Audit & Investigation Education, Department Of School Construction Authority

Audit Report on the New York City Department of Education/School Construction Authority’s Asbestos Management Program

April 9, 2025 | SE23-103A

Table of Contents

Audit Impact

Summary of Findings

The audit found that DOE is not in compliance with Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) regulations and has not been for many years. Since AHERA was enacted 38 years ago, an average of just 11% of all schools known to contain asbestos have undergone all of the inspections mandated by AHERA. During the three-year scope period of the audit, from 2021 to 2024, only 18% of all schools containing ACM had triennial inspections. Between May 2023 and April 2024, only 22% had all required periodic six-month inspections.

Although DOE recently began manually tracking inspections for all schools, DOE maintains no centralized recordkeeping system with reporting features to support compliance with AHERA. There are significant gaps in oversight of the inspection program, increasing the risk that students, teachers, and other staff could be exposed to asbestos in schools. After the audit started in July 2023, DOE acknowledged early on that it has not ensured that either triennial or periodic inspections mandated by AHERA were conducted, and further, that it did not begin tracking periodic inspections until March 2023. Before then, DOE primarily relied on outdated management plans, and in some schools, custodians who lacked the training required to comply with AHERA conducted reviews.

The purpose of AHERA is to ensure that identified asbestos containing materials are regularly inspected. Unless this occurs, DOE is unable to ensure that asbestos remains in a safe condition.

To close compliance gaps and prevent further risks, DOE must immediately allocate resources, expand inspection capacity, and implement policies and procedures and a comprehensive recordkeeping system to safeguard the health and safety of school occupants.

Intended Benefits

The audit identified the need to improve triennial and periodic inspections crucial for ensuring the health and safety of students and staff. Allocating resources for more inspections, training, and a robust asbestos management system would reduce exposure and fiscal risks.

Introduction

Background

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral composed of flexible, heat-resistant fibers. These properties led asbestos to be used in construction materials, insulation, roofing, cement, and other products for fireproofing.

Asbestos poses a severe danger when its fibers fray and become airborne. These tiny, needle-like fibers are easily inhaled and ingested, and the body cannot break them down or expel them. Over time, they accumulate in the lungs and other tissues, causing inflammation, scarring, and severe health conditions, including asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other respiratory issues. Because of its widespread use in construction throughout the twentieth century, many older buildings still contain at least some asbestos.

In 1986, the United States enacted AHERA to protect students, teachers, and school staff from asbestos exposure. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acts as the federal oversight body for AHERA and requires schools to proactively manage asbestos risks. While asbestos use is limited in the United States, it is not entirely banned. EPA has taken significant steps to regulate its use and protect the public from exposure.^[1] This regulatory context means that older buildings—including schools—may still contain asbestos, and new construction cannot always be assumed to be asbestos-free.

Asbestos In Schools

When referring to school buildings, any material or product that contains more than 1% asbestos is referred to as Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM). Asbestos Containing Building Material (ACBM) is any surfacing ACM, thermal insulation ACM, or miscellaneous ACM found in interior structural members or building parts. For simplicity, this report refers to all asbestos in school buildings as ACM.

AHERA requires public and non-profit private schools—collectively called local education agencies (LEA)—to take specific actions to manage asbestos and protect students and staff from exposure. This includes regular inspections, maintaining updated asbestos management plans, conducting surveillance of ACM, and training custodial and maintenance staff to monitor ACM.

Examples of ACM commonly found in schools include flooring, vinyl base, mastic, roofing materials, gaskets in heating and air-conditioning equipment, ceiling panels and tiles, wallboard, joint compound, plaster, pipe and boiler insulation, duct-wrap insulation, duct joint tape, duct vibration dampening cloth, fireproofing on structural members, fire brick for boilers, fire doors, acoustical spray-on, cement pipes, and panels.[2]

The presence of asbestos alone does not automatically pose a safety risk, but the condition of ACM is critical. Friable ACM—which can easily release fibers into the air—poses a greater hazard than nonfriable ACM.[3] However, nonfriable materials can become friable if damaged, as they may be crumbled or reduced to powder by hand when dry. EPA advises that even undamaged nonfriable ACM should be treated as friable.

