Section 1. WHAT IS IN THERE
The R.J.Lee Group conducted $33 million worth of
testing on the property on 130 Liberty Street, the Deutsche Bank building. The group conducted sampling for
different contaminants known to be present in World Trade Center dust in both
the Deutsche bank building and other Class A office buildings for
comparison. RJLee Group found
¡°that the interior spaces on all floors of the Building are pervasively
contaminated with WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances.¡±[1]
The environmental
test results indicated that "a combination of contaminants known to be
hazardous to human health, in quantities and concentrations unparalleled in any
other building designed for office use, permeates the entire structure at
levels which exceed by up to thousands of times the levels considered
appropriate for Class A office buildings." These substances include
"asbestos, lead, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PNA), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD), and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDF)."[2]
Persistent and extensive growth of
mold existed in many floors of the Building.[3]
These contaminants are ¡°present on all floors of the
building.¡±[4] Yet there is a high variability in the
concentrations of WTC Hazardous Substances throughout the Building. Hotspots
existed even in areas with relatively low average contamination levels.[5] In addition, the reports noted that
variability of the composition of individual samples was so high that ¡°no
single WTC Hazardous Substance can be utilized to predict the
concentrations of other WTC Hazardous Substances for
remediation purposes.¡±[6]
Section 2.
HOW DANGEROUS IS THIS MIX OF CONTAMINANTS?
The finding of serious contamination is not news
anymore. Its findings were verified
by other testing data, including the data from the insurance companies, and
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the present owner and the agency
currently in charge of the demolition of the Building.[7] RJLEE group, however, offers detailed
insights on how dangerous this particular mix of contaminants can be.
The RJLee Group, along with many other sources, characterized
WTC dust as a mix of unique distribution of ultra fine particles as a result of
undergoing combustion in intense heat and pressure. Because these ¡°finely pulverized and friable¡± particles are
much smaller than what would be found in ordinary surface dust, these particles
are more likely to go into air by disturbance, more likely to be absorbed into
human body due to its size, and ultimately – much more dangerous to human
health.
Asbestos: For instance, the RJLee
studies found that ¡°airborne asbestos fibers in the Building are longer and
thinner than airborne asbestos fibers collected in other buildings nationwide
not impacted by the WTC Event.¡±[8] ¡°These longer and thinner fiber
characteristics are generally accepted as resulting in higher human health
toxicity.¡±[9]
Lead: Furthernore, the RJLee Group
also found that lead in the Deutsche Bank building, due to its particular chemical
and physical form, can be ¡°more readily absorbed into the body following
exposure (e.g. ingestion).¡±[10]
Mercury: RJLee Studies also
emphasized mercury contamination.
Although mercury is found in trace amounts in usual class A office
buildings, testings found that surface mercury contamination in the building is
¡°pervasive¡± and airborn concerntrations of mercury ¡°exceeding warning and
unsafe levels set by EPA, U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).¡±[11]
In addition, synergistic effect
with extensive growth of mold was note in the following way:
Methyl mercury, a highly
toxic form of mercury, is created by microbial
action on metallic mercury
and was found in trace amounts in the Building.
Levels of methyl mercury
will likely increase unless the source of mercury
and bacteria are effectively
remediated.[12]
Mercury is very dangerous because it volatizes at room
temperature. Any activity
increasing temperature slightly, including ¡°certain remediation and demolition
activities, will increase the levels of mercury within the Building which at
times are likely to exceed worker exposure limits.¡±[13] Thus, any demolition activity,
especially if using electrical demolition equipment, may pose unacceptable
risks to workers and surrounding community if the demolition proceeds without
proper safeguards against mercury.
Suspension studies: Not only the dust
itself proves toxic, it is in a form / environment where it can be easily
suspended and remain in the air for a long time. The RJLee Report found that ¡°demolition will cause visible
emissions of dust¡± and ¡°disturbance of dust creates elevated airborne
concentrations.¡± For instance, the
group concluded that ¡°normal air disturbance caused by minimal activities during
sampling resuspends respirable WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances.[14]
Synergies and additive effects: Much
overlooked is the Appendix 8 of the Health and Risk Assessment created by the
Deutsche Bank Health Group. The
Appendix is a comprehensive documentation of how toxicological interaction of
chemicals in the Building¡¯s mixture can multiply (synergistic) or add
(additive) to the health risks:
Asbestos + PCBs / PAHS: Even
though PCBs and PAHs received less study in the RJLee studies, the Appendix
notes that the additive toxic effects of asbestos and these chemical compounds PAHs
are extensively documented in the cigarette smoke research. The cigarette
smokers were 92 times as likely to develop pulmonary cancers as the nonsmokers
(Selikoff et al., 1968). Subsequent studies of this population would seem to
indicate that when the lungs have been damaged from asbestos exposure
(resulting in asbestosis), the carcinogenic effects of cigarette smoke are enhanced
(Jones et al., 1996).
