DOH/DEP asbestos fact sheet draft, 105 Duane Street

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

December 8, 2001 Certified Letter #7001 2510 0007 4600 2355 page 2 of 6

Related Management needs to grasp the level of anger and fear which continues to grow amongst residents and workers in the downtown area and should not assume that health experts can authoritatively state that continued exposure to WTC-site toxins will not lead to chronic, life-threatening illnesses--because no one really knows.

It is only a matter of time before this groundswell of apprehension and concern receives media attention, expresses itself through community organizing, and begins to seek out responsible parties in both the public and private sector.

Here is a partial listing of the lapses and omissions which have alarmed residents:

TESTING • failure to properly inform residents how to prepare their apartments for testing

Attached to this letter you will find (see Document 1, page 6) a "Residential Sampling Fact Sheet" distributed by the New York Department of Health, which clearly enumerates those activities residents must NOT undertake on the-day-before and the-day-of testing.

As you are probably aware, neither Related nor ATC made any effort to distribute such instructional documents to residents prior to each testing at 105 Duane. Nor did any of the onsite testing personnel suggest to their superiors (or any residents) that running a HEPA filtration unit in the presence of the testing medium (and other such violations of good testing practice) might lead to false results.

no testing results reported to residents for any substance other than asbestos no testing of dust samples in apartments or common areas

The presence of asbestos would, of course, require rigorous abatement to federal standards, thereby exposing the landlord to intense regulatory scrutiny. Not surprisingly, asbestos became the priority substance to test for at 105 Duane. While Related quickly reported with some fanfare that "test results indicated there are no asbestos fibers in those apartments sampled" (bold-face in the 11/28 letter to residents), Related's reports on other toxic substances were then inexplicably delayed and have subsequently never materialized.

The complete lack of test data for fiberglass, silica, gypsum, lead, PCBs, etc. (substances of perhaps more concern to residents than asbestos) is a most provocative omission. Either the promised testing (10/29, 10/31 letters to residents) was not performed, or the results were not to Related's liking and so withheld from residents and staff.

Perhaps it is hoped that the common area testing of December 5`h will produce more palatable and, therefore, more reportable results?

NYC-WTC 000125867