j A *
1®
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Compliance with the law
Partnering with states and other stakeholders
EPA Needs to Re-Evaluate
Its Compliance Monitoring
Priorities for Minimizing
Asbestos Risks in Schools
Report No. 18-P-0270
September 17, 2018

Ba»S!Sgae

-------
Report Contributors:
Hilda Canes Garduno
Eric Lewis
Ryan Maxwell
Julie Narimatsu
Abbreviations
AHERA
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CMS
Compliance Monitoring Strategy
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY
Fiscal Year
LEA
Local Educational Agency
NPMG
National Program Manager Guidance
OECA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG
Office of Inspector General
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
U.S.C.
United States Code
Cover Photo: Asbestos warning at a school entrance. (EPA OIG 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
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions

-------
tfED ST/ff.
*	• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	18-P-0270
£	\ Office of Inspector General	September 17,2018
® *
* ^	^ " O
%w/ At a Glance
Why We Did This Project
The Office of Inspector
General conducted this audit
to determine whether the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) was performing
sufficient compliance
inspections of schools to
reduce asbestos exposure.
The Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act
(AHERA), which became law
in 1986 and amends the Toxic
Substances Control Act
(TSCA), requires local
educational agencies to
inspect their school buildings
for asbestos-containing
material, prepare asbestos
management plans, and
perform asbestos response
actions to prevent or reduce
asbestos hazards. The law is
meant to protect the more
than 50 million students and
7 million teachers and staff
who spend time in the nation's
schools.
This report addresses the
following:
•	Compliance with the law.
•	Partnering with states and
other stakeholders.
EPA Needs to Re-Evaluate Its Compliance Monitoring
Priorities for Minimizing Asbestos Risks in Schools
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oiq.
Listing of OIG reports.
Asbestos exposure risk is higher in
children because they are more
active, breathe at higher rates and
through the mouth, and spend more
time closer to the floor where
asbestos fibers can accumulate.
What We Found
Even though the EPA was responsible for
conducting AHERA compliance
inspections for the majority of states, it
conducted fewer inspections overall than
the states responsible for their own
inspections. Specifically, from fiscal
years 2011 through 2015, the EPA
conducted 13 percent of AHERA inspections, whereas states with jurisdiction over
their own inspections performed 87 percent.
We also found that only one region has a strategy for its TSCA compliance
monitoring efforts, as recommended by the TSCA Compliance Monitoring Strategy.
Furthermore, EPA regions have either significantly reduced or eliminated resources
for their asbestos program. Of the agency's 10 regions, five only inspect for
asbestos in schools when they receive asbestos-related tips or complaints. Without
compliance inspections, the EPA cannot know whether schools pose an actual risk
of asbestos exposure to students and personnel.
We interviewed eight local educational agencies in the Atlanta (Region 4) and
Chicago (Region 5) areas and found that the agencies generally appeared to be
implementing AHERA. However, staff from the states and responsible EPA regions
indicated that asbestos in schools might still be a significant problem. In addition,
although required by AHERA, not all of the schools we reviewed maintained an
asbestos management plan. This was the case if the school obtained an "exclusion
statement" indicating that, to the best of the responsible parties' knowledge,
asbestos was not used in construction. Without sufficient oversight, the EPA cannot
verify that local educational agencies are identifying and properly managing
asbestos in schools.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(1) require regions to incorporate asbestos strategies into their TSCA compliance
monitoring efforts and (2) inform local educational agencies, in coordination with the
regions, that they must develop and maintain an asbestos management plan,
regardless of the presence of an exclusion statement, and monitor compliance.
In response to our draft report, the EPA stated that disinvestment from the asbestos
program has been due, in large part, to increasing resource limitations and
competing priorities. Based on the agency's response, we modified the initial
recommendations. The agency agreed and provided acceptable corrective actions
and completion dates that meet the intent of the revised recommendations.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 17, 2018
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Needs to Re-Evaluate Its Compliance Monitoring Priorities
for Minimizing Asbestos Risks in Schools
Report No. 18-P-0270
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project number for this audit was OPE-FY17-0012.
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.
The Office of Compliance and Office of Civil Enforcement, both within the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, are responsible for the issues addressed in this report.
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, your office provided acceptable corrective actions and milestone
dates in response to OIG recommendations. All recommendations are resolved and no final response to
this report is required. However, if you submit a response, it will be posted on the OIG's 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 www.epa.gov/oig.

-------
EPA Needs to Re-Evaluate Its Compliance
Monitoring Priorities for Minimizing
Asbestos Risks in Schools
18-P-0270
Table of C
Chapters
1	Introduction		1
Purpose		1
Background		1
Responsible Offices		7
Scope and Methodology		7
Prior Report		8
2	Improvements Can Be Made to Minimize Asbestos Risks in Schools		9
EPA Puts Limited Emphasis on AHERA Inspections		9
Asbestos in Schools Not a Top Priority for EPA		10
Atlanta and Chicago Area School Districts Visited Appeared to Be
Implementing Asbestos Programs, but Problems Were Noted		11
EPA Regions 4 and 5 Found Violations During School Inspections		12
EPA Regions See Need for Additional Resources		13
Conclusion		14
Recommendations		15
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation		15
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		16
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report	 17
B Distribution	 21

