September 11 public health conference agenda, Feb 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

■ (

» , Trade Center, please provide the date the decision was made to stop using OSCs, who made this decision, and why, and all documentation relevant to this decision. • I assume the OSC’s were working in New York City pursuant to the National Contingency Plan (NCP). If this is not the case, under what authority, other than the NCP, can OSCs operate? If other authority exists, please provide documentation to support the application of such authority to response efforts taken in New York City following September 11*, 2001. • Has the EPA operated under the National Contingency Plan in any capacity in New York City following the attacks of September 11* 2001? If not, why not? How does the Federal Response Plan function in relation to the National Contingency Plan? Does tire Federal Response Plan trigger the National Contingency Plan? If not, what statutory or regulatory authority relieved the EPA of die obligation to implement the National Contingency Plan in New York following the attacks of September 11 ,2001, once the Federal Response Plan was activated and there had been a release of hazardous materials? To what extent has EPA made mission assignments related to removal of hazardous materials in lower Manhattan (indoor and outdoor) as it is required to do by Emergency Support Function #10 of the Federal Response Plan? How does this relate to your letter’s statement that FEMA made mission assignments? If FEMA made the mission assignments related to the release of hazardous materials independent of EPA, does this not represent an abdication of EPA’s responsibility under the NCP to protect the public health and environment? In your letter of February 22,2002, you responded to my concerns about the cleanup of federal buildings by stating that “EPA did not set a more stringent standard of cleanup for these federal buildings, and the lobby cleanup was consistent with the New York City Department of Health advisory.” You included a document entitled “USEPA Air Analytical Results from 9/13/01 Sampling Event,” which states that the methodology used on dust samples was PLM - EPA-600 R-93/116. However, in documents obtained in the aforementioned FOIA request, it appears that sampling was conducted at 290 Broadway on 9/14/01-9/28/01 as well, and that these dust were also analyzed using Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) methods (See Enclosure). I am pleased that TEM methods were used to analyze dust samples, as I have been advocating that the most sensitive detection methods be used in response to the collapse of the World Trade Center. • Have all the dust «nmples collected in Lower Manhattan in response to the collapse of the World Trade Center been analyzed using TEM methods? If so, please provide ^1 documentation and the results of such tests. If not, please explain why dust samples collected at 290 Broadway were analyzed using TEM, but the same testing methodology was not used to analyze samples collected in other parts of the city. • Please explain the discrepancy in these documents, and why documents related to actions taken on 9/14/01-9/28/01 were not included in your response to my inquiry. In response to my concerns that EPA guided residents to the NYC DOH recommendations for reoccupying their homes, which advised residents to clean asbestos-laden dust with a “wet rag or wet mop”, you wrote “Our Agency also advised residents in frequent public appearances, press releases, and phone conversations on our 24-hour hotline, that if they had more than minimal dust they should hire a certified asbestos cleanup contractor. For those with only minimal dust, EPA also continued to recommend wet wiping, mopping, and HEPA vacuuming in these situations, consistent with the City’s recommendations.” However, in a communication included in documents obtained by the aforementioned FOIA request, EPA writes that “We have advised people that if they have WTC dust in their homes or offices, it may be easiest for them to simply assume that it meets EPA’s definition for ‘asbestos containing material’ (ACM), rather than paying to test each dusted area separately and awaiting the results before taking any further action” (See Enclosure).

NYC-WTC_000144685