New York Times article on WTC dust health risks

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document I ( I 1

( I

I I

I I

( . ... . I-— f [ I E.P. A. in the Cross Hairs I fi ’ The Environmental Protection Agency and the most feared contaminant, posed no significant long­ t pWhite House Council on Environmental Quality have term risk. ■been sharply criticized for playing down the poten­ The main issue Is whether apartments and tial dangers of exposure to ash, smoke and dust offices have been adequately cleaned and tested to generated by the collapse of the World Trade Center. ensure that no toxic dust remains to cause a long­ The inspector general of the E.PA. has criticized the term risk to inhabitants. The inspector general’s /agency for making overly reassuring statements report faults both the E.PA. and, by implication. i "that could not be supported by any evidence in hand, ?,and blamed the environmental council for pushing New York City’s Health Department for failing to press residents and businesses to seek professional I the E.P.A. to eliminate caveats and accentuate the positive. Our own sense is that much of the criticism ►3s retrospective nitpicking of decisions made in the cleaning in contaminated apartments instead of doing the cleaning themselves. Only 4,100 apart­ ments have been cleaned or tested under a program k^dst of a crisis, but it does seem clear that federal eventually established by the city and federal gov­ ^d local agencies could have better informed resi- ernment Some 18,000 residential units were not r dents of any hazards they would face when they tested or cleaned through the program, but many f I returned to work or live in the area. were presumably cleaned and tested before the I Even so, it Is important to understand that the program started. Nobody knows how many build­ I C major victims of exposure to pollutants were work- ings might still have dust lingering in rugs, furni­ [ E ers at the site or cleaning up buildings who failed to ture or air vents that could emerge to cause a I Fuse respirators. Many of them are now being treat- hazard. That suggests the need for one final testing I Fed for continuing respiratory ailments, and some program. B may well face lifelong disability. The broader public The real long-term health effects, if any, will not • faced little or no risk from breathing the outdoor air be known for decades. City and federal health i C once the initial cloud settled. An unpublished E.P.A. officials started an ambitious tracking project on I f Brisk analysis found that people were unlikely to Friday that will try to follow the health histories of I 5 suffer adverse health effects from the outdoor air up to 200,000 people exposed to the pollutants. It I tthey breathed. Outside experts told the inspector behooves all who fear for their health or want to t general’s office that levels of airborne asbestos, the contribute to important research to participate. I I I I I

t ! t I t t I

L NYC-WTC_OOO1519OO