Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Pages Mr. Rick Beu^ August 4,2003

impossible for the City to comment on the source ofthe allegation. Again, the City at that time was willing and eager to accept all authorized federal assistance. Moreover, as shown in the documents submitted by toe City, the City had accepted U.S. Public Health Service and Agency for Toxic Substances ami Disease Registry (ATSDR) assistance in conducting indoor air sampling. Thus, it would be inconsistent for toe City to refuse toe assistance of toe EPA — another federal agency — in tois mattm*. In fact, EPA participated in the discussion with ATSDR concerning toe protocol for toe Indoor Air Study. The City has already commented concerning the alleged statement made on Septomber 30,2001, which is referenced in this paragraph (see hem 3, above) and will not repeat its comments. The City recommends that toe two sentences that refer to toe statements allegedly made on Octobo- 9,2001 and September 30,2001 be deleted. 8. The City believes that the paragraph labeled “Multi-Agency Residential Cleanup Undertaken” on page 5 is somewhat misleading. The second sentence suggests that the sole basis for EPA’s involvement in indoor air in February 2002 was that it believed the City could not handle all the issues involved in this matter. This is not accurate. First, EPA did not just become involved in indoor issues in February 2002. As shown by toe documents submitted by toe Chy, EPA was involved in indoor air issues as early as September 29,2001. Second, there were a number ofevents toat coalesced around February 2002 toat brought about more involvement in indoor issues by toe EPA, including, public criticism of the EPA and, perhaps most importantly, toe initial availability of federal funding for indoor cleaning ofprivate residences. Therefore, toe City recommends that toe second sentence be deleted.

9. The first paragraph in the section labeled “EPA Role on Indoor Environment” cm page 5 is misleading. It refers to toe portion of the NCP which allows a state or local agency to take the lead role in toe case of a hazardous substance release. However, in this case, the site was not declared a hazardous waste site. We recommend that a footnote be added to fins sentence noting that toe site was not declared a hazardous waste site.

10. In the first paragraph of toe subsection labeled ’^leaning Instructions” on page 6, the report opines that as a result of toe failure of toe City to recommend that residents obtain professional cleaning, long term health risks may have been increased for individuals who cleaned their residences without using respirators and other professional cleaning equipment. Thia is speculation that is not supported by toe evilfence. Indoor air sampling data along with the “Interim Final WTC Residential Confirmation Cleaning Study,” completed by EPA Region 2 in May 2003, confirm that toe metoods rec snded by tiic City, and adopted in the EPA website, were appropriate. Accordingly, we recommend toat this paragraph be deleted. 11. The last paragraph in this section is also inaccurate. The City strongly contests file current opiniiHi of asbestos medical experts contained in the first sraitence of this paragr^h. First, a huge body of test results established that asbestos contamination in indoor air was virtually nonexistent. Also, the conclusion of the experts completely ignores the practicality of the situation, in that for respirateny protection to be effective.

143 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145498