Document aBjmvX7VKBQB6v075dXvKOMra

}s "The opinion doesn't bestos," said Linda Fisher,; administrator. She said the; sidering whether to appeal beef up its analysis to satisfy cited by the appeals court or, regulation. -But the ruling, providii news for the asbestos indu manufacturers' hopes that a be avoided in favor of tougi utd installation restriction teep the products on the n A portion of the asbestos i n effect, but the ruling coij emporarily stave off a I9i estos friction products, inc n new cars, and most indui 'he last batch of produc aimed by 1996, with distribu; ;r 1997, and includes replaci sbestos-cement pipe used ri ir and sewer lines, coating: :ts and shingle. The court also bolstered i ance that the costs of bai oducts are excessive comp alth benefits. It singled < at banning asbestos pipe w e ~?.t 13 years, at a cost IL o $227 million, or abc $Vo million for each life ; "EPA, in its zeal to ban ai stos products, basically igl e" of the Toxic Substance: ich specifically requires a its and benefits, the,courl L STREET JOURNAL Court Voids EPA Ban On Asbestos Agency Criticized For Ignoring Costs By Michael Weisskopf Wtshioftoo Foat Staff Writer A federal appeals court yesterday struck down the Environmental Protection Agency's ban on prod ucts containing asbestos, criticizing the agency for failing to take into account the health risks posed by substitutes and the high costs of prohibiting the ubiquitous but dead ly mineral. The ruling by the 5th U.S. Cir cuit Court of Appeals has far-reach ing implications for regulation of toxic substances, according to in dustry and environmentalist law yers. It took 10 years of study and political wrangling to put the ban into effect and involved a substance for which more compelling evidence of human dangers has been com piled than for any other. "The ruling calls into question our ability to regulate chemical-by chemical in an efficient way," said assistant EPA administrator Linda Fisher. "We thought we made a strong case with asbestos because of the documented health risks and the substitutes that are available. The court is saying it's not strong enough." Fisher stressed that while the opinion criticizes the EPA's regu latory methods, it "does not exon erate asbestos." She said no deci sion on appeal has been made. When the EPA imposed the ban in 1989, it concluded that asbestos posed an "unreasonable risk" to health and the environment. The agency estimated that 202 lives could be saved over a 13-year period by eliminating the fireproof fibers in such products as auto brake linings, fireproof clothing, cement, building materials and insulators. Asbestos dust was identified as a pulmonary irritant in the 1930s, and by the 1960s, was widely ac cepted to be a leading cause of lung scarring and lung cancer in workers closely and regularly exposed to it. The EPA made asbestos the pri mary target of its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), passed in 1976 to limit the environmental risk of commercial products. The agency is called on to "protect adequately" against "unreasonable risk" to health or the environment. But its authority is limited by the economic consideration to achieve the man date by "using the least burden some requirement." Ruling in an appeal by the asbes tos industry, the court said that in seeking the least burdensome re quirement, the EPA failed to bal ance the estimated costs of the reg ulation against the presumed ben efits. The court cited estimates that a ban would cost $800 million in lost business and consumer costs of replacements. The court pointed out, as an ex ample, that the proposed ban of as bestos pipe could spare three lives over the next 13 years at costs to society as high as $227 million, or $76 million per life. Prohibiting as bestos shingles would cost up to $106 million for each life saved. "While we do not sit as a regu latory agency that must make the difficult decision as to what an ap propriate expenditure is to prevent someone from incurring the risk of asbestos-related death, we do note that the EPA, in its zeal to ban any and all asbestos products, basically ignored the cost side of the TSCA equation," said the judges. Contending that "such high costs are rarely, if ever, used to support a safety regulation," the court said, "if we were to allow such cavalier treatment of the EPA's duty to con sider the economic effects of its decisions, we would have to excise entire sections and phrases from the language" of the law. On the issue of substitutes, the EPA was faulted for failing to eval uate the health effects of asbestos replacements, even though some of the probable substances are them selves cancer-causing. "Consid substance cedes will asbestos I effects, tl assure thi the least but cannot ulations v safety," th< Edward the trade { tion Assoc sion. ' However for a speck victims, qi EPA can efi if it failed to "If you ca going to be substances [a question] Thi Tuesday HWBU10004562