Document R2JyYJv8ag6eKGOYnRjjXMj8z

Fedora] Register / Vol SI, No. 19 / Wednesday, january 2, 1986 / Proposed Roles 3781 permits; whether permits would he llntr. Asbestos fibers easily roentnr (hr the next 15 year*. Tfila role would avoid transferable, whether permlta would be atmosphere after settling out and cen about 1.000 of those cancer ease*. bankable; and how Imported product* travel long distances through the Btr. B. The estimated costs of this containing asbestos would be treated. 3. Health risks from exposure to proposed rule are reasonable In view of EPA also considered & number of options before adopting It* current asbestos fibers during the lifecycle of tho asbestos products coveredby this the number of cancers and other adverse health effects that would be regulatory strategy (or controlling the proposed rule occur to many population avoided. Substitutes for asbestos ore risk from asbestos. These options Hie groups during many activities. Persons readily available for many products end discussed In documents which are can lie exposed to asbestos fibers long can be expected to become available Included In the rulemaking record. after those fibers have been released to during the phase-dawn period tormost, V. Finding of Unressonabie Risk EPA has weighed the health risks (ram continued use or asbestos and asbestos-containing products againat the coats attributable to the proposed regulation. EPA has concluded, that the avoidance of about 1.830 cancer cates that can be quantified assuming current exposure levels, or the 1.0UQ cancer cases that can be quantified assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. many other cancer cases that cannot be quantified, and many cases of esbeBtoe-related disease substantially outweigh the costs to consumers, producers, and users of asheslos product* from the proposed regulation. Therefore, EPA finds that the continued mining end Importation ofashcstci* end R*ba*lnt products in the United States for domestic use and for export present an unreasonable risk to human health. The finding Is bnsed on the following points: 1. Tho health effocts from aalmstos nxposure are very aerluus. Asbestos U a demonstrated human carcinogen. The cuncers caused by asbestos are usually fetal and cause much pain and suffering In addition, asbestos causes other tong diseases such as asbestosls. 2. Avsilubie evidence supports the conclusion tbnl there Is no safe tax'd of exposure to asbestos. This conclusion is consistent withpresent theory of cancer etiology and Is further supported by the many documented cases whore low or shotl'lerm exposure has been shown tn causa asbestos-related disease. 3. Models developed to estimate the reinlive risk of developing enneer from oxpoBtne to asbestos show a linear dose-response relationship. Based on data rrom epidemiology studies, those models predict that humans exposed to very low levels of asbestos Incur some risk. Individuals frequently exposed to levels typically found at asbestos workBiles are estimated to have very tho air and at considerable distance U not ell other use*. Even though the from the source of release. The vest costs era probably overestimated, the majority of the general population of the cost per cancer case avoided, assuming U.6. Is exposed to asbsitoa in the air. current exposure levels, that EPA can More than *0,000 workers are exposed quantify. Is about $1 * million. Even If during manufacture and processing of OSHA promulgates and achieves strict aabusloa products covered by this compliance wtlh a PEL of 02 f/cc. the proposal. Many additional thousands of coat per cancer caee evoldod that EPA workers and consumers era exposed can quantify la about 81J99 million. If ell during product Installation, use, cancer cases and the Incidence of other maintenance, renovation, removal and diseases could be quantified, the cost disposal of asbestos products. Finslly. par caae of disease prevented would be many millions of people who reside near substantially lower. In addition, the asbestos worksites are also exposed to overall costs of the rule are spread over significant concentrations of asbestos In a large population so that the cost to any the air. individual would be negligible. Further. 6. Using typical rather than wom ens*. data and assumptions, EPA has EPA oxpecti substantial savings to result from this tula from such factors as estimated that this proposed rule avoided costs in treating asbestos banning ceriein asbostos products arid related diseases, avoidance of lost phasing nut all others. II promulgated, productivity caused by these diseases, would avoid approximately l.WO coses avoided costa tn asbesto* removal and of cancer which would otherwise result disposal, and avoidance of Utlgatton from exposure to asbestos between the coats resulting from asbestos disease years 19U5 to 20ca EPA underestimated claims. the number of cancer ceees avoided EPA also finds that the costs of because of the lack of comprehensive alternatives 1,2. end 3 are reasonable tn date on releases or asbestos to the view of the numbers of cancers snd ambient oil from many activities. EPA other advene health effects that (hey estimates that the fallowing numbers of would avoid. The costs per cancer case cancer cases would be avoided as a avoided that EPA can quantify of these resell of the proposed product ban*, altornativee are approximately the same aisuming both current exposure levels as tor the proposed rule. and strict compliance with an OSHA At discussed earlier, EPA coedacted a PEI. of05 f/cc. sensitivity analysis to see how sensitive the cost per cancor case avoided by this role and the cost per cancer avoided by "cMwl0c$4jm the regulatory alternatives discussed earlier were lo the banning of particular f Aid products. Specifically. EPA analysed the t/S cost per cancer case avoided (or the proposal and the other options fetentofr Gfc#<9---- ------- - 1 0 excluding asbestos-cement pipe or w tt m vinly-asbestos floor tile from the bane. F*tog tafl---------- -------------- 0 0 Even with these relatively high exposure HdoVv M------------------- ---------- i 4 products excluded from the baas, the cost per cancer Case avoided by (he These estimates of cancer cases ' proposal end the alternatives ora avoided by die product bans ibould not similar. high risks of contracling cancer, perhaps greater then 1 tn 100. t, Asbestos fibers ere colorless, odorless, and frequently Invisible, thus be viewed In Isolation, sloes asbestos use tn other product sectors would theoretically decrease at lass than the current rate unlast alt asbestos use Is For example. Without a ban of Btbeatos-cement pipe and assuming strict cotnpUaoca with an OSHA PEL of 05 f/cc, this proposed rule would cost presenting risk lo'persons not aware phased out, about $1,90 million per cancer case that they maybe exposed. Asbestos r. Even U OSHA prnmulgntes and avoided that EPA can quantify. Without fibers ore extremely durable and have achieves strict compliance with a PEL of a ben of vinyl-asbestos floor tile and aerodynamic properties that allow them 0.2 f/cc. almost 1,325 cancers would sup assuming strict compliance with an - to remain suspended in the air for a long result from asbestos products made over OSHA PW. of 05 f/cc. this proposed tufa FMSI 02442