Document 9JkrOod1qad6Rj5VqL2X7xLwV

FILE NAME: Asbestos Cement Pipe and Sheet (ACPS) DATE: 1986 Jan 27 DOC#: ACPS117 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: AIA Memo to Members RE Supplementary Comments & Info on EPA Proposed Ban 7 '. - ^ ^ i t it lt iil^ t i s ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION M)RMAM>CA 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway. Crystal -Square 4, Suite 509 Arlington, V9'0ia 2220 2 (?D3> 9 7 9 -1 1 5 0 - *> January 27, 1986 JX fc o ` a arr Memorandum For: AIA/NA MEMBERS ^ tv^Ov'-- Jt^CA. Subject: Supplementary Comments and Information on EPA's Proposed Rule to Ban and,.Phase Out Uses of Asbestos AIA/NA memorandum of January 24 forwarded to you initial information pertaining to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) pro posed rule to ban the use of five asbsetos-containing products and phase out all remaining uses of asbestos in the United States over the next 10 years. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide yotrwith additional information on the specifics of the proposal and to assist you in responding to various inquiries and in pro viding information to customers as may be deemed appropriate. -The proposal is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on January 29, 1986. First, as emphasized in the January 24 memorandum, while the issu-anee of EPA*s proposed rule is a disappointment to the industry, it is nevertheless a proposal. It is a long way from becoming a final regulation. As you Know, the EPA proposal has been under consideration for over six years. The Association is on public record opposing such dranconlan action as unjustified-- based on the absence in today's use of asbestos of any "unreasonable risk," Such finding of an "unreasonable risk" is required by the Toxic Substances Control Act prior to promulgation of any final rule. In addition, EPA's proposed action is clearly out-of-step with the consensus of a number of international bodies that have thoroughly studied the asbestos issue (EEC, XLO & WHO). These organizations and other world nations favor the control of asbestos rather than the ban approach. As to the actual proposal (see excerpt from prepublication copy enclosed), the rulemaking procedure calls for submission of com ments 90 days after publicacin in the Federal Register (April 29, 1986) with public hearings to later follow. After this, EPA will assess the record and then will likely prepare and submit to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (0MB) a final rule for review. It is safe to assume that EPA's preparation and submission to OMB of any final rule will not, at the earliest, occur before sometime in 1987. This would mean an effective date of January 1, 1988 or, if a final rule is published within the last four months of next year, the effective date would be January 1, 1989. The fact that OMB cleared issuance of a ducts and phase-out the use of asbestos proposed does nut rule to ban pro imply that OMB 6187 /VCXHmrrXfL. ! HAR 00010038  Page 2 support will be forthcoming for the same drastic approach in any final rule* There are many complex issues to be addressed and reconciled in the rulemaking process. Suffice it to say that the issuance of an EPA proposed rule to bring about the demise of the U.S. asbestos industry does not in any way assure that such an event will occur. t?e do not believe that EPA will be able, as required in order to issue the proposed rule, to support with substantial evidence its preliminary finding of unreasonable risk. AIA/NA p-lans to submit evidence to the agency to demonstrate that risk fro use of today *& products are not unreasonable. On one hand, EPA overestimates ex posures to asbestos in use of today's products and the adverse health effects that might be caused by such low exposures. On the other hand, the agency underestimates the value to society of these asbestos-containing products and the potential risks that would ex ist with uncontrolled use of substitute non-asbestos products. 't is appropriate to comment briefly on the other three regulatory options discussed in BPA*s proposed rule. These alternatives to the actual, proposed rule are attached and invited to your atten tion. The alternatives give credence to the fact that EPA's pro posal is a worst-case scenario and is not one cast in concrete. Enclosures cc: Joseph A. Artabane, SB&H Joseph C. Jackson, AACPP Paul LaFleur, Canadian Embassy Gary Nash, AI Sir Neville Stack. AIA Edward W. Warren, K&E Robert V. Witeck, Gray & Co. 6188 r*rr* HAR 00010039