Document qd4njxzKvDjBQ84ZjzjQBNp2E

3/50______ Federal Register / VoL 81. No. 19 / Wctine&dQy, January 29, 1988 / Proposed Roles I----MWMnM--W------>-- with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc, FJJA nfttinatoi rhal this alternative would avoid aboul 640 cancer cases that KPA am quantify, while cottlngsbout $1.87 billion. This is a cost of about $2.22 million per cancer case avoided. KPA bntinves that effective substitutes urn ini^tnflirqjlytaorrlng available for iRlcat<>n friction products ami will ta readily available by the date the drclayed ban would bucuma effeitilv*. However. Pd'A is confifdorihg'Hn ' exemption process let essnnlio) uses without rohatituta, One area E1VN hr ' (Undying in particular is lhn oftenuarket for onbentos brakes. Sumo persons have stated that oKbfl&lox broker now in use cmnul Bub.-ly be replaced by asbestos* froi: brakes when they wear nut, wluJe others have disagreed with thf* iinaertiun. FPA Is uwuro of the potonllnl risk to the public from poorly performing brakes. EPA specifically requests wmment on this issun. KPA conalderrrt various apprornrhem far addressing the risk prosontod by lishnahM prodarts not bennad either rtooo altar promulgation or 6 years after promulgation urdcr this aliemativu Onn approach would lie to propose and promulgate rule under section 8b) of TfMLA to gather cuniemparaiimnis data onneamtng th production and tis of .utri exposure to tiunw prodartn hi the i.nv! tho. first producls buti rule boenme* effretkv nr at a dabs few y4irs later. \:.\K\ would nalyz that data and then divide, whether <u ban inl(llli<in;ri asbestos product*. ETA vvijubl also (liOi'rmiiiR the date of them boon, which may he at staged intervals. After diuudiru; I hear KPA would propose and promulgate thn bens of ilwrse enbestoi products. Another tppniHch for uddrie>sing the risk |in*snnid by thos t rvmninlntf oxlwsttis i-obvt*4s \s dtsr.UHKod or. atiemativ'* ?. tnJow. Hun i/iH i'nnulmrJJon i-\Kfucte atlnsytry and ashefttu; v:/i Hhto* moo offer p:ntHiHi;nlnn oft/i: r,./V-'. tpu\ ,>r tssho.Mos friction pi'fiduriR fiotupeuy . luutf 5 ynars iatnr. and ton rawainiittf idw*Uis products atout 10 y^rrx fntrr ttiuler this ullcmubve. Q* in eltenvitivc l. KPA would ban the moiv.ifar.lurc. .uimrfaticm. and proce*sin.c of (he i.titestni instruction products iraH'gory "id asbestos clothing soon after -iromulgatUm of tha rule, and Imo the nunufocturo. Importtino, end liocossmg of the asbestos friction ,winds cautgocy 5 years nftnr >u <>mid'4utlon of the rulo. 'llus dtenuiiive would alto bon the onnf:iciur>.\ importation, and mv:i?sslng el til) other asbeslon product* ?i yours after promulgation of 11m ftdr. This alternative would relatively quickly bun a number of asbestos products for which effective substitutes exist while strongly encouraging the rapid development of effective substitutes for other asbestos products. This alternative.1 unlike alternative t, avoids the necessity of future rulemakings to gather additional date and Hum ban additions! products. It would also provide greater certainty about the etatus .of all asbestos products end more strongly encourage the davulapment ofsubstitutes (or ell applications of all products,1 Ae in alteraoHve 1. ETA ta considering the need for an exemption process for asbestos friction products in connection with the sieged product bans. KPA natlmate* that this elteroetive. assuming current exposure levels, would avoid about 2,120 cancer cases-that EPA can quantify while costing about $129 billion. This is u cost o( uuout 81.08 uiUlinn pur cancer cabs avoided. Assuming strict compliance with an OSHA na.of 0.2f/ce. EPA ffstim.iice th.it ihtg almmative would uvold about 1.070 cancer cases that EPA can qiKmlify. while costing about $2.29 billion This la n cost of about $2-13 million per cancer case svoidod. Without u ban of usbcslos-comenr pi|w; anti assuming strict complianci! with an OSHA PEt of 02 f/ix, EPA tsbmules that this alternative would avoid about 050 cnocar cases that EPA can quuntify, while costing about %SJOZ billion. This io a cost of about $3.12 mdliim per cunrcr case itvoiilmi 3. 6an fto UdbcsUts consUvction products ixxte&vy emituftostos clothing sthju oflnrptofnul^frlfon ofthe rv)o and ' Jtvc.rvU other oswstflA prodnr.ls under ttophotuhdom Under *bla ullcrr.shve E1*A would hun the munufaclure, imponation. aml.puHtfftntng of titr. asbirsio* <mnBtruclion products category anti asbcslos clothing soon oftcr the promufgH>f<m or the rule and cover all o`hpr anbesins produris under the J>hiS1!,li<?WU. This dlfornatlvc. unliku the currant proposal, would hun ell asbestoscrmunt products at the same time, thus itddrusslng simller exposure patterns in the sonw way and treating all parts of i*n industry sector similarly. The phase* tiown would operatr to restrict u#e of aRhcstov In irufii*fty aottlorv. KPA estimated that this alternative, u^mmilug current exposurv IhvuIm. would uvuitt about cancer rasw that EPA cun quantify while coaling about &0! billion. This is a coat of about $1 A) million jwr cancer case avoided. Assuming strict oompllanco with an OSHA PlX of 02 f/cc. EPA estimates' that this oltemattve would avoid atari 1.010 cancer cases that EPA con quantify while costing about tltn hiUhuv This Is e cost of about fU)8 million per cancer case avoided. Without a ban of asbs&tos-ccmcnt pipe and assuming strict tempilanw with an OSHA PEL of 02 f/co. EPA eatimotes that thUeltemative would avoid aboul 950 cancer cases that EPA. can quaniify while costing about ' bUllbii. ThU U o cost of about $1R5 million per cancer case avoided The following Table VI summaries the estimated oosU and estimated cancer cases avoided that EPA could quantify for the proposal and the three alternatives discussed earlier, (list assuming current exposure levels and thoo assuming strict compliance with au OSHA PEJ.ofOZf/cc. Txble Vt* Estimated costs anq C&ncca Cases Avodeo jiHA 1 AhV|m3 JteXfttiQ Qem* Ewobow vw Cew an mins, i... \sto rw p uk0 Me C\x*d*d oxtine M Cantm^m an osha ret at o/cc WmU^>hnvpipylucg T> Whmfl i>awn*arp4rmtmiQawbaanJfc.Ic p^A_id_fc_> tag pxylj`m*ia*urto|Twhipalsftwa>adooMwng. aSen "U omav 4. Require labeling ofaebestos linirlucte subject to a ban. As pari f till, allernatlvo.EPA alio propow, and roquoKto commantym a labeling regulrement, In particular, II I, prnpoMd the) product, not Immadlalely banned but sub|ent to regulation $ or 10 ycere (ram note tie labeled in tie Interim. Tbe lubollng would sdvtie purchaser, tbel the product cantalne esbeeto,. EPA request, coirmente on rill, proposal, in particular on (!) the appropriatencee of this pinpawl for ell or tome subset of the prodacts In this category; |2] the nppnrprintimess of s simple content warning ns opposed to a more extenslvilatiuling provision: and (3) the extent to which labeling would serve to reduco nxpnMtre. In aabestos. EPA also considered s number of nltemelives for Implementing (he phasedown. These Include options concerning the following: who would be e,signed pern)Its: how persons would be granlail FMSl 02441