On Brookline

Question: Isn’t this St. Aidan’s asbestos story a bit overblown?

Answer: Well, if you think removing 7,500 sq. feet of highly toxic material from the exterior of a 150 year building (in a densely populated area) is no big deal, than you ought to work for the Town of Brookline. Neighbors are concerned not just because it’s asbestos, but because they don’t trust the town and the Archdiocese to protect their interests, or their health. And I can’t blame them.

Remember, this is the same developer and contractor who failed to obtain local permits prior to removing asbestos from the church building.

Question: The Archdiocese says that they will wet and bag the asbestos prior to the demolition. Isn’t that how most people dispose of it?

Answer: They say that now. Not long ago there was talk of the Brookline Fire Department wetting down the building during demolition to keep asbestos from becoming airborne. That’s called the “wet method” of asbestos abatement (during demolition).

Question: So what’s the problem?

Answer: Oh dear, where to begin? First, until a few days ago, the Archdiocese and Town were implying that they had removed all of the material from the rectory but that they were going to play it safe and have an asbestos meter-reader on site. On Wednesday we learn that there is 7,500 sq. feet of material that needs to be removed prior to the demolition.

But the real problem will exist during the demolition, not prior to it. Are you going to trust these people to remove all the asbestos before the walls come down? I wouldn’t. And once they do come down what will happen to keep any asbestos from becoming airborne? The only method that developers want to use is the “wet method”. But that makes matters worse.

The safest — but most expensive — method is to pick the building apart by hand.

Next, the circumstances surrounding removal are unique — a large amount of that asbestos is on the exterior of the building and the area is densely populated. If the material becomes airborne there’s no way to put it back. And bear in mind that the abatement covers the asbestos that is noticeable, or which has been observed. Who knows what might get stirred up in the demolition. And few people who become sick from asbestos inhalation know when it happened.

Question: So what’s the solution?

Answer: It seems to me that there needs to be an independent analysis of the amount of asbestos involved in the demolition and the plans to remove, all the way through demolition. The independent analyst should be selected by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the project (in part on environmental grounds) and paid for by the developer.

That’s not to suggest that the Massachusetts DEP isn’t up to the job, but they are overburdened. And God knows that the Town’s Health Department is too busy with their events for National Health Week (like their seminar on how to read a nutrition label) to care about asbestos wafting through a neighborhood.