Summary
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and World Trade Center (WTC) collapse blanketed Lower Manhattan in dust from building debris. In response, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted an indoor clean and test program from 2002 to 2003. In 2003, EPA's Inspector General (IG) recommended improvements to the program and identified lessons learned for EPA's preparedness for future disasters. In 2004, EPA formed an expert panel to, among other goals, guide EPA in developing a second voluntary program; EPA announced this program in 2006. As requested, GAO's report primarily addresses EPA's second program, including the (1) extent to which EPA incorporated IG and expert panel member recommendations and input; (2) factors, if any, limiting the expert panel's ability to meet its goals; (3) completeness of information EPA provided to the public; (4) way EPA estimated resources for the program; and (5) extent to which EPA has acted upon lessons learned regarding indoor contamination from disasters.
EPA has incorporated some recommendations and input from the IG and expert panel members into its second program, but its decision not to include other items may limit the overall effectiveness of this program. For example, while EPA agreed to test for more contaminants, it did not agree to evaluate risks in areas north of Canal Street and in Brooklyn. EPA reported that it does not have a basis for expanding the boundaries of its program because it cannot distinguish between normal urban, or background, dust and WTC dust. The expert panel's ability to meet its goals was limited by two factors: (1) EPA officials' belief that some panel goals were more appropriately addressed by other agencies, and (2) EPA's approach to managing the panel process. Furthermore, the majority of expert panel members believe the panel did not meet any of its goals, and that EPA's second program does not respond to the concerns of residents and workers affected by the disaster. EPA's second plan does not fully inform the public about the results of its first program. EPA concluded that a "very small" number of samples from its first program exceeded risk levels for airborne asbestos. However, EPA did not provide information such as how representative the samples were of the affected area. Residents who could have participated in this voluntary second program might have opted not to do so because of EPA's conclusion about its first program. EPA did not develop a comprehensive cost estimate to determine the resources needed to carry out its second program. EPA is implementing this program with $7 million remaining from its first program. While EPA has acted upon lessons learned following this disaster, some concerns remain about its preparedness to respond to indoor contamination following future disasters. Specifically, EPA has not developed protocols on how and when to collect data to determine the extent of indoor contamination, one of the concerns raised by panel members.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change
from "In process" to "Implemented" or "Not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
John B. Stephenson
Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment
(202) 512-6225
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To enhance EPA's ability to provide environmental health risk information to the public that is complete and readily understandable, the Administrator of EPA should facilitate the implementation of the recently issued Crisis Communication Plan by issuing guidance that, among other things, ensures the presentation of environmental data in an appropriate context, with appropriate technical caveats noted in plain language.
Agency Affected: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To provide decision makers with a sound basis for the Stafford Act funds needed for future disaster response programs, the Administrator of EPA should establish guidelines for developing program cost estimates. These cost estimates should support the programs' objectives and promote the efficient and effective use of government resources.
Agency Affected: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To ensure that EPA is better prepared for future disasters that involve indoor contamination and that it captures important information that could guide future cleanup decisions, the Administrator of EPA should, in concert with the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Labor, and other appropriate federal agencies, develop protocols or memorandums of understanding under the National Response Plan that specifically address indoor contamination. These protocols should define when the extent of contamination is to be determined, as well as how and when indoor cleanups are to be conducted. EPA should seek additional statutory authority if it determines that such additional authority is necessary.
Agency Affected: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
