EPA response letter regarding WTC dust program, March 2003

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Under the contracts for the Program, residences and common areas (including elevator shafts) of residential buildings which appear to have been minimally impacted by dust and debris from the collapse of the WTC are addressed using different procedures than those required in the event visual inspection indicates the presence of significant accumulations of WTC dust and debris. In the former instance, procedures referred to in the contracts as “Scope of Work A” apply; in areas of significant accumulation “Scope of Work B” is utilized. Under Scope of Work B, PPE is utilized. As you point out, the use of PPE by cleanup and monitoring workers is not required under Scope of Work A.

There were reasons for this. On June 14,2002, Patricia K. Clark, the Regional Administrator of OSHA Region 2, issued a Negative Exposure Assessment (NEA), consistent with their regulations, based on sampling in the immediate vicinity of the WTC (Enclosure 2). Regional Administrator Clark indicated that her assessment included both the workers directly involved in WTC debris removal and those exposed to heavy settled dust accumulations in buildings immediately bordering Ground Zero.

On August 5,2002, Christopher Ward, the DEP Commissioner, wrote to Regional Administrator Kenny concerning whether DEP and NYSDOL requirements apply to Scope A work (Enclosure 3). In his letter, Commissioner Ward said that Scope of Work A situations are not “asbestos projects” or “minor asbestos projects” under DEP’s Asbestos Rules, and further, with regard to Article 30 of the New York State Labor Law, which DEP enforces in New York City, such cleanings are not “abatement projects.” By its letter, DEP confirmed that it would not require PPE in the Scope A scenario (see Note 4, Enclosure 1). Of course, should the personal air monitoring of workers indicate risks to the workers, we would immediately consult with OSHA and revisit this decision.

You also request information concerning the focus of the Program solely on residential spaces. I note that EPA has been providing information and advice regarding educational spaces in lower Manhattan. The cleanup program in the New York City public schools has been implemented by the New York City Department of Education, which has taken primary responsibility for testing and cleaning the schools. FEMA is providing financial support for this effort. Some parents of students expressed great concern about the appropriateness of the cleanup being done. As part of our ongoing efforts, EPA agreed to organize and facilitate a meeting with appropriate agencies and interested and involved parents regarding details of the Department of Education’s cleanup program. EPA also has reviewed the sampling results obtained through private contracting by the Department of Education for Stuyvesant High School. EPA’s review found that the air sampling results at all locations in the school meet the clearance criteria set forth in the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) for re­ entry into schools following an asbestos abatement project.

The authorities under which the Program is operated and funded clearly state that the response actions undertaken/to be undertaken are discretionary functions. While the owners and occupants of commercial spaces have been able to rely on commercial insurance resources and on other governmental programs, tenants and residence owners have not had the same degree of resources available to address testing and cleanup (see Note 5, Enclosure 1). EPA remains confident that the cleaning procedures recommended to the public for residential and commercial

NYC-WTC_000151556