WTC document preservation notice, NYC Law Department

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Morton, Lisette From: Rjtkin, Amy Sent Friday. May 17.200212:12 PM To: Morton. Lisane Subject: FW:EPA PROPOSAL

—Original Message— From; Kathleen Moore {mailtcimooreigamhh.om} Sent; Friday. May 17.2002 1i.*54 AM To; Rutkin, Amy Co; [email protected] Subject. EPA PROPOSAL

Dear Amy. Hare are my corr.mente. They are based on my perspective as a tenant of 123 Cedar Street, W'dh 10 windows directty/aeing the WTC site on Liberty Street and Greenwich Street. We a^a one of the buildings "on the rim.* which is stit! uninhabitable. Ellen Gesmer has answered the document with Specifics and I agree with everything she has written. I would like to add genera) comments where the EPA plan as written does no', meet the needs of my building and the area. 1. The fabric of this neighborhood iS such that residential and business sectors cannot be separated. Any plan that does not address this situation is inadequate. Forinsance. 125 Cedar's direct neighbars are the Engine lO/Ladoer 10 firehouse and Deutsche Bank. Any remediation or lack thereof of these buildings directly affects us. 2. The plan names EPA as the oversight agency but does not adequately define the scope of either the plan or ERA’S authority. Any plan tor cleaning must take e regional approach, or at the minimum, block by block. It does no good to dean a single dwelling space ih a contaminated building, it does no good to clean a single building surrounded by contaminsted buildings. It o«» no good to clean a block of buildings before adjacent streets are excavated tor scheduled repair and construction of the citys infrastructure. 3. Some egency, hopefully EPA needs to coordinate tne acrons of all city, state and federal agencies to prevent recontaminatloh and provide a logical. eensisent approach to the cleaning process as a whole. 4. What are the limits of EPA authority re individuals and real estate owners? Can the EPA demand that cleaning take place in situab'ona where debris exists? One hopes so. 5. Work Schedule 6 does not adequately address cleaning of personal possessions. Guidelines need to be drawn and stated for what categories Of possession cannot be cleaned and must be disposed of {tor insance, many of us at 125 Cedar have been told this Includes soft textiles, upholstered furniture, and anything electronic or with eiecvic t lotors), 6. As a corollary to *5, there is no stated policy regarding who will be responsible for replacing possessions determined to be undeanabie. Finally. 1 hope that the EPA policy tor testing before work can begin in categofy 6 buildings is adequate. If EPA does not test before cleanup, it 1

NYC-WTC_000144758