http://www.sierraclub.org/groundzero/summary.asp

Air Pollution and deception at Ground Zero

How Our Government Allowed Hundreds of Civilians to Breathe Contaminated Air After 9/11

INTRODUCTION

Many hundreds of people in New York City are sick today because of exposure to the pollution from the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. Some suffer from shortness of breath, loss of lung capacity, chronic coughing, throat irritation or irritant-induced asthma; some suffer from gastroesophogeal reflux disease.

Many are so debilitated by their physical conditions that they can no longer do their jobs, and most of them no longer enjoy life as they used to. It is possible that many more illnesses will emerge in the coming years. People worry about cancer, weakened immunity, and reproductive effects, and many experts fear that these worries may well be justified. No one knows what tomorrow will bring for this exposed population.

If our federal government had responded to the crisis of the terrorist attack with proper concern for people's health, many of the exposures that caused these illnesses could have been prevented. In August 2003, the Inspector General for the federal Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") released a disturbing165-page report documenting the fact that the White House Council on Environmental Quality blocked health risk information that EPA sought to release to the public following the September 11, 2001 attack. That, however, is only part of the story.

This report picks up where the EPA Inspector General's report left off. It shows how the federal government - EPA and other key federal agencies - failed to take important actions after the attack to prevent more exposures to contaminants. It demonstrates why the federal government's failures cannot be excused by ignorance or surprise, or by blaming workers who didn't wear protective masks. It documents how independent researchers found a group of toxic pollutants that cause cancer and other genetic effects, while EPA wrongly claimed that it did not detect the presence of these pollutants at all. It exposes the fact that a survey of federal employees, in a building several blocks from Ground Zero, showed that they were suffering health effects, yet the federal government did not disclose its own survey results to the public.

This report explains how the federal administration's reckless disregard for the toxic hazards generated by the attack had disastrous consequences for many people who served on the front line of terror response and lower Manhattan's recovery. Most Americans are not fully aware of the wide range of workers and community people who have been afflicted by Ground Zero pollution; this report describes these people, their unmet needs and the continuing risks that threaten them.

Finally, this report alerts the public to a danger that should be of national concern: This report finds that the Bush administration's new emergency planning documents - from the Department of Homeland Security and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration - make some of the administration's worst 9/11 response failures into standard operating procedure for national emergencies. In other words, the prolonged harm that resulted from lack of proper action at Ground Zero could happen again, in New York City or in another location in the United States. People following news stories about the Ground Zero pollution may wonder whether federal agencies realized at the time that health warnings were needed, or whether those who got sick were just recalcitrant individuals who failed to follow safety directions. This report answers those questions.

• The Ground Zero health risk cover-up did not result from a poorly informed government. The World Trade Center attack involved the open, uncontrolled burning and demolition of two huge buildings - conduct that would be illegal in any state of the Union because of the known risks to human health. This report finds that the federal government ignored its own long-standing body of knowledge about pollution from incineration and demolition. The notion that EPA had to wait for test data before telling people that the pollution posed health risks is absurd. EPA should have issued a health warning, based on its own knowledge of pollution, before any test data came in.

• EPA failed to investigate and disclose toxic hazards properly. Oddly, EPA's website reports that it found no polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - cancer-causing chemicals generally released by combustion of mixed materials - "in any air samples," although four independent tests found them at elevated levels and even EPA's own research scientists reported in a scientific journal that they found them at levels that Science magazine deemed worthy of "the most serious kind of concern."

• The federal government failed to change its safety assurances even after it became clear that people were getting ill, and even after a survey of federal employees of a sister agency in the same building as EPA at 290 Broadway revealed that they were suffering health impacts - a survey that, this report finds, the federal government did not release to the public at the time. It was quietly published in a journal in 2002.

• Many Ground Zero workers did not have proper protection, especially in early weeks. This report explains that federal assurances of safety gave workers conflicting messages about the need for respirator masks, which are difficult and exhausting to wear.

• OSHA refused to enforce worker safety standards at Ground Zero. It wrongly claimed that it had no authority in national emergencies. It then continued this refusal long after the emergency had passed, and long after it became apparent that serious health and safety risks were occurring despite efforts by OSHA staff to advise safety.

• EPA and FEMA, in concert with New York City's own health department, told families that they could clean up the contaminated dust themselves with wet rags. In fact, they actually discouraged area residents from wearing safety masks.

