Follow Us

Friday, April 18, 2014
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 

Illegal Demolitions Exposing Residents To Asbestos?

Already under fire for illegally using federal funds to demolish homes, the City of Jacksonville's Municipal Code Compliance Division (MCCD) may be taking on more hot water. Now it appears that Code Compliance may have supervised the demolition of structures without properly removing asbestos and thus exposing nearby residents to the harmful material.

Published January 15, 2014 in News      91 Comments    Open printer friendly version of this article Print Article





The properties in question include 1504 North Myrtle Avenue (1), 253 East 2nd Street (2), 129 East 2nd Street (3), 1630 Ionia Street (4) and 1477 Evergreen Avenue (5).

According to Metro Jacksonville's Stephen Dare, "There is literally no telling what kind of mortal damage has been done to the unwitting neighbors and families who were exposed to airborne friable asbestos in the demolition of these properties."

Making matters worse is an allegation that the contractor charged the City of Jacksonville for a "wet" demolition, while not following National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) regulations. Captured in a video of the demolition of 129 East 2nd Street, it appears a small garden hose connected to a neighbor's water spigot was used by the demolition contractor to "adequately wet" the asbestos laden structure.

This isn't the first time the MCCD has been in violation of improper Asbestos removal. According to a Metro Jacksonville forum discussion on the topic, 2011 records indicate the MCCD had been cited for Asbestos violations on as much as 109 properties, dating back to 2007.


The demolition of 1630 Ionia Street included the removal of 1950s Asbestos shingle siding. This material is a well known danger because it releases carcinogenic airborne asbestos fibers when shattered.

Considering the lion's share of these illegal demolitions have taken place in minority neighborhoods, some believe this is just another form of Environmental Racism. According to Greenaction.org, "Environmental racism refers to the institutional rules, regulations, policies or government and/or corporate decisions that deliberately target certain communities for locally undesirable land uses and lax enforcement of zoning and environmental laws, resulting in communities being disproportionately exposed to toxic and hazardous waste based upon race. Environmental racism is caused by several factors, including intentional neglect, the alleged need for a receptacle for pollutants in urban areas, and a lack of institutional power and low land values of people of color. It is a well-documented fact that communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by polluting industries (and very specifically, hazardous waste facilities) and lax regulation of these industries."

Visit Metro Jacksonville's forum for the latest updates on this evolving story.



 PREV 1 2 3 NEXT 






Share this article   digg   delicious   reddit   myspace   technorati   google   newsvine  

91 Comments

stephendare

January 08, 2014, 03:54:31 PM
Wow.  So Code Enforcement Supervisor for Kim Scott in Springfield has been summarily fired quit in the wake of the improper use of funds set aside to rebuild the historic neighborhood for two provably gratuitous demolitions. (and hundreds more in the offing)

But the real scandal is about to break as new information is coming to light that Kim Scott supervised the demolition of many asbestos laden structures without removing the asbestos before the demolition dust was scattered throughout the breathing air of springfield and the northside.

There is literally no telling what kind of mortal damage has been done to the unwitting neighbors and families who were exposed to airborne friable asbestos in the demolition of these properties.

According to sources, the City paid for asbestos abatement and so called 'wet' demos of the structure, but in clear videos six of the demos are clearly not 'wet' demos, to help abate the danger of mesothelioma to the surrounding residents.

This kind of liability may run into the hundreds of millions if the asbestos fraud is proven to be as widespread as it seems.

Heckuva Job.

stephendare

January 08, 2014, 04:22:47 PM
Posting these for Jaxunicorn



stephendare

January 08, 2014, 05:05:47 PM

stephendare

January 08, 2014, 05:10:36 PM
Dear Kim and Derek.

...
"We had a meeting one time before where we had to put a little flame under Joel and Lisa.  It looks like we might have to do it again.......

Please let me know if you have a plan that I should be involved in."

JaxUnicorn

January 08, 2014, 05:41:10 PM
Here's the video I took of the demolition of 129 East 2nd Street. 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/_0fZK3HxS7s?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/_0fZK3HxS7s?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US</a>

I see that Stephen also posted a couple of my pics as well.  Notice in one the small spray of water....

A small garden hose connected to the neighbor's water spigot was used by the demo contractor to "adequately wet" the structure.  This property was demolished as an "emergency" and as such I'm not aware that an asbestos survey was even done.  In the event of emergency demolitions, the City is required to treat the structure as though it CONTAINS asbestos, and follow the NESHAP regulations, which call for keeping the asbestos material adequately wet.  There's no way this criteria was met with the way the demolition contractor was spraying the structure.

The contractor charged the City for a "wet" demolition.  Boy, sure does look like they can make a TON of money doing so-called "wet" demolitions.  All the while NOT following NESHAP regulations.

JaxUnicorn

January 08, 2014, 05:54:13 PM
Here's the video of the demolition of 253 East 2nd Street I took. 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/-fCTK_zCcsM" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/-fCTK_zCcsM</a>


Look at the still shot posted by Lunican...see the water hose coiled up?  Does that look like it's being used to "adequately wet" the structure to prevent asbestos fibers from being released into the air???  Not to me it doesn't.  Same thing here -- used a neighbor's water spigot to "adequately wet" the site.  REALLY?? 



strider

January 08, 2014, 06:02:03 PM
While the city has through an e-mail admitted they did not do the proper paperwork for both the 129 E 2nd St and the 253 E 2nd St demolitions, we have identified at least another half a million dollars worth of improperly done demolitions in the 32206  zip code alone.  That is all we and, as far as we can tell, the Feds, have been able to get out of the city through public records requests.  Mostly, the other chiefs seem to be fulfilling their obligations to those requests but somehow, Kimberly Scott always falls short.  The office of the Chief, which means Kimberly Scott, recently closed one of my public records requests and I mean just closed it.  I have never received anything from that request and in fact, when I called the care system to find out why, I was told I would have to put in another public records request to get more information on my public records request.  This is of course, all because Ms Scott knows she has yet to do much of anything properly and is still hoping this will all just go away. We and it won't, by the way. And the city government is now in a position of trying to determine its liability here and doing whatever it takes to lesson it.  It appears that between the lead, the improper use of federal funds and the asbestos, Kimberly Scott has potentially cost us tax payers millions.

Nelson Beard leaving is a big plus for the people who live in the urban core and this city, however, we need to see several more go, most definitely including Kimberly Scott, if Jacksonville is ever to have a properly run Municipal Code Compliance Division.

JaxUnicorn

January 08, 2014, 06:11:58 PM
Nelson Beard leaving is a big plus for the people who live in the urban core and this city, however, we need to see several more go, most definitely including Kimberly Scott, if Jacksonville is ever to have a properly run Municipal Code Compliance Division.

Strider....more info please?

Kay

January 08, 2014, 06:20:24 PM
You need to go to Folio and the TU.  And you need to move the public records request up the chain.  Keep at it.

