Document RprZV78d9V37zpdevbwV8pXz7

Federal Register / Vol. m, Mu. la J Wednesday, January 29, 1966 / Propoaed Rule* 3749 However. EPA acknowledges (hut u asbestos products within a certain 1. Ban the oebeetos conetmctinn higher percentage o( secondary category at the same time. EPA la product* category and af&eitas clothing rocesiors are likely to be email uslnetaes then the percentage of primary processors that ere email buslnessos. In addition, s of (ha li considering a category approach for groupa of asbestos products with startler uxposuro pattern*, similar exposure control Issues, and similar substitutes. toon afterpromulgation of the rule, bon the aebeetoefriction product! category about t yean later, andgather additional Information an other companiee that manufacture (he products that thta rule proposes tu ban are email bualnetsae. This proposed rule could have significant Impact on theee lav* companiee.. The estimated costs of the ruls could bo seen ns significant. However. the overall benefits to society of asbeetoscontalnlog products are diminishing with the current availability and the continued development or various nanasbestos substitutes. The costs of Ihe rule are speculative and probably are overestimated. In addition, many economic Impacts of fids nils are Ukely to be short-term and spread across large populations with only negligible Impact on the typical consumer. This rule Is not expected to cause dramatic price Increases In typical consumer product*. Consumer losses caused by this rule would be spread across the entire consumer population. Jobs displaced by this tula ore likely to be offset by Examples of categories under' consideration are construction products and Mcttonprodacta. EPA belloves It mRy be good public policy to ban categories of products at the same time. This approach would address similar exposure patterns In tbs same way and rreut all parts of sit Industry sector similarly. In addition, both fits construction products category and the friction products category contain products that could substitute for other products In the categcry If ell ere not banned. Thua, a bon of the entire category urey bo necestaiy to reddue risk most effectively. One option under active consideration In addition to the ones embodied in tho proposal Is Penning ths.manufacture. Importation, and processing of the asbestos construction products category end asbestos clothing with the ben effective soon after promulgation of the aebeetoe products. Uader this alternative. EPA would bon the manufacture. Importation, and processing of the asbestos construction products category (Le* asbestos-cement pipe end fittings, roofing felts, flooring felts and felt-becked sheet flooring, vtnyt-aebestoa Door tile, corrugated asoestot-aeniait sheet. Oat-asbestoscement sheet, and asbestos-cement shingle*) and sebeitos clothing soon altar promulgation of the rule. Effective suhstllulei exist (or those products. The rule would also ban the manufacture, Importation, and processing of the asbestos friction products category (I.e, drum brake linings, disc brake pads far light, medium, and heavy vehicles, broke Mocks, dutch facings, automatic transmission friction components, and Industrial sod commercial friction materials) t yean after promulgation of the rule. This eltamefive would reduce exposure to asbestos without tbs Increased employment In companies producing substitutes for asbestos products. IHrtenUel consumer und producer custs ere likely to be offset by rale; banning the manufacture, Importation, and processing of tho asbestos friction products category about 5 years after promulgation of the edndnlstrstive burden of EPA establishing and operotlog a permit eyslam os in the proposed approach. This alternative,by banning asbestos the economic costs avoided by this rule. I.e, avoidance of the morbidity coats of Bsbnstoa-nrlated diseases; the cost of remove) and disposal of uslieetos products; the coals of special control to reduce exposure to asbestb; and costs associated with legal actions seeking compensation for ssbcstos-relutixf iUncssos end deaths, finally. the estimated costs of this rule appear reasonable in view or the unrevsonably large number of esliestos-reUiled deaths and serious Illnesses that would occur wirhnut a phase-out of asheelo*. Rl'A expects that this proposed rule would have e positive Impact on technological Innnvatiou and encourage the continued rapid development of nonaabeatoa substitute products. This development of new products is likely lo Involve signiflcan! technukstlcal limovollon. rulu; and gathering up-to-date production, exposure, and use date on the remaining asbestos products under miction 8|s) of TSCA to support possible ben* of other asbestos products at that time. Another option (s banning the manufacture, importation, and processing of the asbestos construction products category, asbestos etcthing, sod the unbestoe friction products cnUigoiy as staled above and banning Ihe remaining usbcelos products at u Inter lime (eg.. 10 years), thus allowing Um far the development of effective subslinitns while strongly encouraging sulihltliitc development, A third opllan is tanning the manufacture. Importation, and processing of the asbestos construction products calegoty end ushvstns dolhtng as stated above and covering alt other asbestos products under the phase-down. Under each of friction products s years alter promulgation, would strongly encourage the rapid development of additional effective substitutes for asbestos friction products. The 4-roor delayed ban would also allow time far expansion of production capacity for non-oabestoe friction products. EPA estimates that this alternative, assuming currant exposure levels, would avoid about 2.100 cancer coses that EPA con quantify while ousting about 42.ll billion. This is a coat of about 1.01 million per cancer ceee avoided. Because dSHA has proposed lowering the workplace PEL (or osbestoe to 0.2 f/cc. EPA olio eataaled the numbers of cancer cases avoided assuming strict compliance with this : lower PEL Assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. EPA estimates Uut this altamatlva would IV. Other Options Considered lilt! options. EPA la algo considering a svotd about 1,080 cancer cases that EPA Section C of TSCA requires that K1*A apply the least burdensome requlnmienla to reduce on unrtmaonublu risk. CPA is considering s number of requirement that products not banned soon after promulgation be labeled as rnnluii ling asbestue. EPA is actively considering these can quantify, while costing about 12.11 billion. This la a coat of smut S&OO million per cancer case avoided. To determine how sensitive tho cost options for Implementing the regulatory options aa oUentatlvea to this proposed per cancer case avoided was to the policy of phasing out the manufacture mla and specifically requests comment Donning of particater products. EPA and Importation of esbestue products. cm these alturnallvos. EPA may adopt a conducted a sensitivity analysis, These options Involve staged hens of final rule based closely on one or a - excluding asbestos-cement pipe from the categories of asbestos products. This combination of these alternatives- Those ban. apnrouch would ban the manufacture, ulterontivm are discussed mare fully Without a bon of asbestos-cement importation, und processing of uil below. t pipe and assuming strict compliance FMSI02440