The Bush administration's conduct is hard to understand given the fact that it had only recently learned some important lessons in a community contamination issue. Earlier in 2001, the federal government had finally responded to families in Libby, Montana, who had long been trying to get their attention, after a Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter had exposed EPA's prior inaction. The entire town - playgrounds, backyards and homes - was polluted by asbestos from a mine. EPA promised a full clean-up. It was too late for some families; many people had already died of asbestos-related illnesses. At the time, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman told the community:

I also want you to know what effect your experiences here are having on our work at the EPA. Because of what we've found in Libby, we are reviewing all of the scientific information about health risks posed by asbestos. We want to know if there are other problem areas out there. And if there are, we will take the appropriate steps to address them. I know it's small comfort, but your experience and your pain may help others facing similar situations.

Four days later, the September 11, 2001 attack occurred, releasing asbestos-contaminated dust over lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn. EPA ignored its own rules urging use of more modern asbestos testing equipment and failed to reverse course even when independent tests showed that it was failing to detect asbestos accurately. It failed even to alert the public that the dust was highly caustic.

At the very least, our federal government should have considered the pollution dangerous unless rigorous testing proved otherwise. It did not. Instead, EPA and OSHA - under the White House Council on Environmental Quality's direction - behaved as though they had never seen pollution before, as though they did not know their own regulations, as though they were unfamiliar with current scientific knowledge, and as though the asbestos disaster of Libby, Montana, had never happened.

The Bush administration declared that no expense would be spared in helping the affected communities to recover. Nevertheless, its action has fallen far short of the mark. It has resisted calls for proper cleanup of the toxic dust still present in homes and buildings even though over 2,700 children under ten years old live in the community around Ground Zero. Also, it has not provided adequate long-term health monitoring and care for the people exposed to the pollution. These failures have prolonged the harm to this "Ground Zero community" and impaired New York City's recovery from the attack.

Now, the Bush administration apparently plans to turn its missteps at Ground Zero into standard policy for any future national emergency.

• Its new occupational safety emergency planning document institutionalizes its failure to enforce safety and health laws for response workers.

• Its Department of Homeland Security emergency planning document solidifies the administration's insistence on centralized political control of all hazard communications during an emergency - without providing strong policies to protect the public against false assurances.

This means that the Bush administration has learned nothing from the illnesses and hardships suffered by the Ground Zero community. Rather, it plans to perpetuate them in any future national disaster, anywhere else in the United States.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Lesser Known Hazards from Ground Zero

The attack on the World Trade Center ("WTC") released toxic vapors and airborne particles that were hazardous to human health, including a toxic, caustic dust that settled on outdoor and indoor surfaces and often became airborne again through disturbances at Ground Zero.

• The Ground Zero fire emitted polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a group of chemicals including substances that cause cancer and may cause other genetic impacts that can affect children subjected to pre-natal exposure. PAHs generally are produced by combustion of mixed materials. (See below for details on EPA lack of disclosure.)

• Much of the WTC dust was as caustic as ammonia, and in some cases as caustic as drain cleaner. The federal government knew this, but did not tell the workers or the public. A carpenter and emergency medical technician, John Graham, comments:

I was at all the safety meetings, but they never told us what was really going on. Now I'm a walking pharmacy. I have a chest infection, ear, nose and throat problems. . . . My tonsils look like strawberries - red and pitted. I guess drain cleaner would do that to you.

• Despite assurances that "most" WTC dust particles were too large to penetrate the lungs, evidence reveals that some did. The larger caustic particles also "burned" the nose, throat and upper airways, and some people inadvertently swallowed WTC dust.

What the Federal Government Already Knew About the Hazards

No one expects perfect safety practices immediately following such an unexpected and devastating attack. Palmer Doyle, rescue worker and recently retired firefighter from Coney Island Engine number 254, Ladder number 153, explains:

During the first few days, we ran down there. I was there when the second building came down. I worked from 9:45 to 2:30 AM. I came back again at 9 AM and worked until very late. By Friday, you could see the shoulders sagging. We knew no more survivors were likely. By Sunday, the adrenaline was spent. Sunday was torture. But we rallied ourselves. We said, "Let me get something for the family to bury."

Unfortunately, the federal administration chose to respond in ways that further endangered human health. Its conduct prolonged hazards from the attack and promoted unsafe work conditions at Ground Zero that increased human exposure to pollutants.

The WTC disaster was new in scale but not completely new in character. The federal government already knew many of the dangers from uncontrolled combustion and demolition, but did not warn the public against them. Philip McArdle, Health and Safety Officer for the Uniformed Firefighters Association, points out:

We talk about preparing for disasters, but if we don't use what we already know, when are we going to be prepared for a disaster? . . . The World Trade Center disaster was new in scale. But buildings have burned before. Planes have crashed and burned. Structures have collapsed in earthquakes. We've seen these kinds of hazards before, and we look to the agencies to tell us what the hazards are. These are things that federal agencies plan for all the time, so why weren't they ready?

