What do congressional letters to ACECO and the White House request regarding demolition timelines and asbestos mitigation?

1. The core demand: a demolition timeline and legal authority

Sen. Edward Markey’s letter to ACECO explicitly asks when and under what authority ACECO began demolition work at the East Wing and requests job‑site permits and a full timeline of demolition activities, reflecting lawmakers’ central concern to nail down who authorized rapid demolition and when ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. What asbestos surveying and abatement records are being sought

Markey insists on documentation showing whether a full hazardous‑materials survey — including asbestos and lead sampling — was completed before demolition, and if so, the surveyor’s name, dates, sample testing reports and findings; if not, the letter demands an explanation why the survey wasn’t done ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Requests for abatement plans, worker protections and training

If asbestos was found, the letters demand the specific abatement or containment plan that was implemented, including descriptions of worker protections, emission controls, and training records for personnel on site, because federal rules require abatement and worker‑protection measures prior to disturbing asbestos‑containing material ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

4. Air monitoring, incident reporting and notification compliance

Congressional questions seek air‑monitoring data and any incident reports from the site, and ask whether ACECO filed required notifications under EPA’s NESHAP rules and local D.C. notification regimes; senators want to see monitoring results that would demonstrate whether emissions controls worked and whether the public was exposed ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

5. Chains of custody, transport and disposal documentation

Beyond on‑site work, Markey asks for records showing how demolition debris and hazardous waste were handled, transported and disposed of, calling for manifests, transport records and disposal certificates to verify that contaminated material was moved to and treated at appropriate facilities ^{[2] [3]}.

6. Licensing and contractor identification questions

Lawmakers pressed for the identity of firms that did the abatement and whether they were properly licensed in D.C.; reporting notes ACECO’s D.C. asbestos‑abatement license was canceled in 2022, so senators want clarity on who actually performed mitigation and whether they were authorized to do so ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

7. Deadlines, transparency demands and alternative claims

Markey set a specific deadline for responses (Nov. 12, 2025 in his letter), and a separate group of senators sought “lawful transparency” from the White House, asking that environmental and worker‑safety documentation be made public; the White House has said an extensive abatement assessment was followed, but has not publicly released the supporting documentation lawmakers requested ^{[1] [6] [7]}.

8. Why senators asked these particular items — and the political subtext

The requested items map directly to federal duties under NESHAP and local abatement rules — pre‑demolition surveys, notifications, abatement plans, monitoring and disposal records — and reflect both public‑health concern about asbestos exposure and political pressure to demonstrate compliance; advocates note no public records have yet been produced, which sharpens the scrutiny and fuels allegations that corners may have been cut ^{[8] [9] [10]}.

9. Limits of available reporting

Public reporting establishes what senators asked for and the absence of released records so far, but sources do not yet include ACECO’s or the White House’s full response documents; therefore this account lists the precise documentary items requested in the letters and contrasting public claims, but cannot confirm whether the records exist or whether required procedures were actually completed until those materials are produced ^{[2] [7] [4]}.