EPA Region II letterhead fragment, date unknown

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document -J

EPA provided a constant flow of information to reporters every day, and it shared that data with city, state, and federal environmental, health and occupational health agencies. EPA consulted with these agencies on a daily basis with respect to its decisions.

i It is Important to note that the tens of thousands of samples taken of nearly 700 I chemicals, yielding more than a quarter million results, bore out our statements I , about air quality. This statement from the IG’s report confirms that: I

"(The IG) spoke to a number of experts in the field of environmental monitoring, I including j)hysicians, industrial hygienists, and researchers. These experts generally agreed that the levels of airborne asbestos detected in the air outside i the perimeter of Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan did not present a significant increase in long-term risk to the public."- 1 I In an atmosphere of constant, urgent requests for information, EPA, confronted with ever-changing and ever-growing amounts of data, and using its best professionals gave its best, and it turns out, an accurate assessment of the conditions in Lower Manhattan- I The two press releases discussed by the IG must be evaluated in the context of the overwhelming weight of information being made available to public officials I and the public in New York City during that terrible time. All of the partners that 1 joined together in this crisis were collecting and disseminating information under three broad categories of risk in the days immediately following the disaster. There were immediate risks, ihcluding firefighting and rescue operations, near- term health risks for people in the immediate vicinity and potential long-term J risks, which were, and continue to be monitored and evaluated very closely by EPA and the research community. With so much information being produced for so many different categories of risk, it is not useful to isolate two press releases from the many other ongoing information campaigns and direct communications to specific audiences.

An even cursory review of the multitude of communications from EPA. as well as other Federal agencies-speeches, workshops, public meetings, flyers, real-time Internet postings, interviews-convey concern about public safety, contain specific warnings about worker safety at Ground Zero, and speak to the need to obtain professional advice and. where needed, do a careful and professional clean-up of interior spaces. I i Your letter requests that EPA take a number of additional actions in Lower Manhattan, specifically: post cleaning testing to ensure the indoor cleaning program reduced residents’ risk of exposure; post cleaning verification to ensure residences have not been re-contaminated; and collaboration with FEMA and OSHA to assess whether the residential^cleaning program should be expanded. I

I 2

NYC-VVTC_OOO151536