Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Page? Mr. RtckBcti^ August 4,2003

not been done here. This paragrajdi, without any critical evaluation at all, seems to accept all of the complaints m hue. The vcriCablc evidence available, however, suggots that the cumplainlson; unfounded. Only one aspect ofthe testimony is true. Tin; trucks transporting WTC ddxis were not niarkcd as carrying hazardous waste. They were not maiked in this manner because they woe not carrying hazardous waste as defined by the EPA. This is just one tuiample of testimony that should have been critically evaluated before being included in the report. Of more concern is the uncritical acceptance of testimony of trucks not being wetted down properly and trucks not being covered properly, both allegedly resulting in die release ofdust. The area around Stuyvraant High School was among the most thoroughly monitored in the City. There is no data to show that this area was contaminated by the operation of the transfer station for WTC debris from tiwks to barges in the vicinity of the High School. Thus, if there wax a release of dust, it was so insignificant as to present no risk at all to health and safety and should t»l be highlighted tn this report, EPA, itsdC represents that air sampling concerning barge operations indicated that 99.83% of the samples were below the screening levels. The City consequently recommends flat this paragraph he deleted.

1S. The paragrt^h that begins at the boilam of page 12 should be roodiCod. The last sentence reports ttiat there was lead Ibund in the ventilation system of Stuyvesant High School, The sentence also rqwwts that it was not del«xniined whether this lead was from wre fallout Envirorjuentd monitoring tn lower Manhattan indicates that aitboine lead levels averaged over 90 days (from Seplomber 2001 (hrough November 2001) did not exceed the BPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) ofl.S ug/ro3. Given these results and the ubiquity of tetraethyl lead in urban environments from its use in leaded gasoline, it is very unlikely that the lead found in du: ventilation system was from WTC fallout Even if it was, dus bis nothing to do with the City’s response to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. While tbs may be of some acadcfliic interest, it has no place in Ites past of the report The City recommends that fois sentence bcdeletal.

19. The first paragraph tn (he section labeled "Asbestos Levels During Desnolilion and Debris Rereoval” is misleading, it unduly emphasizes that aQer Septcniber 20U1 there were 7 air monitoring samples which exceeded the AllERA standard. The paragraph fails to mention that EPA collected a total of 12,676 ambient samples in lower Manhattan for phase contrast li^t microscopy analysis and 8,872 samples for Iransanissioa electronic microscopy analysis. Considered in this crwitext, the fact that there woe only seven exceedances demonstrsdes that the response actions taken were appropriate. The rcspoit mischaractcrizcs the seven exceedances as showmg die sporadic presence of asbestos in the ambient air. Given the extensive monttoring, less Utas one exceedance per month can hardly be characterized as "sporadic.” We recommend that the paragraph be revised to delete ihe table showing Ure exceedances and any reference to the tabic be deleted. Also, the reference that two of the exceedances were near Stuyvesant School should be dclcicd. Reference to Stuyvesact iinplics ttet this location should be given preference over other locations near die site. The fourth sentence ofthe paragraph shouM be revised to read, "Out of approximately 21,000

145 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145500