NYC-WTC_000195741

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

assistance pursuant to the Stafford Act?” EPA claims that, under the FRP, local governments have primary responsibility for responding to an event.*’

However, EPA’s statement that it is merely following FEMA and the Federal Response Plan, and its characterization of this plan, is misleading for a number of reasons. First, the Stafford Act does not supercede the EPA statutes.*^ All activities FEMA must comply with national environmental pnlirias * The Federal Response Plan also clearly states that other federal emergency response plans cannot be disregarded, but rather implemented concurrently when there is an incident involving hazardous substances.*'* The FRP specifically lists the NCP as one such emergency response plan.*^ Second, and most importantly, the FRP actually triggers the National Contingency Plan.*^ According to the Code of Federal Regulations, “the NCP applies to and is in effect when the Federal Response Plan and some or all its Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) are activated.”*^ Therefore, if the EPA is not acting pursuant to the National Contingency Plan, it is in clear violation of the law.

Third, even if, for the sake of argument, the Federal Response Plan is the only plan in effect (which is clearly not the case), federal assistance is coordinated along thirteen Emergency Support Functions. The EPA is the primary agency responsible for coordinating Emergency Support Function #10: Hazardous Materials.*® As the primary agency, the EPA has “operational responsibility” for orchestrating federal agency support and managing mission assignments in this area.*^ The EPA has no legal basis to shirk its responsibility in this regard. In fact, EPA Region II Administrator, Jane Kenny, testified before the U.S. Senate that “Acting on FEMA’s mission assignments, EPA is the lead agency for hazardous waste disposal.”^ Yet, the EPA claims it has no responsibility to remediate inside homes and businesses. Why does the EPA have the authority to dispose of hazardous waste, but not hazardous waste that made its way inside buildings? Under this logic, if a steel beam fi-om the World Trade Center coated with asbestos and other hazardous materials fell on top of someone’s house, the EPA would be required to remove it. However, if that same steel beam, and the hazardous materials coating it, are pulverized into little pieces and blasted into peoples’ homes, the EPA no longer has jurisdiction. The EPA has yet to provide a statute or regulation that supports this logic.

” 42 U.S.C 5121, et seq. The Stafford Act is the statute under which FEMA operates. ” Whitman, Christine Todd, Letter to Congressman Jerrold Nadler, transmitted via fax February 22,2002. 44 CFR 206.5 (f) “44CFR10.4 “ Federal Response Plan: Basic Plan, April 1999, p. 11. (http://www.fema.gov/r-n-r/frp/frpbpln.htm) “ Ibid. 40 CFR 300.3(d) ” Ibid. Federal Response Plan: Basic Plan, April 1999, p. 14. (http://www.fema.gov/r-n-r/frp/frpbpln.htm). Also cited at 40 CFR 300.130 (i). ” Ibid., p. 28. “Official Transcript” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, and Climate Change, New York, NY. Testimony of Jane M. Kenny, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region II, February 11,2002, p. 64.

18

CITY_21MC100_003076436

NYC-WTC_000195758