JaxUnicorn

January 08, 2014, 06:35:32 PM
You need to go to Folio and the TU.  And you need to move the public records request up the chain.  Keep at it.
Kay, what Strider described is what we face with each and every public records request.  We are moving it up the chain and unfortunately government moves extremely slow (like I'm telling you something you don't already know).

sheclown

January 08, 2014, 06:51:41 PM
I've been at dozens of demolitions and never have I seen anything more than a garden hose.

sheclown

January 08, 2014, 08:16:55 PM

sheclown

January 08, 2014, 08:20:01 PM
clearly you can see the garden hose and clearly you can see the dust.



dust is winning here...

sheclown

January 08, 2014, 08:24:29 PM

JaxUnicorn

January 08, 2014, 08:48:46 PM
And this is a photo from sheclown of what I believe is the Hurston Flower Shop.  Does it look to you like any asbestos fibers were being contained?





Apache

January 08, 2014, 09:02:04 PM
I was curious as to the proper method of a "wet demo", all I could find was a Broward Country document which called for a Fire Hydrant or Water Truck at minimum,(the garden hoses are almost humorous really) workers must wear protective gear and the asbestos must be disposed of properly (as opposed to being just hauled off in a dumpster), I presume it's similar requirements here.

Regardless of ones opinion of save every house and demolitions in Springfield, it's pretty clear Kim Scott has been a huge liability to the Duval taxpayer.

DDC

January 08, 2014, 09:15:42 PM
Wow.  So Code Enforcement Supervisor for Kim Scott in Springfield has been summarily fired quit in the wake of the improper use of funds set aside to rebuild the historic neighborhood for two provably gratuitous demolitions. (and hundreds more in the offing)



Wait... what? She quit? What did I miss?  :o

JaxUnicorn

January 08, 2014, 09:27:24 PM
Wow.  So Code Enforcement Supervisor for Kim Scott in Springfield has been summarily fired quit in the wake of the improper use of funds set aside to rebuild the historic neighborhood for two provably gratuitous demolitions. (and hundreds more in the offing)



Wait... what? She quit? What did I miss?  :o

No, she didn't quit...one of Kim Scott's Code Enforcement Supervisors quit...at least that's what I've heard although nothing official.

JaxUnicorn

January 08, 2014, 09:30:38 PM
And here's a pic of 1504 Myrtle Avenue being demolished...this one DID have asbestos per a survey.  No evidence that the asbestos was removed and I certainly don't see anything that would keep it "adequately wet".


JaxUnicorn

January 08, 2014, 09:32:07 PM
Oh, and check out this thread I started regarding asbestos...Looks like Code Enforcement failed to do the proper reviews on SEVERAL properties before demolishing!!

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,20391.0.html

ChriswUfGator

January 09, 2014, 01:16:00 AM
You need to go to Folio and the TU.  And you need to move the public records request up the chain.  Keep at it.

Oh don't worry we'll take care of the PR issue sooner or later. By which I mean sooner.

FWIW, here, this is for the house in that video Kim posted above in this thread:

http://www.chriswickersham.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Brooks-Complaint.pdf

mbwright

January 09, 2014, 07:44:59 AM
I'm sure all of the lead paint was contained also.

sheclown

January 09, 2014, 08:17:50 AM


yeah.  That generates a bit of dust. 

Lead issues?

Was the soil tested for ash?

We don't know these things because no environmental review was performed.

All demo's done by the city regardless of funding need to have environmental reviews (including section 106) done.  It is common practices in other cities.

Jacksonville Journey is (apparently) now funding 1/4 of the demos?  What procedures are being done to protect the neighbors?  Are they doing the environmental reviews for their projects?

sheclown

January 09, 2014, 08:26:00 AM
Oh, and check out this thread I started regarding asbestos...Looks like Code Enforcement failed to do the proper reviews on SEVERAL properties before demolishing!!

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,20391.0.html

Well just look at what I found as a result of a public records request!  Apparently the Municipal Code Compliance Division (MCCD) - specifically Kim Scott as Chief - has committed SEVERAL environmental violations, as evidenced by the attached, and it has been ongoing for years.  So not only has MCCD not been following Federal guidelines and demolishing historic structures without the required Section 106 review, they have ALSO not been following yet another Federal guideline regarding asbestos removal. 

Once something's done, it is done.  Just one more illegal, inaccurate, unethical activity conducted by Code Enforcement uncovered because they would not stop demolishing our historic structures.  I wonder how many other things we will find that MCCD has done illegally/inappropriately as we keep digging???

Sent an email to Senator Bill Nelson's office.  Below is a synopsis:

Quote
.....thought you would find the attached document interesting as well.  It is an internal Asbestos Violation Referral report by a Jacksonville Environmental Specialilst.  In this report she cites Kimberly Scott, Chief of Jacksonville's Municipal Code Compliance Division for the following violations on 109 properties (14 of which were in Springfield's historic district).

Quote
Violations
• Failure to provide notification of renovation when above threshold quantities of RACM is to be disturbed
• Failure to thoroughly inspect
• Failure to properly dispose of debris
• Failure to adequately wet
• Failure to have at least one on-site representative trained in the provisions
• Of 40 CFR 61 present during the stripping, removal, handling or Disturbance of RACM

I disovered this while digging through over 4,000 emails provided as a result of my public record request for information regarding the demolition of 1504 Myrtle Avenue.  Please let me know if this is something that you are also interested in learning more about.  There are thousands of emails that I have yet to be able to go through yet.

Thank you,

Kim Pryor, Community Liaison
Preservation SOS
(904) 465-1555









stephendare

January 09, 2014, 09:00:33 AM


yeah.  That generates a bit of dust. 

Lead issues?

Was the soil tested for ash?

We don't know these things because no environmental review was performed.

All demo's done by the city regardless of funding need to have environmental reviews (including section 106) done.  It is common practices in other cities.

Jacksonville Journey is (apparently) now funding 1/4 of the demos?  What procedures are being done to protect the neighbors?  Are they doing the environmental reviews for their projects?

wpw.  all i can say is holy shit.

stephendare

January 09, 2014, 09:04:48 AM


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma (or, more precisely, malignant mesothelioma) is a rare form of cancer that develops from cells of the mesothelium, the protective lining that covers many of the internal organs of the body. Mesothelioma is most commonly caused by exposure to asbestos.[1] The most common anatomical site for mesothelioma is the pleura (the outer lining of the lungs and internal chest wall), but it can also arise in the peritoneum (the lining of the abdominal cavity), the pericardium (the sac that surrounds the heart),[2] or the tunica vaginalis (a sac that surrounds the testis).

Most people who develop mesothelioma have worked in jobs where they inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers, or were exposed to airborne asbestos dust and fibers in other ways. Washing clothes of a family member who worked with asbestos also creates a risk for developing mesothelioma.

stephendare

January 09, 2014, 09:11:04 AM
So let me get this straight?  The City has basically set off a series of asbestos bombs in dense, residential neighborhoods?

fsquid

January 09, 2014, 10:35:12 AM
the lawyers will be circling now!

stephendare

January 09, 2014, 11:24:38 AM
the lawyers will be circling now!

