66 JOHN 59 MAIDEN LANE

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Page 1 of2

Gilsenan, Michael From: Radhakrishnan, Krish Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:14 PM To: Gilsenan, Michael Subject: FW: 66 John st

—Original Message— From: Melendrs, Janet Sent; Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:15 PM To: Radhakrishnan, Krish Cc: Theodorellys, Penny Subject: 66 John st

April 16,2003

ECB Safety Committee C/0 R. Potasznik 66 John Street New York, New York 10038

Dear ECB Safety Committee:

This is in response to your correspondence dated April 9, 2003. Thank you for addressing your concerns with my office.

As a result of receiving information from Department employees the Bureau of Environmental Compliance (BEC) Asbestos Control Program (ACP) and the Office of Environmental Health and Safety Compliance (OEHSC) were contacted. OEHSC provided the ACP with the result of a carpet sonication sample. The sample result was an excerpt of a report that was not received. Carpet sonication is not a New York State Department of Health approved method for the collection and analysis of asbestos-containing materials. Further, this sampling method has not been adopted as a Federal, State, or local standard.

Asbestos fibers do not pose a health hazard unless the fibers become airborne. A single direct relationship between asbestos-containing dust and potential human exposure has not been established in the scientific literature. A direct relationship between dust levels and exposure have been documented 4br_other contaminants (such as lead) This relationship has not been documented for asbestos fibers probably due to the unique aerodynamic properties of the fibers.

After September 11, 2001, the ACP responded to calls from concerned building occupants and reviewed bulk sample results from the building owner. Site visits did not disclose the presence of visible debris within the interior of the building. According to the information in ACP files, air samples were collected within the building on September 14^, 15, and 16*, 2001. The samples were analyzed by phase contrast microscopy (PCM) and were below O.Olfrcc (the clearance standard). Ten bulk samples were collected from exterior surfaces during early July 2002. The results indicated the debris was not asbestos-containing material. Nine additional samples were collected on November 1, 2002. The analytical results indicated the samples were not asbestos-containing material.

4/16/2003

NYC-VVTC_000156167