Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

EPA Should Update Guidance 

to Address the Release of 

Potentially Harmful Quantities

of Asbestos That Can Occur 

Under EPA’s Asbestos 

Demolition Standard

Report No. 15-P-0168 June 16, 2015

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

GenGGGENGENERAL

Pollution Prevention
Report Contributors: Michael Wilson

Eric Lewis

Christine El-Zoghbi

Ben Beeson

Wendy Wierzbicki

Hilda Canes Garduño

Abbreviations

AACM Alternative Asbestos Control Method

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

OAR Office of Air and Radiation

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OIG Office of Inspector General

ORD Office of Research and Development

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

PCM Phase Contrast Microscopy

RACM Regulated asbestos-containing materials

TEM Transmission Electron Microscopy

Cover photo: Demolition and wetting of the AACM2 building. (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 Project Suggestions

Trademark Disclaimer Notice: Mention of trade names, products or services does not convey, and 

should not be interpreted as conveying, official EPA approval, endorsement or recommendation.
 15-P-0168

June 16, 2015

Why We Did This Review

The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), 

Office of Inspector General 

(OIG), evaluated the EPA’s

Alternative Asbestos Control 

Method (AACM) experiments to

assess the amount of asbestos 

released into the environment.

During a separate OIG review, 

we found conditions that 

caused us to review the impact 

of a portion of the Asbestos 

National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(Asbestos NESHAP).

Since 1973, the EPA’s

Asbestos NESHAP regulation 

has allowed buildings that are 

structurally unsound and in 

imminent danger of collapse to 

be demolished without first 

removing regulated asbestoscontaining materials. The 

demolition of these buildings 

resulted in the generation of 

highly contaminated asbestos 

runoff wastewater.

This report addresses 

the following EPA goal 

or cross-agency strategy:

 Addressing climate change 

and improving air quality.

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/2015/ 

20150616-15-P-0168.pdf

 

EPA Should Update Guidance to Address the 

Release of Potentially Harmful Quantities 

of Asbestos That Can Occur Under EPA’s 

Asbestos Demolition Standard

 What We Found

The AACM experiments show that under 

the EPA’s Asbestos NESHAP standard, the 

demolition of buildings that are structurally 

unsound and in imminent danger of collapse, 

and constructed with an asbestos-containing joint 

compound or Transite, can release significant 

amounts of asbestos into runoff wastewater.

The untreated discharge of runoff wastewater can 

contaminate the soil at the site or the water into 

which it is discharged. The AACM experiments 

demonstrate that the amount of asbestos released into runoff wastewater can 

often exceed the legally reportable quantity for asbestos, which is 1 pound in a 

24-hour period. As a result, the Asbestos NESHAP demolitions under the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR § 61.145(a)(3) could require notification 

to the National Response Center in compliance with the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) § 103 if a 

reportable quantity is released into the environment.

Upon a CERCLA § 103 notification, the EPA is tasked with determining the 

seriousness of the release and the need for an immediate response or cleanup. 

To be consistent with the CERCLA process where reportable quantity releases 

are occurring during Asbestos NESHAP demolitions, the EPA needs to assess 

the potential public health risk posed by these releases. 

 Planned Corrective Actions

The acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation did not agree with our 

recommendations. However, the agency agreed that its guidance in the area

reviewed was “dated and disparate” and proposed alternative corrective actions, 

which we accept. The actions include assembling a team of experienced 

asbestos experts to advise and assist the Office of Air and Radiation in producing 

an updated consolidated guidance document which has practical application to 

the regulated community. All recommendations are resolved.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

Under the EPA’s asbestos 

demolition standard, 

demolishing buildings 

that are structurally 

unsound and in imminent 

danger of collapse can 

release enough asbestos 

into the environment to 

pose a potential risk to 

human health.
June 16, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Should Update Guidance to Address the Release of Potentially Harmful Quantities

of Asbestos That Can Occur Under EPA’s Asbestos Demolition Standard

Report No. 15-P-0168

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator

Office of Air and Radiation

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 planned corrective actions. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and 

does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. EPA managers, in accordance with established 

audit resolution procedures, will make final determinations on matters in this report.

The EPA office with primary responsibility for the issues evaluated in this report is the Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards within the Office of Air and Radiation.

Action Required

You are not required to provide a written response to this final report because you provided agreed-to 

corrective actions and planned completion dates to address the issues noted. The OIG may make 

periodic inquiries on your progress in implementing these corrective actions. Should you choose to 

provide a final response, we will post your response on the OIG’s public website, along with our 

memorandum commenting on your response. You should provide your response as an Adobe PDF file 

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

amended.

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

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
EPA Should Update Guidance to Address the Release 15-P-0168

of Potentially Harmful Quantities of Asbestos That

Can Occur Under EPA’s Asbestos Demolition Standard 

Table of Contents

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

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

Asbestos NESHAP............................................................................................. 2

Asbestos NESHAP Demolitions.......................................................................... 2

Reportable Quantity of Asbestos Under CERCLA ............................................. 4

Use of CERCLA § 103 Notifications.................................................................... 4

CERCLA § 103 Enforcement.............................................................................. 4

EPA’s Alternative Asbestos Control Method Project ........................................... 4

Responsible Office.................................................................................................... 7

Scope and Methodology........................................................................................... 7

Results of Review ..................................................................................................... 8

Imminent Collapse Provision Can Result in the Release of 

Reportable Quantities of Asbestos................................................................ 9

Number of Asbestos Fibers in AACM1 and AACM2 Runoff Wastewater............. 9

Weight of Asbestos in AACM1 and AACM2 Runoff Wastewater......................... 10

Minimum Building Size That Can Release a Reportable Quantity 

of Asbestos ................................................................................................. 11

Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 13

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

Agency Response and OIG Evaluation.................................................................... 14

Status of Agreed-To Corrective Actions and Potential Monetary Benefits........... 16

Appendices

A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comments................................. 17

B Distribution ....................................................................................................... 24
15-P-0168 1

Purpose

Section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires a person in charge of a facility to 

immediately notify the federal government, through the National Response 

Center,

1

of any release of a hazardous substance equal to or in excess of its 

reportable quantity. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR § 302.4 

sets the reportable quantity for asbestos2at 1 pound of asbestos fibers released 

into the environment in a 24-hour period. The Asbestos National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Asbestos NESHAP) provision for the

demolition of buildings that are structurally unsound and in imminent danger of 

collapse, which is under 40 CFR § 61.145(a)(3) (subsequently referred to as the 

“imminent collapse provision”), does not require facility managers to consider 

whether a demolition could require the notice of a CERCLA reportable quantity 

release.

