EPA response on environmental conditions and federal role, February 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

V 02/13/02 WEU lOiO* rAA. 1 ■

i r In addition, we have made every effort to uissenainate to the public fie results of our monitoring. Our web she (www.eDa.govl contains fie results of all of our outdoor monitoring. going back to September. We have endeavored to present fie information gained from our monitoring in a form readily understandable and accessible to fie general public. It has become clear in recent days fiat despite our best efforts, come results fiat were developed bzofierfoderelagendes and that would have been of Intent to fie public were not disseminated fiiou^ bur wd> site. Even though fiat dam was consistent wifi our own, X still believe fie public interest would have best heed Staved by making ft available promptly. That is why 1 have directed my staff to review both our internal and iater-agcncy procedures for evaluating for inclusion on our web site such information fiat comes into our possession. X am committed to fie public’s right to know. Fortunately, the results of our testing of outdoor oivironmental conditions to date have consistently indicated that air quali^ in l2>wer Manhattan does not pose a long-term risk to Chose who live, work, or visit dtsce. Of course, fiat does not necessarily apply to workers at Ground Zero - for than, we continue to urge the use of protective gear as th^ perform their very difficult and dangerous work. I

I am also pleased that over the same period of time, zesting done by other agencies has cosfizmed theresults which we have found. For example, when looking at asbestos, analysis done by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) tinough use of their AVBRIS remote sensing device is consistent with studies done by the £PA. As Cotaxcissioaers Frieden and Mele testified at your hearing yesterday about their analysis of various teting and monitoring done at I the she, ‘The data fiom air quality tests thus fir have been, in general, teassming. None of the I testing done to date has shown te^ts th« would indicate long-term health impacts?’ • AlfioughXaBaencooraged by fie results oftins testing, I am sot yet satisfied. Too many questions remain ^ut possible short-torn health affecte and about short-term exposures to matoials not previously evalnated, such as fibrous glass, gypsum, mica, etc. To help fill-in our knowledge about these issuer our Office ofResearch and Development h^ already launched tests on mice, to evaluate the health affots ofshoit-tom cxposir^ offie particulates geneaied by fie destruction of fie World Trade Center. In .addition, 1 have asked the Freridoifs sciBice advisor. Dr. Jack Marburger, to convene an inter-agency panel to pull together all fie work fie various fedeal agencies are doing to study eaviroamentaJ conditions and possiblc resultant health risks is Lower Maohartan. X also asked him to put out a request for infonnatioa about work fiose outside fie f^eral government may be doing. It is important that fie numerous efforts fiat arc ongoing in this area be pulled togetbex, evaluated, and synfieslzed, so that fie public can be folly and clearly infonned about fie work that has been conducted by various federal agencies and others.

2

NYC-WTC_000151686