After the collapse of the World Trade Center and the accompanying spread of dust resulting from the collapse, EPA, other federal agencies, and New York City and New York State public health and environmental authorities focused on numerous outdoor activities, including cleanup, dust collection, and air monitoring. In May 2002, New York City formally requested federal assistance to clean and test building interiors in the vicinity of the WTC site for airborne asbestos. Such assistance may be made available to state and local governments under the Stafford Act and the National Response Plan, which establishes the process and structure for the federal government to provide assistance to state and local agencies when responding to threats or acts of terrorism, major disasters, and other emergencies. FEMA, which coordinates the federal response to requests for assistance from state and local governments, entered into interagency agreements with EPA to develop and implement the first and second indoor cleanup programs for residents in Lower Manhattan. In response to recommendations from the Inspector General and expert panel members, EPA’s second program incorporates some additional testing elements. For example, EPA is testing for a wider range of contaminants. In addition to asbestos, EPA will test for man-made vitreous fibers, which are in such materials as building and appliance insulation; lead; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a group of over 100 different chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, and garbage. EPA will also test dust as well as the air. In order to test the dust for these contaminants, EPA had to develop cleanup standards. However, EPA’s second program does not incorporate the following other recommendations: (1) broadening the geographic scope of the testing effort, (2) testing HVACs and “inaccessible” locations, and (3) expanding the program to include workplaces. Broadening the geographic scope of testing. EPA did not expand the scope of testing north of Canal Street, as well as to Brooklyn, as advisory groups had recommended. EPA reported that it did not expand the scope of testing because it was not able to differentiate between normal urban dust and WTC dust, which would have enabled it to determine the geographic extent of WTC contamination. Some expert panel members had suggested that EPA investigate whether it was feasible to develop a method for distinguishing between normal urban dust and WTC dust. EPA ultimately agreed to do so. Beginning in 2004—almost 3 years after the disaster—EPA conducted this investigation. EPA officials told us that because so much time had passed since the terrorist attack, it was difficult to distinguish between WTC dust and urban dust. EPA ultimately abandoned this effort because peer reviewers questioned its methodology; EPA decided not to explore alternative methods that the peer reviewers had proposed. Instead, EPA will test only in an area where visible contamination has been confirmed by aerial photography conducted soon after the WTC attack. However, aerial photography does not reveal indoor contamination, and EPA officials told us that they knew that some WTC dust was found immediately after the terrorist attacks outside the area eligible for its first and second program, such as in Brooklyn. Testing HVACs and in inaccessible areas. In its November 2005 draft plan for the second program, EPA had proposed collecting samples from a number of locations in HVACs. In some buildings HVACs are shared, and in others each residence has its own system. In either case, contaminants in the HVAC could re-contaminate the residence unless the system is also professionally cleaned. However, EPA’s second program will not provide for testing in HVACs unless tests in common areas reveal that standards for any of four contaminants have been exceeded. EPA explains in the second plan that it will not sample within HVACs because it chose to offer more limited testing in a greater number of apartments and common areas rather than provide more comprehensive testing in a smaller number of these areas. Similarly, EPA had proposed sampling for contaminants in “inaccessible” locations, such as behind dishwashers and rarely moved furniture within apartments and common areas. Again, because it was unable to differentiate between normal urban dust and WTC dust, EPA stated that it would not test in inaccessible locations in order to devote its resources to as many requests as possible. In fact, EPA only received 295 requests from residents and building owners to participate in the second program, compared with 4,166 eligible participants in the first program. Expanding the program to include workers/workplaces. According to EPA’s second program plan, the plan is “the result of ongoing efforts to respond to concerns of residents and workers.” Workers were concerned that workplaces in Lower Manhattan experienced the same contamination as residences. In its second program, EPA will test and clean common areas in commercial buildings, but will do so only if an individual property owner or manager requests the service. EPA stated that employees who believe their working conditions are unsafe as a result of WTC dust may file a complaint with OSHA or request an evaluation by HHS’s National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Concerns remain, however, because these other agencies do not have the authority to conduct cleanup in response to contaminant levels that exceed standards. In addition, OSHA’s standards are designed primarily to address airborne contamination, while EPA’s test and clean program is designed to address contamination in building spaces, whether the contamination is airborne or in settled dust. Thus, OSHA can require individual employers to adopt work practices to reduce employee exposure to airborne contaminants, whereas EPA’s test and clean program is designed to remove contaminants from affected spaces. EPA did not provide sufficient information in its second plan so that the public could make informed choices about their participation. Specifically, EPA did not fully disclose the limitations in the testing results from its first program. While EPA stated that the number of samples in its first program exceeding risk levels for airborne asbestos was “very small,” it did not fully explain that this conclusion was limited by the following factors. Participation. Participation in the program came from about 20 percent of the residences eligible for participation. In addition, participation was voluntary, which may suggest that the sample of apartments was not representative of all the residences eligible for the program. Those who chose to participate may not have been at greatest risk. Contaminants tested. EPA’s cleanup decisions were based only on tests for asbestos, rather than other contaminants, and the decisions focused on airborne contamination rather than contamination in dust inside residences. Sampling protocol. EPA took over 80 percent of the samples after professional cleaning was complete. Therefore it is not surprising that EPA found few samples exceeding its asbestos standard. EPA also did not explain in its second program plan that its first program’s test results excluded samples that were discarded because they were “not cleared”—that is, could not be analyzed because the filter had too many fibers to be analyzed under a microscope. However, EPA’s final report on its first program stated that residences with more than one inconclusive result, such as filter overload, were encouraged to have their residences re-cleaned and re-tested. EPA did not explain the impact of excluding these samples or other data limitations from its conclusion that the number of samples exceeding asbestos standards was very small. Without providing complete explanations of the data, residents who could have elected to participate might have been discouraged from doing so. EPA did not take steps to ensure that resources would be adequate to achieve the second program’s objectives. Instead, EPA is implementing this program with the funding remaining after its first program— approximately $7 million. EPA could not provide us with any basis for determining whether this funding level is appropriate. EPA officials told us that they were unable to determine the cost of the program without knowing the number of participants. However, we note that funds available for the second program are less than 20 percent of the first program’s funding, despite an increase in the number and type of contaminants being sampled. Almost two-thirds of the panel members told us they did not believe the $7 million for the sampling and cleanup was sufficient. According to one of the expert panel’s chairmen—a former EPA Assistant Administrator—the $7 million was sufficient for initial sampling in the second program, but not for sampling and cleanup. If demand had exceeded available resources, EPA would have simply limited participation by ranking program applicants on the basis of their proximity to the WTC site. Shortcomings in EPA’s second program to test and clean residences for WTC contamination raise questions about the agency’s preparedness for addressing indoor contamination resulting from future disasters. The effectiveness of this program may be limited because some important recommendations were not incorporated, and because program implementation will not begin until later this year—more than 5 years after the World Trade Center collapsed. Furthermore, owing to these factors, the majority of panel members do not support EPA’s second program, noting that it was not responsive to the concerns of residents and workers harmed by the collapse of the WTC towers, it was scientifically and technically flawed, or it was unacceptable because it would not identify the extent of contamination. Some panel members questioned the value of participating in EPA’s program, and even stated that they would discourage participation. Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. For further information about this testimony, please contact John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment (202) 512-3841, or stephensonj@gao.gov. Key contributors to this testimony were Janice Ceperich, Katheryn Summers Hubbell, Karen Keegan, Omari Norman, Diane B. Raynes, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and Sandra Tasic. Additional assistance was provided by Katherine M. Raheb. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.