Fibers in asbestos cement, asphalt, and vinyl materials are usually firmly bound with materials in good condition and typically will be released only if the material is damaged mechanically—for example, through drilling, cutting, grinding, and sanding. In addition, asbestos in roofing shingles and siding exposed to weather may slowly deteriorate and could release fibers over time. In certain circumstances, intense heat and mechanical agitation can cause the release of fibers.

Prolonged exposure to asbestos can lead to severe health issues, including mesothelioma and asbestosis. These diseases usually take decades to develop and lack early warning signs, making them difficult to diagnose until many years after exposure.

AHERA Compliance

AHERA mandates that school buildings previously identified as containing ACM undergo reinspection every three years (triennial inspection) to reassess the condition of ACM, with additional surveillance inspections every six months (periodic surveillance inspection) to monitor any changes. Furthermore, the asbestos management plans must be updated accordingly after both types of inspection. This proactive approach ensures that potential risks are identified and mitigated before they escalate, prioritizing the safety of building occupants.

To comply with AHERA, a triennial inspection must be conducted by individuals who hold accreditation as Asbestos Inspectors. Inspectors attend a three-day EPA-approved state-accredited training program that includes lectures, demonstrations, four hours of hands-on training, individual respirator fit testing, course review, and written examinations. The inspector training addresses asbestos uses, health risks, inspection process, legal liabilities and defenses, understanding building systems, notifications, planning, assessing friable and nonfriable ACM, bulk sampling, respiratory protection, recordkeeping, and review of state and federal regulations regarding emission standards, worker protections, respirator requirements, and Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools (40 CFR part 763, subpart E, or AHERA).

After a management plan is in effect, a reinspection of all friable and nonfriable known or assumed ACM is required once every three years. The reinspection includes a visual inspection and re-assessment of all friable ACM, as well as previously nonfriable ACM to determine if it has become friable. Bulk samples are to be collected and tested from newly friable ACM.

After a management plan is in place, AHERA also requires that a periodic inspection be performed every six months to visually inspect all areas identified in the management plan as ACM or assumed ACM. Periodic inspections need not be performed by an accredited inspector, but the individual designated by the LEA must have received training providing basic knowledge of the health effects of asbestos, detection, identification and assessment of ACM, options for controlling ACM, asbestos management programs, and relevant state and federal regulations.[4] Each inspection is documented with the name of the inspector, the date of surveillance, and any changes in the condition of the ACM noted in the report. The periodic surveillance report must be submitted to the LEA-designated person and included in the management plan.

AHERA inspection requirements and stipulations are summarized below in Table I.

Table I: AHERA Inspection Requirements

	Triennial Inspection	Periodic Surveillance Inspection
Timeframe	Once every three years	Once every six months
Designated Inspector	Accredited inspector	Appropriately trained person[5]
Inspection Procedures	Visually inspect and reassess all known or assumed friable ACM. Check nonfriable ACM to see if it has become friable. Identify new areas of friable material. Collect samples of newly friable material for analysis. Assess the condition of both newly friable and previously identified friable materials. Record and submit the following for inclusion in the management plan within 30 days: Date, inspector’s name and signature, accreditation info, and any condition changes in ACM. Locations and descriptions of sampling, along with inspector details. Results of assessments for friable materials, including inspector information. An accredited management planner must review the reinspection report to identify any new hazard potential and revise the management plan to address newly identified hazards. Based on the updated data, new response actions to address these hazards must be selected, and these actions must be carried out in a timely manner.	Visually check all areas identified in the management plan as ACM or assumed ACM to determine if there has been any change in condition. Record the date, his/her name, and any changes in the condition of the materials. Submit this record to the LEA-designated person for inclusion in the management plan. The periodic surveillance inspection report must be kept in the management plan.

Non-Compliance

EPA issued an Interim Final Enforcement Response Policy for AHERA in January 1989 (later updated in January 1992) setting out potential penalties for AHERA non-compliance. The Enforcement Response Policy provides for the issuance of Notices of Noncompliance, civil complaints leading to the imposition of penalties, and the issuance of criminal sanctions to LEAs and other persons who do not comply with AHERA.

Notices of Noncompliance are issued to LEAs for violations of AHERA that are not covered by other enforcement mechanisms (Administrative Civil Penalties, Injunctive Action, Criminal Sanctions). This includes all management plan violations. Civil complaints can be issued for more serious second violations.

Penalties can be eliminated or waived based on circumstances set forth in the regulations. For example, the culpability of the LEA may be taken into consideration, and penalties may be reduced by 25% when the LEA does not have control over the violation charged. Further, civil action may be eliminated completely if the LEA can demonstrate that reasonable efforts to assure compliance were taken.

