Document 65bY8D66oYJZmdBDkmQwNO2vR

FILE NAME Packings and Gaskets PAG DATE 1989 July 12 DOC PAG023 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Federal Register Entry a i 4 wine Fete emp cette anim oe Federal Register / Vol No. 182 Wednesday July 12 1989 / Rules andRegulati29o5n0s1 products Benefits derived by banning EPA does not believe that a ban is this product would total approximately appropriate for this product category for tenths of a avoided the following reasons 1 Insufficient Exposure to asbestos during the life information was available regarding cycle of this product is limited because product substitutes to determine the the product is generally fabricated on costs of banning this product although site used saturated with solution and available information indicates that the disposed of while wet Asbestos is not costs of a ban would be high 2 this prone to be released into the ambient air product category accounts for only a during stages after product fabrication minuscule portion of U.S. asbestos Further insufficient information exists consumption approximately 1 ton in regarding the availability of substitute products for diaphragms in existing chlorine production plants to justify a ban The cost of modifying existing plants to accept new membrane cell technology in response to a ban on asbestos use in this product may be very high Based on available information the total cost of banning this product is estimated to total more than $ billion However suitable substitutes now exist for asbestos diaphragms for use in more recently constructed chlorine product plants Therefore EPA specifically recommends that users of asbestos diaphragms use asbestos diaphragm cells in facilities that will accept them and in the design of new facilities EPA does not believe that a ban is appropriate for this product category for the following reasons 1 Insufficient information was available to determine whether suitable product substitutes will soon be available for use in existing chlorine production facilities 2 the cost of banning this product category would be very high 3 this product category accounts for only minuscule portion of U.S. asbestos consumption less than 1,000 tons in 1985 and 4 a ban on this product category would result in only minimal benefits because asbestos exposure is limited in most life cycle stages relative to other products analyzed for this rule iv Battery separatorsThese products are used to insulate or separatethee polar terminals in batteries or fuel cells military primarily in specialized and aerospace applications The -- +: > 1985 and 3 a ban on this product category would result in only minimal benefits because asbestos exposure is limited in most life cycle stages relative to other products analyzed for this rule v grade electrical paper These products are used as electrical paper insulation primarily for hightemperature voltage applications such as motors generators transformers and other heavy electrical apparatuses The benefits derived from a ban on this product would total approximately 0.4 of a cancer avoided The cost of banning this product would be high becausa reasonably priced suitable substitutes do not exist for all applications and a number of existing substitutes are very expensive The total cost of banning this product is estimated to total over 51 million EPA does not believe that a ban is appropriate for this product category for the following reasons 1 This product category accounts for only a minuscule portion of U.S. asbestos consumption approximately 744 tons in 1985 2 the costs of banning this product would be very high due to the absence of reasonably priced substitutes and 3 a _ ban on this product category would result in minimal benefits vi Missile Liners These products are used to coat the interiors of rocket chambers primarily in highlyspecialized military and aerospace applications Benefits derived by banning this product would total approximately four tenths of a cancer- avoided EPA has no information benefits derived from a ban on thi-s. product would total only a small. fraction of a canceravoided indicating that suitable substitutes are available The total cost of banning this product is estimated at almost 2 billion Although EPA has no date on exposure Because most uses are highly to products in this category exposures specialized military uses it is doubtful in stages of the product's life cycle that substitutes will be developed and beyond primary manufacture are likely | be certified for these uses or that costs to be limited relative to other product of prospective ban will decrease categories because asbestos is enclosed | substantially in the near future during use and disposal In addition EPA does not believe that a ban is because most uses are highly appropriate for this product category for specialized and built to government the following reasons 1 This product specifications it is doubtful that category accounts for only a minuscule substitutes will be developed or costs of portion of U.S. asbestos consumption a prospective ban will decrease approximately 700 tons in 1985 the substantially in the near future costs of banning this product would be very high because most uses are highly specialized military uses and 3 a ban on this product category would result in minimal benefits vii Packings Packings are used to seal fluids in devices where motion is necessary Benefits derived from banning this product category would total less than one tenth of a cancer- avoided Exposures in the product life cycle stages beyond primary and secondary manufacture are likely to be limited relative to other product categories because asbestos in packings is generally saturated with lubricant during packing formation and with fluid during use and removal In addition there are many specialized uses of asbestos packings including advanced technology and military applications The cost of banning this product would be relatively high on a per unit basis because suitable substitutes do not exist and are unlikely to soon be developed for a significant number of packings applications and a number of existing substitutes are very expensive The total cost of banning this product is estimated at 0.55 million EPA does not believe that a ban is appropriate for this product category for the following reasons 1 this product category accounts for only a small portion of U.S. asbestos consumption approximately 125 tons in 1985 2 the costs per unit of banning this product would be relatively high for the amount of benefits derived due to the absence of substitutes of similar cost or performance characteristics for a number of applications and 3 a ban on this product category would result in minimal benefits because asbestos exposure is limited in most life cycle stages relative to other products analyzed for this rule viii Reinforced plastic These products are used primarily for electromagnetic parts in the automotive and appliance industries and highperformance specialty plastics Benefits derived by banning this product category would total approximately four tenths of a avoided Exposures in product life cycle stages beyond primary manufacture are likely to be limited relative to other product categories because asbestos is encased in plastic in the end use products In addition the cost of banning this product would be high because