World Trade Center asbestos situation memorandum, December 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

The three asbestos disasters, Gramercy Park, Hugo, and the San Francisco earthquake are comparable on a legal standpoint to the 9/11/01 act of terrorism. These disasters were not related to the intentional demolition or renovation of a building.

Say that, for the sake of argument, that the CAA standards do not apply to the World Trade Center disaster. The question is, what other standards would apply? Is there any reason to afford citizens less protection? We are not in an emergency situation. There is no justification for any lesser degree of protection.

11/26/01- Claim that EPA has no authority over private home asbestos cleanups, and that a hose would be required if it were performed according to the NESHAP standard

On 11/26/01, Ms. Callahan of EPA Region 2 provided testimony to the joint New York State Assembly Committees on Environmental Conservation, Health, and Labor. She is quoted as claiming that the EPA had no authority to clean up residences and business using the science­ based NESHAP standards under the CAA.

However, Ms. Callahan failed to provide testimony that EPA is taking action in another part of the country to remove asbestos contamination from private homes. Private homes in Libby, Montana were contaminated inside as the result of adjacent mining activities. She neglected to mention that EPA is utilizing the Superfund statute, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) as its aufliority to perform the cleanup in Libby, which will adhere to the stringent science-based standards in the CAA NESHAP standards.

Of interest may be the fact that Governor Whitman visited Libby, Montana on 9/7/01 to familiarize herself with the situation and the planned cleanup of private homes. It is not as though the Libby, Montana cleanup was unknown to high EPA officials. (See Q/A pages at the EPA Libby website at www.cpa.gov/rq5ion8/supcrfund/libby/lbbyfaq.html )

In fact, EPA does not even have to designate homes, businesses and schools as Superfund sites by putting them on the National Priorities List before it has the authority to clean them up at public expense. All that is required is to declare a public health emergency.

EPA has exercised its authority to come into private homes for cleanup of hazardous substances on numerous occasions. For example, in 1997, when the banned pesticide methyl parathion had been used illegally, EPA cleaned up homes at no cost to homeowners. (http;//es.epa.gov/oeca/osre/97080I.html) Most people recollect the rigorous remedial action taken by EPA in the case of Times Beach, where some homes were merely cleaned up, and some were condemned as uninhabitable by EPA. Years ago, I was in an advisory status for a Superfund site in the northwest where EPA cleaned up homes contaminated inside by the overland flow of water from a wood preserving site.

Ms. Callahan is also quoted as testifying that if EPA were to conduct a cleanup inside buildings in lower Manhattan, then they would have to use hoses to wet the area down in order to follow the CAA NESHAP standards. This is false. There are many safe cleanup methods for asbestos

-7-

NYC-WTC_000140144