Under Section 207 of AHERA, all civil penalties are paid to the LEA to facilitate compliance with the requirements of AHERA, and any unspent portion of the civil penalty, once compliance is assured by the LEA, is deposited in EPA’s Asbestos Trust Fund. Regardless of this provision, LEAs may raise the ability to pay as an issue. If this issue is raised by the LEA, the determination of what the LEA can be expected to pay is made on a case-by-case basis after the civil complaint has been issued.

DOE’s and SCA’s Responsibilities

DOE is the designated LEA for over 1,700 schools in the New York City school system, serving more than 900,000 students each year.[6] When AHERA was introduced, all existing New York City schools should have been initially inspected for the presence of ACM before October 1988, as stipulated in AHERA, to develop asbestos management plans. However, DOE cannot confirm whether these inspections occurred. When asked to explain this, DOE did not respond. All inspection records provided by DOE begin in 1997; DOE did not provide any inspection records for any period prior to 1997.

As of March 2024, approximately 1,431—or 80%—of New York City schools were identified as having ACM and are therefore subject to continued management procedures in compliance with AHERA. DOE is responsible for ensuring that all AHERA mandates are met for all 1,431 schools. This includes ensuring all schools are inspected triennially by an accredited inspector and every six months by an individual with appropriate training.

DOE is also responsible for school operations and maintenance to ensure safety from asbestos under AHERA. In practice, this means using the management plans (“the AHERA book”) to identify ACM. School custodians are expected to walk the building daily and note any conditions needing repair.[7] If custodians identify needed repairs, or if a contractor is on-site to perform work, the custodian is expected to check the AHERA book to identify the space ID of the room or hallway and the presence of ACM materials, where the work is to be performed.

If the material is identified as non-ACM, then the repair can be performed using DOE contractors or DOE in-house staff as needed. If the material is ACM or assumed ACM, then a work order is entered in Passport/Portal J—the Division of School Facilities’ work order system. Once DOE Environmental Health and Safety receives the work order request, an asbestos consultant is assigned to test the material. If the material tests positive, then DOE determines if the work will be done in-house or by SCA. If the work is assigned to SCA, the agency creates a project referred to as a Plant Operation 18 (PO18) request.[8]

Minor abatement projects consisting of less than 25 linear feet or 10 square feet of ACM removal are performed by a DOE contractor or in-house staff. SCA generally performs small (greater than 25 linear feet or 10 square feet) and large (greater than 260 linear feet or 160 square feet) projects, but may perform projects of any size. SCA performs 98% of all asbestos removal.

Once a project is created, SCA’s Industrial Hygienists assign an environmental consultant on a rotational basis to survey and sample the assumed ACM.[9] If ACM is present based on the survey and testing performed by the consultant, then SCA obtains estimates from their abatement contractors. SCA can approve work orders less than $50,000. Work orders greater than $50,000 require approval by DOE.Most projects are carried out under service contracts that include pre-established unit prices. Any work items not covered by these unit prices are charged on a time-and-materials basis.

Most abatement is done at night or on weekends. A third-party air monitoring company continuously measures air quality in the work area. If no asbestos fibers are detected in the air, a re-occupancy letter is issued.

SCA does not conduct triennial or periodic inspections or update asbestos management plans as required by AHERA; instead, DOE is responsible for these tasks. SCA informs DOE about non-ACM status by providing an architect’s exclusionary asbestos statement for a building after SCA constructs or provides transportable units for temporary classrooms. SCA assumed responsibility for determining non-ACM status in 1990.

SCA oversees asbestos abatement as part of their capital projects. SCA reported that from FY2020 to FY2024, expenditures on PO18 projects (repair or abatement projects) were approximately $201 million, and approximately $23 million was spent on asbestos remediation for capital projects.

Objectives

The objectives of this audit were to determine whether DOE/SCA are inspecting every public school building for asbestos hazards once every three years and every six months as required by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986, and whether asbestos locations found during inspections are documented and asbestos management plans are developed as mandated.