3

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted Alternative 

Asbestos Control Method (AACM) experiments, which included the demolition 

procedures in the imminent collapse provision and collected data on the amount 

of asbestos released. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) evaluated data from 

the AACM experiments to determine whether contractor actions during 

demolitions under the imminent collapse provision could trigger the notice of a 

release as required by CERCLA § 103. The only similarity drawn between the 

AACM experiments and NESHAP demolitions, under the NESHAP imminent 

danger of collapse provision, is the potential asbestos contamination of runoff 

wastewater.

Background

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, asbestos is a 

human carcinogen with no safe level of exposure, and can lead to serious diseases 

such as asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Asbestos is a mineral that 

readily forms thin fibers. Since the unaided human eye cannot see individual 

asbestos fibers, microscopes are used to test for asbestos. The EPA uses optical 

Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) or Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) 

 

1 The U.S. Coast Guard runs the National Response Center, which is the sole federal point of contact for reporting 

all hazardous substance releases and oil spills.

2 The 1-pound reportable quantity for asbestos is a statutory limit set under CERCLA § 102(b).

3

In addition to the asbestos-related requirement set out in CERCLA, the Clean Water Act makes it unlawful to 

discharge any pollutant from a point source into waters that have a significant nexus to navigable waters, unless a 

permit is obtained under the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Point sources include 

industrial facilities, municipal governments and other government facilities, and discrete conveyances such as pipes

and man-made ditches. Under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR Part 122(g)(7)(vii)), asbestos is a pollutant that requires 

a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. In this situation, it is highly plausible that runoff water 

from an Asbestos NESHAP demolition—which potentially contains a large amount of asbestos—may drain into a 

storm sewer and move into navigable waters.
15-P-0168 2

to identify and count the number of asbestos fibers present in environmental 

samples. PCM can measure large asbestos fibers.4 TEM can measure both large 

and small asbestos fibers.

5 Chrysotile is a specific type of asbestos that had been

used in numerous building materials produced by manufacturers of floor tile, roof 

shingles, wall and attic insulation, drywall joint compound, “popcorn” ceiling 

coatings, and Transite cement boards. 

Asbestos NESHAP

The intent of the Asbestos NESHAP regulation is to protect the public by 

minimizing the release of asbestos fibers during activities that involve the 

processing, handling and disposal of asbestos-containing material. In 1973, the 

EPA issued the Asbestos NESHAP regulation (40 CFR Part 61–Subpart M) to 

protect human health by reducing asbestos exposure during building demolitions 

and other activities. The Asbestos NESHAP is a work practice standard which has 

no specific numerical limits on asbestos emissions; however, it requires zero 

visible emissions6to the outside air from activities relating to the processing, 

handling and disposal of asbestos-containing material.

Asbestos NESHAP Demolitions

Building demolitions take place all over the country. There is recognition of the 

significance of demolitions involving asbestos in buildings.

 The Maine Department of Environmental Protection states improper 

demolition activities may be the biggest source of asbestos exposure to the 

general public and trades people working on the project.7

 The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality states that asbestos 

is a naturally occurring mineral that has been used extensively in building 

materials and products.8

 The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

state that building demolitions and renovations are a common occurrence 

in every town and city throughout the state and that many of these 

buildings contain asbestos.9

 A 2012 Department of Energy report stated: Many industrial structures 

built post-World War II up to the 1970s utilized siding and roofing 

materials containing asbestos fibers. Abatement has typically focused on 

manual removal techniques with necessary controls. However, due to their 

 

4 Larger asbestos fibers are those 5 μm or longer in length, with a diameter greater than or equal to 0.3 μm.

5 Smaller asbestos fibers are those 5 μm or shorter in length, with a diameter less than 0.3 μm.

6 See definition of “adequately wet” under Section 61.141 – Definitions; Section 61.145(c)(6)(i), and Section 

61.150(a).

7 http://www.maine.gov/dep/waste/asbestos/inspecreqdemo.html. 

8 http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/page/Air_AsbestosDemolitionandRenovationOperations. 

9 http://denr.sd.gov/des/wm/asb/asbdemolition.aspx. 
15-P-0168 3

age, many structures clad with concrete asbestos board are no longer 

structurally sound, making manual removal difficult if not dangerous to 

perform.10

Demolition personnel must follow the Asbestos NESHAP regulation for the 

demolition of facilities with at least:

 260 linear feet of regulated asbestos-containing materials (RACM) on 

pipes.

 160 square feet of RACM on other facility components.

 35 cubic feet of facility components where the amount of RACM could 

not be measured previously.

The Asbestos NESHAP and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

regulations require trained technicians to remove RACM intact in structurally 

sound buildings prior to their demolition. RACM contains more than 1 percent

asbestos and is capable of becoming friable (when dry, crumbled, pulverized or 

reduced to powder by hand pressure). Removing RACM intact prior to the 

demolition reduces the release of asbestos fibers into the environment. 

When RACM cannot be removed safely, the imminent collapse provision allows 

the RACM to remain in place during the demolition of “structurally unsound and 

in imminent danger of collapse” buildings. However, when the RACM is left in 

place, it must be “adequately wet” throughout the demolition to control asbestos

air emissions. The Asbestos NESHAP defines “adequately wet” as to:

Sufficiently mix or penetrate with liquid to prevent the release of 

particulates. If visible emissions are observed coming from 

asbestos containing material, then that material has not been 

adequately wetted. However, the absence of visible emissions is 

not sufficient evidence of being adequately wet.

The imminent collapse provision generates asbestos-contaminated runoff 

wastewater. The imminent collapse provision has no requirements to collect and 

treat the asbestos-contaminated runoff wastewater before its release into the 

environment.11 The EPA explains that a release into the environment occurs when 

a hazardous substance is no longer contained or when waste drums are discarded 

 

10 http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/wetp/Public/DOE_Trainers/16_ABSTRACT_AACM_at_Hanford.pdf. 

11 The EPA’s Asbestos NESHAP Demolition Decision Tree guidance recommends conducting a site assessment for 

all imminent collapse demolitions. This site assessment consists of visual inspection and comprehensive soil 

sampling. However, asbestos testing of soils can detect asbestos fiber content down to only 1 percent. In 2004, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9345.4-05 explains that data from the Libby, Montana, 

Superfund site and other sites provide evidence that soil/debris containing significantly less than 1 percent asbestos 

can release unacceptable concentrations of asbestos fibers into the air.
15-P-0168 4

or abandoned. In the case of Asbestos NESHAP demolitions, disposing of the 

runoff wastewater onto the ground or into a storm drain or sewer is a release into 

the environment. 

Reportable Quantity of Asbestos Under CERCLA

CERCLA § 103(a) requires a person in charge of a facility to immediately notify 

the federal government (through the National Response Center) of any release of 

a hazardous substance equal to or in excess of its reportable quantity. CERCLA §

102(b) sets the reportable quantity for asbestos at 1 pound of asbestos fibers 

released into the environment in a 24-hour period. Since CERCLA § 103 has no 

requirements for monitoring or measuring releases, the amount of chemical 

released is to be estimated based on such information as past release data, 

engineering estimates, knowledge of the facility’s operations and release history, 

or best professional judgment. Specifically, the EPA requires the estimation of a 

reportable quantity to have a sound technical basis. 