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit on the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) efforts to protect children's
health from asbestos exposure in schools. Our objective was to determine whether
the EPA was performing sufficient compliance inspections of schools to reduce
asbestos exposure.
Background
Asbestos in Schools
Although it is now a known human carcinogen, asbestos has been widely used in
a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire retardant
due to its fiber strength and heat resistance. Substantial amounts of asbestos,
particularly in sprayed form, have been used in school buildings, especially from
1946 through 1972. More than 50 million students
from kindergarten through 12th grade attend more than
131,000 public and private school facilities in the
United States, and more than 7 million teachers and
others work in those schools. Schools built before the
1980s in particular have a significant number of
asbestos components that could become friable during
maintenance work.1 Asbestos in older schools can be
commonly found in vinyl floor tiles, vinyl sheet
flooring and adhesives; textured paint and patching
compounds used on walls and ceilings; and hot water
and steam pipes.
Asbestos fibers may be released into the air by the
disturbance of asbestos-containing materials during
product use, demolition work, building maintenance,
and repair and remodeling. Exposure may occur only
when the material is disturbed or damaged in some
way to release particles and fibers into the air. When
maintenance work disturbs these materials or they
start to deteriorate over time, asbestos dust can enter
the air and be inhaled. Current policy is to manage
1 Friable asbestos-containing material is any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos which, when dry, may
be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure.
ASBESTOS.
HAZARDOUS.
DO NOT DISTURB
WITHOUT PROPER
ING AND EOUIPMI
Top: Asbestos warning
label on piping in a school's
boiler room. Bottom: Floor
tile replacement in a school
kitchen. (EPA OIG photos)
18-P-0270
1

-------
asbestos materials in place2 rather than remove the materials; consequently, the
potential for harmful exposures will likely persist for years.
Although asbestos has been banned in over 50 other countries, it has not been
banned in the United States. As a result, asbestos-containing products continue to
be manufactured, imported, processed and distributed.3 Therefore, it is possible
that newer or renovated schools may contain building materials with asbestos.
Asbestos Health Impacts
Asbestos exposure is related to a number of diseases, both fatal and nonfatal. There
is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Table 1 provides an outline of asbestos-
related diseases and their conditions.
Table 1: Asbestos-related health impacts
Disease
Conditions
Latency period
Fatal
Asbestos is
•	Scarring of lung tissue that progresses slowly.
•	Symptoms include shortness of breath and dry cough.
20-30 years
Lung cancer
•	Cancer occurring in the air passages that bring oxygen to the
lungs.
•	Symptoms in advanced disease include chest pains and coughing.
10-20 years
Mesothelioma
•	Cancer starting in the cells lining the chest and abdominal organs.
•	Can develop after relatively low exposures.
30-50 years
Nonfatal
Pleural
thickening a
•	Scarring along the lining of the lungs.
•	Results in less efficient lung function.
As soon as 1 year,
but often 15-20 years
for diagnosis
Pleural
plaque
• Thickening of the lining of lungs.
20-30 years
Pleural
effusions
• Excess fluid buildup between lungs and chest.
10-20 years
Asbestos
warts/coms
•	Growths formed over asbestos fibers that are stuck under the skin.
•	Typically itchy.
10 days
Source: OIG-prepared table based on various sources.
a In very rare cases, asbestos-related pleural thickening may cause death.
Students and school employees may face significant health risks from asbestos in
schools across the United States. When asbestos is inhaled, the fibers can get
trapped in the lungs. Over a long period of time, these fibers can cause tissue
inflammation and scarring, which can affect breathing and lead to serious health
problems. Determining the risk of asbestos-related diseases is complicated by the
fact that symptoms can take 10 to 50 years to appear, making causation difficult
2	Removal of asbestos is not usually necessary unless the material is severely damaged or will be disturbed by a
building demolition or renovation project.
3	Examples of asbestos-containing products still allowed in the United States include clothing, vinyl floor tiles,
pipeline wraps, automatic transmission components, disk brake pads and roof coatings.
18-P-0270
2

-------
to determine. The risk of disease depends on exposure dose,
duration and source, preexisting lung or breathing conditions,
and smoking or exposure to second hand smoke. Asbestos
fiber characteristics—such as size, shape and chemical
makeup—also have an impact.
Asbestos-related cancers and asbestosis are rare in children.
However, mesothelioma risk, for instance, increases as time
from first exposure increases. Therefore, early childhood
exposure greatly increases risk because it allows for a longer
period of latency. Further, the risk of exposure is higher for
children because they are more active, breathe at higher rates
and through the mouth, and spend more time closer to the
floor where fibers can accumulate. Children are also more
likely to come into contact with deteriorating surfaces
because of their curiosity.
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act and Implementing
Regulations
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) became law in 1986. It
amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and required the EPA to
promulgate regulations addressing the inspection of, management of and response
to asbestos-containing material found in elementary or secondary schools (see
15 U.S.C. § 2643). The EPA's AHERA regulations are found in 40 CFR Part 763,
Subpart E (the Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Rule), and require local
educational agencies4 (LEAs) to inspect their school buildings for asbestos-
containing material, prepare asbestos management plans, and perform asbestos
response actions to prevent or reduce asbestos hazards. AHERA regulations apply
to all public5 and private nonprofit schools offering kindergarten through 12th
grade classes—about 30,000 LEAs—but private for-profit schools are excluded
from AHERA. AHERA regulations require public school districts and nonprofit
private schools to:
• Perform an original inspection to determine whether asbestos-containing
material is present and then reinspect the material in each school every
3 years.
School gymnasium tiie floor
replacement. (EPA OIG photo)
4	AHERA defines "local educational agency" as (a) any local educational agency defined in 20 U.S.C. § 7801;
(b) the owner of any private, nonprofit elementary or secondary school building: and (c) the governing authority of
any school operated by the U.S. Department of Defense. See 15 U.S.C. § 2642(7) and 40 CFR § 763.83. Also,
20 U.S.C. § 7801 defines the "local educational agency" as "a public board of education or other public authority
legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function
for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political
subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an
administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools."
5	While AHERA is silent on tribal schools, the EPA's 2016 TSCA Compliance Monitoring Strategy, which provides
guidance on implementation and administration of TSCA. discusses tribal schools in detail with respect to AHERA.
18-P-0270
3

