WTC document preservation notice, NYC Law Department

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

, Morton, Lisette From: Rjtkin, Amy Sent Friday, May 17.2002 12:12 PM Te: Merton. Lisene Subject FW:EPA PROPOSAL

—Original Messaae-~ From: Kathleen Moore ImailtoimooreAamnh.org} Sent: Friday. May 17.2002 11:84 AM To; Rutkin, Amy Co; [email protected] Subject. EPA PROPOSAL

Dear Amy. Hare are my comments. They are based on my perspective as a tenant of 129 Cedar Street, M’dh 10 windows direetly/aetns the WTC site on Liberty Street and Greenwich Street We are one of the buildings "on the rim." which is adll uninhabitable. Ellen Gesmer has anawsred th.e document with specifics and I agree with everything she has written. I weuia iixe to add general comments where the EPA plan as written does not meet the needs of my building and ths area. 1. The fabric of this rwightorhood is such that residential and business sectors cannot be separated. Any plan that does not asoress this situation is inadsqusie. Forinsance. 12$ Cedar's direct neighbors are the Engine lO/Ladder 10 firehouse and Deutsche Bank. Any remediation er lack thereat of these buildings directly affects us. 2. The plan names EPA as the oversight agency but does not adequetely define the scope of eiihe* the plan or SPA's authority. Any plan for deining must take e regional approach, or at the minimum, block by black. It does no good to eteen a single dwelling space in a contaminated building, ft does no good to clear) a single building surrounded by contaminated buildings. K floes no good to dean a block of buildings before ed^ceni streets are excavated for scheduled repair and construction of the cit/i infrastructure. 3. Borne agency, hoosfuily EPA needs to coordinate tne -etions of all city. state and federal agencies to prevent recontaminatlon and provide a logical, consisent approach to the cleaning process as a whole. 4. Whst are the limits of EPA authority re individuals and real estate owners? Can the EPA demand that cleaning take place in situations where debris exists? Ona hopes so. 5. Work Schedule B does not adequately address cleaning of persona! possessions Sulfleiines need to be drawn and stated for what categories of possession cannot oc cleaned and must be disposed of (for instance, many of us at 12$ Cedar have been told tnie fneiudes soH textiles, uphsistered furniture, and anything electronic er with electric motors}. 6. AS a corollary to «S. there is no stated policy regarding who Will ba responsible tor replacing possessions determined ta be uncleanable. Finally. I hope that the EPA poHcy tor testing before work can begin in caiegory B buildings is adequate. If EPA does net test before eteanup. it J

NYC-WTC_000144846