Document 6wY5mE060p1dYey74MZod0xJo

I Federal Register / Vol, 51, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, IBM { Proposed Rules 3747 tilo products on# cost cofupqUtivu ami . Fibrous glass appears id be InUtnded as esbestos substitutes may are suitable tor moat application*. Uaw ixwslderahty huts hazardous than wish to dismiss their.plan* with CPA nm hI*o number of producte that cun asbestos baiod on (1) morbidity and during a pmnotfee oensuhatlon. Sodi a aubstitata for aibestos-cenwnt sheet a* mortality studies In worker* (Zj in Ww onnsuhaifon ran be arranged by a laboratory desk top.end fume hood and in vitro experimental data, (3| the contacting the Prenotlca booth. However, It appears that order of magnitude loytar exposure Communlcstions Coordinator by comparably priced product* may out potential tn the worimtaoe, (Ifthe telephone at (303-382-9745) or by fully match the qaatitint of ssbesto*' generally less respirable nature of dm writing to the Prenoticn Communication* ia>uwnt shoot to the** application*. airborne fibers, sod (ft) tho Ian durable Coordinator, Chemical Control Division h. Anbttt>t(M-cemoni s/t/ity/us. Thorc nature of the fibers Lo the fangs. (TS-794). Environmental Protecpoa a auhslltultftt (or uaUnituerceizunil shingles for both roofing nl skiing b. Mineral wood does riot appear to prevail the significant risks that AgHnny. 401M8USW^ Wasblngtbn.dC 20400. Through a pranottoe consultation. applications. The primary substitute* (or asbestos d&es bated oo (1) limited HPA can inform potential FMN aubcstos-ocment roofing shingles are uspbaU'filmrKUss (imposition shlngfrw, codiir wood snlnglos. aod various xynlhulii; and natural tile*, such as Mumny n-uffag tilo and cuncretu tile_ Arph.iit-fibofgfaes composition shinglo* wwl about half as much es nsbirslps* luimant shluglos in terms of purchuRn and msUllxtion costs but have only about half the operating life. Cudur wood shingles have a slightly greater . cost Itan asbesloa-uejnen! shingtoi but have a greutar operating Ufa. SobstiUti a* Tor asbettOB-canHmt shingle siding indude wood, wood shingle* aluminum siding, PVC elding, stucco or concrete block, vinyl, oud brick. Aluminum end PVC siding sra Ujlh virtually Identical to asbestos* comonl shingles in terms of price and durHliilityrpcdur shingle elding is also very competitive Ip tceqyi of price, tiut it Is somewhat fuss durable. The total sutatitulc mprkol fur both application* Ih approxlrnufaly a* follows: AsphollvTilw:ry|*H-.,.~--30 |a*fv?ni SV,viJ &KI5 penant Aluminum Btt*nR... .,.--^--ft- (0 pnruunt l*V<; aiding.;....... .......... -..... ...... S-injwiaul flrir.li. itf.i..... --. --.....S pn*vir Z. i\uteiMrt hotanfa ol'suiutiluhat, KMA bus emilyued available datu on tho health e(Tm:ls of major substitute* for nntaxlus (Ruf. 14). Some of Ihr animal data end morbidity and mortality studies for workers, and (2) the lower exposure potential In the workplace. c. Ceramic fibers do not appear to present a comparable risk to that of asbestos based primarily on (t) the moderate workplace concentrations, and (31 the specialised applications whlrh include Its encapsulation or incorporation Into products. d. Carbon/graphite fiber* am probably nut a significant health risk based on tho (I) uss of coatings rtn the fibor* wbicb oiuy reduce their rnspirabdity, sod (2) low Uitrinsiu roBpirubllUy characteristics. l*. Aremid fibers appear to presonf ralelively fnw risk because they are basically nonresplrabte us currvntty produced und pnicsssed. f. fHilyelhylrjnc rmd polypnjpi;hmr pulps Mild fibers appear to prrwcril relolivnly little risk since lh#?y appear to hu rclstivcly nontoxic am) nanrcspirsble. g. AUupulgitu