NYC Law Department release
Independent mirror · updated as the City releases more · v1.2.6
← Document results/DEP Box 35/JLC REPORTS
Document / 6 pages

JLC Environmental purchase order form, March 19, 2003

Machine-extracted title · confidence 90%

Purchase order form from JLC Environmental Consultants dated March 19, 2003 for environmental testing services.

NYC-WTC_000101256–000101261

Folder label: “JLC REPORTS

Page image
Scanned page image, NYC-WTC_000101260
OCR text

OCR status: ok · source: pdftotext

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

.lheodoreJiys, Penny From: Theodorellys, Penny Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:34 AM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Radhakrishnan, Krish; Gilsenan, Michael; '[email protected]' Subject: 114 Liberty Sampling

The following are comments received from the USEPA for the analytical data received to date. The analytical sensitivity was an issue I had addressed with you as well. We discussed the matter and you had gotten clarification from the lab. Please contact Mr. Chuck Nace of the USEPA directly and address the comments below. (Chuck Nace, Environmental Toxicologist, USEPA - Region 2 212.637.3459 /212.637.4164

Excerpts of the e-mail I received...

_there are several problems with the reporting limits (i.e., analytical sensitivity). 1) The PAH data indicates that the reporting limit used is 5 ug. This does not allow us to compare the results to the health-based benchmark because the reporting limit is higher than the benchmark. The reporting limit that was supposed to be used was I ug (as stated on page 3, item #5 in the scope of work). I hope future PAH analyses can use the appropriate reporting limit as it will result in data that can be compared to the health-based benchmark. 2) The asbestos data indicates that the reporting limit used is 0.0009 s/cc. This is acceptable for comparing to the health-based benchmark but the reporting limit that was supposed to be used was 0.0004 s/cc (as stated on page 4, Asbestos Collection and Analysis, item #2). Using the lower reporting limit will add confidence that the concentrations are below the health-based benchmark rather than being "at" the health-based benchmark and it is also what is being used in our residential leaning project and it is what was used for 125 Cedar Street. 3) The lead data indicates that the reporting limit used is 20 ug/ft2. Again, this is acceptable for comparing to the health-based benchmark of 25 ug/ft2, but for our projects we used a reporting limit of 2.32 ug/ft2 and a reporting limit of 9 ug/ft2 was used for 125 Cedar Street. A summary of the data I have received to data is presented below: Asbestos - TEM 40 samples at or below the health-based benchmark of 0.0009 (28 were below the reporting limit of 0.0009), 1 above health-based benchmark @ 0.0018 s/cc Asbestos/Fibrous Glass - PCM 3 samples were below the health-based benchmark of 0.01 f/cc and 2 samples were overloaded and could not be analyzed. Lead

NYC-WTC 000101260

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

NYC-WTC_000101260Source: 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

No available related records indexed in this group.

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 →