Report's Additional Remarks On Status of State Compliance

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints
  • CommentsComments

The following "additional notes on the individual state reports" were included by the Education Department in its unreleased report to the Congress on asbestos-control efforts involving schools.

Alabama's State Building Commission has contracted with Safe-State, a University of Alabama consulting service, to inspect, sample, and analyze all suspected asbestos material in the public elementary and secondary schools. A report is expected in September 1983.

Alaska, as of July 1983, reported that some LEA's (Local Education Agencies) have inspected their buildings and some asbestos has been found.

Arizona said that since the epa does not require schools to report to their SEA (State Education Agency), its data are most likely not complete. Of the 372 nonpublic schools reporting friable asbestos, only 52 submitted samples for analysis.

Arkansas reported that of its 370 LEA's, 358 had reported to the SEA; 172 had buildings with asbestos and 74 of these had taken corrective action by June 1983, and 43 had deferred action.

California's report contained no data to be tabulated.

Colorado's report contained no data to be tabulated. The Service Employees International Union survey reported that almost all Colorado schools with asbestos problems have taken appropriate action.

Connecticut has 100 LEA's in which 170 buildings were suspected of having asbestos; 40 of the 170 buildings needed immediate removal of the asbestos; 36 removal projects have been completed or were in process (June 1983). No data were reported on the nonpublic schools.

Delaware gave no data on its nonpublic schools. All inspections were made under the pre-May 1982 rules.

District of Columbia reported it has surveyed all of its schools and found friable asbestos in 5 public-school buildings and 3 nonpublic-school buildings. The hazard has been abated by encapsulation in the public schools.

Florida requires annual inspection of all elementary and secondary schools and community colleges for hazardous asbestos. Prior to July 1, 1980, 1,608,374 square feet of hazardous material was removed. In 1980-81, Florida appropriated $6.5 million for this purpose; in 1981-82, $3.9 million. Except for problems in Wakulla, Broward, and Orange counties, all hazardous asbestos has been removed or is now being removed.

Georgia's report (July 1981) was incomplete, aside from the failure to provide data on the nonpublic schools. No later report.

Hawaii reported that it removed all the hazardous asbestos from all of its public schools at a cost of $10.1 million. No data were reported on the nonpublic schools.

Idaho had not reported as of early August 1983.

Illinois sent to ed a copy of the report it made to comply with the epa rule. The data are still incomplete.

Indiana reported that it had screened all of its schools, public and nonpublic. However, the data from its several reports are conflicting and incomplete. There was no report of corrective actions by the nonpublic schools.

Iowa's most recent report was submitted in 1981 and was incomplete. It included no mention of its nonpublic schools.

Kansas indicated that it has all the data for its public and nonpublic schools, and can supply the data in a specific format, if requested.

Kentucky in 1981 reportedly inspected its schools, public and nonpublic, and knew which ones had asbestos. It reportedly had records on all aspects of the asbestos control activity. However, its report to the Secretary gave no figures to indicate exactly what had been done.

Louisiana's summary report was to have been mailed on June 28, 1983. It has not arrived. Louisiana "lends assistance" to its LEA's for asbestos detection in all school buildings, public and parochial.

Maine provides 50-50 matching funds to its LEA's for asbestos detection, and has legislation pending to provide 90-percent state funding for repair or removal of asbestos in its public schools. No data were provided on the nonpublic shcools.

Maryland reportedly is in "full compliance" and for every public school, a detection program has been undertaken and the SEA has information on "related control activities and the date that these activities were completed." No data were submitted for tabulation.

Massachusetts submitted no data on its schools, public or nonpublic, in its three reports, which were strictly "descriptions of activities" in accordance with the state plan.

Michigan expected to submit a full report in August 1983.

Minnesota reported no data on asbestos detection or control.

Mississippi's descriptive report provided no data on detection or control.

Missouri submitted no data on asbestos detection or control in its summary report.

Montana submitted no detection or control data.

Nebraska submitted no summary report.

New Hampshire described what it has done, with a minimum of hard data. Corrective actions have ranged in cost to LEA's from "several thousand to over two million dollars."

New Jersey submitted no reports.

New Mexico estimated it would cost $3.9 million to abate its asbestos problems by encapsulation at $2.50 per square foot, and $12.6 million as the cost of removal at $8.00 per square foot.

New York reported to be complying, but its descriptive reports include no data.

North Carolina supplied no data on its nonpublic schools.

North Dakota has not submitted its report.

Ohio has been active but its report included no data.

Oklahoma said all of its 7,000 buildings have been "surveyed," 70 of its LEA's found asbestos problems, and 47 of the LEA's have removed the hazardous material. About 1.117 million square feet have been removed at a cost of $2.992 million. Only 4 LEA's now have problems, and they are to be corrected soon.

Oregon, on July 12, 1983, promised " a full accounting shortly."

Pennsylvania reported that the state has paid $5,890,367 for abatement and expects to pay an additional $8,234,095.

Rhode Island reported all LEA's have inspected all their schools and that it has "exceeded" the requirements of the Asbestos School Hazard Detection and Control Act of 1980.

South Carolina. Of its 978 "schools," 190 have been found to have friable asbestos, and in 50 schools "removal or abatement" activities have been undertaken.

South Dakota. Of the 195 public LEA's and 137 nonpublic school systems, 111 have made the inspections, and 38 found asbestos. Most of the data submitted cannot be tabulated.

Tennessee reported "100 per cent attainment" in its detection program for public schools undertaken in 1981. Of the nonpublic schools, 22 percent have participated in the program. At least 12 LEA's have taken some corrective action.

Texas. The Texas records are incomplete.

Utah's report showed some voluntary activity, but no data were provided on control activities that can be tabulated.

Vermont has not submitted a plan or reports.

Virginia's report showed that of 63 LEA's with asbestos, 20 "have corrected asbestos" and "43 have uncorrected asbestos." They expected to have a final report by the end of summer 1983.

Washington. All of its 300 LEA's "completed and filed a report of their building survey."

West Virginia reportedly has surveyed "all its school systems during 1982 and 1983 concerning the status of asbestos detection and control," however, they did not report the results to ed

Wisconsin has not complied with the reporting requirement.

Wyoming reported that all but 11 of its 49 LEA's have reported regarding the presence of asbestos.

American Samoa. No report submitted.

Guam. No report submitted.

Puerto Rico. No report submitted.

Trust Territory said all of its 6 "local agencies" have "reported'' and that only one found asbestos, supposedly not hazardous. The reporting cannot be considered definitive.

Northern Mariana Islands reported that it has 13 public shcools, of these the one with asbestos is now closed. No data were supplied on any nonpublic school.

Virgin Islands contracted with a firm to do the inspection of its schools to perform the analysis of suspected friable materials, and to make recommendations for corrective action. The firm had not performed these tasks as of July 15, 1983, and legal action to force its compliance was being contemplated.

Vol. 03, Issue 07

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories