NYC Law Department release
Independent mirror · updated as the City releases more · v1.3.3
☕ Buy me a coffee
← Document results/DEP Box 33/No folder label
Document / 3 pages

DOH mold inspection memo, August 2002

Machine-extracted title · confidence 75%

Memo from NYC Department of Health regarding a mold inspection conducted in July 2002, with inspection report attached.

NYC-WTC_000096944–000096946
Page image
Scanned page image, NYC-WTC_000096946
OCR text

OCR status: ok · source: pdftotext

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document AUG-19-2002 1` 44 I-._C'it_rl~ii-~i_ L' c-: 21 ES 429 F.05./03

Apartment 5 — Water damage was less extensive in this apartment. Some peeling paint was observed on the ceiling in a rw,_ T,^a~1i and above a clr_1' ceiling over the bathroom by the ,,vorlaoom. No visible mold was ohser,'e in thrS a:cas. A small area of water damage nos also noted [n the-kitchcn above the shw4do j "" the wail. it vas unclear if the discoloratlon - in this location was troll growth I, -

Apartment 6N -- . Ceiling \rater damage v.as noted and some c~1i;5ping paint was observed on the ceiling in se'vera i area . So:te of wood floors: 'ca ..is buckled. it was unclear whether a the radiator, smali area of r_1SCoirra.lrJn L'1 one location (in the .orn:'.T of the ceiling, above in the room with the desk) was 1.1101:1 growth.

Apartment 5S — Smali areas of chipping paint were observed is tl!ree room's elf this apari ne;.t. No vi_ mold growth was noted.

CorLClU51C_n and itecorlltiiai; ato;s

it 'T.ICFIt,1 he ro,mo rd in accordance with the enclosed "c ''^':rne d:Cj that any vmsibl Du H '\ [ t ;ilioelines on Assessnier1t and l"..erne'i'.t1"-n of .I u;-ito 1i. L111 n ' OrLr ti nts

It is also Iecor.uneiided ;flat the .sn all are,fs of dm clo o'.i n that could not: be ideratified a be pC:Ilt'c7iateii in 3Ct:orti.L'ZCC wit!. .' -!:ye. ,.iIC{C:il1'il.'.s i -ucLit'4. !'l: o iii`'. `:iuuiu mold gro` ^•- th

be removed and inspected for Y'.lC ld o'y i ll. i `lc fi n sextent of th e mold growth in the l by th e area revealed U.t;1'..t in 4p~, t .i.-F'•, shout i he determined. 4N a , ,.i -rir ,

Where wallboard t Vi a ,. a ~1. yli~J ll~in _S removed. exposed :e .l'~ ms~ should -- be Lnsoected for mold growth. If mold ?LYwh J.,; ciisi:o erad, the extent t'f th eIta?iowth should he determined and I't-',Lllti.ttlii.l~ri practices st2~.71t 1d 'cc ad~j 4i,.4C.'.G' 3..r~urtJile adjusted ^~ ..~.it b1' ~,_r lJ. t is _`i iss that r.?.oic _growth is occurring _hi behind 1 ! L other. j~'ee 7 L, 1 l..ed wails. Perimeter p _,. soc i ster walls arc not likely to promote sigiificant mold growth or the unpainted interstitial space. Exploratory cutouts of the sheetrock (preferably at the base of the wall) should be perforn:.ed in areas where water damage is observed but no visible mold growth is seen to identify possible hidden sources of mold.

NYC-WTC 000096946

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

NYC-WTC_000096946Source: 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.

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 →