Document X7OK8RxQ1KnJ545O8eNv26aZB

Wednesday January 29, 1986 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 46 era Part 763 Asbestos; Proposed Mining and import Restrictions and Proposed Manufacturing Importation and Processing Prohibitions ; HWBUI0001375 3738 Federal Register / VoL 51. No- 19 / Wednesday. January 2S. 1986 / Proposed Rules .. ..................................................................... .. v&4 -iii ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OATH: Public hearings will be held AGENCY beginning approximately May 14 1934 The exact times and locations of the 40 CFR Part 763 hearings will be available by calling EPA's TSCA Assistance Office. [OPTS-203; FPL 2M7-3] Comments on this proposed rule and Aebostoa,* Proposed Mining and Import Restrictions and Proposed Manufacturing, importation, and Presetting Prohibitions requests to participate in the informal hearings must be submitted by April 23. 1886. Reply comments made in response to issues raised at each hearing must be submitted nc later than l week after tha *ofS4Cf: Environmental Protection Agency (SPA). 4OT* Proposed rule. close of that hearing. AOOAUS: Since some comments are expected to contain confidential business information, all comments Sumbaw; EPA is proposing a rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the Manufacture, importation, and processing of asbestos in certain products and to phase out the use of asbestos in all other products. The products EPA proposes to ban are asbestos-cement pipe and fittings, roofing felts, flooring felts (and feltbacked sheet flooring), vinyl-asbestos floor tile, and asbestos clothing. Under this tula. EPA would also allow only those persons with permits issued by EPA to mine or impart asbestos for use in products that are not banned. Eventually, ail mining or importation of asbestos would be prohibited, except for that mining or importation allowed under an exemption process. EPA is proposing this rule to reduce the serious unreasonable risk to human health presented by exposure to asbestos. As should be sent in triplicate to: Document Control Officer (TS-793). Office of Toxic Substances. Environmental Protection Agency. Rm. E-209. 401M St SW,, >'aahington. DC 20460. Comments should include the docket control number OPTS-82088. Nonconfidential comments and nonconfidential versions of confidential comments received on this proposal will be available for reviewing and copying from 8 a.ra. to 4 p.m.. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, in Rm. 'E-107, at the address given above, ran miRTHDI ntFOUMATKKI CCWACH Edward A. Klein. Director. Offica of TSCA Assistance (TS-799), Office at Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency. Rm. E-543,401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20480. Toil free: (800-424-9065). In Washington. DO (554-1404). Outside the USA: (Operator--202-554-1404). an alternative, EPA is considering summMMrMY mformation: prohibiting the manufacture, importation and processing of categories of asbestos L Introduction products at staged intervals. EPA is considering banning the manufacture, importation, and processing of asbestos Asbestos, since the advent of its large scale use, has resulted in thousands of painful, premature deaths from lung construction products and asbestos clothing soon after the rule's promulgation with the category of cancar and other diseases. Because of tha widespread use of asbestos and its particular nature, piecemeal control of asbestos friction products banned about the risks it presents is not satisfactory: S years later, and other asbestos only elimination of asbestos to the products banned at a later time. EPA extent feasible will produce acceptable believes that this alternative approach would also be an effective way of reduction of risks. Prevention of further deaths, therefore, requires forceful, reducing the serious unreasonble risk integrated action against asbestos risks. presented by exposure to asbestos and specifically requests comment on a To achieve this end EPA has established a coordinated asbestos staged ban of asbestos product program, aimed at controlling exposure categories. Finally, under both this to asbestos from products already in us alternative and the proposed approach. and eliminating risks from future ores. EPA is considering requiring labeling for The rule EPA is proposing today, which all asbestos products that are not would ban certain uses of asbestos and banned, including products phase out all other uses, forms a central manufactured pursuant to permits element of this program. Regulatory issued by EPA during the phase-down alternatives, which are discussed in tins period, or pursuant to an exemption notice and which involve staged bam of process. The Agency requests comments various asbestos product categories, on the feasibility and effectiveness of could also form a central element of the such a requirement. program. The rsks EPA is addressing in this prepcs*! and us overall asbestos p'cs'r i.Ti arc- serious and weil dua:..wined. Asbestos is a known humeo carcinogen that causes lung caae.tr mesothelioma (a cancer of the ches; a.-.d abdominal lining) and ts also finked to other cancers. It has been esi.rnc.sec. mat 3.300 to 12.000 cancer cases s year occur in the United States t usvl'jof past exposure to asbestos skiOsT al aflhese cancer cases are fatal. In addition, asbestos causes anberto*'* (a serious lung disorder). About 3.000 persons in the United States are estimated to be suffering from asbestosia today. Assuming current exposure levels. EPA estimates that about 2.560 persons will develop Sung cancer or mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos from products made over the next 15 years, unless hubesio* exposures are reduced through 'jy.'latury action. As discussed later, even with & relatively low workplace PEL of 0 2 f/cc. EPA estimates that almost 1.375 cancers will result from asbestos products made over the next 15 yrcra. The underlying data upon which the risk assessments for asbestos are based come from a number of high quality epidemiologic studies. Unlike most potential carcinogens, asbestos has been studied often and thoroughly for its effects on humans. Asbestos presents a particularly insidious threat because of the unique quality af its fibers. These fibers are small, colorless, odorless, often invisible except through a microscope, and indestructible in most uses. They can be transported on clothes and other mstenals. and they have aerodynamic features hst allow them to be easily suspended and resuspended in the air and to travel long distances. Once released, asbestos fibers are difficult to detect and contain, and they readily enter the ambient air. Thus persons are exposed not only at the time and place of release, but long after the release has occurred and far from its source. There in cofistani renewal of risk as asbestos fiber* re-enter the atmosphere repeatedly over lima. Despite the known risks of asbestos, substantial amounts of the material are still mined, imported, and used in comma rt,>al products. About 240.000 metric ter.*. tor example, were used domes'-cally in 1984. Hundreds of prods:rs sit still made with asbestos, iadudinji paper and textiles, cement pips and sheets, lues and feits. and aatooicbil* biakes. Asbestos fibers are rek&a to the a.r at many stages of the cotaoeit.ia' life of these products. Typ'Cvl activities 'Ha: lead to the Federal Register / Voi. 51. No. 19 / Wednesday, [amiarv 23. 1988 / deposed Rules 3739 release of asbestos include the mining of both indoors and outside of buildings workers- may die from an asbestos- asbestos, fiber processing into product*, (Ref. 8). Therefore, any comprehensive related disease, furthermore, it is installation of products f.g-- the sawing, control strategy must take into account unreasonable to assume complete drilling, and sanding associated with the potential for exposure during the compliance with a PEL of 0.2 f/cc. asbestos-cement products), product use entire lifecycle of asbestos products. especially given the nature of the (e g- release of fibers during us cf To date. EPA has focused its attention asbestos industry. Many of the w irs-rs asbestos cloth).vproduct msintsnaiice primarily on asbestos in buddings, a exposed are in the service and (e g.. buffing and scraping of vinyi- major source of asbestos release into the construction industries, where wnrkj-tes asbeatos floor tile or repair of aabustos- ambient environment, fa the 1970s, EPA change frequently and the worker containing brakes), dismantling sari removal of products (e.g.. remove* of banned the usa of sprayed-on asbestos and asbeato-containing pipe lagging population i* transient. Also, workers often do not know they are exposed so asbestos roofing felts), an disposal under the Clean Air Act and since then asbestos and therefore will not take the Release of fibers from thess activities has taken steps to reduce risks from necessary precautions. As a result. PELs is substantial, resulting in exposure to asbastos already in place in buildings. It and other exposure controls are difficult both workers and non-workers. EPA has issued an air standard to reduce to apply and enforce. Beyond these estimates that about 700 metric ton* are amissions from asbestos removal and considerations, a workplace-based released to the air during mining ud renovation projects in buildings; issued approach does not address risks to the milling each year, absut 100 metric ions 8 rule requiring inspection of schools for general population. EPA estimates that, during product manuiacturs. end about friable asbestos: and established an even if OSHA reduces the PEL to 0.2 F/ 18 metric tons from landfills. Thess extensive technical assistance program, cc, almost 1.323 cancers wil! still result estimates are probably lev; bectusc which provides guidance to public end from asbestos products made over the they do not include releasee from private building owners on the next i3 years. secondary fabrication of such pfouuct j identification and safe removal of Because of this residual risk. EPA is as millboard and aahaatos-ceimen' rheet orhaetos. EPA has also proposed an proposing under section 8 of TSCA a much of which is done in small stops immediately effective regulation to ban on the manufacture, importation, with inadequate emission coarroh. protect State and local public employees and processing of asbestos-cement pipe Observations that level# of abestos in who take pari in esbestoe abatement and fittings, roofing felts, flooring felts . the air near manufacturing planit j,d in activities. (and felt-backed sheet flooring), vinyl- - : cities are considerably greater than rural These actions are primarily remedial, asbestos floor tile, and asbestos background level# seem to confirm that addressing risks from asbestos already clothing. These uses would be banned these relaaaea occur and are significant. in place; they do no address the because safer, economically competitive Release of asbestos fibers occurs not substantial risks that will result from the substitutes are available, and because only in the manufacture and processing continued manufacture and use of these asbestos uses are likely to of asbestos products, but also in their asbestos. Several other Federal agencies contribute large amounts of asbestos to use and maintenance. This intense an have already taken steps that partially the ambient environment or present occur without the knowledge of the user reduca these risks. The Occupational disproportionately high risk. or maintenance personnel. For example, Safety and Health Administration In addition. EPA is proposing to construction workers tap into asbestos- (OSHA) has an occupational standard establish a permit system to phase out cement pipes already in place. The* for asbestos with a permissible all other asbestos products. Under this workers often do not know that the pipe exposure limit (PEL) of 2.0 f/cc. OSHA system, EPA would allocate permission contains asbestos and thus do not til a has proposed to lower this standard to to mine or impart a specific volume of steps to limit fiber release. Similarly, either 0.2 or 0.8 f/cc. In addition, the asbestos to current miners and significant releasee occur at racuU of Consumer Product Safety Commission importers. The amount of asbestos a the use and rspeir of atbasto* brake* (CPSC) has banned use of respirable miner or importer would be allowed to' and other friction products, which asbestos in consumer patching mine or import would decline every year constituted about 22 percent of the total compounds and artifice! emberizing until after 10 years no mining or asbestos market in 1084. Ambient levuis materials. However, substantial risk to importation would be allowed, except of asbestos are elevated near freeways, workers and the general paoulation under s specific exemption. This permit presumable duets release from erbestos remains. For this reason. EPA believes brakes. that only a major regulatory initiative system would allow the market to allocate asbestos, based on the Thus, the manufacture, processing, under TSCA leading to the eventual availability and cost of asbestos and use of asbestos product* leave e elimination of most asbestos product substitutes. After 10 years. EPA would legacy of asbestos in the ambient air. manufacture and importation can put in place an exemption system for This ambient loading, while difficult to satisfactorily reduce the overall risk to those asbestos applications for which no quantify, is a significant problem. The ail segments of the population. substitutes had been developed. EPA National Academy of Science, after- The limitations of exposure-based anticipates that there will be few such analyzing studies of outdoor oir, regulations in preventing asbestos-fiber applications, because the permit system estimated typical aracBEtMtkmu of release, and the need for more would create strong incentives for the asbestos in outdoor ambient air in urban comprehensive action under TSCA. are areas to be approximately 0.00007 t/cc illustrated by the use of PEL* to control development of substitutes. EPA is also considering a requirement that ail (Ref. 8). Many millions of people are workplace exposure. In the first place, it asbestos products that are not banned daily exposed to these levels of aabsutoi appears infeasible to ast a PEL for be labeled as containing asbestos. This in the air. The National Academy of asbestos iow enough to reduce risk to s would apply to products made pursuant Sciences has also estimated that satisfactory level. Even at 0.2 f/cc. the to permits issued by EPA to mine or persona in urban areas face & life time lowest PEL proposed by OSHA. OSHA, import asbestos, and to products made risk of between about l in 1OQ.C0O to using the same lung cancer and pursuant io an exemption process. about 7 in 100,000 of developing cancer mesothelioma models used by EPA in encouraging the development of as a result of asbestos in die ambient air estimates that about 7 in 1.000 asbestos substitutes. EPA will be promoting a 3740 Festotal Register / Vol. 31. No. IS < Wednesday. January 2Si. 1386 / Proposed Rules significant reduction in risk. Currently, II. Background all product* that are replacing asbestos in its many uses appear to present lower risk. However. EPA will monitor the EPA announced that it was exploring possible use of TSCA to reduce the nsk to human health from exposure to development of substitutes (luring the in-year phase-down period, and will use section 4 of TSCA to require testing of substitutes if necessary to ensure their safety. As explained mere fuliv Safer. EPA is also actively considering other approaches to carry out a regulatory policy of phasing out the manufacture, importation, and processing of asbestos products. Approaches under consideration include banning categories of asbestos products at asbestos in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) published in the Federal Register of October 17. 1979 [44 FR 80081). Following publication of the ANPR. EPA investigated industrial and commercial uses of asbestos. Under section 8(a) of TSCA EPA promulgated an asbestos reporting role under 40 CFR 783.69 published in the Federal Register of July 30.1982 (47 FR 33207). This rule required miners, millers, importers, and processors of asbestos to report staged intervals. Two categories under consideration are asbestos construction products and asbestos friction products. Under this approach. EPA would ban the manufacture, importation, and processing of all asbestos products within tha category at the same time. information concerning (l) quantities of asbestos used in product manufacture. (2) employee exposure to asbestos. (3) waste disposal practices, and (4) emission control practices. The information reported under that rale has been used with other data ts evaluate EPA is considering this category the risks and benefits of asbestos use. approach because products within each Under section 21 of TSCA a person of the categories have similar exposure may petition EPA to initiate a patterns, raise similar exposure control proceeding for the issuance, issues, and nave similar substitute*. amendment, or repeal of a rule under EPA believes that it may b* good public various sections of TSCA, On June 21. policy to ban such catsgories of 1979. EPA was petitioned to prohibit dm products at the some tune. This future use of asbestos-cement pipe in approach would address similar water systems. EPA granted that exposure patterns in the some way and petition by a notice published in the treat ail parts of an industry sector Federal Register of October 16.1979 [44 similarly. In addition, both the FR 66133). On September 12.1964, the construction products category and the (riction products category contain Natural Resources Defense Council' (NRDC) petitioned EPA to prohibit products that could substitute for other further use of asbestos in motor vehicle products in the category if all are oot brakes. EPA granted that petition by a banned. Thus, a ban of the entire category may be necessary to reduce risk most effectively. notice published in the Federal Register of December 18.1984 (49 FR 49311). This proposal is in part a result of the EPA also considered referring proceeding* conducted after granting asbestos risks to OSHA and CPSC those two petitions. EPA has identified under section 9 of TSCA EPA decided effective substitutes for asbestos-cement against this approach because OSHA pipe and is proposing to ban that and CPSC. in EPA's opinion, cannot product EPA analysed the availability adequately reduce the risk, given their of substitutes for asbestos in brakes but authority and current control is not prepared to propose an immediate technologies. These agencies cannot ban. Effective substitutes are still not comprehensively reduce-the total available for many applications of volume of asbestos in commerce and asbestos in brakes. Instead. EPA is cannot protect ail of the many proposing to phase out use of asbestos population groups at risk. Thus, action in brakes and use market forces to by these agencies under their separate encourage the more rapid development authorities would still leave a huge of substitutes. As an alternative. EPA is residual risk to workers and the general considering a ban of asbestos friction population. EPA concluded, therefore, products about 5 years after this ruts ir that this approach would not adequately prcmulgsttsd. This alternative would address the risks to society posed by the also encourage the rapid development of continued manufacture, processing, and substitutes. use of asbestos-containing products. EPA is convinced that restrictions on the III. Reguktsry Assessment manufacture, importation, and Section 3 of the TSCA authorizes EPA processing of asbestos and asbestos to prohibit or limit by rule the amount of products is the surest and most effective a chemical substance which may be strategy for eliminating these risks. manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce if EPA finds that there is a ressofutbir basis to concluds that the -tianutactur*. processing, distribution m ccfrrtii.