Sk B9 Agency Comments 2 Of 2 Fdr- Epa Comments 163

Stephanie Kaplan From: sent: To: Cc: Subject:

[email protected] Friday, July 09, 2004 4:07 PM Philip Zelikow; Chris Kojm; Steve Dunne; Stephanie Kaplan; Dan Marcus [email protected] EPA SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 10

EPA COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 10 Chapter 10, Footnote 12: 1. In light of the first sentence, where the Commission acknowledges that "We do not have the expertise to examine the scientific accuracy of the pronouncements in the press releases", we recommend deleting the fifth through seventh sentences of the first paragraph (the sentences beginning "The most controversial" through the end of the paragraph). This is especially the case for the sentence beginning "The EPA Inspector General...", which we believe should be deleted. 2. Paragraph 4, 1st Sentence. We believe the statement "The EPA had no body of data or experience it could readily rely upon to assess the extraordinary air quality conditions in lower Manhattan after 9/11" may present an inaccurate statement concerning data and experience at the time of 9/11. The more relevant issue is whether the specific benchmarks needed to assess the extraordinary conditions of 9/11 existed. We suggest the sentence be revised to read as follows: "Health-based benchmarks needed to assess the extraordinary air quality conditions in lower Manhattan after 9/11 did not exist." 3. Paragraph 4, 2nd Sentence: "Therefore EPA and the White House improvised and applied standards developed for other circumstances . . . " ^_

a. The word "improvised" suggests that EPA somehow lacked foundation in its actions, •hich we believe is an inaccurate implication (indeed, the use of "improvised" seems contradicted by the inclusion of the words "applied standards" in the very same sentence). We suggest deleting "improvised and". b. Additionally, the inclusion of "the White House" in this sentence we believe is misleading. The sentence focuses on standards relating to air quality and worker safety and the prior paragraph recognizes the absence of White House involvement in the substance of the pronouncements at issue. Taking these comments together, the sentence should simply read: "Therefore EPA applied standards developed for other circumstances in order to make pronouncements . . . "

40