Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

EPA’s Alternative Asbestos 

Control Method Experiments 

Lacked Effective Oversight 

and Threatened Human Health 

Report No. 14-P-0359 September 25, 2014

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Report Contributors: Benjamin Beeson

Martha Chang

Christine El-Zoghbi 

Eric Lewis

Jennifer Pallotta

Wendy Wierzbicki

Michael Wilson

Abbreviations

AACM Alternative Asbestos Control Method

ADP Action Development Process

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

NAA No Action Assurance

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OAR Office of Air and Radiation

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OIG Office of Inspector General

ORD Office of Research and Development

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

RACM Regulated asbestos-containing material

U.S.C. U.S. Code

Cover photo: An example of the beginning stage of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method

process. The photo is from the AACM 3 report. (EPA photo)

Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an

EPA program? 

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)

Washington, DC 20460

(888) 546-8740

(202) 566-2599 (fax)

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

More information at www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.html.

EPA, Office of Inspector General

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 566-2391

www.epa.gov/oig

Subscribe to our Email Updates

Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig

Send us your Report Suggestions
 

14-P-0359

September 25, 2014

Why We Did This Review

The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), 

Office of Inspector General 

(OIG), assessed the EPA’s

oversight of the Alternative 

Asbestos Control Method 

(AACM) experiments. This 

review follows EPA OIG Report 

No. 12-P-0125, Early Warning 

Report: Use of Unapproved 

Asbestos Demolition Methods 

May Threaten Public Health, 

issued December 14, 2011.

In 1999, the city of Fort Worth, 

Texas, proposed an alternative 

method to demolish asbestoscontaining buildings. In 2003, 

the EPA’s Office of Research 

and Development (ORD),

National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, took over 

and renamed the effort the 

AACM. The EPA’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance enabled the 

experiments by granting 

enforcement discretion. The 

ORD terminated the project in 

2011 due to technical 

deficiencies.

The report addresses the 

following EPA goal or 

cross-agency strategy:

 Embracing EPA as a highperforming organization.

Send all inquiries to our public 

affairs office at (202) 566-2391

or visit www.epa.gov/oig. 

The full report is at:

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/ 

20140925-14-P-0359.pdf

EPA’s Alternative Asbestos Control Method 

Experiments Lacked Effective Oversight and 

Threatened Human Health 

 What We Found

The EPA conducted the AACM and Fort Worth 

Method research for over a decade without 

appropriate oversight or an agreed research goal. 

This resulted in wasted resources and the potential

exposure of workers and the public to unsafe levels of 

asbestos. This occurred because: 

 The EPA offices involved did not conduct the research under a controlled and 

defined agency process that would have ensured consensus and oversight. 

 The EPA disregarded research guidance designed to ensure research quality.

 The EPA agreed not to enforce environmental laws during the research when 

other legal means for conducting the research were available. 

The EPA spent almost $2.3 million in contractor costs and expenses from 2004

through 2012, and $1.2 million in research staff time on AACM experiments from 

2005 through 2012. However, these figures only represent a portion of the cost,

since the agency does not track contributions from outside organizations or EPA 

staff time by project. The high dollar cost, potential public health risks, and failure 

of the AACM to provide reliable data and results are management control 

problems that need to be addressed. 

 Recommendations and Planned Corrective Actions

We recommend that the EPA improve research oversight by requiring significant 

research to follow a controlled process, tracking project costs and contributions, 

and reviewing and resolving internal EPA comments. We recommend that the 

EPA establish a process for the review of alternative regulatory emission control 

method submissions, and establish and follow standard procedures. We also 

recommend that the EPA improve controls over issuing No Action Assurance 

letters. The agency generally provided acceptable corrective actions. Ten of the 

11 recommendations we made are resolved and corrective actions are ongoing or 

completed. One recommendation is unresolved, which the agency will need to 

address in its final response to the report.

 Noteworthy Achievements 

The ORD has adopted a new process to estimate the resources expected to be 

used on projects, which should provide an initial cost baseline for projects.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

Improving oversight of 

the EPA’s research 

activities can minimize 

the risk of waste, 

noncompliance with 

EPA rules and policies, 

and project failures. 
September 25, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA’s Alternative Asbestos Control Method Experiments 

Lacked Effective Oversight and Threatened Human Health

Report No. 14-P-0359 

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: See Below

This is our report on the subject review conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems 

the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in 

this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

Action Required

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this report 

within 60 calendar days. You should include planned corrective actions and completion dates for all 

unresolved recommendations. Your response will be posted on the OIG’s public website, along with our 

memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file 

that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public; 

if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with 

corresponding justification. 

We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

Addressees:

Lisa Feldt, Acting Deputy Administrator

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation

Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
EPA’s Alternative Asbestos Control Method Experiments 14-P-0359

Lacked Effective Oversight and Threatened Human Health

Table of Contents

Chapters

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

Purpose..................................................................................................... 1

Background ............................................................................................... 1

Alternative Asbestos Control Method Research......................................... 3

Scope and Methodology ............................................................................ 5

Prior Evaluation and Audit Coverage ......................................................... 6

Responsible Offices................................................................................... 7

2 EPA’s Use of Enforcement Discretion to Continue the Experiments

 Increased Risks................................................................................................ 8

Available Methods for Conducting the AACM Project ................................ 8

OECA Provided Protection From EPA Enforcement in Violation 

 of Its Own Policy.................................................................................... 10

EPA’s Enforcement Discretion Left Key Issues Unresolved ...................... 11

Conclusions............................................................................................... 12

Recommendations..................................................................................... 13

Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation.............................. 13

3 Management Practices at EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development Were Ineffective for AACM Research....................................... 14

ORD Did Not Provide Effective Oversight of AACM Research................... 14 

NRMRL Did Not Adequately Address Health and Environmental 

 Issues in AACM Experiments................................................................. 17

Conclusions............................................................................................... 20

Recommendations..................................................................................... 21

Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation.............................. 21

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 22

Appendices

A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comments ................................ 23

B Agency Technical Comments to Official Draft Report and 

OIG Comments ................................................................................................. 28

C Distribution ...................................................................................................... 43
14-P-0359 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Inspector General 

(OIG), assessed the EPA’s oversight of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method 

(AACM) demolition experiments. This review also addresses results of the EPA

OIG Report No. 12-P-0125, Early Warning Report: Use of Unapproved Asbestos 

Demolition Methods May Threaten Public Health, issued December 14, 2011.

1

The AACM experiments are no longer occurring. This report documents how the 

EPA allowed these experiments to proceed, and identifies actions needed to 

better manage processes and resources to protect public health in the future.

Background

Asbestos is a human carcinogen with no known risk-free level of exposure.

Asbestos exposure can lead to serious diseases, such as asbestosis, lung cancer 

and mesothelioma. In 1973, the EPA issued the asbestos National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) to protect human health by 

reducing asbestos exposure during building demolitions and other activities. 

According to the asbestos NESHAP and Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) regulations, trained technicians must remove regulated 

asbestos-containing material (RACM) intact prior to demolition. Removing 

RACM intact reduces asbestos fiber release.

NESHAP Efforts

 Required NESHAP Revisions. The EPA made its last comprehensive 

revision to the asbestos NESHAP in 1990. The 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments under Section 112(q) required that the EPA review the 

asbestos NESHAP by 2000. The EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation 

(OAR) is responsible for the asbestos NESHAP, and the office said it 

does not have the resources to perform an asbestos NESHAP review and 

other required reviews. 

 EPA Offices Researched NESHAP Alternatives. In 1999, the city of 

Fort Worth proposed its method to the EPA. EPA offices have researched 

alternative demolition work-practice methods, such as the Fort Worth 

Method and the AACM, as alternatives to the asbestos NESHAP. Both of 

these methods involve wetting the building prior to and during the 

demolition in an effort to limit asbestos fiber release. Both of these 

 

1 http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2012/20111214-12-P-0125.pdf
14-P-0359 2

methods are similar to the NESHAP-approved provision used for 

buildings that are structurally unsound and in danger of imminent 

collapse (imminent collapse provision) found in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) under NESHAP 40 CFR § 61.145 (a)(3). Under the 

imminent collapse provision, demolition crews wet the RACM and use 

demolition equipment to break the RACM.

The goal of the AACM and Fort Worth Method research was to propose 

an alternative demolition procedure to the asbestos NESHAP. The city of 

Fort Worth proposed the alternative demolition procedure for “the 

demolition of substandard structures that are not in imminent danger of 

collapse.” The AACM leaves some or all RACM in place and wets the 

building with amended water prior to and during the demolition in an 

effort to limit asbestos fiber release. Amended water is water to which 

surfactant (wetting agent) has been added to increase the ability of the 

liquid to penetrate asbestos-containing material. The Fort Worth Method 

used untreated water from a fire hydrant. Both methods use demolition 

equipment to break RACM. 

Demolition equipment prepares to break RACM during an AACM experiment. (EPA photo) 

 NESHAP Requires Alternatives to Be At Least Equivalent. Under the 

NESHAP at 40 CFR § 61.12 (d)(1), alternative methods must 

demonstrate at least equivalent emissions reduction as the current 

asbestos NESHAP method. That is, the alternative method must not emit 

more asbestos than the current method where trained technicians remove 

RACM intact by hand (not the imminent collapse provision). In this 

report, we refer to this issue as “NESHAP equivalency.” Alternatives 
14-P-0359 3

must also undergo public notice and comment prior to Administrator 

approval. 

Alternative Asbestos Control Method Research

The EPA conducted the AACM and Fort Worth Method research from 1999 

until the work on the effort was terminated in 2011. The three demolitions 

occurred over a few days each in 2006 and 2007. 

Fort Worth Method Proposed to EPA

In 1999, the city of Fort Worth proposed the Fort Worth Method for the 

Project XL program. Initiated in 1995, Project XL was a national EPA initiative 

to develop and test innovative approaches to achieve better and more costeffective environmental and public health protection. Some EPA offices—

including the Office of Research and Development’s (ORD) National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, the OAR’s Office of Air Quality Planning Standards 

(OAQPS), the Office of Enforcement Compliance Assurance (OECA), 

Regions 5 and 6, the Office of General Counsel, the OIG, and the Office of 

Policy—raised concerns about the Fort Worth Method’s possible impacts on 

human health and the EPA’s lack of data for determining NESHAP equivalency.

