Law Department notice on WTC document preservation, Oct 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

were established to correspond to a 1 in 10,000 increased lifetime risk of cancer. As a matter of comparison, for a Superfund site cleanup the desired cleanup goal is a 1 in 1,000,000 increased lifetime risk of cancer with a minimum goal of 1 in 10,000.

11. See response to note 2.

12. No comment needed.

13. Suggested change made.

14. Section clarified by adding the following statement:

New York City officials maintained that EPA had functional notice of NESHAP related activities through its participation at these meetings and that it was doubtful that notification would have changed the manner in which these activities were conducted.

15. The report already points out that asbestos removal activities prior to September 11, 2001, were of accessible asbestos materials, not all asbestos materials. No change made.

16. The last sentence of the footnote was revised as follows:

They also said that the vehicles did not require decontamination since they were not transporting hazardous waste as defined by EPA under 40 CFR Part 260-280; and while decontamination procedures were not required, wash down procedures were mandated.

17. Testimony at EPA Superfund Ombudsman, Congressional, New York State Assembly, and New York City Council hearings is sufficient evidence to indicate a concern with removal activities. The OIG draft report presents a balanced discussion of this issue, as the testimonial evidence was supplemented with the results of ambient air readings in the area around the barge as well as a consultant’s opinion on the impact this may have had on Stuyvesant High School.

18. Questions about lead contamination at Stuyvesant High School were raised in the news as well as at EPA Superfund Ombudsman hearings. This information was retained in the final report.

19. This paragraph was moved to Chapter 2 and revised during the editing process. During this process the specific statements questioned by New York City were eliminated. Further, the final report now includes the total number of air samples analyzed by the TEM method.

20. This paragraph was revised to eliminate the reference to a “public health emergency.” The correct reference should be “immediate hazard.” We retained the FEMA officials’ statement about New York City’s position on the formal indoor cleanup program because this was the position presented to us during our October 21,2002 interview with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Assistant Commissioner for

151 Report No. 2003-P-00012

NYC-WTC_000145682