World Trade Center document custody notice, Law Department

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Ms. Whitman’s statement mischaracterizes EPA’s own data. For example, in a January 25,2002 speech given by Walter Mugdan, EPA Region n Counsel, he states, “.. .a significant number of the WTC bulk dust samples that we analyzed did have more than 1% asbestos.”^'* Further, in a document detailing information provided by EPA Region II in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Ae New York Environmental Law and Justice Project cites numerous examples of data points that exceeded EPA “levels of concern.”^’ Joel Kupferman, Executive Director of the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project, has stated repeatedly that these details contradict Ms. Whitman’s safety assurances, as have other experts. And a 22-year veteran of the EPA’s Hazardous Waste Identification Division, Dr. Cate Jenkins, has issued a memo challenging EPA’s testing methods and “clearance levels” for hazardous materials, which she argues belie an honest assessment of safety. Other government officials also provided the EPA with data challenging Ms. Whitman’s safety assurances. For example, the above mentioned GZTF report by Chatfield and Kominsky was given to EPA officials by the researchers (who are long­ time EPA contractors) on October 12,2001. To this day, the EPA has neither commented on nor taken any action with respect to the findings of elevated levels of hazardous materials in this report. According to an analysis by Dr. Cate Jenkins, Chatfield and Kominsky found 9 asbestos strands to every one found by the EPA. She went on to argue that those levels of asbestos in Lower Manhattan are comparable or in excess of those found in Libby, Montana, a federal Superfund site. Beyond downplaying its own findings and ignoring other contradictory findings presented to it, the EPA has withheld important data from die public. Specifically, it took a FOIA request by the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project to get test results showing dangerous levels of hazardous materials in outdoor ambient air. The EPA claimed that its failure to make this information available was an “oversight”^’ Additionally, die St. Louis Post Dispatch reported in February that the United States Geological Survey (USGS), using the country’s best detection equipment and methods, found pH levels in World Trade Center dust that are “.. .as corrosive as drain cleaner” and passed this information along to health experts at the EPA on a “government-only” website. In die article, Andrew Schneider (the paper’s Pulitzer Prize-

Mugdan, Walter, Regional Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, “Environmental Law Issues Raised by Terrorist Events in 2001,” January 2002, p. 13. ’’ New York Environmental Law and Justice Project, “World Trade Center Incident Environmental Health Concerns: Information Provided by US Enviromnental Protection Agency Region II in Response to FOIA Request Submitted by New York Environmental Law and Justice Project. Work in Progress.” See website www.nyenvirolaw.org. Gonzales, Juan, “A Toxic Nightmare at Disaster Site: Air, Water, Soil Contaminated,” New York Daily News, October 26,2001. Jenkins, Cate, (Ph.D., Environmental Scientist WIB, HWID, Office of Solid Waste, US EPA) “Memorandum, December 19,2001” ” Jenkins, Cate, (Ph.D., Environmental Scientist WIB, HWID, Office of Solid Waste, US EPA) “Memorandum, Subject: Preliminary Assessment, January 11,2002.” '*Haughney, Christine, “In N.Y., Taking a Breath of Fear: Illnesses Bring New Doubts About Toxic Exposure Near Ground Zero,” Washington Post, January 8,2002.

5

NYC-WTC_000144727