Exterior cleanup scope abatement versus clarification, April 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Gilsenan, Michael From: Gilsenan, Michael [DEPNET1/DEPGPO2/MichaelGi] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:53 PM To: 'Chapin, Diana 001' Cc: 'Avaltroni, Robert'; Sturcken, Charles; 'Radhakrishnan, Krish' Subject: Exterior Cleanup-Jim Miller Questions

I just spoke to Jim and he had some questions regarding our scope of work. At first he was happy that our scope was for a cleanup and not an abatement, because we were not 1) requiring contractors to enclose the work area 2) not requiring decon. I informed him that we never require enclosure of outside areas because it's not feasible and that decon areas will be required as per our regs. I told him that our scope of work outlines the work to be preformed and our regs dictate the rules to follow. He then stated that this sounds like an abatement project to him and he is concerned about the publics perception. He is going to have DOH's consultant speak to Krish for further clarification. He also mentioned to me that OEM is checking with FEMA to see if they would pay for cleanups that were non ACM.

This led into a discussion on testing each and every bldg, and the delays associated with same . I'm not sure where he is going with this, however, I did state that a decision like this is not for me to make or him for that matter. My sense was that, after his consultants discussion with Krish, he would present his concerns (to whom I don't know). BEC will continue on the path as we've discussed unless I hear otherwise from you. Thanks

1

NYC-WTC_000139639