Asbestos Background Information
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON CLAIMS OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE AT GREATER LOWELL REGIONAL VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
MARCH 15, 2017
Many of you have read or heard in recent days of a lawsuit filed by the Attorney General against a subcontractor who worked on the recent and successfully completed renovation project at Greater Lowell Regional Vocational Technical School District. The district did not receive a copy of the complaint until Monday, March 6, 2017 referencing work performed between April 2014 and August 2015. In summary, the Attorney General alleges that the subcontractor, RM Technologies, Inc., failed to properly contain and abate asbestos located during the renovation project, and that RMT failed to adequately supervise and clean up visible asbestos debris. School Committee Chair Raymond Boutin has contacted the Attorney General’s Office to ask for any and all evidence which supports the allegations that abatement work was improperly done. The district will continue to work with all parties, including the Attorney General and our contractors, and the experts hired by our contractors, to review the evidence to determine if and how the work was improperly done.
It is important to recall the use of asbestos was quite common in construction projects and present in building materials when the school was built. When properly contained, asbestos presents little or no danger to employees, students or the public. With respect to Greater Lowell, much of the material containing asbestos was located in the original peg board wall panels located at or near the upper third of wall areas through the building. Because materials containing asbestos, when properly installed and maintained, present little threat to health, the renovation project did not plan for the removal of all asbestos in the building but did remove the vast majority of the original non-friable asbestos containing material (ACM) in transite/peg board wall panels. The school district is required to maintain comprehensive records documenting all asbestos related work performed in the building in its AHERA Plan. The district created and maintained the AHERA Plan, which is a public record and available for review by contacting Mark Byrne, Director of Plant Services, at mbyrne@gltech.org or 978-441-4999.
Since well before the commencement of the renovation project, the school district has worked diligently to ensure a safe and healthy environment for students, staff and the public at Greater Lowell. Because these allegations imply, but do not prove or establish, that the conditions at Greater Lowell might have affected the health of individuals, the school district is committed to providing to the community all relevant information at its disposal about the asbestos abatement program during the renovation project. In a building staffed with hundreds of employees and over 2000 students, the district had only a handful of complaints from individuals about health conditions which they attribute to the building project. While even a handful of such complaints, if caused by the project to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, are too many, the district believes the project was successfully completed and there is little or no hard evidence of an adverse impact to the health of the thousands of people coming or going at Greater Lowell on a daily basis.
The district is taking the unusual step of posting to the school website a series of reports detailing the history of our efforts to ensure a healthy and safe school building. The specific reports and information, including the backup data compiled by independent state licensed testers, the Department of Public Health, and Department of Labor Standards is attached. The district is also attaching reports and data, compiled by the private, licensed consultants hired by the General Contractor, Consigli Construction. The independent abatement subcontractors hired by the contractor were also supervised and monitored by our architect, KBA, and their environmental sub-consultants, Universal Environmental Consultants and HUB Testing Laboratories. In addition the district hired Joslin, Lesser & Associates (JLA), as the owner’s project manager (OPM) to represent the school district’s interests as a member of the architectural, general contractor and OPM team. The district relied on these building and design professionals to hire licensed abatement experts and supervise their work.
Greater Lowell has a history of compliance with rules about asbestos. For example, in August of 2006, the United States Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the schools required Asbestos Management Plan and concluded “The Management Plan was complete with records to indicate that the plan had been updated on a regular basis.” The district has historically been careful to observe all its health and safety obligations, particularly with respect to asbestos. See Exhibit 1 attached.
In February of 2012, the renovation project was about to get under way. At that time the district, through contractors, conducted a hazardous materials identification survey and received a report from EMSL Analytics, Inc., along with an identification survey of hazardous materials also conducted in February. Given the wall tiles and caulking around doors and windows, the survey understandably recorded that asbestos was present in some areas. Its location, however, was consistent with typical construction practices. As will be seen from the data attached, it was found in very limited locations. See Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 attached.
