Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Pages Mr. Rick Beusse August 4,2003

advice to the public on testing and cleaning procedures. As noted in the City's previous submission dated July 7,2003, the EPA adopted the City’s advice to its citizens. Moreover, inclining these criticisms implies that there wk asbestos in these buildings* There is no evidence to support a claim tiat any significant number of buildings ware contaminated with asbestos. Both the sampling conducted by many agencies and the Qty's response to complaints concerning asbestos, where out of over 300 responses to complaints there was only 1 finding of asbestos above the threshold level, demonstrate that asbestos containing material was not present above the threshold level in these buildings. References to criticisms are also not appropriate for this substantive section of the EPA report. The City does not dispute that there was criticism, but tire criticism is irrelevant to whether the City and EPA followed the appropriate statutes, regulations and procedures. While the criticism may provide an impetus for conducting an evaluation, it does not provide any substantive basis for the findings in the report. To include the criticism in the substantive portion of the report in the manner in which it is included emmemisly impliK that the criticism has bewi substantiated and is unduly prejudicial to the City. Accordingly, the City recommends that this paragraph be deleted.

3. Conconing Ok second sentence in the paragraph labeled “Initial Actions Taken by New York City and EPA” on page 1, although the City was not provided with the documentatimi, the City has been informed that time is EPA documentation concerning an alleged statement by the City that it would not be requesting federal assistance. The documentation, which appears to be quoted on page 4 and 5 of the revised report, refers to a conversation between the EPA and the U.S. Public Health Service and the New York State Department of Health, where these agencies allegedly relayed to EPA tire alleged statement by the City. It is impossible for the Chy to comment on the source of the statement given its vagueness and the feet that it is not attributed to any individual or agency. The City can, however, confirm that the statement is contrary to its repeatedly expressed position that it welcomed any authorized federal assistance at that point in lune. To include this statement and purport to characterize the City’s position based on a single, unattributed, out-ofeontext statement is unfair to the City. This is not tire type of reliable evidence that should be required to siqrport findings in an Inspector General report. The City therefore recommends that the statement be deleted.

4. Concerning the last sentence in the first full paragraph on page 2, the Chy believes EPA Region 2’s comment that it did not want to take a more assertive stance because it would create a confrontation is not valid for more reasons than just drat EPA was die lead agency fer Emergency Support Function #10. From September 12,2001 to the end of the Response Effort, the EPA was thoroughly involved in the effort EPA had a “seat at the table" as demonstrated by the documents submitted by the City. Moreover, there was a cooperative relationship between EPA and the City. The EPA provided support for the Response Effort’s overall health and medical response, which coordinated both environmental health and worker safety issues. In feet, when al a point in time during the Resporrae Effort, EPA suggested that its fiuictions be transitioned to a contractor, the City urged the EPA not to do this and to continue to maintain an on-site

141 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145496