Specific concerns included: 

 The lack of scientific basis to support the use of ambient air monitoring 

to protect public health or demonstrate NESHAP equivalency. 

 Compliance with or obtaining waivers to OSHA requirements.

 The integration of team comments into the experiment’s design. 

 The persistence of fibers from fugitive emissions in the environment.

 Whether the proposed method could provide an equivalent or better 

emission reduction solution. 

Fort Worth Method Removed from Project XL

In September 2003, Region 6 and the city of Fort Worth decided to remove the 

Fort Worth Method from Project XL to “expedite the approval process.” Both 

the city of Fort Worth and Region 6 approached OECA to request enforcement 

discretion. However, unresolved issues remained. For example, OAQPS staff 

still questioned how to assess NESHAP equivalency and whether the 

experiment’s design would provide the data needed for an equivalency 

determination. 
14-P-0359 4

OIG Report on the Fort Worth Method

Three months later, EPA OIG Report No. 2004-P-00002, Significant 

Modifications Needed to Ensure Success of Fort Worth Demolition Method, 

issued December 19, 2003,

2

cited national policy implications and the precedentsetting nature of the project and provided key recommendations. These 

recommendations included identifying equivalent asbestos emissions to ensure a 

representative comparison to the Asbestos NESHAP, developing an agreement to 

adequately address key project criteria such as determining what constitutes 

superior environmental performance, testing within the scope of applicable laws 

and regulations, and ensuring adequate stakeholder involvement and 

consideration of concerns. The OIG further recommended the agency design the 

project to reach complete, reliable and valid conclusions, and specify humanhealth protections that ensure protection at least equivalent as the asbestos 

NESHAP method. The OIG also recommended that the agency develop a single 

guidance document for proposals under the agency’s innovation strategy which 

provides fundamental criteria and is published in the Federal Register to ensure 

national policy decisions are based on sound science. This guidance includes 

considering expertise within the agency, assessing the technical merits and 

enforceability of proposed projects, and requiring peer reviews of proposals with 

national policy implications. 

In April 2004, as part of the response to the OIG’s recommendations, Region 6 

(on behalf of ORD, OAR, OECA, and the Office of Policy Economics and 

Innovation within the Office of Policy) informed the OIG of the decision not to 

continue the Fort Worth Method under the Project XL process. Further, on 

July 22, 2004, the EPA announced that the Fort Worth Method would be tested 

someplace other than the city of Fort Worth, Texas.

Region 6 and NRMRL Rename the Experiments

The decision to remove the Fort Worth Method from Project XL was followed 

by another decision. Region 6 and the ORD’s National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory (NRMRL) continued the experiments, renaming the effort

the AACM and using amended water instead of the fire hydrant water used in the 

Fort Worth Method. The NRMRL refined and implemented technical aspects of 

the experiments, while Region 6 coordinated the effort among offices. For 

example, Region 6 obtained OECA assurances that OECA would not take 

enforcement action against the EPA or contractor personnel for asbestos 

NESHAP violations during the experiments. The research goal of Region 6 and 

the NRMRL was to determine whether the AACM could be an alternative 

demolition method to the current asbestos NESHAP procedure and lead to a 

regulatory change. 

 

2 http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2003/20031219-2004-p-00002.pdf
14-P-0359 5

The NRMRL’s AACM research effort consisted of three demolition experiments 

or tests, wherein asbestos-containing buildings were demolished using the 

AACM approach. The AACM 1 experiment was conducted with on-site support 

from the Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Authority and consisted of demolishing 

two nearly identical 1940s-era buildings in late April and early May 2006 at Fort 

Smith, Arkansas. The AACM 2 demolition experiment occurred on July 28, 

2007, on a two-story, World War II-era building at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas. The 

AACM 3 demolition experiment was a joint effort with the city of Fort Worth, 

Texas, at the former Oak Hollow Apartments on December 17, 2007.

AACM 1 Final Report Completed 

The AACM 1 project plan was peer reviewed in February 2006 and the AACM 1 

draft report on the results of the experiment was peer reviewed in June 2007. The 

EPA published the peer-review comments in August 2007, and the agency’s 

responses in November 2007. In October 2008, the NRMRL published the final 

report for the AACM 1 demolition experiment. The report was revised in 

December 2009 to correct an error made in the report. 

AACM 2 and AACM 3 Final Reports Were Not Completed 

The NRMRL prepared and submitted the draft AACM 2 and AACM 3 reports 

for peer review in July 2008, and published the peer-review report and the EPA’s 

response to comments in October 2009. Further, on December 25, 2008, the 

NRMRL prepared another draft report comparing the AACM to the asbestos 

NESHAP method, but this report was not peer reviewed or published. The 

NRMRL did not complete the final reports for the AACM 2 or the AACM 3 

experiments. 

ORD Cancels Experiments

On July 29, 2011, the ORD Assistant Administrator, based on a request from the

ORD Deputy Assistant Administrator, cancelled the AACM research effort 

citing technical problems and a desire to use ORD resources to provide support 

to higher-priority research. The EPA took action to clarify the status of the 

AACM research by updating 17 pages on its Science Inventory website, noting 

that “The AACM remains unapproved and should not be used.” 

Scope and Methodology

We conducted our performance audit from March 2012 through May 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. 
14-P-0359 6

Our evaluation scope covered the AACM research from 2004 through 2011,

including the experiments that took place in 2006 and 2007. We reviewed past 

and current EPA regulations, policies, procedures and guidance to identify 

processes, controls and expectations for coordination and research design. We 

reviewed documents from 1999 through 2004 for the Fort Worth Method 

experiments to understand the origin of the AACM experiments. We analyzed 

internal and external comments and staff correspondence gathered from the 2004 

Fort Worth Method, and 2010 AACM Freedom of Information Act requests. We 

also interviewed current and former EPA personnel from the Office of Policy, 

OECA, OAR, ORD, the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response, and Region 6. 

We did not assess the technical design, laboratory results or scientific analysis of 

the AACM experiments. We limited our review to management controls in place 

during the AACM experiments. When brought to our attention, we incorporated 

policy and procedure changes implemented since the AACM experiments. 

However, this evaluation did not assess the effectiveness of the newer policies 

and procedures. 

Prior Evaluation and Audit Coverage

EPA OIG Report No. 2004-P-00002, Significant Modifications Needed to 

Ensure Success of Fort Worth Demolition Method, December 19, 2003:

Having already summarized relevant recommendations from this report, we will 

not discuss the report further here. 

Government Accountability Office Report No. GAO-06-669, EPA Should 

Improve the Management of Its Air Toxics Program, June 2006: The report

discussed the need to improve the Clean Air Act air toxics program and stated 

that one of the primary challenges in complying with the requirements was 

insufficient resources to meet the large number of requirements in the specified 

timeframes.

EPA OIG Report No. 09-P-0232, EPA’s Office of Research and Development 

Could Better Use the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act to Improve 

Operations, September 15, 2009: The OIG recommended that ORD 

management assess program risk and improve internal controls over research 

programs. 

EPA OIG Report No. 11-P-0333, Office of Research and Development Needs 

to Improve Its Method of Measuring Administrative Savings, July 14, 2011:

The OIG reported that ORD does not track personnel costs by individual 

research project. Specifically, interviews with ORD’s National Program 

Directors that lead development of ORD’s multi-year plans cited difficulties in 

managing research programs, such as limited access to information on funding 

spent against the budget and staff time charges to research programs. 
14-P-0359 7

EPA OIG Report No. 12-5-0125, Early Warning Report, Use of Unapproved 

Asbestos Demolition Methods May Threaten Public Health, December 14, 

2011: During our initial research we found that unapproved methods of asbestos 

demolition were being used or considered at multiple sites. We also found that 

unprotected workers adjacent to the restricted areas, and members of the public 

in the vicinity of the AACM experiment sites, may have been exposed to 

asbestos. The early warning report identified six issues requiring the EPA 

Administrator’s immediate attention. The EPA agreed with our report. As part of 

its response to our report, the EPA issued letters in April 2013 to current and 

former agency employees, state and local employees, contractors, and members 

of the public, advising them of their potential exposure to asbestos as a result of 

the AACM experiments. All corrective actions are certified complete by the 

Deputy Administrator.

Responsible Offices

The offices responsible for implementing the audit recommendations included in 

this report are the Office of the Deputy Administrator; OECA; ORD and its 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory; and OAR’s OAQPS.
14-P-0359 8

Chapter 2

EPA’s Use of Enforcement Discretion to Continue 

the Experiments Increased Risk

The EPA had three methods that it could use to pursue changes to the asbestos 

NESHAP. However, on April 20, 2004, the EPA chose to use its enforcement 

discretion, which would excuse violations of environmental laws and is not 

designed as a way to pursue regulatory change. Enforcement discretion is not 

part of the NESHAP provision for rule changes, and does not have the strong 

research control mechanisms of other options, such as obtaining stakeholder 

consensus or addressing project shortcomings. The AACM experiments 

proceeded under enforcement discretion, as requested by Region 6, because a 

former OECA Assistant Administrator and a former Acting OECA Assistant 

Administrator and their staff did not follow OECA’s enforcement discretion 

policy. The use of enforcement discretion allowed the experiments to continue, 

and gave testers immunity from certain violations of environmental laws during 

testing. Enforcement discretion increased the risks to the project as key issues,

such as NESHAP equivalency, remained unresolved.

Available Methods for Conducting the AACM Project 

The EPA had three mechanisms that would have forced stronger internal controls 

over the AACM research had they been followed throughout the research. These 

included Project XL, the Action Development Process (ADP), and NESHAP’s 

approval process for alternative emission control methods under 40 CFR § 

61.12(d). We address these three below.

Project XL

The Project XL innovation program was a national pilot program announced in

the Federal Register (60 FR 27282) in May 1995. The EPA states that it has 

since been eliminated and stopped accepting new projects for consideration. 

Project XL allowed for the testing of alternative methods when all involved 

parties (i.e., the EPA, project proponents, and state or tribal environmental 

agencies) negotiate and approve a Final Project Agreement. The EPA’s Project 

XL program encouraged partnership and innovation, but required parties to reach 

concurrence that a new method achieves superior environmental performance 

before the parties sign a Final Project Agreement to move forward. From 1999

through 2003, Region 6 and the Office of Policy were unable to obtain 

agreement from EPA offices about the efficacy of the Fort Worth Method. 