Discussion of Audit Results with DOE and SCA

The matters covered in this report were discussed with DOE and SCA officials during and at the conclusion of this audit. An Exit Conference Summary was sent to DOE and SCA on December 6, 2024, and discussed with DOE and SCA officials at an exit conference held on December 20, 2024. On January 27, 2025, we submitted a Draft Report to DOE and SCA with a request for written comments. We received a written response from DOE and SCA on February 10, 2025. In their responses, both DOE and SCA agreed with every recommendation made in the audit.

DOE’s and SCA’s written responses have been fully considered and, where relevant, changes and comments have been added to the report.

The full text of DOE’s and SCA’s responses are included as an addendum to this report.

Detailed Findings

DOE Does Not Comply with Federal Asbestos Management Regulations

DOE failed to inspect about 80% of New York City school buildings with ACM for asbestos hazards, as required by the asbestos management regulations. Historically, over the past nine cycles, DOE achieved a compliance rate of approximately 11%.

Only 18% of Schools Have Had Recent Triennial Inspections

Although DOE followed AHERA inspection protocols during its inspections, the audit found that in the three years from March 2021 to March 2024, only 257 of the 1,431 buildings (18%) with identified ACM received the triennial inspection required by AHERA. This means that 1,175 school buildings containing asbestos—or 82%—have not been reinspected within the required timeframe.^[10]

The auditors analyzed triennial inspection data by borough for this period, as shown in Chart I below. Brooklyn stands out as having the highest number of schools with ACM and the lowest rate of compliance, with 464 ACM school buildings and a compliance rate of just 13%. Only 62 of the 464 ACM containing school buildings had triennial inspections in the three-year period from March 2021 to March 2024.

The compliance rate is not much better in the other boroughs: only 77 of 309 ACM school buildings were inspected in the Bronx (25%); 55 of 351 schools were inspected in Queens (16%); 45 of 222 schools were inspected in Manhattan (20%); and 18 of 85 schools were inspected in Staten Island (21%).

In other words, on a City-wide basis, DOE failed to perform 82% of the required triennial inspections during the three-year period between March 2021 to March 2024. As a result, DOE has not assessed the potential asbestos hazard for 82% of its ACM school buildings. Map I below shows the locations of schools that did not undergo a mandated triennial inspection during this period.

Chart I: AHERA Triennial Inspection Compliance Across Boroughs (March 2021 to March 2024)

Map I: Schools Without AHERA Triennial Inspection by Borough (March 2021 to March 2024)

Additionally, an audit analysis of DOE’s historical inspection data revealed that, since 1997, the agency has conducted an average of only 11% of the required inspections.[11] The auditors reviewed data for nine triennial inspection cycles and found that compliance rates per cycle ranged from 0% (Cycle #8) to 19% (Cycle #3). See Table II below for triennial inspection performance rates during the nine auditor-selected inspection cycles.

Table II: Triennial Inspection Performance Rates

Inspection Cycle #	Triennial Inspection Period (Date Range)	Buildings Inspected (#)	Inspection Conducted (% of Total)
1	3/8/2024 to 3/9/2021	257	18%
2	3/8/2021 to 3/9/2018	187	13%
3	3/8/2018 to 3/9/2015	266	19%
4	3/8/2015 to 3/9/2012	205	14%
5	3/8/2012 to 3/9/2009	231	16%
6	3/8/2009 to 3/9/2006	211	15%
7	3/8/2006 to 3/9/2003	46	3%
8	3/8/2003 to 3/9/2000	0	0%
9	3/8/2000 to 3/9/1997	15	1%
	Without Inspections	13
	Total	1,431
	Average		11%

DOE’s widespread non-compliance violates federal regulations, undermines the integrity of asbestos management efforts, and leaves school occupants at risk of exposure to ACM. Triennial inspections are critical components of a comprehensive asbestos management program. They are required to reassess the conditions of both friable and nonfriable ACM, update asbestos management plans, and maintain compliance with federal regulations. If these triennial inspections are not performed, DOE’s asbestos management program is rendered ineffective, and the risks of harmful asbestos exposure and potential legal liabilities are heightened.

DOE cited insufficient consultant contracts as the reason for its failure to conduct timely triennial inspections. The auditors acknowledge this difficulty; however, the problem has persisted for many years, pointing to systemic failures and poor planning.

The audit found that DOE typically conducts 200 to 250 inspections every three years but needs to conduct approximately 480 inspections per year to remain compliant with AHERA. This pattern has been evident for many years, and DOE has failed to take the necessary steps to increase its resources.

