NYC-WTC_000195741

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

“getting back to normal,” the mayhem in its own backyard persisted untamed, while the EPA continued to proclaim that Ihe “air was safe.”

Now, seven months later, it is clear that the EPA’s statement that “the City of New York took the lead on the reoccupancy of buildings” incorrectly attributes actions to the City and wholly overestimates its capability to assume responsibility for oversight and supervision for that very task.

Even today, the City’s mission does not seem clear, even to itself. According to the City DEP’s website, the “DEP is monitoring the ambient outdoor air for asbestos. This effort is augmenting ambient air asbestos sampling being done by the EPA and other state and city agencies.” If the EPA had delegated the lead on the indoor air and reoccupancy of buildings to the City, why does the City continue to improperly handle that job and instead expend resources on monitoring the outdoor air, the supposed province of the EPA? This leads to the question, “which agency must assume responsibility for this situation?” The answer is the agency whose legal mandate and mission is “to protect human health and safeguard our environment” - the EPA.

According to federal regulations, once the Federal Response Plan was activated in New York following the everits of September 11th, the National Contingency Plan went into effect.United States counter terrorism policies, as seen in PDD 62 and the 0MB annual terrorism report, further support that the NCP applies to terrorist activities. Therefore, the EPA, and all other agencies responding to the release of hazardous substances produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center must follow NCP procedures. This includes the desipnatinn nf an q /'hnin nf command for all response efforts so that there is a transparent, accountable, and coordinated decision-making process, and compliance with federal laws. regulation.s and stMtSauHs:

Through administration of the NCP, the EPA must systematically and properly test and remediate all downtown buildings. We cannot call Lower Manhattan “safe” until such systematic testing and remediation is done. There has been inadequate testing and remediation thus far ^d the threat of recontamination to theoreticallv “safe” enyironments is TLp PPA bag failpd tn npbnld thp law in tO the COllapse of the World Trade Center. The EPA has On-Scene Coordinators, Environmental Response Teams, contractors, procedures, and the resources necessary to do the job. It must come into compliance with the NCP now, and remedy this situation.

NYC Department of Environmental Protection website on Air, Noise and Hazardous Materials—Air Monitoring in Lower Manhattan. '^"40 CFR 300.3(d) ‘^Letter from R. Radhakrishman (P.E., Director of NYC DEP’s Asbestos Control Program1 to Building Owners, February 12, 2002. See also “Interim Working Findings on the National Ombudsman World Trade Center Hazardous Waste Case - Schools Located Near the Hazardous Waste Barge in Lower Manhattan,” February 27, 2002.

27

CITY_21MC100_003076445

NYC-WTC_000195767