ha* bigu general exposure potential but avaOubln eviilunna suggests that allapulgile from li.S. minus may pmsant Htth lunun). In addition, sttapulgite Is not n major substitute for asbeslo*. h. Polyvtnvlcholorid* drum nut appear lo present n Veallb hazard cempaialde Id asbestos, nilbough vinyl rhlmfrle. the miuuKner used tu pradurto submitter* of legal raqolramenle, poesihle RPA health ocmccms about the Mibstarica, and poirible test data that RPA may believe necasaan to evaloale the risk potential of the tnbstsnce. During a pranottoe consultation sod any PMN review of a new chemical substance that la Intended a* * substitute for asbestos, EPA will consider the raUUva'risk* presented by the astasias substitute. KPA will make every reasonable effort to provide prompt and clear Information coTtftcming the likely result of PMN review In view of EPA*s policy of encouraging lass hazardous substitute* for Asbestos. /). tu'OWiu'i' of Pntptts**! Ruin This portion of the preamble pnwmls EPA'* determination of tho Mre*gmwbty AsnerfaJnxhJs e^mwimjnmnsixjjwor^* of the rule" ss required liy rxii*m 6(cKHIOJ ofTBCA. EPA he* prepared a "ReguUtory bnpHul Analysis of Controls on Afthostos Products*" (Ref- 3| which sTVflyio* the potential ecnnomtr imped of this proposed nils. Tto ennymir impact (e sumnmrtzrd amf nxpUimxt taluv. Fjnlm^ieii <s>et aro wal'ly fnre Iflttl Unto obtained onder KPA'i atc?hm 8|a) Mttastns reporting rul* [40 CFR 7riMy)J. substitute* such as wund-lwsod polyvfaylthlorlde. ii n enndnogen. Thu Rome of ihr dliln wnr* od|u>M (o products (e.g., rirtiltluflo Iltar product:*) pelyvinylchbulde prtulurj bsetf preent* reflivil niumcurrent Infonowtinpon arv<i construrlion products made of br*r:W littie risk and workplace expuxur.su nra prod.inll.in of asbestos pmdudv. and nonerHte uppear to present Utile oppuronliy adequately umtmlled. Sp^jifically, RPA gathered more current rink. White ulhm substitutes pmsm.l 1. Ltudik- Iron pipe does not pres*ml a InfannHihm >m the vnto of asbestos noma risk. RPA Hum concluded thaUho hnullh hazard nompargbln to Inal of cfatKing and SKtasfos flooring Ml and availahU* information Ruggtrsfx that nom* naiwplQ*. then adjusted the estimated cost* and of the sufrslitutas app.Nir to present as HPA recognizes that some uslauttos irrmcfUfl of the rule to rvQent dccibilng gm.ii u potential for risk to human ^ibsiltutns may be new chemical uto uf itase products. The sources of the hisillti as usUctrio*. EPA mwdu t:\hmirivn Rubitanprs for which a prumanufactiii** informiUan are noted lo the retard for use of the work of the National Rmearvh nnfii-r (I^N) must be submitted under thin rufa. The costs ore presented as the Gumrjl and agrees with thulr coni.fuaion secthm 5 of TSC.A. A gual of EPA'sPMN net present value of nosts incurred due tliHi: "Currant popolatuxi risk from review pmgrsm Is to nnrourtign.lhe lo taiingas in ssbestos product uxpoayrea to the various substances dtrvnUipnmnt uf new chumlca) pnxiuriioa between 1BA6 and 2000. rousiriered. intruding fibrous ptasn, 8ul)iuni-i`ft that are lass hnwrdoue than Costs nre likely to be overelated einrr ultuixdgltn. Hod curiton fibers, appom* the chtioucsl subaiances they replace. ihu IjNeaUno prodaetton Urveio used in to bo much less than lor risk from KPA entourages the duvelopmenl of less thn cost modsl probably overstate mW'os. oapnclnfiy chrysotilu'< (Rof. A). luizunlou* new chemical substances us production In Ita future. In addition, th Thu corxduHiooi of KKA's analysis id asbestos replacements. Poteutial vct estimation modal assumes that (he shImO Jtittoa follows. ffav*i<Tp*rf of new chemical eubsUmca* relative prices of substitute* lor FMSI02438 T