Region 6 and the city of Fort Worth eventually removed the Fort Worth Method

from Project XL to expedite the approval process for the phase 2 demolitions.
14-P-0359 9

The EPA could have decided to continue the research effort within the Project 

XL process. The main internal control in this process is that the parties must 

reach consensus that the proposed alternative method will have superior 

environmental results to those achieved by current environmental regulation. In 

the case of the Fort Worth Method, efforts to achieve consensus within the EPA 

failed and a Final Project Agreement was never signed. The decision to take the 

Fort Worth Method out of the Project XL process also removed the Office of 

Policy as the project’s facilitator. This decision placed responsibility on Region 6 

and the NRMRL to administer a work group that had already worked for several 

years without reaching agreement.

The Action Development Process

The ADP is the EPA’s process for rule development. The use of the ADP is not 

mandatory, but its emphasis on early involvement by management; prompt 

elevation of issues; and consideration of all scientific, economic, and policy 

issues provides a framework and means of management control, oversight, and 

internal review and approval. In 2007, Region 6 and the OAR entered an AACM 

proposal into the ADP, but requested the proposal’s removal on January 15, 

2008. EPA’s Regulatory Information Notice data for 2060-A064 states the 

following reason for withdrawing the regulatory action: “However, we 

determined that initiating this action was premature because we had not 

completed testing the AACM. Therefore, we have withdrawn this action until all 

testing and evaluation of the test results, including peer review, are complete.”

The ADP process was designed in the 1990s to meet the EPA’s regulatory 

obligations under the Administrative Procedures Act and Office of Management 

and Budget Circular A-4.

3 The EPA developed the ADP process to ensure that 

agency rules and regulations are of consistently high quality, involve senior 

managers early in the development process, are supported with strong analysis, 

and are developed via an open process. The ADP tasks intra-agency work group 

members to identify and ensure that all significant issues and options are 

addressed during rule-making. The main internal control of the ADP is the 

requirement to elevate unresolved issues to EPA management for resolution.

NESHAP Alternative Method Approval

The NESHAP regulation at 40 CFR § 61.12 (d) provides for the submission of an 

alternative emission control method to the EPA for review and approval. The 

OAR oversees the NESHAP and after review may recommend a proposed 

alternative to the Administrator. The NESHAP regulation allows anyone to submit 

an alternative emission control method to the EPA for review and approval. The 

EPA must provide for public notice and comment before the Administrator can 

approve an alternative method. Therefore, the EPA must adequately address or 

resolve all public comments or issues prior to the Administrator approving the 

 

3 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, dated September 17, 2003.
14-P-0359 10

alternative emission control method. Since the OAR administers the NESHAP, the 

OAR must also concur with the submission, and review and recommend NESHAP 

alternatives to the Administrator. The NESHAP process would have forced EPA 

to follow stronger internal controls for the AACM research if that mechanism had 

been selected. Region 6 and the ORD did not apply for approval for an alternative 

demolition method under 40 CFR § 61.12 (d).

OECA Provided Protection From EPA Enforcement in Violation of Its 

Own Policy

The EPA has discretionary authority to allow rule violations in certain 

circumstances. The OECA’s exercise of discretionary authority allowed the 

alternative asbestos demolition experiments to continue outside of a controlled 

laboratory setting, without the threat of enforcement for violating environmental 

laws. This authority is solely exercised by the Assistant Administrator for 

OECA. When the EPA exercises this discretionary authority, the Assistant 

Administrator for OECA issues a No Action Assurance (NAA) letter that 

describes the use of enforcement discretion. The NAA letter is a commitment 

from the EPA that the violation at issue will not be prosecuted. The main internal 

control associated with the enforcement discretion approach lies in the OECA 

review that ensures no other research method is available. Region 6 requested 

and obtained NAA letters from the OECA to expedite testing. 

The AACM experiments proceeded under enforcement discretion, as requested 

by Region 6, because a former OECA Assistant Administrator and an Acting 

OECA Assistant Administrator and their staff did not follow OECA’s 

enforcement discretion process. The Region 6 Administrator requested NAA 

letters from OECA for the AACM 1 and AACM 3 studies in August 2005 and 

November 2007, respectively. One former OECA Acting Assistant 

Administrator granted the NAA letter for the AACM 1 on August 10, 2005. 

Another former OECA Assistant Administrator granted the NAA letter for the

AACM 3 on December 4, 2007. The OECA management also provided a 

tentative NAA letter for the second phase of the Fort Worth Method on 

January 26, 2004. Region 6 did not request an NAA letter from the OECA for 

the AACM 2 experiment in July 2007. Instead, the ORD obtained a declaration 

from the city of Fort Smith, Arkansas, which said the asbestos-containing 

building was structurally unsound.

No Justification for NAA Approval

In 1984, the OECA issued an enforcement discretion policy discussing steps to 

follow for the issuance of NAA letters. The NAA letters provide for temporary 

suspension of enforcement against specific environmental regulations in 

“extremely unusual cases.” However, according to the policy, the OECA should 

not issue enforcement discretion to conduct research or other activities if other 

mechanisms exist. As discussed previously, at least three other mechanisms 

could have been used to move forward with the experiments.
14-P-0359 11

The OECA’s enforcement discretion policy also requires all instances of 

enforcement discretion to have supporting documentation that provides an 

explanation of the reasons justifying issuance of the NAA letter. The OECA does 

not have supporting documentation that provides justification for the issuance of 

NAA letters for either the AACM 1 or the AACM 3.

NAA Conditions Unverified and Unaddressed

The NAA letters for the AACM 1 and AACM 3 identified conditions for 

Region 6 and the NRMRL to meet prior to and following the experiments. 

However, we were unable to identify evidence that the OECA staff verified 

compliance with the stated conditions. For example, the NAA letter for the

AACM 1 stated that the protocol should include numerous provisions to ensure 

the protection of public health and the environment; and that after peer review,

the protocol should be refined to ensure that it is, in fact, protective. We were 

unable to identify any evidence that the OECA verified that public health 

provisions had been added to the protocol. For example, the peers questioned the 

AACM 1’s compliance with OSHA’s worker excursion sampling regulations and

the adequacy of emission controls, and suggested the inclusion of additional 

emission measurements to better define the levels of asbestos emissions and 

identify possible public exposures. Our review of the AACM 1 final report found 

no mention of excursion sampling being used.

The NAA letter for the AACM 3 included the condition that the AACM 3 quality 

assurance project plan incorporates recommendations from the AACM 1 peer 

reviews to ensure that the experiment was protective of public health and the 

environment. We have no evidence that the OECA verified that this precondition 

was met. Our analysis of peer-review comments showed many unresolved concerns 

regarding public health and the environment that were never addressed by the ORD 

during the 12 years of the effort. When asked why the OECA granted the NAAs 

without ensuring conditions were met, the then-OECA Associate Director, Office of 

Civil Enforcement, Air Enforcement Division,

4

said they typically give deference to 

sister offices, and that they were relying on the NRMRL’s demonstrations and 

statements that AACM experiments would be protective.

EPA’s Enforcement Discretion Left Key Issues Unresolved

At least three methods—Project XL, the ADP and the NESHAP—have controls 

in place that would have required that significant issues identified during the 

AACM experiments be resolved before receiving approval to conduct the 

experiments. Although the NAA letters that the OECA issued for AACM 

experiments included preconditions for approval, the letters did not mention the 

existing internal issues with the experiments. Further, there is no evidence that 

 

4 This individual is currently the Deputy Director of the Office of Civil Enforcement.
14-P-0359 12

the OECA verified the resolution of the preconditions and internal issues, or 

obtained concurrence from the offices that were impacted. 

The Key Issue Was Equivalent Emissions

For the AACM research, the main unresolved issue was how to demonstrate 

equivalent emissions to the asbestos NESHAP. During the method development 

in 1999, Project XL work group members identified the need to determine

equivalency as a major issue. The EPA offices involved—including Region 6, 

ORD, OECA, OAR, and the Office of Policy Economics and Innovation—

left the issue of equivalency unresolved while allowing the research on the 

experiments to go forward for 12 years. Consequently, the EPA could not use the 

resulting data to propose NESHAP amendments, because known NESHAP 

equivalency problems with Project XL and AACM experiments remained 

unaddressed.

Only the OAR, as the administrator of the NESHAP, can clarify what constitutes 

equivalent asbestos emissions. Without this definition, the ORD could not 

develop an experimental design that met the OAR’s needs. However, the steps to 

obtain a definition from the OAR and information needed are not clear. The 

NESHAP regulation provides limited details on what information should 

accompany an application, and the OAR has no guidance or procedures for 

submissions. Due to the lack of resolution on how to demonstrate equivalent 

emissions to the asbestos NESHAP, and the lack of guidance on the procedures 

for application submissions, the EPA could not use the resulting data to propose 

NESHAP amendments. 

Conclusions 

The EPA’s selection of enforcement discretion enabled the ORD and Region 6 to 

continue with the AACM experiments without the benefit of leadership from the

Office of Policy, and without obtaining consensus among the other stakeholders. 

Removing the AACM tests from processes such as Project XL and the ADP 

eliminated the requirement for stakeholders’ consensus. This choice eliminated 

critical internal controls in the research process because stakeholders had 

identified significant impediments. By not addressing stakeholder-identified 

impediments, Region 6 and the ORD continued down a path that would not 

achieve the rule-making goal. Had the EPA continued with Project XL, the ADP,

or initiated the NESHAP process, the AACM research would have had stronger 

internal controls.

The OECA’s decision to grant enforcement discretion, contrary to policy and 

without verifying that the AACM complied with conditions for granting 

enforcement discretion, demonstrates a breakdown in the OECA’s management 

controls. If the OECA management controls had been followed, the office would 

have known that enforcement discretion was not appropriate for AACM 

experiments. Further, the lack of an OAR equivalent emissions target to measure 
14-P-0359 13

the effectiveness of AACM research severely limited the chance for the AACM 

to be successful. Consequently, the AACM experiments could have been 

modified or terminated sooner. The EPA’s current policies and procedures do not 

appear to address these issues and would not prevent a reoccurrence on other 

research projects.

Recommendations

The Deputy Administrator should:

1. Require that all nationally significant research, and research conducted to 

support a rule-making, enter and follow a process that includes oversight 

and input from agency senior leadership; those familiar with the rulemaking process; and individuals familiar with applicable and relevant 

legal and policy requirements.

The Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance should:

2. Require all NAA letters to state that a review was performed to identify 

methods other than enforcement discretion and that no other methods 

were found. 

3. Provide notice to all EPA offices that an NAA letter is being proposed 

and require documented feedback from all offices.

4. Verify information provided to support the NAA letter request. 

5. Document compliance with the provisions of the NAA letter (both 

pre- and post-issuance).

The Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation should:

6. Establish a process for the submission, review and approval of alternative 

NESHAP emission control methods.

Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation

We received a response to the draft report from the Deputy Administrator along 

with technical comments from OAR, ORD, and OECA. Appendices A and B 

contain the agency’s comments on the recommendations and their technical 

comments, respectively, along with the OIG’s detailed responses. 

The EPA agreed with our recommendations and provided corrective actions that 

are sufficient to meet the intent of the OIG recommendations. 

Recommendations 1 through 6 are resolved. Recommendations 1 through 5 are

closed with completion dates of October 2012 and August 2014, while 

Recommendation 6 is open with corrective action pending. 
14-P-0359 14

Chapter 3

Management Practices at EPA’s Office of Research

and Development Were Ineffective for AACM Research

The ORD’s management allowed the AACM experiments to bypass agency 

controls designed to ensure that experiments would be relevant, conducted 

appropriately, and useful to the EPA and the public. Actions taken by the ORD 

undermined the AACM research and led to the termination of the AACM 

research in 2011. The ORD’s NRMRL management and staff:

 Disregarded agency guidance and procedures by not entering the AACM 

experiments into the ORD’s research planning process.

 Did not ensure compliance with NESHAP equivalency.

 Did not address significant comments and concerns as detailed in this

report. 

As a result, the AACM experiments provided no benefit. The NRMRL did not:

 Comply with health and safety requirements, and a lack of consideration 

of environmental impacts led to the potential exposure of workers and the 

public.

 Ensure quality and accuracy in the collection of evidence regarding costs, 

which led to the publication of the AACM 1 report with unsupported 

conclusions.

 Provide oversight of the AACM experiments, which resulted in the use of 

staff time and agency resources that might have been applied to other 

research. 

ORD Did Not Provide Effective Oversight of AACM Research 

The ORD’s NRMRL did not provide effective oversight of the AACM research 

when it did not enter the AACM experiments into its research planning process,

did not request a definition of equivalency from OAQPS to ensure compliance

with NESHAP equivalency, and did not address stakeholder and reviewer 

concerns regarding the experiment design and results. The NRMRL’s oversight 

of these key areas would have helped to ensure that the tests were properly

conducted and that relevant data was collected.
14-P-0359 15

Research Planning Process

The ORD’s research planning process develops multiyear plans to outline its 

program goals, outcomes and key products. These plans are used to convey the 

overall research direction for each of its six research programs’ vision, priorities 

and connection to the EPA strategic plan. On an annual basis, each of the 

research programs develops research products and outputs to be delivered based 

on appropriated funding levels. This higher level of planning strengthens the 

ORD’s research planning process to be, among other things, more responsive to 

the EPA’s mission, timely and more transparent. 

The ORD’s research is typically entered into these plans, but labs can conduct 

“ad hoc” research if the lab director believes that research falls within broader 

goals. Although AACM experiments were responsive to a need identified by 

Region 6, the lack of entry into the ORD’s planning process meant that the

AACM experiments bypassed program office strategic planning and 

management oversight. This decision by ORD management affected the quality, 

support and overall success of the project. 

Research Funding

Entering the AACM research into the ORD’s research planning process could 

have addressed funding issues. On an annual basis, each research program 

develops research products and outputs based on appropriated funding levels. 

In the case of the AACM research, despite the lack of entry into the ORD’s 

planning process, the AACM work group obtained funding from various offices

and the Regional Geographic Initiative.

5 The NRMRL reported that it spent at 

least $2.29 million of EPA funds on the AACM experiments from 2004 through

2009. This amount included nearly $2.2 million in contractor costs and more 

than $140,000 in travel expenses. However, these amounts do not capture the full 

research cost.

6

If the ORD had a method for capturing these contributions at the 

project level, that method would have enabled the EPA to account for and report 

the total AACM costs.

AACM Funding Inconsistencies

Despite the availability of research funds, the AACM research still experienced 

inconsistent funding that may have affected the quality of the experiments by 

limiting the types of activities the ORD could undertake. Specifically, to reduce 

costs, the NRMRL altered the AACM research design by foregoing the side-byside comparison test design used in the AACM 1, and instead conducted a 

 

5 The EPA established the Regional Geographic Initiative in 1994 to support the EPA’s regional offices’ placebased approaches to environmental problems unique to the regions and unaddressed by existing national programs. 

Initiative funding ranged from $8.4 million to $12.7 million per year until funding was eliminated by Congress in 

fiscal year 2008 due to “continued concerns about the scope and purpose of the program.”

6 The ORD does not collect data to show portions paid by other entities, such as contributions from the Fort 

Chaffee Redevelopment Authority in Arkansas, and the city of Fort Worth, Texas. 
14-P-0359 16

single-building demolition for the AACM 2 and the AACM 3. This choice meant 

that comparative data was not available to defend the NRMRL’s hypothesis that 

the AACM is equivalent to the current NESHAP method. 

Accounting for Staff Costs

The NRMRL cannot fully account for the cost of the AACM experiments 

because the NRMRL does not track the number of staff hours spent on projects. 

This missing accounting control leaves the NRMRL unable to calculate the full 

cost of any research project and limits the agency’s oversight of the NRMRL’s 

accountability for resources. For example, the NRMRL reported that from 2005 

through 2012, a total of 11 staff worked on the AACM experiments at least part

time. These staff represented almost nine full-time equivalents, or approximately 

$1.2 million dollars. However, these 11 NRMRL staff may represent those with 

the greatest contribution to the AACM effort. Our review found that the Fort 

Worth Method and AACM experiments involved more than 200 EPA staff in 

some way. 

NRMRL Did Not Request a NESHAP Equivalency Definition

The NRMRL did not request a definition of NESHAP equivalency from the 

OAR, which is the program office responsible for recommending and processing 

the approval of an alternate method. The NRMRL program manager for the 

AACM, now retired, told us that he created his own measure of equivalency 

when the OAR did not agree with the plans. He also noted that he was not a 

regulator and that the research team may not have known enough about 

equivalency and rule-making requirements. Consequently, the NRMRL executed 

the AACM experiments with no means to assess NESHAP equivalency. This 

action may have put the health of people near the experiment at risk and does not 

support an effective use of public funds and resources.

Project XL Issues Remained Unresolved

The NRMRL also failed to address specific stakeholder issues associated with 

the experiments. The ORD’s research process encourages collaboration with 

program offices prior to and during research to improve the quality and 

usefulness of ORD products. Peer reviewers and work group members 

repeatedly raised the same issues over the course of the Fort Worth Method. 

A 2004 facilitated meeting of the Fort Worth Method work group (comprised of 

many of the same staff as the AACM work group) identified and documented 

32 internal issues with the Fort Worth Method. We found that peer reviewers in 

2007 again raised almost identical issues for the AACM 1 experiment. 

Table 1 shows some of the similar concerns identified in 2004 and 2007. This 

comparison indicates that the ORD did not require the NRMRL to resolve issues 

the work group and peer reviewers raised during the Fort Worth Method version 

of the method as a condition for commencing AACM experiments. The decision 
14-P-0359 17

not to resolve these issues negatively affected the experiments because these 

issues go to the heart of experimental design as related to safety, compliance 

with the law, and the ability of the experiments to decide the merits of the 

proposed alternative method.

Table 1: Comparison of experimental design concerns from the Fort Worth 

Method (2004) and the AACM (2007) 

Fort Worth Method facilitated meeting 

comments (2004)

AACM 1 report’s peer-review 

comments (2007)

There are questions about the variability 

and “effectiveness of ambient air 

monitoring” to measure asbestos release. 

“Air sampling results used to compare 

the two methods were inconclusive.” 

Lack of details about how the “Fort Worth 

Method satisfied OSHA requirements,” 

including why proposals for worker 

“exposure-based monitoring” were not in 

the plan. 

Did not “properly cite the appropriate 

regulations” to show compliance with 

OSHA rules, including the type of 

“respiratory protection and protective 

clothing” used by workers. 

There is a “lack of storm water run/on 

run/off and soil infiltration controls.” 

There is a lack of soil samples taken 

“pre- and post” NESHAP abatement, 

lack of details on how to collect the 

amended wastewater, and whether 

Clean Water Act regulations apply to 

asbestos.

There are “no data to verify cost savings.” “Understatement of AACM costs” and 

“overstatement of NESHAP costs.”

Source: OIG review of EPA-provided documents.

NRMRL Did Not Adequately Address Health and Environmental 

Issues in AACM Experiments

The NRMRL’s experimental design for the AACM did not adequately address 

health and safety issues for workers and the public, or consider potential 

environmental impacts. As late as 2010, there were 12 outstanding health and 

safety questions identified by the NRMRL’s Safety, Health and Environmental 

Management Office and other EPA offices. The NRMRL management and staff 

commented to the ORD Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science that health 

and safety questions were outside the scope of the project. There were 

unresolved questions about the work area, level of worker respiratory protection, 

and the addition of weight to a building in imminent danger of collapse. 

In EPA letters written to people potentially exposed to asbestos as a result of the 

AACM experiments in 2013,

7

the NRMRL admitted that it was unable to 

produce data required to quantify asbestos exposure levels associated with the 

AACM experiments. During our review, the NRMRL reported that it had

 

7 The letters are in response to our December 2011 Early Warning Report (Report No. 12-P-0125) previously cited. 
14-P-0359 18

updated its procedures for the review and approval of health and safety plans,

and hired additional staff. However, there are still no procedures in ORD 

guidance or policy specifically requiring research teams to identify job-specific 

regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and proper contractor oversight. 

The NRMRL officials also cannot verify the completion of the environmental 

review and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the AACM, as required by 

the ORD NEPA policy, and 40 CFR Part 6.

