(3) Jackson, Brian, “Protecting Emergency Responders” (California, RAND, 2002), p. 16 (4) Gonzalez, Juan, “A Toxic Nightmare at a Disaster Site,” 10/26/01 httn://www.nyenvirolaw.oreZPDF/Dailv%20Cover”/(>20%20Storv%20- %20A°/o20Toxic%20Nightmare%20At?4.20Disaster%20Site.pdf .

(5) France, David, Newsweek, “Is Ground Zero Safe?”, 10/05/01 http://www.msnbc.coniZnews/638853.asp

96

NYC-WTC_000145014