Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Page 6 Mr. Rick Beusse August 4.2003

th© user must be fit tested first and also that it is medically dangerous for an individual to wear a re^irator without being medically cleared. Finally, file last two sentences of the paragraph are sheer speculation. There is no evidence as to how the individuals cleaned their residences. More importantly, as noted previously, there is rm evidence of asbestos contamination in indoor air that would support the requirement to use abatement procedures or support the speculation that if abatement procedures were not used, health risks would be increased. Accordingly, this paragraph should be deleted. 12. Page 7 provided to the City is blank.

13. As a technical correction, in the first paragraph on page 8, the New York State Department of Labor, not the Department of Environmental Conversation, is delegated the responsibility for implementing federal regulations under the NESHAP program.

14. Concerning the first full paragraph on page 9 of the draft report, the City believes that given the prominent mention of the NESHAP notification requirement, this paragraph should include a sentence indicating that the EPA, because of its involvement, had functional notice of tire demolition and everything concerning the demolition and that, a!i a practical matfm*, notification would not likely have changed the manna’ in which demolition was conducted. We recommend that the following sentences be added al the b^itming of die paragraph, “While the EPA and other agencies were not provided formal written notice of the WTC donolition activities, the EPA and other regulatory agencies had notice, in advance, of the demolition activities and the manner in which they were being conducted as a result of these agencies' involvement in the Response Effort. EPA and the other regulatory agencies did not object to these activities and even if formal writtoi notification was provided, it is doubtful the activities would have been conducted in any different manner.”

15. As the only intact asbestos containing material encountered al the WTC site was below grade, the City rccoinmends that fire first sentence of the first paragraph on page 10 be revised to read, “Both NYCDDC and EPA officials told us that asbestos containing material (e.g., pipe wrapping, steel insulation) was only encountered below grade, and when it was encountered during removal it was tested and treated in accordance with asbestos abatement procedures.”

16. The last sentence of the footnote on page 11 should be modified to provide a more complete explanation. The sMitence should read, “Furthermore, they stated that the vehicles did not require decontamination since they were not transporting hazardona waste as defined by the EPA under 40 CFR Part 260-280. While decontamination procedures were not required, wash down procedures were mandated.”

17. The first paragraph in the section labeled “Transfer of Debris to Barges” on page 12 is misleading and unfairly prejudicial to the City. U is based on citizen complaints rather than substantial evidence. The testimony of people complaining may be a usefixl starting point for analysis but it must be evaluated very tunefully. This has

144 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145499