However, in its response to the findings, DOE indicated that it is preparing requests for proposals (RFP) for additional consultants. This is a positive step forward. The auditors also found that DOE made progress in conducting triennial inspections during the audit period. Specifically, between March 2024 and September 2024, DOE performed an additional 100 triennial inspections—about 14 per month. This represents a significant increase from the rate of seven per month (during March 2021 to March 2024) under the previous LEA-designated person. While this rate remains far short of the 40 inspections per month required to bring DOE into compliance with AHERA, it suggests an intention to improve.

Only 22% of Schools Have Had Surveillance (Periodic) Inspections

In addition to triennial inspections, AHERA mandates that every school building with an asbestos management plan undergo a periodic surveillance inspection at least every six months. These inspections are necessary to assess and monitor the condition of known and assumed ACM, to identify disturbed or deteriorating asbestos, and to document and implement response actions to mitigate potential risks.

The auditors found that only 245 of 1,431 required periodic surveillance inspections (17%) were conducted during the six-month period from May 1, 2023 to October 31, 2023. In the subsequent six-month period from November 1, 2023 to April 30, 2024, 375 of 1,431 required inspections (26%) were completed. However, during the one-year period from May 1, 2023 to April 30, 2024, a total of 620 of the required 2,862 periodic surveillance inspections were performed. This represents an average completion rate of just 22%.[12]

Auditors analyzed the number of periodic inspections that should have occurred during this period and assessed degrees of compliance by borough, as shown below in Chart II. Brooklyn’s compliance rate is the lowest—only 19% of required inspections were performed—but all boroughs experienced similarly poor rates of compliance: 20% in the Bronx, 23% in Queens, 24% in Manhattan, and 28% in Staten Island.

DOE mainly attributes its failure to complete the required inspections to recordkeeping issues under the previous LEA-designated person. DOE officials were unable to provide the auditors with information on inspections conducted before March 2023, making it impossible to verify whether DOE was historically compliant. Prior to this period, DOE also lacks documentation showing that individuals responsible for conducting inspections received the necessary training to comply with AHERA. Without documentation, compliance cannot be established.

In March 2023, a new LEA-designated person was appointed to oversee DOE’s asbestos compliance. The new LEA-designated person has started tracking periodic inspections on an Excel spreadsheet and is also training custodians to perform periodic surveillance inspections instead of using external consultants.

While training and recordkeeping may have improved, the rate of inspections still falls well short of what is needed to bring DOE into compliance. Between May 2024 and October 2024, DOE performed an additional 234 periodic inspections, amounting to approximately 39 per month. This represents a reduction in the prior period, from May 1, 2023 to April 30, 2024, during which DOE conducted approximately 52 periodic inspections per month. To achieve full compliance, DOE must ensure that 240 inspections per month are conducted by individuals with the necessary training.

Chart II: AHERA Periodic Surveillance Inspection Compliance Across Boroughs (May 2023 to April 2024)

Periodic surveillance inspections play a crucial role in maintaining ongoing safety by enabling the early detection of ACM deterioration, facilitating timely response actions, and ensuring the effectiveness of the Operations and Maintenance program. Neglecting these inspections can increase the risk of asbestos exposure for students and staff. The AHERA management plan directs custodians to consult the AHERA book to confirm the presence of ACM or assumed ACM in areas they service. If custodians follow the management plan correctly, response actions should be minimal because known ACM would have been previously remediated or confirmed through testing. However, if periodic surveillance inspections are not conducted regularly, DOE may be forced to perform unplanned asbestos remediation activities, leading to unnecessary testing and operational delays. Additionally, non-compliance exposes DOE to potential enforcement actions from EPA.

During the exit conference, DOE officials did not dispute the reported low triennial and periodic surveillance inspection compliance rates. DOE also presented an alternative analysis of compliance rates for AHERA inspections and subsequently provided their analyses.[13] Even if accepted, however, the DOE analysis at best shows a 33% compliance rate for periodic inspections, still far below what is required by law.

DOE officials asserted that there was and is no risk that occupants were or could be exposed to asbestos in schools based on their abatement practices. The auditors disagree. EPA’s mandated program of inspections is designed to provide crucial information to develop a safe and effective abatement plan to manage asbestos risks properly. Without them, outdated asbestos management plans can lead to a failure in properly identifying the presence, location, and condition of ACM or assumed ACM within a building. Work performed without the current information risks inadvertently releasing harmful asbestos fibers into the air during repairs or abatement, potentially exposing workers and building occupants to serious health hazards.

