The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assessed an $18,187.50 penalty against 320 Elm LLC of Southbridge for violations of MassDEP’s asbestos regulations.
The violations occurred during the removal of asbestos-containing transite siding shingles from a residential property located at 255-257 Marcy Street in Southbridge, a property the company owns.
During an inspection of the site in November 2009, MassDEP personnel found the company had removed the asbestos-containing siding itself without having provided prior notification to MassDEP, and without following the required handling, packaging and disposal procedures. Numerous pieces of shattered asbestos transite shingles were observed dry, uncontained on the ground and in a roll-off dumpster at the property.
Upon discovery of the violations, the company was required to hire a Massachusetts Division of Labor Standards-licensed asbestos contractor to properly handle, package and dispose of all the asbestos-containing waste materials, and to decontaminate all impacted areas of the property.
MassDEP regulations require asbestos-containing transite materials to be removed wet, in a manner that minimizes breakage, and then carefully lowered to the ground. The regulations also mandate that asbestos waste be sealed, while wet, into leak tight containers that have the appropriate asbestos warning labels affixed to them.
Under the terms of the settlement, the company must pay $4,000 of the assessed penalty, and MassDEP suspended the remaining $14,187 as long as there are no repeat violations for one year.
"Contractors and property owners must be fully aware of their responsibilities to thoroughly inspect buildings, which they intend to renovate for the presence of any asbestos containing-materials," said Lee Dillard Adams, deputy director of MassDEP’s Central Regional Office in Worcester. "Failure to identify and properly remove asbestos-containing materials is an extremely serious and ultimately a costly oversight that potentially exposes workers, residents and the general public to a known carcinogen. Noncompliance inevitably results in significant penalty exposure, as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination, disposal and monitoring costs to both the property owner and the contractor."