PAHs and Particulate Matter:
the uptake of PAHs into model biological membranes is enhanced when the PAHs
are adsorbed onto particulates, most notably silica, carbon black, and
chrysotile asbestos fibers.
Lead and Mercury, Dioxin and
PCBs: the
Appendix documents current studies showing that interaction of lead and
mercury, and interaction of dioxin and PCBs have synergistic or additive
effect. [15]
Section 3.
Effectiveness of Remediation.
The RJLee Group tested how effective would be the cleanup
efforts where the target building is pervasively contaminated in unprecendented
magnitude. One group of study
obtained pre and post-cleanup (by RJLee) samples in headers, raceways, cell
systems, and high- and low-pressure ductwork in designated test cleaning areas
throughout the building. The
tables below summarize the comparison of pre- and post-cleaning contaminant
levels on interior surfaces versus the health-based screening level discussed
above for asbestos, dioxins, and lead:
RJLee also conducted another study jointly with Young
Laboratories, the testing company hired by the Deutsche Bank¡¯s insurers. Young Laboratories constructed test
abatement cells in office spaces in 130 Liberty Street. Young Laboratories conducted sampling,
cleanup and then resampling to test the efficacy of the cleanup. RJLee Group also conducted side by side
sampling. The findings show that
the cleanup efforts, although they did reduce the levels of contamination,
failed to remediate the pilot cells down to safe level.[17]
These findings demonstrate that five or more
cleanings were required to reduce the concentrations of asbestos, dioxin,
and lead below the health-based screening levels developed for the Building.[18] The contamination did decrease in most
post-cleanup situations. However,
the levels were simply too high to reduce down to safe levels in one cleanup
effort. In addition, many data
sets showed increased level of contamination post cleanup and indicated that
there might be recontamination from other areas or simply that some cleanup
efforts were ineffective.
These results, according to the New York Environmental
Law & Justice Project, raises two crucial points. First, whenever there is a cleanup / demolition activity
in the 130 Liberty Street, post-cleanup/demolition resampling should be done to
check for efficacy of the cleanup activity and potential for recontamination. LMDC or any other entities can¡¯t just
assume that cleanup / containment / demolition is successful. They have the burden to prove that
these activities effectively removed contamination and thus effectively reduced
the risk to workers and the community.
The other point should have been obvious from the
beginning – that contamination in the Deutsche Bank will not go anywhere
unless there is there is professional removal, natural decay, or (God forbid)
release to the environment outside the building. As shown by the RJLee remediation studies, even multiple
cleanup efforts fail to remove the contamination down to any manageable
levels. As far as the Law Project
can discover from the released public documents, there was little
decontamination work or removal activities except the decontamination of the
gash area and removal of supposedly ¡°intellectual property¡± and furnitures. This indicates that whatever the
RJLee Group discovered in Deutsche Bank is still at large in the property. LMDC and other entities / agencies
should operate under the assumption that all the contaminants still exist in
the Deutsche Bank building unless testing results prove otherwise. They have the burden to prove that
these contaminants do not exist there anymore.
Section
4. MOLD.
The WTC COPC committee did not consider microorganisms
a contaminant of potential concern.
There is no set benchmarks for mold that triggers regulatory
action. These set of facts may
fool even some government officials into believing that mold is not a
problem. However, the RJLee Group
determined that the ¡°Bank cannot ignore potential risks to public health from
microorganisms.¡±[19] By 2002, the Group found that ¡°extensive
visible mold growth characterized many floors of the Building.¡±[20] Even though the Deutsche Bank removed
visible mold in response, inspections during the Fall of 2003 and Winter 2004
revealed additional microbiological contamination in the Building, finding
additional type of contaminants as well as contamination in areas not
previously inspected.[21]
In particular, many water systems in the building ¡°are
now contaminated with high counts of Legionella pneumophila bacteria
(for instance, the upper secondary system has been estimated to have 4000
organisms per ml water, while as few as 40 organisms per ml water can serve as
an inoculating dose).¡±[22]
Despite the cleanup in 2002, mold and other microorganisms reappeared. Microbiological contamination is not
going to disappear unless moisture level in the building can be adequately
controlled.[23] Any
deconstruction activity in the Building, therefore, should take account of the
potential risk microorganisms pose and how the activity might exacerbate the
growth of microorganisms. For instance, wetting down method for asbestos
removal will provide more than enough growth potential for these microorganisms
which may cause allergic reactions, pneumonia and even legionnaire¡¯s disease.[24]