A confidential memo from October 2001, recently obtained by advocacy group 911 Health Watch, reveals that senior New York City officials privately anticipated ‘tens of thousands’ of lawsuits for toxic exposure at Ground Zero while publicly assuring residents and workers that the air in lower Manhattan was ‘safe and acceptable.’
The document, known as the ‘Harding memo,’ was first referenced by The New York Times in 2007 but never publicly released until now.
The memo was addressed to Robert Harding, then Deputy to Mayor Rudi Giuliani.
911 Health Watch has filed the memo as an exhibit in its ongoing Freedom of Information lawsuit against the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. The group are calling for full transparency about what city officials knew about toxic risks at Ground Zero, and when they knew it.
At a press conference yesterday, Andrew Ansbro from the Uniformed Firefighters Association said: ‘They turned around and they lied to us and they hid them. And every mayor for 25 years has been hiding them. They made a conscious choice to keep those records hidden instead of studying them and determining what cancers we should be looking for.’
Council Speaker Julie Menin said: ‘The City of New York has failed to take responsibility for telling the Downtown community and first responders that the air was safe to breathe.’
The Harding Memo was recovered from the personal papers of late investigative journalist Wayne Barrett, now housed at the Dolph Briscoe Center for American History at the University of Texas at Austin.
Titled ‘Legislative Alternatives to Limit the City’s Liability Relating to 9/11/01,’ the memo states:
According to the Law Department, there are approximately 35,000 potential plaintiffs as a result of the events of September 11 and it is estimate (sic) that 10,000 would file a claim.
A major concern is that if these cases make it to court, the judges and juries will be biased in favor of plaintiffs (even though the City seems to have a strong defense) and therefore award substantial damages to compensate individuals for their loss.
The following is a list of some of the types of potential lawsuits against the City.
Aftermath
- Health advisories caused individuals either to return to the area too soon (causing toxic exposure or emotional harm) or too late (causing economic hardship)
- Rescue workers were provided with faulty equipment or no equipment (i.e., respirators)
- Unsafe workplace (OSHA, FEMA, Labor Law)
- Inadequate clean up
Yet during this same period – September 2001 to February 2002 – Mayor Giuliani’s administration and the New York City Department of Health issued a series of public assurances that the air posed no long-term health risk.
September 28th, 2001: The Mayor’s Office stated: ‘The air quality is safe and acceptable.’
October 5th, 2001: The Health Department said detected pollutants were ‘below the level of public health concern.’
February 11th, 2002: Officials claimed test results ‘would indicate no long-term health impacts.’
The memo also reveals how the city was lobbying the White House and Congress for federal legal protection against the wave of lawsuits it predicted might be coming. This protection was granted by an act of Congress on November 19, 2001.
Benjamin Chevat, Director of 911 Health Watch and petitioner in the case, said: ‘This memo confirms what survivors have long suspected: that the city knew people were being exposed to danger, knew it would lead to illness and lawsuits, and prioritised limiting its own liability over full transparency.’
Leave a Reply