8 The environmental review ensures

federal actions, including research experiments, consider the environmental 

effects on test environments. A former NRMRL AACM program manager, who 

is now retired, told us that the NRMRL left employees to their own resolve with 

respect to NEPA requirements, and that NRMRL contractors typically handled 

NEPA requirements and the EIS. In fact, the former program manager noted that 

his people did not understand NEPA. 

NESHAP Violations Occurred Outside the Statute Of Limitations

Region 6 did not request an NAA letter from the OECA for the AACM 2 

experiment in July 2007. Instead, the NRMRL obtained a declaration from the 

city of Fort Smith, Arkansas, which stated that the asbestos-containing building 

scheduled for demolition was structurally unsound. This declaration allowed the 

NRMRL to demolish the building under the NESHAP’s imminent collapse 

provision. However, the NRMRL then added more than 3 tons of Transite®, an 

asbestos-cement product, to the building to increase the building’s asbestos 

levels. Without an NAA letter from the OECA, all environmental laws would 

have applied to the AACM 2 demolition. The purpose of the NESHAP is to 

reduce emissions and adding 3 tons of Transite® increases emissions. Therefore, 

this is a NESHAP violation. Further, the addition of more than 3 tons of 

Transite®, increases the weight on the unsound structure. Therefore the 

imminent danger of collapse designation does not appear to be supported. 

According to 42 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 7413, potential penalties for NESHAP 

violations include written warnings, fines, and in some instances jail time. The 

OECA needed to determine the applicability of any penalty in this instance. 

OECA responded that the statute of limitations had expired on this issue. Upon 

further examination of this issue, we agree. 

 

8 We believe the most applicable subsection in the EIS regulation is Title 40 CFR §6.207(a)(3)(vii), which states 

that an EIS is normally required when “[t]he proposed action involves uncertain environmental effects or highly 

unique environmental risks that are likely to be significant.”
14-P-0359 19

Lack of Pre-discharge Testing Enhanced Possibility of Clean Water 

Act and CERCLA 103 Violations

The EPA’s National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, which EPA issues 

pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), have limits on the 

discharge of certain contaminants into the waters of the United States. For 

asbestos, the maximum contaminant level developed under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act is no more than 7 million fibers (longer than 10 micrometers) per liter.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), § 103 [42 U.S.C. § 9603], requires the reporting of hazardous 

substance spills or releases beyond a certain quantity into the environment. 

Further, the law requires the individual in charge of a facility to immediately 

notify the National Response Center of a hazardous substance release that is 

equal to or in excess of its reportable quantity. For asbestos, the reportable 

quantity is 1 pound of asbestos fibers released in a 24-hour period. However, the 

AACM project team was not aware of the legal limit on asbestos discharge. 

During the peer review of the AACM 1 report, the now-retired NRMRL program 

manager said he believed that no regulations existed on the discharge of asbestos 

into water.

Prior to filtration, the runoff water from the AACM 1 and AACM 2 experiments 

significantly exceeded CWA discharge limits and CERCLA reportable quantity 

for asbestos. For example, the AACM 1 report lists asbestos concentrations in 

the wastewater as 30.4 million structures/liter, and the AACM 2 report listed an 

average asbestos waste water concentration of 1,240 million structures/liter. The 

NRMRL did filter the runoff water, but did not test the filtered water to confirm 

that the water complied with CWA and CERCLA requirements prior to 

discharge. Therefore, the NRMRL has no evidence that the wastewater 

discharged from the AACM 1 or AACM 2 complied with the CWA and 

CERCLA. The experiments may have discharged potentially noncompliant 

wastewater into the public sewer.

Cost Conclusions of the AACM 1 Report Were Unsupported

The NRMRL published the AACM 1 report and concluded that the AACM 

method is more cost effective than the current NESHAP method. However, peerreview comments and our attempts to verify cost figures found that the 

NRMRL’s conclusions about costs are unsupported and unverifiable. Errors 

related to costs undermine one of the AACM experiment’s primary 

objectives—to assess whether the AACM is more cost effective than the 

NESHAP method when considering all costs.

The AACM 1 report stated that the cost of the NESHAP method was twice the 

cost of the AACM method. However, peer reviewers and the public raised 

questions of bias and provided supporting data suggesting the underreporting of 

the AACM costs and the overreporting of NESHAP method costs. Our review of 

data provided by outside reviewers shows that the NESHAP method was $1,300 
14-P-0359 20

less than the AACM method. We also found inaccuracies and a lack of 

documentation to support the AACM 1 report’s cost conclusions. For example, 

we were unable to verify asbestos waste amounts for each building, the cost of 

labor for site mobilization, or verify the time it took to conduct demolitions. The 

cost issues raised by those outside the EPA, in addition to our review, suggest 

that the AACM 1 report’s conclusions about costs are not supportable because 

the EPA did not capture enough quality data to verify actual costs. These errors 

resulted in a published report that leads readers to conclude that the AACM is a 

significantly less costly method. 

AACM 2 and AACM 3 Reports Contained Cost Errors

Draft reports for the AACM 2 and AACM 3 experiments also included cost

conclusions that lacked appropriate support. For the AACM 2, there were 

discrepancies with total landfill disposal charges and the number of hours 

worked. The July 14, 2008, AACM 2 draft report approved by the NRMRL 

quality assurance officer stated that the NESHAP method was approximately 

$3,700 cheaper than the AACM. However, these figures were different in the

July 21, 2008, version sent to peer reviewers. This version showed the AACM 

method as almost equal to the NESHAP, with a difference of about $700, which 

made the AACM slightly less costly. 

The largest change in cost between these versions was an unexplained reduction 

in the AACM disposal cost of about $7,400 from what was approved by the 

quality assurance officer. Interviews with NRMRL staff regarding this 

discrepancy did not identify a cause for this change. The now retired NRMRL 

program manager could not explain how or why cost figures changed. He said 

they worked on the reports for “thousands of hours,” were rushing to get the 

reports out, and took responsibility for any inaccurate information in the draft.

Conclusions 

Ineffective ORD oversight enabled the AACM to be conducted outside of the 

ORD planning and budgeting process, and left the AACM disconnected from the 

EPA’s strategic plan goals. Conducting the AACM outside of the normal 

management control process led to inconsistent funding support and 

experimental design changes that sacrificed comparative demolition data 

between the AACM and NESHAP processes. 

Key decisions on health and safety issues and how to decide equivalency were 

allowed to go unresolved. Specifically, the NRMRL created and implemented a 

plan that missed relevant and important CWA and CERCLA § 103 requirements, 

did not capture costs, potentially exposed workers and the public to unsafe levels 

of asbestos, and may have violated the NESHAP. Consequently, the NRMRL 

could not produce reports to answer the fundamental question of whether the 

proposed alternative is better and less expensive than the NESHAP method.
14-P-0359 21

There are no current policies and procedures that address these issues and that 

would serve to prevent a reoccurrence on other research projects.

Recommendations 

The Assistant Administrator for Research and Development should:

7. Require the entry of all research into the ORD’s planning process. 

8. Obtain and utilize an automated system to track costs (including 

full-time-equivalent hours) allocated to each research project.

9. Capture and record in-kind contributions to research projects (including 

contributions from outside entities and interoffice entities) in the 

automated system.

10. Establish policy and procedures to track, reply to and resolve internal 

review comments for each research project.

11. Update research design guidance to include steps that identify rules, 

regulations and training that applies to each research project, especially 

work conducted outside of the laboratory. 

Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation

We received a response to the draft report from the Deputy Administrator along 

with technical comments from OAR, ORD, and OECA. Appendices A and B

contain the agency’s comments on recommendations and their technical 

comments, respectively, along with the OIG detailed responses. 

Although the agency stated it agreed with our recommendations, the ORD

response to Recommendation 8 described its efforts to establish meaningful 

baselines for research projects but did not meet the intent to track costs for each 

research project. The ORD proposed action does not capture the actual costs of 

research, which is the weakness addressed in this report. Therefore, 

Recommendation 8 is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.

Recommendation 7 is closed with a completion date of October 2012.

Recommendations 9, 10 and 11 are resolved and open with corrective actions 

pending.
14-P-0359 22

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

Agreed To 

Amount

1 13 Require that all nationally significant research, and 

research conducted to support a rule-making, enter 

and follow a process that includes oversight and 

input from agency senior leadership; those familiar 

with the rule-making process; and individuals 

familiar with applicable and relevant legal and 

policy requirements.

C Deputy Administrator 10/31/12

2 13 Require all NAA letters to state that a review was 

performed to identify methods other than 

enforcement discretion and that no other methods 

were found.

C Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

8/30/14

3 13 Provide notice to all EPA offices that an NAA letter 

is being proposed and require documented 

feedback from all offices,

C Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

8/30/14

4 13 Verify information provided to support the NAA 

letter request.

C Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

8/30/14

5 13 Document compliance with the provisions of the 

NAA letter (both pre- and post-issuance).

C Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

8/30/14

6 13 Establish a process for the submission, review and 

approval of alternative NESHAP emission control 

methods.

O Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation

3/31/15

7 21 Require the entry of all research into the ORD’s 

planning process.

C Assistant Administrator for 

Research and Development

10/31/12

8 21 Obtain and utilize an automated system to track 

costs (including full-time-equivalent hours) 

allocated to each research project.

U Assistant Administrator for 

Research and Development

9 21 Capture and record in-kind contributions to 

research projects (including contributions from 

outside entities and interoffice entities) in the 

automated system

O Assistant Administrator for 

Research and Development

11/30/2015

10 21 Establish policy and procedures to track, reply to 

and resolve internal review comments for each 

research project.

O Assistant Administrator for 

Research and Development

9/30/15

11 21 Update research design guidance to include steps 

that identify rules, regulations and training that 

applies to each research project, especially work 

conducted outside of the laboratory.

O Assistant Administrator for 

Research and Development

9/30/15

1 O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending. 

C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed. 

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
14-P-0359 23

Appendix A

Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comments

The text of the EPA response along with our analysis is provided below. 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report, 

Project No. OPE-FY12- 0011, dated May 30, 2014

FROM: Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator 

TO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General Office of Inspector General

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) draft 

report, Project No. OPE-FY12-0011, dated May 30, 2014. The EPA's Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) initiated the Alternative Asbestos Control Method (AACM) experiments, 

which occurred in 2006 and 2007, in part to respond to the needs of EPA program and regional 

offices, as well as external stakeholders. As the report notes, these experiments are no longer 

occurring.

