Document GmYQrGZjz8bqReZXLdxerrX4n

8708 Fmicro! Rcglatw / Vo], S3, N. 19 / \Vr?dnBiiday jununry 29, 19H0 / Frupoped Rules usbestos products will rtmuin nonMunl over the lirao period uteri fur measurement of cueti. Actually. price differentials are Ukely to decreasa ovw time. Two type* ol costs ere csttmoted in tho R1A: (l) Coats to consumers and (21 coils to producer*, These arc discussed below, lbs costs represent the present value of losses Incurred pvui the 1&>yeur period from 1985 to 2000. using a' discount rate of to percent. 1. Consumer tosses doe to the roll? wouhJ result from increases in costs incurred tor asbestos products or substitutes for asbestos products and from inferior performance of substitute product*. Total consumer losses due to the ruta are estimated to be $1.77 button. However, this tow would be spread dcross the entiro consumer population and would average leas than $10 per consumer over IS pear*. This rulo would not cause dramatic coat increases In typical consumer products, 2. losses would accrue to producers at a result of foe rule when producers are forced to forgo some portion of the return on fodr eapitai stock used to produce asbestos product*. Owners of equipment which con be readily converted to make other products urv not expected to lose Denny na much as owners of equipment which cannot bo easily converted. Total producer costs are estimated to be about $208 million for the rulo.' 3. In addition, the rule would result In transition coats to worker* who are displaced by phasing down production of asbestos products. These losses are Incurred in the form of lost wages and Job search costs. KPA behove* that transition coats of foe phase-down will bo rchfiii'cly modest store (hr rule wuuld ulluw industry to scale buck production gradually and shift production to other products and that the transition costs 1rum the proposed product bans will be small In oompurisun to the consumer mul producer costs. The sum of these costs, about $1.9* billion, represents the estimated total real resource costs of the rule. This cost would be spread over IK years. Thu cost wilt also be spread over a large population and the Impact on mtnu persons would be oegjlglble. In addition, EPA estimated the real rc*oun;n costs of the product baus proposnd in thts rule. These astimateh are shown below: Proa** A.'C FS+__________ F*Ocr *_____________ trips IMbi Ftooftag m....... ....... ..... mq mi RkM itwcr co*t U>hickM>V........ . MW** Roc** w*._______________fi.i Wits. The above costs at the rule will bn offset tu some pvtent tiy (bo following avotdrd costa. By reducing the amount of asbestosrelated deaths and Hlneiuw* this rule would reduce the cost to society of the health resources used to mot asbestnsrelatisl Illnesses lag., hospital and medical treatment) nnd the productivity I wages Hnd lost work capacity of sick workers, cite.) lost na a result of Illness caused by osbestOH exposure. CPA estimate, thal the avoided morbidity cost is about (1J273 per case. This Is measured In 1S8S dollitrs using u TOpercent discount rate. this figure Is selativeiy low because people generally contract mesothelioma or lung cancer after a long latency period. Thus most medics)' costs occur far in the future and ere therefore - discounted heavily. WA did not attempt In value tbs loss of life Itself. In addition, no vahurwas assigned to "pain and suffering." "loss of'leisure rime,'" and hlher similar losses. Substantial ssbastos removal and disposal cosls would he avoided as a result of this proposed rule. These Include s vetoed expense, ns well as avoided health risks for people exposed during removal and disposal activities, llte ofnonasbeslos products tn construction reduces demolition and disposal costs In the future. Removal and disposal costs of products era likely to be considerably higher for asbestos products than uonasbeslos substitutes Irename of the extra precautions required to meat OSHA end Clcun Air Act (CAA) requirements. Avoided removal end disposal costs ere a ma)ur benefit of this proposed regulation. These costs can he substantial. EPA has estimated that removing uebestoe from school buildings costs between $2 end $13 per square foot of asbestos removed. OSHA and EPA both huve regulations to limit osbcsloi exposure at wort sitesCertain costs related tu cotnpUonee with there regulations would b avoided as a result of this role. To comply with OSHA's current workplace standard for iisbostos. amptoyers Incur expenses rtrlutod in: o. Monitoring tor fibers. b. Providing engineering tnrthods In control exposures (this indudes enclosing or Isolating Bsbestos fiber generating activities, prodding exhaust vcnttlulhm, dust collection, etc.) i- Providing hand tods such as sows, scorers, drills, and abrasive wheels that have local exhaust ventilation systems. tl. Modifying work practice* tn redact, r.vptisnre. u. Providing special clothing, change nairas lockets, and special laundering. f. labeling asbestos malarial and posting cuutton signs. g. Providing special procedures fur collection und processing of asbeslw waste. h. Providing medical examinations for employees exposed to asbestos. I. Responding to recnidkoeptng and reporting requirements. EPA'# CAA regulsttorrs require that nnllvtrlct during milling, maouluclure. (IcmoHlioo and renovation, waste disposal, and same other asbestos- minted activities release "no visible emissions." To comply with this requirement, persons must obtain and maintain air-deeping devices such as filler, and may be required to modify work sod waste disposal practices ro' reduce emissions. In addition, both OSHA and EPA nwy require stricter workplace controls fat asbestos in the nsm future. The costs of complying with those requirements would be avoided at least tn pert hy Bits rule. United Stum, courts and workman's enmpenantton boards have been' inundated with thousands of claims fat compensation for deaths end Illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos. Some past producers of asbestos products nave declared bankruptcy because of these many claim*. The continued use of usbestos cun only exocetbate the problem. Each case of disease avoided relieves the various systems affected of a considerable burden. This rule, by reducting exposure to atbealws end reducing the number of esbeslos-related illnesses und doBlhs. would reduce these costs. * As required by section 6(c)[lMD) of THCA.EPA has anelyred the economic Impact of this proposed rale on email businesses. The effect of this nil* cm such businesses Is expected to be small because fl) there are few small businesses producing asbestos products and |21 producer losses are expected tn be small since capita) equipment for production of most asbestos products min be converted fairly easily lo Other forms of production. A moxlmum of V out of the 212 primary processors of asbestos products are small businesses. H'A acknowledges that these 27 companies enulo Incur losses under the rule. REA was unable to determine how many of the secondary processors of asbestos products ere small businesses. FMSI 02439