And the doctors, and collection agents for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, and of course, the undertakers, the funeral homes and the graveyards. 

But hey, this is about the attorneys, right?

stephendare

January 09, 2014, 12:38:58 PM
My dear friend, and one of Jacksonville's most important artists, Lee Harvey has been suffering with the agonizing destruction wreaked on his body by Mesothelioma for 8 years now.

In and out of the hospitals, consigned to a death sentence by the locals.  Hospice calling and demanding that he check in and die.

Albeit however gracefully, if it weren't for the miraculous treatment he is getting from the man who discovered the Mesothelin Protein at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda he would already be dead.

Its not a good way to die.

ChriswUfGator

January 10, 2014, 12:05:02 AM
You need to go to Folio and the TU.  And you need to move the public records request up the chain.  Keep at it.

Here you go Kay, ask and ye shall receive...

http://www.chriswickersham.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Markusic-v.-City-of-Jacksonville.pdf

sheclown

January 10, 2014, 08:51:11 AM
1630 Ionia, cited in the above email Jax Unicorn posted.  Lack of notification to the environmental agency about doing abatement.


photo by Nicole Lopez

notice the fire hose (at least it isn't a garden hose) but it is on the ground and not doing much good.


photo by Nicole Lopez

no fire hose in use and certainly suspicious siding which resembles asbestos ...

Not notifying the environmental quality department of pending asbestos demolition activities means no one is watching out for public safety.

ChriswUfGator

January 10, 2014, 09:06:14 AM
The portion of the structure in the left side of that photograph is covered in 1950s asbestos shingle siding. Those tiles are a well known danger and release carcinogenic airborne asbestos fibers when shattered. Regarding the hose, what exactly did they think they were accomplishing when they left it spraying on the ground on the property next door, instead of on the asbestos?

From the black pants / white shirt COJ uniform, it appears that MCCD was on-site directing the demolition, why didn't they do something about it?

stephendare

January 10, 2014, 09:24:30 AM
Here is a link to the OSHA standards on wet asbestos removal, which I would assume must be followed since the project is being funded with Federal money.

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=10862&p_table=standards

stephendare

January 10, 2014, 09:27:41 AM
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/msqU9cRqssU" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/msqU9cRqssU</a>

stephendare

January 10, 2014, 09:30:25 AM
1630 Ionia, cited in the above email Jax Unicorn posted.  Lack of notification to the environmental agency about doing abatement.



notice the fire hose (at least it isn't a garden hose) but it is on the ground and not doing much good.



no fire hose in use and certainly suspicious siding which resembles asbestos ...

Not notifying the environmental quality department of pending asbestos demolition activities means no one is watching out for public safety.

In this incident, how on earth are these people filtering the contaminated water?  Is it just sprayed out onto the surrounding landscape and left in the environment to dry up leaving the asbestos microfibers waiting for a strong wind on a dry day?

stephendare

January 10, 2014, 09:31:29 AM
my god.  what kind of risk have the employees of this company been exposed to?  What about the city employees?

acme54321

January 10, 2014, 09:56:59 AM
1630 Ionia, cited in the above email Jax Unicorn posted.  Lack of notification to the environmental agency about doing abatement.



notice the fire hose (at least it isn't a garden hose) but it is on the ground and not doing much good.



no fire hose in use and certainly suspicious siding which resembles asbestos ...

Not notifying the environmental quality department of pending asbestos demolition activities means no one is watching out for public safety.

In this incident, how on earth are these people filtering the contaminated water?  Is it just sprayed out onto the surrounding landscape and left in the environment to dry up leaving the asbestos microfibers waiting for a strong wind on a dry day?

The water is mostly to keep the dust down, all of the asbestos should have been removed before demolition.  Wet demolitions are common, but they don't usually recover any of the water.  The city has been clearly negligent with all of these demolitions and I get that point of this is proving to show that.  That siding should have been removed.  They are not actually performing wet demolitions.  Environmental reviews should have been done.  The house wasn't about to fall on anyone. I get that. 

However, the sky isn't falling.  It's not like these guys were out there running asbestos pipe insulation through a wood chipper next to a shoolyard.   No children are going to die from anything pictured in this thread.  Now there could be issues here with the demolition company employees if they make a habit out it.

stephendare

January 10, 2014, 10:04:29 AM
1630 Ionia, cited in the above email Jax Unicorn posted.  Lack of notification to the environmental agency about doing abatement.



notice the fire hose (at least it isn't a garden hose) but it is on the ground and not doing much good.



no fire hose in use and certainly suspicious siding which resembles asbestos ...

Not notifying the environmental quality department of pending asbestos demolition activities means no one is watching out for public safety.

In this incident, how on earth are these people filtering the contaminated water?  Is it just sprayed out onto the surrounding landscape and left in the environment to dry up leaving the asbestos microfibers waiting for a strong wind on a dry day?

The water is mostly to keep the dust down, all of the asbestos should have been removed before demolition.  Wet demolitions are common, but they don't usually recover any of the water.  The city has been clearly negligent with all of these demolitions and I get that point of this is proving to show that.  That siding should have been removed.  Environmental reviews should have been done.  The house wasn't about to fall on anyone. I get that. 

However, the sky isn't falling.  It's not like these guys were out there running asbestos pipe insulation through a wood chipper next to a shoolyard.   No children are going to die from anything pictured in this thread (except for maybe the demolition guys if they make a daily habit of this kind of thing).

acme. I think you might not realize how dangerous this stuff is.  And yes, when the houses come down in a cloud of dust and microfibers, then they might as well use a wood chipper.  It would only be slightly more effective. It will take a few years for deaths to start happening, so technically no 'children' will die from it, but yes it can (and most likely will) cause deaths----and no one knows how often this has happened or how close together these demolitions are in either time or space.  For example, if you lived on Ionia during the destruction of 10 of the houses, how much asbestos did you inhale from these incompetent demolitions?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/sShyjb5Joaw" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/sShyjb5Joaw</a>

stephendare

January 10, 2014, 10:09:28 AM
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lM3EhggJX8U" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/lM3EhggJX8U</a>

stephendare

January 10, 2014, 10:12:00 AM
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/HD7YHtO4Ds8" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/HD7YHtO4Ds8</a>

stephendare

January 10, 2014, 10:15:54 AM
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rid-CDDNj3k" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Rid-CDDNj3k</a>

lewyn

January 10, 2014, 11:12:47 AM
I don't want to sound pro-asbestos, but it seems to me that most litigation involves people who spent decades working with absestos on a regular basis, or living with someone who did. 

I'm not sure that the one-time release of asbestos in this situation creates enough exposure to be life threatening.

JaxUnicorn

January 10, 2014, 11:42:07 AM
I don't want to sound pro-asbestos, but it seems to me that most litigation involves people who spent decades working with absestos on a regular basis, or living with someone who did. 

I'm not sure that the one-time release of asbestos in this situation creates enough exposure to be life threatening.
The EPA has done extensive research into ACM (asbestos containing material) and it has shown that releasing asbestos fibers into the air is hazardous. 