*n:a uw. cr disposal of the cherr.-csl substance, or any combination of such activities. presents or will presort ar. unreasonable nsk of iniury to hes.-.-. or the environment. Under section 8Kc)(l) of TSCA. EPA rt.uj: coosicar the following factors rtheii .itermining whether a chemical suha'.snce or mixture presents an uiwassorwsbl* risk (t) THe affects of such substance or mixture on health and the magnitude of the exposure of human beings to such tubstsnea os mixture. (2) The effects of such substance or mixture on the environment and the magnitude of the exposure of the environment to such substance or mixture. (3) The benefits of such substance or ntteers for venous uses and tha availability of substitutes for such uses. (4) The reasonably ascertainable economic commamces of the rule, after coftatcfentttoa of tin effect on the notionsl economy, small business. tectaote*Kl innovation, the environment and public health. After mtmidsmsg the above factors. EPA presents the following findings concerning the unrestricted mining and importstion of asbestos, including asbestos imported in products. A. Health Effects and Magnitude of Exposure to Asbestos 1. Health effects. This unit summarizes tha health effects of asbestos- Detailed discussion and assessment of the health effects of asbestos may be found in the "Report to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Asbestos" (CHAP) (Ref. If. "Health Effects and Magnitude of Exposure" in EPA's "Support Document for Fina) Rule on Friabte Asbsstos-Containing Materials to School Buildings." (Ref. 4) and the "Report of the (National Research Couaal) Committee on Nonoccupationai Health Risks of Asbestiform Piban" [Rtf. 8). EPA finds that the adverse human health affects from exposure to asbestos are extremely vmam. Asbestos is a known hwitvssi enreteegen that also causei other hug diseases. Asbestos has been thoroughly examined in numerous epidemiology studies. The life-threatening diwssnas that have been repeatedly notified ans eabestosis. lung sanest, and roasothelioma. Also arso ratid with asbestos exposure m some rtudies are cancers of the larynx. Fetierai E9gtsr / Vol. 5'.. No. IS / Wednesday. Janucrv 29. 1886 / -P-r-o-p--o-s-e--d-- R---u-les .1741 pharynx. gastrointMliaai tract kidney, were high (more than 1C fibers per cubic mesothelioma have been diagnosed and ovary and respiratory d<**s**:* centimeter (f/cc)J asbestosis has among 828 family contacts of amosite such aa pneumonia. Major hedih <ffects accounted fat more than 7 percent of v.'orkers (Ref. 10). These figures are are discussed balow. observed deaths (Ref. 11). It is much higher then that expected to he Lung cancer is currently u-.^oruiolc pppcrently less common than lung found among the general population In for tha largest wirabar of dii.-. from cancer or mesothelioma at exposures addition. 35.2 percent of the contacts exposure to asbestos. " hi- b.-.'i lower than the current Occupational showed chest x-ray abnormalities as assoaated with exposunt tu !! i'i. Safety and Health Administration compared with 4 6 percent of control principal commercial Uibe.ic. "j.r (Q5HA | workplace standard of 2.0 f/ct. subjects d-r a .* from the same types. Excess lung cancer U: a. ui Soma recent data on the incidence of community. A number of mesotheliomas documented in groups mval/H -vh the e.-bestosis appear compatible with a have also been documented among mining and nulling of usbt'to _nri the linear exposure-response relationship populations whose only identified manufacture and vm of; b;_; , with no threshold (Ref. 12). However, it exposure was from living near asbestos products. Stadia* ia which dr jh of is still considered uncertain whether mining areas, asbestos product factories, exposure can b *pproxim,t.t- -J n.o nde asbestosis occurs as a mult of or shipyards where asbestos use had evidence that lung cancel iwu nonoccupatiorud exposures. been very heavy (Ref. 4). An estimated lineatly with both level end t>: -Sort of In occupational studies where tha 1.600 cases of mesothelioma occur exposure. Cigarette sa-okLi' -. d primary route of exposure is through yearly in rite U.S. among various asbestos hava $ strong synci-Mric inhalation. lung cancer and populations exposed to asbestos (Ref. 6). interaction in dovelaprean. ;f luc*; nasothtiioinu usually account for In addition to exposure to asbestos cancer. Asbestos exposure . tc shout 90 percent of dsn excess cancers fibers in the air. the general population multiply the underlying nU:'' maa among wotkars exposed to is also exposed through various oral cancer. Consequently. r - .1 la animiofl. However, as noted in tha sources, including drinking water eebettos, the risk of lung v . f. CHAP report (Raf. 1), a number of other containing asbestos. Because of the smokers (far whom tbs si<i* c* !>,, g cancan, principally of tha potential for oral exposure as well as cancer is already high! i a..*'* > Li 1 . r gssu-alntcstlnal tract hav bean the excess of gastrointestinal tract than that for ncarmoke. txpa. -,,c to ssaociated with wbastot exposure. cancers that has frequently been found- asbestos. Most persons who d * ,-hjn Tksm m caiman of tha larynx in occupational groups exposed to lung cancer die within ? y .r. piwynx oral cavity, esophagus, asbestos in the air, there has been much Many human studies iir"'t .'.own stnatds. colon, and racism. Stottsdcslly study of the possible health effects of that exposures to nsbetux nra'icc.. significant matmm of emern of tlm ingestion of asbestos fibers. Despite mesotheliomas, which arc u aa. h.~.i kidney and ovary have also been those efforts, evidence showing health occur as thick dilfu maanct lp Ji_ thowa. in addition, the excess of effects from ingestion is still ambiguous. serous membranes {meujtfaaiiiJ i>~t lino cancers at all other sites combined ia 2. Concur risk extrapolation. As body cavities. Mesothahocc- a `i. statistically significant la some studies. discusaed above, numerous human the nieura (the membrano tiir., The canduaiarw from epidemiology studies have demonstrated that surrounds tha lung* and iuraa -0 studies concerning the health effects of exposure to asbestos has increased the cavity) and tha peritonauot (< -no.' asbestos are also supported by results of risk of cancer and asbestosis. Since a surrounds the abdominal r^*d laboratory studies. Animals treated with number of epidemiology studies indicate lines the abdominal cavity). Mr-- asbestos have shown increased a positive relationship between asbestos persons who develop r3ei>oi-V:l!^:.v. die incidence of fibrosis, lung cancer, and exposure and the risk of lung cancer, within the first Z years aftc,,- d:c~, ... \,, mesotheliomas. AU commercial forma several models may be used to often after having been in con .>jr m. old i* /erai other typar, of asbestos are extrapolate from risk at higher exposure Epidemiology studies suggs*' L'1". &. implicated from s variety of modes of to risk at lower exposure. The model incidence of mesothelioma i u..f: .r: to exposure. that EPA believes is most consistent dose and time from first expo-u _ Most occupational studies have been with the available human and animal Association of mesothelimoc -iL conducted on papulations exposed to data is the linear non-threshold dose/ smoking is weak or nanexit k . high airborne concentrations of asbestos response model. This model assumes Asbestos fibers .ippe&r. by fm ' tr . fer Rii&tiveiy long periods of time. that (1) any exposure increases risk, and most common cause of uit aiM 11* >.v . However, short-term occupational (2) the increase in risk is proportional to Asbestosis. which involve fib..* .o. exposures have also been shown to the background risk m the.nonexposed lung and pleural ti&aum. u anod c: increase the risk of lung cancer end population and to the level of exposure, serious chronic diiaass to vcw.icd *". mesothelioma. One group of asbestos defined e& duration of exposure times exposure to asbestos. Thv,re i factory workers with less than 2 months concentration of asbestos fibers to effective treatment for if b- to -oc -t of occupational exposure had a twofold which populations may be exposed. is often disabling or fetd. A. lx.. ic. ir t increcae in lung cancer risk (Ref. 8}. In The choice of the linear model is diagnosed from findings which may addition, lhar* are many documented reasonable since there is no evidence include radiographic changse. cases of mesothelioma finked to for a threshold level of asbestos breathlessness, and abnormal lung extremely brief exposure to high exposure below which there is no function. Since soma clinicil symptoms concentrations of asbestos or long-term increased nsk. It is further supported by of asbestosis are similar to those of exposure to low concentrations (Ref. 4). evidence of cancers among populations other fibrosing lung (Presses, a history Direct evidence of erivers health whose asbestos exposure is believed to of occupational exposure to asbeoe m effects from non-occupational asbestos have bate lower than levels reported in often a key feature of its diagnosis. exposure also exist*. Persons who lived the epidemiology studies of asbestos Asbestosis can appear end pre-^rstss in the households of asbestos workers workers mentioned above. decade after exposure to sshc- *o heve daveloped pleural mesothelioma The moc:.( adopted by EPA to fibers. Under working conditio n where and asbestos-related radiographic estimate excess mesothelioma incidence average fiber concentrations in thr s,r changes. In an ongoing study. 4 cases of due to asbestos exposure relates disease HWBUI0001379 3742 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29. 1985 / Proposed Rules incidence to dose and the time from first in the United Kingdom and other countries to exposed to asbestos fibers long after exposure (minus 10 years) raised to the third power. This model reflects a delay (or minimum latency period) of 10 years between first exposure and the likely earliest possible appearance of the rationalize different regulatory control* for crocidolite and chrysotile. However, in view of the laboratory evidence end groat uncertainty about the nature of the fibers of asbestos to be found in nonoccupational exposure situation*, the committee decided those fibers have been released to. the ambient air and a considerable distance from ths source of the release. Asbestos fiber concentrations have been measured in areas far from obvious disease. Both the lung cancer and not to differentitle among them in the asbestos sources. Atmospheric sampling mesothelioma models have also been quantitative risk assessment. Furthermore, programs conducted in remote rural adopted by OSHA (Ref. 12). The tome of the apparent discrepancies mty tie National Research Council Committee explained by differences in physical on Nonoccupational Health Risks of properties of the fibers, their concentrations, Asbestiform Fibers also adopted a similar linear no-threahold model to estimate risk to nonoccupational populations from exposure to asbestos (Ref. 8). The derivation and validation of ;be models is discussed in detail in the CHAP report (Ref. 1) and in EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products" (RiA) (Ref. 3). Although EPA believes that excess mortality from asbestosis and cancers other than lung cancer and mesothelioma will occur from exposure to asbestos released during the lifecycle of the products under study. EPA has not attempted to quantify that excess mortality. Thus, the model could understate the risk to humans from exposure to asbestos. The risk of asbestos-induced disease may be modified by several factors. As mentioned in the earlier discussion on lung cancer, smoking drastically increases the risk of developing lung cancer from exposure to asbestos. Because of their lower underlying risk, the absolute increase of incidence of lung cancer in nonsmokers is about onetenth of that in smokers. However, even complete control of the smoking factor (if possiblej would leave a substantial health nak since the risk of mesothelioma (which is apparently unaffected by smoking) and the risk of lung cancer to nonsmokere would still remain. Another factor that may affect the risk of asbestos-induced disease is the possible differences in biological potency among the different fiber.typea. The National Research Council (Ref. 0) studied this issue and concluded: and their characteristics in the different environments. These possibilities need farther testing. In view of this uncertainty about the relative potency of the various asbestos types end in view of the welldocumented health hazard of the most common commercial form of asbestos. EPA has concluded that it is prudent to treat ail asbestos fiber types as having equivalent biological activity. Fiber morphology has also been suggested as s factor that may affect incidence of asbestos-induced disease. Animal studies in which asbestos fibers were applied by injection or implantation suggest that longer and finer fibers are more carcinogenic than shorter and coarser fibers. This has not. however, been confirmed by inhalation studies. EPA has not differentiated among fiber sizes in assessing the potential risk of asbestos. Pint asbestos fibers released during the life cycie of asbestos products consist of a great range of dimensions, including those suggested as most dangerous. Second, it hae not been clearly shown that short fibers pose a significantly smaller risk. No dimensional threshold for potency has been established. 3. Magnitude ofhuman exposure. Asbestos fibers are released to the air during all stages of the lifecycle of asbestos products. Fiber release to the air occurs during normal operations of mining and milting, fiber processing into products, installation of products, product use. maintenance, renovation, dismantling, removal, and disposal. Asbestos fibers have special characteristics that affect exposure. They are colorless, odorless, and frequently invisible except by areas in the United States and Germany nave found asbestos fiber levels between O.Ot and Q.lZ nanogram/meter* (ig/at*) (1 ng is one billionth of a gram). Conversion factors between asbestos fiber counts and mass counts are variable. However. EPA estimates that 1 ng of asbestos in air equals about 30 fibers visible by light microscopy Using this conversion factor tot asbestos in outdoor air, then the above measurements are the equivalent of about 3xt3"T to 3.6x10'* {fee. In areas of hignet fmrwn population density, measured asbestos concentrations in the sir tvpicaiiy much greater. A survey of latga cities showed mean readings of ZA to 5.0 ng/m* (7.8x10-* to lJx 10'* f/ cc). Measurements taken in New York City rsngsd from mean* of 8 to 30 ng/m* (2.4x10-* to SX10-* f/cc). Typical fiber canmntnUou are much higher in densely populated areas because of fiber release from construction work (including renovation or demolition), from asbestos-containing brakes of motor vehicles, and from other activities during the lifecycle of asbestos products. In general, levels of asbestos in the air in cities and near manufacturing plants are considerably greater than rural background levels. Thus, throughout their entire lifecycle, that is throughout their manufacture, processing, use. and disposal, asbestos products leave a legacy of asbestos in the ambient air. This ambient load, while difficult to quantify, is a significant problem. The National Academy of Sciences, after analyzing studies of outdoor air. estimated typical concentrations of asbestos in outdoor ambient air in urban areas to be approximately 0.00037 f/cc (Ref. 6). Many millions of people are exposed to Results of studies of various groups of markers indicate that it is extremely difficult to assess the rale of fiber type (e.g.. chrysolite or crocidolitel m determining the risk for developing either lung cancer or mesothelioma. Analysis of the microscope, thus presenting risk to persons who are not aware that they may be exposed. Asbestos fibers are extremely durable and have aerodynamic properties that allow them those levels of asbestos in the air each day. Therefore, any comprehensive control strategy must take into account the potential for exposure during the entire lifecycle of asbestos products. epidemiological studies is complicated to remain suspended in the air for a long Some product* do not present as much because of venations in type of industry, the time. They are basically potential for releases to the ambient air diverse fiber chiracteristice within an nonbiodegradable and therefore persist during certain stages of their lifecycle. industry, and the usual inadequacy of exposure data. Some scientists have interpreted the available epidemiological data lo indicate (hat chrysotile asbestos, the asbestos type most commonly used in the for a very long lima in the environment. Asbestos fibers easily reenter the atmosphere after settling out and can travel long distances through the air. A For example, there are likely to be releases to the ambient air during the manufacture, processing, installation, and re pa c r f asbestos-cement pipe. United Stales, is less hazardous than the report from Finland found that asbestos How .ver. (here generally will be no other types of asbestos, especially had traveled as far as 27 kilometers release of asbestos to the ambient air crocidolite. Such arguments have been used from a mine under study. Persons can be during actual use of asbestos-cement Federal Rfiatw / Vol. 5L No. 19 / Wednesday. January 29. 1986 / Proposed Rules 37 iJ pipe since it is commonly buried in the ground. TABLE ii.