On August 29, 2012, the school district conducted a cyclical three year asbestos building assessment. Properly licensed asbestos workers from Environmental Remediation Services conducted the assessment and concluded, “all asbestos, and suspect asbestos, materials were observed to be in good condition.” Further, the report concluded “As you will notice all asbestos containing materials throughout the school, and all suspect asbestos containing materials, are currently in good condition and do not pose a health risk to building occupants.” See Exhibit 4 attached.
The district hired Consigli Construction Co. as the General Contractor in the Spring of 2013. In the Spring of 2014 the district received notification from Consigli Construction, Co. that they were to begin removing the “peg board” wall panels in a couple of rooms at Greater Lowell. Consigli’s notification is attached as Exhibit 5, and notes that all work will be performed “in accordance with federal, state and local regulations.” Consigli hired RMT to do the work. RMT’s asbestos Abatement Work Plan is attached as Exhibit 6. Further, KBA Architects retained the services of Universal Environmental Consultants (UEC), licensed asbestos abatement professionals, to design the remediation plan. The remediation plan is attached to these materials as Exhibit 7 and the Asbestos Abatement Project statement as Exhibit 8. The plan provided detailed specifications concerning the proposed dates of abatement in the spring of 2014, preparation of the work area, removal of asbestos and containment proposals. The plan specifically referenced OSHA, EPA and the Department of Environmental Protection Standards for asbestos removal. Consigli’s work on the project, through RM Technologies, the subcontractor, continued through the spring of 2014 in accordance with the plan and schedule for abatement. These plans identified specific classrooms and locations in the building where work was to be done. Employees were advised of the classrooms and Consigli suggested action for employees who wished to either preserve some of the materials which might be hanging on their walls or take other steps for their disposal during the remediation program. See Exhibit 9. The environmental sub-consultant’s (UEC’s) logs and clearance testing documentation for these spaces, including room 1407, are attached as Exhibit 10. Additional testing of room 1407 was performed on June 3, 2014 with the documentation attached as Exhibit 11. This work was done by RM Technologies, the defendants in the Attorney General’s lawsuit.
Consigli also retained Cashins and Associates, an Industrial Hygiene and Environmental Testing firm, to regularly monitor and document air quality conditions during the project. Cashins’ baseline IAQ report from July 9, 2014 is attached as Exhibit 12. This report found a trace of asbestos in only one of eight samples taken in representative locations throughout the building and was well within the permissible AHERA limit.
Much of the work by RM Technologies was done in the summer, while students and staff were out of the building. Further testing was done by Universal Environmental Consultants for asbestos on August 27, 2014. The district has asked the Attorney General for specific evidence of RMT’s failure to properly undertake or complete the work. If the district receives evidence, the district will review it and present the evidence to the community. The district will also seek this information from Consigli and other contractors or inspectors hired by them to supervise this work. The results of UEC testing are set out at Exhibit 13 in the attached materials, with clarifying information included in Exhibit 19. In a summary report dated September 5, 2014, Universal concluded “Overall, all Indoor Air Quality parameters tested within the acceptable ranges and very common for this type of building.” Further, with specific reference to asbestos material, Universal Environmental Consultants concluded: “At all areas where ACM [asbestos containing material] Transite wall panels were removed, air samples were well below the EPA limit.” The report goes on the state that “[b]ased on the study and test results, our professional opinion is that the building can be occupied as usual and without delay.” See Exhibit 14.
Later in September, additional design work was developed for parts of the project that remained unfinished. Again, the remediation was projected to be completed in November by fully licensed asbestos abatement personnel. See Exhibit 15.
On September 12, 2014, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health wrote Superintendent Bourgeois with indoor air quality test results from testing done on site on August 8, 2014. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health made a number of common sense recommendations suggesting steps to be taken to increase ventilation and relocate staff where possible, noting that the installation of new floors in the building and a new gymnasium floor would generate odors from polyurethane floor sealant being applied. The DPH report and the detailed test results are attached at Exhibit 16.
