Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

take safety precautions. This agreement is detailed on page 9 of the draft report and illustrated in Appendix P.

We do not agree that EPA “emphasized” the need for professional cleaning because this concept was not discussed in EPA’s press releases. According to the OCEMR Associate Administrator, a recommendation to obtain professional cleaning was deleted from an EPA press release by a CEQ official. As detailed in the draft report, EPA’s press releases referred the public to a New York City Department of Health web site which recommended that people clean their own residences and businesses using wet rags, wet mops, and HEPA vacuums.

Note 7 - We do not believe that “The Report erroneously focuses” on five early Agency press releases. We reviewed many different types of information from many different sources including videocassettes which were provided by Region 2. We made extensive efforts to locate all relevant records. For example, by contacting the Administrator’s Press Secretary and Scheduling Director, we were able to determine the date of a videotaped newscast which showed the Administrator advising the public orally about obtaining professional cleaning on October 26,2001. Similarly, we worked closely with Region 2 officials and agreed with their analysis that EPA’s web site recommended professional cleaning at least as early as December 11,2001. In summary, although EPA’s subsequent communications sometimes added information or clarification to the message presented in the press releases, the Agency’s overall message of reassurance about long-term health impacts did not change.

In regard to the comment in the response to the draft report about EPA’s “massive outreach program,” we note, as detailed in the draft report, that a NYCDOH study, other lessons learned reports, and testimony provided at various hearings indicated that the public did not receive adequate air quality information and that individuals cleaned their residences without using proper procedures or personal protection.

Note 8 - We agree there were no health-based standards for many of the pollutants encountered in the aftermath of the WTC attacks, and the report does not intend to find fault with EPA or any other government organization for not having developed those benchmarks beforehand. However, we do not agree with using certain criteria-based benchmarks - particularly the NESHAP asbestos-containing material definition of one percent asbestos - as health-related benchmarks when environmental professionals clearly acknowledge that this standard is not protective of health.

Note 9 - The Agency is to be commended for its proactive approach to analyzing its response to the WTC collapse and initiating improvements to its emergency response capabilities. We disagree with the Agency’s comment that this report “trivializes both the horrendous event that occurred and the extraordinary efforts of EPA and other responders.” The primary objective of the report is to ensure that, if such a tragedy were to happen again; the public and emergency responders impacted by the disaster would receive the best available advice, protection, and assistance that the Government can provide. 133 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145664