Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Page 6 Mt. Rick Beusse August 4,2003

the user must be fit tested first and also that it is medically dangerous for an individual to wear a respirator without being medically cleared. Finally, the last two sentences of the paragraph are sheer speculation. There is no evidence as to how the individuals cleaned their residences. More imponanlly, as noted previously, there is no evidence of asbestos contamination in indoor air that would support the requirement to use abatement procedures or support die speculation that if abatement procedures were not used, health risks would be increased. Accordingly, this paragraph should be deleted.

12. Page 7 provided to the City is blank.

13. As a technical correction, in the first paragraph on page 8, the New York State Department of Labor, not the Department of Environmental Conversation, is delegated the responsibility for implementing federal regulations under the NESHAP program.

14. Concerning the first full paragraph on page 9 ofthe draft r^ort, the City believes that given the prominent mention of die NESHAP notification requironent, this paragraph Should include a sentence indicating that the EPA, because of its involvement, had fimctional notice of the demolition and everything concerning the demolition and that, as a practical matter, notification would not likely have changed the mannCT in which demolition was conducted. We recommend that the following sentences be added at the b^timiog of the paragraph, “While the EPA and other aguneies were not provided fomial written notice of the WTC demolition activities, the EPA ami other regulatoty agencies had notice, in advance, of foe demolition activities and the manner in which they wore being conducted as a result of these agencies' involvement in the Response Effort EPA and the other regulatory agencies did not object to these activities and even if formal written notification was provided, it is doubtful the activities would have been conducted in any dififerent manner.”

1S, As the only intact asbestos containing material encountered at the WTC site was below grade, the City recommends that foe first sentence of the first paragraph on page 10 be revised to read, “Both NYCDDC and EPA officials told us that asbestos containing material (e.g., pipe wrapping, steel insulation) was only encountered, below grade, and when it was encountered during removal it was tested and treated in accordance with asbestos abatement procedures.”

16. The last sentence of the footnote on page 11 should be modified to provide a more complete explanation. The sentence should read, “Furthermore, they stated that the vehicles did not require decontamination since they were not transporting hazardous waste as defined by the EPA under 40 CFR Part 260-280. While decontamination procedures were not requited, wash down procedures were mandated."

17. The first paragraph in the section labeled “Transfer of Debris to Barges” on page 12 is misleading and unfairly prejudicial to the City. It is based on citizen complaints rather than substantial evidence. The testimony of people complaining may be a usefill starting point for analysis but it must be evaluated very carefiilly. This has

144 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145675