In fact, EPA knew from the outset that uncontrolled burning of building materials releases toxic chemicals, and that cement dust typically is very caustic, because it has studied incineration, demolition, and the pollution and debris that they generate for decades. For example, following the catastrophic year of 1989, when both the California earthquake and Hurricane Hugo destroyed buildings and a steam pipe exploded in the Gramercy Park neighborhood of New York City, EPA produced a document called Guidelines for Catastrophic Emergency Situations Involving Asbestos, in which it warned of the potential for such emergencies to create asbestos contamination problems.

What the Federal Government Failed to Disclose or Find

• EPA misrepresented the meaning of asbestos test results by knowingly mischaracterizing its own technical detection limits as health standards.

• The White House Council on Environmental Quality provided misleading data to U.S. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph Lieberman in a letter which implied that only extremely few homes were contaminated by asbestos from the WTC dust. (The senators were not dissuaded from pursuing their concerns about the need for proper testing and cleanup.)

• EPA did not find health hazards because it did not look for them, or failed to look for them properly.

(1) As noted above, EPA did not report any testing of the WTC dust for harmful organic chemicals such as PAHs. In fact, PAHs were present at high levels, according to an independent test. Also, this Report discloses that private tests of dust from firefighters boots found toxic PAHs at levels 115 and 422 times higher than EPA's health-based criteria for soil cleanup. EPA's website reports that it failed to detect PAHs in the air in any air samples, yet a recently released study of "window film" in lower Manhattan after the attack found PAH levels at 10 times greater than urban background levels, and a new study analyzing the small dust particles gathered in EPA air samples revealed significant levels of PAHs. Also, EPA researchers themselves published a study of PAHs in air in late September and mid-October, finding levels higher than a serious photochemical smog episode in Los Angeles.

(2) As has been reported before, EPA used an older, less effective testing method for asbestos in dust even though it had advised schools seven years earlier against using that technology. EPA did not change its method after independent tests found higher levels of asbestos using the newer method that EPA itself recommends for schools. Yet, the federal government used the newer method at EPA's own office building - and this Report finds that EPA ordered an asbestos cleanup of its lobby without even waiting for test results, based only on the presence of visible WTC dust.

(3) EPA failed to test for the very tiny and more hazardous airborne particles that are likely to result from a hot combustion, as occurred at Ground Zero, even though this Report finds that it knew of the more precise equipment required to do so. Jimmy Willis, a 9/11 rescue worker and Assistant to the President for the Transport Workers Union observed: "What EPA did was like using a colander with giant holes, and then saying, 'Look, there's no spaghetti.' It was a test to find nothing." Very small particles are more dangerous because they are more easily inhaled deep into the lungs and also tend to contain higher concentrations of toxic chemicals.

(4) EPA failed to conduct scientific sampling to determine the extent of indoor contamination from the WTC pollution. It even neglected to test most of the apartments in its limited cleanup program before cleaning them. This failure to measure WTC pollution in residences made it impossible to assure their safety.

• The federal administration failed at least a dozen times to correct its improper assurances of safety even after information and data on health risks became known and even after news began to emerge about people getting sick.

By September 27, 2001, the federal government had test results confirming that the WTC dust was highly caustic - as caustic as ammonia, and in some cases as caustic as drain cleaner. The pH of ordinary urban soil generally ranges from 6.7 to 7.3, but the pH of WTC dust ranged from 9.0 to as high as 11.5. This Report finds that EPA and OSHA did not warn the public about this in a press release or, apparently, even in directives to union health and safety officers.

This Report finds that the federal government was aware that area employees were at risk from WTC pollution by early 2002. A December 2001 survey of Health & Human Services employees at 290 Broadway found 65-69 percent suffered worsened cough, shortness of breath, and wheezing and 81 percent had worsened eye irritation just after 9/11; half still had symptoms three months later. An EPA report states that its employees too had health effects at that time. Neither agency notified the public.

• Both FEMA and EPA failed to warn residents that they should not just clean up the contaminated indoor WTC dust themselves - even though EPA has publicly denied this. Indeed, even after EPA launched an indoor cleanup program, it continued to assure residents that such cleanup was not really needed. The federal agencies failed even to give special instructions to prevent exposure of children and people with respiratory, immune system or heart disorders, who would be more vulnerable to the WTC pollution.