--Exposure Data for Manufacturino--Amwsnt--Cotrtnuett still occur after their import into th.s country. Exposures will occur during A large proportion of the U.S. population is at risk from this asbestos 1I ..P..w..ttQf "" M ffumaacmna installation and use of the product: maintenance of the product: and during in the air. Tables I through UI show the numbers of persons exposed to asbestos i TO* *!H dismantling, removal, and disposal of the product. Much asbestos can be during the more'headiiy quantifiable released to the ambient air as a .result of stages of the lifecycle of asbestos products and the levels to which they are exposed. Exposure levels are "best estimates" based on monitoring studies. these activities. Large numbers of people are exposed to asbestos during these activities and the level of exposure can be quite high. Additional information can be found in Refs. 2 and 3 which are included in the rulemaking record. To avoid disclosing confidential business information, the Significant exposures will also occur during the domestic life cycle of bulk asbestos and asbestos products manufactured in this country for export tables sometimes use a range rather than a single number. The notation NA means that data are not available. abroad. These exposures will occur during the mining and milling of asbestos fiber and during the processing tasle i.--Exposure data eon MANUFACTURINO--OCCUPAtiOHAL of fiber into products. There is much exposure to workers during the mining and milling of asbestos and manufacture maSTtuiii Table III--Exposure Oeta For mstaUton. of asbestos products. In addition, families of workers, and populations AXmwt product I | Nuffltw Use, Repair. and Otopos* living near mining and manufacturing I SZ i j {,*f/ i SSEa RWW'i i Exao- Nun** jfieo. iMf c* of (MNOflt 1!cto*** sites are also exposed to asbestos as a result of these activities. 5. Exposure from various categories of asbestos products. EPA has noted that various categories of asbestos products present very similar exposure patterns. -i--row oar __ IMhnwd flew* me............... BMMr-IOSSMMI NA 107 NA NA MA 79 HA HA HA m For axaiapie, the products within the HA HA construction products category ail present significant potential for fiber P8D*~ Stoncat mmt______ umwuWfd isahtiy NA ! HA HA 18 NA NA release to the air and subsequent human NA exposure during their installation, NR......... ..... ............ Stfurtftd rootae to*Rooms Wt................ SpicvRy owf --....... V/A floor M.________ Fatt-txaeUd wn* flooring--------- .------- A/C(s---- ------------Rtt A/C SftMt............ Comiaona A/C VM A/C aftnr mmb___ OunMtlmi------Oitc Drofcw 0.V)_____ Oac trafcaa _ amw Modi*----.___- Cue* frartqe ______ FncftinpradUG*- 180 180 NA 130 90 NA SUM 4.700 4.700 4.700 NA NA NA NA NA 7.577 IA*3 NA 75 9.100 NA tr.ua 8.147 798 sum NA HA HA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA HA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 290 388.148 105 184.822 108 1.148 NA NA 250 38.184 repair, removal, and disposal. These products are often cut. torn, sawed, and drilled during installation repair, and removal. All of these activities can release fibers to the air. In addition, sanding of these products during use often releases fibers to the air. Similarly, products within the friction products category ail present significant potential for fiber release and subsequent exposure during use and repair. Friction products wear down TABLE Data for MANUFACTLTOHg AfclgigHT r.~"--------- NA NA tmms--sem* riMt Thrtgo...... ......... , , SftMKMauflm_____ Ptctans-------------------Sirffaet cttftngw......... SaMOMk Hleaww iftwWAon-----------------temteor ...... . NA 979 NA uso 12 120 NA NA NA NA NA 850 NA 4JA8 2.914 100.000 MA NA NA NA NA NA 875 NA NA NA NA NA NA 400 NA NA during use. often releasing fibers to the air either during actual use of the NA product or during maintenance or repair 890 NA operations in which previously confined NA asbestos-containing dust is disturbed NA NA and becomes airborne. NA Often, fiber releases from asbestos NA 3.000 products in these categories occur in HA close proximity to other products within -- NA ..1 NA NA NA the same category, making it difficult to attribute observed fiber levels to a Commaroat ptpar *P*wt wrap- mm mm .oam 4. Exposurefirm imported and 10.000 30JOOO exported asbestos andasbestos tsaooo products. EPA has determined that particular product. For example. EPA used monitoring data from automobile repair shops to estimate asbestos Unjetsattd roofeig f8 Saussm rocinq fan_________ FlOOMf N*___________________ Spaoattjr papg--.--..--. v/a neor m .........-............. Paa-badtad vwryi floemq......... A'Cm ............ _......... Put a. c snaai........................... 00188 .09108 mm 00188 \A ansa A 0489 307 307 990.009 10.000 200,00$ 00.000 HA 10.000 060.000 NA 700.000 750.000 significant exposure is likely from imported asbestos products. Although some exposure to United States populations is avoided when asbestos products are manufactured abroad and imported rather than manufactured domestically, significant exposures wrtl exposures resulting from repair of asbestos disc brakes, drum brakes, clutch facings, and automatic transmission friction components. Because there are no data available to estimate differences in fiber releases m the various repair activities, EPA HWBUI0001381 3744 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29. 1989 / Proposed Rules developed exposure estimates for each calculates that this rale would avoid product using a weighting schema based about 1,000 of those potential cancers. on the relative production volumes of EPA also calculated the number of each of the friction products which are potential cancers avoided by the the sources of the exposure. Similarly, it reguletory alternative* discussed later. is common for many of the asbestos construction products to be used at one building site, making it difficult to attribute fiber release to one particular product The estimation of ambient exposures due to releases from individual construction products, such as the various flooring products, was difficult since monitoring data were gathered in buildings where more than one type of asbestos flooring product was in place. Far these reasons. EPA believes that It may be appropriate to consider a categorial approach to analyze the risk presented by asbestos products and to control that risk. Table IV lists the products that are included in the construction products and friction products categories. Assuming current exposure levels, alternative 1. which would ban the asbestos construction products category and asbestos clothing soon after promulgation of the rale and ban the asbestos friction products category about 5 yean later, would avoid about 2.100 cancers: alternative 2. which would ban the asbestos construction products category and asbestos clothing soon after promulgation of the rule, ban the asbestos friction products category about 5 years later, end ban the remaining asbestos products about 10 yean later, would avoid about 2.123 cancers: and alternative 3, which would ban the asbestos construction products category and asbestos clothing toon after promulgation of the rule and cover all other asbestos products under the Tasui IV--Sxfismju Of ASBESTOS Psoouct phase-down, would avoid about 2,020 CATEOOmeS cancan. EPA believes these estimates of potential number of cancers, and therefore the potential number of caiman avoided, may be low for the following reasons: a. The estimate is based only on exposures resulting from manufacture of asbestos products through the ya&r 2000. Without regulatory action, manufacture of asbestos products may continue beyond that date. b. The risk estimates often douiot include cancan from consumer and 0. Quantitative cancer risk estimates. other nonoccupational exposures to As discussed above, there exist many asbestos since data an either asbestos exposure-producing activities unavailable or uncertain. However. EPA to which many kinds of populations are believes that many people in these exposed. Applying the cancer models categories an at risk. An estimated described above to the available data lifetime risk of cancer of about 1 in on exposure and populations. EPA has 100,000 to about 7 in 103.000 exists for estimated the number of cancers that anyone who merely nsidea in a major may be avoided by implementing the city from exposurn to asbestos in the EPA's proposed regulatory program. (A ambient air both indoors end outside of full discussion of the risk estimates is buildings. (Ref. 6). Any additional contained in the "Regulatory Impact exposure from asbestos products, such Analysts of Controls on Asbestos and as consumer renovation of a house Asbestos Products (Rat 3)*'. Using containing asbestos products, residing available data and assuming current or working near plants that msnufactura exposure levels. EPA calculates that asbestos products, or residing or about 2.560 lung cancers and working in the vicinity of e construction mesotheliomas in the United States project where asbestos-containing would result from production of products are being installed or removed, asbestos products over 15 years without will add to the risk of cancer. This EPA action under TSCA. EPA calculates additional exposure could increase the that this nils would avoid about 1.830 of lifetime risk of cancer by more than an those potential cancers. Assuming that order of magnitude. OSHA achieves strict compliance with a c. The risk estimates did not include PEL of 0.2 f/cc, EPA calculates that all workers whose occupation causes about 1,325 lung cancers and them to come in contact with asbestos mesotheliomas would resuit unless EPA products. For example, the estimates do takes action under TSCA EPA not include occupational exposure during repair, removal, and disposal of asbestos products other than friction products and cloth. d. SPA did not make a worst case estimate of asbestos risk. Rather, the risk estimates were based on a rtietivdy conservative interpretation of ihc dose- response relationship for mesothelioma and lung cancer. Risk estime.es more than four times as high could be justified (Ref. 3}. EPA did not attempt to quantify reductions of cases of asbestosis and cancers other than mesothelioma and lung cancer. These diseases may add 10 to 23 percent more deaths to the total. OSHA estimates that at an exposure of as f/cc over a working career. 12 workers per 1.000 will develop aebastoris (Ref. 12). Thus, incidence of Rsbtoi could be significant among worker populations and possibly among other populations as well. In addition, in e major study of insulation workers exposed to asbestos, about 10 percent of all excess deaths were attributed to cancan other than lung cancer and mesothelioma (Ref. 11). B. Environmental Effects Section 0(c) of TSCA requires that EPA stats the relevant environmental factors and key considerations which form the basis for regulatory action under section S(a). The unreasonable risk finding of this proposal is based solely on risks to human health since these risks are by far the most serious consequence of commercial use of asbestos and are sufficient to support this proposed action. C. Benefits ofAsbestos Products and Availability of Substitutes The benefits of the asbestos- , containing products affected by the proposed rule are discussed below. Overall, EPA finds that the benefits to society of these asbestos-containing products are small since suitable substitutes are now available for most uses end spoliations of asbestos, and products are being developed that will replace almost ail uses and applications of asbestos during the phase-down period of this proposal. 1. Substitutes. The detailed results of EPA's analysis of the availability of suitable substitutes for asbestos- containing products are reported in Appendix H. 'Asbestos Products and Their Substitutes." of the RIA (Ref. 3) and aw summarized in Table V. -'ederal Register / Vol. 51. No. 19 / Wednesday. January 29. 1986 / Proposed Rules 3745 Tabu V--Summary Table or Asacsros p"00Jcn, them Major Uses, and the *twt to W*ch Thev Cam be Substitut ed Table v--Summary Table os asbestos Products. Their Major Uses, and the Extent to which They Can be Susstitutbo--Continued Asbestos automatic transmission friction components are currently being replaced with cellulose-based friction component*. Only one of three domestic manufacturers of dutch facings makes them using asbestos. Clutch facings mads of fiberglass end textile fibers have begun to replace asbestos facings to a significant extent However, these substitute# sr* inferior to the asbestos dutch facings in durability, quietness, and tensile strength. Product development is continuing, however, to improve fiberglass facings to increase strength, mmr. and ability to withstand heat through the use of special binders. Armmid-fibtf-based dutch facings are also being developed. However, these have been relatively expensive compared to the asbestos and fiberglass clutch facing. Semi-metallic disc brake pads have largely rapkead asbestos disc brake pads in domestic care with front wheel drive. Cunentiy. about 85 percent of new domestic cate have front wheel drive and are equipped with semi- . : metallic front disc pads. Also, a number' of brake manufacturers have begun to introduce m aramid fiber into production of disc brake pads. The development of substitutes for asbestos drum brake linings has not been nearly as successful as it has been for disc brakes. Manufacturers have reported problems in processing nonasbestos fibers and problems in meeting standards of durability and heat resistance. There has been limited progress to date. One automobile manufacturer has reported that its new The following examples illustrate the minivans are equipped with semi- types of substitutes available for those metallic drum brake linings and one asbestos products EPA proposes to ban, brake manufacturer has begun either in this proposal or in one of the 3 marketing aramid fiber-based linings for regulatory alternatives described in this the replacement brake market. In proposed rule, including the category of addition.one automobile manufacturer asbestos construction products and the has reported progress in developing a category of asbestos friction products. A nonasbestos drum brake lining using an more complete analysis can be found in aramid fiber. However, domestic car the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) manufacturer* have not begun installing aramid-based or semi-metallic-based a. Friction products. Substitutes exist or are being developed for almost all uses of asbestos in friction products. Replacement of asbestos in friction products has been more difficult than in ths other asbestos product categories drum brakes linings on new vehicles except in very limited applications. A number of other substitute fibers are being tested by manufacturers and may have potential as a substitute for asbestos in brakes. because of tha unique combination of physical properties of asbestos which make it so wall suited for friction products. e.g., heat resistance, corrosion resistance, high tensile strength, thermal stability, and processability. However, substitute* which ere nearly a* costeffective a* aebestos products have b. Aebestos doth products. Asbestos cloth has beat used as a final product in safety curtains, fire blankets, protective clothing, and high-temperature conveyor belts. Asbestos doth is used as an input product in gaskets, packing, friction materials, and thermal and electrical insulation. been developed for most uses of There currently are s number of asbestos in friction products. substitute fibers for asbestos use in HWBUI0001383 374# Fwferai Hagai? / Vol. 51. No. 5<2 / Wednesday. January 29. 1983 / Proposed Rules doth. These inclwcw glass fibers. somewhat teas suitable than those noted EPA has found that price differon'-.iA caraRiic fibers, csrfeon fiba;. crganic share These .r.-c'udr various piastic and between asbestos and non-asbestos fibers, quertz fibers a tv.! cottoss fibers ritnfied clay pipes. vinyl sheering are negligible Oven:! Replacement fibers f 2. edoatto* in ck?th All cf th substnutes considered are the oackmg is a small part of the (m.if use* depend upon {he ipf-riftc reli wablished tn the pip* market and cost for nay! sheet products. application. civ.< fcs :cied 0 a replaced existing M&mtertasee and service life are not Substitutes app.;a. .-> jt rvat'aols for astifist.tf caraeii- pipe sections. matenaiiy afiectad by 4he backlog. The airiest all high-itMnpcrauiru a: piu-;.no.,4 d. Roofing felc. Asbestos roofing felt is w:4s range cf prices found among of asbestos doth If 3,,r.s.;?<-t.ijth were :*al for buut-up rcahng. primarily on various vinyl floonng prodects are net availed*. P-vt ..-xoet 1 .'c! trie 3a- roof*. "Built-up- refers to the mostly attributable to the colors and fd'flwing sBformuifci v*c*ia repier* asbestos cloth as follows: prvcfcs of layamtg fait lengths on top of patterns of Asa vinyl as well as the c-ach ether with hat roofing tar or wear-layer tbictaaso. FibergJaw, cioth pi -duces: SO to 3b percent. Artfind eteth products: 2? to 23 percent. Carhou/grephbs doth -ptodtuz*: S to to perotnL Ceramics and *:l'sccn-b.- ;'..! clodh ysroducts: 10 to IS peremA Because of their tomper.-.tare sud fiasM wMstiuicft. sebevtcs clttksig prodiirctj presses- wowr' from fire and hei.t. Ho-sserer. :.iih*dfi.to products hare been cicrvahjped (for t,s'Ls.isa& clodric$ products. Arsisrid ck.tr prednets can substitute for ,!.dj'Uh; in pvtocQ're gmasaientM. bat are arte raptaarva. Smm other tex&fe products .-.'sir 'wshoet asbatto* a fa l<s*s ifeea the counterpart product e.air -tith asbestos clctis. Substituta prsyked fez-oaisastes clothing ladtsts rara:, SaagSM*. and asstea. Asteras rlori'"j !? -'wart repiaaect by s-aWAu,'.,!.-' .".. most or afi firefightisg-aiid tndweiria . pokes, tiana. c. Aebeetos-cemest pips o&d fittings. Products in this category are manufrstenri for varati* u.r*?.. Mos; pipe is w;ed to cxr; or?:*. at sevt-ege. A snail emsemt is used tc a r*"y chemical# or 13 uaui m airdsets. fip varies ni ccnstrectiM '--opawiiog fxa ose sod such factors as b dee.*3 .i fcaosstj. the cete cl fluid tranaaitsarf *ndl whether rt is underpin.. SiB. EPA behcsl met at hr.,.': 1 %?. utiiabts subfiitatr n --`-A' '0. j of the many pipe tyoai end >... ' .S', .don infotsesuon fit);.... EPA concluded that op^reiic : end matennce costs and xrrice Sfe of all products are essee&eBy rasilar. Asbestos-cement ptp<, dim net domsiate any segme-a. of tbs pi^e market but 1a popular h.: certain applications such as atnymg water at low pressure. If this r.rf is sfcrigated EPA expacts that the follav, mg substitute wiH nepiacu MLcssos-oesaeni pipe m lotcma: asphalt .'Hopped bchteen layers of adhe^mt and additional weather protection. Currently, less than !9 percent of roofing felt sold contains asbestos. Oi'jjnic fait, fibroni gle felt and single-ply membrane roofing all have great sharai of &b flat roof market then asbestos felt. Of these tfeae well-established oi oriuirts fibrous glan felt most closely* apprcKimates asbsstos roofing felt in purefc?