survey of air quality information related to the world trade center collapse potx

Trang 1

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Evaluation Report

Survey of Air Quality Information

Related to the World Trade

Center Collapse

Report No 2003-P-00014

Trang 2

Sanh Eabiddeviez sim Hatfield (Chris Dunlap Darryl Weatherhead Rick Beusse Elizabeth Grossman Abbreviations

EPA, Environmental Protection Agency HEPA, NYC High Enicieney Particulate Air New York City

1G Office of Inspector General OMB Oifice of Management and Budget wre ‘World Trade Center

Image from French SPOT satellite, which shows the plume from the World “Trade Centr site in Lower Manbatian blowing over Brooklyn, Source: image ‘oblained fom NASA web site hip /17fot gsc nasa gox/NYC html

Trang 3

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C 20460 September 26, 2003 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Survey of Air Quality Information Related tothe World Trade Center Collapse Report No 2003-P-00014

To: ‘Acting Administrator Marianne L, Horinko

‘This memorandum transmits the results of an Office of Inspector General (OIG) survey that ‘gauged the public's perception of air quality information received after the collapse ofthe World Trade Center (WTC) towers Data from this survey supplement aur earier report, EPA's Response tothe World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for “Improvement (Report No, 2003-P-00012), dated August 21, 2003

EPA communicated air quality information to the public through press releases, interviews with print and television journalists, appearances at public forums, and posting of extensive data on the Agency's public web site Concerns were raised, however, out government

communications inthe aftermath of the WTC disaster and the impact these communications had on the actions taken by the publi and responders to reduce their exposure to WTC contaminants More than a year after the WTC disaster, a city-wide sty had not been undertaken to gauze the effectiveness of the crisis communication efforts following September I, 2001 To that end, the (1G conducted a survey of New York City (NYC) residents on a varity aFissues related to air quality Based on the survey's response rate of 11.8 percent, the data presented inthis report, represent the responses from 1,110 survey respondents, and should not be generalized to the population of NYC

Summary of Results

Overall, the majority of respondents wanted more information regarding outdoor and indoor aie quality, wanted this information in a more timely manner and did not believe the information they received,

Trang 4

‘Manhattan in the weeks Following the WTC collapse cauld expase them to short and long-term heskth effects,

Further, data indicated that contamination srom the collapse of the WTC towers spread into the hhomes of respondents located beyond the perimeter ofthe zane desienated as elisble forthe EPA-led testing and cleaning program,

(Our data indicated only about 1 out of 10 respondents knew about EPA's “Response 10 September 11” web ste, and even fewer visited the site The majority of respondents, however were aware of key WTC-telated information, sueh as EPA’s recommendation to have

contaminated hortes professionally cleaned and the EPA-led testing and cleaning program in cfigible areas of Manhattan, Despite this awareness, relatively few respondents with home contamiaion had their homes vested fer asbestos or professionally cleaned

Actions Already Being Taken

[EPA has initiated several actions to improve its risk communications in the aermath ofthe WIC collapse Also, ur prior report included many recommendations for improving risk communications thatthe Agency has agreed fo implement As sue, we have not made additional recommendations inthis report based on the survey

‘We appreciate the efforts of EPA officials and sta in working with us to develop this survey Ifyou or your staff have any questions regarding this repon, please contact me at (203) 566-0847 for Kwai Chan, Assistant Inspector General fr Progsam Evaluation, at (202) $66-U82

Cats L bid Nikki L Tinsley Qe “x 0 Atachment

‘Thomas J Gibson, Chie of Staff, Office of the Adninistator Jane M Kenny, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2

Bary N, Broon, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Jeffiey R-Holmstead, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation

5, Paul Gilman, Ph D., Assistant Administrator for Research and Development Kimbetly Terese Nelson, Assistant Administrator for Envieonmental Information Lisa B Harrison, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Public Affairs

Kathleen Callahan, Assistant Regional Adminisraior for New York City Response and Recovery Operations Mary U Knuger, Director, EPA Office of Homeland Security

Trang 5

Table of Contents

Introduction

Purpose 1

Background Scope and Methodoiogy 2 1

Survey Response Rate 3

Survey Results

Section 1: Respondents’ Satisfaction With Infarmation 7 Section 2: Respondents’ Perceptions of Air Quality 9 Section 3: Awareness of WTC-Related Information and ‘Actions Taken by Respondents