Lewyn, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.  However, the fact of the matter here is that there are FEDERAL EPA rules that MUST be followed to limit the asbestos fibers being released into the air when demolishing structures .  Clearly the City of Jacksonville and the demolition contractors pictured in these photographs are not following Federal rules.

stephendare

January 10, 2014, 04:35:33 PM
actually, its shocking how little exposure you have to have in order to risk cancers and mesothelioma.  Especially in the case of children.

sheclown

January 10, 2014, 06:43:41 PM
Quote
Environmental racism refers to the institutional rules, regulations, policies or government and/or corporate decisions that deliberately target certain communities for locally undesirable land uses and lax enforcement of zoning and environmental laws, resulting in communities being disproportionately exposed to toxic and hazardous waste based upon race. Environmental racism is caused by several factors, including intentional neglect, the alleged need for a receptacle for pollutants in urban areas, and a lack of institutional power and low land values of people of color. It is a well-documented fact that communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by polluting industries (and very specifically, hazardous waste facilities) and lax regulation of these industries.

http://greenaction.org/resources/what-is-environmental-justice/

While some of you will scoff ...ponder this.  Where in this city is a condemned house bulldozed without proper notifications and precautions all the while sitting on top of an ash site?

Urban Core.   

edjax

January 10, 2014, 07:40:43 PM
Not that I think what is being done is not deplorable.  But outside of the urban core, how many of these structures exist on an ash site full of asbestos.  I know there are some but no doubt the majority will exist in the urban core.  And again I agree Ms Scott needs to be removed.

iloveionia

January 10, 2014, 11:59:02 PM
There are rules to follow plain and simple.
They are not. Doesn't matter otherwise.
Both the city who hire the contractors and the contractors themselves are liable.
I observed this demolition pictured at 1630 Ionia.
The white shirt dude indeed is a code enforcement employee. He comes, gives the tally-hoe to start demolition, waits until the first punch of the excavator, and then leaves after about 10 minutes.  The code enforcement employee doesn't come back until its leveled, packed in a dumpster, and laid to rest off the I10. 

ronchamblin

January 11, 2014, 01:45:31 AM
This is interesting stuff.  My upcoming renovation project on the 225 North Laura Street building will require an asbestos inspection inside and out.  Gus's Shoe Repair moved …  opened at the new location on Adams on the 6th January.

I want to determine the existence of any asbestos inside or outside of the building, and then determine what must be done to ensure the safety of the workers and the future occupants.  Perhaps all of it can be removed safely by contractor or, in the case of what appears to be 1950 era shingles on the exterior, can be covered with some kind of material to ensure that it poses no problems for the occupants or the area.

My main concern is to neutralize whatever potential dangers that might exist as a consequence of there being asbestos in the working environment during renovation.  Nobody needs asbestos inhalation. 

A visit to the Ed Ball building to review the codes for this kind of thing might be a first step.  Being so close to the property, perhaps someone there can take a tour of the building.   

 

strider

January 11, 2014, 08:28:46 AM
Quote
From:

Friable vs. Non-FriableAsbestos
http://www.asbestos.com/abatement/friable.php


The legal definitions of "friable" and "non-friable" asbestos clearly depicts the differences
between dangerous and safe asbestos-containing materials (ACMs).

•Friable ACM is any material that contains more than one percent asbestos by weight or area,
depending on whether it is a bulk or sheet material and can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to
powder by the pressure of an ordinary human hand.

•Non-friable  ACM is any material that contains more than one percent asbestos, but cannot be
pulverized under hand pressure.



The problem is that any ACM can become friable.  Add to that the fact that no one is really sure what the safe exposure level is and so the federal regulations simply try to minimize everyone's exposure the best they can.

With non-friable ACM's, like those 50's era tiles used for both siding and roofing or even those old floor tiles, the fibers are simply encapsulated.  When the material in which it is suspended deteriorates or is mechanically broken up  - like when the house is demolished - the fibers can be released.  And those fibers are light enough to just float around in the air possibly for hours if not days.

One can see then the survey, the possible abatement and then the fire hose to keep the dust from flying is very much required to protect the surrounding residents. In her quest to demolish houses for whatever profit (financial or ego) she is getting from it, Kimberly Scott, MCC Chief, seems to just keep on putting the city and its residents at risk, whether it is our tax dollars being wasted, the increasing large liability issues and now, as we can see, our health. 

sheclown

January 11, 2014, 10:12:03 AM
There are rules to follow plain and simple.
They are not. Doesn't matter otherwise.
Both the city who hire the contractors and the contractors themselves are liable.
I observed this demolition pictured at 1630 Ionia.
The white shirt dude indeed is a code enforcement employee. He comes, gives the tally-hoe to start demolition, waits until the first punch of the excavator, and then leaves after about 10 minutes.  The code enforcement employee doesn't come back until its leveled, packed in a dumpster, and laid to rest off the I10. 

yes you were there and in fact those photos are yours --

sheclown

January 11, 2014, 11:41:08 AM
Below is information discovered by PSOS's JaxUnicorn in an effort to understand the somewhat confusing question of when you have to follow EPA guidelines and when you don't.  The city is fond of giving out misinformation (ie.  "no federal funds are used to demolish historic homes, no we don't need to follow EPA guidelines because we are demolishing single family homes").  Read for yourself.

We were told by those involved that single family homes need not follow the asbestos regulations because they are not part of a "larger project".  This question propelled Kim into asking until she discovered the answer to this...

And the answer is "yes".    See below:

Quote
EPA Applicability Determinations Index
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Applicability Determination Index
Control Number: A090003
Category:
Asbestos
EPA Office:
CAMPD
Date:
07/03/2008
Title:
Residential Structures Demolished by Municipalities for Public Safety
Recipient:
Blevins, John
Author:
Gigliello, Ken
Comments:
See related applicability determination filed as ADI Control No. 930828.
Part 61, M
Asbestos
Abstract:

Q:
Does the applicability determination issued by EPA on July 15, 1993 (see ADI Control Number
930828) conflict with EPA's Clarification of Intent published in the Federal Register on July 28, 1995, as
to the applicability of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M (the asbestos NESHAP) to single-family homes?