*e and instaMatioa prices and s^r/iKs life. Organic felt has a lower pmchtiis price, but has lower insulation value and meistm resistance and a semswhitt shorter servica lifa. Singk-pljr -nembrane roofiag oonsists of a laminate cf a modified bitumen or polymeric svetoia such as p^yvinyl chloride or ethylene propylene diene monomer. A typicd product consists of a five-layer ibmuvita composed sf a thick (dsetic core protected otroach enrfece by a layer of modified hatemen and an outer film of polyethylene. The purchase price of iingle-ply membrane roofing is several rinses that of asbestos felt, is about ss expensive to install, but is exacted to have a longer service life. Sipgie-ply membrane also has the advantage of not requiring the use of hot asphalt during instafiaSon. 4. Floatingfelt andfelt-backed vinyl AS9tpooling. Asbaates flooring felt vrsr, used aa a backing for vinyl sheet flooring products. The felt confers tlmcnsionci stablfity and helps prolong floor life 'Am moisture from below the surface is a problem. EPA does not believe that flooring felt is currently being produced in die U.S. A feige number of non-asbestos vinyl flooriag products have entered the markot in the last a years. These pacduOT indude sheet backed with feit :.vry:!ni*g fibreras glass, cell^ose. nolyefeyiaae or polypropylene fibers. cuestic fibers, and plastic tern. Also available are unbacked sheet and f.Vinyl-asbestosfloor tile. Vinylasbestos floor tife is used in numerous applications, but has been especially popular forme in heavy traffic areas such as in stores, kitchass. and entry ways. Addition of fiber contributes to abrasion and indentation resistance, dimensional stability, and resistance to moisture, beet, and oil. Currently. thea&t smlable available substitutes fi vinyl-asbestos ;l.,or tiles are various ssbestos-re vinyl composition floor tries, fa place of asbestos fibsre. aanufadurers are using synthetic fibers iasiudi^f fferous gfees. polypropylene, polyethylene, and cellulose. Thera are also sweral types of vinyl tiles that contain various fillers and resins in place of fiber. Many nonasbestos vinyl tiki products have been on the market for only a few years. Consequently theirservice lives are no1 well established. Same industry contacts believe the non-asbestos tiles will last as long as the asbestos tiles, while others believe service lives will be shorter. EPA currewdy assumes that service lives of the son-asoestos ttles wtli be about one-therd shorter than fur the asbestos tiles, g. Asbestos-ceme&t sheet. There are * number of cost competitive substitutes for asfeestos-CMKai sheet. These include both preduets using substitute fibers and odher product substitutes. Glass-reinforcedoMcreee is suitable fo< most coreostan and heat-resistant applications where asbestos-cement sheet is now used. Glass-reinforced concrete is widely available at a price that tsas bees d*Smng naiativ* to that of asbestos-cement sheet Cement-wood boasd is suitable for the general construction apfScetiora of asbeitoscemsat sheet The ass of resins and surface coatsifs with cement-wood board makes the product suitable in weather resistant applications. Pok/vinyl chloride (PVC) p^t. Ti pareist earnerot trsditiond flooring products in the s'd'sg market asbestos-cement BuCile Mon-p^s-............ .. ........ ZSpercoa teds m ceramic tiles, capering, and products ha- v no met advantage over PresitCBsad eonaeur o?ps.----------4Jt p.rctoS Reinforced coacrsts pipt--------Q.13 peroe wtd flooring. Among these many circ>dfs. consumers will find adequate galvanized meet atonimm. or concrete. However, aihestos-cement sheet may These estimates are oiiJy approximate substitutes for any particular use of have greater- cornsmon resistance than and do not take irrto account other asbestos containing fek or feit-backed the other products. In coding towers, possible substitutes that EPA considered floonng. polyvnty! chloride products or cerame HWBUI0001384 Federal Register / Voi. 51. No. 19 / Wednesday. January 29. 1988 / Proposed Rules 3747 tile products are cost competitive and a. Fibrous glass appears to be are suitable for most applications. There considerably less hazardous than are also a number of products that can asbestos based on (1) morbidity and substitute for asbestos-cement sheet as mortality studies in workers. (2) in vivo a laboratory desk top and fume hood and in vitro experimental data. (3) the bench. However, it appears that order of magnitude lower exposure comparably priced products may not potential in the workplace, (4) the fully match the qualities of asbestos- generally less respirable nature of the cement sheet in these applications. airborne fibers, and (5) the less durable h. Asbestos-cement shingles- There nature of the fibers in the lungs. are substitutes for asbestos-cement b. Mineral wood does not appear to shingles for both roofing and siding present the significant risks that applications. The primary substitutes for asbestos does based on (1) limited asbestos-cement roofing shingles are animal data and morbidity and asphalt-fiberglass composition shingles, mortality studies for workers, and (2) cedar wood shingles, and various the tower exposure potential fn the synthetic and natural tiles, such as workplace. Monray roofing tile and concrete tile. c. Ceramic fibers do not appear to Asphalt-fiberglass composition shingles present a comparable risk to that of cost about half as much as asbestos- asbestos based primarily on (1) the cement shingles in terms of purchase moderate workplace concentrations, and installation costs but have only about half the operating life. Cedar wood shingles have a slightly greater cost then asbestos-cement shingles but have a greater operating life. Substitutes for asbestos-cement shingle siding include wood, wood shingles, aluminum siding, PVC siding, stucco or concrete block, vinyl and brick. Aluminum and PVC siding are both virtually identical to asbestoscement shingles in terms of price and durability. Cedar shingle siding is also very competitive in terms of price, but it is somewhat less durable. The total substitute markebfor both applications is approximately as follows: Asphalt/fiberglass....................... SO percent Wood products....................... 30-35 percent Aluminum siding...................... 5-10 percent PVC siding............................... 5-10 percent Brick, tile.............. 3 percent 2. Possible hazards ofsubstitutes. EPA has analyzed available data on the health effects of major substitutes for asbestos (Ref. 14). Some of the substitutes such as wood-based products (e.g.. cellulose fiber products) and (2) the specialized applications which include its encapsulation or incorporation into products. d. Carbon/graphite fibers are probably not a significant health risk based on the (1) use of coatings on the fibers which may reduce their respirabiiity, and (2) low intrinsic respinbility characteristics. e. Aramia fibers appear to present relatively low risk because they era basically nonrespirabla as currently produced and processed. f. Polyethylene and polypropylene pulps and fibers appear to present relatively little risk since they appear to be relatively nontoxic and nonrespirabla. g. Attapulgite has large general exposure potential but available evidence suggests that attapulgite from U.S. mines may present little hazard. In addition, attapulgite is not a major substitute for asbestos. h. Polyvinylcholoride does not appear to present a health hazard comparable to asbestos, although vinyl chloride, the monomer used to produce polyvinylchloride, is a carcinogen. The polyvinylchloride product itself presents and construction products made of brick and concrete appear to present little risk. While other substitutes present little risk and workplace exposures are apparently adequately controlled. i. Ductile iron pipe does not present a some risk. EPA has concluded that the health hazard comparable to that of available information suggests that none asbestos. of the substitutes appear to present as EPA recognizes that some asbestos great a potential for risk to human substitutes may be new chemical health as asbestos. EPA made extensive substances for which a pramanufacture use of the work at the National Research notice (PMN) must be submitted under Council and agrees with their conclusion section 3 of TSCA. A goal of EPA's PMN that: "Current population risk from review program ia to encourage the exposures to the various substances developmental new chemical considered, including fibrous glass, substances that are less hazardous than attapulgite. and carbon fibers, appears the chemical substances they replace. to be much less than for risk from EPA encourages the development of less asbestos, especially chrysotile" (Ref. 8). hazardous new chemical substances as The conclusions of EPA's analysis of asbestos replacements. Potential specific substitutes follows. developers of new chemical substances intended as asbestos substitutes may wish to discuss their plans with EPA during a prenotice consultation. Such a consultation can be arranged by contacting the Prenotice Communications Coordinator by telephone st (202-332-3745) or by writing to the Prenotice Communications Coordinator. Chemical Control Division (TS-794J. Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M St.. SW.. Washington. DC 20400. Through a prenotice consultation. EPA can inform potential PMN submitters of legal requirements, possible EPA health concerns about the substance, and possible test data that EPA may believe necessary to evaluate the risk potential of the substance. During a prenotice consultation and any PMN review of a new chemical substance that is intended as a substitute for asbestos. EPA will consider the relative risks presented by asbestos and potentially presented by the asbestos substitute. EPA will make every reasonable effort to provide prompt and dear information concerning the likely result of PMN ' _ review in view of EPA's policy of encouraging less hazardous substitutes for asbestos. D. Economic Effects of Proposed Rule This portion of the presmbie presents EPA's determination of the "reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule" as required by section 0(c)(1)(D) of TSCA. EPA has prepared a "Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos Products" (Ref. 3) which analyzes the potential economic impact of this proposed rule. The economic impact is summarized and explained below. Estimated costs are mainly from 1981 data obtained under EPA'* section 8(a) asbestos reporting rule (40 CFR 763.60). Some of the data were adjusted to reflect more current information on production of asbestos products. Specifically. EPA gathered more current information on the use of asbestos clothing and asbestos flooring felt and then adjusted the estimated costs and benefits of the rule to reflect declining use of these products. The sources of the information are noted in the record for this rule. The costs are presented as the net present value of costs incurred due to changes in asbestos product production between 1885 and 2000. Costs are likely to be overstated since the baseline production levels used in the cost model probably overstate production in the future. In addition, the cost estimation model assumes that the relative prices of substitutes for HWBUI0001385 3748 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 19 ! Wednesday. January 29. 1986 / Proposed Rules asbestos products will remain constant over the time period used for measuremenfeof costs. Actually, price differentials are likely to decrease over time. <*04X1 - < rssure cost AfiOfitt OStfiKg.------------ !*1 Whan Roofing WL. ___ -.... ....... . U2 kUton Two types of costs are estimated in The above costs of tht rule will ba the RLA: (1) Costs to consumers and (2) offset to seme extent by the following costs to producers. These are discussed avoided casts. below. The costs represent the present value of losses incurred over'the 15-year period from 1985 to 2000. using e discount rate of 10 percent. 1 Consumer lasses due to the rule would result from increases in costs incurred for asbestos products at substitutes for asbestos products end from inferior performance of substitute products. Total consumer losses due to the rule are estimated to be $1.77 billion. However, this loss would be spread across the entire consumer population and would average less than 510 per consumer over 15 years. This rale would not cause dramatic cost increases m typical consumer product*. 2. Losees would accrue to producers as a result of the rule when producer are forced to forgo some portita of the return on their capital stack seed to produce asbestos products. Gwnsra of equipment which can be readily converted to make other ptndacts are not expected to lose nearly as much as By reducing the amount of asbestosrelated deaths and illnesses (his rule would redact the cost to society of the health resources used to tree! asbestosrelated Illnesses (eg. hospital and medical treatment] end the productivity (wages and lost work capacity at sick workers, etc.) lost as a result of illness caused by asbestos exposure. EPA estimates that the avoided morbidity cost ia about $1,275 per case. This ts measured in 1985 dollars using a 10percent discount rate. This figure is relatively low because people generally contract mesothelioma or lung career after a long lataacy period. Tims most medical coses occur far in tha future and are tharafer discounted heavily. EPA <M not attempt to values the Iom of life itself. In addition, no value was assi^Md-to "pain and suffering," "loss of 'leisure time.'" and other similar losses. owners of equipment which cannot be Substantial asbestos removal and easily converted. Total producer costs disposal costs would be avoided as a are estimated to be about 1209 million result of this proposed rule. These for the rule: include avoided expenses as well as 3. In addition, the rule would result in avoided health risks for people exposed transition costs to workers who are during removal and disposal activities. displaced by phasing down production Use of nanasbestas products in of asbestos products. These losses are construction reduces demolition and incurred io die form of tost wages and disposal coats in the future. Removal job search cost*. EPA believes that and disposal costs of products are likely transition costs of the phase-daw* wiM to be considerably higher for asbestos be relatively modest since the rule products than nonasbestos substitutes weald allow industry to scale back because of die extra precautions production gradually and shift required to meet OSHA and Clean Air production to otter products and that the transition con from the proposed Act (CAA) requirements. Avoided reraoml end disposal costs are a major product bans will be small m benefit of fids proposed regulation. comparison to the consumer and These caste can be substantial. EPA has producer costs. estimated that removing asbestos from The sum of thms amts, about $1.96 school buildings costs betwure S2 and billioa represents the estimated total $13 par square foot of asbestos removed. real resource casta of the rale. This cost OSHA and EPA both have regulations would be spread over IS yew. The cost to limit asbestos exposure at work sites. mil also be spread mrer a Lagga Certain oasts related to compliance with population and the impact ess east these regulations would be avoided as s persons would be negligible. result of this rate. To comply with In addition. PA estimated the real QBHA'e currant workplace standard for resource coats of the product bans asbestaa employer* uacar expenses proposed in this rule. These estimates related to: are shewn below; a. Monitoring for fibers. a-CPto door tua ......................... |t< listen _ it 19 S Muwon c'oor<*9 w ho Com b. Providing engineering methods to control exposures (this includes enclosing or isolating asbestos fiber generating activities, providing exhaust ventilation, dust collection, etc.) c. Ptrmdmg hand tools such as saws, scorns dnHs. sr ri abrasive wheels that ha-'i iocsf! exhaust ventilation systems. i Mo laying work practices to reduce espcsaie. e- Providing special clothing, change rooms. lc:kcr.. and special laundering. I. Labeling asbestos material and pc-ieng 'outicn signs. S- Prodding special procedures for collection end processing of asbestos waste. h. Providing mtdical examinations for employees exposed to asbestos. i. Responding to recordkeeping and reputing requirements. EPA'e CAA regulations require that activities during uniting, manufacture, demolition and renovation, waste disposal, and otne other asbestosrelated setivifiss release "no visible emissions." le comply with this requirement persons must obtain and me i-itai-i ri'-cleaning device* such as fibure aad may be required to modify work 2nd wests disposal practices to reduce emissions. In addition bofh OSHA and EPA may reqtrirt strirtw workplace controls for asbes^ct ia the mm future. The casts of complying with tfeass requirements would be svoided at least in part by this rule. United States courts and workman's compcrseticm boards have been muxulft xd vith thousands of dairns for compensstioa tor deaths end illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos. Some pest producers of asbestos products have dedared-bankruptcy because of these many claims. The continued use of asbestos can only exacerbate the problem. Er.ui esse of disease avoided relieves the vrjtoui systems affected of a corissittemble burden. This rule, by redacting exposure to asbestos and reducing tbs number of asbestos-related illnesses ami deaths, would reduce these caste. As required by section 8(c)(1)(D) of TSCA. EPA has analyzed die economic impact of this proposed rule on small businesses. Ths effect of this rule on such businesse* is expected to be small because fl) there ere few small businesses producing asbestos products and (2) prcdacar losses are expected to be smail since esaais! equipment for production ci most ssbostoe products can bfe oorisroted fairly easily to other forms erf production. A maximum of 27 out of drti 212 primary processors of asbes'm; product# are smaft businesses. EPA ackanwiedge* that these 27 compenits cooid incur bases under the rule EPA w.-.s unable to determine how many cl *h! secondary processors of asbeiion product* are small businesses. rsdreal / Vol. 51. No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29. 1983 / Proposed Rules 3749 However. EPA acknowledges that a higher percentage of secondary processors are likely to be small businesses then the percentage of primary processors diet are small businesses. In .addition. 