NYC Law Department release
Independent mirror · updated as the City releases more · v1.2.6
← Document results/DEP Box 42/No folder label
Document / 7 pages

NYC-WTC_000160448

Label derived from the City's folder field. The City does not supply document titles.NYC-WTC_000160448–000160454
Page image
Scanned page image, NYC-WTC_000160452
OCR text

OCR status: ok · source: pdftotext

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

The interpretation of these results is constrained by the scientific 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 micro vacuum samples. A scientific peer review panel (World Trade Center October 21- 22, 2002 Peer Review Meeting Notes. Available at www.tera.org.) recently evaluated the technical soundness of estimating airborne asbestos concentration as a function of asbestos concentration in settled dust for the purpose of setting health-based benchmarks. The panel recommended against such an approach based on the significant uncertainty associated with the numerous factors (such as activity patterns, sample location, surface characteristics, air exchange rates and room volume) that influence this relationship. 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 cleaning effectiveness, and not a risk-based health assessment. EPA’s WTC Residential Confirmation Cleaning Study can be obtained at http://www.epa.gov/wtc.

Primarily, risk from asbestos is directly related to its concentration in air. Consequently, post-cleaning aggressive (i.e., use of a leaf blower and fans) air sampling was conducted at 114 Liberty St. by DEP’s contractors to insure that asbestos levels in air met regulatory-based and risk-based clearance criteria.

The EMSL analytical report does not provide detailed information on sample collection; however, it appears many samples were collected from inaccessible areas below the hardwood flooring, or from areas of unknown accessibility such as, wall tracking, pipe shafts and I-beams. The scope of work developed for the clean up activities was designed for the removal of debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center and did not include the removal or remediation of pre-existing building materials. As a matter of precaution, any residual dust and, thus, potential reservoirs of asbestos, from currently accessible areas should be cleaned using the technique of vacuuming and wet-wiping.

Asbestos containing materials (ACMs), such as floor tiles, were observed during DEP’s cleaning of the building. Some of the ACMs may be present under the hardwood flooring, thus samples collected from this location may be more representative of the building materials contained within the building rather than indicating contamination from other sources. Additionally, DEP noted and reported the presence of thermal system insulation and damaged asbestos-containing fireproofing within the building. Building representatives were provided with this information and were informed of the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 1 of the Rules of the

3

NYC-WTC_000160452

OCR can misread numbers and units. Confirm readings against the page image before using them.

NYC-WTC_000160452Source: NYC Law Department, mirrored locally

Related records

Browse subjects →

Ranked by indexed similarity. Reasons describe shared subjects and filing context; check the source records.

Same-box records

Filed elsewhere

More like this page

Similar subjects in other documents. Similarity does not establish the same event, measurement or conclusion.

Page similarity is temporarily unavailable or this page has no indexed vector.

Buildings in this record

Machine-extracted building matches; verify each source. Buildings, never households.

Others also read

Readers open these alongside this record — through an Ask answer, the same folder, or indexed similarity. Not a claim they are about the same event.

Compare copies and versions →