City agency back­tracks on long-standing claim it has no documents on air quality after 9/11 – Spectrum News NY1

Report on NYC Department of Environmental Protection’s Handling of Post-9/11 Environmental Data and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Challenge to Institutional Transparency and Public Well-being

A recent development in a legal dispute has brought to light significant issues concerning institutional accountability and public health in New York City. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), after repeatedly denying the existence of records concerning air quality following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, has now acknowledged the discovery of documents believed to be relevant. This reversal raises critical questions related to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning public health, sustainable communities, and institutional justice.

Institutional Accountability and Access to Information: A Conflict with SDG 16

The case highlights a significant challenge to the principles of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. A Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request was filed in 2023 on behalf of the nonprofit 9/11 Health Watch, seeking critical environmental data. The institutional response demonstrates a failure in transparency.

1. Initial Request: In 2023, a request for 28 distinct items related to the aftermath of the 1993 and 2001 World Trade Center attacks was submitted to seven city agencies, including the DEP.
2. Repeated Denials: The DEP initially denied the request in January 2024, claiming it did not possess the records. An appeal was subsequently filed.
3. Certified Search Failure: The DEP’s FOIL appeals officer certified that a “diligent search” had been performed and yielded no responsive records, leading to a lawsuit against the agency.
4. Legal Obstruction: The city’s legal counsel attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed, labeling the request a “fishing expedition” and asserting that the DEP had repeatedly certified it had no records.
5. Sudden Reversal: In a September 16 court filing, the city’s counsel reversed this position, stating that “multiple boxes that are believed to contain at least some responsive records” had been located.

This sequence of events undermines public trust and obstructs the right to information, a cornerstone of accountable governance as envisioned in SDG 16.

Implications for Public Health and Urban Safety: A Setback for SDG 3 and SDG 11

The withheld information is directly linked to the well-being of thousands of individuals and the safety of the urban environment, core tenets of SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being and SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.

• Health Impacts (SDG 3): The requested documents pertain to air quality testing and decisions made regarding the reopening of evacuated areas and schools. This data is vital for understanding the long-term health consequences for first responders, survivors, and residents exposed to environmental contaminants.
• Urban Resilience (SDG 11): Ensuring the safety of communities after a disaster is a key target of SDG 11. Evidence suggests the DEP was deeply involved in monitoring the post-9/11 environment.
  • An October 2001 internal memo indicated the DEP believed some areas were “not yet suitable for re-occupancy.”
  • The former DEP head testified before a U.S. Senate committee in 2002 about analyzing over 3,500 air samples.
  • A 2003 federal report confirmed the DEP “conducted extensive ambient air monitoring for asbestos.”

The failure to provide these records has hindered efforts to fully assess the environmental and health risks, impacting the city’s capacity to manage post-disaster recovery in a sustainable and health-conscious manner.

The Path Forward: Legal Action and Calls for Investigation

The discovery of the documents follows increased pressure for accountability, aligning with the SDG framework’s emphasis on justice and partnerships for sustainable development.

• Civil Society Action: The lawsuit filed by 9/11 Health Watch exemplifies the role of civil society (a key partner in SDG 17) in holding public institutions accountable. The plaintiff’s attorney intends to pursue a hearing to determine the reasons for the initial concealment of the records.
• Legislative Oversight: The New York City Council recently passed a resolution compelling an investigation into the city’s response to post-9/11 environmental concerns. The timing of the documents’ discovery, shortly after this resolution, has been noted as potentially significant.
• Unanswered Questions: The city has not yet provided details on the number of boxes found, their contents, or the reason for the failure of the initial “diligent search.”

This case underscores that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires not only policy commitments but also a fundamental dedication to transparency, accountability, and justice, particularly when public health and environmental safety are at stake.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article’s central theme is the concern over air quality in lower Manhattan following the 9/11 attacks. The requested documents pertain to “testing done in the early days after the attack” and the potential health risks for first responders, survivors, and residents. This directly connects to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being, as exposure to contaminated air can lead to severe illnesses.
2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The events described take place in a major urban center, New York City. The issue revolves around managing the environmental impact of a disaster within the city. The article mentions concerns about the “environmental concerns in lower Manhattan” and decisions regarding the “reopening evacuated areas” and “reopening schools,” which are critical aspects of urban resilience and environmental management in cities.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • This goal is prominently featured through the legal and institutional challenges described. The article details a lawsuit filed against a city agency (the Department of Environmental Protection) for rejecting a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. This highlights the struggle for public access to information, government accountability, and justice. The agency’s initial denial and later admission of possessing the documents, described as “grinding obstruction,” directly question the effectiveness and transparency of public institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. The article discusses the city’s response to the massive release of hazardous materials into the air after the World Trade Center collapse. The documents sought concern the testing and monitoring of these pollutants, which is fundamental to understanding and mitigating the resulting health crises and illnesses affecting the 9/11 community.
2. Under SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management. The article focuses on the city’s management of a severe air quality crisis. The DEP’s role, as mentioned in a 2003 federal report, was to conduct “extensive ambient air monitoring for asbestos around Ground Zero and Lower Manhattan,” which is a direct action related to monitoring and managing the environmental impact on a city.
3. Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The entire narrative of the DEP denying it had records and then admitting it found “multiple boxes that are believed to contain at least some responsive records” is a case study in the struggle for institutional accountability and transparency. The City Council’s resolution compelling an investigation further underscores the effort to make city agencies accountable.
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. The lawsuit is based on a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. The article explicitly details the process of the request being filed, denied, appealed, and then litigated, which is a direct application of laws designed to ensure public access to government information.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 3 and SDG 11 (Targets 3.9 and 11.6)
   • Implied Indicator: Data on air quality and pollutant concentration. The article repeatedly mentions the need for documents related to environmental testing. It cites a former DEP head testifying that the agency had “analyzed more than 3,000 outdoor samples and another 500 from the four schools” and a federal report noting “extensive ambient air monitoring for asbestos.” These tests and their results serve as direct indicators of air pollution levels, which are used to measure progress toward reducing illnesses from contamination.
2. For SDG 16 (Targets 16.6 and 16.10)
   • Implied Indicator: Implementation of access to information laws. The article provides a clear measure of this through the narrative of the FOIL request. The denial of the request, the appeal process, the subsequent lawsuit, and the court filings (“Respondent has located multiple boxes”) are all steps that can be tracked to measure how effectively access-to-information laws are being implemented. The attorney’s description of the process as “grinding obstruction” is a qualitative indicator of the challenges in achieving institutional transparency.
   • Implied Indicator: Mechanisms for public accountability. The City Council passing a “resolution compelling the New York City Department of Investigation… to launch an investigation” is a formal mechanism of accountability. The existence and outcome of such an investigation serve as an indicator of how well institutions are held accountable for their actions.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: ny1.com