3 of the 11 companies that manufacture the products that this rale proposes to ban are small businesses. This proposed rule could have significant impact on these few companies. The estimated costs of the rule coda be seen as sipuficont However, the overall benefits to society of asbestoscontaining products are diminishing with the currant availaoility and the continued development of various nonasbestos substitutes. The costs of the rale are speculative and probably are overestimated. In addition, many economic impacts of this rule are likely 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 products. Consumer losses caused by this rale would be spread across the entire consumer population, fobs displaced by this rule era likely to be offset by increased employment in companies producing substitutes for asbaste* products. Potential consumer and producer costa are likely to be offset by the economic costs avoided by this rale, i.e.. avoidance of the morbidity costs of asbestos-related diseases; the cost of removal and disposal of asbestos products; the costs of special control to reduce exposure to asbesto; and costs associated with legal actions seeking compensation for asbestos-related illnesses and deaths. Finally, the estimated costs of this rule appear reasonable in view of the unreasonably large number of asbestos-related deaths and serious illnesses that would occur without e phase-out of asbestos. EPA expects that this proposed rale would have a positive impact on technological innovation and encourage the continued rapid development of nonaebestos substitute products. This development of new products is likely to involve significant technological innovation. IV. Other Options Qmsidarod Section 8 of TSCA requires that SPA apply dm least burdensome requirements to reduce an unreasonable risk. EPA is considering a number of options for implementing the regulatory policy of phasing out the manufacture and importation of asbestos products. These options involve staged bans of categories of asbestos products. This approach would ban the manufacture, importation, and processing of all asbestos products within a certain category at the same time. EPA is considering a category approach for groups of asbestos products with similar exposure patterns, similar exposure control issues, and similar substitutes. Examples of categories under consideration are construction products and friction products. EPA believes it may be good public policy to ban categories of products at the same time. This approach would address similar exposure patterns in the same way and treat all parts of an industry sector similarly. In addition, both the construction products category and tbs friction products category contain products that could substitute for other products in the category if ail are not banned. Thus, a ban of the entire category may be necessary to reduce risk most effectively. One option under active consideration in addition to tha ones embodied in the proposal is banning the manufacture, importation, and processing of tha asbestos construction products category and asbestos clothing with dm ban effective soon after promulgation of the rule: banning tha manufacture, importation, and.processing of the asbestos friction products category about 3 years after promulgation of the rule; and gathering up-to-date production, exposure, and use data on the remaining aabestos products under section 8(a) of TSCA to support possible bans of other asbestos products at that time. Another option is harming the manufacture, importation, and procatsing of tha asbestos construction products category, asbestos clothing, and the asbestos friction products category as stated above and banning the remaining asbestos products at a later time (&.. 10 yean), thus allowing time for the development of effective substitutes while strongly encouraging substitute development. A third option is banning the maimfecture. importation, and processing of the asbestos construction products category and asbestos dothing as stated above end covering ail other asbestos products under the phase-down. (Jade? each of tha optima. EPA is also considering a requirement diet products net banned soon after promulgation be labeled m containing asbestos. EPA (s actively considering three options as alternatives to this proposed rule and specifically requests comment on there alternatives. EPA may adopt a filial rale based closely on one or a combination of these alternatives. These alternatives are discussed more fully below. 1 Ban the asbestos construc!:cn products category and asbestos c!cd- . soon afterpromulgation of the. rule. ba the asbestos friction products categr -> about S years later, andgather additional information on other asbestos products. Under this alternative. EPA would ban the manufacture, importation, and processing of the asbestos construction products category (i.e.. asbestos-cement pipe and fittings, roofing felts, flooring felts and felt-backed sheet flooring, vinyl-asbestos floor tile, corrugated asbestos-cement sheet, flat asbestoscement sheet, and asbestos-cement shingles) and asbestos clothing soon after promulgation of the rule. Effective substitutes exist for these products. The rule would also ban the manufacture importation, and processing of the asbestos friction products category (i e. dram brake linings, disc brake pads for light medium, and heavy vehicles, brake blocks, dutch facings, automatic transmission friction components, and industrial and commercial friction materials) S years after promulgation of the rule. This alternative would reduce exposure to asbestos without the administrative burden of EPA establishing and operating a permit system as in the proposed approach This alternative, by banning asbestos friction products 5 years after promulgation, would strongly encourage the rapid development of additional effective substitutes for asbestos friction products. The 5-year delayed ban would also allow time for expansion of production capacity for non-asbestos friction products. EPA estimates that this alternative, assuming current exposure levels, would avoid about 2.100 cancer cases that EPA can quantify while casting about S2.ll billion. This is a cost of about 1.01 million per cancer case avoided. Because OSHA has proposed lowering the workplace PEL for asbestos to 0.2 f/cc. EPA etso estimated the numbers of cancer cases avoided asstuning strict compliance with this lower PEL Assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc EPA estimates that this alternative would avoid about 1.080 cancer cases that EPA can quantify, while costing about S2.ll billion. Tbit is a cost of about 52.00 million per cancer case avoided. To determine how sensitive the cost per cancer case avoided was to the banning of particular products. EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis. exctud<ng asbestos-cement pipe from the ban. Without a ban of asbestos-cement pipe and assuming strict comphar.ee 375 Fader. I Register / Vol 51. No. 19 / Wodnesd?; Jaiuury 49. 1938 / Proposed Rules ariafcs> .?v yismKiassiiii with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. EPA This alternative would relatively quickly that this rliarnstive would avoid about estimates that this alternative would ban a number of asbestos products for 1.010 cancer cases that EPA can avoid about 840 cancer cases that EPA which effective substitutes exist while quantify while costing about $2.01 can quantify, while costing about Si.87 strongly encouraging the rapid billion This l; <t cast of about $1.98 billion. This is a cost of about $2.22 development of effective substitutes for million ae cancer case avoided. million per cancer case avoided. other asbestos products. Without a ban of asbestos-cement tPA believes that effective substitutes This alternative, tin'ike alternative i. p.pe &nd assuming strict compliance are increasingly becoming available for avoids the necessity of future with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. EPA asbestos friction products and will be rulemaking* to gather additional data isfuit'c that this alternative would readily available by the date the and then ban additional products. It avoid about 8s0 cancer cases that EPA- delayed ban would become effective. would also provide greater certainty can quantify while costing about $1.88 However. EPA is considering an about the status of all asbestos products billion. Thin is cost of about $1.95 exemption process for essential uses and more strongly encourage the million par cancer case avoided. > ithout substitutes. One area EPA is development of substitutes foe ail Ths following Table VI summarizes studying in particular is the aftermarket applications of all products. the a-.tiK2tii exists and estimated fo: asbestos brakes. Some persons have As in alternative 1. EPA is considering cancer esses avoided that EPA could t re ted that asbestos brakes now in use the need for an exemption process for quantify fcr the proposal and the three carnal safely be replaced by asbestos* asbestos friction products in connection alternatives discussed earlier, first free- brakes when they wear out. while with ths staged product bans. assuming current exposure levels and others have disagreed with this EPA estimates that this alternative, then assuming strict compliance with an .-.seriion. EPA m aware of the potential assuming current exposure levels, would OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. ni.k ic th* public from poorly performing avoid about 2.120 cancer cases that EPA - SPA specifically requests can quantify while costing about SZ28 tji vi- Otmatio costs and cancer eemnent on this issue. billion. This is a cast of about $1.08 Cases avowed E? h considered various approaches if'-' acit'ux'taing the risk presented by million per cancer case avoided. Assuming strict compliance with an ! is, I 1 I AIL 1 | ML ] irbajtos products not banned either OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc, EPA estimates sco i after promulgation or 5 years after that this alternative would avoid about a?v&ps&jrm promulgation under this alternative. One approach would be to propose and promulgate a nils under section 8(aJ of TSCA to gather contemporaneous data 1.070 cancer cases that EPA can quantify, while costing about $2.28 billion. This is a coat of about $2.13 million per cancer case avoided Cass Canegr Cm ............... ft m i mi | *2.20 1 *2.01 m&&s4---- 1.930 i 2.109 2.120 I 2020 'iZZS **&*------- *10*1 81.01 j SI-OS j St 00 concerning the production and use of Without a ban of asbestos-cement Kaatant Mi Coau&taR wmi an OSHA PR ol 031/ce &.-<d exposure to these products at the tir"t trie first products ban rule becomes =f.cc.ive or at a date a few years later. 'T.t ,'ould analyze that data and then pipe and assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEL of 02 f/cc EPA estimates that this alternative would avoid about 850 cancer cases that EPA cans m&m------------- SiJO j n j $229 . $201 Career cm ---- 1.000 | 1.000 j 1.070 . *310 CcbSf pST SNCesm CSAfiX C2*^ ------- si so j 82.00 1 1 $2.13 < *1 9S decide whether to ban additional can quantify, while coating about $2.02 t--S&-. smm esresruetton product and asbestos products. EPA would also billion. This is a cost of about $2.12 determine the date of these bans, which million per cancer cose avoided may be at staged intervals. After 3. Ban the asbestos construction deciding these issues. EPA would products category and asbestos clothing propose and promulgate the bans of soon afterpromulgation ofthe rule and tress asbestos products. Another cover all other asbestos products under approach for addressing the risk the phase-down. Under this alternative 4 Require labeling ofasbestos presented by these remaining asbestos EPA would ban the manufacture, products subject to a ban. As part of this products is discussed as alternative 2 bsio importation, and processing of the alternative. EPA also proposes and asbestos construction products category requests comment on a labeling 2. Ban ths asbestos construction and asbestos clothing soon after the reguirams.it. in particular, it is proposed P roct'.:: is category and asbestos clothing promulgation of the niie and cover all that products not immediately banned soon after promulgation of the rule, ban other asbestos products under the but subject to regulation 5 or 10 years the asbestos friction products category phase-down. from uow ba labeled in the interim. The about 5 years later, and ban remaining This alternative, unlike the current labeling would advise purchasers that asbestos products about 10years later. proposal, would ban ail asbestos- the product contains asbestos. EPA Under this alternative, as in alternative cement products at the same time, thus requests comments on this proposaL in l. EPA would ban the manufacture, addressing similar exposure patterns in particular on {1} the appropriateness of importation, and processing of the the same way and treating ail parts of this proposal for ell or some subset of asbestos construction products category an industry sector similarly. The phase- the products in this category; (2) the and asbestos clothing soon after down would operate to restrict um of appropriateness of a simple content promulgation of the rule, and ban the asbestos in other industry sectors. warning as append to a more extensive manufacture, importation, and EPA estimates that this alternative, labeling provision, and (31 the extant to processing of the asbestos friction assuming current exposure levels, would which labeling would serve to reduce products category 5 years after avoid about 2.020 cancer cases that EPA exposure to mbanics. promulgation of the rule. This can quantify while coating about $2jQ1 EPA %im considered a number of alternative would also ban the billion. This is a cost of about $1.00 alternatives for implementing the phase- manufacture, importation, and million per cancer case avoided dawn. These include options concerning processing of all other asbestos products Assuming strict compliance with an the following, who would be assigned to years after promulgation of the rule. OSHA PEL of O.Z f/cc. EPA estimates pSc, jersaas would be granted Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 19 / Wednesday, january 28, ie'u / Proposed Rules 3751 permits; whether permits would be time. Asbestos fibers easily reente' the transferable whether permits would be atmosphere after settling out and can bankable; and bomtajsortad products travel long distances through the air. containing ashestokyrotiid be treated. 5. Health risks from exposure to EPA also amsidewda number of asbestos fibers during the lifecycle of options bsforendopting its current regulatory strategy for controlling the risk from asbestos. These options are dismissed in documents which are included in the rulemaking record.' the asbestos products covered by this proposed rule occur to many population groups during many activities. Persons can be exposed to asbestos fibers long after those fibers have been released to V. Finding of Unraasonsbls Sisk the air and at a considerable distance from the source of release. The vast EPA has weighed the health risk* majority of the general population of the from continued use of asbestos and U S. is exposed to asbestos in the air. asbestos-containing products against the Mora than 40.000 workers are exposed costs attributable to the proposed during manufacture and processing of regulation. EPA has concluded, that the asbestos products covered by this aroidaaca of about 1,930 cancer cases proposal. Many additional thousands of that esn be quantified assuming current workers and consumers are exposed exposure levels, or the 1.000 cancer during product installation, use. cases that can be quantified assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEL of 0.21/cc, many other cancer cases that cannot be quantified, and many cases of asbestos-related disease substantially outweigh the costs to consumers, producers, and users of asbestos products from tbs proposed regulation. Therefore. EPA finds that the continued mining and importation of asbestos and asbestos products in the United States for domestic use and for export present an unreasonable risk to human health. The finding is based on the following points; 1. The health effects from asbestos exposure are very serious. Asbestos is s demonstrated human carcinogen. The cancers caused by asbestos are usually fatal and cause much pain and suffering. maintenance, renovation, removal, and disposal of asbestos products. Finally, many millions of people who reside near asbestos worksites art also exposed to significant concentrations of asbestos in the air. SL Using typical rather than worstcase. data and assumptions. EPA has estimated that this proposed rule banning certain asbestos products and phasing out all others, if promulgated, would avoid approximately 1,930 cases of cancer which would otherwise result from exposure to asbestos between the yean 1985 to 2000. EPA underestimated the number of cancer cases avoided because of the lack of comprehensive data on releases of asbestos to the ambient air from many activities. EPA In addition, asbestos censes other lung estimates that the following numbers of diseases such as asbestosis. cancer cases would be avoided as a 2. Available evidence supports the result of the proposed product bans, conclusion that there it no safe level of assuming both current exposure levels exposure to asbestos. This conclusion is and strict compliance with an OSHA consistent with present theory of cancer PEL of d f/oc. etiology end is further supported by fee many documented cases where low or short-term exposure has been shown to cause asbestos-related disease. 3. Models developed to estimate the relative risk of developing cancer from exposure to asbestos show a linear dose-response relatfcnship. Based on data from epidemiology studies, these models predict that humans exposed to very low levels of asbestos incur some risk Individuals frequently exposed to levels typically found at asbestos These estimates of cancer cases worksites are estimated to have vary avoided by fee product bens should not high risks of contracting cancer, perhaps be viewed in isolation, since asbestos greater than t in 100. use in other product sectors would 4. Asbestos fibers art colorless, theoretically decrease at less then the odorless, and frequently invisible, thus current rate unless all asbestos use is pretanting risk to persons not aware phased out that they may be exposed. Asbestos 7. Even if OSHA promulgates and fibers are extremely durable and have achieves strict compliance with a PEL of aerodynamic properties that allow them 0.2 f/ce. almost 1.323 cancers would still to remain suspended in the air for a long result from asbestos products mads over ti.s re :t ig years. This rule would avoid about i.KSC of those cancer cases. 