An important priority for the EPA is protecting people from exposure to harmful substances 

such as asbestos where they live, work, and engage in recreation. Since the experiments were 

conducted, the EPA has made significant changes to its research planning process and has taken 

many steps to ensure the safety and health of its employees and contractors, as well as the 

American people. The EPA continuously strives to improve its research protocols and 

processes to achieve the highest possible scientific standards to best protect the American 

public and our environment.

Our responses to the report recommendations are below. The EPA is also providing an 

attachment containing technical comments on the content of the report. In general, EPA 

concurs with the OIG recommendations. However, the mechanisms cited by the OIG, including 

the Action Development Process (ADP), the asbestos NESHAP and the use of enforcement 

discretion, are not appropriate for providing oversight and planning of research projects. We 

request that the OIG reexamine the report's content based upon our comments, including the 

description of the relationship between the Agency's research and regulatory activities.

OIG Recommendation 1: Require that all nationally significant research, and research 

conducted to support a rule-making, enter and follow a process that includes oversight and 

input from agency senior leadership; those familiar with the rule-making process; and 

individuals familiar with applicable and relevant legal and policy requirements.

Corrective Action 1: EPA Concurs with this recommendation.
14-P-0359 24

EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has made significant changes to the 

research planning process. The process requires that all nationally significant research be 

reflected. The research planning process includes oversight and input from senior managers 

and others familiar with the regulatory statutes and legal and policy requirements. 

Throughout the life cycle of research and development, from planning to product delivery, 

interactions occur between ORD and its partners at every organizational level, to ensure that 

the products are relevant, responsive, and timely in support of EPA's mission. 

Corrective Action: Implementation of ORD Planning and Accountability Processes

Planned Completion Date: October 2012.

OIG Recommendation 2: Require all NAA letters to state that a review was performed to 

identify methods other than enforcement discretion and that no other methods were found. 

Corrective Action 2: These recommendations are no longer applicable. OECA will 

formally revise its "Policy Against 'No Action' Assurances" to remove the provision stating 

that an NAA may be appropriate to obtain "information for research purposes."

Planned Completion Date: August 30, 2014

OIG Recommendation 3: Provide notice to all EPA offices that an NAA letter is being 

proposed and require documented feedback from all offices.

Corrective Action 3: These recommendations are no longer applicable. OECA will 

formally revise its "Policy Against 'No Action' Assurances" to remove the provision stating 

that an NAA may be appropriate to obtain "information for research purposes."

Planned Completion Date: August 30, 2014

OIG Recommendation 4: Verify information provided to support the NAA letter request.

Corrective Action 4: These recommendations are no longer applicable. OECA will 

formally revise its "Policy Against 'No Action' Assurances" to remove the provision stating 

that an NAA may be appropriate to obtain "information for research purposes."

Planned Completion Date: August 30, 2014

OIG Recommendation 5: Document compliance with the provisions of the NAA letter (both 

pre- and post-issuance).

Corrective Action 5: These recommendations are no longer applicable. OECA will 

formally revise its "Policy Against 'No Action' Assurances" to remove the provision stating 

that an NAA may be appropriate to obtain "information for research purposes."
14-P-0359 25

Planned Completion Date: August 30, 2014

OIG Recommendation 6: Establish a process for the submission, review and approval of 

alternative NESHAP emission control methods.

Corrective Action 6: EPA Concurs with this recommendation.

We will establish a process to review applications for equivalency determinations. 

On 23 July 2014, the Office of Air and Radiation provided further clarification stating that:

OAR will establish a process to review applications for equivalency determinations 

based on the current Action Development Process (ADP). These determinations would 

include notice and comment rulemaking as required by the Asbestos NESHAP. The 

review process based on the ADP will provide for both external and internal stakeholder 

involvement. Information on this process, including the appropriate contact point for 

receiving requests, will be located on OAR’s current Asbestos NESHAP website.

Planned Completion Date: 2nd Quarter FY 2015

OIG Recommendation 7: Require the entry of all research into the ORD’s planning process.

Corrective Action 7: EPA concurs with this recommendation.

We agree with the OIG recommendation to require that all nationally significant research 

that ORD undertakes be included in the planning process. In the years since the AACM 

experiments were conducted, ORD has significantly changed its planning to include all 

nationally significant research in the new planning process. We note, however, that there 

are occasions when ORD is called upon to respond to unanticipated situations, such as the 

Deepwater Horizon incident, or the recent chemical spill in West Virginia. These situations 

may require that ORD respond promptly to address public health and environmental 

emergencies. While these projects are carefully planned and executed, time constraints 

may preclude inclusion in the formal planning process.

Corrective Action: Implementation of ORD Planning and Accountability Processes

Planned Completion Date: October 2012

OIG Recommendation 8: Obtain and utilize an automated system to track costs (including 

full-time-equivalent hours) allocated to each research project.

Corrective Action 8: EPA concurs with this recommendation.

ORD agrees with the need to enhance internal controls, including allocations, and has 

addressed this issue with our response and concurrence with OIG Recommendations #1, #7 and 

#9. The improved internal process outlined under that response ensures that all ORD research 
14-P-0359 26

projects are being appropriately tracked and planned to prevent similar incidents related to 

OIG's findings regarding the AACM studies.

OIG Recommendation 9: Capture and record in-kind contributions to research projects 

(including contributions from outside entities and interoffice entities) in the automated system.

Corrective Action 9: EPA concurs with this recommendation.

ORD has made significant changes to the research planning process and requires that all 

nationally significant research, including research conducted to support rule making, is included 

in this new process. Consistent with our responses to Recommendations # 1, #7, and #8, ORD 

will now capture significant EPA contributions to ORD research projects. We believe this 

addresses the critical management and oversight control process issues identified by the OIG. 

With modification, existing EPA systems will allow us to achieve the controls to track the 

contributions mentioned above although they do not capture expenditure data.

At this time, the Agency does not have the legal authority to develop binding agreements to 

require this information from outside entities when no money is exchanged. Financial reporting

on in-kind contributions by outside entities is only done when statutorily required and when 

funding is exchanged, such as through assistance agreements. However, in most instances, 

collaborative work is accomplished through the use of vehicles such as a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU), where funds are not exchanged. An MOU is a signed and legally nonbinding document that describes the intention of the alliance members to work together to 

address a shared development challenge. EPA can request cost information related to in-kind 

contributions within these agreements, but it is not a legally binding requirement.

Planned Completion Date: November 30, 2015

OIG Recommendation 10: Establish policy and procedures to track, reply to and resolve 

internal review comments for each research project.

Corrective Action 10: EPA concurs with this recommendation.

ORD is committed to appropriately resolving all internal comments received on its research. 

We currently have in place several processes that allow for review of ORD's research, including 

management review up to the Associate Lab or Associate Center Director. For some research, 

OIG Response 8: We have reviewed the ORD comments and met with ORD 

personnel on this issue. The ORD efforts to establish meaningful baselines for its 

projects is a good first step in measuring performance. However, we determined,

and ORD personnel confirmed, that their proposal does not capture actual cost data, 

which is the weakness discussed in this report. Absent the actual costs, ORD has no 

means to determine the efficiency and actual costs of its research projects. The OIG 

and agency have not agreed on a course of action to remedy and/or address the 

recommendation. The status of this recommendation is unresolved with resolution 

efforts in progress.
14-P-0359 27

ORD carefully tracks and responds to comments received during internal review. ORD will 

expand this approach to cover all nationally significant research.

Corrective Action: ORD will develop a process applicable across ORD for tracking comments 

received and their resolution.

Planned Completion Date: 4th quarter, 2015

OIG Recommendation 11: Update research design guidance to include steps that identify 

rules, regulations and training that applies to each research project, especially work conducted 

outside of the laboratory. 

Corrective Action 11: EPA concurs with this recommendation.

It is ORD's policy to comply fully with Federal and EPA policies, procedures, manuals and 

directives, as well as all applicable, federal, state, and local rules and regulations. Currently, our 

ORD labs have procedures for the review of project specific health, safety, and environmental 

plans to ensure compliance. To standardize these procedures across the organization, ORDwide guidance that builds upon our existing procedures will be enhanced. This will involve 

updating and enhancing our current practices regarding the identification of applicable safety, 

health, and environmental rules, regulations and training that applies to research projects.

Revised Corrective Action: To standardize ORD safety, health, and environmental 

management procedures across the organization, ORD‐wide guidance that builds upon our 

existing safety, health, and environmental management procedures will be enhanced.

Completion Date: 4th Quarter FY 2015

OIG Recommendation 12: Assess whether penalties are warranted for violating the NESHAP

in the AACM 2 experiment.

Corrective Action 12: Penalties cannot legally be assessed against any party in this matter. As 

noted on Page 5 of the draft report, "The AACM 2 demolition experiment occurred on July 28, 

2007, on a two-story, World War II-era building at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas." Under the federal 

statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2462), the 5-year limitations period for any potential 

NESHAPs violations during the AACM 2 experiment expired in July 2012.

OIG Response 12: We agree with the statement that the statute of limitations has 

expired. We removed the recommendation.
14-P-0359 28

Appendix B

Agency Technical Comments to Official Draft Report 

and OIG Comments

ORD Technical Comments

Review Draft Comment

Page 1,

Background, Line 1

Replace "safe" with "no known risk-free." Safety is a 

concept in this case determined by statute. For example, 

EPA has determined that the level of asbestos associated 

with the current NESHAP "protects public health with an 

ample margin of safety," as required by the Clean Air Act, 

even though that level is not risk-free.

Page 3, intro

sentence

Request revision of sentence to more clearly explain that 

while the alternative method investigation was in progress

over a period of more than 10 years, the actual AACM 

demolitions were conducted for only a few days over a 2 

year period (2006 and 2007). An alternative could be: 

"The EPA assessment of an alternative method to 

demolish buildings containing asbestos began in 1999 

with the introduction the Fort Worth Method under Project 

XL, with actual demolitions using the AACM occurring in 

2006 and 2007. The effort to evaluate an alternative 

method terminated in 2011."

OIG Response: EPA had documented that there is no 

known safe level of exposure to friable asbestos 

(http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ttox.html). Therefore the 

change is appropriate.

