NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document
8
because cleaning of the enclosed spaces behind walls and above ceilings would cost more than
rebuilding. The following press stories describe the situation:^’
The bank says in court papers that the building is too badly contaminated with toxic
materials like asbestos and mercury to ever be reoccupied
But Deutsche Bank has said that the main reason the building could not be reoccupied
was because of contamination from dust spiked with asbestos and other contaminants.
It wrote in its claim that the building was subject to tornado-force winds, earthquake-like
shaking and pressure waves that forced dust into "every crack and crevice" in the
building.
The bank has taken tens of thousands of samples from the building and told insurers
that it is too contaminated to reoccupy.
The bank stated in a lawsuit filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan that tomado-force
winds from the fallen 110- story towers distributed asbestos and other contaminants
throughout the building, making it impossible to safely repair.
EPA claimed resident's testing irrelevant to health risks
Although acknowledging that dust testing was useful in determining abatement effectiveness,
EPAZNYCDEP dismissed the residents’ asbestos dust testing as being irrelevant to showing that
there were any risks from, or hazards associated with the high levels of asbestos in the dust after
the cleanings at 114 Liberty. Their 8/4/03 joint letter stated:
Based on the results that were received Ifrom the residents at 114 Liberty], it appears
that eleven wipe samples and sixteen microvacuum samples were collected by Ambient
Group Inc. and analyzed by EMSL Analytical inc. for asbestos.
The interpretation of these results is constrained by the scientiflc uncertainty regarding
the potential for the measured concentrations in settled dust to become airborne. There
are no standards currently available for assessing potential health consequences from
asbestos through the evaluation of wipe or microvacuum samples.... EPA's use of
surface wipe and microvacuum sampling at its WTC Residential Confirmation Cleaning
Study site (110 Liberty St.) was intended to provide a measure of the cleaning
effectiveness, and not a risk-based health assessment
EPA Region 2 used dust testing as the sole basis for determining there was an asbestos risk
in need of professional abatement at their own 290 Broadway building in Manhattan
The claim by EPA Region 2 that settled dust testing cannot be related to risks, and that only air
testing is valid to project health effects from asbestos, is directly contradicted by their own
actions in the wake of 9/11.
NYC-WTC_000155271
OCR can misread numbers and units. Confirm readings against the page image before using them.