8 The estimated costs of this proposed rule are reasonable in view Lf 'he number cf cancers and other ad rent health effects that would be avoided. Substitutes for asbestos are reaci'y available for many products and cac be expected to become available during tbs phase-down period for most, if not all. other uses. Even though the coits are probably overestimated, the cost per cancer case avoided, assuming current exposure levels, feat EPA can quantify, is about $1.02 million. Even if OSHA promulgates and achieves strict compliance wife a PEL of 0.2 f/cc. the cost per cancer case avoided that EPA can quantify is about $1.99 million, if ail cancer cases Mad the incidence of other diseases could be quantified, the cost per case of disease prevented would be substantially lower. In addition, the overall cojts of the rule are spread over a large population so feat the cost to any individm! would he negligible. Further. EPA expect* substantial savings to result from this rule from such factors as avoided casts in treating asbestos related tMtmsm. avoidance of lost productivity caused by these diseases, avoided costa in ssbmtoa removal and disposal, sad avoidance of litigation costs resulting from asbestos disease claims. EPA also finds that the costs of alternatives 1,2. and3 are reasonable m view of the numbers of cancers and other adverse health effects that they would avoid. This oosts per cancer case avoided feet SPA can quantify of these alternatives are approximately the same as for the prepared rale. As discussed striier. EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis to see how sensitive the cost per cancar case avoided by this rule and the coat par cancer avoided by the regain tory alternatives discussed earlier wore to the banning of particular product!!- Specifically. EPA analyzed the cost per cancer case avoided for the propose! end fee other options excluding asbeetoe-cament pipe or viniy-eebestoa floor tile from the bans. Even with these relatively high exposure products excluded from fee bans, the cost pm emsm case avoided by fee propose! sad fee alternatives are sunder. For example, without a ben of atbesto*-cement pipe and assuming strict aiuipistrtse wife an OSHA PEL of 0-2 f/cc. this proposed rule would cost about $1.38 arfflkm per cancer case avoided that EPA can quantify. Without a ban riny!-e*besto floor tile and assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEL of 0-2 f/cc. this proposed rule 37S2 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 19 / Wednesday. January 29, 13&3 / Proposed Rules would cost about S&28 million per cancer case avoided that EPA can quantify. Vf. Otter EPA Statutes during the disposal of asbestos and asbestos products. VII. Analysis Under Section 9(a) of TSCA Section 6(c) of TSCA require* that if Under section 9(a)(1) of TSCA. the EPA determines that a risk of injury to Administrator it required to submit a health or the environment could be report to another Federal agency whan eliminated or reduced to a sufficient . two determinations are made. The first f ten; by action# taken under another determination is that the Administrator statute rdministered by EPA EPA may has reasonable basis to conclude that e not promulgate a rale under section Oja) chemical substance or mixture presents of 1'SCA unless EPA finds it is in the or will present an unreasonable risk of public interest to protect against the rick injury to health or tha environment The by action under TSCA. EPA finds that second determination is that the no other law administered by EPA will unreasonable risk may be prevented or eliminate or reduce the risks from reduced to a sufficient extent by action esbestos to s sufficient extent taken by another Federal agency under Savers! EPA statutes have been used a Federal taw not administered by EPA, to limit asbestos exposure. In 1973. EPA Section 9(a)(1) provides that where toe i^ed Is- c authority of die CAA to list Administrator makes these two esb??te>3 as a hazardous air pollutant determinations. EPA must provide an cs'ablish a "no visible" emission opportunity to the other Federal agency standard for manufacturer*, and ban the to asses* tha risk described to the use- oi spray-applied asbestos* report, to interpret its own statutory containing material eg insulation in authorities, and to initiate an action buildings, published in the Federal under the Federal laws that it Wtgtetac of April 6.1973 (38 FR 2628). administers. Section 8(a) of TSCA thus EPA amended this regulation in 1973 to requires EPA to review other Federal ban ssbattos-containing pips legging, by authorities not administered by EPA to a role published to the Fodani Register determine whether action under those of October 12. 1878 (40 m mazy, and to authorities may prevent or sufficiently 1872, ^tended the ban to all uses of reduce unreasonable risk. The following s^tayed-on esbestos by a rule published unit summarizes past and contemplated to '.he Federal Ragtstae of June 18.1978 action by other agencies and than {4t A. `533?ZJ. The CAA nil, which was discusses why those agencies are sot iast amended on April 5.1964 {48 PR able to prevent or sufficiently reduce toe i33i>SJ, also regulates the removal of unreasonable risk presented by isbestotj from buildings and the disposal asbestos. of wastes generated by removal. However, the CAA has limitations. A. Other Authorities Affecting Asbestos The CaA does not apply directly to Under the authority of the Consumer indoor air in the workplace or home. Product Safety Act (CPSA, IS U.S.C. Cov.tequantiy, any possible additional 2061) the CPSC hea issued rales banning use ot that statute may leave many consumer patching compounds v/o.-kplaca or homa exposure situations containing respirable asbestos (16 CFR insdsqrasaiy controlled Part 1304) and artificial emberizing Another EPA statute that could be materials containing respirable asbestos id to limit asbestos exposure is tot (16 CFR Part 1306). The CPSC took those Safe Drinking Water Act (3DWA). BPA actions based on findings that the use of cnr.aunced its intention to consider those products to the household would asbestos for inclusion to its proposed result in increased risk of cancer. A'aiionel Revised Primary Drinking Earlier, the Food and Drag V.toie, Regulation* by a Motto Administration under tha Federal published in the Fsjfcsal S*fete of Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA, 13 October 3,1833 (46 FR 48502). However, U.S.C. 1261) banned "genarai-ura even if the SDWA is used to set a garments containing asbestos other than drinking water standard for sateifas, it garments having a bona fida application would necessarily ignore the inhalation for prsonal protection against thesmd risk associated with asbestos. injury and so constructed that tha An additional EPA statute that could asbestos fibers will not become airborne bs uasd to limit asbestos exposure is the under reasonably foreseaable conditions Resource Conservation and Recovery of use" (18 CFR 1500.17). Tht FHSA is Act (RCRA). Under RCRA. EPA could now administered by tha CPSC. list asbestos as a hazardous waste and In I960. CPSC issued a general order subject asbestos waste to general RCRA. requiring parsons to furnish information requirements designed to reduce on tha use of asbestos in certain exposure. However, such action under consumer product categories. CPSC has RCRA would only reduce exposure also measured potential consumer exposure vi sibestca from such products as *4be<os millboard, asbestos paper products tad store door gaskets.` OSH/, began to regulate asbestos in the wc /place to 1971 under tha Occult o-ial Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. -I. C'SHAct) Since the first woi-kpls -f. standard setting a limit of 12 f/cr promulgated in May 1971. the wo:hjr > ct standard has been twice re\ iso,' olid is now 2 f/cc (TWA). An Entcrjcacy Temporary Standard (ETS) estabiieiiing a permissible level of 0.3 f/cc wss published to the Federal of November 4.1983 (48 FR 51066). bu the ETS was found invalid by e court. OSHA proposed a revised standard in the Federal Register of April taiO&l (40 FR 14116). Ite Mine Safety end Health Administration (MSHA) acting under tha I'A'*; Safety end Health Act has adopted workpiece standards designed to protect worker* engaged in pit and unite ^ittnd mining end milling. The MSHA standards sm similar to those acts. teret* by OSHA for other workplaces. The MShA standard wes k*t Mtusnded to 1875 and calls for a PEL of 2 f/cw. Possible jurisdiction over other aspect? of iestt risk may lie with still other Federal agendas. For example?. the Asbestos Information Aisca.ttiot (AiA). commenting before a Senate subcommittee on early versions of TSCA. noted that the Federal Trade Gommieiicn may have authority to require labeling, distribution, and marksling of asbestos products and that the Department of Transportation has authority fc control transportation of hazardous substances, such as asbestos. 197! Senate Hearings at 224-227. State sitd local public employees are generally excluded from coverage under the OSHAct However, under (action 19 of toe OSHAct. OSHA has approved State plans for 23 States and two territories, thus effectively extending CSKA protections to State and local public employes* to the jurisdiction*. EPA bss proposed a mis to establish requirin'ants similar to those of the OSHA Asbestos Standard for State and local public employes* not under a State pirn too conduct asbestos abatement work. Fowvd. other public employees, such m firtiSghtiw*. art not covered by thk ,uto. B. EPA > Ditjn niuation Under Section BfaJ of i '! > EPA tf m-1 i,.Lurtrd to submit a report ia other tgsnj&e under section 8(a) on to# /ak* described in this notice Shu.. S.V, ha* determined that such rl-i ca _ ft be prevented or Federal RagMat / Vol. 51. No. 19 / Wednesday. January 29, 1986 / Proposed Rules 3753 reduced to a sufficient extent by action* there is no other Federal authority 3 Restdual risks. Even if other taken under a Federal law not capable of addressing the combination Federal agencies took additional action administered by ERA. Certain activities of activities involving asbestos. Section to reduce the risk associated with involving asbestos present risks that fall 8(a) requires EPA to consider the issues asbestos during the various stages of the under the jurisdiction of a number of necessary to make this determination lifecycle of asbestos products clearly different Federal laws such as the because the Agency believes that the within their jurisdiction, a substantial OSHAct. the Consumer Product Safety combination of asbestos activities, and unreasonable residual risk would Act and the Clean Air Act but no one . under the jurisdiction of a number of sail remain. statute, other than TSCA. can Federal laws, presents an unreasonable Many groups outside of OSHA adequately address ail its risks. Referral risk. Second. EPA examines the residual jurisdiction are at nak from exposure to would result in fragmented assessment risks that would remain if other agencies asbestos. State and local public of risks and potentially duplicative were to regulate asbestos and employees, such as firefighters, are not regulatory efforts, inefficient control of determines that such residual risks protected by OSHA regulations in about risk, and an adverse effect on public would still be unreasonable. half the States. The general population health. Furthermore, even if EPA were to 2. Capability ofother Federal is exposed to asbestos in the ambient air refer asbestos risks to otter agencies, authorities to deal with the combination as a result of release during the action taken by those other agencies ofasbestos activities. EPA has manufacture, processing, use. repair, would still laava a substantial residual concluded that asbestos is a clear and disposal of asbestos products. EPA risk. EPA's reasons for reaching this example for TSCA action rather than estimates that about 540 persons wilt conclusion are sat forth below. referral to other agencies. It is a develop cancer as a result of exposure 1. Interpretation afsection 0(a) of substance for which there is broad to asbestos in the ambient air as a result TSCA. The comprehensive nature of exposure to populations in numerous of releases associated with products TSCA has long been recognized. TSCA situations--in the workplace, through imported or manufactured over the next allows regulation of a chemical ambient concentrations, and from 15 years. substance bated on all its risks and. consumer products. With the exception Even if OSHA promulgates and thereby, allows the Government to of TSCA. there is no one unified schisvss strict compliance with a PEL of remedy the deficiencies in other statutes authority to deal with these multiple 0.2 f/cc. a substantial and unreasonable that can deal only with parts of ths risk. exposures. No one of the other potential residual risk would remain. About 1.329 (Statement of the President on signing S. Federal regulatory authorities, in looking persons would still develop cancer as a 3149 Into Law. October 12,13755, Weekly at Its specific part of the overall result of exposure to asbestos in Compilation of presidential Documents. exposures, can sither evaluate or deal products imported or manufactured over voL 12. No. 42. Oct 18.1878, at 143ft. S. with foe totality of the risk presented. the next 15 years. These include cancers Rep. No. 94-688,94th Cong., 2d Sets, at Thus. OSHA msy set exposure limits for in populations totally outside of OSHA's 2.) The need for a total exposure workers, but there may be venting of jurisdiction. Even with a lower approach to chemical regulation and the asbestos into ths atmosphere; EPA. workplace PEL EPA estimates that dangers of a fragmented regulatory under the Clean Air Act may regulate about 40 persons will develop cancer approach were recognized even during ambient emissions, but not workplace or from exposure to asbestos in the the early congressional hearings on consumer exposures; and in each step of ambient air. In addition, at a PEL of 0.2 TSCA. See. e.g. 1973 Senate Hearings at the process, only a fraction of the risk is f/cc. EPA estimates that about 785 212-214; 1972 House Hearings at 65-67. evaluated. Only EPA under TSCA may workers under OSHA jurisdiction would No other single law provides authority look across the range of asbestos use to develop cancer as a result of workplace to deal comprehensively with multi- evaluate whether it presents an exposure to asbestos in products media hazards. unreasonable risk. There is no other Act imported or manufactured in the next 15 In particular. Congress designed that affords such authority and. years. TSCA to deal with chemical substances accordingly, referral is inappropriate. EPA calculated these figures using for which the most appropriate remedy EPA'a analysis of the jurisdiction over well-accepted models. EPA used the would be a total ban on their production the risks presented by asbestos among * Nicholson relative risk model to and distribution in commerce. In this number of agencies and statutory estimate the number of lung cancer regard. Congress focused on the risk of authorities is set out below. OSHA has cases and the Nicholson absolute risk asbestos and the dangers of fragmented authority under ths OSHAct for risk model to estimate the number of regulation of asbestos during the presented to private sector mesothelioma cases. The dose-response legislative hearings. See 1871 Senate manufacturing, construction, and service constants used in the risk assessment Hearings and 1973 Hearings. Asbestos employees from workplace exposures, were those estimated by Seiikoff in a risks were described in the workplace and may approve State plans covering study of asbestos insulation workers and in over 3.000 uses that could present State and local public employees. CPSC (Ref. 11). A number of epidemiological risks to the general population. (HR. has authority under the CPSA and studies have estimated dose-response Rep. No. 94-1341,94th Con&, 2d Sets., at FHSA concerning risk presented to constants far asbestos-related diseases 5 (1976).) Members of Congress believed consumers from consumer products. The and estimates very by as much as an it intolerable that no agency could deal Mins Safety and Health Administration order of magnitude. The Seiikoff comprehensively with chemical risks, has authority under the Mine Safety and estimates fall approximately in the including ths risk from asbestos. See Health Act concerning risk presented middle of the ranges of dose-response 1973 Senate Hearings at 319-320 (Letter during the mining and milling of estimates for both lung cancer and from Senator Tunnsy to Dow Chemical asbestos. State and local public mesothelioma, in addition, the Seiikoff Company); 1879 Senate Hearings at 131- employees, such as firefighters who may estimates hays the lowest variance 133 (Remarks of Senator Tunney). wear asbestos clothing, in about half the among ail of the estimates. These EPA's decision not to refer the risks States are not covered even indirectly models and dose response constants associated with asbestos is divided into by OSHA regulations end are subject to were recommended by the CPSC's two parts. First. EPA determines that State authority. Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on HWBUI0001391 3754 Federal Rgffeteg / VoL 51. No- 19 / Wednesday, January 29. / Proposed Rules asbestos (Ref. 1) and were also used by reduce the unreasonable risk to human mfcting of another jubilance recti as OSHA to estimate the risk posed by health posed by aabestoa. Use of other vermicuiite would not be covered by asbestos in support of the proposed Federal authorities cannot reduce risk to thf nroposaf talks* the asbestos were revision of OSHA's asbestos standard. a reasonable level because fl> they later "".ilfud or wW for me. EPA is OSHA's choice of 0.2 f/cc as a cannot reduce the total volume of conceroed aboat possible unintended proposed PEL was based on the asbestos in commerce. (2) they cannot asbestos co^tawirsatkm of venmeohte feasibility of measuring asbestos levels in the workplace. At a level of 0.2 f/cc, OSHA. using the same lung cancer and mesothelioma models as EPAv-estimates that there would be STD excess cancer deaths per 100.000 workers exposed over a working career (Ref. 12) fie 190a a joint NIOSH/OSHA Asbestos Work Group stated that there was no Larvt of exposure to asbestos below which clinical effects did not occur and recommended a PEL of BA f/cc based on the limitation of assent technatagres for measuring aiir caaoa*atiooe of asbestos (Ref 7\. Even a level cf 0.1 f/cc. OSHA estimates that there could be 339 excess canes? deaths per 100,060 workers exposed over a working earessr (Ref. 12). protect the many population group* at risk, and (3f they all have jurisdictional gaps. VHI. Provisions of the Proposed Rids A. Product Prohibitions EPA proposes to prohibit the manufacture, importation, and processing of several asbestos products. The prohibitions will take effect at the same time that die restrictlona on the mining and importation of aH asbestos and asbestos products become effective. Thus, when this rule becomes operational, no person amid mine or import asbestos without a permit issued by EPA. In addition, no person could manufacture, import, or process the and other rsmetal. However, any sitsmptfc cover the sitfotentional mining of asbestos andsr this rile would complicate tbs operation of the rets ccr-ridertWy end perhsps make it unworkable The proposal defines Import" as "to bring into the custom* territory of tha United States except for (1) shipment through tf custom* territory of the United Statss for export without any domestic use or processing or (2) entering tl* customs territory of the United Staten m pert of a product during normal peroo&af or business activities involving ose of the product." Thus, asbestos that is shipped through the United States for export without any It it likely that a PEL of 02 f/cc will be exceeded in many coses since it is particularly difficult to apply tha PEL in the construction and secviar sectors. following asbestos containing products: Asbestos cement pipe and fittings, roofing felts, flooring felts (and Wtbacked sheet flooring], vinyl-asbestos, domestic processing or are would not be co> arad by this proposed rule. The proposed ml else sxemdes from corenf? situation* where an item, such Many of the workplace exposures to floor tils, and asbestos clothing. EPA is m m atstoiaobife eosrtsiiting asbeatos. asbestos occur downstream in the proposing to ban asbestos doming travels across tfet Ubitod States barrier construction and sendee sectors rather because It presents a particularly infos com* ofnormal personal or . than the manufacturing sector. Over 83 serious risk because of high exposure busfeese eethdHes. b addition, asbestos percent of workers exposed to aK4tf>v potential. EPA is proposing to ban tha. contested in ptMeets that are imported are m the canatractio* end servicer other products because effective in mail quantities safely for personal sectors. Employees in those sectors substitutes are currently available for all use by etremmsm wsdd not be covered often do not know when they are applications. As an alternative. EPA is by the proposal. Thee, under foie exposed to ashestos because they do considering banning these several pravision.an hidividual cook) bring an not know that they ere working wish asbestos products by a date soon after item sech as a consumer appliance asbestos products. Compliance the promulgation of this rule. containing asbestos into the United inspections are also difficult in tha construction and service sectors since B. Mining andImport Restrictions States for hie or her own use without obtaining a permit EPA believes that employees frequently do not have a EPA proposes to prohibit the mining any attempt to emer these situations fixed worksite. In fact, the current PEL or importation of bulk asbestos, and the would make this rule very complex and of 2.0 f/cc has been exceeded in many importation of die asbestos products difficult to iimixmmt. However. EPA cases in these sectors. Thus, it is fifcefy that many workers fit die construction listed in f 783.145 of the propoed, unless spscificelly reqaesto coetmmrt on the minor or importer bahlra permit wither, in vfew of foe serious health and service sectors will develop cancer issaed by EPA allowing mining or bezsrd pewril by aebeaton aS asbestos unless EPA takes action. Flnafiy. many importsdon of that quantity of asbestos. products should be covered by this role. asbestos control measures, in particular, EPA is considering the requirement that This proposal eavm mining and the use of respirators, only put the products made under die pornritting importation ofasbestos end the asbestos exposure problem elsewhere system be labeled as containing importation of specific asbeetos because they do not control die release aabestoa Labeling would ensure that products. EPA proposes to define of large quantities of asbestos to the persons working with or otherwise ' "asbestos" as "foe asbestifonn varieties ambient environment, where it handling the products would know that of ehrysable (serpentine): erocidofite continues to present a risk both to other the products contained asbestos, and it ftiebeckite): omocite (cummingtomte- workers and the general population. would enable them to iako steps to grunerite); tremoiite; enthopfeyffite. and Similarly, CPSC cannot evshmte or reduce the likelihood ofexposure. actinoBte foot are rained or miffed." EPA deal with die totality of the risk EPA proposes to recfac* the amount of requests comment on this definition, presented by aabestoa. CPSC may bon asbestos that may be imported or mined including whether asbestos which has or require safety standards for asbestos- k set decrements each year for 10 year. bees ehaastoally bested or altered containing consumer products based EPA proposes to define "mine" as "to should be included wfthtn the definition. exclusively on risk to contimers. CPSC produce asbestos other than m an EPA also proposes ia cover under this is unable te consider risk to other groups unintended contaminant to unpurity by phase-down tks aabesta* contained m a from releasee of asbestos during the extracting asbestos-containing ore so Dumber of products listed in 1715.145 of lifecycle ofthose products. te the re mey be (1) distributed in this propose?. Parsons would be sRowed After carefully analyzing other commerce at (2) ntilfed for distribution to import &** predicts only ? they Federal authorities. EPA concludes that in commerce." Thus, the unintentional hHd perrutr dtewtng foe importation of action under TSCA is appropriate to mining of asbestos in connection with the Muetar* y, asbestos contained in the Federal Register / VoL St. No. 19 / Wednesday. January 29. 1986 / Proposed Rules 3755 products. EPA is cowing these Persons would apply to EPA for mine asbestos in any quantity and particular products in this proposal permits. listing in their applications their would have no value of any kind for any because they represent the largest mining or import volumes during those purpose. quantities of ssbtatoa imported as part of products. EPA ia proposing to cover asbestos in products because of the risk posed by possibleasbestos exposure during use end disposal of the products and to treat domestic producers and importers of these products similarly. To implement this program. EPA is proposing that importers of listed products estimats the typical asbestoa content of Hie products. To aid those estimates. EPA has ascertained the typical asbestos content of the asbestos products covered by this proposal. If persons do not know Hie exact asbestos content of products they import they can rely on the EPA figures to estimate the amount of asbestos they impart EPA would allow persons to use an amount other than the EPA figure if they can show that their imported product contains a different amount of asbestos. Such persons would be required to maintain records supporting their determinations of typical asbestos content and would be subject to appropriate enforcement action ifEPA discovered that their imported products actually had a higher asbestos content than they estimated. EPA believes that this is a practical way to implement the phase-down of asbestos use. years. Persons who do not apply fjr permits would not be granted any. EPA would compare volume information included in applications with information repotted under toe section 8(a) asbestos reporting rule, which covered 1981. United States Customs Service data, and Bureau of Mines data. Persons who include falsa information in their application would be subject to enforcement action, including criminal prosecution in appropriate cases. EPA would similarly cover importers of asbestos contained in toe products iieted in this rale. Those parsons would apply for permit*, including in their application the total amount of asbestos in their imported products during the ban yean 1981.1982. and 1963. Those persons could tut EPA's ssttmatM of typical asbestos content of products if they do not know toe typical asbestos content of their product The proposal contains an appeals procedure for persons who disagree with EPA's allocation of permits to them. However, since toe propound rule would allocate etch miner and importer a uniform percentage of their base volume levels. EPA would expect few appeals. The only issue in an appeal would be whether EPA allocated EPA is considering an alternative of having banked permits not decline in value. This alternative would provide greeter incentive for the banking of permits end thus incentive for greater reductions in asbestos mining and importation in early years of the pTiasedown period. Under the proposed approach, at the end of the 10-year phase-down period, ail mining or importation of asbestos would be banned except that allowed under m exemption procedure. EPA would consider applications for exemptions and grant them for essential uses of asbestos for which substitutes are not available. In addition. EPA is considering a requirement that products not burned be labeled as containing asbestos. This requirement could be imposed as part of this rulemaking or by a separate rulemaking. As an alternative. EPA is considering allowing a residual amount of asbestos i mining and importation after the 10-year phase-down period. This general approach would avoid the potentially heavy administrative burden and expense of an exemption process. As part of this alternative. EPA is considering allowing permits banked during the 10-year phase-down period to C. Permits to Mine or Import Asbestos permits based on toe correct base year*' continue to be used during the later EPA proposes to issue current miners and importers of asbestos permits that would allow those persons to mine or impart set amounts of asbestos. The permit would be letters from EPA stating the amount of asbestoa that a person may import or mine during each year of the 10-year phase-down period. The volume information. Persons would be allowed to transfer their permission to mine or import asbestos to other persons, including persons who were not issued permits by EPA. Permits issued to miners, importers of bulk asbestoa and importers of asbestos in products would bs period when a much smaller percentage of base years volume is permitted. Such an approach would provide additional incentive for the banking of permits and thus additional incentive for greater reductions in asbestos mining and importation during early years of the - phase-down period _ "permitted" amount of mining or intarchengsabla. Persons could transfer EPA specifically requests comment on importation would be a uniform all or only part of their yearly permitted this series of alternatives to a ban with percentage of Hie average amount of amount to ana person or a number of an exemption process after the 10-year asbestos each person mined or imported persons. Persons transferring all of part phase-down period. yearly during the base period of 1061. of their permitted amount would bs 1982. and 1983. The "permitted" amount required to report each transfer to EPA. D. Reporting of asbestoa would be 30 percent of the Persons would also be allowed to EPA proposes to require persona to person's average base year volumes reserve or "bank" permitiron to import report toe amount of asbestos imported during the first year of the phase-down asbestos during any year of toe phase- during each import transaction. EPA period and would decline to 27 percent down period for uae during any later specifically requests comment on of average base year volumes during toe year of toe phase-down period. Persons whether this report should be sent second year. 24 percent during toe third would be required to report each directly to EPA or whether persons year and so on until it reached 3 percent "banking" of asbestos permits to EPA A should turn toe report over to toe United in year 10. EPA chose these "permitted" person wbo banks permission to min or States Customs Service, which would amounts based on projections of future import a certsip amount of asbestos forward the report to EPA. Requiring the asbestos use after analysis of current would be allowed to us only part of report to bs turned over to the Customs use trends, publicly available that amount during later years of toe Service is part of each import information on asbestos use. and phase-down period. The amount of transaction may facilitate enforcement information reported under the section asbestos mining or importation of the rule. 8(a) asbestoa reporting rale. In addition, permitted by banked permits would The proposal also would require the "permitted" amounts chosen reflect decline yearly at a rate of 10 percent persons to report to EPA each transfer the EPA has proposed to ban certain Permits not used by the conclusion of of permission to mine or import high volume uses of asbestos where the 10-year phase-down period would no asbestos. This reporting would be under suitable substitute products are avilable. longer permit the holder to import or authority of section 8(a) of TSCA and HWBUI0001393 3751 Federal Register ! Vol, 5t. No. 19 / Wednesday. January 2d. 1938 Proposed Rules would apply to all importers, including unlawful for any person tor (i| Fair or record, without my confidential . small businesses. Section 3(a) exempts refuse to establish and maintain records business information, is available in the small businesses from reporting in as required by this rule: (2) fed or refuse Office of Toxic Substances Public certain cases. However. SPA mey to permit access to or copying of information Office, from 8 am to 4 p m.. require miners and importer* of a records, as required by TSCA; or (31 fail Monday through Friday except legal substance subject to a rule under section or refuse to permit entty m inspection as holidays. The Public Information Office 6 of TSCA to report. Since asbestoe is required by section II of TSCA. is located in Rm. E-I07.401 M St.. SW . already subject to rules under section fl and would be subject to this one. the small business exemption of section Hm) would not apply. EPA believes that these reporting requirements represent very little burden and are necessary for effective enforcement of the phase-dews rule. EPA would use the information in these reports to maintain a computerized record of the quantities of asbestos each person is permitted to mine or import as compared to the actual level of mining or importation. EPA would investigate cases where the quantity of asbestos mined or imported appears to exceed the quantity of asbestos that a person is permitted to mine or import and take appropriate enforcement action far any violation ef the phase-down rule. Violators may be sebject to both civil and craninel liability. Under the penalty provision of section IB of TSCA any person who violate* section IS coaid be subject to a civil penalty at mp la SZSJSBQ far etch vwktioa. Etch dry af operation in violation of this ml* when it becomes effective could constitute a separate violation. Knowing or wififiid vioktisos of this role whan it becomes affirctiv could lead to the imposition f criminal penalties of up to J25.e0tt tar each day of violation and imprisomneatforop ui year. In addition, other remadiss ere available to EPA under aestioss ? and 17 of TSCA. such am tasking sr. ii^aetaa to restrain viofotions of thss rule wten- it becomes effective and seising any chemical substance or mixture manufactured or imported in vktlstat o? Washington. D.C. The record includes information considered by EPA in developing this proposed rule EPA will supplement the record with additional information as it is received. The record now adudaa tit* following categories of information; (t) Federal Register notices. (2] support documents. (31 reports, end (4J mamoisade and letters. EPA wiR idantify the complete raietoekiag record by date of gfunttlgetion. EPA will accept sdiicnikl material for inckmon in the record at any time between this notice and desifaetioa of tfea complete meant llis- Intel rok will aka permit persona to point out my mrmatamimam ia the record. To facilitate the transfer af permits. this rule whan it becomes effective. XILEafeenee* EPA is considering making readily available to interested parties information concerning the persons Individuals, as well as corperatimss; could be subject to eafarcemeat artisan Section* 15 and 18 of TSCA apply to (IIUSCPSC. Report to the U.S. Coeaumer Product Safety Cotanussio* by ike Chrome Hazard Advisory tael oa Asbestos, [uly holding permits and the quantities they "any person" who violates various 1983. hold. EPA may allow persons computer provisions af TSCA. EPA may. at Us (2) USEPA. OPTS. OTS. Exposure access to an EPA data bank if this discretion, proceed against indwckwJs Amusement for AshssSee. Draft January 9 would not reveal confidential business information. EPA specifically requests comment on 'whether EPA should facilitate the transfer of permits and on ways for EPA to accomplish this without revealing confidential business information. E. Recordkeeping EPA proposes to require person* to retain documentation of information concerning all transfora of permission to as well as companies. In particular. EPA may proceed against individuals who report false information nr cause it to be reported. X. Confidentiality A person may assert a claim of canfidentialHy for any information, including public comments, submitted to EPA in connection with this proposed rule or in connection with this rule after it is promulgated. Any person who 19M. (3) USEPA. OPTS. OTS. Regulatory Impact Analysis ofControls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products, femmtf toe*. (4| USEPA OPTS. OTS. Sapport Document for Pinal Rule on Friable Aabestae-Gantaimng Matesuit m Schofe Baddings--Health Effects aod Mcsmtuda ot Expanse. January- 1M2. (5) National fUaucch Council. "Asbestos" Ik "Drinking Water sad Health." VaL 3. National Academy Press. Washington. OX. (19821:223-283. (8) National Research Council. mme or import asbestos and the amount submits a confidential public comment ' Nanoccuperionsf Health Risks of of asbestos mined or imported each must also submit a nonconffdantial Asbestiform Fibers." Nattoiwl Academy year. The proposal would raqwire these records to be kept for 5 years after the end of the last year of the phase-down period covered by the rule, importers of asbestos contained in prodarts covered by this proposal would also have to keep records concerning their lewis of version. Any claim ofconfidentiality must accompany the information whan it is submitted to EPA Persons would claim information confidential by circling, bracketing, or underlining it and marking it with '`CONFIDENTIAL" ot some other appropriate designation. Press. Washington. D C (1984). (7) P0IOSH-GSKA Asbestos Work Croup. Workplace Bxpcoara to Asbestoe "Review and RecomHwmSsUeas" OItttS (NKHHl Publication Mo. 81-103. U S. Covenantor Printing Office. Washragsoo. D.C. 29482. (1MI. [8j OSHA. Quantitative Risk. Analysis tor importation. EPA believe* that these EPA will disclose information subject to Asbestos-Related Cancer*: A Prelimtoary recordkeeping provision* would be a claim of confidentiality only to the Report.' OS). essential to enforcement of this proposed rate. IX. Enforcement Section 15 of TSCA make* it onkwful to fail or refuse to comply with any provision of a rule promulgated wader section 8 of TSCA. Therefore, any failure >a comply with tiria imposed mk when it becomes effective would be a extent permitted by section M a# TSCA end 40CFR Pert 2. Satport tt Ifa person does not assert a clatmofconfidentiality for information at the time it i* submitted to EPA EPA may make the information public without further notice to- tfcet person. XT ffnlaauVlf ffamwt EPA has established a record for this (9) Seidmsm. H. Selikoff. If.. Hammond. E.C.. "Short-Term Asbestoe Work Bcposore end Long-Term Obseraation." Annate of the Sew >ark Acodetsyo!Science. X01T97?