OIG Response: We added text to state that the actual 

demolitions occurred over a few days in 2006 and 2007.
14-P-0359 29

Page 5, under

"ORD Cancels

Experiments"

For accuracy, please change "ORD Assistant 

Administrator" to "Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Science."

Page 5. Last full

sentence

Request a change of text to read: "Our evaluation scope 

spanned the design, conduct, reviews and subsequent

discussions relating to the AACM experiments from 2004 

to 2012 ... " This language is requested clarify to the 

reader that the actual experiments did not take place over 

an eight year period.

Pages 8-9 Request the draft be revised to clarify that the processes 

to pursue regulatory changes to the asbestos NESHAP do

not specify or control the means of pursuing research on 

alternatives to that regulation. The processes designed to

make regulatory changes (e.g., ADP) are not designed 

(and are not used) to plan and design research. Neither 

the ADP nor NESHAP provide mechanisms to conduct 

research, nor the necessary controls to oversee research.

We request that the IG delete the section on the ADP and 

add a section entitled "Research Planning Process."

Please refer to our earlier comments for possible 

language to use.

OIG Response: Documentation indicates that the ORD 

Assistant Administrator made the decision to terminate 

based upon a request from the Deputy Assistant 

Administrator. We will make that clarification.

OIG Response: We clarified that the experiments took 

place in 2006 and 2007 and the research ended in 2011 

with the decision from the ORD Assistant Administrator. 

We do not include any subsequent administrative tasks 

in 2012 as extending the research. 

OIG Response: The report language was modified to 

show that had the EPA continued with Project XL or the 

ADP, or initiated the NESHAP process, the AACM 

research would have had stronger internal controls.
14-P-0359 30

Page 8, paragraph

1

The first sentence notes "3 regulatory methods" as means 

to pursue changes to NESHAP. One of the methods

appears to be "Project XL." Request the IG revise this 

section to reflect that Project XL was a research 

mechanism with the intent to develop it with EPA 

innovative strategies to test better or more cost-effective 

ways of achieving environmental and public health 

protection. While the results of XL projects could lead to 

changes in EPA regulations, policies, or procedures, 

Project XL was not a "regulatory method" or prescribed by 

regulation.

Page 8, paragraph

3

Insert after the first sentence: "It has since been 

eliminated and stopped accepting new projects for 

consideration in 2002."

Page 9-The Action

Development

Process

Request the IG consider revision or elimination of the 

discussion of the ADP. The ADP is an EPA mechanism to

consider possible regulatory changes such as a change 

the NESHAP, but it is not a mechanism to conduct or 

manage research. Available research data would be an 

input to the ADP, but would not be determined by the 

ADP.

Request the last sentence in the first paragraph be 

revised to reflect that the AACM proposal was entered 

into the ADP process for an extremely short period of 

time, and was quickly withdrawn. While "revisions to the 

NESHAP" (a regulatory action) was "tiered" as a potential 

OIG Response: We revised the text to state that three 

mechanisms existed that would have forced stronger 

internal controls over the AACM research had they been 

followed throughout the research.

OIG Response: We revised the report to language as 

follows: EPA states that it has since been eliminated and 

stopped accepting new projects for consideration.

OIG Response: Please see our previous response on 

this issue.
14-P-0359 31

action for the ADP (SAN 5181: National Emissions 

Standards for Asbestos - Amendments), it was withdrawn 

quickly when the Agency determined sufficient information 

was not available.

Page 9 -10,

NESHAP approval

method section

After a technology or method has been demonstrated, a 

party can apply for approval as an alternative measure to

NESHAP. Because the AACM research was not 

successfully completed, no application as an alternative 

measure was sent to EPA. The NESHAP alternative 

method option permits the Administrator to approve an 

alternate means of asbestos emission limitation if in the 

Administrator's judgment, the alternative means will 

achieve a reduction in emissions at least equivalent to 

methods already approved and in use. This does not 

prescribe a method to obtain this information nor is not a 

means to conduct research. The NESHAP regulation only 

provides an option for the Administrator to consider 

research findings for a regulatory determination, i.e., that 

this new method is equivalent to the existing standard. 

Request the IG revise the report to reflect that NESHAP 

regulations do not provide research overview or planning.

Page 10, last full

sentence

Please see prior comments concerning the ADP and 

NESHAP. Also, please note that enforcement discretion 

was required to conduct the research under any 

OIG Response: We added the documented reason for 

the withdrawal for clarification. In 2008, the EPA’s 

Regulatory Information Notice Data for 2060-A064 

stated the following reason for withdraw of the regulatory 

action: “However, we determined that initiating this 

action was premature because we had not completed 

testing the AACM. Therefore, we have withdrawn this 

action until all testing and evaluation of the test results, 

including peer review, are complete.” 

OIG Response: We have modified the report to state 

that the NESHAP process would have forced EPA to 

follow stronger internal controls for the AACM research if 

that mechanism had been selected.
14-P-0359 32

mechanism used. Due to the prescriptive work practice 

standards of the NESHAP, testing of alternative methods 

would require not following all of work practice standards 

and thus violate NESHAP. Enforcement discretion was 

necessary to allow the research. The 2 viable methods to 

conduct research at that time were the research planning 

process, and prior to 2002, Project XL.

Page 11,

paragraph 3, 1st

sentence

Please see prior comments concerning the ADP and 

NESHAP.

Page 12,

paragraph 1

Request the IG to revise the text to clarify that the 

experiments were not ongoing over a 12 year period. 

Suggested language " ..... while allowing the design, 

conduct, reviews and subsequent discussions relating to 

the AACM experiments to continue for 12 years."

Page 12, paragraph

3, 2nd sentence

Please see prior comments concerning the ADP.

OIG Response: Please see the prior OIG Response.

OIG Response: We revised the report text to indicate that 

the research on the experiments continued for 12 years. 

We have also added text stating that the experiments 

took place over a few days in 2006 and 2007.

OIG Response: Please see the prior OIG Response.

OIG Response: That is speculative. What EPA has not 

considered is that if the prior problems with the 

research, identified internally, had been addressed, the 

experiments may not have been allowed.
14-P-0359 33

Page 14, 3rd bullet ORD addressed many workgroup concerns and 

comments. Request change text to read "Did not address 

some reviewers concerns regarding the experiments."

Page 15, first 2

paragraphs

Please use past tense in this paragraph, as this describes 

the planning process as it was at the time of the AACM. It

has changed significantly since then.

Page 16,

paragraph 2, last

sentence

Insert the word "may" as follows: "This action may have 

put the health of people ... "

Page 17. Last

section, end of the

3rd sentence

Request insertion of the word "research" as follows: " ... 

health and safety questions were outside of the scope of

the research project." ORD agrees that all research 

should follow appropriate health and safety regulations to

protect workers and others. The intent of the statement 

was the AACM study was an engineering research study 

to evaluate the environmental impacts and emissions of 

an alternative asbestos control technology. The research 

was not intended as a health and safety study.

Page 19, section on

"Potential Clean

Water Act

Violations"

The EPA's National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 

include a recommended criterion for asbestos in waters of

the United States. The edits to this section below are 

intended to clarify the section 304(a) program.

OIG Response: We changed the text to read that ORD 

did not address significant comments as detailed in the 

report.

OIG Response: No revision is necessary. We reviewed 

ORD’s Research Planning and Accountability Process 

Overview and believe that our description of the 

planning process still applies.

OIG Response: We revised the report as requested.

OIG Response: We cannot support the revision. The 

report states that EPA failed to consider health and 

safety issues, not that the research was a health and 

safety study. 
14-P-0359 34

The EPA's National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 

which EPA issues are published pursuant to Section

304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), represent, among 

other things, the level of various pollutants that may 

be present in waters of the United States and still 

ensure protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, 

and wildlife and recreation in and on the water have 

limits on the discharge of certain contaminants into the 

waters of the United States. For asbestos, the Agency's 

recommended criterion is discharge limit is no more 

than 7 million fibers (longer than 10 micrometers) per liter. 

The AACM project team was not aware of the EPA's 

national recommended criterion for asbestos legal 

limit on asbestos discharge.

Page 19, section on

"Potential CERCLA

103 Violations,"

end of first

paragraph

Request the IG add the word "friable" to this sentence: For 

friable asbestos, the reportable quantity is 1 pound 

released in a 24 hour period. The note in 40 CFR 302.4 

says the 1 pound per 24-hour period only applies to friable

asbestos.

OIG Response: We will ensure that the language is 

consistent with the text of the CWA. However, 7 million 

fibers per liter is the legal limit because the state of 

Arkansas has not prescribed a stricter limit than the 

default federal limit.
14-P-0359 35

OAR Technical Comments

Review Draft Comment

Page 1,

Background,

Paragraph 2

Suggest deletion of the following paragraph:

Required NESHAP Revisions. The EPA made its last 

comprehensive revision to the asbestos NESHAP in 1990. 

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments under Section 

112(q) required that the EPA review the asbestos 

NESHAP by 2000. The EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation 

(OAR) is responsible for the asbestos NESHAP, and the 

office said it does not have the resources to perform an 

asbestos NESHAP review and other required reviews.

Nothing in the paragraph seems to be germane to issues 

raised by this review.

OIG Response: We revised the sentence as follows: For 

asbestos, the reportable quantity is 1 pound of asbestos 

fibers released in a 24-hour period.

Title 40 CFR 302.4 does identify that the reportable 

quantity for asbestos is 1 pound of friable asbestos in a 

24-hour period. However, CERCLA does not define the 

term friable. A 1990 OECA legal analysis concluded 

friable under CERCLA does not have the same meaning 

as defined under the Clean Air Act. OECA states that 

friable under CERCLA means the release of pure 

asbestos [e.g., asbestos fibers], because the reportable 

quantity is restricted to the hazardous substance 

component of a solution or mixture. Thus, the individual 

asbestos fibers is the toxic component within the joint 

compound matrix or Transite® cement-board matrix. 

OIG Response: The information is necessary background 

to understand that required updates to the asbestos 

NESHAP are overdue because EPA states the 

resources are not available.
14-P-0359 36

Page 1, last

Paragraph

The title of the following paragraph is misleading. EPA 

offices have never "offered" NESHAP alternatives. We 

have done research on different aspects of alternative 

methods of removing asbestos containing material at the 

request of outside entities.

Suggested edits: EPA Offices Offer NESHAP Alternatives. 

