Comments recommending removal of respirator sections from EPA report

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

cleanup of privately owned buildings. 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 was 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 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 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 insure 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 assistance in conducting indoor air sampling. Thus, it would be inconsistent for the City to refuse EPA, another federal agency, assistance in this matter. The City has already 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 misleading, 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 C:\Documents and Settings\MichaelGi\Local 3 08/04/03 2:51 PM SettingsxTemporary Internet Files\OLK5\Revised DratCints.doc

NYC-WTC_000153390