-------
•	Develop, maintain and update an asbestos management plan and keep a
copy at the school.
•	Provide yearly notifications to parent, teacher and employee organizations
on the availability of the school's asbestos management plan and any
asbestos-related actions taken or planned in the school.
•	Designate a contact person to ensure the responsibilities of the public
school district or the nonprofit private school are properly implemented.
•	Perform periodic surveillance of known or suspected asbestos-containing
building material.
•	Ensure that trained and licensed professionals perform inspections and
take response actions.
•	Provide custodial staff with asbestos-awareness training.
The EPA recommends that asbestos be managed in place, which includes
(1) periodic inspection and surveillance of the condition of the asbestos-
containing material and (2) various abatement actions—such as enclosure,
encapsulation or removal—if the asbestos is
damaged or deteriorates over time. According to
the EPA, the mere existence of asbestos does not
make it a high-priority concern or increase the
risk of asbestos exposure, as the asbestos may be
properly maintained.
For new school buildings built after October 12,
1988, 40 CFR § 763.99(a)(7) allows LEAs to
avoid otherwise required inspections if the
architect or project engineer responsible for the
newly constructed building or an accredited
inspector signs a statement that states, "to the
best of his or her knowledge, no ACBM
[asbestos-containing building material] was used
as a building material in the building." This is
sometimes known as an "exclusion statement." The LEA, then, is responsible for
submitting a copy of this exclusion statement to the EPA regional office, as well
as for including the statement in the asbestos management plan for that school.
Other EPA Policy and Guidance
The EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA's) primary
policy documents applicable to asbestos in schools are the National Program
grains
ASBESTOS
MAY CAUSE CANCER
CAUSES DAMAGE
TO LUNGS
authorized
PERSONNEL ONLY
WpEro "espiratory
PROTECTWEIOc'!nAND
",tu" 4?Ihing
Asbestos warning on garbage
dumpster. (EPA OIG photo)
18-P-0270
4

-------
Manager Guidance (NPMG) and TSCA Compliance Monitoring Strategy
(CMS).6 The documents work conjointly: the NPMG outlines 2-year compliance
and enforcement priorities and inspection expectations, while the CMS provides
guidance for developing and implementing EPA regional TSCA compliance
monitoring programs. The NPMG:
identifies the national compliance and enforcement priorities,
discusses national direction for all compliance assurance programs,
identifies activities to be carried out by authorized programs, and
describes how the EPA should work with states and tribes to
ensure compliance with environmental laws.7
The NPMG directs the EPA regions and authorized states and tribes to implement
the CMS for four major TSCA programs,8 including the asbestos program. The
CMS uses a "One-TSCA" approach for EPA regional compliance monitoring
programs that allows for flexibility depending on regional needs. It states that
regions "should have an overall annual strategy for [their] TSCA compliance
monitoring efforts." The CMS also notes that it is important for the EPA regions to
be knowledgeable about all aspects of their programs, including the number of
schools, compliance levels, and effectiveness of state and tribal programs.
For fiscal years (FYs) 2016-2017, the NPMG encouraged EPA regions to
"develop a plan for their inspections and other compliance activities" based on
available resources, including how they will provide state oversight.9 However, an
inspection plan was not explicitly required by the NPMG. Also for FYs 2016-
2017, the NPMG instructed that 90 percent of a region's TSCA resources should
focus on the lead compliance assurance program.10 To perform asbestos
inspections, regions are expected to "maintain inspector expertise and capacity ...
to respond appropriately to tips."11 For FYs 2018-2019, the NPMG no longer
stipulates how TSCA resources should be distributed or explicitly encourages
regions to develop inspection and compliance plans, but it does still direct regions
and states to adhere to the CMS.
The majority of TSCA asbestos activities involve AHERA implementation.
Under the CMS, EPA regions are expected to conduct inspections in federal
implementation jurisdictions (see below for discussion of federal and state
implementation jurisdictions), respond appropriately to tips, and ensure that
authorized states have effective compliance monitoring programs. The CMS
encourages regions to use inspections to identify noncompliance. When identifying
6	The latest CMS was issued in 2016.
7	Section II of the fiscal years 2016-2017 NPMG.
8	The four major TSCA programs are (1) new and existing chemicals, (2) polychlorinated biphenyls, (3) asbestos
and (4) lead-based paint.
9	Section IV, Part 12, of the FYs 2016-2017 NPMG.
10	TSCA funding was $4.9 million annually in FYs 2017-2015, $5.1 million in FY 2014 and $5.2 million annually
in FYs 2013-2012.
11	Section II.B of the 2016 TSCA CMS.
18-P-0270

