Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Pages Mr. Rick Beusse August 4,2003

advice to the public on testing and cleaning procedures. As noted in the City’s previous subraission dated July 7,2003, the EPA adopted the City’s advice to its citizens. Moreover, including these criticisms implies that there was asbestos in these buildings. There is no evidence to support a claim that any significant number of buildings were contaminated with asbestos. Both the sampling conducted by many agencira and the Qty's re^onse to complaints concerning asbestos, where out of over 300 responses to complaints there was only 1 finding of asbestos above the threshold level, demonstrate that asbestos containing material was not present above the threshold level in these buildings. References tn criticisms are also not appropriate for this substantive section of the EPA report. The City does not dispute that there was criticism, but the criticism is irrelevant to whether the City and EPA followed the appropriate statutes, regulations and procedures. While the criticism may provide an impetus for conducting an evaluation, it does not provide any substantive basis for the findings in the report. To include the criticism in the substantive portion of the report in the manner in which it is included erroneously implies that the criticism has been substantiated and is unduly prejudicial to the City. Accordingly, the City recommends that this paragraph be deleted.

3. Concerning the second sentence in the paragraph labeled “Initial Actions Taken by New York City and EPA” on page 1, although the City was not provided wilh the documentation, the City has been informed that there is EPA documentation concerning an alleged statement by the City that it would not be requesting federal assistance. The documentation, which appears to be quoted on page 4 and 5 of the revised rgrort, refers to a conversation between the EPA and the U.S. Public Health Service and the New York State Department of Health, where these agencies allegedly relayed to EPA the alleged statement by the City. It is impossible for the City to comment on the source ofthe statement given its vagueness and the fact that it is not attributed to any individual ot agency. The City can, however, confirm that the statement is contrary to its repeatedly expressed position that it welcomed any authorized federal assistance at that point in time. To include this statement and purport to characterize the City’s position based on a single, unattributed, out-of-context statement is unfair to the City. This is not the type of reliable evidence that should be required to support findings in an Inspector General report The City therefore recommends that the statement be deleted. 4. Concerning the last sentence in the first full paragraph on page 2, the City believes EPA Region 2’s comment that it did not want to take a more assertive stance because it would create a confinntation is not valid for more reasons than just that EPA was die lead agency for Emergency Support Function #10. From Sqitember 12,2001 to the end of the Response Effort, the EPA was thoroughly involved in the effort EPA had a “seat at the table" as demonstrated by the documents submitted by the Chy. Moreover, there was a cooperative relationship between EPA and the City. The EPA provided support for the Response Effort’s overall health and medical response, which coordinated both aivironniental health and worker safety issues. In fact, when at a point in time daring the Response Effort, EPA suggested that its functions be transitioned to a contractor, the City urged the EPA not to do this and to continue to maintain an on-site

141 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145672