A:
No. EPA believes that these documents are not in conflict, but rather are complementary and apply
to different factual situations. The 1993 applicability determination responds to the issue of a large
municipality-orchestrated project where multiple single-family homes are being demolished as part of
that large project over the course of the same planning or scheduling period, which, for most
municipalities, we believe is done on a fiscal or calendar year basis, or in accordance with the terms of
a contract. It is EPA's interpretation that the demolition of such multiple single-family homes under such
circumstances by a municipality is subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulation, notwithstanding the
residential building exclusion contained within the definition of "facility" in the asbestos NESHAP. The
1995 Clarification of Intent, on the other hand, deals with the demolition of two or more single-family
homes on the same site (e.g., a city block) that are under the control of a common owner or operator.
Under that factual scenario, the single-family homes are considered to be (or, perhaps, to be a part of)
an installation, as defined under the asbestos NESHAP, and are subject to the asbestos NESHAP
regulation.
Letter:
July 3, 2008
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of the Asbestos NESHAP to Demolitions of Residential Structures by
Municipalities Due to Public Safety Concerns - Letter from ADEQ
FROM: Ken Gigliello, Acting Director
Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance
TO: John Blevins, Director
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
Region VI
EPA Applicability Determinations Index
This memorandum responds to your request regarding the March 14, 2008 letter from the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Their letter requests EPA's position on the applicability of
the National Emission Standard for Asbestos (asbestos NESHAP), 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M, to city­
ordered demolitions of multiple residential buildings for reasons of public health, welfare, and safety.
ADEQ also asked EPA to inform them if EPA did not agree with their conclusion that: 1) EPA's July 28,
1995 Asbestos NESHAP Clarification of Intent (1995 Clarification, which was published in the Federal
Register (60 FR 38725), and July15, 1993 Applicability Determination (control #930828) issued by the
Stationary Source Compliance Division in OAQPS, our predecessor organization, are in conflict, and 2)
the 1995 Clarification is the controlling document when analyzing the applicability of the asbestos
NESHAP to such demolitions.

EPA does not agree that the documents are inconsistent based on our reading of the 1990 regulation,
the 1993 Applicability Determination, which relies heavily on the regulation's preamble language, and
the 1995 Clarification. In fact, based on our reading of the aforementioned documents, it is EPA's
position that demolitions of individual residential buildings are regulated if they are being demolished as
part of a larger project1 !or if the residences meet the definition of an installation, e.g., more than one
residence on the same site or one residence being demolished along with commercial buildings on the
same site under the control of the same owner or operator.

Accordingly where numerous residential buildings, e.g., 20 to 100 homes as discussed in the incoming
ADEQ letter, are being demolished as part of one project (for reasons of public health, welfare, and
safety in the case of ADEQ), it is EPA's position that such demolitions are subject to the asbestos
NESHAP requirements.

In addition, we have one comment on the two draft ADEQ Clarification Memoranda included as
attachments in the March 14 letter from ADEQ. The draft designated as 2008-01 contains the following
question: "Does the demolition/renovation involve more than one small residential building within 1500
feet of each other by the same owner/operator (or owner or operator under common control) as part of
the same project?" This appears to be an effort to define a single "site" as that term is used within the
definition of installation. As noted in the 1995 Clarification, however, the term "site" is not defined in the
asbestos NESHAP and EPA has never provided specific boundaries for that term under the asbestos
NESHAP. Accordingly, the use of 1500 feet as the criteria to define a site is not consistent with the
Federal asbestos NESHAP regulation. Multiple residential buildings being demolished on the same site
by an owner or operator would be subject to the asbestos NESHAP, regardless of their proximity to one
another.

If you have questions, please call me at (202) 564-7047. The Office of Regulatory Enforcement, the
Office of General Counsel and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards have reviewed this
memorandum.
cc:
Susan Fairchild, OAQPS
Randy Hill, OCE
Pam Mazakas, OCE
Tahani Rivers, OCE
Chris Kaczmarek, OGC
Phyllis Flaherty, OC

1 Demolitions planned at the same time or that are part of the same planning or scheduling period are
considered part of the same project. For municipalities, the scheduling or planning is often done on a
fiscal or calendar year or the term of the contract. [See 60 FR 38725, FN 1.]

stephendare

January 11, 2014, 12:32:44 PM
So the Code Enforcement Department, aside from conducting itself in a criminally asinine manner also managed  to misuse federal funding in an entirely different and worse way?  And its the same funding?

If I read the context of your post correctly, sheclown, they once again willfully violated the conditions that came attached with Federal Funding?  And once again, in such a way as to cause harm to the community?

sheclown

January 11, 2014, 01:45:55 PM
So the Code Enforcement Department, aside from conducting itself in a criminally asinine manner also managed  to misuse federal funding in an entirely different and worse way?  And its the same funding?

If I read the context of your post correctly, sheclown, they once again willfully violated the conditions that came attached with Federal Funding?  And once again, in such a way as to cause harm to the community?

yes.

And these requirements are not only attached to the federal funding, they are required of all demos regardless of funding sources.

Jaxunicorn, can you shed more light on this?

JaxUnicorn

January 13, 2014, 10:34:53 AM
I can shed some additional information that I've discovered during my research on this subject.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 requires the EPA to enforce regulations to protect the general public from exposure from airborne contaminents that are known to be hazardous to people.  In order to do this, the EPA established NESHAP (National Envoronmental Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).  The Asbestos NESHAP directives can be found by searching for "40 CFR 61, Subpart M" and dictates all aspects of asbestos handling from manufacturing to demolition to waste disposal.

According the the EPA, "adequately wet" is defined as follows:
Quote
Sufficiently mix or penetrate with liquid to prevent the release of particulates.  If visible emissions are observed coming from Asbestor Containing Material (ACM), then that material has not been adequately wetted.  However, the absence of visible emission is not sufficient evidence of being adequately wet (Section 61.141, Definitions).  Amended water is often used to wet ACM during repair/removal operations.

Demolition means:
Quote
The wrecking or taking out of any load-supporting structural member of a facility together with any related handling operations or the intentional burning of any facility.


Several homes have been destroyed by Code Enforcement under the guise of an "emergency".  Well, the EPA addresses that as well.  I've copied the regulation regarding emergency demolitions here for your reading pleasure and where multiple regulations are referred to being applicable, I've tried to highlight each accordingly:

Emergency renovation operation means:
Quote
A renovation operation that was not planned but results from a sudden, unexpected event that, if not immediately attended to, presents a safety or public health hazard, is necessary to protect equipment from damage, or is necessary to avoid imposing an unreasonable financial burden. This term includes operations necessitated by nonroutine failures of equipment.


Quote
§  61.145(a)(3)  Standard for demolition and renovation

(a) Applicability. To determine which requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section apply to the owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity and prior to the commencement of the demolition or renovation, thoroughly inspect the affected facility or part of the facility where the demolition or renovation operation will occur for the presence of asbestos, including Category I and Category II nonfriable ACM. The requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section apply to each owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity, including the removal of RACM
(3) If the facility is being demolished under an order of a State or local government agency, issued because the facility is structurally unsound and in danger of imminent collapse, only the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3)(iii), (b)(4) (except (b)(4)(viii)), (b)(5), and (c)(4) through (c)(9) of this section apply.

(b)(1):
(b) Notification requirements. Each owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity to which this section applies shall:
   (1) Provide the Administrator with written notice of intention to demolish or renovate. Delivery of the notice by U.S. Postal Service, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery is acceptable.


(b)(2):
(b) Notification requirements. Each owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity to which this section applies shall:
   (2) Update notice, as necessary, including when the amount of asbestos affected changes by at least 20 percent.


(b)(3)(iii):
(3) Postmark or deliver the notice as follows:
(iii) As early as possible before, but not later than, the following working day if the operation is a demolition ordered according to paragraph (a)(3) of this section or, if the operation is a renovation described in paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of this section.