suitable substitutes do not exist for a significant number of plastics applications and a number of existing substitutes are very expensive The total cost of banning this product is estimated at almost 35 million ~\ pb 29500 EPA Ban Rule Federal Register/ Vol No. 132 / Wednesday July 12 1989 / Rules and Regulations produced in the U.S. In addition lowcost substitutes exist for products in the millboard and the specialty paper categories Therefore available evidence suggests that suitable substitutes should be available for most applications by the effective date of the Stage 3 ban The total costs of the actions taken in this rule for these product categories are set forth in the following Table XXIV TABLE -COST OF THE Rule for ASBESTOS PAPER PRODUCTS Product Total cost in $ million discounted at 3 percent 3.73 The paper product categories were proposed for either a Stage 3 ban or a ban via the operation of a permit system Many of these products are no longer used in the U.S. and suitable substitutes are rapidly being developed although the development of reasonably substitutes for some specialty uses might take a number of years EPA is also concerned that consumers may be subject to uncontrolled exposures during _ installation maintenance repair and removal of products such as millboard In addition many of these paper products are very similar in form and bans would be difficult to enforce were the products in this grouping banned at different times EPA has concluded that a Stage 3 ban is appropriate for these product categories for the following reasons 1 Relatively high quantifiable exposure and individual risk levels exist for these products 2 these products pose a high potential for ambient release during a number of life cycle stages 3 consumers and workers are potentially subject to uncontrolled exposures especially during installation maintenance repair and removal of these products 4 the cost of taking these actions is reasonable because several of these products are no longer produced or imported in the U.S. and because suitable substitutes are i expected exist for all of these | products by the time of the ban and 5 banning while the quantified benefits of these products are relatively small compared to other product categories banned by this rule these products are likely both lead number 4\ serious exposures that could \ readily quantified for this rule and \ contribute significantly to environmental loading One asbestos paper product category grade electrical paper is not included within the rule's bans see Unit V.F.1.v This product is not included for a number of uses of the product thereby making the cost of a ban very high relative to other products analyzed for this rule In addition grade electrical paper is reasonably discernable from other paper products k New commercial asbestos products This grouping covers all new asbestoscontaining products whose commercial manufacture importation or processing commences after the effective date of decision whether to include these products within the ban if more information about them becomes available The following paragraphs discuss EPA's findings for the various products in this grouping i Acetylene cylinder filler These products are used as filler in steel cylinders used to store acetone in oxyacetylene torches Benefits derived by banning this product would total less than tenth of a avoided Exposures during primary manufacture are low due to the enclosed nature of this rule All such new uses will be banned from manufacture importation processing and distribution in - commerce as of Stage 1 unless EPA grants an exemption application for the product or use In view of the following factors EPA finds that the use of asbestos in new products whose commercial manufacture importation or processing is initiated after the effective date of this rule's bans poses an unreasonable risk of injury to human health 1 The development of substitute fibers 2 the potential for high lifetime risks related to exposure to asbestos due to the manufacture . the product's production process Exposures in stages of the product's life . cycle beyond primary manufacture are likely to be limited relative to other product categories because the product is enclosed and there is little exposure during product repair or disposal compared to other products analyzed for this rule EPA does not believe that a ban is appropriate for this product category for the following reasons 1 Current substitutes are more expensive than asbestos products and little information is available on the relative performance characteristics of substitutes therefore importation processing and use of new reasonable cost suitable substitutes asbestos products 3 the likely may not be available for all applications escalation of environmental loading of of these products 2 this product asbestos if the manufacture importation processing or distribution in commerce of new asbestos products category accounts for only a minuscule portion of U.S. asbestos consumption approximately 584 tons in 1985 and 3 were allowed 4 the speculative a ban on this product category would benefitosf new uses of asbestos and 5 the absence of cost related to result in only minimal benefits because asbestos exposure is limited in most life modification of existing capital cycles stages relative to other products equipment Therefore EPA finds that the analyzed for this rule benefits of banning new commercial ii Arc chutes These products are asbestos products outweighs the costs of used to guide electric arcs in products such a ban Should a new use of including motor starter units in electric asbestos be developed which meets the generating plants The benefits derived criteria applied to exemptions for from a ban on this product would total existing asbestos products set out in Unit III.E of this preamble and 763.173 only a small fraction of a cancer avoided Although EPA has no data on for an exemption should be applied maybe granted and 7 1. Categories and activities not SA subject to this rule's ban This grouping includes acetylene cylinders arc chutes asbestos diaphragms battery separators grade electrical paper exposure for productsin this category exposures in product life cycle stages beyond primary manufacture are likely to be limited relative to other product categories because the asbestos is bound in ceramic in the end use product EPA does not believe that a ban is missile liners packings reinforced plastic sealant tape specialty industrial appropriate for this product category for . the following reasons 1 Insufficient gaskets and textiles These products i information was available regarding were generally proposed for a third exposure to determine the benefits of this stage ban or a ban via the operation of a |; banning this product 22 product permit system These products are category accounts for only a minuscule exempted from the final rule's bans ! portion of U.S. asbestos consumption because based on available |) approximately 13.5 tons in 1985 information EPA has not found that iii Asbestos diaphragms These they pose an unreasonable risk of injury ! products are used primarily in the chlor- to human health under the criteria of TSCA section 6. EPA will reconsider itsinjury alkali industry in the production of chlorine caustic soda and other PAM 912-265-3757 912-265-3757 >D R LEMEN for Barry C.