Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Oyeetive 3. Were asbestos demolition and renovation work practice standards followed during WTC cleanup and recovery operations and, If not, why not? ""... ' .... ■ ..........

To determine the requirement applicable to emergency situations, we reviewed the Asbestos National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR Part 61 Subpart M), EPA’s “Guidelines For Catastrophic Emergency Situations Involving Asbestos,” and other EPA background documents on NESHAP, We also reviewed New York City’s “Asbestos Control Program” rules and New York State’s Industrial Code Rule 56, which governs asbestos emission in the State.

We interviewed EPA and New York City officials to discuss the applicability of NESHAP rules to the WTC response. This included the EPA Region 2 Counsel, officials from the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and officials from NYCDEP and NYCDDC. To determine the extent that NESHAP work practices were followed in demolishing damaged buildings and removing debris from the WTC site, we interviewed officials who were present at the site during these operations including EPA on-scene coordinators, and officials from New York City and OSHA. We also reviewed transcripts of EPA Superfund Ombudsman, United States Senate Subcommittee, New York State Assembly, and New York City Council hearings on this issue. Further, we reviewed reports from persons present at the site, EPA situation reports, and other reports of activities at the site.

Limitations: Information on which we based conclusions includes personal accounts of the work activities obtained from interviews and hearings, and reports describing work practices at the site. Further, it was beyond the scope of our review to determine whether all NESHAP regulations applicable to emergency situations were followed or the extent to which they may have been followed. We also did not evaluate compliance with worker protection requirements.

Objective 4, To what extent were EPA and government communications regarding air quality and associated health risks: (a) received by the public; (b) understood by the public; and (c) effective in getting people to take the desired actions to reduce their potential heaith risks?

To obtain information on the impact EPA pronouncements had on the actions of area residents and workers, we reviewed testimony at hearings before a United States Senate Subcommittee, EPA’s Superfiind Ombudsman, the New York State Assembly, and the New York City Council. In addition, we reviewed the results of surveys of people’s actions and opinions, and reviewed reports prepared by officials present during the WTC response. At the time this report was prepared, we were in the process of conducting a random survey of New York City residents to obtain information on the public’s satisfaction with the air quality information provided by the government after the WTC response, how the public interpreted

75 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145595