(b)(4) (except (b)(4)(viii))
(4) Include the following in the notice:
(i) An indication of whether the notice is the original or a revised notification.
(ii) Name, address, and telephone number of both the facility owner and operator and the asbestos removal contractor owner or operator.
(iii) Type of operation: demolition or renovation.
(iv) Description of the facility or affected part of the facility including the size (square meters [square feet] and number of floors), age, and present and prior use of the facility.
(v) Procedure, including analytical methods, employed to detect the presence of RACM and Category I and Category II nonfriable ACM.
(vi) Estimate of the approximate amount of RACM to be removed from the facility in terms of length of pipe in linear meters (linear feet), surface area in square meters (square feet) on other facility components, or volume in cubic meters (cubic feet) if off the facility components. Also, estimate the approximate amount of Category I and Category II nonfriable ACM in the affected part of the facility that will not be removed before demolition.
(vii) Location and street address (including building number or name and floor or room number, if appropriate), city, county, and state, of the facility being demolished or renovated.
(ix) Scheduled starting and completion dates of demolition or renovation.
(x) Description of planned demolition or renovation work to be performed and method(s) to be employed, including demolition or renovation techniques to be used and description of affected facility components.
(xi) Description of work practices and engineering controls to be used to comply with the requirements of this subpart, including asbestos removal and waste-handling emission control procedures.
(xii) Name and location of the waste disposal site where the asbestos-containing waste material will be deposited.
(xiii) A certification that at least one person trained as required by paragraph (c)( 8 ) of this section will supervise the stripping and removal described by this notification. This requirement shall become effective 1 year after promulgation of this regulation.
(xiv) For facilities described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the name, title, and authority of the State or local government representative who has ordered the demolition, the date that the order was issued, and the date on which the demolition was ordered to begin. A copy of the order shall be attached to the notification.
(xv) For emergency renovations described in paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of this section, the date and hour that the emergency occurred, a description of the sudden, unexpected event, and an explanation of how the event caused an unsafe condition, or would cause equipment damage or an unreasonable financial burden.
(xvi) Description of procedures to be followed in the event that unexpected RACM is found or Category II nonfriable ACM becomes crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder.
(xvii) Name, address, and telephone number of the waste transporter.


(b)(5):
(5) The information required in paragraph (b)(4) of this section must be reported using a form similiar to that shown in Figure 3.


(c)(4) through (c)(9):
(c) Procedures for asbestos emission control. Each owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity to whom this paragraph applies, according to paragraph (a) of this section, shall comply with the following procedures:
(4) After a facility component covered with, coated with, or containing RACM has been taken out of the facility as a unit or in sections pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section, it shall be stripped or contained in leak-tight wrapping, except as described in paragraph (c)(5) of this section. If stripped, either:
(i) Adequately wet the RACM during stripping; or
(ii) Use a local exhaust ventilation and collection system designed and operated to capture the particulate asbestos material produced by the stripping. The system must exhibit no visible emissions to the outside air or be designed and operated in accordance with the requirements in §  61.152.
(5) For large facility components such as reactor vessels, large tanks, and steam generators, but not beams (which must be handled in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) of this section), the RACM is not required to be stripped if the following requirements are met:
(i) The component is removed, transported, stored, disposed of, or reused without disturbing or damaging the RACM.
(ii) The component is encased in a leak-tight wrapping.
(iii) The leak-tight wrapping is labeled according to §  61.149(d)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) during all loading and unloading operations and during storage.
(6) For all RACM, including material that has been removed or stripped:
(i) Adequately wet the material and ensure that it remains wet until collected and contained or treated in preparation for disposal in accordance with §  61.150; and
(ii) Carefully lower the material to the ground and floor, not dropping, throwing, sliding, or otherwise damaging or disturbing the material.
(iii) Transport the material to the ground via leak-tight chutes or containers if it has been removed or stripped more than 50 feet above ground level and was not removed as units or in sections.
(iv) RACM contained in leak-tight wrapping that has been removed in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(3)(i)(B)(3) of this section need not be wetted.
(7) When the temperature at the point of wetting is below 0 °C (32 °F):
(i) The owner or operator need not comply with paragraph (c)(2)(i) and the wetting provisions of paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(ii) The owner or operator shall remove facility components containing, coated with, or covered with RACM as units or in sections to the maximum extent possible.
(iii) During periods when wetting operations are suspended due to freezing temperatures, the owner or operator must record the temperature in the area containing the facility components at the beginning, middle, and end of each workday and keep daily temperature records available for inspection by the Administrator during normal business hours at the demolition or renovation site. The owner or operator shall retain the temperature records for at least 2 years.
( 8 ) Effective 1 year after promulgation of this regulation, no RACM shall be stripped, removed, or otherwise handled or disturbed at a facility regulated by this section unless at least one on-site representative, such as a foreman or management-level person or other authorized representative, trained in the provisions of this regulation and the means of complying with them, is present. Every 2 years, the trained on-site individual shall receive refresher training in the provisions of this regulation. The required training shall include as a minimum: applicability; notifications; material identification; control procedures for removals including, at least, wetting, local exhaust ventilation, negative pressure enclosures, glove-bag procedures, and High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters; waste disposal work practices; reporting and recordkeeping; and asbestos hazards and worker protection. Evidence that the required training has been completed shall be posted and made available for inspection by the Administrator at the demolition or renovation site.
(9) For facilities described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, adequately wet the portion of the facility that contains RACM during the wrecking operation.

For the demolition that was completed on 1504 North Myrtle Avenue, I have an email from the City of Jacksonville that states the required 10 Day Notification did not apply and as a result, they did NOT wait the required time period.  This property was a PLANNED demolition.  Why was the required waiting period not adhered to?

I particularly like this regulation:

Quote
61.145 (b)(4)(xv) For emergency renovations described in paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of this section, the date and hour that the emergency occurred, a description of the sudden, unexpected event, and an explanation of how the event caused an unsafe condition, or would cause equipment damage or an unreasonable financial burden.

SubPart M does not specifically differentiate between Emergency Renovation Operations and Emergency Demolitions, and as such, one must assume that Emergency Demolitions must be regulated as an Emergency Renovation Operation.  Having said that, can someone within the City of Jacksonville please tell me what sudden, UNEXPECTED events occurred on the structures demolished by Code Enforcement as "emergency demolitions" that caused an unsafe condition, equipment damage, or unreasonable financial burden??

129 East 2nd Street is a prime example.  This as the readers may recall, was a historic structure in Springfield that simply needed the front gable braced.  And because it was an "emergency" there was no asbestos survey completed to my knowledge, which means the City is required to treat is as though it DOES contain asbestos.  I was present at that demolition....Code Enforcement officials were onsite as well.  Spraying a huge structure such as this was with water from the neighbor's garden hose does not meet the "adequately wet" requirements.


GoldenEst82

January 13, 2014, 08:12:45 PM
Did the homeowners get reimbursed for the water/sewer charges incurred by those "wet" demos?

