Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Page 2 Mr. Rick Beusse August 4.2003

Before comjncnting on the excerpts that were Ibnvanicd to the City, we note fttat

allfaou^ this ofSee eeijucstod the entire draft report so that the City would best be able to address

the portions of die report concerning the City, only exeerpts were supplied. Wifliout access to

the entire draft report to place sections concerning (he City into context, the City is

disadvantaged in providing comments to the excerpts. However, portions of the excerpts

concerning the City compel a response by the Ci^ and the City herdry responds to the best of ite

ability, as follows;

1. The third sentence in the first paragraph on page 1 of die excerpts of the revised draft report is misleading. The sentence implies that toe EPA assnmed a lead rote in responding to indoor environmental concerns because ofcriticism of (he City, ft implies furthermore that criticism of the City was warranted. The evidence do^ not support a conclusion that toe EPA took a lead role with reject to this issue solely because of critidsra of toe City. There were a number of factors proaenl al that time which appear to have influenced toe EPA, including criticism oftoe EPA and the initial availability of federal funds at that time to address this issue. More importantly, there is no evidence that any criticism oftoe City with respect to indoor raivironmerrtal concenis was warranted. Also, toe sentence refers to EPA initiating a ir.uhi-agcncy task force at that lime. Thia implies that this was toe first time tout federal, state and City agencies worked together to address tois issue. The docunitaits supplied by toe City show that federal, slate and City agencies worked logrther beginning September 12,2001 to address a wide variety of eitvironmenlal issues, including indoor environmental concents. Wb lecotjunend that the sentence be revised to read, “EPA began to assume a lead role in Fefartiary2002, when toe Agency chaired a midti-agcncy task force to contirtuc to address concerns about toe indoor cnvirannicnt,”

2. The City has simitar comments with respect to the paragraph labeled “Indoor Contamination Res^ronse” on page 1. This paragnath refers to concerns raised by public and elected officials and specific criticism of toe City. Again, including this criticism appears to imply toal the criticism was warranted, particularly since the City’s positioo is not presented. We note that in the same paragraph, where criticism of the BPA is set forth, toe EPA’s position is presented in rebuttal to the criticism. The City believes that the evidence (foes not support the criticism of the City. For example, criticism cooccroing delegating testing and remediation efforts to building owners and residents is unwarranted. The City did not ddt^ale this responsibility to owners and residtzits. The owners and residents always have had this responsibilhy, it was never the City’s responsibility to do this and consequently toe City could not delegate what it did not have. Similariy, there is no evidence that toe City did not enforce proper procedures for cleaning asbestos where it had the enforcement authority or that the City gave improper

140 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145671