Preliminary results of this study were provided to the public early in 2002. The final study was issued in September 2002 (U.S. EPA Newsletter).
The negligence of the EPA and their failure to quickly identify these potential threats was the main point of argument for Community Board #2 as well as Senator Hillary Clinton. For the year that the public believed the disaster area was harmless, tremendous amounts of people were exposed to asbestos and many other harmful substances in the air surrounding the disaster area. Reports have surfaced about an increase in Asthma sufferers and other respiratory problems. Furthermore, in addition to the late determination, the EPA's study concluded that the contaminated air only affected areas below Canal Street. Additionally, it ignored scientific and photographic evidence by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) about the spread of hazardous materials above Canal Street, becoming the basis for a second argument from Community Board #2. The essence of that argument is that areas above Canal Street have also been affected by the same air contamination. .
With these points as a basis for argument, Community Board #2 will demand that Environmental Action and other groups with federal funding supervised by the EPA join together in a comprehensive cleanup of all places where hazardous materials remain as a result of the World Trade Center collapse, with a particular focus on interiors and HVAC systems. Further testing will conclude whether these areas need a full-scale cleanup. .
Questions may arise as to how these arguments evolved and the origin of the source that is responsible for the birth of these arguments. Well, it seems that recently, the office of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued two reports, "EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse- in August 2003, and "Survey of Air Quality Information Related to the World Trade Center Collapse" in September 2003.