I asked this question a while back, but I'm not sure it was answered...
What is the route to fix this? What agency? What will happen to this info yall are collecting?

I have been watching those pretty, old ladies get knocked down; and most of what will be built (eventually?) in their stead will be generally inferior. Its like elder abuse, and it pisses me off, seriously.
I want to see a pound of flesh, I guess.

mbwright

January 14, 2014, 07:50:59 AM
Are the demo crews properly protected also?  I would think this would be an OSHA violation also.

sheclown

January 14, 2014, 08:26:36 AM
Golden,

Not sure about the neighbor reimbursement.  I think in the case of 253 e 2nd street, they even used the neighbor's hose.  The neighbor was watching and smiling so he probably got a $20 or so.

As far as what we are doing with the info:

1.) we are collecting it and organizing it.  It falls into three categories.  What we suspect, what we know, and what we can prove.  We keep working until we can get what we suspect into the "what we can prove category."

2.) we can prove that the environmental reviews and the section 106 reviews were not done with the federal grant money (both stimulus money NSP 1 and NSP 3) and the community development block grant monies used to demolish houses greater than 50 years.

3.) we can prove that the federal government will require repayment of all monies spent demolishing homes that did not go through the proper reviews.

4.) we can prove that a number of demolitions which were funded by Jacksonville Journey and HUD monies did not go through the proper procedures for the asbestos abatement ie. the proper notification to the local EPA authorities.  This is important because once a house is demolished there is no proof what contaminates were released into the atmosphere.

We have a long list of other areas that we suspect and that we know.  People are talking to us and telling us things.  We dig and dig and when we know, we let the proper regulatory body know.

We tried to get the city to do an audit of code enforcement practices.  We showed the city our proof.  These steps were met with ridicule, indifference, or denial. 

But only on the city level.

When your city is unresponsive, you have to take it to the next level.

The urban core has been polluted and destroyed by policies.  And I could go on to talk about what we think and what we know, but I think we will save that for later.

 

 

JaxUnicorn

January 14, 2014, 09:32:35 AM
Are the demo crews properly protected also?  I would think this would be an OSHA violation also.

The answer here is, it depends.  I've not dug into what OSHA requires when an ACM structure is demolished.  I know when abatement occurs, the white suits and masks are required. 

In the cases of the "emergency" demolitions of 129 and 253 East 2nd, there were no white suits or masks because there was no abatement done.  There was no abatement done because there was no asbestos survey done.  Emergency demolitions must be treated as though there IS asbestos.  And one would assume because they conducted a "wet" demo to prevent potential asbestos fibers from contaminating the air, that all precautions should have been taken.  Not sure what the requirements are under this situation.  Maybe that'll be the next project once this part is done.

Now I CAN tell you that I believe hard hats are required during a demolition.  And I personally witnessed SEVERAL demolition employees on property at 120 East 2nd that were NOT wearing hard hats.  I was tempted to call OSHA at that point because I was so upset over the demolition itself, but didn't. 

Bottomline is that there are a TON of violations occurring.  And the primary reason we are uncovering all these inappropriate activities is because one person, KIM SCOTT, for some unknown reason, continued to tear down our beloved historic Springfield houses by refusing to follow Jacksonville's City Ordinance (laws)......Sad, isn't it?

stephendare

January 14, 2014, 09:48:58 AM
Are the demo crews properly protected also?  I would think this would be an OSHA violation also.

The answer here is, it depends.  I've not dug into what OSHA requires when an ACM structure is demolished.  I know when abatement occurs, the white suits and masks are required. 

In the cases of the "emergency" demolitions of 129 and 253 East 2nd, there were no white suits or masks because there was no abatement done.  There was no abatement done because there was no asbestos survey done.  Emergency demolitions must be treated as though there IS asbestos.  And one would assume because they conducted a "wet" demo to prevent potential asbestos fibers from contaminating the air, that all precautions should have been taken.  Not sure what the requirements are under this situation.  Maybe that'll be the next project once this part is done.

Now I CAN tell you that I believe hard hats are required during a demolition.  And I personally witnessed SEVERAL demolition employees on property at 120 East 2nd that were NOT wearing hard hats.  I was tempted to call OSHA at that point because I was so upset over the demolition itself, but didn't. 

Bottomline is that there are a TON of violations occurring.  And the primary reason we are uncovering all these inappropriate activities is because one person, KIM SCOTT, for some unknown reason, continued to tear down our beloved historic Springfield houses by refusing to follow Jacksonville's City Ordinance (laws)......Sad, isn't it?

Not sad that this came to light.  Regardless of the historic destruction, this is a matter of public health, and no one deserves to cough up their lungs and die of drowning from mesothelioma because some jackass cant be bothered to follow the simple rules of demolishing an asbestos laden structure.

These rules are set up for a reason, and in this case, people who have nothing to do with historic renovation, code enforcement, city politics or even construction work have been exposed to something that is (at this time) mortally dangerous.

Their kids were riding around on bikes, sitting in baby carriages, looking out of windows, eating fried chicken nuggets, and unfortunately breathing in microscopic fibers that can kill them years later.

This is a travesty, and regardless of the circumstances in which the details were discovered, we have a moral imperative to make sure that this stops happening.

JaxUnicorn

January 14, 2014, 10:30:20 AM
So, Stephen.....just how do we do that?  You KNOW I'm on board and have been talking til I'm blue in the face but no one is listening.

stephendare

January 14, 2014, 10:31:41 AM
So, Stephen.....just how do we do that?  You KNOW I'm on board and have been talking til I'm blue in the face but no one is listening.

Actually people are listening (and reading) right now.

I do think that this needs to be taken immediately to the public comments of the city council, so that they can know the kind of danger and liability the city is causing.

JaxUnicorn

January 14, 2014, 10:45:28 AM
So, Stephen.....just how do we do that?  You KNOW I'm on board and have been talking til I'm blue in the face but no one is listening.

Actually people are listening (and reading) right now.

I do think that this needs to be taken immediately to the public comments of the city council, so that they can know the kind of danger and liability the city is causing.

Funny you should say that....I will actually be at tonight's City Council meeting.   8)  They've had a little break from me so it's time for a little reunion.

JaxUnicorn

January 14, 2014, 07:24:12 PM
Well Stephen, I did just what I said I'd do.  Spoke tonight in front of City Council about Code Enforcement ignoring the Federal Asbestos regulations.  I saw a lot of heads nodding as if in agreement with what I was saying and after I was done speaking Kim Daniels asked me to speak to her in more detail about it.  I will be sending her the regulations for "adequately wet" as well as some other information and photos.

Anything specific that you'd like me to include?  :)

vicupstate

January 15, 2014, 04:39:56 AM
So what does the state's environmental protection agency and/or the Federal EPA say about all this? 

mbwright

January 15, 2014, 07:47:48 AM
A signed resignation letter from Kim Scott would be nice.  I still don't understand why she is still employed.