Several weeks later, in November 2014, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health again corresponded with the district, summarizing test results which they had taken on September 25th and October 7, 2014. The comprehensive September and October testing included all classroom, shop, and lab areas in the building. The condition in the shop areas generated a number of specific recommendations, primarily around venting to remove from shop areas various odors and fumes resulting from the use of equipment. See attached Exhibit 17, the DPH narrative dated November 17, 2014, and the raw test data.
In November of 2014 a team from the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards visited the school. The MA DLS team concluded, in a report dated January 12, 2015, “some asbestos transite pegboard… exhibited broken edges … [t]hough the risk of exposure from exposed edge is minimal unless the transite panels is disturbed by sanding, grinding, cutting (by sawing) chipping or abrading.” The district was advised to seal the edges prior to removal and “keep staff and occupants informed of the ongoing work.” See Exhibit 20.
In addition to the visit from the MA DLS team, there was a local DLS inspector assigned to the project who responded immediately to any complaints he received with regard to the asbestos abatement work. He also visited the site regularly, many times unannounced to monitor that the abatement work was being performed in compliance with the appropriate laws and regulations. At no time during the project did he indicate to school officials that there were any problems or potential issues.
In late to mid-December of 2014, the Greater Lowell Teachers Organization, customarily referred to as the Teachers’ Union, requested that Superintendent Bourgeois provide certain information to the union relative to the construction project. See Exhibit 18. That information was provided by Mr. Bourgeois.
On December 30, 2014, the school district’s architects received communication from Universal Environmental Consultants concerning the August 27, 2014 testing. This correspondence again noted the presence of asbestos containing materials within permissible limits in a small number of samples. See Exhibit 19.
Over the course of the winter of 2014 and 2015 the Teachers’ Union and the district were engaged in discussions about the health and safety of the Greater Lowell community, particularly during the construction phase. The union retained counsel for purposes of analyzing all of the testing previously mentioned in this notification, and to review the manner in which the contractors and its agents had conducted the asbestos abatement during the renovation project. The union’s attorney concluded that the district had acted properly. In fact, Union attorney Sarah Gibson wrote:
My impression is that the Superintendent has been responsive to the GTLO’s request for information, and has provided additional building-related information to you as he has received it. The report from DLS did not note violations of AHERA related to construction activities at the school, but did note two records that the district needed to incorporate into its asbestos management plan… Neither the DLS nor the DPH reports, nor other documents that I reviewed indicated that there were conditions in the building that posed an immediate, general health hazard for building occupants.
See Exhibit 21.
No construction project is completed without some problem or issue. In this case, the district was fortunate to complete the project on time and below budget. Further, as all of this documentation demonstrates, the district has worked diligently over a number of years to take all reasonable and commonly expected steps to preserve the health and safety of the occupants of Greater Lowell during this project. The district hired trained, licensed professionals for the project and for abatement work. Given that each of us has unique health sensitivities, it is not surprising that a project of this scope would cause some people to believe that a particular health condition is attributable to the construction project. Other than the small handful of individuals mentioned above, the district has not been told by other employees, students, or members of the public that they have suffered health conditions which their physicians have attributed, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, to this renovation project. It has been almost exactly two years since the union’s attorney concluded that the district had acted appropriately, and the small handful of affected individuals has not increased in size.
The district believes the measures it took directly and through its contractors and agents were appropriate and reasonable, and were consistent with industry practice and law. The Attorney General’s dispute with one subcontractor, which we were told in December related to a failure to communicate and produce documents, not health concerns, does not undermine the district’s long-standing and clear commitment to the health and safety of all the members of the Greater Lowell family. The district believes that by providing to the public all of these testing materials proves our efforts to maintain the health and safety of the building and answers any questions about whether the school was taking steps necessary to ensure those conditions.