In 1999, the city of Ft Worth proposed their method to 

EPA. EPA offices have researched various alternative 

demolition work-practice methods, such as the Fort Worth 

Method and the AACM, as alternatives to the current to 

augment the asbestos NESHAP provisions. Both the Fort 

Worth Method and the AACM of these methods involve 

wetting the building prior to and during the demolition in 

an effort to limit asbestos fiber release. Both of these 

methods are similar to the NESHAP-approved provision 

used for buildings that are structurally unsound and in 

danger of imminent collapse (imminent collapse 

provision). Under the imminent collapse provision, 

demolition crews wet the RACM and shred remove it

using the demolition equipment.

The words “in an effort” need to be added because we 

can't say the wetting really always perfectly minimizes the

amount of asbestos releases. In addition, the asbestos 

material is not "shredded." It is removed using equipment

which will break the material, but does not shred it. The 

term "shred" makes it look like we run the material through

a shredder.

Page 2, Last

Paragraph

Suggested Edits:

The City of Fort Worth Requests to use the Wet Method.

EPA Offices Proposed Wet Methods. The goal of the 

AACM and the Fort Worth Method research was to

propose evaluate an alternative demolition procedures

that could then potentially be incorporated into the 

asbestos NESHAP.

OIG Response: The title has been changed to read EPA 

Offices Researched NESHAP Alternatives.

OIG Response: The report has been revised to state that 

wetting attempts to limit asbestos fiber release and the 

demolition equipment is used to break the RACM.
14-P-0359 37

The EPA offices did not propose the wet method. The wet 

method was proposed by the City of Fort Worth.

Page 4, 2nd

Paragraph, line 13

Suggested Edits:

The OIG also recommended the agency develop a single 

guidance document for proposals under the Agency's

innovation strategy which provides fundamental criteria 

and is published in the Federal Register to ensure 

national policy decisions are based on sound science.

As written, the omission of the added text made the 

sentence confusing.

Pages 8-9 (Overall

Comments)

Please refer to our earlier comments by ORD and OAR. 

Also, we suggest that you combine the NESHAP 

Alternative Method Approval and the ADP into one 

available method.

Page 12 (Subheading)Suggested Edits:

The Key Issue Was How to Measure Environmental 

Performance of the NESHAP versus the Wet Methods

Equivalent Emissions 

OIG Response: The report has been revised to indicate 

that the city of Fort Worth proposed the wet method. 

However, documentation indicates that the purpose of 

the work was to propose changes to the asbestos 

NESHAP.

OIG Response: We made the suggested revision.

OIG Response: Please see the previous OIG comment 

on this subject.
14-P-0359 38

Page 12, 1st 

Paragraph

In addition to the ORD comments on this paragraph, we 

have the following suggested edits:

For AACM research, the main unresolved issue was how 

to demonstrate equivalent measure emissions from the 

two methods in a way that equivalency could be 

determined. Emissions to the asbestos NESHAP. During 

the development in 1999, Project XL work group members 

identified the information needed need to determine the 

environmental performance of the wet method relative to 

the Asbestos NESHAP equivalency as a major issue. 

The EPA offices involved, including Region 6, ORD, 

OECA, OAR, and the Office of Policy Economics and 

Innovation, left the issue of equivalency unresolved while 

allowing the experiments to go forward for 12 years. 

Consequently, the EPA could not use the resulting data to 

propose NESHAP amendments, because known 

NESHAP equivalency problems with Project XL and 

AACM experiments remained unaddressed. 

We could not use the data because we had concerns 

about the accuracy of the data, not because we had not

determined what equivalency was. We were planning to 

determine equivalency as part of a future rulemaking. 

Page 12, 2nd

Paragraph

Suggested Edits:

Only the OAR, as the administrator of the NESHAP, can 

determine clarify what constitutes equivalent asbestos 

emissions. Without this definition, the ORD could not 

develop an experimental design that met the OAR’s 

needs. However, the steps to obtain a definition from the 

OAR and information needed are not clear. The NESHAP 

regulation provides limited details on what information 

OIG Response: The requested revision is not supported. 

As stated in the report, the key issue is equivalent 

emissions regardless of the method used.

OIG Response: The requested revision is not supported. 

As stated in the report, the key issue is equivalent 

emissions regardless of the method used.
14-P-0359 39

should accompany an application, and the OAR has no 

guidance or procedures for submissions. Due to this lack 

of resolution, the EPA could not use the resulting data to 

propose NESHAP amendments.

We do not agree with the deleted sentence. If the 

experimental design was able to adequately measure the 

potential asbestos release (if any), then the project would 

have been more successful. In addition, one of the

contributing reasons the project failed was because we 

never could decide on equivalency. We had hoped to 

determine the environmental performance of the AACM 

relative to the current NESHAP. The reason we never 

used the data was there were concerns about the 

accuracy of the data. Also, if we had completed the AACM 

2 and 3 reports, and we saw significant asbestos releases, 

then it was understood by all parties involved that we 

would have not continued on and proposed amendments 

to the NESHAP.

OECA Technical Comments

Review Draft Comment

Page 1, 2nd

Paragraph

The draft report states: According to the asbestos 

NESHAP, trained technicians must remove regulated 

asbestos-containing material (RACM) intact prior to 

demolition.

The asbestos NESHAP requires that an on-site supervisor 

or foreman be trained, but there is no NESHAP training

requirement for the workers doing the asbestos removal. 

See 40 C.F.R. § 61.145(c)(8) ("[N]o RACM shall be 

stripped, removed, or otherwise handled or disturbed ... 

OIG Response: We cannot make the suggested 

revisions. As stated previously, equivalent emissions 

was the key component to any proposed change to the 

asbestos NESHAP and the EPA effort did not 

adequately address the issue. Absent an understanding 

of equivalent emissions from OAR early in the process,

it does not seem logical for EPA to expend resources 

without a measurable end goal. 
14-P-0359 40

unless at least one onsite representative, such as a 

foreman or management-level person or other authorized 

representative, trained in the provisions of this regulation 

and the means of complying with them, is present.”). The 

same assertion about trained technicians is made on 

Page 2 of that chapter.

Chapter 2, Page 10,

Heading: "No

Justification for

NAA Approval"

The draft report states that there was no supporting 

documentation that provides an explanation of the 

reasons justifying issuance of the NAA. However, for 

clarity it should be noted that both NAAs issued for the 

AACM projects referred to and relied on memoranda from 

Region 6, which contained the justification and rationale 

for the project.

Chapter 2, Pages

11-12 The discussion in this section and related 

recommendations regarding OECA's oversight role when 

research is being conducted under an NAA raise a 

number of organizational and jurisprudential 

considerations. As a threshold matter, the discussion of 

the level of oversight and verification for OECA to 

determine that the AACM project's safety protocols were 

adequate and protective, for example, would require 

expertise and experience in the design and execution of 

research projects. However, because research is not an 

OECA function, OECA does not have this type of 

technical expertise. Lacking this ability, OECA does not 

believe that it is in a position to "second guess" another 

part of the Agency to which the research role, function 

and expertise is committed. While OECA does have

OIG Response: The requested revisions cannot be 

made. To conduct an asbestos demolition, one has to 

comply with the asbestos NESHAP and OSHA’s 

regulations. The other requirement for training is in the 

OSHA regulation. The report will be revised to 

emphasize that point.

OIG Response: The report refers to the OECA 

requirements to issue a NAA, not the Region 6 

justification and rationale for a project that could have 

been accomplished without the NAA letters with more 

controls. No changes made.
14-P-0359 41

scientific and engineering expertise, it is in the context of 

its enforcement and compliance function - not in the

carrying out of the kind of research that was being 

conducted for the AACM project. Similarly, verifying that 

the quality assurance plan for the AACM 3 experiment 

included adequate provisions to ensure compliance with 

OSHA's worker excursion sampling regulations is likewise 

not a matter committed to OECA's role or expertise.

Because OECA does not believe that it can be in a 

position to oversee (and verify) research and 

experimentation conducted by another part of the Agency, 

OECA will not in the future provide NAAs for these 

activities, and will revise its policy to remove the provision 

stating that an NAA may be appropriate to obtain 

"information for research purposes." In doing so, we 

recognize that NAAs for this purpose are extremely 

uncommon (the NAAs for the AACM projects appear to be 

the only NAAs ever provided for ORD-related work), 

indicating both that they are not generally necessary nor 

do they serve a critical role in support of the Agency's 

research and experimentation functions.

Chapter 3, Page 18,

2nd paragraph

Suggested Edits:

The NRMRL officials also cannot verify the completion 

applicability of the required environmental review and 

normally requirements, including whether an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed for 

the AACM, as set out in 40 CFR 6.200(a) and 40 CFR § 

6.207(a) respectively, to satisfy the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).8 The An environmental 

review under NEPA and EIS are documents that ensures

that federal actions, including research experiments, 

consider and limit negative the environmental effects on 

test environments. However, in so far as the research was 

conducted under Section 103 of the Clean Air Act, the 

research would have been exempt from NEPA. A former 

NRMRL program manager, who is now retired, told us 

that the NRMRL left employees to their own resolve with 

OIG Response: We appreciate the additional language 

provided to support OECA’s determination not to issue 

an NAA for similar research activities.
14-P-0359 42

respect to NEPA requirements, and that NRMRL 

contractors typically handled NEPA requirements and the 

EIS. In fact, the former program manager noted that his 

people did not understand NEPA. 

8 We believe the most applicable subsection in the EIS 

regulation is 40 CFR 6.207(a}(3}(vii). That subsection 

states that an EIS is normally required when "[t]he 

proposed action involves uncertain environmental effects 

or highly unique environmental risks that are likely to be 

significant."

Our edits clarify the provisions of NEPA as well as the 

CAA exemption pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Energy 

Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (15 

U.S.C. 793(c)(l)). Further we point out that NEPA requires

Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts 

of their proposed actions; however, it does not specifically

require agencies to limit those impacts.

OIG Response: We adjusted the wording to reflect 

ORD’s policy and the requirements from 40 CFR Part 6, 

but cannot make all the requested revisions. 
14-P-0359 43

Appendix C 

Distribution

Office of the Administrator 

Deputy Administrator

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Assistant Administrator for Research and Development

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research and Development

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Research and Development

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Air and Radiation

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance