Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Page? Mr. Rick Bciisse August 4,2003

not been done here. This paragraph, without any critical evaluation at all, seems Io accept all of the complaints re true. The verifiable evidence available, bowovrar, suggots that the complaints are unfounded. Only <»toa^»ectof&e testimony is (rue. TTk; trucks transporting WTC thforis were not inarkcd as carrying hazardous waste. They were not marked in fois manner because they were not carrying hazardous waste as defined by the EPA. This is just one example of leatiniony that should liave been critically evaluated before being included in the report. Of more concern is the uncritical acceptance of testimony of frucks not being wetted down property and trucks not being covered properly, both allegedly resulting in the release of dust. The area around Stuyveaent High School was among tire most thoroughly monitored in the City. There is no data to show that this area was contaminated by the operation of Ute transfec station for WTC debris from trucks to barges in foe vicinity of the School. Thus, if there was a release of dust, it was so insignificant as to present ao risk al all to health and safety and should mt be highlighted, tn fols report. EPA, itself, represents that air sampling concerning barge operations indicated that 99.83% of the samples were below foe serectung levels. The City consequently recommends foul this paragrapli he deleted. 18. The paragraph that begins at the boUum of page 12 stwuU be modified. The last sentence reptrrts that there was lead found in the ventilation system of Stuyvesani High School The soitcncc also reports that it was mH detwniinod whether this lead was from wre fallout Environmental monitoring tn lower Manhattan indicates that airborne lead levels averaged over 90 days (from September 2001 through November 2001) did not exceed the BPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 1.5 ug/n>3. Given these results and the ubiquity of tetraethyl lead in urban environments from its use in IfSHled gasoline, it is very unlikely that the lead found in the ventilation system was from WTC fallout Even ifIt was, this has nothing to do with the City’s response to foe terrorist attacks on the World Trade Cotter. While this may be ofsome academic interest, it has no place in this part of the report. The City recommends that fois sentence be deleted. 19. The first paragraph in the section labeled “Asbestos Levels During Demolition and Debris Ranoval” is misleading. It unduly emphasazes that aQer September 2001 there were 7 air monitoring samples which exceeded the AllERA standard. The paragraph fails to mention that EPA collected a total of 12,576 ansbient samples in lower Manhattan for phase contrast li^t mtcroscqjy analysis arid 8,872 samples for iranjantssion electronic microset^y analysis. Considemd in this crHiiext, the fact that there woe only seven exceedances dentotrstcaOes that the re^onse actions taken were appropriate. The report mischaracterizes the seven exceedances as showing die ^Krradic presence of asbe^os in the ambirait air. Given the extensive moaitcMring, less than one exceodaoce per month can hardly be characterized as "sporadic.” We recommend that the paragrsqA be revised to delete the table showing tire exceedances and any referaaco to the tabic be deleted. Also, the reference that two of the exceedances were near Stuyvesani Hi^ School should he dciaed. Reference to Stuyvesant tmpHes thtd this location should be given preference over other locations near the site. The fourth sentence ofthe paragraph should be revised to read, "Out of approximately 21,000

145 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145676