Asbestos in place: a building management perspective

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos in place: a building management perspective, by H.G. Irwig, L.C. Oliver, T. Page, et al (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1991).

The study

• Authors: H.G. Irwig, L.C. Oliver, T. Page, D.H. Wegman, M.J. Ellenbecker
• Journal: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
• Published: 1991;643:589-96
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy (J-M no. 004405).

In plain English

This article was a discussion paper, not a research study. It did not examine any group of people, measure asbestos exposure, or report health outcomes. It described how asbestos-containing materials in commercial buildings affect the interests of owners, lenders, tenants, designers and building trades. The authors listed materials such as sprayed or trowelled-on fireproofing and insulation, pipe and boiler wrapping, vinyl asbestos tiles, and caulking, but did not name fiber types. They said exposure risk depends on the material's type and condition and on other factors: whether it releases fibers on its own, only when disturbed, or only with aggressive disturbance; how accessible it is; and how well disturbance is controlled. They compared full removal with operations and maintenance programs that keep materials in place. They described full removal as costly: in the Boston area, about $25 per square foot to remove, plus $25 to $60 per square foot to rebuild tenant space. They proposed an integrated approach that ranks materials into four removal priorities. The authors concluded that managing asbestos in place requires different management approaches for different situations.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Discussion or perspective paper on building management. It reports no original data on people, exposures or disease.
• Who was studied: No people were studied. The paper discusses commercial buildings in general and the parties with interests in them: owners, mortgage lenders, tenants, property management, design professionals, contractors and building trades.
• Exposure: Asbestos-containing building materials in commercial buildings: sprayed or trowelled-on fireproofing or insulation coatings, rigid or semi-rigid pipe and boiler wrapping, vinyl asbestos tiles, and bedding and caulking matrices. No fiber types are named and no exposure measurements are given.
• Main results:
  • The authors stated that exposure risk depends on the type of asbestos material and on several further factors. These are whether the material releases fibers without disturbance, only upon disturbance, or only with aggressive disturbance; how accessible the material is; and whether disturbance is intentional and well controlled.
  • The authors summarized that risk of exposure is influenced by the type and condition of the asbestos-containing materials. It is also influenced by how the building's use, operation, maintenance and reconfiguration make those materials accessible, especially to accidental disturbance.
  • For gross removal from tenant spaces, the authors gave Boston-area costs at the time of writing. Removal cost about $25 per square foot and buildout of new premises $25 to $60 per square foot. Lost rent during abatement and reconstruction typically added about $10 per square foot. In many properties this gave a payback period of more than 5 years.
  • The authors described the payback period for gross removal in many properties as more than 5 years, when the value of the whole property is considered.
  • The authors described operations and maintenance programs as the alternative to removal. They said these programs must include tenant education, routine air and dust monitoring, and training, licensing and medical monitoring of property personnel. They also said that even modest work could require partial abatement, with a cost penalty that could equal or double the direct construction costs.
  • In the authors' integrated approach, Priority I materials pose potential for direct continuous or regular episodic exposure and should be removed as soon as possible. Examples are sprayed-on (friable) fireproofing in directly accessible areas and damaged pipe insulation that is disturbed.
  • Priority II materials have a higher risk of episodic exposure and should be removed in an orderly fashion, for example during renovations. Priority III materials are potentially releasable but only indirectly accessible, and need only be removed when removal is under way in the same area.
  • Priority IV materials present little or no exposure during normal building operation and generally need not be removed until the building is demolished. Examples are vinyl-asbestos floor tiles under carpeting, and materials in inaccessible locations or encased in permanent structures.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that successful management of asbestos in place in commercial buildings needs an integrated strategy. That strategy should take into account financing, marketing, operations and other building conditions as well as asbestos exposure. They held that this requires different management approaches for different situations.

Related studies

• Mesothelioma among employees with likely contact with in-place asbestos-containing building materials — H.A. Anderson, L.P. Hanrahan, et al. (1991)
• Asbestos-related disease in custodial and building maintenance workers from a large municipal school district — J.R. Balmes, A. Daponte, et al. (1991)
• The costs of imprecision: perspectives in asbestos abatement — N.A. Esmen (1991)
• A radiographic survey of public school building maintenance and custodial employees — H.A. Anderson, L.P. Hanrahan, et al. (1992)
• Asbestos in New York City public school buildings--public policy: is there a scientific basis? — R. Wilson, A.M. Langer, et al. (1994)
• Airborne asbestos levels in school buildings in Italy — A. Campopiano, S. Casciardi, et al. (2004)

Browse more research in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, or return to medical research.