-------
schools for inspection, the CMS includes several factors to consider: the age and
condition of buildings, inspection frequency, LEA compliance history, LEA size,
economic targeting, nonpublic schools, and public and commercial buildings.
AHERA Implementation
State implementation jurisdictions fall into two categories—"waiver" and
"non-waiver":
•	Waiver states have been issued a waiver from federal requirements
because they have established and are implementing their own asbestos
program at least as stringent as the federal regulation. The state agency is
responsible for implementing both compliance assurance (i.e., inspections)
and enforcement activities, but the EPA retains oversight authority.
•	Non-waiver states conduct inspections and then refer cases to the EPA for
enforcement.
Both waiver and non-waiver states receive grants from the EPA. TSCA grants
require applicants to match 25 percent of the funding provided by the grant. The
grant program is intended to strengthen a state's ability to address environmental
and public health threats from asbestos.
In federal implementation jurisdictions, the EPA is directly responsible for
AHERA implementation, including all compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities (Table 2).
Table 2: EPA and state AHERA responsibilities
Responsible
agency
State implementation jurisdictions
Federal
implementation
jurisdictions
Waiver states
Non-waiver states
EPA
• Oversight of state
programs
•	Oversight of state programs
•	Enforcement
•	Inspections
•	Enforcement
State
•	Inspections
•	Enforcement
• Inspections
N/A
Source: OIG analysis.
There are 12 waiver states that implement their own AHERA-like programs,
through which they conduct both compliance monitoring and enforcement. There
are nine non-waiver states (plus Puerto Rico) that receive grants to conduct
compliance monitoring but refer enforcement cases to the EPA. The EPA
conducts compliance monitoring and enforcement in the other 29 states, as well as
the District of Columbia and the other U.S. territories. Figure 1 shows waiver
states, non-waiver states and federal implementation jurisdictions as of FY 2017.
18-P-0270
6

-------
Figure 1: Map of federal implementation jurisdictions, waiver states and non-waiver states
¦	Waiver
¦	Non-waiver
¦	Federal
implementation
jurisdiction
Puena Rico
Source: OIG analysis.
Responsible Offices
The responsibility for enforcing AHERA lies within OECA's Office of
Compliance and Office of Civil Enforcement. The Office of Compliance manages
the inspections and is the office responsible for credentialing inspectors. The
Office of Civil Enforcement handles enforcement and develops and prosecutes
administrative civil and judicial cases. Implementation of AHERA falls to the
EPA regional offices.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 through May 2018 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 objective. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our conclusions based on our objective.
To obtain an understanding of the agency's AHERA program, we reviewed
federal laws, regulations, and EPA policy and guidance documents, including:
•	Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986 (AHERA), Public Law
No. 99-519.
•	Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Rule (AHERA Rule). 40 CFR
Part 763, Subpart E.
18-P-0270
7

-------
•	Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act of 1990
(ASHARA). Public Law No. 101-637.
•	Federal Records Act (FRA), 44 U.S.C. Chapter 31.
•	EPA Records Management Policy, CIO 2155.3, February 10, 2015.
We interviewed staff from OECA's Office of Compliance, OECA's Office of
Civil Enforcement, and EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention. We also visited two EPA regions. Specifically:
•	We visited EPA's Region 4, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and
interviewed staff in the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division.
Further, we conducted interviews with the following LEAs: Atlanta Public
Schools, Fulton County School District and DeKalb County School District.
•	We visited EPA's Region 5, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and
interviewed staff in the Land and Chemicals Division. Further, we
conducted interviews with the following LEAs: Chicago Public Schools,
Evanston Central Consolidated 65, Evanston Township High 202, West
Harvey-Dixmoor 147 and Harvey School District 152.
The team identified the LEAs to interview based on their proximity to EPA
Regions 4 and 5 headquarters. During our interviews, our questions were directed
at specific schools within these LEAs.
We also conducted interviews with the following external stakeholders: the
Environmental Working Group (a national nonprofit organization headquartered
in Washington, D.C.), the Chicago Teacher's Union, the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division and the Illinois Department of Public Health.
The team also sent a survey and follow-up questions to all 10 EPA regions to inquire
about AHERA compliance inspections and funding in the respective regions.
Prior Report
Report No. 13-P-0201, The EPA Needs to Improve Management of Its School
Environmental Health Efforts, March 27, 2013. The OIG conducted this audit to
determine how effectively the EPA ensures the environment in schools is healthy
for children. The audit looked at how the EPA implements its school environmental
health programs to protect children's health. Among the OIG findings was that the
EPA needed to improve program implementation planning, management and
oversight to advance its efforts to reduce environmental health risks in schools. The
report also noted that the EPA needed to consider the impacts of the decrease in
priority of asbestos inspections. The EPA reported that it had completed the
corrective actions in response to the report's four recommendations.
18-P-0270
8