Limitations of Survey Resuls 7 Observations 19 Appendices a

A Survey Cover Letter at

B Survey of Air Quality issues Alter September 11, 2001 Ey

© SampleDetals 2

Trang 7

Introduction Purpose

‘This survey was undertaken in order to obtain information to satisfy objective 4 of our prior World Trade Center (WTC) report (No 2003-P-00012) Objective 4 sought to measure the extent to which government communications regarding air quality and associated health risks

Rated satisfactory by the public:

Understood and interpreted by the public; and

Effective in getting people to take desired precautions or actions,

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the WTC towers, government communications \were criticized for not providing timely and accurate air quality information tothe public In preparing the prior report, the Office of Inspector General (O1G) found that, as of September 2002, a year ater the disaster, no city-wide study of the effectiveness of government

‘communications had been undertaken." As such, the OIG conducted a survey of residents in all five borousths of New York City (NYC) 1 address the above objective

Background

A critical component in helping the public to minimize its exposure to potential health hazards resulting from a terorst attack or ather disaster involves effectively communicating risk information Armed with such information, the public can take positive steps to mitizate potential exposures as well a take other precautions to avoid unnecessary health risks,

Following the collapse ofthe WTC towers, EPA announced its intention to keep the public and rescue workers informed about safety and health risks related to air quality The Agency’s Fist 'WIC-related press release, on September 13, 2001, noted that EPA:

will work with the appropriate officials to ensure that rescue workers, ‘cleanup crews and the general public are properly informed about appropriate steps tha should be taken to ensure proper handling, transportation and disposal of potentially comaminated debris or materials

EPA communicated air quality information tothe public through press releases, appearances public forums, media interviews, and its public web site In the days and months following the

Trang 8

tacks, EPA's averriing messaze was that the public didnot need to be concerned aboot sirborne contaminants, This reassurance appeared to apply to both indoor and outdoor ar [EPA's press releases generally didnot discuss potential adverse short-term health effects or the

potential risks to sensitive populations, although Agency spokespersons orally discussed these

‘With respect to actions people should take to minimize their exposure to health risks, EPA's press releases advised residents and business ovumers that they could clean their own spaces iF ‘hey used “appropriate” vacuum filters and followed “recommended” and “proper” procedures, bout the releases did not define these terms However, Agency spokespersons, including EPA's

‘Administrator, recommended in televised interviews and ter public Forum that residents should obtain professional cleaning (by professional asbestos contractors) of indoor spaces when «dust reached certain levels

‘Scope and Methodology

To obtain information directly from the public bout the impact of government communications regarding air quality concer following the WTC rowers’ collapse, the OIG developed and ‘nailed out a Sursey of Air Quality Issues After September 11, 2001 (se Appendiees A and B), In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the O1G obtained approval from the Office of ‘Management and Budget (OMB) and solicited public comment regarding the survey throw the Federal Register In addition, former Administstor Christine Todd Whitman reviewed the drat survey questionnaire Based on her input we ineluded questions about the publie’s knowlede of EPA's WTC response woh site The survey was pre-ested with selected citizons af NYC prior ‘ois delivery

The survey requested information from respondents in four areas

+ Section J: Saisfaction with outdoor and indoor air ality information received Respondents were asked to rate ther satisfaction on a scale of I" (Not at All

‘5° (Completely Satisfied), ised) 0 + Section 2: Understanding asked respondents in terms of how it was affected by the collapse of the WTC towers and imerpretation of air quality information received Questions

‘hele perception of air quality in Lower Machanan in the weeks just after September 11, 2001 and at che time they took the survey in 2003,

+ Section 3: Awareness of WTCrelated information ad actions taken in response tothe collapse Thi section eshed respondents if they had taken various actions andlor precautions

lin respoase tothe dust/debris and if they were aware of certain WTC-related information

ÊTieewlkelinsanse we soul fats wavon Otoko 26

Trang 9

+ Section: Demographic information, Volustary demographic information was requested 10 đđedeot 65ess, and adjust for non-response bias within the sample, and to eross-abulate variances within sub-populations of interest

