World Trade Center document custody notice, Law Department

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

recommendations advise people to remove dust using a “wet rag or wet mop.’*’ This advice is clearly illegal for a number of reasons. First, as noted above, OSHA Assistant Secretary Henshaw issued a letter stating that the settled dust from die collapse of the Twin Towers “must be presumed to contain asbestos’’ and dierefore, OSHA federal regulations qiply to the remediation of this material. Asbestos-containing material is a hazardous substance, and falls under the requirements of the NCP. ” Therefore, EPA must exercise oversight of all the setded dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center, including dust diat setded inside people’s homes and businesses.

Second, the NYC DOH recommendations are for people reoccupying commercial offices, as well as homes, yet the recommendations omit any mention of ^plicable OSHA regulations, or that all of the dust must be presumed to contain asbestos.’® All of this is under EPA oversight’’ Yet, not only does the EPA allow these recommendations to be made by NYC DOH, the EPA actually refers people to them. As a result, the people of Lower Manhattan are being advised to clean asbestos-laden dust with wet rags and mops, with no enforcement of OSHA regulations or EPA regulations requiring die use of properly trained personnel to abate hazardous materials. This is clearly not the intent of federal law, for if average citizens could remediate hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants with a wet rag, there would be no need for a National Contingency Plan in the first place.

The EPA has the abflity to correct these wrongs and act in accordance with the law. Even if a decision had been made for the City to take responsibility for indoor air, federal statutes provide for the EPA to act when nonfederal authorities are either unwilling or unable to do so, and to do so in a timely manner. The EPA is aware of the inadequate measures taken by the City. It was the EPA that faxed us the initial September, 2001 DEP notice to building owners, which contained no enforcement measures or resources for remediating homes and businesses. The EPA received independent test results in October, 2001 that showed elevated levels of hazardous materials inside people’s apartments. The EPA heard testimony from residents at the Senate field hearing in New York. The press accounts from the last two months alone should make the agency aware that hazardous materials are still contaminating peoples’ homes. The EPA cannot plead ignorance, nor can it point fingers at FEMA. To do so is to misrepresent the law.

‘‘Recommendations for People Re-Occupying Commercial Buildings and Residents Re-Entering Their Homes,” (www.ci.nyc.Tiv.us/httnl/dnh/httnl/alert8/wtc3.htTnlL printed on January 24’ 2002 3:42pm. ” Letter from John Henshaw (Assistant Secretary for OSHA) to Mr. Lowell Peterson, January 31,2002. ” 40 CFR 302.4; CRS Report RS21042, Asbestos: Federal Regulations of Uses, by Edward Rappaport, October 9, 2001; CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries ofStatutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, by Martin R. Lee, January 4,2001. ‘‘Recommendations for People Re-Occupying Commercial Buildings and Residents Re-Entering Their Homes,” fwww.ci.nvc.nv. u8/httnl/doh/html/aleTtsZwtc3.html). printed on January 24*’ 2002 3:42pm. 91 40 CFR 300.135 (1); 40 CFR 300.150; Executive Order 12580, later amended by Executive Order 12777; 40 CFR 300 ” 40 CFR 300.410 (c)(l)(v); 42 USC 9604 (a)(4); CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries ofStatutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, by Martin R. Lee, January 4,2(M)1.

16

NYC-WTC_000144738