 |
| Small enough to be torn down by volunteers? |
"Cost-saving" maneuver would likely prove to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.
By Linda Felaco and Will Collette
At the December 28 Planning Commission meeting, foreman Ruth Platner cavalierly asserted that the costs of demolishing the existing buildings at the YMCA camp could be reduced by having volunteers tear down the smaller structures. The estimated cost for demolition is $59,000, but that could change, depending on the types of hazards that are uncovered in the process.
No one among Platner’s fellow Planning Commissioners challenged this bold proposal, nor did the town staff raise any concerns about the potential liability.
However, as Platner repeatedly noted throughout the meeting, the town won’t even own the property despite shelling out $475,000 for it. Perhaps Platner believes the liability for volunteer worker injuries will fall on the actual owner of the property, the Charlestown Land Trust.
Does the Planning Commission know what sort of liability coverage the Land Trust has? Will the Land Trust ensure that an OSHA-qualified safety supervisor is on site to make sure the demolition work is done safely? Will the Land Trust provide the volunteer workers with OSHA-required safety equipment (e.g., hardhats, gloves, goggles, steel-toed boots, back braces—and respirators if these old buildings have asbestos, lead-based paint, or mold problems)? Will there be first aid gear and personnel on site?
Who will provide the workers compensation coverage? Would the workers in fact be protected? Would they have to sign some sort of waiver promising not to sue—and can workers actually waive these rights? Who will ensure that everyone’s tetanus shots are up to date? And just what sort of risks would the workers be exposing themselves to?
These are, after all, structures that have been vacant for several years, so who knows what types of (possibly rabid) animals or stinging insects might have taken up residence over the years. What if someone who’d never been stung before turns out to be allergic?
 |
| Just one of the many potential hazards. |
And what about the hazards from all those old cesspools? Are their locations known? How well are they marked?
Who will supply the tools and ensure that the proper tool is used for each aspect of the work? Who will haul away the debris from 15 buildings and dispose of it safely and properly?
It was rather amazing to me that Platner, an elected official in a nanny town that micromanages its citizens’ lives down to the smallest detail, to the point of enacting ordinances against the throwing of snowballs, would be so casual about such dangers. Does she plan to help out with any of this work herself? She is, after all, the number one proponent of the purchase of the camp.
Construction work is dangerous work. This is one reason why the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a special division focused exclusively on construction health and safety. The most dangerous of all construction jobs is that of ironworkers who work the high steel in tall buildings. But right up there among the most hazardous jobs in the most hazardous profession is demolition work.
Within the building trades, the job of demolition falls to construction laborers, and they undergo specialized training for demolition work—especially when health hazards like asbestos, lead, mold, or chemicals are involved.
The idea of sending volunteers into that old Y camp to demolish those old buildings is so irresponsible that it’s breathtaking. Platner would expose those volunteers to almost certain injuries—because that happens during demolitions, especially when amateurs do them—and possibly even death. Whether the liability falls on the Land Trust, or on the town of Charlestown, the blame would be on her head.