Assurances on Asbestos Questioned

Court employees who worked in temporary courtrooms at the asbestos-contaminated Hotel San Diego have nothing to worry about, San Diego County officials said Tuesday, but angry workers dismissed those assurances with charges that authorities were “trivializing” their exposure to the carcinogen.

About 45 concerned employees, including interpreters, clerks and a deputy marshal, met with county officials at noon in Superior Court’s Department 1 to ask questions about their exposure to the cancer-causing fiber.

Because of a shortage of courtrooms, the county had leased space for nine Municipal and Superior courtrooms at the downtown hotel. The owners of the 219-room hotel closed the building indefinitely in August, when tests showed that the rooms were contaminated with asbestos.

Although some employees had worked in the Hotel San Diego courtrooms for up to 18 months, county health officials said Tuesday that they were only exposed to asbestos for a five-day period. The contamination occurred in August after hotel workers improperly removed asbestos-containing materials from a courtroom ceiling, a county spokesman said.

The fibers were spread from courtroom to courtroom by hotel maintenance crews who used the same vacuum cleaner to clean all the rooms, the spokesman added.

When the asbestos was discovered in August, county health officials called the contamination “a brief elevated exposure” that was “minimal.” On Tuesday, they continued to downplay the exposure and told employees that their exposure was “medically insignificant.”

“The medical opinion is that (it was) a one-time exposure . . . that was an insignificant exposure,” said Brian Watanabe, the county’s acting risk manager and one of four county officials at the meeting.

“There is no chance of getting asbestosis,” added Larry Marshall, chief of the county’s Occupational and Radiological Health Division. “The county health department is not recommending that you get any medical exams.”

However, the officials’ assurances failed to allay the employees’ fears, and many of them were openly skeptical of the information provided.

The workers’ doubts were heightened when they were told that, despite the assurances they were receiving, the county plans to decontaminate the employees’ clothing and personal items left in the courtrooms.

“On the one hand, I hear you saying that there isn’t a health risk. But, on the other hand, you’re taking tremendous precautions to decontaminate the clothing, and the hotel was closed,” said one woman, who like others later asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job.

“You want us to think that everything’s fine and there’s no danger from the exposure,” said another employee. “But we no longer work there because the contamination is so severe. . . . We’re all walking around wondering what’s going to happen to us. Does anybody care? Are we going to get medical exams?”

Another employee said she thought it was “reasonable” for the county to pay for X-rays for employees that could be compared to X-rays taken in the future. Other employees said their physicians had recommended such X-rays.

However, Watanabe said that, since the county considers the asbestos exposure to be medically insignificant, it will not authorize payment for X-rays or medical exams. In addition, employees will not be eligible for workers compensation, he added.

“There being no medically significant exposure. . . . There really is no work-related injury. Therefore, there will be no workers compensation,” said Watanabe.

Besides, even if some employees had contracted asbestosis as a result of the contamination, it would be too early for the disease to show up in X-rays, said the county officials.

When the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, the Japanese survivors did not contract cancer the same day but still suffered from the disease years later, said one angry employee.

Several times during the 75-minute meeting, employees asked Watanabe and Marshall to put their assurances and findings in writing. Both men said employees will be receiving a written report containing information used to reach the county’s conclusions.

Afterwards, several workers said they believed they were being misled, but declined to be interviewed by a reporter, saying that they feared retribution by Municipal and Superior Court administrators. Some workers said they object to what they called Watanabe’s arrogance.

“Yes, I was skeptical, but I like my job. That’s why I didn’t say what I was really thinking,” said one angry woman when the meeting ended. Later, outside the courtroom, she added, “They want us to believe whatever they want us to believe.”

In a telephone interview after the meeting, Marshall said he noticed that some employees were skeptical.

“There were several employees there who didn’t perceive what we gave them to be factual. It’s disturbing that people don’t believe it,” Marshall said.

Indeed, during the meeting employees repeatedly challenged Marshall’s and Watanabe’s assurances that the amount of asbestos to which they were exposed does not represent a hazard. The officials said asbestos was found in the dust inside the courtrooms.

“If asbestos is in the dust, isn’t it reasonable to assume it was airborne? If the asbestos was airborne, isn’t it reasonable to assume that we were exposed to airborne particles in the year and a half that we were there?” asked one employee.

Marshall repeated that the exposure occurred only during a five-day period.

Both Marshall and Watanabe said air samples taken after the brief exposure inside the courtrooms contained the same amount of asbestos normally found in outside air.