World Trade Center document custody notice, Law Department

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

As stated before, the EPA should be operating in New York City in accordance with the National Contingency Plan. The NCP exists so that there is a transparent, accountable and coordinated decision-making process. If decisions were made in Lower Manhattan pursuant to the NCP, file EPA has provided no evidence of the process. Because the Federal Response Plan activated ±e NCP, the EPA has the responsibility to manage hazardous materials remediation. The NCP is authorized by CERCLA, despite the fact that Lower Manhattan is not a Superfund site, nor does the EPA need to use Superfund Trust Fimd money in exercising its authority under the law.’’ The NCP gives the EPA the authority and the resources to ensure that hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants do not pose a threat to public health. The EPA has failed to uphold this law in response to the collapse of the World Trade Center. It must remedy this situation by complying with the NCP now.

Why Is the EPA Treating New Yorkers and New York City Differently?

The EPA’s inaction in New York City downtown residences and commercial buildings stands in stark contrast to its response in its own building at 290 Broadway and to other non-Superfund hazardous materials contamination sites around the country.

The issue of the EPA’s double standard, with respect to its own building at 290 Broadway, was first raised by Dr. Cate Jenkins, in a memo in which she described a conference call in which EPA Region II Counsel Walter Mugdan stated that the building had been “professionally cleaned.” Jenkins thus charged that the EPA had better protected its own employees than it had the residents of Lower Manhattan, who had been referred to the lenient DOH guidelines which recommended cleaning with wet rags and mops. 94

Upon learning this. Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project, and the EPA National Ombudsman each separately requested documents from the EPA related to the alleged cleanup. Congressman Nadler’s request was answered in a letter from EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman on February 22,2002. In that letter, she dismissed the double standard charge:

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. After noting significant amounts of dust tracked into 290 Broadway and 26 Federal Plaza by workers responding.. the General Services Administration asked EPA to clean the lobbies. The work was done by EPA contractors using HEPA vacuums already operating in the same area. As outlined in the enclosure, EPA collected seven air samples at 26 Federal Plaza and six air samples at 290

"40CFR300 Haughney, Christine, “House Member Questions EPA Office Cleanup,” Washington Post, January 18, 2002.

17

NYC-WTC_000144739