Resident goes onto site of former courthouse to test for hazardous materials, tells officials
An East Cambridge resident said he entered the grounds of the neighborhood’s former courthouse Sunday to test samples for dangerous substances, reporting the results to city officials and to his neighbors on Friday and publicizing it in the form of a series of tweets.
A “lab test confirms that large amounts of Sullivan Courthouse asbestos are sitting out exposed to the air and wind and rain in a highly disturbable, decayed and dusty form just [around] 20 yards from East Cambridge residences,” resident Loren Crowe wrote.
State Rep. Mike Connolly, upon learning of the situation, said Friday that he alerted the state Department of Environmental Protection to take action.
The former 1970s-era Edward J. Sullivan Courthouse towers 22 stories over the neighborhood on Thorndike Street and is languishing in a prolonged debate over whether it will be developed into an office building with 24 units of housing. Leggat McCall Properties won a bidding war for redevelopment rights in late 2012, but legal battles and a plan that relies on parking leased from the city has delayed work.
With the building guarded but not maintained by the state’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance, residents have worried that asbestos and other dangerous materials within have begun to leak out through flooding, ruptured steam pipes venting to the outside and unsealed rooms facing the surrounding streets.
“Even residents who strongly disagree with the current plan have legitimate concerns about the deteriorating state of the building, which is known to be filled with toxins,” Crowe wrote Aug. 20 in a Medium post titled “Elected Officials Opposed to Courthouse Redevelopment Play Politics with East Cambridge’s Safety.”
In a tweet sent Thursday afternoon, Crowe shows himself in rubber gloves and a filtered mask and says, “DCAMM won’t test for asbestos in the Sullivan Courthouse? Fine. I’ll do it myself.”
In the Sunday excursion he describes, he went onto the property on the Spring Street side of the building to a room that is “100 percent unsealed” to gather powdery materials from the ground – once part of the ceiling in the room, but since crumbled from decay. He posts a letter from Schneider Laboratories in Richmond, Virginia, where he said he sent the material, saying the tested materials are 30 percent asbestos fibers, when the federally allowed limit is 1 percent.
Environmental action
Connolly said Friday that he became aware of Crowe’s actions Thursday. “As soon as I saw this report last night, I immediately contacted MassDEP and requested that they respond to these concerns,” he said. “If it is confirmed that the building is now posing a threat to the public, then the state is obligated to immediately take action to address the situation.”
The state representative went on:
“In my meeting with DCAMM last month, I asked what the state would do in the event it was determined the building was posing a risk to the public – they told me they would have to immediately address it, regardless of the status of any disposition process. I’ve also been in contact with city officials and state Sen. Sal DiDomenico to make them aware of the concern.”
He continued to follow up with city and state officials Friday morning, Connolly said, and spoke with City Manager Louis A. DePasquale, who said he’d forwarded the report to the acting fire chief. “So at this point we are looking to MassDEP and the city’s fire chief to advise on next steps,” Connolly said.
City Councillors told him Thursday when they received a report from Crowe and forwarded it to him, Connolly said.
Crowe did not report taking any direct environmental safety actions himself, but said a neighbor thought to tell the state’s Environmental Police on Friday by calling their emergency number.
Disputing assurances
In the Aug. 20 post, Crowe blasted Connolly and DCAMM because Connolly has quoted the state agency as saying the courthouse “does not pose a threat to public health and does not pose a risk to the environment”; Crowe called the July 23 statements from the state agency “evidence-free assertions.”
He is similarly critical of city councillor Quinton Zondervan and Acting Fire Chief Gerard Mahoney, who gave his own assessment to the council July 29 that “the building is unoccupied and secure but does not presently present a hazard that requires intervention.”
“I instructed the personnel of the Cambridge Fire Department several months ago that nobody was to go in the building for any response of any kind without full protective clothing, including respiratory protection. I would say based on the fact that they had been water leaks in the building and the building is sealed up, there is probably a preponderance of mold in the building. There is, in my opinion, no need or benefit of personnel from the fire department going in to examine that building,” Mahoney said. “I do not have any concern that the building is exposing people to cancer-causing toxins.”
That a burst steam pipe June 1 pumped asbestos into the open air was “highly unlikely” because where asbestos was used during construction of the era “would have little to no interaction” with the steam pipe, Mahoney said.
Crowe’s post disputed the officials’ findings at length, linking to documents and photos and saying that “in asserting that the building is safe, these elected leaders are showing themselves to be out of touch with both courthouse supporters and opponents in the neighborhood who see ample evidence for concern,” though he also sees a political motive: “As the opposition has seen their arguments successfully confronted, they have retreated to ever more tenuous redoubts. Now, a new tactic has emerged where a few elected officials opposed to the current redevelopment plan have resorted to playing politics with resident safety” to block the Leggat McCall courthouse plan.
