Mayor's Office memo on FEMA funding coordination committee, June 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

are unfounded. There is testimony that is true:. tThe trucks transporting WTC debris were not marked as carrying hazardous waste. Howeyenj-They were not marked in this manner because they were not carrying hazardous waste. This is just one example where testimony should have been critically evaluated before including it in the report. Of more concern is the uncritical acceptance of testimony of trucks not being wetted down properly and trucks not being covered properly, both resulting in the release of dust. The area around Stuyvesant High School was among the most thoroughly monitored in the City. There is no data to show that this area was contaminated by the operation of the transfer station from trucks to barges in the vicinity of the High School. Thus, if there was a release of dust, it was so insignificant as to present no risk at all to health and safety and should not be highlighted in this report. EPA itself, represents that air sampling concerning barge operations indicated that 99.83% of the samples were below the screening levels. The City consequently recommends that this paragraph be deleted.

18. The paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 12 should be modified. The last sentence reports that there was lead found in the ventilation system of Stuyvesant High School. The sentence also reports that it was not determined whether this lead was from WTC fallout. Given the dearth of air samples that were positive for lead and the fact that lead is unlikely to travel far as an airborne particulate, it is very unlikely that the lead found in the ventilation system was from WTC fallout. Even if it was, this has nothing to do with the City’s EPA's fNOTE: this is the IG’s report on the EPA's response and we should keep the focus on the EPAI response to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. While this may be of some academic interest, it has no place in this part of the report. The City recommends that this sentence be deleted.

19. The first paragraph in the section labeled “Asbestos Levels During Demolition and Debris Removal” is misleading. It unduly emphasizes that after September 2001 there were 7 air monitoring samples which exceeded the AHERA standard. It does not mention that there were approximately 40,000 samples taken during this period. Considered in this context, the fact that there were only seven exceedances demonstrates that the danger from asbestos was, in essence, non-existent. The report not only does not draw this conclusion, which is warranted, but it mischaracterizes the seven exceedances as showing the sporadic presence of asbestos in the ambient air. Given the extensive monitoring, less than one exceedance per month can hardly even be characterized as '’sporadic.” We recommend that the paragraph be revised to delete the | table showing the exceedances and any reference to the table be deleted. And, also reference that two of the exceedances were near Stuyvesant High School. Reference to Stuyvesant implies that this location should be given preference over other locations near the site. The fourth sentence of the paragraph should be revised to read, “Out of approximately 40,000 samples taken fi-om October 2001 through May 2002 there were only seven exceedances of the AHERA standard.” The seventh sentence should be revised to read, “The above information shows the virtual non­ existence of asbestos in the ambient air in publicly accessible locations at levels of concern established by EPA for the WTC response (i.e., the AHERA standard) from October 2001 to May 2002.”

20. The second full paragraph on page 20 beginning, “The indoor residential cleanup program” is inaccurate. The second sentence states that the Governor of New York did not declare a public health emergency. Although the Governor did not declare a public health emergency, he declared a “general emergency”, which is construed to include a public health Revised Draft SB Comments.doc 6 8/3/3

NYC-WTC_000153032