Sections

Site contains asbestos: Resident

Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like TimesLedger on Facebook.

The 56-year-old Floral Park resident is claiming that the demolition of a property adjacent to him at 256-18 87th Rd. was handled improperly, sending harmful asbestos residue into the surrounding air, soil and water supply.Two of three city Department of Environmental Protection documents dated Feb. 13, 2004 provided to the TimesLedger by Sivio with "Not An Asbestos Project" displayed clearly at the top showed that 1,700 square feet of non-friable asbestos containing material, or ACM, was present on the roof, chimney and shingles on the roof and exterior of the property. Sivio claimed the paperwork was suspicious because the documents showed asbestos was present on the building yet highlighted that the project did not involve asbestos. "This was not an innocent mistake," Sivio said. "This was negligence. There's no excuse whatsoever to stamp and approve a dangerous site. This is a fraud. This is a major fraud."But Natalie Millner, a DEP spokeswoman, said Sivio's claim is without merit.She explained that there are two types of asbestos Ð "one that flies around in the air and has little particles" or friable asbestos, and another kind called contained asbestos. Contained asbestos, according to Millner, is found in tiles and in sheet rock like the property in question and is "not dangerous.""According to us, proper procedures were followed," said Millner, pointing out that contained asbestos still has to be removed from a site although it is not harmful to the environment.However, she did admit that the heading "Not An Asbestos Project" is "misleading." She said that is the paperwork used by DEP inspectors when a site involves contained asbestos. In a Sept. 16 letter from R. Radhakrishnan, the director of the DEP's Asbestos Control Program, to state Sen. Frank Padavan (R-Bellerose) about the demolition, he said the department visited the site on July 25 after a complaint about the demolition was received."The inspection did not disclose evidence of an asbestos disturbance," Radhakrishnan wrote. "Please note, the department does not collect samples of in-place suspect asbestos-containing material."The day after the DEP visit, the agency inspected the property again after another complaint, Radhakrishnan said."This inspection disclosed improper handling of asbestos-containing shingles," he said in the letter. "Violations were issued to both the contractor and the owner of the property."Sivio said that while the fines imposed on the Floral Park, L.I.-based Oakridge Building Corp. Ðthe property's contractorÐ and the building's owner, identified in DEP documents as Sudhir Arorea, should have been $25,000 apiece, they were only fined $4,000 each. The violations issued were for "failure to abate ACM by wet methods, failure to provide a worker decontamination system, employing uncertified workers, failure to post asbestos warning signs and failure to bag ACM," according to a city Environmental Control Board document.---He said that he wanted to testify in court about his claims but a judge told him that was not necessary because the parties pleaded guilty to all charges and were fined $25,000 each."If the judge would have allowed me to show my proof (the DEP documents and pictures showing asbestos residue), then he could have had the DEP test the soil," Sivio said. In the letter from Radhakrishnan to Padavan, he said the DEP does not test soil. Millner also backed that statement.Oakridge could not be reached for comment because the address listed on an ECB document Ð 2121 Hillside Ave.Ð belonged to United Shipping and Packaging. A man behind the counter of the store said the address was the mailing address for Oakridge and he did not know of another address for the contractor. There was no phone number listed for Oakridge in the yellow pages."This is nothing else but environmental terrorism," Sivio said, noting that he would also like to know where the "dangerous" asbestos-containing material was transported to and why the fines were minimal."I want to know where this stuff went," he said. "Somebody's making a lot of money" by selling topsoil from the site.He also said he contacted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but he said the EPA would not get involved because the situation did not involve a commercial property.Sivio is also calling for Queens District Attorney Richard Brown to investigate the matter and is looking to set up a meeting between the DEP, local elected officials, Community Board 13 and the EPA to discuss the situation.Reach reporter Howard Koplowitz by e-mail at news@timesledger.com or by phone at 718-229-0300, Ext. 173

Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like TimesLedger on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not TimesLedger.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to TimesLedger.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

CNG: Community Newspaper Group