Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Communication. We recommend that the EPA Administrator continue these efforts and develop procedures for emergency risk communication to ensure that public pronouncements regarding health risks and environmental quality are adequately supported with available data and analysis and are appropriately qualified.

2. Were EPA actions and decisions in regard to evaluating, mitigating, and controlling risks to human health from exposure to indoor air pollutants In the WTC area consistent with applicable statutes, regulations, policies, guidance, and practice?

EPA’s actions to evaluate, mitigate, and control risks to human health from exposure to indoor air pollutants in the WTC area were consistent with applicable statutes and regulations. These statutes and regulations do not obligate EPA to respond to a given emergency, allowing for local agencies to lead a response, and New York City in fact exercised a lead role regarding indoor air. Nonetheless, we believe EPA could have taken a more proactive approach regarding indoor air cleanup. After the City was criticized for its response, EPA began to assume a lead role in February 2002. Prior to initiation of the EPA-led cleanup, many WTC area residents had returned to their homes, and a study indicated most of them had not followed recommended cleaning practices. The full extent of public exposure to indoor contaminants resulting from the WTC collapse is unknown.

We recommend that the EPA Administrator coordinate with other Federal, State, and local agencies to develop protocols for determining how indoor environmental concerns will be handled in large-scale disasters. We also recommend that EPA work with the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies to develop and publish oversight criteria, including State and local agency reporting requirements, for handling indoor air contamination.

3. Were asbestos demolition and renovation work practice standards followed during WTC cleanup and recovery operations and^ If no^ why not?

We could not conclusively determine the extent to which required work practices regarding the control of asbestos were followed at the WTC site during demolition and debris removal. Since asbestos is a known human carcinogen, EPA has established stringent work practices to control emissions of asbestos resulting from demolition and renovation projects. We found that a significant requirement to reduce emissions in emergency demolitions - wetting damaged buildings before demolition and keeping the waste material wet after demolition - was followed. However, work practices applicable to the transport of debris from the site were employed inconsistently. The specific impact on air quality of any variance from EPA’s asbestos emergency work practices is unknown.

We recommend that the EPA Administrator develop specific procedures for ensuring that Federal, State, and local responders follow the appropriate NESHAP work practices for catastrophic emergency situations involving asbestos.

ii Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145516