JaxUnicorn

January 15, 2014, 07:53:16 AM
I have directly asked the City of Jacksonville what the results were of the 2011 VIOLATION that was reported and have yet to receive an official response.  We are working toward getting all our facts together to get the state and Federal EPA involved.  Public Records Requests from the City of Jacksonville is like pulling teeth! 

JaxUnicorn

January 15, 2014, 07:56:12 AM
And I also spoke at the City Council meeting last night about this very subject.  We shall see......

JaxUnicorn

January 15, 2014, 07:57:16 AM
MB, there IS a signed resignation letter from Kim Scott on file - all heads of department must submit one when a new mayor takes office.  It is up to the Mayor to simply accept it.

JaxUnicorn

January 15, 2014, 08:27:17 AM
1630 Ionia was cited in the 2011 VIOLATION as it was demolished in 2010.  The others, however, are recent 2013 demolitions.

JaxUnicorn

January 15, 2014, 08:50:27 AM
And LOOK!  NO HARD HATS!!  This is an OSHA VIOLATION as well!!

1630 Ionia, cited in the above email Jax Unicorn posted.  Lack of notification to the environmental agency about doing abatement.


photo by Nicole Lopez

notice the fire hose (at least it isn't a garden hose) but it is on the ground and not doing much good.


photo by Nicole Lopez

no fire hose in use and certainly suspicious siding which resembles asbestos ...

Not notifying the environmental quality department of pending asbestos demolition activities means no one is watching out for public safety.

stephendare

January 15, 2014, 08:52:11 AM
notice that the code enforcement officer got the hell out of dodge and didnt come back until after the danger from asbestos was over.

iloveionia

January 16, 2014, 12:50:19 AM
He immediately sat in his car after walking over to Lloyd. He was gone in less than 10.  Again just waiting for those first few punches. What I will say is this particular code dude got all excited with the anticipation of that first punch: he was completely turned on by it all. It was disgusting.  The bold and viligent destruction by a city dept. who blatantly ignores rules and policies of safety who CLAIM they are a pubic safety minded dept is bullshit. They have knowingly and willfully caused more damage than if those houses remained standing. Public safety threat? Put that on the side of those damn white cars. THEY are the threat.  That and a bunch of thieves too.  Yet the Chief and her minions remain, for now.

mbwright

January 16, 2014, 07:57:52 AM
The mayor is too quiet on this.  Does he care about this city?  When will charges be filed, there is plenty of evidence.

mtraininjax

January 16, 2014, 10:06:21 AM
Quote
The mayor is too quiet on this.  Does he care about this city?  When will charges be filed, there is plenty of evidence.

There are no TV cameras around, that is why!

Or

He cannot get a public private partnership-square peg to fit in the round hole of demolition.

Whoever runs against him, it would be nice to see them bring this up as an issue. Of course, half of Springfield may be demolished by then.....

JaxUnicorn

January 16, 2014, 06:03:13 PM
I just sat at my dining room table with Catherine Varnum of Action News and gave an interview about what Preservation SOS has uncovered regarding asbestos.  She said barring any other breaking news, it should air at 10:00 and 11:00 tonight.  THANK YOU ACTION NEWS FOR TAKING AN INTEREST IN THIS!



sheclown

January 16, 2014, 06:18:22 PM
Thanks MJ.

JaxUnicorn

January 17, 2014, 12:20:11 AM
Action News reported on this issue tonight.  According to the story, City officials met today about the issue.  Boy I would have loved to have been a fly on that wall!

Maybe Stephen will work his majic to get the video to play here without having to go to the link.  :)

Video here: http://www.actionnewsjax.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=4883783

Story here:  http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/Residents-question-if-they-were-exposed-to/9Crjv9HdT0yb5MljQXnS5g.cspx

stephendare

January 17, 2014, 12:29:20 AM
Action News reported on this issue tonight.  According to the story, City officials met today about the issue.  Boy I would have loved to have been a fly on that wall!

Maybe Stephen will work his majic to get the video to play here without having to go to the link.  :)

Video here: http://www.actionnewsjax.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=4883783

Story here:  http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/Residents-question-if-they-were-exposed-to/9Crjv9HdT0yb5MljQXnS5g.cspx

you did great kim!  So clear and concise!  This is so important!  Im glad you have the courage to speak to it!  Thanks!

sheclown

January 17, 2014, 08:04:05 AM
Kim you did a great job.

mbwright

January 17, 2014, 08:13:51 AM
Keep up the pressure.  Maybe something good will happen.

IrvAdams

January 17, 2014, 09:21:30 AM
This looked great on the news last night. I was cheering you on! It was the first-run story on the channel I was watching. Excellent, thanks so much!

JaxUnicorn

January 17, 2014, 01:56:10 PM
Thanks everyone!  I am told that there will be a follow-up story tonight at 6:00 on Channel 47.  This issue is "a hot mess"!

sheclown

January 17, 2014, 09:37:30 PM
Another story will air at ten on ch 30 and 11 on channel 47

sheclown

January 18, 2014, 09:00:21 AM
In spite of its historical significance to the city, there is no representative of the urban core on the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission.  Perhaps if there had been one, the urban core would have had an ally in the city.  As it is, no one, not a district councilman nor a commissioner has stood up to the illegal demolitions which poison these neighborhoods and destroy this fragile history forever.

Jacksonville, be ashamed of yourself.

JaxUnicorn

January 18, 2014, 09:46:36 AM
^^^

+ 1,000!!!

JaxUnicorn

January 18, 2014, 10:18:35 AM
City admitted to not following regulation and there is a "communication breakdown" between Environmental Quality and Municipal Code.  Ya think?  Now....what are they going to DO about it???

The news story from 6:00 last night:  http://www.actionnewsjax.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=4885713

And this follow-up from 10:00 and 11:00:  http://www.actionnewsjax.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=4886070&navCatId=20896

mbwright

January 29, 2014, 02:34:26 PM
any updates on this?

Noone

January 29, 2014, 02:50:15 PM
MB, there IS a signed resignation letter from Kim Scott on file - all heads of department must submit one when a new mayor takes office.  It is up to the Mayor to simply accept it.

Kim, You did a great job last night at city council. Let's all remember Vince Seibold (Environmental Ethics) I hope he is awarded millions. Unbelievable about the Public Records Request.

sheclown

January 31, 2014, 05:56:44 PM
Demolition problems are not just happening in Springfield...read what Action News discovered -- what is happening in Arlington.

Reported by: Catherine Varnum Jan 21, 2014

JACKSONVILLE, Fla.-- New documents from the city are giving insight into a possible asbestos problem...


http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/Prior-asbestos-problems-in-the-city/gJ5xVczTC0aPzqVerd2WLA.cspx#
View forum thread
Welcome Guest. You must be logged in to comment on this story.

What are the benefits of having a MetroJacksonville.com account?
  • Share your opinion by posting comments on stories that interest you.
  • Stay up to date on all of the latest issues affecting your neighborhood.
  • Create a network of friends working towards a better Jacksonville.
Register now
Already have an account? Login now to comment.