The desire to reopen Wall Street cannot justify placing civilian safety at risk. The EPA Inspector General's report stated:

[W]e fully recognize the extraordinary circumstances that existed at the time the statement was made about the air being safe to breathe. It continues to be our opinion that there was insufficient information to support the statement.

The government has a higher duty to protect its citizens' health and safety. Civilians are not soldiers. They are supposed to be protected, not put in harm's way. And one of the most important jobs of the federal government in the event of an attack on a civilian target should be to control and limit the harm to human health and safety of that attack. Instead, the Bush administration's response to the September 11 attack furthered the danger to public health. Speculative fear of public reactions does not justify suppressing warnings. Some may argue that there was a need to "soften" the message about pollution to prevent public panic. Yet, no one would advocate keeping silent about a fire in a building. People should be warned when they need to take action to protect themselves, and warning people about Ground Zero pollution would not have caused widespread, uncontrollable frenzy. Despite the myth of public panic, experts state that such conduct is rare, that people more consistently tend to bind together in the aftermath of disasters to restore their communities. Many disaster experts urge that treating the public with respect and forthrightness is the best approach. Albany Times Union columnist Fred LeBrun made this comment:

Did Washington think we'd panic over the toxic possibilities, or that Manhattanites would stop breathing? Or that the cops, firefighters and rescue workers would stop sifting the rubble 24/7 for their comrades and other victims? Not a chance.

There is no question that the rescue and recovery work would have proceeded. But if proper warnings had been given, it would have proceeded more safely. Also, the emergency conditions of the first few days certainly cannot justify the continued suppression of health warnings that this Report documents occurred during the many weeks and months that followed the attack.

How the Federal Government Failed to Carry Out Its Own Duties

The federal government failed to carry out its own duties to protect the public from the toxic aftermath of the terrorist attack.

• The federal administration chose not to enforce worker safety standards at Ground Zero. OSHA has authority to enforce the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, and primary responsibility for worker safety and health during national emergencies. Yet both FEMA and OSHA took the position, wrongly, that OSHA had no authority to enforce federal standards in emergency rescue operations. OSHA neglected to assert enforcement authority even after it became obvious that safety enforcement was failing at Ground Zero, and it continued to take no enforcement action long after rescue operations had ceased.

• The federal government failed to respond properly to the toxic release as a terrorist attack and illegal action. The President has broad powers to respond to pollution from terrorist attacks and to releases of hazardous substances, and these powers are delegated to EPA. EPA acknowledged as early as November 2001 that it had the lead responsibility to clean up buildings contaminated as a result of terrorism, but did not launch an effort until summer 2003, and that effort was highly flawed. This inaction left both families and workers at risk.

(1) Most residences in EPA's chosen Ground Zero "cleanup zone" (below Canal and Pike Streets) were not cleaned by trained environmental workers, and WTC dust very likely permeated some buildings outside the zone in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

(2) The FEMA-funded EPA indoor cleanup program completely excluded nonresidential buildings, and it did not ensure that those workplaces were made safe.

(3) EPA even refused to clean the firefighters' contaminated firehouses.

Why the Federal Failures of Ground Zero Put the Nation at Risk

Most disturbingly, the Bush administration plans to make the mistakes of Ground Zero into policy for all future national emergencies. A future disaster could release toxic substances again.

Most important buildings nationwide contain asbestos, lead, plastics, and other substances that could create hazards in a fire or collapse. For example, 84 percent of tall office buildings, 64 percent of short office buildings and 43 percent of transportation and government buildings in New York City contain asbestos. Nevertheless:

• The Bush administration is eliminating OSHA's enforcement role at all future national emergency sites. Under OSHA's new National Emergency Management Plan, the agency will not enforce safety rules, but rather will provide only technical assistance. The foreseeable result of this approach is insufficient protection for the hard-working and courageous Americans who respond to local disasters.

• Nothing in the Department of Homeland Security's new national emergency planning documents - the National Incident Management System or Initial National Response Plan - provides the assurance that the public should receive that the missteps of Ground Zero will not happen again in New York City or in some other town or city of our nation. Indeed, Inside EPA reports that the Bush administration is considering developing standards for toxic cleanup in national emergencies that may be weaker than Superfund standards, thus leaving communities at risk.

Based on the experience at Ground Zero, the Bush administration's new policies would dramatically increase the health risks to Americans unfortunate enough to experience future national emergencies.