State responsibility
Zondervan said Friday that he saw the situation differently, saying Crowe’s findings only underscored “the irresponsibility on the part of the state to place our safety in the hands of a private, for-profit, unaccountable developer.”
“Selling the building to a private developer removes our ability to ensure it is rapidly remediated,” Zondervan said. “The building belongs to the state and they need to clean up their mess immediately … the building needs to be torn down and a clean site needs to be handed over to the city of Cambridge ASAP.”
The 40 Thorndike St. tower was put up in the 1970s despite strong opposition throughout the residential neighborhood, and it began to be vacated in 2008 for renovations. But it was so decayed and ridden with asbestos that the Middlesex County Superior Court remained in Woburn, and Cambridge District Court moved to Medford; the final residents of the building were the prisoners in the jail atop the building, who were moved to the Middlesex House of Corrections in Billerica in June 2014.
So not reporting this hazard to DEP, the EPA or the Environmental Police is what our intrepid whistleblower doesn’t consider playing politics with our public health? Good to know. Personally, I’m glad that other people, like my state rep, think our safety is more important than an obvious cynical political ploy aimed at boosting Leggat McCall’s bottom line. Some of us remember there are human beings living here, not just impediments to corporate profit.
If our state rep actually did care about our safety, he wouldn’t have been so eager to take DCAMM’s word for it that the Courthouse “does not pose a threat to public health and does not pose a risk to the environment.” If he did care, he would have asked, “Okay, can I see the results from you test of the exposed debris? …… Oh, you haven’t conducted any tests?! You need to get on that right away.”
Oh, Heather. Somebody, at their own risk and expense, goes on site at the Courthouse, discovers it’s oozing asbestos that’s not supposed to be there, starts telling people, which results in the inevitable call to DEP, and your complaint is that he didn’t make the call himself?
I don’t think I’ve ever met Loren, but he strikes me as a reasonable bright guy. If he wanted to use this for political advantage, there are far better ways to do this than have Mike Connolly be the one to notify MassDEP.
Thanks to loren crowe for actually testing the site. Shame on those that have stated that the building was safe without providing any actual test results. Shame on those elected pols who did not demand “evidence” of safety. Steam from pipes demands proof that pipes are not asbestos lined. Open windows and doors demand testing of dust. Water leaks demand that water samples are tested. Cambridge department of public health needs to advocate on behalf of residents…demand answers from the state now…show us test results!
Have I or have I not consistently advocated, to total crickets from the city administration, for the City to demand that DCAMM maintain its property? It’s no revelation that there’s asbestos in this building, and it’s always been relatively easy for DCAMM to do what every knowledgeable person I’ve talked to has said needs to be done: board up the holes. There’s still no proof that there’s been any danger to those of us on the outside of the building, although this little stunt may well have exposed all of us in the area.
If the intrepid whistleblower were actually concerned about public health, yes, he would have called DEP. He didn’t because he was just looking for a political wedge to convince the City Council to give Leggat McCall everything its little heart desires. The people who do care about public health did call DEP, and there are quite a few of them, not just Mike Connolly. What Mike did was follow up and get DEP and DCAMM on site today, something the City Manager and Mr. Crowe seem uninterested in.
In fact, I saw the DEP emergency response truck there earlier this evening. My understanding is that DCAMM has been ordered to secure the building by morning. This could and should have happened had anyone in the city administration thought that the human beings who live near the building were more than pawns in a game of big money.
Even more reason to get this building re-developed. We have a solution at hand, and a possible fix to get this building functional. It will re-vitalize the entire area. Lets get it done! Otherwise, its a matter of time before the building literally starts falling apart.
We have very different ideas of what revitalizing means. My neighborhood is plenty vital, and there’s more than enough construction to wake me up every day before 7 a.m. A yes vote, on the other hand, will throw a hundred and more day parkers out of the First Street Garage and make it even harder than it already is for people who have monthly passes to use them. Additionally, because the City Manager insisted on blatantly flouting the city’s disposition ordinance instead of following it, a yes vote is guaranteed to set off another round of lawsuits.
Leggat McCall has a Plan B that doesn’t involve sending the people in older cars and pickup trucks who currently use the garage out into our streets in a vain quest for parking so that LMP’s well-paid tenants can park their Audis on the cheap in our municipal garage. A no vote will preclude a lawsuit over the parking, because LMP has no legal claim to sue on, and get this show on the road much, much faster.
If you want something to happen, tell the City Council to reject this giveaway to a billion-dollar real estate developer who has other options. If you want that eyesore to stay, tell them to vote yes so the lawsuits the City Manager’s fecklessness has invited can start again.
We deserve nice things, so let’s demand them.
There already were several lawsuits brought by residents who were opposed to this. It was lengthy process, took several years, and the residents opposing it lost at all levels. So if you want to waste more time (and a lot of money) then bring it on. I am sure lawyers will be more than happy to take on your case and extract thousands out of you.
If more litigation is what this comes down to, then will be only one winner from this situation – the lawyers :)