Use of CERCLA § 103 Notifications

The notification of a reportable quantity allows the EPA to focus resources on 

releases that are more likely to pose potential threats to public health and the 

environment. The EPA determines the seriousness of the release and the need for 

an immediate response or cleanup. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan § 300.405 states that a CERCLA § 103 notification is 

one of eight ways the EPA discovers potential hazardous waste sites for further 

evaluation by the Superfund program.

CERCLA § 103 Enforcement

Failure to properly notify the National Response Center of a release of a 

reportable quantity can result in both civil and criminal penalties. The civil 

penalty under CERCLA is up to $25,000 per day for the first violation and up to 

$75,000 per day for a second violation. The criminal penalty upon conviction for 

failing to report, or for knowingly filing a false report, is a fine and/or up to 

3 years imprisonment for the first offense and up to 5 years imprisonment for a 

repeat offense. 

EPA’s Alternative Asbestos Control Method Project

Between 2005 and 2011, the EPA conducted research testing the effectiveness of

an alternative demolition method to test the viability of amending the Asbestos 

NESHAP standard to include the AACM. During the AACM experiments, the

EPA personnel and contractors wetted and demolished three buildings without 

removing all of the RACM prior to the demolition. The EPA personnel and 
15-P-0168 5

contractors collected the runoff wastewater from the first two experiments and 

tested it for asbestos, before filtering and releasing it into the environment.

12

The EPA’s AACM research project demolished four separate buildings—each 

constructed with a commonly occurring source of RACM (e.g., drywall, Transite, 

and popcorn ceilings). The AACM research project consisted of the AACM1, 

AACM2 and AACM3 demolition experiments described below.

AACM1 Experiment 

The AACM1 experiment 

demolished two nearly identical 

1940s-era Fort Chaffee 

Redevelopment Authority 

buildings located in Fort Smith, 

Arkansas, and measuring about 

30 feet by 150 feet. The AACM1 

experiment conducted a side-byside comparison of an Asbestos 

NESHAP-compliant demolition 

to the AACM demolition 

process. The building

demolitions occurred in April 

and May 2006. 

The AACM demolition building 

contained 20,700 square feet of gypsum 

wallboard having a joint compound 

containing 4 to 10 percent asbestos. 

These buildings also contained some 

linoleum and floor tile. The AACM1 

demolition compared the AACM and 

NESHAP processes on two 

architecturally identical buildings with 

asbestos-containing materials such as 

drywall, joint compound, tape and vinyl 

asbestos floor tile. Additionally, the 

experiment provided data regarding the 

amount of asbestos released to the air 

Interior of the AACM1 building shows the asbestos hazard and runoff wastewater.

(i.e., the asbestos-containing joint compound connecting the

gypsum wallboard).

13 (EPA photo)

 

12 The Asbestos NESHAP would not allow these demolitions unless the buildings were structurally unsound and in 

imminent danger of collapse.

13 The room looks typical and requires a certified asbestos inspector to identify the hazard.

AACM1 building prior to demolition. (EPA photo)
15-P-0168 6

AACM2 Experiment 

The AACM2 experiment 

demolished a World War II-era,

two-story Fort Chaffee 

Redevelopment Authority 

maintenance building located in 

Fort Smith, Arkansas, and 

measuring 32 feet by 48 feet by 

14 feet. The building contained 

2,778 square feet of Transite

siding (i.e., asbestos-cement 

board). AACM2 evaluated the 

use of the AACM process on a 

Transite-covered building that 

was in danger of imminent 

collapse. The demolition 

occurred on July 28, 2007.

Table 1 summarizes the AACM 

building descriptions, type of RACM, amount of RACM present, and the 

asbestos content of the RACM found in the AACM1 and AACM2 

experiments.14

Table 1: Characteristics of the AACM1 and AACM2 buildings

Demolition

AACM building 

description

and footprint size

Type 

of RACM Amount of RACM

Asbestos 

content of 

RACM

AACM1 Single story, wood-frame 

construction 30′ x 150′

(4,500 sq. ft.)

Joint 

compound

Estimated 7,762 linear feet of 

drywall joints connecting 

20,700 sq. ft. of wallboard

4–10 

percent

AACM2 Maintenance building

32′ x 48′ x 14′ (1,536 sq. ft.)

Transite 2,778 sq. ft. of 3/8′′-thick 

Transite cement board

30 percent

Source: The EPA’s Comparison of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method and the NESHAP Method for Demolition 

of Asbestos-Containing Buildings (EPA/600/R-08/094: October 2008; revised December 2009). Also, the Draft -

Evaluation of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method at Site Two (AACM2) for Demolition of Asbestos-Containing 

Buildings (EPA/600/R-09/006: October 22, 2009).

AACM3 Experiment

The AACM3 experiment demolished a 2,150-square-foot apartment building 

office at the former Oak Hollow Apartments in Fort Worth, Texas. The 

building contained 7,900 square feet of RACM in the form of popcorn 

ceilings and drywalls. The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate the 

environmental impacts of using the AACM to demolish a building that 

 

14 The patchwork material on the outside of the building is Transite, which the EPA added to increase the amount of 

asbestos released for testing purposes.

AACM2 building with added asbestos-containing

Transite prior to demolition. (EPA photo)
15-P-0168 7

contained asbestos in the form of popcorn ceilings and wall coatings. The 

demolition occurred on December 17, 2007. 

The AACM3 building with the asbestos-containing popcorn 

ceilings prior to demolition. (EPA photo)

Responsible Office

The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, administers the Asbestos NESHAP regulation and is the responsible 

office.

Scope and Methodology

We conducted our work from March 2012 through December 2014. We 

conducted this performance audit 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.

Our evaluation scope spanned the AACM experiments conducted from 2004 

through 2011. We analyzed internal and external comments about alternative 

demolition methods, staff correspondence gathered through the 2004 Fort Worth 

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

interviewed current and former personnel from the EPA’s Office of Policy 

(coordinator of the Fort Worth Method tests); OAR; Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA); Office of Research and Development (ORD);

Office of General Counsel; Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

(OSWER); and EPA Region 6.
15-P-0168 8

We identified the following federal regulations, policies and guidance that

document the requirements for reporting CERCLA § 103 releases:

Regulations. The EPA regulations addressing reportable quantities include 

40 CFR Part 302 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan at § 300.170(c) and § 300.405(a). 

Policies. OECA issued the EPA’s CERCLA § 103 enforcement policy on 

September 30, 1999. The policy is titled Enforcement Response Policy for 

Sections 304, 311, and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act. OECA’s enforcement policy supersedes 

OSWER’s June 1990 penalty policy (OSWER Directive 9841.2). 

