Document peMdrrq9Gxj62Yvwnd32yKOLd

CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR THE OMB REVIEW OF EPA'S ASBESTOS RULE The following are critical questions that should be consid ered by OMB in reviewing EPA's asbestos ban/phase out pro posal under Executive Order 12291. In each instance, we have provided a short answer and references to attached ma terial from the EPA record. A. Asbestos Products Other than Friction Materials 1. Do the EPA-estimated costs and benefits support a finding that asbestos products (other than friction materi als) pose an "unreasonable risk" under Section 6 of TSCA? A: No. Under TSCA, "unreasonable risk" requires a weighing of costs and benefits. EPA's Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) estimates costs per cancel avoided for bans or phase outs of all asbestos products. For non-friction asbestos products, these cost per cancer avoided ratios invariably range in the tens or hundreds of millions of dol lars. For example, under a scenario that assumes no fur ther reduction in asbestos sales without regula tion and discounting only costs and not benefits, the RIA estimates costs per cancer avoided of an immediate ban for asbestos/cement pipe, asbes tos/cement shingles, and roof coatings to be $62, $102, and $82 million, respectively. If sales continue to decline at recent rates, the costs pei cancer avoided increase to $72, $117 and $86 mil lion. Even higher cost benefits ratios are calcu lated if these products are banned in 1992 or 199'/ respectively, assuming costs and benefits are dis counted equally. See Tab A, RIA excerpts. 2. Do the estimated costs and benefits for non-friction asbestos products justify either banning or phasing out such products? A: No. For EPA to ban or phase out non-friction as bestos products having such low cost effectiveness ratios would be unprecedented in the history of U.S. health and safety regulatory agencies. See Tab B, testimony of Dr. Robert Crandall, at pp. 34-41. HWBUI0004462 2 3. Of what significance in assessing relative costs and benefits is the timing of costs incurred and benefits achieved? A: The fact that the supposed benefits of banning or phasing out asbestos will, in most instances, not occur until the middle of the next century, while the costs will be borne immediately, is a very im portant issue not properly considered by EPA's RIA. The RIA first presents cost effectiveness ratios for specific products without taking into account (discounting) the timing of benefits. To the extent the timing of benefits is considered at all, the RIA discounts only from the time of expo sure and not from the time when the expected dis ease occurs. At AIA's request, EPA estimated cost effectiveness ratios, discounting from the time of disease rath er then exposure. See Tab C. When benefits are properly discounted in this manner, the resulting cost benefit ratios are even higher than the ratios contained in Tab A. 4. Under Section 6(a) of TSCA, EPA is required to se lect the "least burdensome alternative" for reducing any un reasonable risks. Are bans or product phase outs the "least burdensome" remedy that address supposedly "unreasonable risk" for asbestos products no longer being manufactured in or imported into the U.S.? A: No. Many of the products EPA assesses in the RIA (e.g., asbestos flooring, roofing felts, asbes tos/cement sheet, pipeline wrap) are no longer manufactured or imported. For these products, a less burdensome regulatory alternative would be to issue a TSCA.Section 5 Significant New Use Rule (SNUR). The issuance of a SNUR would assure that no marketing or importation occurs in the U.S. un til after EPA is given an opportunity to assess risks and benefits in light of then-existent facts. See Tab D, AIA/NA Rulemaking Comments on this issue. 5. Apart from the general considerations noted above, it is imperative that EPA correctly assess the true costs and benefits of banning or phasing out specific asbestos products. Has EPA, in fact, done this? A: No. Record evidence about many of the specific asbestos products cast considerable doubt on EPA's HWBUI0004463 3 assessments of costs and benefits. For example, EPA's assessment of the costs of banning asbes tos/cement pipe are based on comparative prices of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe that have increased significantly since EPA collected cost data, thus increasing the relative cost disadvantage of PVC pipe. See Tab E, testimony of Lloyd Ambler. Sim ilarly, in assessing the availability of alterna tives to non-asbestos gaskets, EPA focuses exclu sively on development of such alternatives in au tomobile manufacture. In so doing, EPA misses to tally the absence of any alternatives -- at any price -- for asbestos gaskets in high temperature manufacturing processes. See Tab E, testimony of David Moser. 6. EPA is currently in the last stages of finalizing a revision of the asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under the Clean Air Act. Has EPA adequately assessed the likely reductions in asbes tos exposures from manufacturing plants once tighter stan dards are imposed under the new asbestos NESHAP? A: No. EPA's RIA contains no evaluation of the ef fect which its proposed, and soon to be finalized, NESHAP will have on plant asbestos emissions. AIA has specifically called this issue to EPA's atten tion. See Tab F, AIA/NA letter to Lee Thomas, June 30, 1988. B. Asbestos Friction Products 7. EPA's RIA indicates that banning asbestos friction products is considerably more cost effective than banning the other products noted above. Questions, however, have been raised throughout EPA's rulemaking about the safety of non-asbestos brakes. Has EPA adequately addressed these safety risks in its cost/benefit assessment? A: No. In light of its acknowledged lack of exper tise on brake engineering and safety, EPA commis sioned the American Society of Mechanical Engi neers (ASME) to assess the availability and effi cacy of non-asbestos brakes. The ASME Report (Tab G) concluded that an EPA-mandated substitution of non-asbestos brakes for original equipment "may have unexpected failure mechanisms." The ASME report expresses even greater concern about the safety of non-asbestos replacements for asbestos in the brake aftermarket. It finds t } -4- aftermarket replacement "may have an adverse ef fect on vehicle brake balance and control lability," that "would lead to a potentially seri ous customer safety risk." The safety risks of non-asbestos brakes, both in original equipment and the brake aftermarket, must be assessed under TSCA's "unreasonable risk" stan dard. EPA's RIA is wholly silent on this issue even though these added safety risks, in the con text of 50,000 traffic fatalities annually, could dwarf any health benefits of eliminating asbestos. See Tab B, Crandall testimony at p. 32. 8. In addition to these safety risks, asbestos brak ing materials will be replaced by other fibrous materials that have their own potential health risks. Has EPA ade quately assessed the health risks of exposure to substitute non-asbestos fibers? A: No. EPA's experts on fiber risks have indicated -that: (a) the medical studies of workers exposed to asbestos in friction product work indicate less risk than the EPA assumes in its potency calcula tion for asbestos (Tab H, p. 310); and (b) that the Agency cannot determine whether the risks of exposure to other fibers are more or less than the risks of exposure to asbestos (Tab H, p. 343). Yet, the RIA assumes that non-asbestos fibers present zero risk, a conclusion that is contrary to the testimony of EPA's own experts on the sub ject. 9. In light of the foregoing, has EPA adequately assessed less burdensome remedies to banning or phasing out asbestos use in brakes? A: Included in the EPA record are numerous studies by the National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (including Tab I) finding that proper work practices greatly reduce exposure of brake mechanics in replacing asbestos brakes. These reductions of up to 97% of current asbestos exposures are feasible and more cost effective than bans. See EPA's RIA Sensitivity Analysis, Tab J. The benefits of these additional exposure reduc tions are not considered in EPA's RIA even though OSHA is required by the recent Court of Appeals remand. Building Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock. 838 F.2d. 1258, 1272-73 (D.C. Cir. 1988), to conduct a further rulemaking on this issue. See Tab K. t HWBUI0004465