|
EPA'S RESPONSE TO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE: CHALLENGES, SUCCESSES, AND AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
catastrophe, and research may ultimately prove these statements correct. However, this position was different from prior Agency pronouncements, and can create doubts in the public’s mind about EPA’s statements. Communications Need to Disclose External Participation As discussed previously in this report, EPA officials were not the sole determiners of the information that was included in its press releases, nor the information that was excluded. This was demonstrated by the EPA OCEMR Associate Administrator’s statement that residential cleaning instructions were deleted from a draft press release by the CEQ contact official. The extent of outside influence was further illustrated by the statement from the EPA Administrator’s Chief of Staff that she could not claim ownership of EPA’s early WTC press releases because “the ownership was joint ownership between EPA and the White House.” In a time of disaster, EPA officials should be careful to ensure that EPA’s press releases reflect EPA’s professional judgment based on sound science, acknowledge the participation of outside parties, and provide accurate information about the environment to the public in accordance with EPA’s mission. Environmental Data from Sources Outside EPA Need to Be Addressed In the aftermath of the WTC collapse, several entities were involved in collecting data on environmental conditions. This included private firms; research organizations; Federal agencies; and State, local, and city governments. Several days after the attacks, EPA was designated as the lead agency for collecting and storing all of the WTC monitoring data. This designation did not include being the sole spokesperson for communicating the results of this monitoring data. EPA was subsequently criticized for not including other organizations’ monitoring results in its public communications. For example, EPA was criticized for not putting the results of sampling done by the U.S. Geological Survey on EPA’s web site, or at least discussing this data. The U.S. Geological Survey monitoring had found high pH levels in the WTC dust, which reportedly contributed to the burning of respiratory pathways experienced by first responders and others who breathed WTC dust. An EPA spokesperson stated that EPA had not intended to keep the information from the public, and EPA thought the information had been posted on the U.S. Geological Survey’s web site. EPA officials also told us that the high levels of pH found in the dust was to be expected because of the pulverized concrete. 66 Report No. 2003-P-00012 Another monitoring study was highly publicized by the media, but was not discussed in EPA communications. This study was conducted by a collaborative association of aerosol scientists that specialize in fine particulate ambient monitoring techniques. This group found that the air around Lower Manhattan contained high levels of fine particulates and metals, particularly in readings taken on October 3, 2001. We spoke to the author of this study who told us that he had tried to work with EPA regarding his group’s test results before releasing it to the press, but was unsuccessful. EPA correspondence indicated the EPA officials were invited to the press release for this study, but were not aware of the study prior to that invitation. EPA needs to develop a policy, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, outlining how organization(s) will coordinate the reporting of environmental data after a disaster. This policy should address the State and local government role in these communications, as well as how to address data collected by research or academic organizations. EPA Actions to Improve Its Communications Both EPA’s Headquarters and Region 2 Lessons Learned Reports address communication issues and provide recommendations to improve the Agency’s response in this area. EPA’s Headquarters report recommended that EPA develop policies and procedures for disseminating public information during national emergencies within the established emergency response plans and structures. The report also recommended that EPA coordinate with other organizations outside to identify and address obstacles to timely and consistent presentation of environmental information during national emergencies. In regard to releasing monitoring data, the report recommended that EPA clearly define a process for approving and coordinating the release of information to other agencies and the public. Also, EPA’s Lessons Learned report recommended that EPA work with the Department of Homeland Security to have EPA designated the lead agency for environmental data during national emergencies when both EPA and other agencies are conducting environmental analyses. Region 2’s lesson learned report recommended that Region 2 develop a comprehensive approach to handling crisis communications, and that this approach include other Federal and State partners. In addition, mechanisms should be in place for resolving differences about the interpretation of risk and the appropriate response. These recommendations, if properly implemented, should help ensure technical consistency and accuracy in the Agency’s public information, and accountability for press release content. 