Why the People Exposed to WTC Pollution Need Health Monitoring and Further Cleanup If the Bush administration had provided proper warnings, it is likely that better precautions would have been taken in many circumstances, and that people would have been safer in several ways.

• Many rescue, recovery and emergency services workers were given inadequate safety gear and conflicting messages about the need to use it. Despite government assertions to the contrary, many of these workers did not receive properly protective masks in the early weeks. Also, federal assurances of safety and lack of consistent warnings reduced motivation to use the safety gear, which was difficult and exhausting to wear. Volunteers helping with cleanup or servicing the rescue workers did not receive proper advance warnings about the hazards and often did not have any protective gear.

• Residents were not given the information they needed to make informed choices about how to protect themselves and their families. Some had to make hard decisions about whether to evacuate and when to return. Also, following government instructions to clean up the WTC dust in their homes themselves brought them into close contact with the dust, much of which contained asbestos.

• City sanitation workers who cleaned up WTC street dust and managed the WTC debris needed better protective gear; also, privately hired, low income dust and debris cleanup workers - many of them immigrants - often received no protective gear at all.

• No government agency ensured that contaminated workplaces were properly cleaned before employees returned; some employees cleaned up their own work areas, and some employees reportedly were forbidden to wear masks on the job.

• Many small business owners cleaned their own spaces, and some who sought a proper environmental cleanup had trouble convincing the insurer of the need to cover the cost.

• Charities were not alerted in a timely way about the need for long-term medical monitoring and long-term healthcare. As a result, comparatively little charitable giving was directed toward such needs during the first two and a half years after the disaster.

Some of the dust left behind by inadequate cleaning likely still remains in homes and buildings, and may still present a health hazard, especially to children.

• Harder-to-clean areas in homes can present a special exposure risk to children. Young children play on carpets and bounce on upholstered furniture. Their toys roll under radiators and behind appliances. They may inhale the dust that is disturbed by such activities, or accidentally ingest dust that gets on their fingers.

• Less frequently cleaned areas - such as bookshelves, the tops of molding and under radiators - can "store" WTC dust and become sources of future unexpected exposures.

• Lead, a toxic metal, is present in much of the indoor WTC dust, putting any very young children who ingest it at risk of lead poisoning, which causes permanent brain damage.

The scale of public exposure to WTC pollution has created an urgent need for medical monitoring and care. The "Ground Zero community" includes a wide range of people who now are at risk of adverse health effects from exposure to WTC pollution. That community encompasses residents, area employees, building cleaners, sanitation workers, communications workers, plumbers and electricians, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and paramedics, police officers, volunteer rescue workers and others. Medical screening has revealed a disturbing trend of longlasting lung ailments and other symptoms among many of these people. No one knows what the long-term or delayed health effects of exposure will be. They may include not only cancer but also effects on the immune and reproductive systems, and possibly other genetic impacts. People exposed to the WTC pollution need long-term health monitoring and other help. The federal government, however, has utterly failed to meet this need. (The widely-publicized government-funded "World Trade Center Health Registry," provides no health services, and is probably too flawed even to satisfy the research purposes for which it was designed. See Appendix D of this Report.)

• The current WTC medical monitoring program is only funded for five years, even though cancers and certain other health effects may take from 10 to 30 years to appear.

• Many people who already suffer health effects from the WTC pollution have no health insurance or are under-insured.

• Some people who were harmed by the WTC pollution are too sick to work in the occupation for which they were trained, and are suffering economically.

Recommendations

The Bush administration must restore trust in its agencies charged with protecting health and safety and take action to mitigate the consequences of its own failure to provide proper warnings about the health hazards from Ground Zero. In particular, it must do the following:

• Take action now to prevent more harm from its failure to ensure proper cleanup of the WTC dust. A new cleanup must address both residential and non-residential buildings, and should include firehouses and emergency vehicles and equipment where needed.

• Fund long-term medical monitoring, treatment and assistance as needed to the people who suffer or are at risk from adverse health effects due to exposure to WTC pollution.

• Issue a retraction of its safety assurances; disclose and censure the top official involved in altering agency press statements to suppress 9/11 health warnings, to send a clear message that failing to warn the public truthfully about health hazards is unacceptable.

• Work with Ground Zero-affected communities, labor unions and environmental health advocacy groups to develop effective national policies and practices that promote truthfulness in the communication of health hazards and effective response actions.

• Abandon its plans to eliminate enforcement of federal safety standards for response workers and institutionalize political control of communications without providing strong policies to prevent issuance of false assurances of safety - actions that would transform the its missteps at Ground Zero into dangerous disaster policy for the rest of the nation.