WTC document preservation notice, NYC Law Department

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

- the results of which are still in dispute. At that time, there had been no systematic testing of indoor air or dust in residential or commercial buildings by any govenunent agency, let alone by the EPA. In fact, the EPA did not intend to do testing even of outdoor air in residential areas of Lowe- Manhattan until my Ground Zero Elected Officials Task Force requested that it do so on September 21^. Ironically, the very first public testing conducted inside residences, which was commissioned by our Task Force, commenced on the very day Ms. Whitman made her misleading statement. The results were made available to the EPA on October 12*. The test results showed elevated levels of hazardous materials in these residences. The EPA did nothing and Ms. Whitman did not adequately clarify her statement.

In recent weeks, the EPA has stated repeatedly that the City of New York, not the EPA, is responsible for indoor testing. The City, however, didn’t get around to testing inside homes until November and December. The full results of these test are still not available and, according to the Health Department, won’t be until the Spring. I do not understand why the results of tests undertaken by a public agency are being delayed for public release. Our test results took less than a month to be released. Nevertheless, just three days ago, the City Department of Health issued a press release regarding this limited indoor testing. Despite a pacifying headline, many the limited data in the press release has caused the scientists with whom we’ve consulted to believe that fill! results would directly contradict Ms. Whitman’s statement. The release does make it clear, as did mu* commissioned study, that there were disconcerting levels of hazardous materials in peoples’ apartments.

Ms. Whitman’s reassurances are deeply confusing in light of other statements made by agency officials and of other information we now have that the EPA has not itself released. For example, in a copy of a January 25,2002 speech given by Walter Mugdan, EPA Region U counsel, which I have obtained, I find that he states, “.. .a significant number of the WTC bulk dust samples that we analyzed did have more than 1% asbestos.” But an Oct 3"* 2001 EPA memo “Confirm[ing] No Significant Public Health Risk” states, “The vast majority of EPA and OSHA samples of air and dust analyzed for asbestos have been at levels that pose no significant risk to residents and workers returning to their homes or area businesses.” This statement has been made repeatedly by EPA Region n officials. How are New Yorkes to interpret these conflicting remarks? I can’t even tell you what they mean - except that they caimot both be true.

Confusing remarks are one thing, withholding criticai data pertaining to the public health is another. We know that it took a Freedom of InfcSSSSSL' Environmental Law and Justice Project to get test results showing dangerous levels of hazardous materials m outdoor amt>iS mr. The EPA claimed that this was an “overnight ” But now we have a new, frightening bombshell.

According to this Sunday’s St. Louis Post Dispatch, 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. That’s right. As corrosive as drain cleaner. (By the way, it took less than 2 weeks in September for these test results to be ready.) I submit this article for the record.

i 2 j I

NYC-WTC_000144778