EPA Region 2 correspondence cover sheet, October 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document MAY-20-2002 21:3a U.S. EPAZDEPP 212 6373772 P. 05.^11

As a whole. Scope of Work A presents serious concerns. It is not clear that Scope of Work A is appropriate for any aspect of the letncdiatjon of buildings following the collapse of the World Trade Center. EFA marie clear that ±e reme±adon would follow all applicable government regulations. This is also stated in the opening paragraph of tl^e entire conaaci However, the contTdCt provides for a less stnngent remediation in some buildings, without clanfying why such a scheme «justified, or the legal authority that supports this Bcheme.

Scope of Work B applies to units where “a visual inspection was performsd and visible accumdations of debris from the collapse of rhe WTC was identified.” First, as previously stated, tl)e info rm an Of. regarding the presence of debris is simply provided to ths E?A, and no* actualiy obtained by EPA peisonnel. This ts problematic if EPA is to e^rerclse effective oversight. Seoond, it ib not clear if EPA, or project monitors, will be allowed to determine tha: there is debris, but Hut it is not from the WTC. If so. what are the criteria for making such a detemdoation'^ Tbc burden should not be placed on tea acts and building owners to prove ths: debris is m fact from the WTC. It should be clear that all buildings within the zone of contamination qualify for the remediation program.

Scope of Work’B mote closely complies with applicable federal leguUtioas However, Scope of Work B states that it only “consists of generic procedures to be followed," and that the ‘cican-up of visible accunuilaiions of debris wiil require the sub/mkal of a site specific scope of work “ Contnetors performing the work at the site must not have broad discreboc to decide wh-ch proced'urcs to fellow when remediating buildings. It must ‘cs mad? dear which pfoccdures miut be included in siTc-specific scop.es of work, and it must be made clear .n what regard site»speciftc scopes of work are allowed tc differ, More imponantly. site specific scopes of work must comply with all applicable govenimeni regulations, including OSHA reenUation 29 CFK 152b. ^^S DOL and NYC DE? regulations.

Procedure #10 states that negative pressure venuJation equipment shall be changed every 30 mmutes. This procedure should be modified so that it is changed every 15 minutes. If negative air systems are to be used, make-up air must be from areas tbai have already been cleaned.

Procedure 1 provides Ika: after deths is removed, swfaces woll be H£PA vacuumed, and then a second cleaning shall be performed. Tl’ie Scope of Work tnu« specify the clcanjog rctthod will be performed following KEPA vaccuxaing, and th.is mschod must be one that wdl remediate all ±e hazardous substances, pcUutants and contxTiioaEts that may be present in WTC debris, or that has been documeuitd as present inside units.

General Concerns Is this an EPA Stope of Work or a NYC DfiP Scope of Work’ If SPA is the lead agency then all prepared wriiien protocolfe'scopcs of work must be unker ±e heading o * the EPA

■(

N YC- WTC_000144716