Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

is important to understand the basis for such changes in the Agency’s risk communications. The report also provides the former EPA OCEMR Associate Administrator’s explanation for why EPA’s press releases did not discuss health effects or contain a recommendation that residents obtain professional cleaning. Additionally, as noted by the former EPA Chief of Staff, factors other than protecting human health and the environment entered into the determinations of the information that would be communicated to the public, including national security considerations and the desire to re-open Wall Street.

Note 4 - We agree that EPA made its data available to the public. However, based on the documentation we reviewed and our discussions with numerous environmental experts, both within and outside of EPA, we do not agree that the Agency’s statement on September 18, 2001 that the air was safe to breathe reflected the Agency’s best professional advice. In contrast, based on the circumstances outlined in Chapter 2 of the report, it appeared that EPA’s best professional advice was overruled when relaying information to the public in the weeks immediately following the disaster.

Note 5 - We applaud EPA’s efforts to evaluate its response and implement changes. We believe the report sufficiently acknowledges EPA’s efforts to implement its “lessons learned.” The draft report’s Executive Summary acknowledges EPA’s “lessons learned” efforts and highlights specific actions the Agency initiated. In addition. Chapter 7 of the report discusses EPA’s “lessons learned” efforts in great detail.

Note 6 - We do not believe the report “is flawed in its lack of recognition” of the issues discussed. In regard to the absence of a long-term health threat, the Agency did not have a sound basis for reaching this conclusion at the time for the numerous reasons detailed in the report. Further, as noted in the report, the position that EPA took regarding WTC is inconsistent with the Agency’s historical position that there is no safe level of asbestos.

In regard to the comment about the Agency advising people who were experiencing acute health problems to see their physician, no supporting documentation has been identified which shows that EPA instructed residents to see their physicians. We also provided agency officials with the opportunity to provide us with documentation which supported specific statements, but none has been provided to date.

In regard to EPA discussing acute health problems, we reviewed extensive information on EPA’s risk communications, including all of the documents and videocassettes which were provided by Region 2 and EPA’s Office of Public Affairs. We agree there were instances where documentation indicated agency spokespersons discussed acute health problems. However, as detailed in the draft report, EPA’s press releases generally did not discuss potential acute health problems or the need to see a physician (except for rescue and cleanup workers at Ground Zero). The words “physician,” “doctor,” “acute,” “symptoms,” and “sensitive,” do not appear in any of EPA’s WTC press releases. Considering the totality of all the information we reviewed, it is our opinion that EPA did not communicate a clear, or consistent message on this subject. We agree that EPA advised rescue and cleanup workers to 132 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145487