Guidance. Federal guidance addressing reportable quantities includes:

 The EPA’s Guidance for Federal Facilities on Release 

Notification Requirements Under CERCLA and SARA Title III 

(EPA 9360.7-06: Nov. 1990).

 The Department of Energy’s CERCLA § 103 and EPCRA § 304 Release 

Notification Requirements Update (DOE/EH-0447: Jan. 1995). 

 OECA’s 1990 memorandum titled Inclusion of CERCLA Section 103(a) 

Counts in Asbestos NESHAP Cases, which identifies the elements 

necessary to establish a CERCLA § 103(a) claim and provides a legal 

analysis of relevant statutes and regulations.

We applied the requirements for reporting CERCLA releases to our evaluation of 

whether Asbestos NESHAP demolitions using the imminent collapse provision 

can result in a release of a “reportable quantity” of asbestos. We used the EPA’s 

AACM experimental data to calculate whether the unfiltered runoff wastewater in 

the AACM experiments would have exceeded the reportable quantity for 

asbestos, if released untreated. We did not evaluate the potential amount of 

asbestos released into the air. 

Results of Review

The OIG evaluated data from the AACM experiments to determine whether 

contractor compliance during NESHAP demolitions under the imminent collapse 

provision could trigger the notice of a release as required by CERCLA § 103. The 

OIG’s only source of performance data on the imminent collapse provision is 

from the AACM experiments, and the OIG’s evaluation of these demolitions is 

limited to buildings constructed with either an asbestos-containing joint 

compound or Transite.
15-P-0168 9

Imminent Collapse Provision Can Result in the Release of 

Reportable Quantities of Asbestos

The AACM and the Asbestos NESHAP imminent collapse provision establish

similar demolition techniques. Both techniques do not require all of the RACM to 

be removed prior to demolition, but require the RACM to be wetted throughout 

the demolition to control asbestos air emissions. Both also generate asbestoscontaminated runoff wastewater. During the first two AACM experiments, the 

researchers determined the concentration of asbestos in the runoff wastewater. 

The AACM demolitions filtered the contaminated runoff wastewater and removed 

the contaminated soil to limit the release of asbestos into the environment. 

Demolitions under the imminent collapse provision have no requirement to 

collect, test or treat contaminated runoff wastewater or to remove any 

contaminated soil. However, for the same type of building construction and 

RACM content, the amount of asbestos in the unfiltered runoff wastewater 

observed during the AACM demolitions provides an estimate of the amount of 

asbestos released in contaminated runoff wastewater generated during a 

demolition using the imminent collapse provision. The exact amount of asbestos 

released into the environment during an Asbestos NESHAP demolition is not 

directly known, because the Asbestos NESHAP regulation is a work practice 

standard and does not require any monitoring or testing for asbestos emissions.

Number of Asbestos Fibers in AACM1 and AACM2 Runoff Wastewater

In both of the AACM1 and AACM2 experiments, ORD directly measured the 

asbestos concentrations in the unfiltered runoff wastewater and found the water to 

be highly contaminated with asbestos. ORD determined the amount of asbestos 

fibers15 released into the runoff wastewater through direct sampling and analytical 

testing of the runoff wastewater. AACM1 runoff wastewater contained

2.485 billion TEM structures per liter (TEM s/L). Since the AACM1 demolition

generated 18,059 gallons of runoff wastewater, the unfiltered AACM1 runoff 

wastewater contained 170 trillion TEM structures. AACM2 runoff wastewater 

contained 42 billion TEM s/L. Since the AACM2 demolition generated 

 

15 In the AACM experiments, ORD measured the amount of asbestos in the unfiltered runoff wastewater as the 

concentration of asbestos structures per liter (the “s/L”). The EPA’s Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools

regulation, implementing the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986 (40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E, 

Appendix A(II)(A)), defines asbestos structures as asbestos in the form of bundles, clusters, fibers or matrix. 

Therefore, the term asbestos structures is inclusive of asbestos fibers, but also counts bundles of asbestos fibers, 

clusters of asbestos fibers, and asbestos sticking fibers out of matrix particles. A bundle of multiple asbestos fibers 

and clusters of asbestos fibers are expected to weigh more than the typical individual fiber. Since the OIG estimated

the weight of asbestos fibers, the OIG’s estimation generated a lower weight than what may be actually present if 

the increased weight of bundles and clusters could be incorporated into the estimation. Therefore, for the OIG’s 

purpose of estimating a reportable quantity, the number of asbestos structures is synonymous with the number of 

asbestos fibers.
15-P-0168 10

12,186 gallons of runoff wastewater, the unfiltered AACM2 runoff wastewater 

contained 1,900 trillion TEM structures. Table 2 summarizes this information.

Table 2: Calculation of TEM structures released into unfiltered runoff wastewater

Demolition

Average asbestos 

concentration in unfiltered 

runoff wastewater

(TEM structures/L)

Volume of unfiltered 

runoff wastewater 

generated in a 24-hour 

period (gallons)

TEM structures released 

into unfiltered runoff 

wastewater

(TEM structures)

16

AACM1 2,485,000,000 18,059a 1.7 x 1014

AACM2 42,000,000,000 12,186 1.9 x 1015

Source: OIG analysis of the EPA’s Comparison of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method and the NESHAP 

Method for Demolition of Asbestos-Containing Buildings (EPA/600/R-08/094: October 2008; revised December 

2009). Also, the Draft - Evaluation of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method at Site Two (AACM2) for Demolition 

of Asbestos-Containing Buildings (EPA/600/R-09/006: October 22, 2009).

Note: a On day one of demolition (May 1, 2006).

Weight of Asbestos in AACM1 and AACM2 Runoff Wastewater

To assess the potential for a reportable release of asbestos, the amount of asbestos 

fibers released during AACM1 and AACM2 experiments needs to be converted to 

weight in pounds. CERCLA § 103 does not require direct sampling and testing to 

determine whether a reportable quantity of asbestos has been released. Rather, 

CERCLA § 103 allows for a reasoned estimate of the size of the release. The EPA 

requires the estimation of a reportable quantity to have a sound technical basis. 

Our estimate for the weight of asbestos exceeds the EPA requirement. We used 

ORD’s direct measurement of the amount of asbestos fibers in AACM1 and 

AACM2 runoff wastewater. We converted the amount of asbestos fibers into 

weight by using the EPA’s standard conversion factor for PCM fibers, the

National Research Council’s published conversion factor for TEM fibers, and the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s published PCM fiber 

content of end-use commercial products.

We determined that the weight of asbestos in both of the AACM1 and AACM2 

unfiltered runoff wastewater exceeded the reportable quantity for asbestos. We

estimated the weight of asbestos in AACM1 and AACM2 unfiltered runoff 

wastewater to be 1.4 and 16 pounds, respectively. Table 3 summarizes the amount 

of asbestos in AACM1 and AACM2 unfiltered runoff wastewaters.

