Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Page 4 Mr. Rick Beusse August 4,2003

pTEsence aid be part of the team. To suggest that BPA could not become more assertive or involved because it would create a controntation is inconsistent with the evidence. 5. The first paragraph in the section labeled “New York City’s Initial Response” on page 2 is misleading. It fails to mention dial the City’s policy and practice in the pass was to hold building owners responsible for maintaining a safe environment and when necessary cleaning up their buil^ngs. Tn other previous disasters, the federal government did not provide for federal funding to municipaliti^ to clean privately owned buildings or funperty. The City consequently had no authority to request reimbursement for this activity and no authority to enter privately owned buildings to effect such a cleanup without the owner’s consent or die finding of imminent hazard. Thus, the second salience is misleading. We recommend that the first three sentence be modified as fellows: “ConsistKit with past practices and federal law, building owners were initially held rrsptmsible for cleaning their own buildings. According to New York City officials, the issue of fending the cleanup of privately owned buildings was discussed with FEMA and the EPA. Initially, the federal position was feat the Stafford Act, the statute which provides authority for federal diaster response, did not provide direct funding to the City for cleanup of privately owned buildings. During this discussion, foe federal agencies were informed foal owners of privately owned buildings would be responsible for funding the cleanup of their buildings and agreed with this course of action. Building owners, who needed hdp, were directed to the Disaster Assistance Service Center (DASC) where they could apply for financial assistance finm FEMA.”

6. Concerning the first fiill paragraph on page 4, which begins, “NYCDEP officials told us..the paragraph is misleading in that there never had been a certification program to determine foe level of compliance with NYCDEP instructions concerning cleaning of privately owned buildings. Also, the paragraph does not lefiect the proactive efforts of the NYCDEP and the fact that NYCDEP Mt only told EPA it cleaned all of the rest of the buildings, but provided documentation. The City suggests that the first sentence be revised to read, 'T^CDEP officials told us they have never ted and did not create a certification program, nor did ttey have authority to create such a program, to determine the level of compliance with their instructions regarding the teeing and cleaning of a^estos inside building, unless a complaint was made or an asbestos abatement notification was filed with the City." The City suggests that an additional sentence be added that states, “However, NYCDEP made significant efforts, including establishing an additional "hotline” to insure that residents could obtain information concerning asbestos cleanup and could report any asbestos related problems.” Wc suggest that the last sentence of the paragraph be revised to read, “NYCDEP officials provided documentation that the remaining buildings were cleaned by NYCDEP with FEMA fimding.”

7. With respect to the first lull paragraph on page 5, which alleges dial New York City officials told EPA that the City would not be requesting EPA assistance with repost to sampling and reoccupation issues, without further information such as who Ite New York City officials wore, or even what New York City agency they represented, it is

142 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145673