Hollis Hills residents plan to sue Con Ed for failing to inform them of asbestos remediation work on Union Turnpike – QNS

Hollis Hills residents are considering filing a class-action lawsuit after discovering asbestos remediation work was underway along the Union Turnpike, and they were not informed about it before it began.

The initial project, which began in January 2023, consisted of a reconstruction of the central median between Hollis Court Boulevard and 226th Street. Local residents have been advocating for rebuilding for many years in hopes of also receiving new streetlights and traffic signals in what they see as a crumbling but frequently used corridor.

During this process, residents observed five-foot-high barriers being raised, restricting views of the work and contributing to several vehicle collisions. After seeing nearly completed medians being dug up to reveal deep openings, residents suspected another project was in the works.

“It was discovered totally by chance,” Mina said Mauerstein-Bail, secretary of the Hollis Hills Civic Association, who is trying to raise awareness of the issue in the community.

At a recent civic association meeting, community members filled the Greek Family Kitchen on Union Turnpike to hear from board members who have been deeply invested in the issue for several months.

In late April, Council Member Linda Lee’s office hosted a community meeting with Community Board 11, the Hollis Hills Civic Association, Con Edison and city agencies such as the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Department of Design and Construction (DDC).

During that meeting, Con Edison admitted to starting asbestos work on March 1 without giving the community the ten-day notice that is part of its policy. Those present recalled that Con Ed’s community liaison told residents that they hid details of the asbestos rumination project so as not to alarm residents.

Con Edison also distributed a fact sheet to residents informing them that asbestos was not toxic. He also addressed concerns related to air quality monitoring. “Non-friable asbestos is less likely to release harmful fibers into the air,” one of the points reads.

He also added that sampling is conducted daily, as required by city and state regulations, by an approved third-party air sampling agency. The process involves the use of pumps that draw air through a filter cartridge and capture a sample of fibers that may be present in the air.

However, many community members are unhappy with how the issue has been handled. The initial lack of transparency also leads them to suspect that other forms of criminal acts are occurring, such as inappropriate working conditions and insufficient reporting on air quality.

“Without warning, we discovered that they were also removing pipes containing asbestos. But the community was never informed, which by law it should have been,” said Mauerstein-Bail.

They also reported seeing chunks of tar lying around in the streets after windy days. At the civic meeting, board members passed around the room a ziplock bag containing coins they had collected off the street.

“The work has not and will not impact the health of the community,” a Con Edison media relations manager told QNS in an email. “All air monitoring results continue to be well below acceptable levels.”

The initial project to reconstruct the central median was led by the New York Department of Design and Construction (DDC). But as with other projects, Con Edison took the opportunity to examine its underground infrastructure and determined that there were underground lines that required additional fortification, which meant eliminating what it considered like non-friable asbestos.

“It is very common for city infrastructure projects to be coordinated with private utilities like Con Ed so that the work can be done more efficiently,” a DDC representative said in an email.

It took more than a month after the first meeting in April for local residents to receive the air quality reports promised by Con Edison. Air quality reports were finally distributed to residents in late May and indicated safe limits.

In addition to requesting air quality reports, concerned community members are also asking for clearly visible signage along the road to inform people that asbestos abatement is underway, even if it is non-friable asbestos removal.

Although the members of the board of directors of the citizens’ association have been speaking about this for several months, they say they have not been able to inform as many people as they would like.

Since learning of the asbestos work, some say they avoid driving on Union Turnpike, and if they do, it’s with their windows closed and their vents closed. They worry about winds blowing air from strip mines on the ground.

Residents saw an indicator of the presence of asbestos – in the form of an 8×10 sheet of paper placed on the interior window of a truck. They say it only lasted a dozen days and was barely visible during that time.

“DEP asbestos abatement personnel visited this work site and found no violations,” an agency representative said in an email.

The DEP did not respond to a request for comment regarding when and why inspectors came to the scene.

“We understand that Con Ed has agreed to notify residents of future abatement work and that they have shared their air monitoring results with the community – which shows that all tests are within acceptable limits” , added the DEP.

According to residents, a DEP inspector arrived at their request on May 20. But in the preceding hours, residents saw workers at the construction site installing plastic sheeting and a decontamination truck that they said was immediately removed when the inspector left.

“It was gone in two hours. Someone warned them the DEP was coming,” said Arlene Schlesinger, a local resident who has closely followed the case. “I realized there was absolutely nothing that could stop them if you could make a construction site appear and disappear in two hours.”

Residents continue to believe foul play is underway, even though city agencies and Con Edison have reassured them there are no health risks and provided them with air quality reports.

Shortly after learning of the asbestos work, they forwarded the message to board member Linda Lee’s office, which also had no advance notice of the second Con Ed project. The agencies admitted that asbestos work was underway shortly afterwards.

“When we contacted we were told it was asbestos, but they said it was not airborne and was essentially harmless,” said Daniel Sparrow, communications director for Council Member Lee.

While acknowledging that he understands why community members are hesitant to believe the agencies after the second draft was not made public, he hopes that presenting the facts in a timely manner can ease tensions.

“Anytime you hear about asbestos, it’s alarming. But we realized it wasn’t as bad as some people might have feared,” Sparrow added.

The work was initially scheduled to be completed by June 2024. However, the SDC recently stated that the project was on schedule and would continue until the end of summer.