“Fort Worth Method” of Asbestos Abatement
By Brent Kynoch
Update: For documents related to recent discussions on the Alternative Asbestos Control Method please reference the bottom of this page. Update #2: EPA DC Letter added.
Recently, a new method of asbestos abatement has been brought to my attention. This method of asbestos abatement is known as the “Ft. Worth Method.” This information was brought to my attention by member and past president Andy Oberta, who was asked to review this asbestos abatement method by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Inspector General’s Office. Andy Oberta tells me that members Jim Lewis, Michael Beard, Ken Fisher and fellow past president Warren Friedman have also been made aware of this new method of asbestos abatement, and have been engaged in discussions about it with other professional colleagues.The “Fort Worth Method” of asbestos abatement allows for the demolition of a structure with the asbestos-containing material still in place! In order to assure that asbestos does not become airborne during demolition, the method specifies the use of a fire hose with a variable rate 11-G (11 gpm) or 30-G (30 gpm) fire hose to adequately wet asbestos-containing material inthe building. While water is being applied, the structure is bulldozed or collapsed. After the structure is demolished, a “NESHAP trained individual” will sift through the waste material to determine what parts of the demolition debris must be disposed of as “asbestos-contaminated waste”. The method goes one step further, and specifies that “if RACM is isolated on the structure, the contractor will be advised to demolish the other areas of the structure first, taking care not to disturb the RACM, and to load the demolition debris separately. Then the part of the structure containing the RACM will be demolished and that debris will be disposed of as asbestos-containing material.”
If you have been trained like me, the “Fort Worth Method” of asbestos abatement is a complete violation of the asbestos NESHAP regulations. Further, this method of asbestos abatement is a complete violation of the Texas Asbestos Health Protection Act requirements. However, the Inspector General’s office at the USEPA is “reviewing” the method, and is considering it as an alternative to the existing regulatory requirements. In fact, the IG’s office asked member Michael Beard, a highly regarded asbestos expert, if he would submit a proposal to review this method. After receiving Mr. Beard’s proposal, the IG’s office said he was “too expensive.”
I find it absolutely appalling that the EPA would be considering a method of asbestos abatement that relaxes the current regulatory requirements! After the missteps and snafus that the EPA has suffered at Libby, MT and in New York City associated with the collapse of the World Trade Center, I can’ t believe that this federal agency would knowingly violate existing regulations, and potentially endanger human health and safety in the process.
Clearly, the Environmental Information Association has a duty to communicate the specifics of the “Fort Worth Method” to its members. Beyond that, I believe that EIA should convene a forum for discussion about the “Fort Worth Method,” to allow for a frank analysis of the possible technical problems associated with the method, and the health and safety concerns that arise from a relaxing of the current regulatory requirements. I think that EIA should seek to engage the EPA in this discussion, as well, so that they understand from those of us “in the trenches” that this method will not work and will not protect human health and safety.
Lastly, and most importantly, I think EIA should take a position regarding the “Fort Worth Method” by clearly stating that we think any relaxing of the current regulatory requirements is wrong. EIA has been very careful in the past not to take positions on matters that might be at odds with some of our “multi-disciplinary” membership. However, I feel that all EIA members can support enforcement of existing regulations, and the protection of human health and safety. EPA’s consideration of the “Fort Worth Method” is wrong, the method will not work from a technical point of view, and workers who perform this method run a very high risk of exposure to elevated levels of asbestos fibers. Shouldn’t we speak out?