NYC-WTC_000195741

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Why Is the EPA Treating New York City Differently?

The EPA’s inaction in New York City downtown residences and commercial buildings stands in stark contrast to its response in its own building at 290 Broadway and to other non-Superfund hazardous materials contamination sites around the country.

The issue of the EPA’s double standard, with respect to its own building at 290 Broadway, was first raised by Dr. Cate Jenkins, in a memo in which she described a conference call in which EPA Region II Counsel Walter Mugdan stated that the building hatl been “professionally cleaned.” Jenkins thus charged that the EPA had better protected its own employees than it had the residents of Lower Manhattan, who had been referred to the lenient DOH guidelines which recommended cleaning with wet rags and mops.’^'

Upon learning this. Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project, and the EPA National Ombudsman each separately requested documents from the EPA related to the alleged cleanup. Congressman Nadler’s request was answered in a letter from EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman on February 22,2002. In that letter, she dismissed the double standard charge:

EPA did not set a more stringent standard of cleanup for these federal buildings, and the lobby cleanup was consistent with the New York City Department of Health advisory. After noting significant amounts of dust tracked into 290 Broadway and 26 Federal Plaza by workers responding.. ., the General Services Administration asked EPA to clean the lobbies. The work was done by EPA contractors using HEPA vacuums already operating in the same area. As outlined in the enclosure, EPA collected seven air samples at 26 Federal Plaza and six air samples at 290 Broadway, and found results below levels of concern [emphasis added]..' (Note that there is no mention of dust sampling.) 1 The enclosure to which Ms. Whitman refers is entitled “U.S.EPA Air Analytical Results from 9/13/01 Sampling Event.” Under the section “methodology,” the document indicates that both air and dust samples were taken. Air samples were “analyzed by TEM EPA 40CFR763 AHERA” and dust samples were “analyzed by PLM EPA-600 R- 93/116.”'^ Ms. Whitman’s letter implies that, because the tests found only results below the “level of concern,” there was no special action taken in the buildings.

But in reviewing the documents obtained under FOIA by the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project (documents that Ms. Whitman did not include in her correspondence to Congressman Nadler), Dr. Jenkins found that positive results for

Haughney, Christine, “House Member Questions EPA Office Cleanup,” Washington Post, January 18, 2002. Letter from Christine Todd Whitman (EPA Administrator) to Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), February 22,2002. Ibid., enclosure, “U.S.EPA Air Analytical Results from 9/13/01 Sampling Event.”

24

CITY_21MC100_003076442

NYC-WTC_000195764