\: 81 -3. UOI R-eBwffi i} Andes***, HA- Smfaoan. H. "Aabeatos Oiseas Among Hmmehete Coalst* si Mtmxm Worksre-" !m "Oisabdity Cempaarouoa far AsbestoaAssocittvd Dicasse k* the C-S-" edited by 1-1Seiikof?. Environmental Sciences Laboratory. violation of sec&un IS of TSCA. far rulemaking (docket control number Mount ?:nai rctiool of Medicine of the City addition, section 15 of TSCA makes it OPTS--620*0). A public version of the University of New York. (1982): 73-76. HWBUI0001394 Federal RafitUff / VoL 51. No. 19 / Wednesday. January 29. 1968 / Proposed Rules 37o~ (11) Selikoff. Hammond. E.C. Seidmaii H.. '`Mortality Experience of Insulation Worker* in Uta US. and Canada. 1913-1976." Anna/s ofthe Now York Academy ofScience. 33011979): 91-116. (121USOOL OSHA.,'Occuperionst Exposure to Asbaatoc Emergency Temporary Standard." (Novembar 4.1933:48 FR 31088). (13) USDOL OSHA. "Occupational Exposure to Asbestos: Proposed Rule and Notice of Hearing" (April 10." 1984:49 FR 14118). (14) USEPA. OPTS. OTS. Asbestos Substitutes and Related Materials. April 24. 1985. Dated: January 22.1888 Lee M. Thomas, Adminittnotar. PART 783--{Amended] Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR Part 783 be amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 703 is revised to read as follows: Authority; 15 U.&C 280S ami 2807(c). 2. By adding new Subpart H to read as follows: AtlMfeu* MMi fwt #i *i *4 during normal personal or business activities involving use of the product (fj "Milled" means the separation of asbestoe fibers from asbestos ore the grading and sorting of asbestos fibers, or the flberizing of asbestos ore. (g) "Mina" means to produce asbestos other than as an unintended contaminant or impunty by extracting asbestos-containing ore so that the ore may be (1) distributed in commerce or (2) milled for distribution m commerce fh) "Miner" means a person who mines asbestos. A. Executive Order 12251 Under Executive Order 12281, EPA has determined that this proposed rule is a "Major Rule" and has developed an R1A. The RIA estimates that this proposed rule would coat about 91.58 billion over 13 years. However, die RIA also estimated that this proposed rule. If promulgated, would avoid approximately 1.990 rases of cancer. As shown In Unit V above, EPA believes that these costs are reasonable and that this proposed action is a cost-effective way of reducing the unreasonable risks related to asbestos. This proposed rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (QMB) for review as required by Executive Order 12231. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act EPA has analyzed the economic impact of this proposed rule on small' businesses. A summary of EPA'a analysis appears in Unit BL C. Paperwork Reduction Act Hie reporting and recordkeeping provisions in this proposed rule will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act Comments an these requirements should be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affaire at OMB and marked Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Any final rule will explain EPA's response to OMB and public comments on the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 783 Environmental protection. Hazardous substances. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Asbestos. Sk 785.140 Scop*. 78X143 Definitions. 783.143 Mining and import restrictions. 783.147 Permits to mine or import asbestos. 78X148 Itsuaaco of permits. 78X148 Appeals concerning permits. 783.130 Trensftr of permits. 783.151 Banking of permits. 783.153 Recordkeeping. 783.138 Reporting. 783488 Bnforcorasnt. 763.137 Inspections. 78X139 Confidentiality sad public Seram to reformation. Import Restrictions 178X140 Soap*. This Subpart prohibits the mining or importation of asbestos, including asbestos in certain asbestos products, unless authorized by a permit issued by EPA. 70X149 MMHans The definitions in (action 3 of TSCA. IS U.S.C 2802. apply to this Subpart. In addition, the following definitions apply: (aj The terms "act" "article." "byproduct" "customs territory of the United States." "EPA," "importer," "manufacturer." "persons." and "United States" have the sams meanings as in 1720.3 of this chapter. (b) "Asbestos" means the aabestiform varieties ofc chrysotile (serpentine); croddolite (riebeckite): amosite. (cummmgtonite-grunerite): tremolitc anthaphyilite, and actinolite that are mined or milled. (c) "Asbestos product" means any mixture or article containing asbestos. (d) "Consumer" means e natural person who uses a product for personal rather then business purposes. (e) "Import" means to bring into customs territory of the United States for any purpoaa except (1) for shipment through the customs territory of the United States for export without any domestic use or processing; or (2) entering the customs territory of the United States as part of a product 73X144 HMng and Import restrictions. (a) Beginning the first day of the calendar year aftar this rule becomes effective, or if this rule becomes effective during the last 4 months of a calendar year, beginning the first day of the second calendar year after this rule becomes effective, no person other than a person authorized by a permit issued by EPA as provided in this part may: (1J Mine asbestos in the United States or . ; (2) import asbestos, includingasbestas in an asbestos product listed in this section, except in small quantities solely for personal consumer use. into the customs territory of the United States. (b) The following asbestos products may not be imported into the customs territory of the United States except in small quantities by a consumer solely for his or her personal use unless authorized by a permit issued by EPA a provided in this Subpart: (1) Appliances. (2) Pipeline wrap. (3) Thread, yam. lap. roving, cord, rope, or wick. (4) Shaft gasketing, rubber encapsulated compressed. (5| Disc brake pads (light-medium vehicles). (8) Cloth, other than asbestos clothing. (7) Brake blocks. (8) Millboard. (9) Packing. (10) Mixed or repackaged asbestos fiber. (11) Thermoplugs. (12) Tape. (13) Roof coatings. (Ml Clutch facings. (15) Automotive gasket kit. (18) Drum brake linings. (17) Yam. (18) Automobiles and other motor vehicles. 73X147 Parana temfm or import (a) Persons may mine in the United States or import into the customs HWBUI0001395 3758 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 19 / Wednesday. January 23. 1968 / Proposed Rules territory of the United States only the or her application. If the appeal is quantity of asbestos for which they hold permits issued under this Subpart. (b) The amount of asbestos contained in imported product listed in $ 763.145 will count toward the total amount of asbestos a persorwnay mine or import mailed, the letter must be postmarked within 20 days after receipt of EPA's announcement of disposition. (c) A person must indicate in an appeal why he or she should receive a permit or be allowed to mine or import during a year. additional asbestos under the permit. (c) Persons must estimate typical (d) Hie Director of the EPA Office of asbestos content of imported asbestos Toxic Substances will either grant or products covered by this rule. Persons deny the appeal within 80 days after ts may use EPA's estimate of typical receipt. The disposition of the appeal asbestos content if they are not certain of the typical asbestos content of a product. will be announced by letter to the person making the appeal. 3 783.150 Transfer of permits. $ 783.14a Issuance of permits. (a) A person issued a permit by EPA (a}{i) EPA will issue permits for the mining or impart of asbestos, including asbestos contained in the asbestos products listed in 763.145. (2) Applications for permits must be sent to the Office of Toxic Substances ITS-792), EPA. 401 M St.. SW., Washington. O.C. 20460. (b)(1) Persons must apply to EPA for permits by 30 days after the effective date of this rule. (2| Persons must list in their application for permits the amount of asbestos, including asbestos contained in the asbestos products listed in 3 763.145. that they imported or mined to mine or import a quantity of asbestos may transfer that permit in whole or in part to another person. (b) A person who transfers a permit to mine or import a quantity of asbestos and a person who receives such a transferred permit must report that transfer to the Office of Toxic Substances (TS-792). EPA 401M St.. SW.. Washington. DC 20460. within 10 days of the transfer. (c) The parties involved in a transfer may report either jointly or separately. (d) if a report is mailed to EPA the report must be postmarked within 10 days of the transfer. during 1981.1982. and 1983. (c) If an application is mailed to EPA the application must be postmarked by 30 days after the effective date of this rule. (d) EPA will allocate to persons who apply for permits a uniform percentage of the amount of asbestos those persons reported mining or importing during 1981. 1982. and 1983. (e) Each permit will allow a person to mine or import the following percentages of the average amount of asbestos he or she mined or imported yearly during 1981.1982. and 1983. Year 1--30 percent. Year 2--27 percent. ' Year 3--24 percent. Year 4--Z1 oercent. V^r 5--18 percent, i ear 6--15 percent. Year 7--12 percent. Year 8--9 percent Year 9--8 percent. Year 10--3 percent. 3783.131 Banking of permits. (a) Persons issued permits by EPA to mine or import a quantity of asbestos during one particular year may reserve or "bank" all or part of the permitted amount and use it to mine or import asbestos during a later year during the 10-year phase-down period. (b) The amount of asbestos that a person is permitted to mine or import will decline from year to year when it is reserved or "banked" at a rate of 10 percent per year. (c) A person who "banks" a permit in whole or in part must report that "banking" to the Office of Toxic Substances (TS-792). EPA 401M St SW., Washington. DC 20460. within 80 days of the end of the year for which the permit was issued. (d) If a report is mailed to EPA the report must be postmarked within SO days of the end of the year for which the "banked" permit was issued. 3 783.149 Appeal* concerning permits (a) A person may appeal EPA'a initial disposition of his or her application for e permit. (b) The person must appeal in writing to the Director of the Office of Toxic Substances (TS-792), EPA 401M St.. SW.. Washington. DC 20480. within 20 days after receipt of EPA's announcement of the disposition of his 783.183 Reeartitoaeping. (a) Any person who mines or imports asbestos or any asbestos product listed in 763.145 must retain in one location documentation of information showing; (1) The name of any person to whom he or she transferred permission to mine or import asbestos. (2) The name of any person from whom he or she received permission to mine or import asbestos. !3i The amoum of asbestos mined or imported each year, including asbestos imported in any asbestos product listed in 763.143. The typical asbestos content of ar asbestos product listed in } 783.145. {5} The number of individual asbestos products listed in I 783.145 imported each year. ibj This information must be retained for 5 years from the end of the last year oi (lie 10-year phase-down period covered by this rule. 3 783.184 Reporting. (a) Any person who imports asbestos, including asbestos in an asbestos product listed in f 763.145, must report to the Office of Toxic Substances (TS792). EPA 401M. St. SW.. Washington. DC 20480. within 2 days of the day of import indicating: (1) The parson s name. (2) The amount of asbestos imported. (3) The number of individual asbestos products listed in 793.145 imparted. (4) A certification that the person was ,, ; either issued a permit by EPA to import at leect that amount of asbestos that year or obtained that permission from another person as provided in 783.148. (b) Within 60 days of the and of each year covered by this Subpart each person who mines or imports asbestos including asbestos in an asbestos product listed in 763.145 must report to the Office of Toxic Substances (TS-792). EPA 401 M. St. SW.. Washington. DC 20460; (1) The total amount of bulk asbestos that person rained or imported that year. (2) The total amount of asbestos that person imported in asbestos products listed in 763.145 that year. (31 The number of individual asbestos products listed in 783.145 that person imparted that year. (4j The amount of asbestos that person had permission to mine or import that year. (c) if a report is mailed to EPA the report must be postmarked within 80 days of the end of each year covered by this Subpart. 78415 Enforcement (a) Failure to comply with any provision cf this Subpart is a violation of section 15 of the Act (15 U.5.C. 2814). (bj Failure or refusal to establish and maintain records cr to permit access to or copying of records, as required by the Act. is a violation of section 15 of the Act (IS U.SC. 2814). (c) Fai'urt or refusal to permit entry or inspection zt, required by section 11 of ths Act fli U S C. 2810) is a violation of rectisr. IS of ;h? Act (15 U S.C. 2814). HWBUI0001396 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 19 / Wednesday. January 29. 1986 / Proposed Rules 3739 (d) Violators may be subject to the processing, of the following categories of or import the following asbestos- civil and criminal penalties in section 18 asbestos-containing products: asbestos- containing products either for use in the of the Act (is U.S.C. 2813) for each containing roofing felt, asbestos- United States or for export: asbestos- violation. (e) EPA may seek to enjoin the mining or import of asbestos or asbestos products in violation of this Subpart, or act to seize any asbestos or asbestos products in violation of this Subpart, or take other actions under'the authority of section 7 or 17 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2606 or 2818). 5 7(3.157 Inspections. EPA will conduct inspections under section 11 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2810) to ensure compliance with this Subpart and to verify that information submitted to EPA under this Subpart is correct. 9703.155 ContaentMtty end pubffe access to Information. (a) A person may assert a claim of confidentiality for any information he or she submits to EPA under this Subpart (b) Any claim of confidentiality must containing flooring felt (including vmyi sheet flooring backed with flooring felt), vinyl-asbestos floor tile and asbestoscement pipe and fittings and asbestos clothing. 9783.1(3 Oeunfttana. The definitions in section 3 of the Toxic Substances Control Act and the following definitions apply to this subpart (a) "Asbestos" means the asbestiform varieties oft chrysotile (serpentine); croddoiite (riebeckite); amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite): tremolite: anthophyliite. and actinolite. (b) "Asbestos-cement pipe and fittings" means an asbestos-containing product that contains cement and is intended to transmit water or sewage; for use as conduit pipe for the protection of electrical or telephone cable; or for use as air ducts. containing roofing feit. asbestoscontaining flooring felt (including un>i sheet flooring backed with flooring felti. vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestoscement pipe and fittings, and asbestos clothing. {783.157 Processing--prottiMtiona. Beginning the first day of the calendar year after this rule becomes effective, or if this rule becomes effective during the last 4 months of a calendar year, beginning the first day of the second calendar year after this rule becomes effective, no person shall process the following products, either for use in the United States or for export; asbestoscontaining roofing felt, asbestoscontaining flooring felt (including \ i-yl sheet Roaring backed with flooring feit). vinyi-asbestoe floor tile, asbestos- accompany the information when it is (c) "Asbestos clothing" means an cement pipe and fittings, and asbestos - submitted to EPA. asbestos-containing product made of clothing. (c) EPA will disclose information cloth and designed to be worn by subject to a claim of confidentiality individuals. {T83.1S8 Enforcement asserted under this section only to the . extent permitted by TSCA and Part 2 of this title. (d) If a person does not assert a claim of confidentiality far information at the time it is submitted to EPA. EPA may make the information public without further notice to that person. (d) "Asbestos-containing product" means any material which contains more than 1.0 percent asbestos by weight (e) "Flooring felt" means an asbestoscontaining product made of paper feit and intended as an underlayment for floor coverings, or to be bonded to the (a) Failure to comply with any provision of this Subpart is a violation of section 15 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2614) (b) Failure or refusal to establish and maintain records or to permit access to or copying of records, as required by the Act is a violation of section 15 of (he 3. By adding new Subpart I to read as underside of vinyl sheet flooring. Act (15 U.S.C. 2814). follows; (f) "Roofing felt" means an asbestos- (c) Failure or refusal to permit entry or Subpart I--Prohibition of the Manufacture. Procemng, and Dietribution In Commerce of Certain AMwetoe-ContsftHog Products containing product made of paper felt and intended for use on building roofs as s covering or underlayment for other inspection as required by section 11 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2810) is a violation of section 15 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2814) Sec *83.160 Scope. 763.163 Definitions. 793.163 Manufacture--prohibitions. 763.187 Processing--prohibitions. 763.160 Enforcement. roof coverings. (g) "Vinyl-asbestos floor tile" means an asbestos-containing product composed of vinyl resins, containing fillers, stabilizers and pigments and used as floor tile. (d) Violators may be subject to the civil and criminal penalties in section 18 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2815) for each violation. (e) EPA may seek to enjoin the manufacture or import of asbestos Subpart I--ProMMtton of the {783.155 Manufacture--pratriMtione. products in violation of this Subpart, or Manufacture, Proceeefrig, and Beginning the first day of the calendar act to seize any asbestos products in Distribution in Commerce of Certain year after this rule becomes effective, or violation of this Subpart, or take other Aebestoe*Contaffting Products if this rule becomes effective during the actions under the authority of section 7 9 753.150 Scope. This Subpart prohibits the last 4 months of a calendar year, beginning the first day of the second calendar year after this rale becomes or 17 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2606 or 2616). (FR Doc 86-1881 Filed 1-28-66: 8:45 ami manufacture, importation and effective, no person shall manufacture BIUJNO coca M u HWBUI0001397