Memo with comments on EPA draft document, August 2003

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

commented concerning the alleged statement made on September 30, 2001, which is referenced in this paragraph and will not reiterate its comments. The City recommends that the two sentences that refer to the statements allegedly made on October 9, 2001 and September 30, 2001 be deleted.

8. The City believes that the paragraph labeled “Multi-Agency Residential Cleanup Undertaken” on page 5 is somewhat misleading. The second sentence suggests that the sole basis for EPA’s involvement in indoor air in February 2002 was that it believed that the City could not handle all of the issues involved in this matter. This is not completely accurate. First, EPA did not just become involved in indoor issues in February 2002. As shown by the documents submitted by the City, EPA was involved in indoor air issues as early as September 29, 2001. Second, there were a number of events that coalesced around February 2002 that brought about more involvement in indoor issues by the EPA, including, perhaps most importantly, federal funding for indoor cleaning for private residences. Therefore, the City recommends that the second sentence be deleted.

9. The first paragraph in the section labeled “EPA Role on In Indoor Environment” is misleadingT as it—_refers to the portion of the NCP which allows a state or local agency to take | the lead role in the case of a hazardous substance release. However, in this case, there was no hazardous substance release. We recommend that a footnote be added to this sentence noting that there was no hazardous substance release.JNOTE£Jjoj^vejieedJo bejnorej3areli^^ language here? To state “there was no hazardous substance release” when we did find some hazardous substances may be misconstrued. 1 think that the issue is that while there were hazardous materials released, the site itself was never declared to be a “hazardous materials site” (1 would check with DOH. DDC, or PEP as to the proper terminology).

10. In the first paragraph of the sub-section labeled ’’Cleaning Instructions”, the report opines that as a result of failure of the City to recommend that residents obtain professional cleaning, long term health risks may have been increased for individuals, who cleaned their residences without using respirators and other professional cleaning equipment. This is speculation that is not supported by the evidence. As mentioned previously, the indoor sampling conducted by a number of entities, including the U.S. Public Health Service and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the City in responding to asbestos complaints, indicates that asbestos contamination was virtually non-existent. Consequently, asbestos abatement procedures were not required and the methods recommended by the City were perfectly appropriate. Accordingly, we recommend that this paragraph be deleted.

11. The last paragraph in this section is also inaccurate. The City strongly contests the current opinion of asbestos medical experts contained in the first sentence of this paragraph. First, asbestos contamination was virtually non-existent. Thus, not only is it misleading to state that there were asbestos contamination levels found, but the absence of levels of contamination does not support the conclusion of the experts. Also, the conclusion of the experts completely ignores the practicality of the situation, in that for respiratory protection to be effective, the user must be fit tested first and also that it is medically dangerous for an individual to wear a respirator without being medically cleared. Finally the last two sentences of the paragraph are sheer speculation, which should not be in an inspector general report. There is no evidence as to how the individuals cleaned their residences. More importantly, as noted previously, there is no Revised Draft SB Comments.doc 4 8/3/3

NYC-WTC_000153367