EPA Report Review Comments, April 2003

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

RE: Article for Review: DEP Completes Downtown Cleanup Page 3 of 5

understanding the issue and solving the problem," she said. "Thanks to their dedication, I feel much better in my apartment and in the building where I work,"

"We're proud to have done our part to make Lower Manhattan a better place to live," said Avaltroni.

For more information on the DEP's exterior cleanup program and other environmental initiatives, please visit the DEP's web site.

###

---- Original Message----- From: Theodorellys, Penny [ mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] Sent: Tuesday, April 08,2003 2:46 PM To: Hotz, Jonathan Cc: Radhakrishnan, Krish; Gilsenan, Michael Subject: RE: Article for Review: DEP Completes Downtown Cleanup

Jonathan -

I can't access the article. But I can clarify your questions/comments.

The figures were as follows: 1073 inspected 102 Cleaned by Owner 221 Buildings cleaned by DEP contractors (3,669,113 square feet)

We did not identify the presence of asbestos-containing material at these buildings. Rather, the clean-up was based on the presence of debris from the collapse of the WTC. Sampling performed initially indicated some of the

debris was ACM, but not all.

The discrepancy you noted were a result of the following:

1. We had three building owners who refused to participate in the clean-up program. Samples of the debris were collected and the analytical results submitted to the Department disclosed the material was not asbestos-containing material. As a result they were categorized as not requiring cleaning. 2. We also have a landmark building that is painted. The paint is lead-based paint and is deteriorated. The facade is complex and the windows do not seal properly. In brief, the scope of work could not be applied to the circumstances at this building. We have been in communication with FEMA

and are awaiting FEMA to proceed on this building. It was not a part of the

cleaning program that was completed. We will need a separate contract. 3. The number of inspections increased by one, because we performed an inspection at one additional building.

I hope this information, clarified the apparent discrepancy.

4/10/2003

NYC-WTC_000163105