-------
Chapter 2
Improvements Can Be Made to Minimize
Asbestos Risks in Schools
Even though the EPA was responsible for conducting AHERA compliance
inspections for the majority of states, it conducted fewer inspections overall than
the states responsible for their own inspections. From FYs 2011 to 2015, the EPA
conducted 13 percent of AHERA inspections, whereas the states with jurisdiction
conducted 87 percent. Further, there has been a reduction in AHERA funding and,
therefore, a corresponding reduction in the number of asbestos inspections
performed in schools. Half of the EPA's 10 regions (five) inspect only when they
receive asbestos-related tips or complaints. Without compliance inspections, the
EPA cannot determine whether schools pose an actual risk of asbestos exposure,
even as the agency employs other compliance assurance tools and activities (i.e.,
compliance assistance, informal enforcement and outreach).
EPA Puts Limited Emphasis on AHERA Inspections
Inspection numbers in waiver and non-waiver states, while decreasing over time,
are significantly higher than in federal implementation jurisdictions. The
significant discrepancy in AHERA inspections—between states with jurisdiction
versus states under federal jurisdiction—results in uneven oversight between
states. The waiver and non-waiver states conducted 87 percent of the total
inspections from FYs 2011 to 2015, while the EPA conducted 13 percent of the
total inspections in the federal implementation jurisdictions. Table 3 and Figure 2
below provide details.
Table 3: Number of inspections conducted by states and EPA

FY
Totals
% of total
inspections
conducted
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Waiver states
1,038
824
649
803
751
4,065
64%
Non-waiver states
362
162
360
390
172
1,446
23%
EPA (federal
implementation
jurisdictions)
343
182
224
66
33
848
13%
Totals
1,743
1,168
1,233
1,259
956
6,359
100%
Source: OIG analysis based on information from OECA's Office of Compliance.
18-P-0270
9

-------
Figure 2: AHERA inspections conducted FY 2011-2015
¦	EPA inspections in federal implementation jurisdictions
¦	Waiver/non-waiver inspections combined
Source: OIG analysis based on information from OECA's Office of Compliance.
Notably, from FYs 2012 through 2016, Region 6 conducted zero inspections and
Region 7 conducted only six. From FYs 2011 through 2015, Region 3 conducted
the highest average number of inspections at 71. Most of the inspections were
conducted from FYs 2011 through 2013, followed by a steep decline in
inspections during FY 2014.
We also found that Region 8 implemented its own AHERA compliance
monitoring strategy in 2013 that included significant efforts to determine
compliance levels among the LEAs in its region and conduct inspections. The
region prioritized the schools that needed to be targeted in its efforts and, since
2006, has used a database to track LEA compliance. Region 8 is the only region
to have a specific AHERA compliance monitoring strategy despite the CMS
recommending that each region have an "overall annual strategy for its TSCA
compliance monitoring efforts."
Our survey results indicated that regional AHERA programs are not well-funded
and inspection numbers in waiver and non-waiver states significantly outnumber
those in federal implementation jurisdictions. This results in states having varying
degrees of oversight to none at all. Without knowing whether LEAs are
complying with AHERA and identifying and properly managing asbestos in
schools, there is an increased risk that asbestos in schools may go unnoticed,
potentially resulting in asbestos exposure.
Asbestos in Schools Not a Top Priority for EPA
According to OECA, AHERA is a "mature" program. The program is over
30 years old and, as schools have become more aware of asbestos hazards and the
need to manage these hazards appropriately, a significant inspection/enforcement
18-P-0270
10

-------
presence is not considered to be as critical as when AHERA was initially
implemented. The EPA has not documented that the risk of asbestos exposure in
schools has diminished significantly under AHERA. Nonetheless, the EPA has
been disinvesting in AHERA while prioritizing other TSCA programs.
During FY 2017, OECA provided TSCA grants to 21 waiver and non-waiver
states. The TSCA grant funding budget, which includes money for asbestos, was
about $4.9 million in FY 2017, an amount that has decreased over the years from
$5.2 million in FY 2012. According to the EPA, the grant money is shared among
several TSCA programs, including AHERA, polychlorinated biphenyls and lead-
based paint. The NPMG for FYs 2016-2017 instructed EPA regions to devote
90 percent of their TSCA resources to the lead program, but it provided flexibility
with 20 percent of that funding. The NPMG for FYs 2018-2019 instructs regions
to adhere to the TSCA CMS, which provides guidance to the regions on strategic
use of resources and TSCA program elements.
The grant funds are allocated from headquarters to the EPA regions and then to
the waiver and non-waiver states. OECA stated that it relies heavily on the
regions for oversight and implementation, but it depends on state partners to carry
out these programs. OECA would like more states to become waiver states, as this
would shift the inspections and enforcement responsibilities to the states. The
Georgia Environmental Protection Division indicated that it would be interested
in having Georgia become a waiver state if funding were available.
Atlanta and Chicago Area School Districts Visited Appeared to Be
Implementing Asbestos Programs, but Problems Were Noted
Our meetings with three LEAs from the greater Atlanta area showed that schools
within these LEAs appeared to be implementing the AHERA program. DeKalb
County stated that the average age of its schools is about 41 or 42 years. All
three LEAs benefit from a one-penny sales tax that has provided Atlanta, Fulton
County and DeKalb County LEAs with a dedicated funding stream for capital
expenses, such as new construction and major renovations.12 In Fulton County,
administrators started using the money to fund new school construction. Many of
its new school buildings have asbestos-exclusion statements in lieu of asbestos
management plans. However, staff from the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division noted that asbestos is still being used in building materials, so even if
school officials do not think that there is asbestos, the schools should be inspected
to make sure.
The LEAs we visited in the Atlanta area handled exclusion statements differently.
One LEA maintained asbestos management plan binders for every school, while
one LEA did not require any school that obtained an exclusion statement to
12 The Education Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax is a one-penny sales tax that may be used by school
systems to build new facilities; renovate existing structures; improve school bus fleets; upgrade heating, ventilation
and air conditioning systems; and pay debt from previous projects.
18-P-0270
11

