Asbestos Report Calls S.D. Courthouse, Jail Safe

Asbestos fireproofing and insulation in the San Diego County Courthouse and Central Jail is in fair to poor condition, but immediate removal is not necessary, according to a summary of an environmental report released by the county Thursday.

County officials said the multivolumed report, copies of which were not available to the news media Thursday, found that cancer-causing asbestos poses a “low hazard” to building occupants as long as they are not exposed to the fibers, most which are hidden behind ceiling panels and walls.

“Simply being in a building containing asbestos is not a cause for concern,” Norman W. Hickey, the county’s chief administrative officer, said in a statement. “It is airborne asbestos fibers which pose a potential health risk.”

The $126,000 report is the second survey to examine the impact of asbestos in the two county buildings. The first study was never released, county officials said, because it was “riddled with errors.” In February, some of the 800 people who work in the buildings charged that the report was being suppressed, but county officials said they were simply sparing their employees unnecessary panic.

On Thursday, county spokesman Bob Lerner said the county is still attempting to get its $50,000 deposit refunded by the Arizona company that conducted the first study. He said the second study “validates what we knew to be the case” and should reassure county workers.

But some county employees said they were not calmed by the study.

Chuck Martin, a clerk in Superior Court and the co-chairman of CARE, the Committee for Asbestos Removal Efforts in the courthouse, said he had attended a 90-minute briefing on the study Thursday and was disappointed to see it did not address recommendations made by the San Diego County Grand Jury in May.

“In that respect, their report, in all due respect, was defective,” said Martin, who says he and his co-workers have documented seemingly high levels of cancer among longtime courthouse workers. “I’ve sat in Department 1 during earthquakes. I’ve seen the overhead panels pop off, and you can see the asbestos exposed. This report begs the human issues.”

In May, the grand jury, concerned about asbestos at the aging courthouse, recommended that the county give yearly physical examinations to its employees who work there.

But county spokesman Lerner said Thursday that the county “dismissed the grand jury report out of hand” because it did not refer to extensive testimony given by county health services personnel. “They talked at great length with our people and failed to include one single comment, a lot that would have countered what was in the grand jury report,” he said.

Martin said representatives of the company the county hired to conduct the second asbestos study told him Thursday that they, too, saw no merit in the grand jury report.

Their study recommends that the county continue its current air-monitoring program that checks for the presence of asbestos fibers in ambient air, according to a summary released by the county. Lerner said that of the 250 samples taken in the past 15 months, none have contained asbestos.

The study also urges the county to expand its policy that trains maintenance workers to take proper precautions before working around asbestos and to properly dispose of any of the exposed material.

The study also found that, if the courthouse is ever renovated or demolished, the county will have to spend more than $20 million to remove the asbestos, as required by federal law.

The cost of razing and replacing the courthouse has been estimated at $600 million, including asbestos removal. The cost of renovating the existing building, removing the asbestos and building an annex has been set at $450 million.