Memo with comments on EPA draft document, August 2003

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

5. The first paragraph in the section labeled “New York City’s Initial Response” on page 2 is somewhat misleading. It fails to mention that the City’s procedure in the past policy was to hold buildings owners responsible for maintaining a safe environment and, when necessary, cleaning up their buildings. and that- iln previousother disasters, the federal government did not provide for federal funding to municipalities to clean privately owned buildings or property. The City consequently had no authority to request reimbursement for this | activity and no authority to enter privately owned buildings, without the owner’s consent to eaffect such a cleanup or the finding of an imminent hazard. Thus, the second sentence is also ] somewhat inaccurate. We recommend that the first three sentences be modified as follows: “Consistent with past practices and federal law, building owners were initially held responsible for assessing and cleaning of their own buildings. According to New York City officials, the | issue of funding cleaning privately owned buildings was discussed with FEMA and the EPA. Initially, the federal position was that the Stafford Act, the statute which provides authority for federal disaster response, did not provide dhecUfunding to the City for cleanup of privately owned buildings. Instead, building owners who needed help were directed to the Disaster Assistance Service Center (DASC) where they could apply for financial assistance from FEMA. During this discussion, the federal agencies were informed that owners of privately owned buildings would be responsible for funding the clean up of their buildings and agreed with this course of action.”

6. Concerning the first full paragraph on page 4, which begins, “NYCDEP officials told us...”, the paragraph is somewhat inaccurate in that there never wahas been s a certification | program to determine the level of compliance with NYCDEP instructions concerning cleaning of privately owned buildings. Also, the paragraph does not reflect the proactive efforts of the NYCDEP and the fact that NYCDEP not only told EPA it cleaned all of the rest of the buildings, but provided documentation. The City suggests that the first sentence be revised to read, “NYCDEP officials told us they have never had did not create a certification program, nor did | they have authority to create such a program, to determine the level of compliance with their instructions regarding the testing and cleaning of asbestos inside buildings, unless a complaint was made or an asbestos abatement notification was filed with the City.” The City suggests that | an additional sentence be added that states, “However, NYCDEP made significant efforts, including establishing an additional “hotline” to iensure that residents could obtain information [ concerning asbestos cleanup and could report any asbestos related problems.” We suggest that the last sentence of the paragraph be revised to read, “NYCDEP officials provided documentation that the remaining buildings were cleaned by NYCDEP with FEMA funding.”

7. With respect to the first full paragraph on p.5, which alleges that New York City officials told EPA that the City would be requesting EPA assistance with respect to sampling and reoccupation issues, without further information such as: who the New York City officials were, or even what New York City agency they represented it is impossible for the City to confirm or deny the allegation. Again, the City at that time was willing to accept all authorized federal assistance. Moreover, as shown in the documents submitted by the City, the City had accepted U.S. Public Health Service and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) | assistance in conducting indoor air sampling. Thus, it would be inconsistent for the City to refuse EPA, another federal agency, assistance in this matter. £NOTE;^PA jyas pail of the discussion with ATSDR on the protocol for the indoor air studvl The City has already Revised Draft SB Comments.doc 3 8/3/3

NYC-WTC_000153366