-------
maintain an asbestos management plan. Regardless of the presence of an
exclusion statement, each LEA is required to develop a management plan for each
school, pursuant to 40 CFR § 763.93. Failure to develop a management plan is
unlawful, pursuant to 40 CFR § 763.97(a)(iii).
In the Chicago area, we found that four of the five LEAs we interviewed appeared
to be implementing AHERA. One LEA in a relatively low-income area did not
have an updated management plan and was not up-to-date in training
requirements for its designated person and custodial and maintenance staff.
However, this LEA was in the process of developing a new management plan,
had taken steps to address asbestos, and provided notice about asbestos-related
activity during several recent projects within its schools.
EPA Regions 4 and 5 Found Violations During School Inspections
Region 4 reported that as many as 75 percent of the schools being inspected by
the states in that region are being issued notices of noncompliance. The region
stated that it does not categorize reasons for noncompliance but does review
violations that are identified. According to the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division, most of the noncompliance violations identified in the past decade were
due to the lack of an asbestos management plan (or updated plan), inspections,
periodic surveillances, annual notifications and training for maintenance staff.
One LEA we visited said that it did not receive any notices of noncompliance,
while another said that it could not recall Region 4 taking any enforcement
actions against those schools that received notices of noncompliance. This lack of
enforcement action is reflective of Region 4's decision to not penalize schools for
noncompliance. Region 4 explained that it did not want to take money away from
schools when that money could instead be used to educate students.
Region 5 stated that a violation can almost always be found during inspections.
For example, an LEA may not be able to locate the asbestos management plan, an
asbestos management plan may not be updated, or LEAs may not be conducting
the required 6-month surveillances or 2-hour awareness trainings. In addition, the
schools may not be informing the parents of the asbestos management plan or
asbestos-related work being done at the school. According to Region 5, this is
often due to a lack of awareness of AHERA requirements, compounded by the
fact that there is a high level of turnover, especially among maintenance staff,
which makes AHERA expertise rare. Also, Region 5 suggested that charter
schools are a growing concern because they are becoming more abundant and are
being housed in old buildings.
Region 5 staff indicated that asbestos is still a problem in the region and that the
EPA's "lack of an enforcement presence has led to the LEAs not identifying
ACBMs [asbestos-containing building materials] in their school buildings and not
complying with the general responsibilities of AHERA." Region 5 staff said that
AHERA is undervalued because of the perception that AHERA addresses
18-P-0270
12

-------
paperwork violations rather than actual releases into the air. However, AHERA is
important to discovering disturbed asbestos or potential asbestos problems.
Region 5 is also concerned that LEAs may be operating under the false
impression that schools are in compliance.
EPA Regions See Need for Additional Resources
All EPA regions have either completely disinvested from or significantly reduced
resources to the AHERA program due to a combination of reduced funding and
guidance from EPA headquarters to focus on what were considered to be higher
priorities. Despite having the responsibility of implementing AHERA in a majority
of states and territories, each EPA region currently commits less than one full-time
equivalent to AHERA implementation. As a result, there has been a significant
decline in the number of inspections conducted by the EPA from FYs 2011 through
2015. Figure 3 shows the number of inspections conducted during those years.
Figure 3: Number of inspections conducted by EPA, FYs 2011-2015
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
Source: OIG analysis based on information from OECA's Office of Compliance.
Seven out of 10 EPA regions indicated that funding is insufficient or that it is
sufficient so long as they are not expected to conduct more frequent AHERA
inspections. Half of the regions (five) inspect only when there are tips and
complaints—the bare minimum requirement for when inspections must be
performed, per the CMS—but eight regions said that they see a need to perform
more inspections. Eight regions, as well as other stakeholders, believe there is
reason to support a stronger AHERA compliance monitoring and enforcement
program. The regions point to notices of noncompliance routinely issued by states
and the EPA as evidence of the need for a stronger AHERA program. A sample of
regional responses to a survey question on funding are shown in Table 4.
18-P-0270
13