 

16 Calculated as follows: TEM Asbestos Structures Released into the Unfiltered Runoff Wastewater (TEM s) = 

Avg. Asbestos concentration (TEM s/L) x Volume of Runoff Wastewater (gallons) x 3.785 liters/gallons.
15-P-0168 11

Table 3: Weight of asbestos in unfiltered runoff wastewater above the reportable quantity

Demolition

Estimated asbestos weight 

released into unfiltered 

runoff wastewater (lbs.)

Reportable quantity 

for asbestos 

(lbs. released over 

24 hours)

Amount of asbestos in unfiltered 

runoff wastewater above the 

reportable quantity (lbs.)

AACM1 1.4 1.0 0.4

AACM2 16 1.0 15

Source: OIG analysis of the EPA’s Comparison of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method and the NESHAP 

Method for Demolition of Asbestos-Containing Buildings (EPA/600/R-08/094: October 2008; revised December 

2009). Also, the Draft - Evaluation of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method at Site Two (AACM2) for Demolition 

of Asbestos-Containing Buildings (EPA/600/R-09/006: October 22, 2009).

Our results show that if either the AACM1 or AACM2 buildings had been 

demolished following the Asbestos NESHAP imminent collapse provision where 

the same amount of RACM was left in place (i.e., where no collection or filtration 

of the runoff wastewater is required), the amount of asbestos released into the 

runoff wastewater would have exceeded the reportable quantity for asbestos and 

would have required the National Response Center to be notified.

Minimum Building Size That Can Release a Reportable Quantity of 

Asbestos

The AACM demolitions provide data to estimate when a reportable quantity of 

asbestos is released during Asbestos NESHAP demolitions using the imminent 

collapse provision. Although the amount of asbestos released into runoff 

wastewater depends on many variables,

17 determining when a reportable quantity 

of asbestos could be released is helpful for understanding the scale of this issue. 

The AACM1 and AACM2 demolitions generated a reportable quantity of 

asbestos in the unfiltered runoff wastewater from: (1) buildings constructed with 

asbestos-containing drywall joint compound; and (2) buildings constructed with 

Transite.

Buildings Constructed With Asbestos-Containing Drywall 

Joint Compound

In a building constructed similar to the AACM1 building (i.e., 4 to 10 percent

asbestos-containing joint compound being the principal asbestos fiber source), 

the AACM1 demolition shows that 1 pound of asbestos can be released into 

runoff wastewater after 3.6 hours of active demolition time.

18 This is enough 

time to demolish 5,545 linear feet of drywall joints connecting 14,786 square

feet of wallboard. In terms of building size, the AACM1 demolition shows 

 

17 Variables include the type of RACM(s) present, the amount of each type of RACM present in the building, the 

asbestos content of each type of RACM, the level of wear or damage to the RACM, the friability of the RACM, the 

volume of water and force of the water spray used during the demolition, the type and frequency of mechanical 

forces used to demolish the building, and the length of the demolition.

18

“Active demolition time” is used to characterize the actual time spent performing the mechanical crushing of the 

building, and transferring and loading building debris into waste trucks where the spraying of amended water is used 

to control asbestos air emissions during the demolition.
15-P-0168 12

that 1 pound of asbestos can be released into runoff wastewater after only 

3,214 square feet of a building is demolished. To put this building size into

perspective, the U.S. Census Bureau identified the average single-family 

home in 2010 as being 2,392 square feet. Therefore, the demolition of a 

similarly constructed building, just 1.34 times larger than the average singlefamily home, could be sufficient to release a reportable quantity of asbestos 

into runoff wastewater. 

Although the demolition of single-family homes is not required to follow the 

Asbestos NESHAP,

19 the AACM 1 experiment shows that the demolition of a 

large single-family home constructed with 4 to 10 percent asbestos-containing 

joint compound can release a reportable quantity of asbestos. Furthermore, if 

additional sources of RACM (e.g., popcorn ceilings or insulation) were

present in the building, the minimum building size that can release a 

reportable quantity of asbestos upon demolition would be smaller.

Buildings Constructed With Transite

In a building constructed similar to the AACM2 building (i.e., Transite is the 

principal asbestos fiber source), the AACM2 demolition shows that 1 pound 

of asbestos can be released into runoff wastewater after just 25.4 minutes of 

demolition time. This is enough time to only demolish about 174 square feet 

of 3/8-inch thick Transite (the equivalent of 5.4 Transite wallboards 

measuring 4 feet by 8 feet). Since only 160 square feet of RACM present in a 

building invokes the requirement to follow the Asbestos NESHAP regulation, 

the AACM2 demolition indicates that virtually all buildings that are 

constructed with Transite—and are required to follow the Asbestos 

NESHAP—would release a reportable quantity of asbestos into the runoff

wastewater upon demolition using the imminent collapse provision.

Table 4 summarizes when AACM1 and AACM2 demolitions generated a 

reportable quantity of asbestos into unfiltered runoff wastewater.

 

19 The Asbestos NESHAP regulation specifically excludes residential buildings having four or fewer dwelling units 

(see 40 CFR § 61.141–Definition of facility).
15-P-0168 13

Table 4: AACM1 and AACM2 buildings generating a reportable quantity of asbestos upon demolition

Demolition

Type of 

RACM

Length of active 

demolition time before 

runoff wastewater 

exceeded the 

reportable quantity

Amount of RACM 

demolished before 

the reportable 

quantity for asbestos 

was exceeded

Minimum size of the 

building demolished 

resulting in release of 

a reportable quantity 

of asbestos

AACM1 Joint 

compound 3.6 hoursa

Estimated 5,545 linear 

feet of joints connecting 

14,786 sq. ft. of

wallboard

3214 sq. ft.

AACM2 Transite

25.4 minutesb

174 sq. ft. of 3/8′′-thick 

Transite; or the 

equivalent of 5.4 

Transite wallboards 

measuring 4′ x 8′ x 3/8′′

96 sq. ft.

Source: OIG analysis of the EPA’s Comparison of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method and the NESHAP 

Method for Demolition of Asbestos-Containing Buildings (EPA/600/R-08/094: October 2008; revised 

December 2009). Also, the Draft - Evaluation of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method at Site Two (AACM2) 

for Demolition of Asbestos-Containing Buildings (EPA/600/R-09/006: October 22, 2009).

Notes: a At a water spray rate of 60 gallons per minute.

 

 

b At a water spray rate of 30 gallons per minute.

