Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Page 4 Mr. Rick Beusse August 4,2003

presence and be part of the team. To suggest that BPA could not become more assertive or involved because it would create a confrontation is inconsistent with die evidence.

5. The first paragraph in the section labeled ‘New York. City’s Initial Response” on page 2 is misleading. It fails to mention that the Qty’s policy and practice in the past was to hold building owners responsible for maintaining a safe environment and when necesary cleaning up their buildings. In other previous disasters, the federal government did not provide for f^eral funding to municipalities to clean privately owned buildings or property. The City consequently had no authority to request reimbursement for this activity and no authority to enter privately owned buildings to effect such a cleanup without the owner’s consent or the finding of imminent hazard. Thus, toe second sentraice is misleading. We recommend that toe first three sentencffi be modified as follows: “Consistent wito past practices and federal law, building owners were initially held responsible for cleaning their own buildings. According to New York City officials, the issue of funding the cleanup of privately owned buildings was discussed with FEMA and the EPA. Initially, the federal position was that the Stafford Act, the statute which provides authority for federal disaster response, did not provide direct funding to the City for cleanup of privately owned buildings. During thia discussion, toe federal agencies were informed that owners of privately owned building would be responsible for funding the cleanup of their buildings and agreed with this course of action. Building owners, who needed hdp, were dirked to toe Disaster Assistance Service Center (DASC) where they could apply for financial assistance fiom FEMA.”

6. Concerning the first full paragraph on page 4, which begins^ “NYCDEP officials told us..the paragraph is misleading tn that there never had been a cwtification program to determine the level of compliance with NYCDEP instructions concerning cleaning of privately owned buildings. Also, the paragraph does not retied: the proactive efforts of the NYCDEP and the fact that NYCDEP not only told EPA it cleaned all of the rest of the buildings, but provided documentation. The City suggests that the first sentence be revised to read, '‘NYCDEP officials told us they lave never lad and did not create a certification program, nor did they have authority to create such a program, to determine the level of compliance with their instructions regardbig the testing and cleaning of asbestos inside building, unless a complaint was made or an asbestos abatement notification was filed with the City.” The City aiggests that an additional sentence he added that states, “However, NYCDEP mads significant efforts, including establishing an additional “hotline” to insure that residents could obtain information concerning asbestos cleanup and could report any asbestos related problems.” We suggest that the last sentence of the paragraph be revised to read, ‘NYCDEP officials provided documentation that the remaining buildings were cleaned by NYCDEP with FEMA funding.”

7. Wito respect to the first lull paragraph cm page 5, which alleges that New York City officials told EPA that the City would not be requesting EPA assistance wito respect to sampling and reoccupation issues, without further information such as who the New York City officials were, or even what New Yoik City agency they represented, it is

142 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145497