EPA memorandum regarding asbestos reservoir, June 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

One of the first decisions that EPA had to make when sampling for asbestos in the dust from the WTC collapse was what reference value to use when reporting the data - in other words, at what concentration of asbestos in the bulk dust samples would the Agency characterize the dust as containing asbestos in quantities of significance? EPA elected to use the definition of ACM [asbestos containing material] from the NESHAPs regulations - i.e., the 1% asbestos content standard.

The NYC DEP also claimed that only 1% or higher asbestos inside of buildings was regulated.**^ The following is an excerpt from a notice to building owners in Lower Manhattan:

if a substance contains more than 1% asbestos, it is considered to be an “asbestos-containing material.* There are Federal, State, and City regulations in place to ensure the proper handling and disposal of asbestos-containing material. If a substance contains 1% of less asbestos, these regulations do not apply.

EPA is using the 1 % definition in evaluating exterior dust samples in the Lower Manhattan area near the World Trade Center. All affected landlords have been instructed to test dust samples within their buildings utilizing this standard.

Region 2 cafeteria-style derivation of 1% asbestos dust standard from out-of­ context NESHAP regulations

Region 2 derived the 1% standard for dust by selecting a non-applicable part of the Clean Air Act asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Region 2 first concluded that the asbestos NESHAP did not apply to the WTC collapse. After that, they went on to conclude that if it did, then the dusts should be regulated just like intact “asbestos containing materials” (ACM) under the NESHAP.'’’ ACM is a technical term in the NESHAP regulations that defines ACM as intact building materials themselves made with asbestos. Examples would be asbestos acoustical ceiling tiles, insulation on pipes, asbestos containing floor tiles, and sprayed on asbestos fireproofing.

Since Region 2 said that the NESHAP regulations did not apply, they felt free to take only what supported their position from these regulations. Region 2 ignored the other, much more applicable parts of the asbestos NESHAP. These parts require first removal/encapsulation of any 1% or greater intact “asbestos containing building materials” followed by cleanup of the site and the surrounding soils to background levels.'*^

The fallout from the World Trade Center, contaminating the surrounding area, is much more analogous to the NESHAP requirements for soil, debris, and emissions from a demolition site, than it is to specific types of intact asbestos-containmg building materials. If Region 2 had drawn the analogy to the soil, debris, and emissions covered by the NESHAP regulations for a demolition site, then their WTC dust benchmark would have been much lower than 1%.

-19-

NYC-WTC_000140103