Appendix © provides a detailed descripsion of how we obtained our sample We besan sending ‘out the suryeys on Maret: 27, 2003, and secepted responses until July 31 We completed our analysis ofthe survey responses on September 4, 2003

(vr earlier report, EPA's Response t the World Trude Center Collapse: Challenges, Sueceses ‘and Areas for Improvement (Report No 2003-P-00012), dated August 21, 2003, included man recommendations for improving risk communications thatthe Agency fs aurecd to impleszem

As sueh, this report on the survey is nat making any adational recommendations,

(us review was conducted in accordance with Goternnent Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General ofthe United Stats,

Survey Response Rate

“This report is based on surveys received from 1,L10 respondents who reposted living in NYC as fof September 11,2001 We actually received 1.161 responses, for an overall response rate of 118 pereent' However, the data analyzed and cefered 1 Uiouhout this ropart excludes 51 of the I, 161 surveys received because they contained either no zip code ora zip cote fom outside OFNYC Based on the response rate and a lack of information regarding certain characteristics of non-respondents, ve determined that, for purposes of this report, results rom the datz presented ‘would be limited only t te pool of survey respondents whe reported living in NYC as of September 11, 2001, and we id not drase any inferences about the ovecll population ofthe five

Trang 10

Figure 1: Distribution of Respondents by Where They Lived on September 11,2001" mio repose by bươnh bean eters ro ha eA

Figure 2 shows how the survey respondents compare o the population of NYC in terms of selected demographic characteristics, including sex, age, education level, and language

Figure 2: Demographic Characteristics of O1G Survey Respondents Compared to (Characteristics of NYC Population” [Teiwve Popuaion main

Trang 13

Survey Results

‘The majority of survey respondents indicated they were no satisfied with information they received regarding outdoor and indoor ar quality Despite reassuring statements by EPA thatthe air was “safe” to breathe, the majority of respondents thought breathing the outdoor and indoor air in Lower Manhattan could expose them to short and longcterm health risks Most reports of home contamination came from respondents from Manhattan and Brooklyn The majority of

respondents knew that contaminated homes should be professionally cleaned, but few had their residence tested for asbestos and few who reported home contamination in Manhattan and Brooklyn had their home professionally cleaned Furthermore, few respondents knew about or visited EPA's “Response to September 11” web site Details fallow

Section 1: Respondents’ Satisfaction With Information

Trang 14

Table 1 indicates that more than half of all respondents were dissatisfied with the amount, timeliness and believabilty of the information they’received in the weeks just after September 11, 2001 Approximately 6 out of every 10 respondents ave a dissatisfactory overall rating for the information they received Respondents’ ratinys ofthe understandablity ofthe information they received for utdoor air quality was slightly higher, but the average rating of 2.6 was still, below the sale midpoint of 3.0

Respondents were also asked to rate ther satisfaction with health-related information they received in the weeks following the collapse Satisfaction ratings were calculated forall respondents as well as ar those respondents who reported working within the perimeter of Ground Zero between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2001, and fr those respondents, ‘who reported respondents, Ground Zero workers, and respondents from Lower Manhattan rated the health= living in Lower Manhattan as of September 11, 2001, “Table 2 depicts how all

related information they received

Table 2: Satisfaction With Information Received About Health Risks In Weeks After the Collapse of WTC Towers fr All Respondents, Ground Zero Workers, and Residents of ower Manhattan

Tee] 3 | ser | Mem | Tom

“Vato ALA Satine pss

35 Comply Saeed Se eee)

Trang 15

“More than 6 out of every 10 respondents reported dissatisfaction with (a) explanations of possible health threats related t0 ir quality; (b) how to minimize thet exposure to health risks related to air quality: (e health problems they might experience due to air quality and () what to do if they experienced respondents for overall satisfaction with health-related information received in the woeks a health problem related to air quality The mean eating among all

following the collapse was 2.2

Among Ground Zero workers and those living in Lower Manhattan during September 2001 who responded, more than 7 out of 10 were dissatisfied with the overall quality of health-related information they received For both of these uroups, over two-thirds reported dissatisfaction with explanations across all eategories of health-related information, resulting ina mean rating for ‘veal satisfaction of 9 among Ground Zero workers and 2.1 for residents of Lower