67 Report No. 2003-P-00012 In May 2003, EPA participated in a Department of Homeland Security-administered Top Officials exercise with other Federal, State, local, and Canadian government organizations. This exercise simulated weapons of mass destruction incidents with the goals of: (1) improving the nation's capacity to manage extreme events; (2) creating broader frameworks for the operation of expert crisis and consequence management systems; (3) validating authorities, strategies, plans, policies, procedures, and protocols; and (4) building a sustainable, systematic national exercise program to support the national strategy for homeland security. Further, on June 27, 2003, EPA issued the EPA National Approach to Response Policy to implement a new approach to responding to Nationally Significant Incidents. The Policy calls for a multi-faceted and coordinated approach to managing EPA’s emergency response assets during a Nationally Significant Incident. A key aspect of the policy is that it requires EPA to operate under an Incident Command System approach based on the National Interagency Incident Management System. EPA plans to supplement the Policy with guidance to fully characterize roles and responsibilities within the Agency to manage a Nationally Significant Incident. As noted in the Policy, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 calls for the development of a new National Response Plan and a single, comprehensive National Incident Management System. As standards, guidelines, and protocols are developed to implement the national system, EPA will modify its National Approach to Response Policy as necessary. Although many organizations were involved in addressing air quality concerns resulting from the WTC collapse, subsequent events have demonstrated that, ultimately, the public and others expect EPA to monitor and resolve environmental issues, even though EPA may not have the overall responsibility to resolve these issues or the necessary resources to address them. These issues range from collecting, interpreting, and communicating environmental information to cleaning up any environmental contamination. EPA must be prepared to take a leadership role, within the evolving framework established by the Department of Homeland Security and existing statutes, in fulfilling its mission of “protecting human health and the environment,” if another large-scale disaster occurs. 68 Report No. 2003-P-00012 This chapter summarizes observations based on work conducted to answer the objectives discussed in Chapters 2 through 6. These prior chapters contain recommendations that address specific issues related to those objectives. Recommendations to address observations not covered in the prior chapters are included in this chapter. We recommend that the EPA Administrator: 7-1. Work with the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies to share information on likely targets and threats and collaboratively develop approaches to address these threats. Such approaches should include, at a minimum:
a. Identifying the pollutants expected to be emitted from such targets, 7-2. Define and clarify internal EPA organizational roles and responsibilities in responding to large- scale disasters. This should include designating teams of Agency experts – at both the National and Regional level – that can be mobilized to quickly provide needed technical support during a response. These areas may include specialized sampling techniques, exposure modeling and assessment, and risk assessment. 7-3. Develop and improve health-related benchmarks that can be used to assess health risk in emergencies. Specifically:
a. Continue agency work on Acute Exposure Guideline Levels, 69 Report No. 2003-P-00012 7-4. Develop an emergency quality assurance sampling plan to be used as a guidance for monitoring environmental conditions after a large-scale disaster. This plan should address:
a. Monitoring objectives, 7-5. Improve monitoring capabilities by:
a. Making TSP monitors available for use in emergency situations, and
acquiring other monitors as determined, 7-6. Require that the Office of Public Affairs develop emergency communications policy and procedures consistent with the principles of risk communication provided in EPA’s “Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication.” Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation The Agency generally agreed with the recommendations in this Chapter. With respect to the conclusion, the Agency emphasized that it exercised its opinions and judgments on matters impacting human health and the environment and will continue to do so within the context of its authorities and its role under the Federal Response Plan. The Agency’s complete written response to our draft report and our detailed evaluation of that response are contained in Appendices Q and R, respectively. 70 Report No. 2003-P-00012 Federal Agencies Responding to the WTC Collapse
71 Report No. 2003-P-00012
72 Report No. 2003-P-00012 Details on Scope and Methodology Objective 1. Did the available monitoring data and analyses of that data support EPA’s major public communications regarding air quality and associated health risks resulting from the collapse of the WTC towers? We requested all data and correspondence used to support “major” EPA pronouncements regarding air quality. We defined “major” as press releases, testimony, television, and other public appearances. This effort primarily focused on, but was not limited to, data collected and pronouncements made during the period September 2001 through December 2001. The data we reviewed included “Daily Summary Sheets” prepared by EPA staff, and the raw data sheets that showed the results of air and dust samples and were the basis for the daily summaries. In addition, we obtained access to the “New York City Response” database maintained by EPA’s Office of Environmental Information and downloaded selected data from the database and compared it to the raw data sheets. We also reviewed monitoring results from other organizations, including:
We interviewed Region 2 officials to determine their views on what monitoring data showed and the messages conveyed by EPA press releases. In addition, we interviewed EPA officials within the Office of Research and Development, Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. We also interviewed officials outside EPA to obtain their views on EPA’s statements about air quality and the support for these statements. These interviews included officials and researchers from OSHA, FEMA, NYCDOH, NYCDEP, the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York University, the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, and the DELTA Group. 73 Report No. 2003-P-00012 We also reviewed available correspondence and documentation related to the preparation of the EPA press releases. Further, we interviewed principal EPA officials involved in the preparation of press releases, including the EPA Associate Administrator for OCEMR, the Associate Administrator for the Office of Public Affairs (formerly OCEMR), the EPA Administrator’s former Chief of Staff, and the Region 2 Communications Division Director. Limitations: Our review of the process and the support for information in EPA press releases on air quality was limited since CEQ officials declined to meet with us to discuss their role in the preparation of press releases. Our written request for an interview was declined by a White House legal counselor, who noted there were “institutional concerns about interviewing White House employees.” Further, there was a lack of documentation in general regarding preparation of press releases. We only found documentation regarding the preparation of two of six press releases issued during the period September 12, 2001, through October 3, 2001. This documentation included a draft copy of the EPA press release issued on September 16; a single e-mail about this draft press release from CEQ; and a draft copy of the September 13 EPA press release. Objective 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? We reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and guidance related to emergency responses, including CERCLA (Superfund) and implementing regulations, and the FRP. We also reviewed EPA’s authority to test and clean indoor spaces, and the applicability of this authority to the WTC response. We interviewed EPA and FEMA officials about the applicability and requirements of these statutes. We also identified EPA and other government actions taken in response to other disasters to compare prior indoor responses to the WTC indoor response. We identified and reviewed reports of indoor testing conducted by both government and non- government entities. This included indoor air and dust testing conducted by EPA, ATSDR, contractors for the General Services Administration, consultants for the Ground Zero Task Force, and an environmental firm hired by one of the debris removal construction companies. We also interviewed officials both within and outside the government to determine their views regarding the extent of indoor contamination and the adequacy of the government’s response. 74 Report No. 2003-P-00012 Objective 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 health 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 Superfund 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 this information, and actions taken by the public to reduce their exposure to potential contaminants. The results of this survey will be presented in a separate OIG report. Limitations: Except for a survey by NYCDOH and a random telephone poll of New York residents, the information we reviewed was not collected by statistical sampling methods and may not be representative of the public’s and emergency crews’ actions with respect to government communications. Objective 5. What additional actions, if any, should EPA take to improve its response and recovery efforts in the WTC area related to ambient and indoor air quality? This objective primarily focused on the indoor residential cleanup – the only significant EPA WTC recovery activity ongoing at the time we completed our review. We did not audit the results of the cleaning and testing to determine compliance with the prescribed procedures of the program or to determine the actual effectiveness of cleaning conducted. Our analysis was based on a review of the procedures for the testing and cleanup by our certified industrial hygienist, a comparison of those procedures to commonly accepted asbestos abatement procedures, and a comparison of the cleanup goals to remediation goals that would have been required if this were a designated Superfund site. We also reviewed a peer review report of COPCs developed by EPA for indoor cleanup. Objective 6. Should EPA revise its preparation and contingency planning for dealing with air pollution resulting from environmental catastrophes? To answer this question, we summarized lessons learned from the work we conducted to complete our other objectives. We also interviewed EPA officials, other government officials, and non- government environmental experts to obtain their suggestions for improving EPA’s capability to respond to similar disasters in the future. We also reviewed EPA and non-EPA “lessons learned” reports. Prior Audit Coverage The OIG has not conducted any prior evaluations of EPA responses to large-scale disasters. However, our report on EPA’s actions related to asbestos contamination in Libby Montana (EPA’s Actions Concerning Asbestos- Contaminated Vermiculite in Libby, Montana; 2001-S-7; March 31, 2001) discussed several issues related to the regulation and analysis of health risks from asbestos that were relevant to this evaluation. 