Conclusion

Analysis of data collected by the EPA during the AACM experiments shows that 

under specific conditions Asbestos NESHAP demolitions (conducted under the 

“imminent danger of collapse” provision) can release significant amounts of 

wetted asbestos into the environment. Further, the AACM experiments 

demonstrate that the amount of wetted asbestos can exceed the legal standard for 

a reportable quantity of asbestos. As a result, Asbestos NESHAP demolitions 

using the imminent collapse provision could be noncompliant with CERCLA § 

103 if a reportable quantity is released into the environment and not reported, or 

improperly reported. Because Asbestos NESHAP “imminent collapse” 

demolitions are allowed to occur and may be releasing harmful amounts of 

asbestos into the environment, the EPA needs to assess the potential public health 

risk posed by the release of reportable quantities of asbestos and inform the 

regulated community of the potential CERCLA § 103 reporting requirements.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation: 

1. Conduct an evaluation of the potential public health risk posed by the 

release of asbestos fibers through the untreated discharge of runoff 

wastewater during Asbestos NESHAP 40 CFR § 61.145(a)(3) 

demolitions of structurally unsound buildings in imminent danger of 

collapse.
15-P-0168 14

2. Issue a technical report that is available to the public and details the 

findings of the evaluation done in response to Recommendation 1.

3. Implement actions needed as a result of the technical report in a timely 

manner, and include regulatory reviews or reviews that respond to the 

report’s findings.

4. Consult and communicate with other EPA offices to share and discuss 

information about the outcomes of the OAR evaluation; and share any 

process, enforcement or regulatory changes.

Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 

Comments received from the acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation 

disagreed with the recommendations. In its comments, the agency asserts that the 

AACM experiments were not equivalent to imminent collapse Asbestos NESHAP 

demolitions and, as such, do not provide an appropriate basis for comparison. 

After review and consideration of the agency’s comments, we maintain that the 

AACM experiments provide an appropriate basis for comparison in order to 

estimate the amount of asbestos released in the runoff wastewater during 

imminent collapse Asbestos NESHAP demolitions.

We met with the agency to discuss our findings and recommendations. The 

agency proposed to review, revise and consolidate what it agreed was “dated and 

disparate” Asbestos NESHAP guidance to include, but not limited to, addressing 

the issue of mitigating future releases of asbestos-contaminated runoff wastewater 

into the environment during subsequent Asbestos NESHAP demolitions, under 

the imminent danger of collapse provision. We accept the proposed alternative 

corrective actions, which are listed below. We believe the new guidance should 

address how it applies to former imminent collapse Asbestos NESHAP 

demolition sites. 

Agency Corrective Actions: To mitigate the potential risk associated with 

asbestos demolitions under the NESHAP imminent danger of collapse provision,

the EPA agreed to:

1. Assemble a team of experienced asbestos experts from the Technical 

Review Workgroup, OECA, OSWER, Office of General Counsel,

on-scene coordinators, and asbestos inspectors to advise and assist OAR in 

producing an updated consolidated guidance document which has practical 

application to the regulated community. 

2. Review rule applicability regarding containment of asbestos-contaminated 

waste materials at demolition sites (including, but not limited to, asbestos 

in demolition water). 

3. Identify, review and revise, as appropriate, the pertinent existing guidance 

documents. 
15-P-0168 15

4. Collect, review and compile existing work practices into a set of 

implementation guidelines for containment of asbestos-contaminated 

waste materials, and materials contaminated by asbestos during the 

demolition process. 

5. Collect and review existing applicability determinations issued by regional 

offices and headquarters that have a bearing on this issue. 

6. Identify and review existing sampling and analysis methods that are 

applicable to asbestos in various media, and incorporate into the guidance 

as appropriate. 

7. Consolidate relevant materials into a single set of guidance materials.

8. Implement guidance via outreach to local and state agencies and regional 

offices through team meetings, monthly Regional Asbestos Coordinator/ 

National Asbestos Council group meetings, technical conferences and 

symposia, and/or Web-based platforms.

The agency’s complete response and our comments are in Appendix A. 
15-P-0168 16

Status of Agreed-To Corrective Actions and 

Potential Monetary Benefits

ACTIONS

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Action 

No.

Page 

No. Action Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

Agreed-To 

Amount

1 14 Assemble a team of experienced asbestos experts 

from the Technical Review Workgroup, OECA, 

OSWER, Office of General Counsel, on-scene 

coordinators, and asbestos inspectors to advise 

and assist OAR in producing an updated 

consolidated guidance document which has 

practical application to the regulated community.

O Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation

4/30/16

2 14 Review rule applicability regarding containment of 

asbestos-contaminated waste materials at 

demolition sites (including, but not limited to, 

asbestos in demolition water). 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation

4/30/16

3 14 Identify, review and revise, as appropriate, the 

pertinent existing guidance documents.

O Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation

4/30/16

4 15 Collect, review and compile existing work practices 

into a set of implementation guidelines for 

containment of asbestos-contaminated waste 

materials, and materials contaminated by asbestos 

during the demolition process. 

O Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation

4/30/16

5 15 Collect and review existing applicability 

determinations issued by regional offices and 

headquarters that have a bearing on this issue.

O Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation

4/30/16

6 15 Identify and review existing sampling and analysis 

methods that are applicable to asbestos in various 

media, and incorporate into the guidance as 

appropriate. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation

4/30/16

7 15 Consolidate relevant materials into a single set of 

guidance materials.

O Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation

4/30/16

8 15 Implement guidance via outreach to local and state 

agencies and regional offices through team 

meetings, monthly Regional Asbestos Coordinator/ 

National Asbestos Council group meetings, 

technical conferences and symposia, and/or 

Web-based platforms.

O Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation

4/30/16

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

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

U = Action is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
15-P-0168 17

Appendix A

Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comments 

(Received February 27, 2015)

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report No. OPE-FY13-0025 

“Release of Potentially Harmful Quantities of Asbestos Can Occur Under EPA’s 

Asbestos Demolition Standard”, dated December 29, 2014

From: Janet G. McCabe

Acting Assistant Administrator

To: Carolyn Copper

Assistant Inspector General

Office of Inspector General

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Office of Inspector General’s 

(OIG’s) draft report titled, “Release of Potentially Harmful Quantities of Asbestos Can Occur 

Under EPA’s Asbestos Demolition Standard”, (Project No. OPE-FY13-0025), December 29, 

2014. Using the data from earlier Alternative Asbestos Control Method (AACM) experiments, 

the OIG raises a concern that there is a potential for release of asbestos to water resulting when 

buildings, in danger of imminent collapse,1are demolished under the Asbestos National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) provisions and we respond to this 

concern in this memo. 

The draft report recommends that the Assistant Administrator for OAR take the following 

actions: 

1) Conduct an evaluation of the potential public health risk posed by the release of asbestos 

fibers through the untreated discharge of runoff wastewater during Asbestos NESHAP 40 

CFR § 61.145(a)(3) demolitions of structurally unsound buildings in imminent danger of 

collapse. 

2) Issue a technical report that is made available to the public and details the findings of the 

evaluation done in response to Recommendation 1. 

