Document Rpn85myQY5mEOja7gZKK1rxBE

Appeals Panel Overturns Ban On Asbestos Court Reverses EPA Rules I Ending Remaining Uses | Of Carcinogen by 1997 By Barbara Rosewicz Stiff Reporter of The Wall Stkext Journal : WASHINGTON - The beleaguered as bestos Industry won a major court victory overturning a federal ban on products that stBl use the cancer-causing material, such asiautomobile brakes and construction ma terials. ; A federal appeals panel in New Orleans soundly rejected a 1989 regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency that aimed to eliminate almost all remaining uses of asbestos in the U.S. by 1997. The ruling reopens a debate over the hifch costs of eliminating the last uses of thfe fibrous natural material, which is blamed for 3,000 to 12,000 deaths annually. I4rg?ly because of the higher costs of sub stitutes. the regulations were expected to cost the industry and consumers $460 mil lion to $800 million. The decision is for now a boon to U.S. companies that still manufacture replace ment brakes, asbestos-cement pipe and construction materials such as asbestos coatings, shingles and paper products. An other beneficiary is Canada, the secondlargest producer of asbestos after the So viet Union, which protested the EPA regu lation for banning its asbestos exports to the U.S. Asbestos use has been sharply curtailed since the 1970s after its harmful health ef fects were discovered. The EPA adopted its sweeping ban on most remaining prod ucts to prevent an estimated 200 more can cer deaths over a 13-year period, primarily among workers exposed to fibers from such items as worn brake shoes and as bestos-cement pipes. The appeals court, though, concluded, "The EPA has presented insufficient evi dence to justify its asbestos ban," which the agency had worked on for 10 years. The court didn't challenge the EPA's scientific basis that asbestos poses a health risk; the mineral is blamed for lung can cer and other incurable respiratory dis eases among miners and insulation workers. But it ruled the EPA didn't prove its case that asbestos products still on the market pose unreasonable risks and faulted the agency for failing to consider less economically burdensome steps to re duce health risks from the asbestos prod ucts, short of a total ban. "The opinion doesn't vindicate as bestos," said Linda Fisher, EPA actant administrator. She said the agency is con sidering whether to appeal the ruling, to beef up its analysis to satisfy shortcomings cited by the appeals court or to revamp its regulation. But the ruling, providing rare good | news for the asbestos industry, renewed manufacturers' hopes that a total ban can be avoided in favor of tougher workplace and installation restrictions that would keep the products on the market. A portion of the asbestos ban is already in effect, but the ruling comes in time to temporarily stave off a 1993 ban on as bestos friction products, including brakes on new cars, and most industrial gaskets. The last batch of products would be banned by 1996, with distribution illegal af ter 1997, and includes replacement brakes, asbestos-cement pipe used mainly for wa ter and sewer lines, coatings, paper prod ucts and shingle. The court also bolstered the industry's stance that the costs of banning certain products are excessive compared with the health benefits. It singled out estimates that banning asbestos pipe will save three lives over 13 years, at a cost of about $128 million to $227 million, or about $43 million to $76 million for each life saved. "EPA, in its zeal to ban any and all as bestos products, basically ignored the cost side" of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which specifically requires a balancing of costs and benefits, the,court wrote. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TUESDAY. OC HWBUI0004563