Inadequate or Missing Evidence that Mandatory Asbestos Training Was Conducted or that Appropriate Notification was Sent to Parents, Teachers, and Other Employee Organizations

AHERA requires that DOE designate and train a LEA-designated person to oversee asbestos-related activities. This person is responsible for ensuring that custodial staff receive an annual two-hour asbestos awareness training, and that asbestos handlers receive an additional 14 hours of training on asbestos repairs.

The auditors’ assessment of records submitted by DOE for 30 sampled schools revealed that DOE did not maintain training records during most of the period from 2020 to 2023, and while complete records exist for 2024, DOE lacked training certificates for all custodians in the previous years. After the exit conference, DOE provided a spreadsheet detailing the training records for custodians employed at various schools during the years 2020 and 2024, including the dates of training received in each year. According to DOE, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 in-person training cycle was disrupted. However, training gaps still exist in other remaining years, posing risks that staff may not be adequately trained as required by AHERA.

AHERA also requires DOE to notify parents, teachers, and employee organizations annually about asbestos inspections, the management plan’s availability, and any asbestos-related actions taken or planned in the school. As evidence, DOE provided a standard email informing stakeholders, which included recipients’ email addresses. However, the auditors found that the notification was sent only to DOE email addresses.

During the exit conference, DOE officials stated that all stakeholders were notified through their DOE emails. However, DOE did not share any additional information. As a result, the auditors cannot distinguish or verify whether the email addresses used for notifications included all stakeholder organizations. AHERA notifications are essential for transparency and safety, keeping parents, teachers, and employees informed to protect school communities.

These gaps highlight the opportunities for DOE to improve its commitment to AHERA compliance.

Delays in Issuing Non-ACM Letters May Result in Unnecessary Asbestos Inspections

According to AHERA, triennial and periodic inspections are not required if an architect or engineer provides a Non-ACM Letter (also known as an architect’s asbestos statement) certifying that no ACMs were used in construction. The prompt issuance of these letters prevents unnecessary inspections and ensures compliance.

DOE has 57 school buildings whose asbestos statuses are listed as “To Be Determined.” Only one of these buildings remains under construction, while 56—including 17 constructed over 40 years ago—have not been issued Non-ACM Letters to date. Thirty of these buildings are currently occupied. Due to the missing Non-ACM Letters, DOE may be allocating agency resources toward unnecessary asbestos inspections.

At the exit conference, SCA explained their role in obtaining Non-ACM Letters and the subsequent analysis and reconciliation for the 57 schools. According to SCA, all schools constructed before 1990 are ineligible for a Non-ACM Letter, as this responsibility only began with SCA’s formation around that year. Twenty-nine of these school buildings were constructed before 1990 and are therefore ineligible for Non-ACM Letters from SCA, and there is no construction record for one school in the SCA database.[14] Additionally, one school building is permanently closed. Of the remaining 26, Non-ACM letters have been obtained for 21 school buildings, leaving five school buildings still with outstanding Non-ACM Letters. These five school buildings were constructed between 11 and 28 years ago.

For example, David N. Dinkins School (#Q276) in Queens received its Non-ACM Letter in March 2024—13 years after the school opened for students in 2011. In April 2022, DOE spent about $31,000 on one triennial and one periodic inspection because the ACM status had not been determined for over 10 years. DOE did not disclose additional information regarding inspections conducted before April 2022 or the associated costs.

Delays in issuing Non-ACM Letters and addressing unresolved ACM statuses are caused by poor coordination between DOE and SCA. In at least one instance, this ineffective coordination led to resources being allocated to unnecessary inspections. This waste of resources is especially concerning given DOE’s backlog of inspections in school that are known to contain ACM.

The lack of timely Non-ACM Letters may lead to operational inefficiencies and avoidable costs. By improving coordination, tracking Non-ACM Letter status, and reviewing past inspection costs, DOE can optimize asbestos management.

Recommendations

To address the abovementioned findings, the auditors propose that DOE:

Improve the awareness and understanding of AHERA compliance for school officials and the LEA-designated person.

DOE Response: DOE agreed with this recommendation.

Develop and adopt comprehensive policies and procedures for asbestos management in schools, including internal reporting and review mechanisms to ensure full compliance with AHERA requirements.