 

1 Under the asbestos NESHAP, if the facility is being demolished under an order of a State or local government 

agency, issued because the facility is structurally unsound and in danger of imminent collapse, the requirements of 

61.145(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3)(iii), (b)(4) (except (b)(4)(viii)), (b)(5), and (c)(4) through (c)(9) of section 61.145 apply.
15-P-0168 18

3) Implement actions needed as a result of the technical report in a timely manner, and 

include regulatory reviews or reviews that respond to the report’s findings. 

4) Consult and communicate with other EPA offices to share and discuss information about 

the outcomes of the OAR evaluation; and share any process, enforcement or regulatory 

changes. 

After our meeting with the OIG on January 21 and February 19, 2015, to discuss the findings of 

this draft report, and after conducting discussions with other EPA offices, we disagree with the 

recommendations in this draft report for the following reasons:

 The AACM experiments were not the equivalent of Asbestos NESHAP demolitions 

performed under the imminent collapse provisions and, as such, do not provide an 

appropriate basis for the concern raised by the OIG or the recommendations in the draft 

report.

OIG Response: Comments received from the acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation 

disagreed with the recommendations. In its comments, the agency asserts that the AACM experiments 

were not equivalent to imminent collapse Asbestos NESHAP demolitions and, as such, do not provide 

an appropriate basis for comparison. After review and consideration of the agency’s comments, we 

maintain that the AACM experiments provide an appropriate basis for comparison in order to estimate 

the amount of asbestos released in the runoff wastewater during imminent collapse Asbestos NESHAP 

demolitions.

 The current Asbestos NESHAP work practice requirements and guidance already address 

the issue of potential site contamination from water runoff. In addition, action may be 

taken now under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) to address releases of asbestos.

OIG Response: We agree that guidance exists and we note that the OAR corrective actions will 

update that guidance.2

Further discussion of each of these points is provided in the attachment.

However, we share the OIG’s concern regarding the potential for asbestos exposure. We 

recognize asbestos as a known human carcinogen, and note that there is no known safe level of 

exposure to asbestos. As we investigated the existing information to better understand and 

comment on the IG’s findings, we identified several items where we could enhance 

implementation of the existing NESHAP.

The asbestos NESHAP was last amended in 1990, and around the early 1990’s EPA developed 

guidance documents to assist in implementing the rule, including demolition work practices, 

containment of asbestos waste at a demolition site, applicability determinations for specific 

inquiries regarding application of the rule, and enforcement memoranda regarding prevention of 

site contamination during demolition activities. A variety of work practices in the field have been 

 

2 The guidance is not a part of the NESHAP regulation.
15-P-0168 19

developed to prevent off-site migration of water and contamination of nearby properties, and the 

science and available technology (i.e., sampling and analysis methods) in some instances may 

have improved since these documents were last revised. However, these documents are disparate 

and dated and we believe could be reviewed, revised and consolidated into a single guidance 

document. We note however that the Administrator, through OAR, has the authority and the 

responsibility to determine the level of guidance appropriate to accompany existing regulatory 

actions.

Therefore, we intend to take the following actions, which also address the OIG’s concerns raised 

in this draft report:

1- Assemble a team of experienced asbestos experts from the TRW, OECA, OSWER, OGC, on 

scene coordinators (OSC) and asbestos inspectors (AI) to advise and assist OAR in 

producing an updated consolidated guidance document which has practical application to the 

regulated community.

2- Review rule applicability regarding containment of asbestos-contaminated waste materials at 

demolition sites (including, but not limited to, asbestos in demolition water). 

3- Identify, review and revise as appropriate, the pertinent existing guidance documents. 

4- Collect, review, and compile existing work practices into a set of implementation guidelines 

for containment of asbestos-contaminated waste materials, and materials contaminated by 

asbestos during the demolition process. 

5- Collect and review existing applicability determinations issued by regional offices and 

headquarters that have a bearing on this issue.

6- Identify and review existing sampling and analysis methods that are applicable to asbestos in 

various media, and incorporate into the guidance as appropriate. 

7- Consolidate relevant materials into a single set of guidance materials.

8- Implement guidance via outreach to local and state agencies and regional offices through 

team meetings, monthly RAC/NAC group meetings, technical conferences and symposia, 

and / or web-based platforms.

Our anticipated milestones are to initiate the above in March 2015 and finish within a year (or by 

April 2016).

OIG Response: We accept these proposed alternatives and agree that the agency’s proposed actions 

to review, revise and consolidate its existing Asbestos NESHAP guidance may address the issue of 

mitigating future releases of asbestos-contaminated runoff wastewater into the environment during 

subsequent Asbestos NESHAP demolitions. In addition, we believe the new guidance should address 

how it applies to former imminent collapse Asbestos NESHAP demolition sites. 
15-P-0168 20

ATTACHMENT

The AACM experiments are not the Equivalent of Imminent Collapse NESHAP 

demolitions.

According to the Asbestos NESHAP, an ordered demolition may be issued when a building, or 

portion of the building, is found to be both structurally unsound and in danger of imminent 

collapse. Because inhalation is the route of asbestos exposure, the work practices of the Asbestos 

NESHAP address this type of exposure. Use of water during ordered demolitions to maintain 

“adequately wet”3conditions minimizes release of asbestos to air from asbestos containing 

materials (ACM). However, to minimize the release of asbestos, the agency previously issued 

guidance4for demolition contractors and regulatory agencies to use while implementing the 

requirements of the NESHAP (see References 1 and 2). 

We note here, as we did in our meeting with the OIG on January 21, 2015, that the AACM 

experiments were not the equivalent of imminent collapse NESHAP demolitions because the 

following provisions required by the NESHAP for a demolition under imminent collapse were 

not followed. 

(1) 61.145 (c)(6)(ii) requires all RACM, including material that has been removed or 

stripped, to be carefully lowered to the ground and floor, not dropping, throwing, sliding, 

or otherwise damaging or disturbing the material. However, photographs taken during the 

AACM experiments showed heavy demolition equipment being driven over the regulated 

asbestos-containing materials (RACM). 

OIG Response: This Asbestos NESHAP requirement concerns how to handle removed RACM (i.e., 

carefully lowering removed RACM to the ground). Since Asbestos NESHAP demolitions of structurally 

unsound and in imminent danger of collapse buildings are not required to remove RACM, this Asbestos 

NESHAP requirement is immaterial.

(2) Section 61.150(a) requires no visible emissions to the outside air during the collection, 

processing packaging, or transporting of any asbestos-containing waste material. 

However, visible emissions were observed during the demolition(s) and waste collection 

activities, which is inconsistent with these requirements. 

 

3 Adequately wet means sufficiently mix or penetrate with liquid to prevent the release of particulates. If visible 

emissions are observed coming from asbestos-containing material, then that material has not been adequately 

wetted. However, the absence of visible emissions is not sufficient evidence of being adequately wet. 61.141 

Definitions.