Manhattan

Section 2: Respondents’ Perceptions of Air Quality

Section 2 ofthe survey asked residents their thoughts about the health risks associated with air — yf rompers tach _ thoughts about the health risks associated with air | estnng outdoor and indoor arn

quality in Lower Mankatan inthe weeks He D407 0 20a

immediatly following the calapseof the WTC as | or WTC tomers could expose inom fo well as their thoughts atthe time they completed | shert-and long-term risks

the survey approximately 18 months later

Figures 3a and 3b illustrate respondents’ perceptions of outdoor and indoor ar quali

respectively, in tems of how it was affected by the collapse of the WTC towers inthe weeks just ator the collapse (shown in the figure as "9/11/01" and at the time they completed the survey in May-Tuly 2003 (shown as "Present

Trang 16

Figure 3b: Respondents’ Perceptions of Exposure to Heath Risks Associated with Indoor ‘ir Quay in Lower Manhattan in Weeks Aller Collapse and at Timo of 2009 Survey

BNotSue Bo Yes

0% = 20% 40% 60M 80% 100%

Figures 3a and 3b show that in the weeks just after the collapse, more respondents were concered about short-term health efTees than they were about long-term for both outdoor and indoor air Almost 9 out of every 10 respondents sid they were concerned about the short-term health effects associated with outdoor air whereas approximately 7 of every 10 respondents were concerned about long-term health risks For indoor ar, the results were similar, more than 3 out ‘of every 4 respondents were concered about the short-term health effects while more than half ‘ofthe respondents were concemed about long-term heath effects

‘Based on the survey results in Figures 3a and 3b, it appears that respondents” concer about the health risks associated with air quality subsided overtime Results further indicate that concerns about health risks didnot simply shift from "yes" too.” Instead, there was an inerease in the umber of respondents who became unsure about outdoor and indoor health isk from September 2001 to 2003, During tht same time, respondents’ opinions about whether or not they should wear protective gear when breathing outdoor and indoor air in Lower Manhattan ‘mainly changed from “yes” to “no,” and uncertainty over this issue remained relatively stable

Figure 4 presents the perceptions of health risks from exposure to outdoor and indoor air in Lower Manhattan in the weeks following the collapse among respondents who lived in Lower “Manhattan on September 11 and among respondents who lived in other parts of NYC at that time (called “Rest of NYC” inthe figure), Inthe figure, the results labeled “9/11/01” represent respondents’ recollections of ther perceptions of air quality in the weeks following September 11, 2001, while the results labeled “Present” are respondents’ perceptions of sir quality atthe time they completed the survey in May-Iuly 2085

Trang 17

Figure 4: Proportion of Respondents Perceiving Heath Risks Associated with Outdoor and Indoor Air Quality in Lower Manhattan in Weoks Just Atler Collapse of WTC Towers and at ‘Time of Survey in 2003 ~ Lower Manhattan Residents and the Rest of NYC [ Löna:anhaban ĐỚN CƠN EU BÚ 1U Section 3: Awareness of WTC-Related Information and Actions Taken by Respondents

Section 3 of the survey asked respondents if

their homes had been contaminated with dust | gost reports of home contamination came andior debris due tothe collapse of the WTC | from respondents in Lower Manhattan, the towers, This section also asked respondents | rest of Manhattan, and Brooklyn; EPA web ‘whether they knew about certain WTC-related

information and whether they bad taken certain ations in tesponse tothe dust and debris created by the collapse ofthe WTC

towers Respondents were asked about some specific EPA communications, such as whether they: (a) knew about EPA’s "Response to September 11” web site (b) visited the web site, () knew that homes contaminated with dust andr debris should be professionally cleaned, (8) knew about the EPA-led program to test and clean eligible residences in Lower Manhattan, and (6) had their residence professionally cleaned,

‘ite not widely used: and homes often ‘leaned without professional assistance

Data indicate that contamination from the collapse of the WTC towers spread int the homtes of respondents located beyond the zone designated as eligible for the EPA-Led testing and cleaning program The Indoor Residential Cleaning Program was available to residences located south and west of Canal, Allen, and Pike streets, river to river Specifically:

+ Of the 180 residents of Lower Manhattan who responded, 46.7 percent (84 respondents) reported that their residence had been contaminated with dust andor debris due tothe collapse

Trang 18

Of the 204 residents of Brooklyn who responded, 23.5 percent (48 respondents) reported that, theie residence had been contaminated with dust andior debris due tothe collapse + Ofthe213 respondents who lived in the ret of Manhattan, 11.3 percent (24 respondents) reported that sheir residence had been contaminated with dust and/or debris due tothe

collapse"

Figures Sa and Sb show that, among respondents, the most incidents of contamination were reported by those in Lower Manhattan, fellowed by Brooklyn and the rest of Manhattan nthe figure below, the zipcode appears on the first ine of each box inset On the second line, the ‘numberof respondents answering “Yes” to contamination is followed by the numberof otal respondents from the zip code Figure Sa: Reports of Contamination from Zip Codes in Manhatt 10011 ane t5 [10001 |10014 ans ~, [10010 2a Tan2 of [rons tru 3 ints men 0008 fae E> -1e [10282 L 10009 lice - sus [10280 —+ {10002 [17-21 Ề |20 -83 a ary of ndoor aS jertal Cleanup fooes | ffocss | Ìiœar b2 | em | le contamination wis also eer heo Minhatin ốp chúo nhà oŸ thế mà om tit ip

3 repent rm code 10025, aa sai 9 negondedk hon 2g cnle 10027) Wi te exception ofp cae 1005, the pon sha esl for hoe pce in Lover Manhtan hoe tea ne respon! pte cotamiaton Cron Zs sed win ‘ape 1028 the map above

“Tenuate oy" cp ee enlig tee allo: Dnt= ot of (7 een, Qem= Soot (9 2 pte a San san ot 4435 pes)

Trang 19

Figure 5b: Reports of Contamination From Zip Codes in Brooklyn”

"For ech 2p cde, the esque’ 2p code ste fei sumer, the abe

Trang 20

Few Respondents Knew About or Visited EPA’s “Response to September 11” Web Site According to EPA officials, one ofthe primary means of communicating WTC air qualty-related information tothe public after September 11 was through EPA's “Response to September 11" ‘web site Figure 6 illustrates respondents’ awareness and use ofthe web site among all respondents, respondents from Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, andthe rest of Manhattan

Figure 6: Proportion of Respondents Aware of EPA's Web Site -» All Respondents and Fospondents From Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Rest of Manhattan DAI Respondents Lower Manhattan c]Sreckiyn cjAest of Manhattan ‘Know of Web Site Vistas Web Site

Data in Figure 6 indicate that approximately 1 out of 10 of all respondents and respondents from, Brooklyn and the rest of Manhattan knew about EPA's web site, but fewer visited the site Among respondents from Lower Manhattan, approximately 2 out of 10 respondents knew ofthe ‘web site and about 70 percent of those who knew ofthe web ste visited it

Trang 21

Figure 7: Proportion of AllRespondents, Respondents from Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, ‘and Rest of Manhattan Who Were Aware of the Need for Professional Cleaning and of th PA-Led Testing and Cleaning Program, and Hed The Residences Tested for Asbestos, ATeepondenie HLowarManhstan Elðroohm_ E]RsstsiManhashanj 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

0% KnewelEPAS Had Aesisence volean Program Tested

Respondents who reported that their home was contaminated with dust and/or debris due tothe collapse (see Appendix B, survey question 3.) were further asked whether or not they had taken certain cleaning precautions, including using professional assistance to clean theirhome,

cleaning without professional assistance, or using a HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) ‘vacuum to clean their home Figure 8 depicts these cleaning activities among respondents from Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the rest of Manhattan who reported home contamination,

Figure 8: Proportion of Respondents in Contaminated Homes Who Had Their Home Professionally Cleaned, Cleaned Without Professional Assistance, or Used HEPA Vacuumn" WEreckim Gest ctMshnakan] 0% 70.9% 66.0% 66.7%,

Professionally Cleaned, Not HEPA Vacuum ‘leaned Professional Uses

Trang 22

Data in Figure 8 indicate that about 4 in 10 of the Lower Manhattan respondents who reported ‘home contamination cleaned ther homes with professional assistance Approximately 2 percent from Brooklyn did so, and no respondents from the est of Mankattan who reported home contamination used professional assistance to clean their home, At leas two-thirds of respondents from each ofthe three areas indicated they had cleaned their residence but did so ‘without the use of professional assistance

