State Officials Feel Vindicated After New Study Argues Against Asbestos Removal

State officials, criticized in the past for moving too slowly with asbestos removal, welcomed a new scientific study Friday that concludes asbestos cleanup is often more dangerous than simply ignoring the problem.

Faced with estimates that asbestos abatement in public schools could cost billions of dollars, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig said the new findings call for a more cautious--and less costly--approach to dealing with the hazardous fibers.

“By going and trying to do something about it, you may make it more dangerous,” said Honig. “You may have to take a re-look at what has to be done, and sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.”

Similarly, the office of the state architect, which oversees most state structures, said the study published in the journal Science corresponds with the agency’s program of locating asbestos in state buildings and then, in most cases, leaving it alone.

“I’m pleased to see the report appears to coincide with the method of operation of this office,” said Kenneth McClellan, chief of special programs for the state architect’s office. “We don’t want to do any abatement that could expose people to fibers.”

But some critics say the state has been motivated less by health concerns than money and has been lax in carrying out its asbestos program.

The comprehensive study concluded that leaving asbestos in place often poses less of a hazard than removing it, particularly to workers who take part in the cleanup. The report also found that the type of asbestos most commonly used in building materials, chrysotile asbestos, poses fewer health risks than other forms of the mineral.

In Los Angeles, officials of the Los Angeles Unified School District were optimistic that the latest findings would relieve pressure to remove asbestos at all costs.

“We have done things where we really feel there’s an overkill,” said Margaret Scholl, maintenance director for the district. “It’s become a motherhood issue, and how can anyone be for asbestos? It’s become a political issue rather than a health issue.”

Under federal law, school districts nationwide have been required to spend millions of dollars on asbestos abatement even in cases where local officials believed there was no health threat.

In California, districts have been left to find their own funding, often diverting money from instructional programs. But many parents, concerned that their children were being exposed to life-threatening fibers, have criticized schools and the state for neglecting asbestos hazards.

“Every school district is in a panic because they don’t have the money to do the work the law is requiring,” said Richard Henry, asbestos technical supervisor for the Los Angeles district. “Perhaps it’s money that doesn’t need to be spent and can be spent on education.”

So far, the Los Angeles school district has spent nearly $20 million on its asbestos program.

The state Department of Education said there is no tally of how much money has been spent on asbestos abatement by the state’s school districts. Estimates for asbestos inspection and cleanup in the public schools range from $1 billion to $3 billion.

“School districts spent a lot of money to take care of this problem and now it turns out some of that money has been unwisely spent,” said Honig.

Before recommending that schools curtail their asbestos programs, Honig said he will call on his staff to examine the study conducted by researchers at Yale, Johns Hopkins and several other universities. “We’re not yet advising schools to hold up,” he said.

The state architect’s office surveyed 12,000 state structures and found asbestos in 50,000 locations, McClellan said. Cleanup work was carried out in 63 of the buildings.

In most of the 12,000 buildings, he said, the fibers were not in a hazardous condition and were dealt with simply by warning maintenance workers of the problem and carrying out regular inspections.

Richard Steffen, a former analyst with the Assembly Office of Research, said that under Gov. George Deukmejian, the state has done little to deal with the problem of asbestos in its buildings ever since officials discovered it would cost $1 billion or more.

Now, he added, the latest study appears to be a sort of vindication for the Administration’s inaction. “They’re being rewarded for being lax on the job,” said Steffen, chief of staff for Assemblywoman Jackie Speier (D-South S.F.).