76 Report No. 2003-P-00012 EPA September 18, 2001 Press Release September 18, 2001 Whitman Details Ongoing Efforts to Monitor Disaster Sites, Contribute to Cleanup Efforts [En Espanol] EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe. Whitman also announced that EPA has been given up to $83 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to support EPA's involvement in cleanup activities and ongoing monitoring of environmental conditions in both the New York City and Washington metropolitan areas following last week's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air quality and drinking water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances," Whitman said. "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington D.C. that their air is safe to breath and their water is safe to drink," she added. In the aftermath of last Tuesday's attacks, EPA has worked closely with state, federal and local authorities to provide expertise on cleanup methods for hazardous materials, as well as to detect whether any contaminants are found in ambient air quality monitoring, sampling of drinking water sources and sampling of runoff near the disaster sites. At the request of FEMA, EPA has been involved in the cleanup and site monitoring efforts, working closely with the U.S. Coast Guard, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and state and local organizations. EPA has conducted repeated monitoring of ambient air at the site of the World Trade Center and in the general Wall Street district of Manhattan, as well as in Brooklyn. The Agency is planning to perform air monitoring in the surrounding New York metropolitan area. EPA has established 10 continuous (stationary) air monitoring stations near the WTC site. Thus far, from 50 air samples taken, the vast majority of results are either non-detectable or below established levels of concern for asbestos, lead and volatile organic compounds. The highest levels of asbestos have been detected within one-half block of ground zero, where rescuers have been provided with appropriate protective equipment. In lower Manhattan, the City of New York has also been involved in efforts to clean anything coated with debris dust resulting from Tuesday's destruction. This involves spraying water over buildings, streets and sidewalks to wash the accumulated dust off the building and eliminate the possibility that materials would become airborne. To complement this clean up effort, EPA has performed 62 dust sample analyses for the presence of asbestos and other substances. Most dust samples fall below EPA's definition of "asbestos containing material" (one percent asbestos). Where samples have shown greater than one percent asbestos, EPA has operated its 10 High Efficiency Particulate Arresting, HEPA, vacuum trucks to clean the area and them resample. EPA also used the 10 HEPA vac trucks to clean streets and sidewalks in the Financial District in preparation for Monday's return to business. The Agency plans to use HEPA vac trucks to clean the lobbies of the five federal buildings near the World Trade Center site, and to clean the streets outside of New York's City Hall. Drinking water in Manhattan was tested at 13 sampling points, in addition to one test at the Newtown Sewage Treatment plant and pump station. Initial results of this drinking water sampling show that levels of asbestos are well below EPA's levels of concern. While FEMA has provided EPA with a Total Project Ceiling cost of slightly more than $83 million for the Agency's cleanup efforts in New York City and in at the Pentagon site, EPA currently is working with emergency funding of $23.7 million. If costs exceed this level, FEMA will authorize EPA to tap additional funding in increments of $15 million. As part of the additional funding to be provided by FEMA, EPA will be responsible for any hazardous waste disposal, general site safety and providing sanitation facilities for many of the search and rescue workers to wash the dust off following their shifts. EPA is coordinating with both the U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence and the U.S. Coast Guard to quickly 77 Report No. 2003-P-00012 implement these additional responsibilities to ensure that search and rescue personnel are provided with the maximum support and protection from hazardous materials that may be found during their mission. At the Pentagon explosion site in Arlington, Va., EPA has also been involved in a variety of monitoring of air and water quality. All ambient air monitoring results, both close to the crash site and in the general vicinity, have shown either no detection of asbestos or levels that fall well below the Agency's level of concern. Testing of runoff water from the disaster site does not show elevated levels of contaminants. Given the large numbers of Department of Defense (DOD) employees returning to work this week, EPA has worked closely with officials from DOD and from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to evaluate air and drinking water quality and to be certain that the workplace environment will be safe. While careful not to impede the search, rescue and cleanup efforts at either the World Trade Center or the Pentagon disaster sites, EPA's primary concern has been to ensure that rescue workers and the public are not being exposed to elevated levels of potentially hazardous contaminants in the dust and debris, especially where practical solutions are available to reduce exposure. EPA has assisted efforts to provide dust masks to rescue workers to minimize inhalation of dust. EPA also recommends that the blast site debris continue to be kept wet, which helps to significantly reduce the amount of airborne dust which can aggravate respiratory ailments such as asthma. On-site facilities are being made available for rescue workers to clean themselves, change their clothing and to have dust-laden clothes cleaned separately from normal household wash. 78 Report No. 2003-P-00012 Screening Levels Used by EPA to Assess Outdoor Air Quality
79 Report No. 2003-P-00012 |