Section 3 also asked respondents whether they took certain health-related actions in response to the dust and debris created by th collapse of the WTC towers, such as whether they wore or purchased protective breathing gear they normally would not have, or whether they visited a health professional for symptoms they believed were related toa quality after the collapse Figure 9 depicts the actions of ll respondents, s well asthe actions taken by respondents from [Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the rest of Manhattan Figure 9 also shows the health-related actions taken by respondents who worked within the peimeter of Ground Zero between September I1, 2001, and December 31, 2001,

Figure 8: Proportion of Respondents Who Wore or Purchased Protective Gear or Visited a Health Profession

[GWore Purchased Protective Gear Vilied Healt Pression

‘Al Lower BmBĐMm Rhmtol - GeumlZme

Trang 23

imitations of Survey Results

‘Most important among the limitations essocitod with the O1G's survey is the low response rate — less than 12 percent, ‘The low response rate limits our ability to wenerze survey’ results tothe population of NYC with sufficient confidence Ressons may vary a to why potential

Fespondents andlor cortain groups of demographically similar people opted not 1 complete and retum the survey For some potential respondents, the urgency, and possibly the elevaney, ofthe saiters covered in the survey could have been affected due to te passage of time between the callapse of the WIC towers and when the survey was administered ‘The first survey forms were Aistributed more than a year and a half after September 11, 2001, Iris possible that one's

‘opinions about air quaiey information may have weakened or intensified depending on one’s experiences, during that Sime, Thus, data could be skewed toward the postive or nezative cextromes,

Anoaler limitation associated with this survey is that some survey questions required respondents terrecollect events and experiences that occurred overa year and a half ago ro the time they took the survey The tragic and striking nature ofthis event and the fact that some cleanup activities were still ongoing in parts of NYC at the time our survey was eonducted may mitigate the likelihood of faded memories, butts also possible that respondents recollections may have faded or been skewed overtime

Further, although we asked tht the person wio most recently celebrated a binliday respond to the survey, because ‘hough the households were randomly selected, we cannot be sure that respondents from within it was a msl survey we cannr be certain that this occurred, Therefore, even

Trang 25

Observations

Data from the survey suggest that the majority of respondents were generally dissatisfied withthe amount, timelines, believability, and overall quality of the information they received in the ‘weeks just after the collapse ofthe WTC towers for both qutdoor and indoor air quality More respondents reported dissatisfaction when asked specifically about health-related information, ‘suguesting that potential health risk related to air quality was an area of particular concem

Despite reassuring statements about air quality following the collapse ofthe WTC towers, the ‘majority of respondents living in Lower Manhattan and the rest of NYC believed that there were health risks associated with breathing outdoor and indoor air in Lower Manhattan In the weeks following the collapse, more than 3 out of 4 respondents thought that there were short-term health sks associated with breathing outdoor and indoor ai in Lower Manhattan, and more than half of respondents thought that breathing outdoor and indoor air in Lower Manhattan could expose them to long-term health risks In the perio just after the collapse until 2003, data indicate that immediate concerns over ar quality in Lover Manhattan subsided: however, over ‘ime, substantially more respondents became unsure about whether or not breathing outdoor and indoor airin Lower Manhattan could expose them to health sks,

‘The responses suggest that one of EPA's major sourees of information its “Response to September 11” web site, was largely unused Only about 10 percent of the respondents knew about EPA's web site, and even fewer actully visited te site, Approximately 6 out of 10, respondents had heard that residences contaminated with dust and debris should be

professionally cleaned for asbestos, and knew about the EPA-Ied program to test and clean for asbestos in certain residences in Lower Mankattan, However, despite this awareness, less than © percent of all respondents had their residence tested for asbestos,

[Most reports of residential contamination came from respondents in Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the rest of Manhattan Among respondents from these areas who reported home

