tftD STA/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	14-P-0359
f	\ Office of Inspector General	September25,2014
\	I
At a Glance
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 asbestos-
containing 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 high-
performing organization.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oiq.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/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:
Improving oversight of
the EPA's research
activities can minimize
the risk of waste,
noncompliance with
EPA rules and policies,
and project failures.
•	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.

-------