-------
Table 4: Sample of regional responses to OIG survey on AHERA
Region
OIG survey question: Does the region feel sufficient funds
are being allocated to the AHERA program?
2
"No. The states have consistently asked for more funds to support the program
than we provide. The states would more than double the number of inspections if
additional funds were provided."
3
"No... There are no [Environmental Program and Management] funds dedicated to
the AHERA Program. This impacts our ability to conduct outreach, education and
compliance assistance activities. At the regional level, less than one [full-time
equivalent] is allocated to this program, consequently regional compliance
monitoring has been reduced"
7
"If there were an expectation that Regions conduct routine inspections in
meaningful numbers in each state, more resources would be required. AHERA is
considered an underfunded program by OECA and Regions. ..."
10
"The region has to make difficult funding decisions based on provided resources,
human health implications, and regional, human health and Headquarters
priorities. The region would welcome AHERA funding if it became available."
Source: OIG survey.
Conclusion
The EPA characterizes the AHERA program as "mature," meaning that as the
program is over 30 years old and schools have become more aware of asbestos
hazards and the need to manage these hazards appropriately, a significant
inspection/enforcement presence is not considered to be as critical as when
AHERA was initially implemented. As a result, some EPA regions have
completely disinvested from the program. In addition, one LEA we visited did not
require schools to maintain an asbestos management plan if they obtained an
exclusion statement. The LEA was unaware that, regardless of the presence of
exclusion statements, it is unlawful for any LEA to fail to develop and maintain a
management plan.
Per the NPMG, the agency should comply with the TSCA CMS, which states that
regions should have an annual strategy for their TSCA compliance monitoring
efforts. However, Region 8 is the only region to have a region-specific AHERA
compliance monitoring strategy. In addition, in the current resource-constrained
environment, five EPA regions conduct AHERA inspections only when they
receive asbestos-related tips or complaints.
For the period audited, waiver and non-waiver states conducted significantly more
AHERA inspections than the EPA conducted in states for which it had federal
implementation jurisdiction. Due to diminished resources and competing priorities,
the EPA is challenged in providing full oversight, enforcement and inspections
support for the AHERA program. This creates the risk that asbestos exposures in
schools could occur and go undetected, unenforced or not properly remedied.
Though Recommendation 2 below involves LEAs, the OIG is directing the
recommendation to OECA following discussions with regional and OECA staff.
The regional and OECA staff are in agreement that OECA, through its Office of
18-P-0270
14

-------
Compliance, should be the recommendation's action official. While our findings
are limited to Region 4 and Region 5, OECA is not precluded from adopting
nationwide corrective actions.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
1.	Require the EPA regions, through the National Program Manager
Guidance, to incorporate asbestos strategies in their Toxic Substances
Control Act compliance monitoring efforts.
2.	Inform local educational agencies, in coordination with the EPA regions,
that they must comply with the requirements of the Asbestos-Containing
Materials in Schools Rule, 40 CFR § 763.93, to develop and maintain an
asbestos management plan, regardless of the presence of an exclusion
statement, and monitor compliance.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
In its response to our draft report (Appendix A), the EPA did not comment on our
findings but did disagree with our recommendations. The agency reiterated that
disinvestment from the asbestos program has been due, in large part, to increasing
resource limitations and competing TSCA priorities. For example, the lead
program has been a priority for the TSCA program due to the risk-based impacts
of lead exposure to sensitive and vulnerable populations. The agency also
provided technical comments. We revised the report to address the agency's
technical comments where appropriate.
As a result of the agency's feedback to the draft report, we modified
Recommendation 1 and combined Recommendations 2 and 3 into one
recommendation. The modified recommendations were shared with the agency for
concurrence. On August 6, 2018, the agency did not object to the modified
recommendations and provided acceptable corrective actions and estimated
completion dates. In response to the modified Recommendation 1, OECA stated that
it would "[rjequire the EPA Regions to document asbestos strategies to OECA as
part of the TSCA compliance monitoring efforts." In response to the modified
Recommendation 2, OECA stated that it would "[w]ork with the regions to develop
wholesale compliance assistance materials ... on the requirements of the Asbestos-
Containing Materials in Schools Rule, 40 CFR § 763.93, to develop and maintain an
asbestos management plan, regardless of the presence of an exclusion statement."
OECA said that these materials "will be distributed (e.g., posted to the EPA public
website) to local educational agencies" and that it will "monitor compliance." The
OECA response satisfies the intent of our modified recommendations. Both
recommendations are resolved with corrective actions pending.
18-P-0270
15

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS






Potential





Planned
Monetary
Rec.
Page



Completion
Benefits
No.
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Date
(in $000s)
15 Require the EPA regions, through the National Program
Manager Guidance, to incorporate asbestos strategies in their
Toxic Substances Control Act compliance monitoring efforts.
15 Inform local educational agencies, in coordination with the EPA
regions, that they must comply with the requirements of the
Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Rule, 40 CFR §
763.93, to develop and maintain an asbestos management plan,
regardless of the presence of an exclusion statement, and
monitor compliance.
Assistant Administrator for 9/30/19
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for 6/30/19
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
1 C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
18-P-0270
16

-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C.. 20460
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
'JtIN 2 o 2018
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the Offiee of Inspector General Draft Report: "EPA Needs to Re-Evaluate
Its Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Priorities for Minimizing Asbestos Risks in
r\nir rvi n nnn
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft findings and recommendations presented in
the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report, "EPA Needs to Re-Evaluate Its Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement Priorities for Minimizing Asbestos Risks in Schools." OECA has
reviewed the OIG Draft Report and has met several times with OIG representatives to discuss the
AHERA program and the OIG recommendations. OECA is requesting that the OIG modify the
report and recommendations as we discussed on June 11, 2018, and set forth here.
Background and Summary Comments
In developing its first recommendation, the OIG Report does not recognize that the FY 2018-
2019 National Program Managers Guidance (NPMG) identifies key programmatic activities for
addressing the most serious non-compliance concerns in communities. With respect to the TSCA
compliance assurance program, the NPMG established national expectations for regions and
states to implement the TSCA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS). The TSCA CMS
presents a strategic "One-TSCA Approach" to monitoring compliance for all the TSCA
programs. This approach allows the regions to use their available compliance monitoring
resources to focus on stated agency priorities and on significant regional environmental
problems. The TSCA CMS uses the Annual Commitment System (ACS) process as the tool the
18-P-0270	17
FROM:
Susan Parker Bodine
Assistant Administrate
TO:
Eric Lewis
Director. Special Programs Directorate
Office of Audit and Evaluation
Office of the Inspector General