Trang 27

‘Appendix A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC 20460

February 28, 2003,

Dear New York City Resident:

has been over one year since the tetris attacks on the World Trade Ceoter, vet concerns about New York City’s air quality sill remain The Ofice of Inspector General would like 10 ‘now your opinion of the ui quality information you received following the atacks By completing and rourning the enclosed survey you can help us determine whether the U S Envisonmestal Protection Agency (EPA) needs to improve the way it responds to disasters This survey shuld take 10-minutes o fess to complete Please be assured that all responses are confidential, Your name will not be linked te your responses and individual answers will not be revealed For statistical purposes only, we ask that the survey be completed by someone resiing inthe household who is 18 years of aue or older, and isthe person who most recently celebrated a birthday Following these instructions wil ensure that our results are as meaningful as possible

A pre-aldresse, postage paid envelope has been provided for you to retura your completed survey We appreciate your prompt response IF you have any questions about this survey, plesse callus st 1-800-846-3117

“Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation In apprectation, we will send all

households 2 posteard providing them with a web address and phone aumber for accessing the survey results

Trang 28

Completing geo tert sol te ppl ID mites oe The lobe epost fey netted avenge ese soot eon ne-aly buon den scat ee Ra (Ge reuse eee br pss Senet, ni, dle m poste bmn oo ors Feet oes Tha ites he eee eae tons: dlp aie, ml ala echoing onl Sheen repro

Sting etn: dein nmin: rceine a matin x waste) wlrany roto spp nd een tt armel nb se in longa ving moreno este of efron: aching as oes: cel evewing te alent, unaiing ot tevice aso or poring tino, At ep may ht oni rear asprin mt ‘gil read oa ai of itr ales dapas «crea vi OM seal oat The OR cat toot fe HPN rpms din AD CTR ft an CHR Chat 5

‘Sod smn he Anne! fr intron th nn he ie ade en, nd ge eth ems pnd Prd dng thn be ex a associ Wags to the Ds, (Caevion Surges Diniem US Ester Psng ges) (222) 200 Peau Ave, Waton DC 2 Tene te EEA ate 3 ie piel eno ie any erence Tee ono eh creed eye eh

Trang 29

Appendix B “Survey of Air Quality loaves Aor September 17,2007

mtorr Sn 49 Pane Rae BE 220

xẻ yu

teach question by chara te repanse tal bes tects your Wout or schon ding the ape’ tne ped Pee eps ont an bck hx srny lle “NA” (ot sppeabl) Hy haven esponze Because a question doesnot spf you

11 Peas ate your satan th te information you sada ested abou a “ayn tha mea st ater te case the Wai Tre Corer ones J=———— ga H1 Ố ,

Te teas ct maton ard eraclo abet outdoor a ue 42a 8 em 9 The "sient aos esd esd ao ata a ty The o§enhilydfriomlon eed ezkeisbo mömet quy 12 op 4 ew 42 a4 8 ow | my oir ang a ttn ad racine tee tora ut rr | My oer ag otintrmaton hen or ceed tet indoor a uty ma

A Eetnten of see ens my oa ne l ai ¬ Leipunaantnow'e mame ny eons to ptrsinenth teerenestoarquaty + 8 3 cá 8 M tr Etiirslote[ le poten mah epee det ot ity Expansion cfpelstousineiaxgencednantnpenonerasiecioarquaty + 8 3 c4 8 2 ees M

My ota ang ior eeec he eo tên ri a an, mm L3) Plat cel the responce or bot tine periods tat bet reflects our thoughts aout qua fn trms of how we “racing by eotape othe Ward Trade Cntr tower: Tr He eH oe TEN ERSTE OS ST

it you tak le8Dg adoro nove Manton blero ute ong term Hae st sich a6 ane? ‘pinto eet otarne apse? Yer NO Vent Sue Na Pho sbauitoar sr noe? RE NG — NeORum C NA fone ato ond ain nr aan cups os remanent

‘pine oni aterne apse? Shon aan ocr aru? ee Mo Went Sure Yeo Nusa 2 ui ei iMoney sam etn os, ch out son rat aE

` sả HT we No Wart sure MAI wes Áo Maree a

pint eet ater econ? a ian Sure |

Pir alot wenn Ye MS Nave a

ois you tk yousmouldnave wor pte eat se ba ask when Beara adoro ioe Marr? pint achat trie clap? Sue na

