Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

95% of the residences that were cleaned and tested or cleaned only, the asbestos readings were non-detect. It is encouraging that 95% were non-detect. However, it is not clear which sampling methods were used in obtaining these readings, what asbestos levels were present in the remaining 5 percent, and whether EPA believes possible asbestos contamination in 5 percent of the residences is acceptable. See note 24 for our comments regarding cleaning effectiveness.

Note 21 - Concerning the use of aggressive sampling, we agree that the use of a leaf blower does not represent normal activity in a residence. Neither does the use of a leaf blower represent normal activity in a school room, although the AHERA standard requires its use for clearing a school room after an asbestos abatement. Under a standard asbestos cleaning, all items in a room would be cleaned thoroughly, even documents as was done when cleaning a courthouse in Titusville, FL. In a private residence, especially when cleaning is voluntary and the owner can refuse to have individual items touched, it is extremely difficult to ensure that each item is cleaned of every microscopic asbestos fiber, yet this degree of cleaning should be the intent of the cleanup. Use of a blower prior to aggressive sampling serves to stir up the air, re­ entrain dust and fibers in the air stream, and allow negative air filtration equipment to trap fibers that have been missed in the wet cleaning process or skipped entirely. It thus can be as much a cleaning procedure as a sampling procedure. We believe it is a necessary adjunct to the type of cleaning performed in NYC.

Note 22 - We accept EPA’s statement that Agency officials qualitatively evaluated the potential for health risks beyond the current boundaries established for the residential cleanup. However, if a future disaster were to occur, we believe the boundaries of any government-organized cleanup should be based on a systematic, quantitative approach to determining the extent of contamination.

Note 23 - EPA issued a revised “World Trade Center Indoor Environment Assessment: Selecting Contaminants of Potential Concern and Setting Health-Based Benchmarks,” as well as a “Response to Peer Review Comments on the Report.” We note that both these documents cite the “World Trade Center Background Study Report” and the “Interim Final WTC Residential Confirmation Cleaning Study” which were issued in April and May 2003, respectively. Neither of these documents were available when the TERA panel peer reviewed the original COPC document in October 2002. In light of the significant, detailed comments that the peer review panel had on the original report, the detailed responses made in EPA’s response document, and the fact that additional information is now available that was not available during the first peer review, we continue to believe it is appropriate that EPA re-submit the revised report, with newly issued supporting documentation, for peer review.

Note 24 - EPA sutes the belief that “... health-based asbestos-in-air clearance testing is effective in reducing the potential for risk related to [other] WTC contaminants.” We note that 82% of the residential units re-cleaned during the Cleaning Study [Interim Final WTC Residential Confirmation Cleaning Study, Vol. 1, pp.l 13-114] had to be re-cleaned because the sampling filters were too clogged with dust to be analyzed. While we agree with the decision to re-clean residences under this circumstance, we 137 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145668