WTC document preservation notice, NYC Law Department

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document TO 917185954544 P.05/08 jljl__2g-2002 175 54 FROM US EPA REGION 2 ORC

4

In deciding upon a cleanup program for lower Manhattan residences we considered the following:

the complexity of sampling dust material for quantities of hazardous substances and the lack of scientific consensus on how to do so;

the absence of standards that have broad scientific support which correlate airborne exposure routes to dust containing hazardous substances; and

the absence of health- or risk-based standards for dust.

In addition, we had to consider how we could gauge the residual impacts of cleanups already undertaken by residents who returned to their homes. All ofthe above have substantial I uncertainty orxontroversysurrounding,them^

Federal, state, and city health and medical professionals supported a program that addressed the need for cleanup assurances without the lime, expense, and uncertainties associated with a location-specific sampling and risk assessment approach. EPA also consulted with environmental health and science experts in the academic and research sector on this basic approach. Though there were many questions and a desire for more data collection, they generally acknowledged that a broad-based cleanup program was an appropriate response.

For these reasons, and in consultation with FEMA, New York City, and New York State, EPA has determined that rather than taking a risk-based approach to each residential unit or building, we will instead clean any lower Manhattan apartment based on residents’ request.

The NCP, pursuant to CERCLA, authorizes EPA to undertake or direct cleanups in response to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment. [See Attachment, Note 1.] As background, you should be aware that sections of the NCP, for example, those dealing with long-term response, are simply not applicable here - for instance, 40 C.F.R. Sections 300.430 and 300.435, addressing remedial investigations and feasibility studies, selection of remedy, remedial design and remedial action, operation and maintenance, and attainment of IO"* to 10’* cancer risk levels. [See Attachment, Note 2.]

Consistent with the atypical aspects of the release and the response work that we face in lower Manhattan, to the extent practicable and appropriate we are proceeding with this program in a manner consistent with the NCP. Let me give several examples.

Our efforts are consistent with the NCP provisions regarding the respective roles of different federal agencies and organizational elements, such as the National and Regional Response Teams and the On-Scene Coordinator. [See 40 C.F.R. Part 300 Subpart B.]

NYC-WTC_000144806