Shon ast negug nos2 Yer nota” Nal

Trang 30

2) ec te apne at eat tris tn yoink near dn eit yop ot

wae or pucased pote get sahara wach VỊ reimaptSuHrøihne—— Yew Wate Wl viet protein eth ol tale wrasse qu, Yet Me etsm al

4.1m irc Ws eter atest Yes No Not sure MẠ|

eer as cntaminated en ues eo ecole ye Yee No Hate ‘uy omltarce was ane tira wh prefesnaaasce, `

77 rete su patel aes Yee Me Wotan 5` caps "`" "mm, "^^ vxYẽ sl Ugo ane No" "Mo Se" NA pom) |

Qresanys ải emtmone - Cmosiemimm S7enoee Ssesien Sneha moved tack nyt pH ina vated PA “Remon September 1° Ienat eda ` vue No Neiewe —— MA

ne ooh tei clap nee at hones conimnaies wih dusdebns Yee Me — Mals — MI ‘houhlt poeesnaly Seana mtesn

46, Tank you tor your lp 2 ft Tera aly afew more quent go Te folowing infomation apart ‘resto mae sure tat everyone's pan sine

1 How many citron unde taa thd n your homeo eptember 1, 28017 Sven OT OE S30 Seams

Mot counting you, how many ats etnen the age of 1 ae 60 ved In your hme a f September 1, 20077 | ST ST SS oes

“Sie 102 Os Os Osan

& Wnatis your gender? COFemse- COMee

1 Whats you Sa code a oF September 120077 When choice Best rapresent the area in whieh you were ding the mont of September 2001? (ck one) — ——

Dns an si cua rào, "SComessat

S tama Once orhiate Sean st 14h Brabyn Sew ey

S tithasan Ona az sàn se

—- SN heu

h, Baewon 211.01 and 123-0, a you ever wor winin the porter af Ground Ze? Dee ON 1 Watis niga ea of ueston you have Bese an hgh Seba!” vigh Seba para sone compl?

Sruncne tegee” Ganmoawe epee & tecnvahea ogee

“ §— Oeste

‘ty ave mer onmantragerg tease coercive, ae cotter fc {00.8461 orate eat EPA (hoe eparGenora 208 Pomona sve isngan ĐỂ 0860

34

Trang 31

Appendix C

Sample Details

“The sampling ame ~ the universe from which the OIG drew its sample ~ consisted of all addresses in the five boroughs of NYC (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island) These areas were selecied based on the provimity of residences tothe WTC towers site and their potential exposure tothe dust and debris created by the collapse, The sample was purchased from RL Polk Co,, af Detroit, Mihigan

A sample of 10,000 adsesses was selected from this frame and divided into nwo sample groups ‘f 5,000, The proportion of adresses in exch set were drawn to approximate the proportion oF hhoussholds in cach borough äs reported in the 2000 Census The distribution of addresses was ‘approximated So that Manhattan could be over sampled Manhattan was divided into to pans Lower Manhatin, which, for purposes of this report, i defined to include residences south of E Houston and Brocme Sircos; and the rest of Manhattan, whic is defined to include residences tonh of E, Houston and Broome Streets, The fnsldistiburion of addresses in the sample ws:

Bron: 13 Rest of Manhattan: 21%

Brooklyn: 27% Queens:

Lower Masha Staten Island

The Survey of Air Quality Issues After September I, 2001, as initiated with the delivery of the pte-notficlion postcard on March 25, 2003 and ealletion vas closed on July 31, 2003

Trang 33

Appendix D

Distribution

EPA Headquarters Acting Administrator

Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emer ‘Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Assistant Administrator for Research and Development Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information Acting Associate Administrator, Ofice of Public Affairs

Compller (2731) Agency Audit Follow-up Cootdinator 27244) Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response ‘Audit Follos-up Coordinator Office of Air and Radiation Audit Follow-up Coosdinatar, Office of Research and Development

Audit Follow-up Coordinator Office of Environmental Information

‘Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Public Airs Associate Administrator for Congsessional and Interzovernmental Relations (1301) Director, Office of Regional Operations (1108)

ney Response

EPA Regions

Regional Administrators

Regional Audit Follow-up Coordinators New York city

City of New York Law Depastnent EPA Office of Inspector General