-------
regions use to identify how they are directing their resources. Specifically, the ACS for TSCA
require regions to include a program breakdown when providing projections for TSCA
inspections and other compliance monitoring activities, if any. OECA believes that this practice
is adequate to capture regional strategies for asbestos and the other TSCA programs. However,
as part of a continual improvement process, OECA will commit to issue a reminder to the
regions for FY2019 ACS to provide the detailed TSCA program information. Thus, this in
combination with the NPMG and the TSCA CMS will constitute the regional strategies for
asbestos that the OIG is asking for in its Recommendation 1.
With regards to the OIG's Recommendation 2, subject to available resources and competing
priorities, the regions conduct inspections at local educational agencies (LEAs) to monitor
compliance with the asbestos-containing materials in schools' regulations, 40 CFR Part 763,
Subpart E, including 40 CFR Section 763.93. Therefore, OECA does not agree with the
OIG's recommendation that a new or revised regulation is necessary to "require local
educational agencies in Regions 4 and 5" to maintain an asbestos management plan
regardless of the presence of an exclusion statement. A regulation already exists with that
requirement and OECA does not see the need for a rule specific to LEAs in Regions 4 and
5. Further, the promulgation or amendment of AHERA regulations is not within the purview
of OECA.
With regards to OIG's Recommendation 3, OECA does not believe that a new and separate
effort is necessary or practical to verify local educational agencies in all regions are
maintaining an asbestos management plan (40 CFR 763.93). Specifically verifying
compliance that each school is maintaining an asbestos management plan is not practical
without a huge increase in appropriated resources from Congress. Instead, EPA uses a
strategic approach to monitor compliance through the existing compliance monitoring
program. However, OECA will commit to the development of additional compliance
assistance materials to help schools understand and comply with the regulations. The
compliance assistance material will emphasize the importance of schools maintaining an
asbestos management plan.
For the reasons set forth above, OECA will agree with the OIG recommendations with our
revisions as set forth below:
No.
Recommendation
OECA Explanation/Response
Proposed
Completion
Date
1
Require the EPA regions to develop
and submit region-specific asbestos
strategies for the Toxic Substances
Control Act compliance monitoring
efforts, to include but not be limited
to how Toxic Substances Control
Act programs will be prioritized and
why.
Recommended Revision:
Consistent with the NPMG, the
TSCA CMS and the FY2019
ACS process, OECA will issue a
reminder and clarification to the
regions that (1) ACS Measure
"TSCA 01 OC" requires a
program breakdown of projected
December,
2018
18-P-0270
18

-------


inspections, (2) ACS Measure
"TSCA 02 OC" requires a
program breakdown for other
compliance

2
Require local educational agencies
in Regions 4 and 5 to verify in
writing that all their schools are
maintaining an asbestos
management plan in accordance
with the Asbestos-Containing
Materials in Schools Rule, 40 CFR
Section 763.93, regardless of the
presence of an exclusion statement.
Recommended Revision is to
merse Recommendations 2 and 3
OECA will develop compliance
assistance material specifically
focused on compliance with
schools maintaining an asbestos
management plan (40 CFR
763.93).
June, 2019
3
Verify that local education agencies in
all regions are complying with the
requirements of the Asbestos-
Containing materials in Schools Rule,
40 CFR Section 763.93, to develop
and maintain an asbestos management
plan.
OIG Response: We held discussions with OECA and modified the recommendations. In
August 2018, OECA provided acceptable alternative corrective actions and estimated completion
dates that meet the intent of the modified recommendations.
OECA Corrective Action for Modified Recommendation 1/Estimated Completion Date: Require
the EPA regions to document asbestos strategies to OECA as part of their Toxic Substances
Control Act compliance monitoring planning efforts. Expected completion date: September 2019.
OECA Corrective Action for Modified Recommendation 2/Estimated Completion Date: Work
with the regions to develop wholesale compliance assistance materials that will be distributed
(e.g., posted to the EPA public website) to local educational agencies on the requirements of the
Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Rule, 40 CFR § 763.93, to develop and maintain an
asbestos management plan, regardless of the presence of an exclusion statement, and monitor
compliance. Expected completion date: June 2019.	
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this response, please contact the OECA Audit
Liaison, Gwendolyn Spriggs, at (202) 564-2439.
Attachment
cc: Lawrence E. Starfield, OECA
David Hindin, OECA/OC
Rochele Kadish, OECA/OC
18-P-0270
19

-------
Martha Segall, OECA/OC
Rick Duffy, OECA/OC
Elisabeth Vizard, OECA/OC
Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA/OAP
Rosemarie A. Kelley, OECA/OCE
Trey Glenn, Regional Administrator, Region 4
Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5
18-P-0270
20

-------
Appendix B
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff
Special Advisor, Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
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 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Administrator
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
18-P-0270
21

-------