[Letter, as published in the Cambridge Chronicle, July 4, 2001, on page 6.]
Clearing up a few points
The Chronicle’s recent editorial commentary entitled "Dig Safely, W.R. Grace
"contained a number of factual errors regarding the Asbestos Protection
Ordinance.
The editorial states that the ordinance in some cases requires "tenting and
venting, "which the editorial incorrectly defines as "seal[ing] the entire
work zone in an airtight tent." Although the ordinance does require that
disturbance of asbestos contaminated soil take place within a temporary
structure under some circumstances, the ordinance does not require that the
structure be airtight, only that air within the structure be maintained at a
slight vacuum and filtered to prevent release of asbestos dust.
The editorial states that "the ordinance requires tenting and venting
whenever a work project will occur within 50 yards of residential homes." In
fact, the ordinance requires tenting and venting only at the most
contaminated sites, and the proximity threshold is 500 feet, not 50 yards.
The editorial states that the ordinance is inconsistent on the matter of
tenting and venting. In fact, the ordinance is extremely specific and
unambiguous. Tenting and venting is required when disturbing soils at
industrial sites at which asbestos levels in soil of at least 1 percent have
been measured and which meet specific criteria involving proximity to
residences, quantity of soil to be disturbed, or quantity of asbestos at the
site. Tenting and venting may or may not be required at sites that do not
meet these narrow criteria, at the discretion of the health department.
Finally, the editorial states that "the ordinance also provides an out
clause ... Work needed for utility upgrade may be considered exempt from the
tenting and venting requirement." In fact, the ordinance exempts maintenance
of underground utilities from the requirements of the ordinance, so that
emergency repairs can be made without prior approval from the Health
Department. New utility installations and utility upgrades, which have long
lead times, are not exempted from the ordinance.
The Chronicle should be commended for the interest it has shown in this
important matter. However, the editors should have familiarized themselves
with the Asbestos Protection Ordinance more carefully before publishing their
opinion.
DAVID BASS
Norris Street
Contact the Alewife Study Group, North Cambridge Massachusetts, by email at information@alewife.org