Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Appendix T

OIG Evaluation of New York City's Response to Draft Excerpts The following numbered notes respond to the numbered comments in New York City’s response in Appendix S.

1. We agree that there were a number of factors that caused EPA to assume a lead role in responding to indoor environmental concerns, and that only presenting the criticism of NYC and not EPA would be misleading. Our draft already recognized that EPA was criticized as well and that this also influenced their actions regarding indoor concerns. The sentence has been clarified by deleting the lead-in clause that only cited criticism of New York City. The sentence now reads as follows:

EPA began to assume a lead role in February 2002, when the Agency initiated a multi-agency task force to address concerns about the indoor environment

2. We presented the criticism as background information that is necessary for the reader to understand the information that follows and to put this information into proper context. Regarding indoor asbestos contamination, evidence does not support the City’s contention that there is “no evidence to support a claim that any significant number of buildings were contaminated with asbestos.’’ Appendix K to our report points out that an October 12,2001 study of two residential buildings - one presumed to have significant WTC dust contamination and the other not - found that both buildings had significant asbestos contamination, ranging from 6,277 to 10,620 s/mm2 in one building and from 141 to 379 in the other building - all of which are above the 70 s/mm2 level. As we also point out, from September 2001 to September 2002 (when the indoor testing and cleaning program was implemented), many residents returned and cleaned their own residences, leaving it unknown as to the level of WTC dust contamination that actually was deposited in their residences. Further, EPA recent cleaning confirmation study report notes that one to three cleanings were necessary to achieve the health related clearance levels. We do not believe changes are needed.

3. We do not agree with removing the cited information. In our opinion, an EPA Regional Administrator’s letter to a United States Congressman is evidence that we can cite in our report. Further, EPA’s Situation Reports represent evidence we can cite as these are contemporaneous documents, that are completed soon after events are observed. We have included NYC’s position on this issue by adding the following sentence to the paragraph:

New York City officials disagreed with the characterizations of their statements presented in these documents and told us that they repeatedly expressed the position that the City welcomed any authorized federal assistance at that time.

149 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145680