4 Demolition Practices Under The Asbestos NESHAP (EPA 340-1-92-013 and Decision Tree Guidelines (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Manufacturing, Energy, and Transportation Division, Office of Compliance. June 

1994, were issued shortly after promulgation of the Asbestos NESHAP in 1990 and are used extensively by states 

and local agencies to whom delegation status has been approved. These materials are also used for training 

asbestos inspectors and are available on our website (http://www2.epa.gov/asbestos/building-owners-andmanagers#renovation), which provides further assistance to owners/operators and state and local agencies 

conducting ordered demolitions. 
15-P-0168 21

OIG Response: We do not assert that the AACM experiments followed NESHAP requirements or were 

equivalent in all respects to NESHAP demolitions. As we have stated, the issue of concern is asbestos 

contaminating the wastewater when the buildings are demolished with the RACM intact. That occurs 

under the NESHAP imminent collapse provision and occurred with the AACM experiments.

(3) Sections 61.145 (c)(6)(i) and 61.150(a)(1) require that materials be adequately wet and 

kept wet until collected or contained or treated in preparation for disposal. Section 

61.150(a)(3), which applies specifically to facilities demolished where the RACM is not

removed prior to demolition, requires owners/operators to adequately wet asbestoscontaining waste material at all times after demolition and keep wet during handling and 

loading for transport to a disposal site. However, as noted above, visible emissions were 

observed during the demolition(s) and waste collection activities, which is inconsistent with 

these requirements. 

OIG Response: We do not assert that the AACM experiments followed NESHAP requirements or were 

equivalent in all respects to NESHAP demolitions. As we have stated the issue of concern is asbestos 

contaminating the wastewater when the buildings are demolished with the RACM intact. That occurs 

under the NESHAP imminent collapse provision and occurred with the AACM experiments.

Based on these inconsistencies with the work practice requirements of the asbestos NESHAP, the 

AACM experiments were not equivalent to demolitions typically conducted under the asbestos 

NESHAP. We also note that a previous OIG report on these experiments came to the same 

conclusion.5

OIG Response: This quote (see footnote 5) does not appear in the OIG report. Our previous report 

identified that the AACM is not an approved demolition technique and cannot be used for the 

demolition of structurally sound buildings where it is safe for contractors to remove the asbestos prior 

to demolition. Our previous report did not compare or evaluate the AACM experiments against the

imminent collapse Asbestos NESHAP demolitions.

The current Asbestos NESHAP rule and guidance address the issue of potential site 

contamination from water runoff.

The guidance for demolition contractors has several sections devoted to imminent collapse 

demolitions. The rule includes isolation and proper disposal of RACM contaminated debris, and 

a post demolition site assessment. The site assessment would include visual evaluations and a 

comprehensive soil sampling scheme to detect any asbestos remaining in the soil. If asbestos is 

detected, the guidance states the site should be decontaminated.

 

5

In an OIG early warning report dated December 14, 2011, the OIG stated “it is clear that the AACM demolitions 

are not representative of Asbestos NESHAP-compliant demolitions.”
15-P-0168 22

OIG Response: EPA’s Asbestos NESHAP Demolition Decision Tree Guidance (dated June 29, 1994) 

recommends any NESHAP demolitions occurring without first removing all of the RACM should 

undergo a post-demolition site assessment. A site assessment, according to this guidance, is 

comprised of a visual evaluation and a comprehensive soil sampling. However, since asbestos fibers 

are too small to be seen by the unaided eye, asbestos soil contamination cannot be identified by a 

visual inspection. Therefore, we do not believe a visual inspection is health protective.

Soil testing for asbestos contamination can detect asbestos fiber content down to only 1 percent. 

However, OSWER Directive 9345.4-05 (issued August 10, 2004) identified that the use of the 1 percent

threshold for asbestos in soil is not a risk-based site clean-up standard and may not be protective of 

human health. Therefore, we do not believe the current NESHAP soil testing guidance is health 

protective.

EPA’s Asbestos NESHAP Demolition Decision Tree Guidance (dated June 29, 1994) recommends that 

imminent collapse Asbestos NESHAP demolition sites “must be cleaned up to background levels of 

asbestos contamination.” This guidance also states that “to clean up the site to background levels, it 

will probably be necessary to remove all the asbestos contaminated soil.” We believe this language 

acknowledges that imminent collapse Asbestos NESHAP demolitions contaminate the soil and may 

require it to be removed and disposed of as asbestos-containing waste.

The EPA corrective actions should address these issues.

Regulatory Actions Under CERCLA Also Address Releases of Asbestos 

In addition to the work practices of the Asbestos NESHAP, action may be taken under CERCLA 

to address releases of asbestos. In such enforcement actions, all that must be shown is a failure to 

adhere to the work practices of the Asbestos NESHAP. If that is the case, then enforcement may 

proceed under CERCLA’s definition of a release and/or failure to notify and report, and the 

asbestos NESHAP’s provisions (61.150(a)) for failure to contain asbestos waste. CERCLA has 

pursued such cases since the 1980’s, and these include instances in which wind blew asbestos off 

site, leaching of asbestos into the soil, and releases of asbestos into public and private sewer 

systems. EPA has previously issued guidance on the inclusion of CERCLA counts when an 

asbestos release has occurred (See Reference 3). 

OIG Response: We agree that a failure of demolition contractors to adhere to the Asbestos NESHAP 

work practices may result in an enforcement action. However, we restate our concern that even fully 

compliant imminent collapse Asbestos NESHAP demolitions can still release reportable quantities of 

asbestos through the uncontrolled discharge or unfiltered discharge of the contaminated runoff 

wastewater. Therefore, even fully compliant imminent collapse Asbestos NESHAP demolitions could 

be noncompliant with CERCLA’s reportable quantity requirements. 

The EPA’s 1990 guidance on the inclusion of CERCLA 103(a) counts in asbestos NESHAP cases 

(see reference 3) identifies that regardless of whether a demolition contractor knew of the reportable 

release of asbestos, the demolition contractor is still liable for any resulting harm from the release. 

The EPA should consider this in any updated NESHAP guidance issued in response to our report.
15-P-0168 23

REFERENCES

1. Demolition Practices Under The Asbestos NESHAP (EPA 340-1-92-013) -

http://www2.epa.gov/asbestos/building-owners-and-managers#renovation

2. Decision Tree Guidelines (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Manufacturing, Energy, 

and Transportation Division, Office of Compliance), June 1994 -

http://www2.epa.gov/asbestos/building-owners-and-managers#renovation

3. Enforcement: Inclusion of CERCLA Section 103(a) Counts in Asbestos NESHAP Cases, 

Memorandum, June 1990 - http://www2.epa.gov/asbestos/building-owners-andmanagers#renovation
15-P-0168 24

Appendix B

Distribution

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation 

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Air and Radiation 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Office of Air and Radiation