Document rrYd79k7yYRM1EEkY95vg84q

FRICTION MATERIALS STANDARDS INSTITUTE, INC., EAST 210 ROUTE 4, PARAMUS, NJ 07652 BULLETIN NO. 845 February 12, 1986 EPA'S PROPOSED RULE TO BAN AND PHASE OUT ASBESTOS USES On January 29, 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed rule for a ban on the use of asbestos. Under the proposals, five categories of asbestos products would be banned upon adoption of the rules. They would be: Asbestos cement pipe and fittings Roofing Felts Flooring Felts (and felt-backed sheet flooring) Vinyl-asbestos floor tile Asbestos clothing In addition, a permit system would be established for use of asbestos in pro ducts other than those listed above. The permitted amount of asbestos mined or imported would be reduced so that after ten years asbestos would effectively be banned. This is the proposed rule. The EPA indicated it would consider other options for the eventual banning of asbestos, and one would ban certain asbestos construction products soon after promulgation of the rule with a ban on asbestos friction products about five years later. In any event, the proposal or options, if adopted, would result in the ban on asbestos in friction products within ten years of the effective date of the rules being adopted. At this point, these are EPA proposals. They are not rules. There will be hearings and then if adopted, provisions of the rules would be effective 8 to 16 months after the rules become effective. Further, there may be delays and there is the possibility of litigation. If these proposed rules were to sail through with little or no change, it would be at least six to seven years before asbestos friction products would be banned. And then it is not certain that all asbestos friction products would be affected. We are enclosing copies of the following: FEDERAL REGISTER Notice of January 29, 1986 EPA "FACT SHEET" for Proposed Rule to Ban Certain Asbestos Products and Phase Out Use of Asbestos A meeting of the Board of Directors has been called to consider an Institute position on these EPA proposals. E. W. Drislane Executive Director Distribution: Delegates and Alternates Regional Members (U.S. Dues) H.E.A. Committee Active Members - List B FMSI--0440 FMSI 02425 IT FACT SHEET FOR PROPOSED RULE TO BAN CERTAIN ASBESTOS PRODUCTS AND PHASE OUT USE OF ASBESTOS BACKGROUND Asbestos is a demonstrated human carcinogen that causes lung cancer and mesothelioma (a cancer of the chest and abdominal linings). It is associated with other cancers and also causes a serious lung disorder known as asbestosis. Asbestos is used in hundreds of products and about 240,000 metric tons were used domestically in 1984. The largest use of asbestos products is in the construction industry (e.g., asbestos-cement pipe and sheet), friction products (e.g., brakes), textiles, coatings and sealants, and packings and gaskets. Asbestos is released into the air during many stages of the lifecycle of the substance, when asbestos is mined, milled, processed, and fabricated into industrial and consumer products, and when those products are used and disposed of. As a result of these releases, asbestos is present in ambient air. Even brief exposure at low levels may present risks. No level of exposure to asbestos is considered without risk since cases of mesothelioma have been documented as arising from short-term or low-level exposure. REGULATORY STRATEGY FOR ASBESTOS Th*i s proposed rule is part of a coordinated and integrated EPA strategy to control releases of asbestos from products already in place and to eliminate risks from future uses. This strategy is based on health risks and the availability of substitutes for many asbestos products. * DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED RULE This rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, would ban the following asbestos products which have effective substitutes: roofing felts, flooring felts (and felt-back sheet flooring), vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestos clothing, and asbestos-cement pipe and fittings. The rule also would reduce or "phase down" the total amount of asbestos which may be imported or mined, i.n staged decrements over ten years. (more) EPA. is also actively considering alternatives to this proposed ban and phase-down. These alternatives involve staged bans oE categories of asbestos products. One approach would ban the category of asbestos construction products, including asbestos-cement sheet and shingle as well as felts, floor tile, and A/C pipe, and asbestos clothing immediately and ban the category of asbestos friction products in five years. In addition, EPA would gather current production and exposure information on the remaining products. EPA would then propose bans on some or all of the remaining products. A second alternative would ban all asbestos construction products and asbestos clothing immediately, ban asbestos friction products in five years, and ban the remaining asbestos in ten years. Alternative three would ban asbestos construction products and asbestos clothing immediately. The remaining products would be phased out over ten years. Under any alternative that EPA pursues, the Agency is considering that all products that are not immediately banned be labeled as containing asbestos. Labeling would ensure that persons working with or otherwise handling these products would know that the product contained asbestos, and it would enable them to take steps to reduce likelihood of exposure. FMSI02427 T Wednesday January 29, 1986 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 763 Asbestos; Proposed Mining and import Restrictions and Proposed Manufacturing importation and Processing Prohibitions FMSI 02428 3738 Fadargl Register / Vot. Si, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1989 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 763 [OPTS-6SC36; FBI. 2947-3] Asbestos; Proposed Mining end Import Restrictions and Proposed Manufacturing, importation, and Processing Prohibitions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a ruin under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the manufacture, importation, und processing of Asbestos in certain products and to phase out the use. of asbestos in ali other products. The products EPA proposes to ban arc asbestos-cement pipe anti fittings, roofing felts, flooring felts (and ted backed sheet flooring), vinyl-asbestos floor tile, and ushestos clothing. Under this rule, EPA would also allow only those parsons wiih permits issued by EPA to mine or import asbestos for use in products that are not banned. Eventually, ali 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 un alternative. EPA is considering prohibiting the manufacture, importation und processing of categories of asbestos products at staged intervals. EPA is considering banning the manufacture. Importation, and processing of asbestos construction products and asbestos clothing soon after the rule's promulgation with the category of asbestos friction products benned about S years later, and other asbestos products banned at a later time. EPA believes that this alternative approach would also be an effective way of reducing the serious unreasonbio risk presented by exposure to asbestos und specifically requests comment on n staged ban of asbestos product categories. Finally, under both this alternative and the proposed approach, F.PA is considering requiring labeling for all asbestos products that sro r.ot banned, including products manufactured pursuant to permits issued by EPA during the phase-down period, or pursuant to an exemption process. The Agency requests comments on the feasibility and effectiveness of such a requirement. BATfcS: Public hearings will be held beginning approximately May 14.1966. The exact times and locations of the hearings will be available by calling EPA'8 TSCA Assistance Office. Comments on this proposed rule and requests to participate in the informal heatings must be submitted by April 29, 1986 Reply comments made in response to issues raised at each hearing must be submitted no later than 1 week after the close of that hearing. ADFHEss: Since some comments are expected to coni Bln confidential business information, all comments should be sent in triplicate to: Document Control Officer (TS-793), Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-209,401 M St. SW., Washington. DC 20480. Comments should include the docket cootrot number OPTS-02038. Nonconfidential comments and noncrmfidential versions of confidential comments received on this proposal will bo available for reviewing and copying from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, in Rm. E-107. at the address given above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward A. Klein, Director, Office of TSCA Assistance (TS-799), Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Prelection Agency. Rm. K-543. 401 M St. SW., Washington. DC 20480, Toll free: (800-424-8035), In Washington, DO (554-1404), Outside the USA: (Operator--203-554-1404). UmGMENTARY INFORMATION: !. Introduction Asbestos, since the advent of its large stale use, has resulted in thousands of piiirifiil. premature deaths from lung cancer and other diseases. Because of the widespread use of asbestos and its particular nature, piecemeal control of the risks it presents is not satisfactory; only elimination of asbestos to the extent feasible will produce acceptable reduction of risks. Prevention of further deaths, therefore, requires forceful integrated action against asbestos risks. To achieve this end. EPA has established a coordinated asbestos program, aimed at controlling exposure to asbestos from products already in use and eliminating risks from future uses. The rule EPA is proposing today, which would ban certain uses of asbestos and phase out all oliter uses, forms a central element of this program Regulatory alternatives, which are discussed in this notice and which involve staged bans of various asbestos product categories, could also form a central element of the program. The risks EPA is addressing in this proposal find its overall asbestos program are serious and well documented. Asbestos i* a known human carcinogen that causes lung cancer, mesothelioma (a cancer of the chest and abdominal lining) and is also linked to other cancers. It has been estimated that 3,300 to 12,000 cancer cases a year occur in the United States as a result of past exposure to asbestos: almost all of these cancer cases are fatal, In addition, asbestos causes asbestosis (a serious lung disorder). About 05,000 persons in the United States are estimated to be suffering from asbestosis today. Assuming current exposure levels. EPA estimates that about 2.580 persons will develop lung cancer or mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos from products made over the next 15 years, unless asbestos exposures are reduced through regulatory action. As discussed later, even with a relatively low workplace PEL of 0.2 ?/cc. EPA estimates that almost 1,325 cancers will result from asbestos products made over the next 15 ypHrs. 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 of its fibers These fibers are Email, colorless, odorless, often invisible except through a microscope, and indestructible in most uses. They can be transported on clothes ami other materials, and they have aerodynamic features that allow them to be easily suspended and resuspended in the uir 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 und place of release, but long after the release has occurred and far from its source. There is constant renewal of risk as asbestos fibers reenter the atmosphere repeatedly over lime. Despite the known risks of asbestos, substantial amounts of the material are still mined, imported, and used in commercial products. About 240.000 metric tons, for example, were used domestically in 1984. Hundreds of products are stilt made with asbestos, including paper and textiles, cement pipe and sheets, tiles and felts, and automobile brakes. Asbestos fibers are released to the air at many stages of (he commercial life of these products. Typical activities that lead to the FMSI02429 Federal Register / Vol. 51, Mo. It) / Wednesday, January 29, 7 90S / Proponed Rules WVMB&IJMPKPm >*IWhtflHR>>asWMBB>iet#aBWBW0IH9Wg0ll9aM9aBaOiB 3739 release of asbestos- include the mining of asbestos, inji pioiossirp, into products, installation of products te.g., (in: sawing, drilling, and sanding associated w ith asbestos-cement products), product use (e.g , release of fibers during use of asbestos doth), product maintenance fe.fj., buffing and scraping of vim I- asbestoR floor tile- <>/ repair of ashestos- eontuirnng brakes), dismantling ami removal of products fe.g.. removal of asbestos roofing felts), and disposal. Release of fibers from these aclivities is substantial, resulting in exposure to both workers and non-w orkers. EPA estimates that about 700 metric tons an; released to the air during mitiing and mfiling each year, about lot) metric tons during product manufacture, and about 1!) metric tons from landfills These estimates are probably hov because they do not tnchide releases from secondary Fabrication of such puxlucts ns millboard ami asbestos-cement sheet, much of which is done in smalt shops with inadequate emission controls. Observations that levels of asbestos in the nii near manufacturing plants and in cities urn considerably greater than rural background levels scum to confirm that these releases occur ami are significant. Release ot asbestos fibers occurs not only in the murmfucturc end processing of asbestos products, but also in their use and lnwi.dcitri'ioe. 'Ibis release can oi.-cin without the knowledge of (ho user o' nmintenfcice peisottmtl. (o' example, construction workers tap Info asbestos cement pices already in place. Tim vorkeis open do not know that the pipe emtious asbestos and thus do not take steps to limit fiber release. Similarly, significant releases occur us a result ot the use end repair id asbestos brakes and other friction products, which c-uisld rtoj !>(>") 2? percent or the tola! itebnstoi: market in )thM. Ambient levels ot asbestos arc elovatr b near freeways, prcKiiniab'e due in release front asbestos biases, Thiis, U`r -uaiwf ir.t'UL*, processing, and use of isbeston products leave legacy of asbestos in the ambient air. 'this ambient loading, while deficit,! to (ftcr i/.y, is a significant problem. 'Jhe National Academy of fjemnnus, altoi analysing studies of outdoor air. estimated typical concentrations of asbestos in outdoor ambient air in urban areas to be approximately 0.00007 f/no (Ref. St. Many millions o! proplit are daily exposed to these levels of asbestos In the iiir. The National Academy of Sunnites har also estimated that persons in urban ureas face a liietime risk of between about 1 in KKI.OtKI to about 7 iu 100,000 of developing cancer ua a rustiil of asbestos in the ambient air both indoors and outside of buildings (Ref. 8). Therefore, any norapretowive '.onttci strategy must luge into h,.count the potential for exposure during the entire lifecycle of asbestos products. To dine.. EPA has focused its attention primarily on asbestos in buildings, a major source of asbestos release into the. ambient environment. In the )970s. EPA banned the use of sprayed-on asbestos and asbesto-contamlng pipe lagging under ibe Clean Air Act, and since then has token steps to reduce risks from asbestos already in place in buildings. It has issued an air standard to reduce emissions from asbestos removal and renovation projects in buildings; issued a rule requiring inspection of schools for friable asbestos; and established an extensive technical assistance program, which provides guidance to public, and private building owners on the identification and safe removal of asbestos EPA has also proposed an immediately effective regulation to protect Slate and local public employees who lake pari in asljcstos abatement activities. These actions are primarily remedial, addressing risks from asbestos already in place; they do no address the substantial risks that will result from the continued manufacture und use ot asbestos. Several other Ir'ederul agencies have already taken stops that partially reduce these risks. The Occupational Sulr-ty and Health Administration lOSlfAj has an occupations! standard for asbestos with a permissible exposure fimil fPFX) of 2.U f/cc. CJSfiA has proposed to lower lids standard to either 0.Z or 0.5 f/cc. In addition, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPHCJ has banned use of respirable asbestos in consumer patching compound* and arlificu) embetotmg materials, (towucet. .substantial risk to workers and the; gonurat population rei,'mins f or this reasm;, r.i-' > behaves that only a major regulatory imbalii-e under TSCA leading to the e-wOUHml elimination oi niosi asbestos product manufacture and importation can palislacloi'hy reduce the overall risk to at! segments of the populat'd' >n. The limitations oi exposure-based regulations in preventing asbestos-fiber release, and ibe need for more comprimenaivo action under TSCA. are illustrated by the use oJ ('Elm to contra! workplace exposure. In tire first {daw. it appears infeasible io set a PF.) lor oslrcstris low enough to reduce risk ro a satisfactory level. Even at 0.2 f/ec, the hrvt'RsI PE), proposed by OSHA. OSHA, using the same lung cancer and mesothelioma models used by FTA, estimates that about 7 in 1,000 asbestos workers may die from trn asbestosreluhtd disease. Furthermore, it is mireasonslile to IlsSUttU* COWPiPlfi complianci! with a PEL of 0.2 f/cu, especially given the nature of the asbestos industry. Many of the workers exposed are in the service and construction industries, where worksites change frequently and the worker population is transient. Also, workers often do noi know they are exposed to asbestos and therefore will not take the necessary precautions. As a result, PELs and other exposure controls are difficult to apply amt enforce. Beyond these considerations, a workplace basin! approach docs not address ttBks to the general population. EPA estimates that, even if OStfA reduces the PEL to 0.2 f/ ce, almost 1.325 cancers wilt still result from asbestos product* mHde over the next 15 years. Because of this residual risk. EPA is proposing under section fi of TSCA a ban on the manufacture, importation, and processing of asbestos-cement pipo and fittings, roofing felts, flooring foils (and felt-banked sheet flooring!, vinylasbestos floor tile, and asbestos , iolhing These uses would be banned because safer, ortmomically competitive substitutes tire available, and because these iixbestoit uses are likely to contribute large amounts of asbestos to the ambient environment or present disproportionately high risk. In addition, EPA is proposing to ei lablish a permit system to phase out all other asbestos products Under ibis system. ERA would allocate permission In mine or import u specific volume of asbestos to currant miners .mb imperials. The amount ol asbestos miner or importer would be "hewed to mine or import would decline every year until aflnr 10 years no mining or importation would bp allowed, except nndei a specific exemption This permit system would allow the market to allocate asbestos, based oil the availsbiiity and cost of asbestos substitutes. After 1.0 years. EPA would pul in place an exemption system lor those asbestos applications tor which no sfd'sliteics had been developed. KP.A anticipates tb.it there will be few such applications, because the permit system would create strong incentives fee the development of substitutes. F.PA is also considering a requirement that all asbestos products that ere not banned be labeled as containing asbestos This would apply to products made pursuant to permits issued bv EPA to mine nr impm ( asbestos, and to products made pursuant to at; exemption process. In encouraging the development of substitutes. F.PA will be promoting a FMSI 02430 3740Federal Register j Vo). 51. No. la / Wedi-cmduy, ]anofiry 26, i860 / Proposed Rules --------1--Mi--B--eWllllll--llll I III lUirMWBMtgWWnWMBWMWWW----^-->1 significant reduction in risk. Currently, SI. Background in commerce if EPA finds that there is a all products that are replnrinp asbestos in its many uses appear to present lower risk. However. EPA will monitor the development of substitutes during the W-year phase-down period, end will use section 4 of TSCA to require testing of substitutes if necessary to ensure their safely. As explained more fully inter, F.PA is also actively considering other approaches to curry 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 staged intervals. Two categories under consideration are asbestos construction products and asbestos friction products. Under this approach. F.t'A would bun the manufacture, importation, and processing of ail asbestos products within the category at the same time. Kl'A is considering this category Kl'A announced the! it was exploring possible use of TSCA to reduce the risk to human health from exposure to asbestos in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) published in the Federal Register of October 17, 1979 |44 FR 60061). Following publication of the ANPR, EPA investigated industrial and commercial uses of asbestos. Under section 8(a) of TSCA, El'A promulgated an asbestos reporting rule under 40 CFR 763.60 published in the Federal Register of July 30,1980 (47 FR 33207). This rule required miners, millers, importers, and processors of asbestos to report information concerning (1) 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 rule has been used with other data to evaluate the: risks find benefits of ushest03 use. reasonable basis io conclude that (be manufacture., processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of the chemical substance, or any combination of such activities, presents or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Under section 6(c)(1) of TSCA, EPA must consider the following faotors when determining whether a chemical substance or mixture presents an unreasonable risk: (1) The effects of such substance or mixture on health and the magnitude of the exposure of human beings to such substance or mixture. (2) The effects of such substance or mixture on ths environment and the magnitude of the exposure of the environment to such substance or mixture. (21 The benefits of such substance or mixture for various uses and the availability of substitutes for such uses. approach because products within each Under section 21 of TSCA, a person (4) The reasonably ascertainable of the categories have similar exposure may petition EPA to initinte a economic consequences of the rule, after patterns, raise similar exposure control issues, and have similar substitutes. proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of u rule under consideration of the effect on the national economy, small business, Kl'A believes that it may be good public: various sections of TSCA On June 21, technological innovation, the policy to ban such categories of 1979, EPA wits petitioned to prohibit the environment, and public health. products at the suine time This future use of Hsbosfos-cnroent pipe in After considering the above factors, approach would address similar water systems. EPA granted that EVA presents the following findings exposure patterns in the same way and petition by a notice published in the concerning the unrestricted mining and treat all parts of an industry sartor Federal Register of October 18.1979 (44 importation of asbestos, including similarly. In addition, both the FR 69155). On September 12,1884, the asbestos imported in products. construction products category and the 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. Kl'A also considered referring iisbertos risks to l)SHA and Cl'SC under section 0 of TSCA. EPA decided against this approach because OR1IA and Cl'SC, in Kf'A's opinion, cannot adequately reduce Die risk, given their authority and current control technologies. These agencies (.annul comprehensively reduce the total Natural Resources Defense Council (N'RDCl petitioned EPA to prohibit further use of asbestos in motor vehicle brakes. EPA grunted that petition by a notice published In the Federal Register of December 18.1984 (49 FR 49311). This proposal is in part a result of the proceedings conducted after granting those two petitions. EPA has identified effective substitutes for asbestos-cement pipt: and is proposing to ban that product. EPA analyzed the availability of substitutes for asbestos in brakes but is not prepared to propose an immediate bare Effective substitutes are still not available for many applications of A. Health Effects and Magnitude of Exposure to Asbestos 1. Health effects. This unit summarizes the health effects of asbestos. Detailed discussion and assessment of the, health effects of asbestos muy be found in the "Report to the 1 tinted States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Asbestos" (CHAP) (Ref. 1). "Health Effects and Magnitude of Exposure" in EI'A's "Support Document for Final Ruli' on Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Buildings," (Ref. 4) volume of asbestos in commerce and cannot protect uif of the many population groups at risk. Thus, artiori asbestos in brakes. Instead. ERA is proposing to phase out use of asbestos ip broke* and use market forces to and the "Report of the (National Research Council) Committee on Ni noccupationa) Health Risks of by these agencies under their separate encourage the more vapid development Axbestiform Fibers" (Kef. 8). authorities would still leave a targe of substitutes. As an alternative, KPA is EPA finds that the adverse human residual risk to worker* and the general considering a ban of asbestos friction health effects from exposure to asbestos population. El'A concluded, therefore, products about 5 years after this rule is are extremely serious. Asbestos is a that this approach would not adequately promulgated. This alternative would known human carcinogen that also address the risks to society posed bv the also encourage tin- rapid development of causes other lung diseases. Asbestos continued manufacture, processing, and substitutes. has been thoroughly examined in use of fisbesfot:containing products. Kl'A is convinced that restrictions on tint 111. Regulatory' Assessment numerous epidemiology studies. The life-threatening diseases that have been manufacture, importation, and Section 6 of the TSCA authorizes EPA repeatedly identified are asbestosis. processing of asbestos and asbestos to prohibit or limit by rule the amount of lung cancer, and mesothelioma. Aiso products is the surest and most effective a chemical subsiance which may be associated with asbestos exposure in strategy tor eliminating these risks. manufactured, processed, or distributed sctzne studies are cancers of the larynx. FMS1 02431 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 19 / Wednesday, [anuary 29, 1986 / Proposed Rules 3741 pharynx, gastrointestinal tract, kidney, and ovary and respiratory dieseases such as pneumonia. Major health effects are discussed below. Lung cancer is currently responsible for the largest number of deaths from exposure to asbestos. It has been associated with exposure to all the principal commercial asbestos fiber types. Excess lung cancer has been documented tit groups involved with the mining ami milling of asbestos and the manufacture and use of asbestos products. Studies in which the extent of exposure can be approximated provide evidence that lung cancer increase linearly with both level and duration of exposure. Cigarette smoking and asbestos have a strong synergistic interaction in development of lung cancer. Asbestos exposure appears to multiply the underlying risk of lung cancer. Consequently, when exposed to asbestos, the risk of lung cancer for smokers (for wham the risk of lung cancer is already high) is much higher than that for mtnsmokers exposed to asbestos. Most persons who develop lung cancer die within 2 year. Many human studies have also shown that exposures to asbestos produce mesotheliomas, which are cancers that occur us thick diffuse masses in the serous membranes (inesothelin) tbnt line body cavities. Mesotheliomas occur in the pleura (the membrane that surrounds the lungs and lines the lung cavity) and the peritoneum (which surrounds the abdominal organs und lines (he abdominal cavity). Most persons who develop mesothelioma die within the first 2 years after diagnosis, often after having been in constant pain. Epidemiology studies suggest that the incidence of mesothelioma is related to dose and litm: from first exposure Association of mesothelioma with smoking is weak or nonexistent. Asbestos fibers appear, by far. to be the most common cause of mesotheliomas. Asbestosis. which involves fibrosis ol lung and pleural tissues, is another serious chronic disease assonaied with exposure to asbestos. There is no effective treatment for asbestosis and it is otten disabling or (aid). Asbeslosis in diagnosed from findings which may include radiographic changes, breathlessness, und abnormal lung function. Since some clii.icu! symptoms of asbestoais are siinilm to those oi other fibrosing lung diseases, a history oi necup liiimat exposure to asbestos is often a key feature of its diagnosis. Asbeslosis can appeal and progress decades a!ter exposure to asbestos fibers. Under working conditions where average fiber concentrations in the air were high (more than 10 fibers per cubic mesothelioma have been diagnosed centimeter (f/cc)) asbeslosis has among 628 family contacts of amosite accounted for more than 7 percent of workers (Ref. 10). These figures are observed deaths (Ref. 11). It is much higher than that expected to be apparently less common than lung found among the general population. In cancer or mesothelioma at exposures addition, 35.9 percent of the contacts lower than the current Occupational showed chest x-ray abnormalities as Safety and Health Administration compared with 4.6 percent of control tOSHA) workplace standard of 2.0 f/cc. subjects drawn from the same Some recent data on the incidence of community. A number of mesotheliomas asbestosis appear compatible with a have also been documented among linear exposure-response relationship populations whose only identified with no threshold (Ref. 12). However, it exposure was from living near asbestos is still considered uncertain whether mining areas, asbestos product factories, asbestosis occurs as a result of or shipyards where asbestos use had nonoccupational exposures. been very heavy (Ref. 4). An estimated In occupational studies where the 1,600 cases of mesothelioma occur primary route of exposure is through inhalation, lung cancer and yearly in the U.S. among various populations exposed to asbestos (Ref. 6). mesotheliomas usually account for In addition to exposure to asbestos about 90 percent of the excess cancers fibers in the air, the general population seen among workers exposed to is also exposed through various oral asbestos. However, as noted in the sources, including drinking water CHAP report (Ref, 1), a number of other containing asbestos. Because of the cancers, principally of the potential for oral exposure as well as gastrointestinal tract, have been the excess of gastrointestinal trad associated with asbestos exposure. ' cancers that has frequently been found These ere cancers of the larynx, in occupational groups exposed to pharynx, oral cavity, esophagus, asbestos in the air, there has been much stomach, colon, and rectum. Statistically study of the possible health effects of significant excesses of cancers of the ingestion of asbestos fibers. Despite kidney and ovary have also been those efforts, evidence showing health shown, fn addition, the excess of effects from ingestion is still ambiguous. cancers at ail other sites combined is 2. Cancer risk extrapolation. As statistically significant in some studies. discussed above, numerous humen The conclusions from epidemiology studies have demonstrated that studies concerning the health effects of asbestos are also supported by results of laboratory studies. Animals treated with asbestos have Bhown increased exposure tc asbestos has increased the risk of cancer end asbestosis. Since a number of epidemiology studies indicate a positive relationship between asbestos incidence of fibrosis, lung cancer, and exposure and the risk of lung cancer, mesotheliomas. All commercial forms and several other types of asbestos are several models may he used to extrapolate from risk at higher exposure implicated from a variety of modes of lo risk at lower exposure. The model exposure. that EPA believes is most consistent Most occupational studies have been conducted on populations exposed to with the available human and animal data is the linear non-threshold dose/ high airborne concentrations of asbestos response rtvilel. This model assumes for relatively long periods of time. that (1) any exposure increases risk, arid However, short-term occupational exposures have also been shown to (2) the increase in risk is proportional to the background risk in the nonexposed increase the risk of lung cancer arid population and to the level of exposure, mesothelioma. One group of asbestos defined as duration of exposure times factory workers with less than 2 months concentration of asbestos fibers to of occupational exposure had a twofold which populations may be exposed. increase in lung cancer risk (Hof. 9). In The choice of the linear model is addition, there ure many documented reasonable since there is no evidence cur,us of mesothelioma linked to for a threshold level of asbestos extremely brief exposure lo high exposure below which there is no concentrations of asbestos or long-term increased risk. It is further supported by exposure to !oi* concentrations (Ref. 4). evidence of cancers among populations Direct evidence oi adverse health whose asbestos exposure is believed to effects from non occupational asbestos have been lower tbnn levels reported in exposure also exists. Persons who lived the epidemiology studies of asbestos in the households of asbestos workers workers mentioned above. have developed pleural mesothelioma and asbestos-related radiographic The model adopted by EPA to estimate excess mesothelioma incidence changes. In an ongoing study, 4 cases of' due to asbestos exposure relates disease FMSI 02432 3742 Federal Register / Vul 51. No. l'-* ! V'vVchifxd.jy. (urinary :;n, UW / Proposed Rules til tklSr .i.Of) 'll- !:v,: r! ti'11 f-i:,' exposure (minus loyearel raised to (nr third power. This model reflects n delay (or initii.mtm lalwtcy period) of 10 years between first exposure one1 the likely earhfsi possible appearance of the disease. Both the lung cancer ami mesothelioma models have also been adopted by OSHA (Ret. 12|. The National Research Council Committee on Nomrccupatiomii Health Risks of Asbe.-itifo-m Fibers also adopted similar linear no-threshold model to estimate- risk to uunoccupstional populations from exposure to asbestos iRpf. 0). The derivation am! validation oi the models is discussed in detail in dm Cl iAt1 report (Ref. 1) and in Kl'A's `Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Frnduris" IRIA) (Ref. 3). Although El'A believes that excess mortality from asbestosi* .-nitf cancers other than long cancer arul ifiesothelioma will occur from exposure to asbestos released during tin* lifecycle ot the products under study. EPA ruts not altempted to quantify that excess mortality Thus, die modei rtmid understate the iisk to humans from exposure to asbestos. The risk of asbestos-induced disease: may fie modified by sever u I factors. As ".entioned in the earlier disc-itsaion on lung cancer, smoking dnrMiiuiil.v tec.rouses the risk of developing lung cancer bum exposure to asbestos. Heouteif: of their lower ended-, icy risk, the - bsoiule increase of incidence of lung cancer in ivxismokets is about one tenth of that ip .smokers. However, even ciimptett- r.-.e ,3 ij. rhe see-1 -ep factor (if possible) would leave a sitlislaulial health risk since the risk of ruesut!ieh'ornu (which is apparently unaffected by smoking! end the risk t btt.'g i.vue.er to nntismnkers would soil remain. Another faen r lhai e.i; alb i.i die risk of astiostos-md .'.-red disease is the possible differences in biniog.'cttl patency among the different fiber types The Nutiorui! Research Ctiunoit (Ref. <1; studied 'his issue end concluded: Kesetp. uf studies ..l varaiee go'tips of wurke's euiieice uiat if is evaee,- )-. d.oii aii tkv ruie ot hte-i w i.e p- V-. il-ryM,;;-"- nf t-f,ii ide:'fc? il'dell I S iriny Ole risk fur 'I. l - ee'e #:'!>; fie::,- ei in ue-Mnil vlipin.v Anulv-isef itu- cpiOt feiiilugi'.;:! sirilies is i i.nipt i.afeU iiecfo.ise tV var'acons in t,-ri*. of tednsi.y. tt.>- liive- s,. I'ilicr chinaeterisli-cs uittw. an ireiestrv, .Hid the usual ir-iateri-C'-. V l-l fspus-.H-. -seuij si iefi'isls havf- ll,lei f'iv(eit fie: available .-fllliril!'* li,l;;l 111 it .le to ni.'.tioee that ::l\rysrUilf- asbi-sUfS. lh- ;.sl ie:.'a is fyfji (,- eimunoniv esi-e in Ihe ttreierf .Scue.s, is less hazardous than t|u- i.O' ' t.vjH's i'ii .irheslos. rspeeutilv ; i-.ii if in!.tn. giir?) urgninenis h,:i i- be'-i' used it1 rte 1in-e f f.i'i 'fH veil i ei',f.'(I'lHif'i-;. f*> r xpoyij rn a:.ft*:t** filn.-is u-'p. .Of iiUienabre cetterr-n: regetulerv ' (a:: r-te fei clot eitil'.'r i.'hI V sipe.'. However. m view ,'i tire evidence anti great iiricarf.imly abue1 the nature of the fibers ot astir-dox to Fae iam'.-.l in noiaiccupotiondi exposure si-curie;is th,: commitlee deeidvsj not :e `(eTeren' .'fe among them in the those fibers have buc reieiiseil to the au'bh-ii! ait and - umsniernblc. distance from die sonree o< the release Asbestos fiber concentrations have beoi. measured in -areas far from obvious asbestos sources. Atmospheric sampling qaanfifative risk assnssment. Farthertnere. some t>f the apparent discrepancies mu x he explained by differences in physierd pxife.mes ol the iiSrers, their concentfations. and then characteristics in the different erv cHaevents rt.i-se possi'iiliiieif need t'ortliei testing prcgrtuBs conducted in remote rural areas in the United States and Germany have found asbestos fiber levels between n.07 and 0.1S rt.rfiogram/meier-' (1 Pg is one bjlirmth of a gtaml Cor.version factors i-t-l asbtistos fa view of this uotetbooty about the rr-lutb-e pefertev- of the Various asbestos types --V, in viesv of the o-e'.l- fiber counts and u:a c nis are vuriahle. Hoivet i'" EPA esiimati.-s thal I ng of asbestos in air equals about ;Rt dococienli-i! health hazard of the most fibers visible by light microscopy. Ustng ciirimon t.nuimerctal form of asbestos. this conversion factor for asliestnb in KI'-\ has concluded that it is prurient to outdoor air, then the above Ite.d d.l astits'os fibre types as having measurements rP the equivalent ol "quiv.-dent biolegicai activity. olniet 3 .-'10'' to 3.6 .. it) l/fcc. In areas fiber mo;phol.ogv has also been of higher human population density, 'ti:y:-'es!etf as a in''.to; that may offer! measured asbestos concentrations in the incidence of asbestos-induced disease. air an: typically much greater. A survey Animat studies which asber.ins fibers ol large cilies showed mean readings of were .(.lo-d by injection or 2.6 to 5.0 ng/nr1 {7A K10"5 to 1.5 x itr * f/ imp!ar>*tion suggest thut longer .ind ccj. Measurements taken in New York ritfor Ftbers are mew carcinogenic than City ranged from means of 8 to 30 nglmJ shorter and coarser fibers. This has not (2.4 >:1(V 1 to 9 >.10'"* f/cc). Typical fiber however, been cor.firated by inhalation concentrations are much higher in studies. ERA has not differec.iiaUid densely populated areas because of fiber icsiM'S fiber sires in assessing the release from construction work puii-v'ifil risk of; sbes'-os I'irsl. asbestos (including renovation or demolition!, fiber* released efu-htg the life cycle of Hsbrsios products consist of a great from asbestos-containing brakes of motor vehicles, and from other activities Mitgi- of dinwnsions, incbsiing those during the lifecycle of asbestos products. sugsesferl as most dangerous. Second, it In genera), levels of asbestos in the air in has not b.n'c cleariy' shoixn that short fibers pose a significantly smaller risk cities and near manufacturing plants are cunsiderebiy greater than rural No dime-.isior.a'. threshold for potency background iev.-.s has bene. es-teW.'shed. 3. .-lu.-y/.-H-'-.''.- - ir httria'i rJ 1 r-esi/rt- Asbestos fibers ary released to the no during t( stages of die lifecycle of asiievins pri-d.i- :s. Vibfti release to the air or.c-'`-s dining normal operations of n>'mina and r.-i'i-'ig. Fihrc processing into products, instettetion of p'oducts. pioo.wt use. maiotenanrt rcnovHtiu.d. ijisoianfiir.g, rerauval, and rlisfio.xaf Asbestos fibers have special characteristics *hal affect t-xposeie They are colorle.es. odorless, and fieaueutly invisible except by microscope, thnr. presenting risk to pin-xo-is who r.-'i- not aware that they may be exposed. Asbestos fibers are exticiaeb, du-rsbte anti have aeiyrb, n.tinir. properties that allow them to remain suspended in the ait for a long time Tboy are basicidiy nor.'i.iiodegrud.'.ble and Iherefote pr-rsisl for a very long time in (he environment Asiiesios fillers easily reenter the Thus, throughout their entire lifecycle, that is throughout their manufacture, processing, use. end disposal, asbestos products leave u legacy of asbestos in the ambient air. This ambient load, wld'e 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 0.0000? f/cc (Ref. 0). Many millions of people are exposed to ihose levels of asbestos in the air each day. Therefore, any comprehensive control slrtiiugy rausl take inln account the potential fm s-.xposure during the entire lifecycle of asbestos products. Some products do not present as much potenlmi for releases to the ambient air during certain stages of their lifecycle. For example, there are likely to be releases to the ambient air during the atmosphere afjer settling out and can nuiiKifacfure. processing, installation, travel long distances through the air, A and repair nf asheslos-r.emenl pipe f.-pori front Finland found that asbestos However, there generally will be no had traveled as far as 27 kilometers release of asbestos to the ambient air from .i. mine muter study. Persons can hr din ing actual use of asbestos-cement FMS1 02433 IT Federal Register / Vol 51. No. 19 / Wednesday. January ?.S. 19fif> / Proposed Rules bwmmwwms--wtwwcwwowwiwr uwii^sv ............. 3743 nipt* >;in.'x u ik o-irniunjy )mned in Ibo i;mi!ntJ. A S.'y.y pi 'ijMytion uf th H.S. population is at risk from this asbestos *r tJw* ,;ir.' abb's 1 tlinnip,b Hi show the nni'ct?^! s ;{ pon>oD& exposed U> asbebtos ibutna thir more readily quantff'iabte stages t>i the Hfeoycle of asbf,v>io$ pr?>dvc:iii and the Juvuis to vvliiob thfiy are oxpose<5. Exposure levels are "best esUiii -lias'' bar.ed on monitoring studies. Aiiditjonai inJummtitm cart be found in ftefh. ?. an .1 3 w):kh nr in'.bided in the rniem.ikirrg rou>rd. T; ovoid disclosing confidential business mforinaifiw. dm tables sometimes use w range r/dher than a single number. The notation NA means that data are not available. TABUt \ --EaPOSURF. DATA FOR MANUFACTURING--OCCUPAl lONAL Primary rnsnufeWt/rmp Astj.j::,ics H'<K>uCl Expo lsiuvreeS OOin1' U Numl'W perotkrifis *P034d Comrnertnal papm .. . . MUIbocrd. . .... ................. ....... Pipriime Wio. ....................... - Bealtti &>)d (junk*! (X>iX*......................... (j'ectrtfiiH taper ......... UosaVuraHRj rodincj toll........................... Saturated loohng tell.. .......................... j Flooring feH ... .. -........................... I Spaoaity ppr;: ........................................' V.'A lk*or W............................................ 1 FeK hacked vinyl flooring.... ................... j pine............................ j Flat A/C afxwl......................................... j Conugawfl A/C sbHi..............................} OsC brakes (l.Vj ............ I Disc lirai.es (hv).................... ; Srah? brocks..............................1 Cieich factors-- ................................ < FitCMH-. .".,i.o.<.5j.<.W..-.v.ii./o.r.r.ip.l.ic..'J.a.rA.f.T..tf.c- [ Friction pioducis --rOTuTiu'cwf............. .j CTthormead................ ............. ..!' Shi-et gasketing.... ........... , PrtC^'rsg . . Soffi`CO coCiiir.gs Seal&tMs........... PS8tlCS ........ msuiaiKin . . Mixed fiber........ Other................. 5*P1 6ft? no? 45b S.BM $40 1.313 NA 3b'. 802 NA 54) t,016 2,778 766 1 447 1,668 1.005 1.37* C-150 0-160 0-150 47 (MS0 0-200 NA 52 690 NA 637 0 150 46 3-150 1,222 1.038 0-150 4&6 416 570 1,361 2.310 3.302 780 l,l>64 654 638 W5 436 1.348 fv41 166 479 0-150 160-300 tOi) 247 600 706 we 0-150 tCO-300 1.020 TABLE ll.--Exposure Data for Manufacturing--Ambient ' Primary marutacturihg Abbt'slos product I >pour<; | Number ol I levie/yl i0}0* J( epxeprsoosne!d. T-- Commercial uaoei ............. ! fXnfcfl 1C.OOO MiMhofcrd . .. .................... . . .00i6 30.000 Pipeline wrap ........ ................ .......i .00168 160.000 boater-adii ca-*<* psoflr.. ...... .00168 350,000 f;tecriiccl paper................... .. . .......00166 10,000 U isaioratod fOoHnfl ick------ -- ......| 00169 21MXW0 Saio-aied footing fsK ......... ... . 00166 60,000 Rocking felt............................... ...! NA NA Spflriattv pap^r......................... 10,000 V/A floor Iilr ........... .......... . -I 0495 600.1300 p-pll-backcd vtfiyi lioorin^....... .. : na A.'l~ pipe.................................. . 3.0? NA > 700.000 Flat siw?Pl........................ ....! 3 07 790.000 1 ABt r ;i. -Pxposusl Data for Manufaciuriwg-- Amb.ent--Continued <Vl>fctOS fliwjuo ] httxaiy nsnutoctumg Ff>osiire Nombof of >`ev<ji (it?r pmaos's : Uyrt etposfrt A A. w*l ... ...... A t" vivjit-......................... .. Dn:m vjreu- bring........................... Divr. twfikC'-<.V) ............................ . D*S<: 0>oi 01i (MV)............................. 0Mf Ofpf.ri . . ........................ Olt/icb tei.'irgs ................................. f -i-rt*o-'. pvoducih -utumeltt. irartsntisckin ............. ....................... f t'i'.iion ptC'juclfi--ccim/rerc<ef . , .. Uctti............... ................................... Hn-***} ................................ ............. SMel gaekaling ............................ Pacing.... ............ ......................... Surfa:'* corlKigs............................... Se.*ianJs............................................ ................ ...................... . hibulaiSon ...................................... MikOO fH>5* .................. ... .......... l>lPw ................................. .......... - 3 07 :10T 0069 0009 Q0C9 0069 0069 0009 006A 0S54 0554 7326 ?3?8 00002 00002 \XK432 NA NA NA 7CI.U0O 310.000 720,000 320.000 46C.OOO 70,000 N4 90.000 24.000 180,000 600,000 90,000 2,000.000 4,359,000 1,320.000 NA NA NA T able III.--Exposuia Data For Installation, Use, Repair, and Disposal A^tlrJSIOfc piOd-Cl 1 mstelieiion ftopok/disposal txpo kr/ei (SOi/yr) Of persort apposed Enpo- level (10* Nyrl of parsons exposed Communal paper...... Milibc&rd ............... Pipeline wp............... &eaier-add gasket UneatuiatAd rocUng S?ii8taa rooting fefi.. Flooring felt................. Sfwciftdy paper... ....... Pdt-Mckeci vtniy NA 107 NA NA 120 160 160 NA 130 60 A/C pipe...................... Ret A// fiiwel.......... (^cirugaied A/C sboat A/C sheet shirme...... LVjti hrak* tnwjg....... Osc brakes ft VJ........ 5,000 4,700 4.700 4.700 NA NA NA 75 NA 16 7.577 2.423 NA 76 6,100 NA 27.520 6.1*7 759 3,095 NA NA Bah* wocka. ........... . dutch lacings............ NA NA NA NA FriciKSti prvduCIV- autcoiabc frarw-THeuion............. NA NA f-nclion Drodocis-- commercial ......... * NA Clorti........................... 675 NA &50 Thread......................... NA NA Sliest gaskalmo......... 1,360 4.586 Packing.... . 12 2.914 Gurtace coatings........ ; 120 100.000 Sealants.............. . NA NA Ptaefics... NA NA Inst/idfif^i..................... NA NA Mixed itb^i ......... ..... NA NA 0th* ..... NA if MA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 250 365.149 105 1G4.822 NA NA 250 36.184 NA NA NA NA 675 850 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 400 3,000 NA NA NA NA 4. Exposure from imported and exported asbestos and asbestos produnts. EPA has determined that 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 will till occur after (hair Import into this country. Exposures will occur during insinuation am! use of the product; maintenance of the product: and during dismantling, removal, and disposal of the product. Much asbestos can he released to the ambient nit as a result of these activities. Large numbers of people are exposed to asbestos during those activities and the level of exposure can he quite bifib. Significant exposures will also occur during the domestic life cycle of bulk asbestos and asbestos products manufactured in this country for export abroad. These exposures will occur during the mining and milling of asbestos fiber and during the processing of fiber into products. There Is much exposure to workers during the mining and milling of asbestos and manufacture of asbestos products, (n addition, families of workers, and populations living near mining and manufacturing sites are also exposed to nsbestOB 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. For example, the products within the construction products category all present significant potential for fiber release to thu air and subsequent human exposure during their installation, repair, removal, and disposal. These products are often cut, tom. sewed, 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 all present significant potential for fiber release and subsequent exposure during use and repair. Friction products wear down during use, often releasing fibers to the air either dfiring actual use of die product or during maintenance or repair operations in which previously confined asbestos-containing dust Is disturbed and becomes airborne. Often, fiber releases from asbestos products in these categories occur In close proximity to other products withtn the same category, making it difficult to attribute observed fiber levels to a particular product. For example, EPA used monitoring data from automobile repair shops to estimate asbestos 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 in the various repair activities, EPA FMSI 02434 3744 Federal Register / Voi. 51. No. } / Wednesday, lammry 2. IPHft / Proposed Rules developed exposure nstmiatiu. 'nr each product using a weighting scheme basest (m the rotative production volumes of each oi the friction products which are the sources of the exposure. Similarly, it >s rpimpofi for many of the eabestos i:o*trucTion {.rod acts to he used at one tabiding site, matting it ditticull to aAributc fiber release to nm paruuuiar product. The estimation of ambient exposures due fc refcaSBB front individual consu action products, such as the various (touring products, was difficult since monitoring data were gathered in buildings where more than ore type oi asbestos flooring produor ns! ia place. For these reasons, EPA believes that it may be appropriate to consider u categoriat approach to anatygn the rwU presented by asbestos products and tc, control that risk. Table IV lists `he products that are included in the construction products anti friction products categories. t *atje tv -txPt8 of Asemoe xtrown CAtEGomes A'jS$5W pfQOHC! cat#*90Y Asbestos product iVednisetngJeCrlrvyt pfodi- t re. bf.A oifegorv. (.'rwatoraftftf -ixrhrjg fell, Saiu* ed nxifcte ftf*. Ftoofift# vmyt t>esfo noor Mia. F* badtatf mtf flowing, A/C pip*, Coronatec* A.'f: o&f. Fist a/ C U*tfi A,'C shott shin#* >fum fr&kif tot-nti ZUsc twaket ;tV{, Ohv &AWefc triVi, BfttftF ftiocfcs, Ciiilrn laringg. Fncfior podMCW- automuHc n*nT.t* !W\ FrprtiO"* tjioa.>c'v--con ti. QuimtitJiiiv t,oncer risk estimates. As discussed above, there exist many asbestos exposure-producing activities, to which many kinds of population* are exposed. Applying the cancer models described above tc the available data on exposure, and populations, EPA has estimated the number of cancers that may be avoided by implementing the EPA's proposed regulatory program. (A full discussion oi the risk estimates is contained in r.he "Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products (Ref. 3)"- Using available data and assuming rnrreut exposure level*, EPA peladetest Shat about 2.5SO lung cancers and ntsothehoiv.HS in the United States would re*all from production of asbestos product# over ST? years without F.PA action under TSCA. EPA calculates thnl this title would avoid about 1,030 of those potential cancers. Assuming that OSHA achieves strict compliance with a PEL of o.a f/cc. EPA calculates that about 1,325 lung cancers and mesotheliomas would result unless KVA l akes action under TSCA. EPA mi't.'.'.Iii'os 1h the-; cute would event about 1,fiOI> of those potential cancers F.PA also c'licisistecl (he number of potential cBocrsre avoided by the regulatory alternatives discussed litter. Assuming current exposure levels, alternative t, which would bun the asbestos construction products category and asbestos clothing soon after promulgation oC the nde and ban the asbestos friction products cwfegcry about 5 yew# later, would avoid about 2. ICO cancer#; 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 infer, and ban (he remaining ashcmlos products about IP years later, would avoid shout 2,120 CO(tiers: end alternative 3. which would Into the asbestos construction products category and asbestos clothing Boon tfftei' promulgation of the rule and cover at! other asbestos products under the phase-down would avoid about 2.A20 cancers. EPA believes these estimates of potential number of cancer#, ami therefore the potential number of cancers avoided, may be. low for the following reasons: a. The estimate is based only on exposures resulting from manufacture of asbestos products through the year 2000. Without regulatory action, manufacture of asbestos products met ooniinm: beyond that dale. l>. The risk estimates often do not include, cancers from consumer and other iionncccpattona) c-xposuroB to asbestos since data are either unavailable or uncertain. However. If.S'A believes that many people in these categories are el risk. An estimated lifetime risk of cancer of about l in 100,000 to about 7 in 1.00,000 exists for anyone who merely resides in s major city hum exposure to asbestos in the ambient air both indoors and outside of buildings. (Ref. Csj. Any additional exposure from asbestos products, such as consumer renovation of a house containing asbestos products, residing or working near plants Ihal manufacture asbestos products, or residing or working in thu vicinity of a construction project w here asbeslos-ctmtairting products are being installed or removed. will add fo tin- risk of cancer. This additional exposure could increase the lifetime risk of cancer by mom than un order of magnitude. . The risk estimates did not include ah workers whose occupation cause# them to come in contact with asbestos products. For example, the estimates do not include occupational exposure duri'ig repair. removal, and disposal til asbestos products other then friction pn courts and cloth. d- FPA did not make a worst cose estiriftte of asbestos risk. Rather, the risk psticnifte* were based on a relatively t.'onservaijve interpretation of the dose-,-expense relationship for mesothelioma and itmg cancer. Risk v.stimutes more than four times sx high could be justified (Ref 3). e EI'A did not attempt to quantify reductions of cases of esbeslosis and cancers other than mesothelioma and lung cancer. These disease# may arid )t> fo 20 percent more deaths to the total. OSHA estimates that at an exposure of 0.5 (Set. over a working career, 12 workers per 1.000 wifi develop asbestos!* {Ref. 12|. Thus, incidence til asbestosis could he significant among worker population# and possibly among other populations as well. In addition, in a major study of insulation workers exposed to asbestos, about 10 percent of all excess deaths were attributed in cancers other than lurtg cancer and mesothelioma {Ref. 11). 5. Bn i ininmentcif Effects Section Ojc) of TSCA requires thst EPA stale the relevant environmental factors end key considerations winch form the basis for regulatory action under section 0(e). The unreasonable risk finding of this proposal Ib based solely on risks to human health since these risks are by far the most serious consequence nf commercial use of asbestos ami are sufficient to support tins proposed action. C. Benefits ofAsbestos Products and A va:!c:hi!itt of Substitute* The benefits of the ssbesloscontHimng products affected by the proposed rule ar^discussed below. Overall, EPA find# that the benefits to society of these asbestos-containing products are small since suitable substitutes are now available for most uses and applications of asbestos, and products are being developed that will replace almost all uses and applications of asbestos during (he phase-down period of this proposal. i. Substitutes. The detailed results of EPA's analysis of the availability of suitable substitutes for asbestoscontaining products are reported in Appendix H. "Asbestos Products and Their Substitutes," of the RfA (Ref 3) and ere summarized in Table V. FMS) 02435 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. T9 / Weilrumduy. January 29, 1986 / Proposed Rules 3745 Table v-Summary Table of AS3E5tos Products, Their Major Uses; and the Extent to Which They Can be Substitut ed flsfRXtlofi ptOtJuU Major i.Ty?s ^ihmi to wtoch i9 vtotobta to ropUc utoevot poefcsets CnSnsly PSiUtff AKlB-fs'jH* co'r'-ent i Walw & sAiw-Ai iHtHi )f t-tfings. I pp Mt .. .. | Peking *or vtoyH : attest ftoo' rw X X '5to*;r fnoihtq l.*lt 'ri(W*iirj|.*rt fl-l'ii-V frh HvHtH'JbO'-Wj lkOt t*9 A;;Wp-*0'4 t-iV. backtfO itTiwi *>wi * VJilOu;*'.*-. A ! ron&liuclkvi 0* buto-up roor'dVJ. Pnxfcie'km ot satum'iTdv.cjix-ytj teK f ;i>0f ttto *o K t > I A tt,-'H | *iKaCt'p I MVyfelKT* j tfc.idkKj su Wces j <nr*|.?sn/-) 'dfckj gape to * HWljL'.'il JS r*5i,>cn\ ilv-H't ` kCtoO*:t*n>.n%u*9>1}bKit '''sMsio# cArvipt HhtoglM. A^kjatoi*- '`atotoican j f < onatnicfioi* j ta8fi&or>L). ' 1 Fixing % .-00*^1} j lo* buttons. i i Wilfl Vnjrifia m bv*ln'-. SWinp A tootinor On htfWings CornpQfWMN 0 anpttonc*. ctoctocaN, automatic* A. printing >. )> j it. F*von lo <**aipate nadt ctroatnnupnovn&os*'-ot8n` ga*k.T;$. Rr,*k# ty.*...... non qco<s *a 1 elvtnpnn. To provide ncxTiedkiruj joint*; To prootoe protoct'ori agatoxl tatto 8 AsO'sctoe -esniiv weor es'Rtnd hv tK8 fr>g t*i v*hictos Material to wtow Ptoa. (>ro j I ) i btenfciT'S. I j </iut<-iT '.iotnqa ci.v.Wng. j Friction mavy'sis | to mamtHi liansimwnM Citrw'.:iRl paper .. Qtinwai i'Wetion x paper A nviWgr l^jougaietf pifVif.... paper Pipe ending 4, h*o<* to9,lair,th IMc (irike pads rVxTpomnTb of ib<*av> t/ehicWs| tyakas m iwtw voNclee. r*sc twake pads Componenu or <figm A modern Orakes <n A intjdJ.ir. voN.tIos. Drum tvak* Sittogs (tigfrt A mMAum vehtot'V. Friction Cotnpr>%a<rtn ot tbsKos ki <<gnt 4 AMNitum vabiciaa. Mawnoia (dal m&Kwtaift-- industrial^ connwFrfal. Supoort praktog A pea* ciwogtog to vehickTs A K (nduatnaf High gt.jfto iteotneat popnr. M?ltioerd -........... fctoctnc* . conductor K>e kwofsOon. Toprptacf.a auppormg' stoietiire aoainst fwat. corrosion, iTIQistUIC k X X X X X X X X X X' X table V--Summary Table of asbestos products. Their Major Uses, and the Extent to Which they Can be Substitut ed--Continued Aatv^stos product MjO USAS EsxuttoMNAtMoMwtatOxeti tapfaca aaboaios piodicto En**re*jr PmW*l Astiaatoa packing PTUXS A XlMtiM* oodangs. To SMl fluids to appifcrtone wharo trodoh takes ptaM. Prforotoncvtcsouii't-aocsMiimv A water. tocfude rfvnne>< ^ x X prpMkno wrap appXancuv. Wraps for gas. oil. hot wttsx. A , SftM'npto'iNi: i Bontwed pnnta<`lv ` vndwgnw: I Prota'rtio` siiitoto j v fva, hektr conos^n A owhsOko x- todustoe* A office eoutonuird A ttnna. ShMfli ga<#'tttnfl.... Mitteuai used ><> s*Mt fHitos : SpactoXy papir*... ntOij to pv^Vy pr ! Mrn top. fOVKH). cord, & istek. iota* r*U"T>y* OOOiKXJ loser fifl. A dahr.wjiM j for atoRtioiytk: I cous h>--il9liQl* (0 string A efuctriuaf ) ittoduct**; ' winforromerH tor ofactic> ineutoiton Rk iQOte, pn>^-k-g*. \ snitki, A two x x X X 19 Tlic following exumplos illustrnte the t.vpus of substitute* availjhle for those asbestos products EPA proposes to bun, uilhiir in this proposal or tn one of the 3 logulutory alteruativos described in this proposed rule, including the category of asbestos construction products and the category of asbestos friction products. A more complete analysis can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (Ref. 3), a. Fvwliait products. Substitutes exist or are being developed Tor almost all uses of asbestos in friction products. Replacement of asbestos in friction products has been more difficult than in the other asbestos product categories berausp of the unique combination ot physical properties of asbestos which make it so well suited for friction products, c.g., heat resistance, corrosion resistance, high tensile strength, thermal stability, and processability. I iowever, substitutes which are nearly as cost- effective as asbestos products have been developed for most uses of asbestos in friction products. Asbestos automatic transmission friction components are currently being replaced with cellulose-based friction components. Only one of three domestic manufacturers of clutch facings makes them using asbestos. Clutch facings made of fiberglass and textile fibers have begun to replace asbestos facings to a significant extent. However, these substitutes are inferior to the asbestos clutch facings in durability, quietness, and tensile strength. Product development is continuing, however, to improve fiberglass facings to increase strength, wear, and ability to withstand heat through the use of special binders. Aramld-fiber-hased clutch facings are also being developed. However, these . have been relatively expensive compared to the asbestos and fiberglass clutch facings. . Semi-metallic disc brake pads hv largely replaced asbestos disc brake pads in domestic cars with front wheel drive. Currently, about 8S percent of new domestic cars have front wheel drive anrl are equipped with semi- metallic front disc pads. Also, a number of brake manufacturers have begun to Introduce an aramtd fiber into production of disc brake pads. The development of substitutes for asbestos drum brake linings bos not been nearly as successful as it has been for disc brakes. Manufacturers have reported problems in processing nomtabesto* fibers and problems in meeting standards of durability end heat resistance. There has been limited progress to date. One automobile manufacturer has reported that Its now minivans are equipped with semi- metallic drum brake linings and one brake manufacturer has begun marketing araniid fiber-based linings for the replacement brake market. In addition, one automobile manufacturer has reporte-d progress in developing a nnnasbnsto drum brake lining using an .Tramid filter. However, domestic oar manufacturers have not begun installing aramid-besed or seml-metalllc-based 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. b. Axfoistus cloth pivdticts. Asbestos cloth has been used as a final product in safety curtains, fire blanket*, protective clothing, and high-temperature conveyor belts. Asbestos cloth is used as an Input product in gaskets, packing, friction materials, and thermal and electrical insulation. There currently are a number of substitute fibers for asbestos use iu FMSI 02436 3746 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. *9 / Wednesday, January 29, 1986 / Proposed Rules doth. These indude glass fibers. . ceramic fibere, carbon fibers, organic fibers, quartz fibers and cotton fibers. Replacement fibers for asbestos in doth uses depend upon the spedfic application. Substitutes appear to be available for almost all high-temperature applications of asbeBtos cloth. If asbestos cloth were not available. F.PA expect3 that the following substitutes would replace asbestos cloth as follows; Fiberglass doth products; SO to 60 percent. Aramid cloth products; 20 to 25 percent. Carbon/graphite doth products: 5 to 10 percent, Ceramics and silicon-based ctnlh products; 10 to IS percent. Because of their temperature and flame resistance, asbestos clothing products protect wearers from fire and heat. However, substitute products have been developed for asbestos dothing products. Aramid cloth products can substitute for asbestos in protective garments, but are more expensive. Some other textile products made without asbestos are less expensive than the counterpart product made with asbestos doth. Substitute products for asbestos dothing include nomex. fiberglass, and zetex. Asbestos dothing has been replaced by substitutes in most or ail firefighting and industrial applications. c. A3hestos-cement pipe and fittings. Products in this category are manufactured for various uses. Most pipe is used to carry water or sewage. A small amount is used to carry chemicals or is used as air ducts Pipe varies in construction depending on use end such factors as how deep it wiil be buried, the rate of fluid transmitted end whether it is under pressure. EPA believes that at least one suitable substitute is available for each of the many pipe types and sizes. Based on information from manufacturers. EPA conduded that operation and maintenance costs and service life of all products are essentially similar. Asbestos-cement pipe does not dominate any segment of the pipe market but is popular for certain applications such as carrying water at tow pressure. If this rule is promulgated. EPA expects that the following substitutes will repines asbestos-cement pipe as follows: Polyvfnyl chloride (PVC) pipe-.....-7Z percent Ductile iron pipe....._________ ___ 2] percent Prestressed concrete pipe_....... ....4,2 percent Rrinforred concrete pipe.........--0.15 percent These estimates are only approximate and do not take into account other possible substitutes that RPA considered somewhat less suitable than those noted above. These include various plastic and vitrified clay pipes. All of the substitutes considered are well established in the pipe market and can be joined to or replaced existing asbestos-cement pipe sections. d. Roofing felt. Asbestos roofing felt is used for built-up roofing, primarily on flat roofs. "Built-up" refers to the practice of layering felt lengths on top of each other with hot roofing tar or asphalt mopped between layers of adhesion and additional weather protection. Currently, less than 10 percent of roofing fell sold contains asbestos. Organic felt, fibrous glass felt, and single-ply membrane roofing all have greater shares of the flat roof market than asbestos felt. Of those three well-established products, fibrous glass felt most closely approximates asbestos roofing felt in purchase and installation prices and service life. Organic felt has a lower purchase price, but has lower insulation value and moisture resistance and a somewhat shorter service life. Single-ply membrane roofing consists of u laminate of a modified bitumen or polymeric system such os polyvinyl chloride or ethylene propylene diene monomer. A typical product consists of a five-layer laminate composed of a thick plastic core protected on each surface by a layer of modified bitumen and an outer film of polyethylene. The purchase price of single-piy membrane roofing is several times thut of asbestos felt, is about as expensive to install, but is expected to have a longer service life. Single-ply membrane also has the advantage of not requiring the use of hot asphalt during installation. e. Flooring felt andfelt-bucked vinyl sheet flooring. Asbestos flooring felt was used as a backing for vinyl sheet flooring products. The felt confers dimensional stability and helps prolong floor life when moisture from below the surface Is a problem. EPA does not believe that flooring felt is currently being produced in the U.S. A Targe number of non-asbestos vinyl flooring products have entered the market in the last 5 years. These products indude sheet backed with felt containing fibrous glass, cellulose, polyethylene or polypropylene fibers, ceramic fibers, and plastic foam. Also available are unbadeed sheet and numerous traditional flooring products such as ceramic tiles, eapetlng. and wood flooring. Among these many products, consumers will find adequate substitutes for any particular use of asbestos containing felt or felt-backsd flooring. EPA has found that price differentials between asbestos end non-asbestos vinyl sheeting are negligible. Overall, the backing is a small pari of the total cost for vinyl sheet products. Maintenance and service life tire not materially affected by the backing. The wide range of prices found among various vinyl flooring products are mostly attributable to the colors and patterns of the vinyl as well as the wear-layer thickness. f. Vinyl-asbestos floor tile. Vinyl asbestos floor tile is used in numerous applications, but haB been especially popular for use in heavy traffic areas such as in stares, kitchens, and entry ways. Addition of fiber contributes to abrasion and indentation resistance, dimensional stability, and resistance in moisture, heat, and nil. Currently, the most suitable available substitutes for vinyl-usbestos floor tiles are various asbestos-free vinyl composition floor (ties. In place of asbestos fibers, manufacturers arc using synthetic fibers including fibrous glass, polypropylene, polyethylene, and cellulose. There are also severe! types of vinyl tiles that contain various fillers and resins in place of fiber. Many non asbestos vinyl tile products have been on the market for only a few years. Consequently their service lives are nut well established. Some industry contacts believe the non-asbestos tile* wiil last as long as the asbestos tiles, while others believe service lives will be shorter. EPA currently assumes that service lives of the non-asbestos tiles wil! be about one-third shorter than for the asbestos tiles. g. Asbestos-cement sheet. There are a number of cosl competitive substitutes for asbestos-cement sheet. These include both products using substitute fibers and other jfroducl substitutes. Giass-rcinforced concrete is suitable for most corrosion and heat-resistant applications where asbestos-cement sheet is now uaed. Glass-reinforced concrete is widely available at a price that has been declining relative to that of asbestos-cement sheet. Cement-wood board is suitable for the general construction applications of asbestos- cement sheet. The use of resins and surface coatings with cement-wood board makes the product suitable In weather-resistant applications. In the siding market, asbestos-cement products have no cost advantage over galvanized steel, aluminum, or concrete. However, asbeslos-cement sheet may have greater aonosion resistance than the other products. In cooling towers. polyVfnyl chloride products or ceramic FMSI 02437 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1938 ( Proposed Rules 3747 tile products are cost competitive and a. Fibrous glass appears to be intended as asbestos substitutes may are suitable for most applications. There considerably less hazardous than wish to discuss their, plans with EPA are also a number of products that can asbestos based on (1J morbidity and during a prenotice consultation. Such a substitute for asbestos-cement sheet as mortality studies in workers, (2) in viva consultation can be arranged by a laboratory desk top and fume hood and in vitro experimental data, (3) the contacting the Prenotice bench. However, It appears that order of magnitude lower exposure Communications Coordinator by comparably priced products may not potential in the workplace, (4pthe telephone at (202-382-3745) or by fully match the qualities of asbestos- generally less respirable nature of the writing to the Prenotice Communications cement sheet in these applications. eirbome fibers, and (9) the less durable Coordinator, Chemical Control Division h. Asbaatan-ccment shinfjfas. There nature of the fibers In the lungs. (TS-794), Environmental Protection are substitutes for asbestos-cement b. Mineral wood does not appear to Agency, 401M St., SW., Washington, DC shingles for both roofing ami siding present the significant risks that 20480. Through a prenotice consultation, applications. The primary substitutes lor asbestos does based on (1) limited EPA can inform potential PMN asbestos-cement roofing shingles are animal data and morbidity and submitters of legal requirements, asphalt- filterglass composition shingles, mortality studies for workers, and (2) possible EPA health concerns about the cedar wood shingles, and various synthetic and natural tiles, such as M<winy roofing tile and concrete tile. Asphalt-fiberglass composition shingles ms! about half as much as asbestoscement shingles in terms of purchase and installation costs but have only about half the operating life. Cedarwood shingles have a slightly greater cost then asboslos-ccment shingles but have a greater operating life. Subslitet es 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 term* of price, hut it is somewhat fuss durable. The total substitute market fur both applications is approximately as follows: Asplmll/libeeglass..,......................... 50 percent Wood products......................... .'W-.'lfi percent Aluminum silting........................... 5-m percent l*vt; siding.............................. 5-ro peieeut 3rir.li. file............................................ 5 percent 2.1'iwsibln hazard* of substitutes. KI'A hns analysed 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 filler products) and construction products made of brick and concrete, appear to present little risk. While othet substitutes present the lower exposure potential in the workplace. c. Ceramic fibers do not appear to present a comparable risk to that of asbestos based primarily on (1) the moderate workplace concentrations, and (2) the specialized applications which include its encapsulation or incorporation into products. d. Oarbon/graphite fibers are probably not a significant health risk based on the (1) use of coatings on the fibers which may reduce their respirabiliiy. and (2) iow intrinsic rnspirubility characteristics. e. Aramid fibers appear to present relatively low risk because they are basically nonrespirable us currently produced and processed, f. Polyethylene and polypropylene pulps and filters appear to present relatively little risk since they appear to he relatively nontoxic and nonrespirable. g. AtCipiiigite has largo general exposure potential hut available evidence suggests that affapulgite from IJ.S. mines may present little hazard. In addition, attapuigite is not a major substitute for asbestos. h. Polyvinytcholoride does not appear to present a health hazard enmpatable lo asbestos, although vinyl chloride, the monomer used to produce polyvinylchloride, is a carcinogen. The polyvinylchloride product 'tacit presents little risk and workplace exposures are apparently adequately i.onlrolled. i. ffuctilr- iron pipe dons not present a 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 end potentially presented by tile asbestos substitute. EPA will make every reasonable effort to provide prompt and clear information concerning the likely result of PMN review in view of EPA's policy of encouraging less hazardous substitutes for asbestos. I). Economic Efforts of Pmpnsmf Rule This portion of the preamble presents KPA's determination of tho "reasonably ascertainable economic consuquencea of the rule" as required by section fi(c)(T)H")J of TSCA. EPA has prepared a "Regulatory ImpHi-l Analysis of Controls on Aslwstos Products" [Bef. 3) which analyzes the potential economic impact of this proposed rule. Tho economic impact is summarized and explained below. Estimated costs arc mainly front 1381 dutn obtained under EPA's section Hfa) asbestos reporting rule (40 CFR 78.3.00). Some of !hp (fata were adjusted to reflect mure current information on production of asbestos products. Specifically, EPA gathered more current information on the use of asbestos some risk. EPA has concluded that the health hazard comparable to that of clothing and asbestos flooring fell and available information suggests ihot none asbestos. then adjusted the estimated costs sod of the substitutes appear to present as KI'A recognizes that some asbestos benefits of the ride lo reflect declining great a potential tor risk to human substitutes may be new chemical use of these products. The sources of the health as asbestos. KI'A made extensive suit-stances for which a premanufaclura information are noted in the record for use of the work, of the National Research notin' (PMN) must be submitted under this rule. The costs are presented as the Owned ami agrees with limit conclusion section 5 of TSCA. A goal of ERA'S PMN net present value of cosis incurred due that; "Current population risk from review program is to encourage, the to changes in nsbestOB product exposures to the, various subslanr.es development of new chemical production between 1965 and 2000. considered, including fibrous glass, substances that are loss hazardous than Costs are likely la be overstated since attapuigita. and carbon fibers, appeal s the. chemical substance* they replace. the baseline production levels used in to be much less than for risk from KI'A encourages the development of less the cost model probably overstate asbestos, especially chrysotile" IRof. ft). hazardous new chemical substances as production in the future. In addition, the The conclusions of KPA's analysis of asbestos replacements. Potential cost estimation model assumes that the specific substitutes follows. developers of new chemical substances relative prices of substitutes for FMSI02438 3748 Federal Register / Vol. 51. Nu. is / Wednesday. January 2V), 198C / Proposed Rules asbestos products will remain oonslaril over the time period used For measurement of costs. Actually, price differentials are likely to decrease over lime. Two types of costs ore estimated in the RIA: (1) Coats to consumers and (21 costs to producers. These are discussed below. The costs represent the present value of losses incurred over the 15-year period from 1885 to 2000, using a discount rate of 10 percent. 1. Consumer losses due to the rule would result from increases in costs incurred for asbestos products or substitutes for asbestos products and 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 agreed across the entire consumer papulation and would average lew than $10 per consumer over 15 years. This rule would not cause dramatic cost increases in typical consumer products. 2. Losses would accrue to producers as a result of the rule when producers are forced to forgo some portion of the return on their capital stock used to produce asbestos products. Owners of equipment which can be reudily converted to make other products are not expected to lose nearly as much as owners of equipment which cannot be easily converted. Total producer costs are estimated to be about $208 million for the rule. 3. In addition, the rule would result in transition costs to workers who are displaced by phasing down production of asbestos products. These losses are incurred in the form of lost wages and job search costs. KPA believes that transition cobIs of the phase-down will be relatively modest since the rule would allow industry tn scale buck production gradually and shift production to other products and that the transition costs from the proposed product bans will be 8mall in comparison to the consumer tmd producer costs. The sum of these costs, about $1.98 billion, represents the estimated total real resource costs of the rule. This cost would be spread over 15 years. The cast will also be spread over a large population and the impact on must persons would be negligible. In addition, EPA estimated the real resource costs of the product bans proposed in this rule. These estimates arc shown below: Product Arc Pipe...... Floor Wn. .... Hoofing Mi. Real rvtoofcu coot $teV< Uttfen JURS Minion Mo 00*1 P'OOUct l rcsotref* COM MVtrsU* CtoCWnfc.................I *.t MiKiry Pooling felt.................... ......... J-i.k Mliior- The above costs of the rule will be offset to some extent by the following avoided costs. fly reducing the amount of asbestosrelated deaths and illnesses this rule would reduce the cost to society of the health resources used to treat asbestosrelated illnesses (e.g,. hospital and medical treatment) and the productivity I wages and lost work capacity of sick workers, etc.) lost as ti result of illness caused by asbeston exposure. EPA estimates that the avoided morbidity cost is about $1,275 per case. This is measured In 1885 dollars using a 10percent discount rate. This figure is relatively low because people generally contract mesothelioma or lung cancer after a long latency period. Thus most medics)' costs occur far in the future and are therefore discounted heavily. ERA ilid not attempt to value the loss of fife itself. In addition, no value was assigned to "pain and suffering" "loss of 'leisure time."' and other similar losses. Substantial asbestos removal and disposal costs would be avoided as a result of this proposed rule. These include avoided expenses as well as avoided health risks for people exposed during removal and disposal activities. Use of nonasbestos products tn construction reduces demolition and disposal costs in the future. Removal and disposal costs of products are likely to be considerably higher for asbestos products than nonasbestos substitutes because of the extra precautions required to meet OSHA and Clean Ail Act (CAA) requirements. Avoided removal and disposal costs ere a major benefit of this proposed regulation. Thcsc costs can be substantial, EPA has estimated that removing asbestos from school buildings costs between $2 and $13 per square fool of asbestos removed. OSHA and F,PA both have regulations to limit asbestos exposure at work sites. Certain costs related to compliance with these regulations would be avoided as a result of this rule. To comply with OSHA's current workplace standard for asbestos, employers incur expenses reluted to: n. Monitoring for fibers. h. Providing engineering methods to control exposures (this includes enclosing ur Isolating asbestos fiber generating activities, providing exhaust ventilation, dust collection, etc.) o. Providing hand tools such as sews, scorers, drills, and abrasive wheels that have local exhaust ventilation systems. d. Modifying work practices to reduce exposure. 0. Providing special clothing, change rooms, lockers, and special laundering. f. Labeling asbestos material and posting caution signs. g. Providing special procedures for collection and processing of asbestos waste. h. Prov iding medical examinations for employees exposed to asbestos. 1. Responding to recordkeeping and reporting requirements. EPA's CAA regulations require that activities during milling, manufacture, demolition and renovation, waste disposal, and some other asbestosrelated activities release "no visible emissions.'' To comply with this requirement, persons must obtain and maintain air-cleaning devices such as filters and may be required to modify work and waste disposal practices to reduce emissions. In addition, both OSHA and EPA may require stricter workplace controls for asbestos in the near future. The coBts of complying with those requirements would be avoided at least In part by this rule. United Stales courts and workman's .compensation boards have been inundated with thousands of claims for compensation for deaths and illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos. Some past producers of asbestos products have declared bankruptcy because of these many claims. The continued use of asbestos can only exacerbate the problem. Each case of disease avoided relieves the various systems affected of a considerable burden. This rule, by reducting exposure to asbestos and reducing the number of asbestos-related illnesses and deaths, would reduce these costs. " As required by section 5(c)(1)(D) of TSCA. EPA has analysed the economic impact of this proposed rule on small businesses. The effect of this role on such businesses Is expected to be small because (1) there are few small businesses producing asbestos products and 12) producer losses are expected to be small since capital equipment for production of most asbestos products can be converted fairly easily to other forms of production. A maximum of 27 out of the 212 primary1 processors of asbestos products are small businesses. FJ'A acknowledges that these 27 companies could incur losses under the rule. EPA was unable to determine how many of the secondary processors of asbestos products are small businesses. FMSI02439 Fedora) Register / Vat. in, No, 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1966 / Proposed Rules 3749 However, EPA acknowledges that a .asbestos products within a certain 1. Ban the asbestos construction higher percentage of secondary category at the same time. EPA is products category and asbestos clothing processors are likely to be smalt considering a category approach for soon afterpromulgation of the rule, ban businesses than the percentage of groups of asbestos products with similar the asbestos friction products category primary' processors that are small exposure patterns, similar exposure about 5 years later, and gather businesses. In addition, S of the li control issues, and similar substitutes. additional information on other companies that manufacture the Examples of categories under asbestos products. Under this - products that this rule proposes to bun consideration are construction products alternative, EPA would ban the are small businesses. This proposed rule and friction-products. EPA believes it manufacture, importation, and could have significant impact on these few companies. The estimated costs of the rule could be seen as significant. However, the overall benefits to society of asbestoscontaining products are diminishing with the current availability and the continued development of various nonasbestos substitutes. The costs of the rule 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 typlcm! consumer products Consumer losses caused by this rule may be good public policy to ben categories of products at die same time. This approach would address similar exposure patterns in die same way and treat all parts of an industry sector similarly. In addition, both the construction products category and the friction products category contain products that could substitute for other products in the category if all 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 the ones embodied in the proposal is banning the manufacture, importation, and processing of the 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 BBbestos-oement sheet, fiatasbestoscement sheet, and asbestos-cement shingles) and asbestos clothing soon after promulgation of the rule. Effective substitutes exist for these products. The rule would also ben the manufacture, importation, and processing of the asbestos friction products category (i.e., drum brake linings, disc brake pads for tight, medium, and heavy vehicles, brake blocks, clutch facings, automatic transmission friction components, and industrial and commercial friction would be spread across the entire asbestos construction products category materials) 5 years after promulgation of consumer population. Jobs displaced by and asbestos clothing with the ban the rule. This alternative would reduce this rule are likely to be offset by effective soon after promulgation of the exposure to asbestos without the increased employment in companies rule; banning the manufacture, administrative burden of EPA producing substitutes for asbestos importation, and processing of the establishing and operating a permit products. Potential consumer und asbestos friction products category system as in the proposed approach. producer costs ere likely to be offset by about 5 years after promulgation of the This alternative, by banning asbestos the economic costs avoided by this rule, rule; and gathering up-to-date friction products 5 years after i.e.. avoidance of the morbidity costs of production, exposure, and use data on promulgation, would strongly encourage asbestos-related diseases; the cos) of the remaining asbestos products under the rapid development of additional 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-rein ted 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 a phase-out of asbestos. EPA expects that this proposed rule would have a positive impact on technological innovation ami encourage the continued rapid development of nonasbestos substitute products. This development of new products is likely to involve significant technological innovation. section P[e) of TSCA to support possible bans of other asbestos products at that time. Another option is banning the manufacture, importation, and processing of the asbestos construction products category, asbestos clothing, and the asbestos friction products category as stated above and banning the remaining asbestos products at u Intel tirqe R'.g.. 10 years), thus allowing time for the development of effective substitutes while strongly encouraging substitute development. A third option is banning the manufacture, importation, and processing of the asbestos construction products category and asbestos clothing as stated above and covering all other asbestos products under the phase-down. Under each of 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 costing about $2.11 billion. This is a cost of about 1.01 million per cancer case avoided. Because (JSHA has proposed lowering the workplace PEL for asbestos to 0.2 f/cc, EPA also estimated the numbers of cancer esses avoided assuming strict compliance with this lower PEL Assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. EPA estimates that this alternative would IV. Other Options Considered the options, EPA is also considering a avoid about 1,000 cancer cases that EPA Section 5 of TSCA requires that ETA apply the least burdensome requirements to reduce an unreasonable requirement that products not banned soon after promulgation be labeled as containing asbestos. can quantify, while costing about S2.ll billion. This is a cost of about $2.00 million per cancer case avoided. rink. EPA is considering a number of EPA is actively considering these To determine how sensitive the cost options for implementing the regulatory options as alternatives to this proposed pur cancer case avoided was to the policy of phasing out the manufacture rule and specifically requests comment bunning of particttlar products, EPA and importation of asbestos products. on these alternatives. EPA muy adopt a conducted a sensitivity analysis, These options Involve staged bans of final rule based closely on one or s excluding asbestos-cement pipe from the categories of asbestos products. This combination of these alternatives. These ban. upprouch would ban the manufacture, alternatives are discussed more fully Without a ban of asbestos-cement importation, and processing of ail below. i pipe and assuming strict compliance FMSI 02440 3750 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/oc, EPA estimates that this alternative would avoid about 840 cancer cases that EPA can quantify, while costing about $1,87 billion. This is a cost of about $2.22 million pet cancer case avoided. EPA believes that effective substitutes are increasingly becoming available for asbestos friction products and will be readily available by the date the delayed ban would become affective, t iowevor, EPA is considering an exemption process for essential uses without substitutes. One area EPA is studying in particular is the aftermarket for asbestos brakes. Some persons have stated that asbestos brakes now in use cannot safely be replaced by asbestos- free brakes when they wear oui, while n(burs have disagreed with this assertion. KPA Is aware of the potential risk to the public from poorly performing brakes. EPA specifically requests comment, on this issue. EPA considered various approaches for addressing the risk presented by asbestos products not banned either soon after promulgation or S years after promulgation under this alternative. One approach would be to propose and promulgate rule under section 8|a) of TSt'.A to gather contemporaneous date concerning the production and use of and exposure to these products at the t.'vir* the first products ban rule becomes effective or ai a date a tew years luter. t'PA would analyze that data am) then dot ide whether to lion additional asbestos products. EPA would also determine the date of these hues, which may be at staged intervals. After deciding these issues, t.il'A would propose and promulgate the bans of these asbestos products. Another ijjpruat.h for addressing the risk presented by those, remaining asbestos products is discussed as alternative Z h.rlovr. .' Hull die ushi".U/s uonslmction nndunts category and mbestnn .Jothinp >..m offer promulgation of the him .It asbestos frit;! ton products category .-"years later, and ban remaining asbestos products about JO yours Inter thaler this alternative, as in alternative t. EPA would ban the manufacture, oiportation. and processing of Iha ishestos construction products category md ..sbestos clothing soon after c omulgulion of the rule, and ban the nnnufacture, importation, and accessing of the asbestos friction pro-duels category 5 years ufter nomnlgntion of the rule. This dsenitiiive would also ban the icinufacUirc, importation, and accessing of ai) ether asbestos products o years after promulgation of (In' rule. This alternative would relatively quickly ban u number of asbestos products for which effective substitutes extst while strongly encouraging the rapid development of effective substitutes for other asbestos products. This alternative, unlike alternative 1, avoids the necessity of future rulemakings to gather additional data and then ban additional products. It would also provide greater certainty about the status of all asbestos products and more strongly encourage the development of substitutes for all applications of all products. As in alternative 1. EPA is considering the need for an exemption process for asbestos friction products in connection with the staged product bans. EPA estimates that this alternative, assuming current exposure levels, would avoid about 2,120 cancer cases that EPA can quantify while costing about $2.29 billion. This is a cost of about $1,08 million per cancer case avoided. Assuming strict compliance with an OSI1A PEL of 0.2 f/cc. EPA estimates Shot this alternative would avoid about 1.070 cancer rases that EPA can quantify, while costing about $2.39 billion This is a cost of about $2.13 million per cancer case avoided. Without a ban of asbestos-cement pipe and assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc, EPA estimates that this alternative would avoid about 950 cancer cases that EPA can quantify, while costing about $202 billion. This is a cost of about $2,12 million per cancer case avoided. 3. Ban the asbestos construction Iirnifiicts category anti asbestos clothing soon after promulgation of the rule and war all other otfbitsles products under the phase-down. Under this alternative EPA would han the manufacture, importation, and.proccssing of the asbestos construction products category and asbestos clothing soon after the promulgation of the rule and coverall other asbestos products under the phase-down. This alternative, unlike the current proposal, would hun all asbestoscement products at the same time, thus addressing similar exposure patterns in the same way and treating all parts of an industry sector similarly. The phasedown would operate to restrict use of asbestos in other industry sectors. EPA estimates that this alternative,' assuming current exposure levels, would avoid about 2.020 cancer cases that EPA can quantity while costing about $2.01 billion. This is a cost of about $1.00 million per cancer case avoided. Assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. EPA estimates that this alternative would avoid about 1.010 cancer cases that EPA can quantify while costing about $2.01 billion. This is a cost of about $1.38 million per cancer case avoided. Without a ban of asbestos-cement pipe and assuming Btrict compliance with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc, EPA estimates that this alternative would avoid about 950 cancer cases that EPA can quantify while costing about $1.B6 billion. This is a cost of about $1.95 million per cancer case avoided. The following Table VI summarizes the estimated costs and estimated cancer cases avoided that EPA could quantify for the proposal and the three alternatives discussed earlier, first assuming current exposure levels and then assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEI, of 0.2 f/cc. Table Vt- Estimated Costs and Cancer Cases avoioeo pporsoal AH- 1 All 2 AH 3 Assuming Gurent Hxposives OW (billions)....................... Gtno* oases wooed____ Com p cancer cate Evaded (ouMon*)......... 9i W 1.930 11.02 Mil 2.100 $101 *2* 2.120 fi.oe *201 2,020 91.00 Assuming Strict Comp*snoe Wilh an OSHA PEL of Q2IJcc .......... 1 - $2 11 $2.20 *201 Cancel cases avntod........ 1.000 1.000 1,070 1.M0 Com per cancer case suthoad (nrifVjns)............. si 99 $2.00 $213 $!% AiUiuwtwe (--Bart construction p*oduci* amt t'tommu soon alia pjamrfgalwr* and ban afitecto* Motion products <n (to years. Ntempito 2-Ban asbestos oonttniclton products and asbestos ctttta.'tg soon alter promulgation, bar; ftvatou product* :n two years and ban remaining ptoAicfe an u?n yc*.v Aiw'i'^'vh 3--Ban asbestos construction p'orf'jcfe and dslx-jiO'j ''totfiing toon attar pvoifitrigaUm and row rpoww ifu) pvod'.jr-rs liivvh dvr pltane-down. 4.1inquire labeling ofasbestos products subject to a ban. As part of this alternative, EPA also proposes and requests comment/in a labeling reguirement. In particular, It ib proposed that products not immediately banned but subject to regulation 5 or 10 years from now lie labeled in the interim. The labeling would advise purchasers the! the product contains asbestos. EPA requests comments on this proposal, in particular on (l) the appropriateness of this proposal for all or some subset of the products in this category: (2) the appropriateness of a simple content warning as opposed to a more extensive labeling provision; and (3J the extent to which labeling would serve to reduce exposure to asbestos. EPA also considered a number of alternatives for implementing the phasedown. These include options concerning the following: who would be assigned perrqits: how persons would be granted FMSI 02441 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, t986 / Proposed Rules 3751 permits; whether permits would be time. Asbestos fibers easily reenter the the next 15 years. This rale would avoid transferable; whether permits would be atmosphere after settling out and can about 1,000 of those cancer cases. bankable; and how imported products travel long distances through the air. 0. The estimated costs of this containing asbestos would be treated. 5. Health risks from exposure to proposed rule are reasonable in view of F.PA also considered a number of asbestos fibers during the lifecycle of the number of cancers and other options before adopting its current the asbestos products covered by this adverse health effects that would be regulatory strategy for controlling the proposed rule occur to many population avoided. Substitutes for asbestos ore risk from asbestos. These options are groups during many activities. Persons readily available for many products and discussed In documents which are can be exposed to asbestos fibers long can be expected to become available included in the rulemaking record. after those fibers have been released to during the phase-down period for most, V. Finding of Unreasonable Risk EPA has weighed the health risks from continued use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products against the costs attributable to the proposed regulation. EPA has concluded, that the avoidance of about 1.930 cancer cases that can be quantified assuming current exposure levels, or the 1,000 cancer cases that can be quantified assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/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 the proposed regulation. Therefore, EPA finds that the continued mining and importation of asbestos and Hshestos products in the United Slates 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 a demonstrated human carcinogen. The cancers caused by asbestos are usually fHtal and cause much pain and suffering. In addition. aRbestos causes other lung diseases such as asbestesis. 2. Available evidence supports the conclusion that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. This conclusion is consistent with present theory of cancer etiology and is further supported by the many documented cases whore 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-respon3e relationship. 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 worksites are estimated to have very high risks of contracting cancer, pprhaps greater than 1 in 100. 4. Asbestos fibers are colorless, the air and at a considerable distance if not all other uses. Even though the from the source of release. The vast costA are probably overestimated, the majority of Ihe general population of the cost per cancer case avoided, assuming li.S. Is exposed to asbestos in the air. current exposure levels, that EI'A can More than 40,000 workers are exposed quantify, is about $1.02 million. Even if during manufacture and processing of OSHA promulgates and achieves strict asbestos products covered by this compliance with a PEL of 0.2 f/cc, the proposal. Many additional thousands of cost per cancer case avoided that EPA workers and consumers are exposed can quantify is about S1.99 million. If all during product installation, use, cancer cases and the incidence of other maintenance, renovation, removal, and diseases could be quantified, the cost disposal of asbestos products. Finally, per case of disease prevented would be many millions of people who reside near substantially lower. In addition, the asbestos worksites are also exposed to overall costs of the rule are spread over significant concentrations of asbestos in a large population so that the cost to any the air. individual would be negligible. Further, e. Using typical rather than worstcase. data and assumptions, EPA has EPA expects substantial savings to result from this rule from such factors as estimated that this proposed rule avoided costs in treating asbestos banning certein asbestos products arid related diseases, avoidance of lost phasing nut all others, if promulgated, productivity caused by these diseases, would avoid approximately 1,930 cases avoided costs in asbestos removal and of cancer which would otherwise result disposal, and avoidance of litigation from exposure to asbestos between the costs resulting from asbestos disease years 1985 to 20QG. EPA underestimated claims. . the number of cancer cases avoided EPA also finds that the costs of because of the lack of comprehensive alternatives 1. 2, and 3 are reasonable in data on releases of 8sbeslos to the ambient air from many activities. EPA view of the numbers of cancers and other adverse health effects that they estimates that the following numbers of would avoid. The costs per cancer case cancer cases would be avoided as a avoided that EPA can quantify of these resell of the proposed product bans, alternatives are approximately the same assuming boih current exposure levels as for the proposed rule. ami strict compliance with an OSHA As discussed earlier, EPA conducted a i'F.i. of 0.2 f/r.o. sensitivity analysis to see how sensitive the cost per cancer case avoided by this rule and the cost per cancer avoided by the regulatory alternatives discussed Product Current AtO? f/CC earlier were to the banning of particular products. Specifically, EPA analyzed the cost per cancer case avoided for the proposal and the other options Asbestos utothtng. A/C pip........ htoor We......... Ffcnprtng felt___ Rocttftp !.... ,, 1 0 excluding asbestos-cement pipe or 533 469 82 m vinly-asbestos floor tile from the bans. 0 o Even with these relatively high exposure products excluded from the bans, the cost per cancer case avoided by the These estimates of cancer cases avoided by the product bans should not be viewed in isolation, since asbestos use In other product sectors would theoretically decrease at less than the proposal and die alternatives are similar. For example, without a ban of asbestos-cement pipe and assuming strict compliance with an OSHA PEL of odorless, and frequently invisible, thus current rate unless all asbestos use is 0.2 f/cc, this proposed rule would cost presenting risk to persons not aware that they may be exposed. Asbestos phased out. 7. Even if OSHA promulgates and about $1.96 million per cancer case . avoided that EPA can quantify. Without fibers are extremely durable and have achieves strict compliance with a PEL of a ban of vinyl-asbestos floor tile and aerodynamic properties that allow them 0.2 f/cc. almost 1.325 cancers would still assuming strict compliance with sn to remain suspended in the air for a long result from asbestos products made over OSHA PEL of 0.2 f/cc, this proposed rale FMSI 02442 3752 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No (9 / Weanestjay. january 29. 1936 / Proposed Rules would cost about $2.28 million per . cancer case avoided that EPA can quantify. VI. Other EPA Statutes Section 8(c) of TSCA requires that if EPA determines that a risk of injury to health or the environment could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by setions taken under another statute administered by EPA, EPA moy not promulgate a rule under section 8(a) of TSCA; unless EPA finds It is in the public interest to protect against tiie risk uy action under TSCA. EPA finds that no otherlaw administered by EPA will eliminate or reduce the risks from asbestos to a sufficient extent. Several EPA statutes have been used to limit asbestos exposure. In 1973. EPA used the authority of the CAA to list asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant, establish a "no visible" emission standard for manufacturers, and ban the use of Bpray-applied asbestoaconteining material as insulation in buildings, published in the Federal Register of April 8,1973 (38 FR 8828). EPA Amended this regulation in 1876 to ban asbestos-containing pipe lagging, by a rale published in the Federal Register of October 12,1976 (40 FR 48292); and in 1978, extended the ban to all uses of spraynd-on asbestos by s rule published m the Federal Register of futie 19.1978 (43 FR 26372). Tire CAA rule, which was last amended on April S, 1984 (49 FR i7858). also regulates the removal of asbestos from buildings and the disposal of wastes generated by removal. However, the CAA has limitations. The CAA doe* not apply directly to indoor air in the workplace or home. Consequently, any possible additional use of that, statute may leave many workplace or home exposure situations inadequately controlled. Another EPA statute that could be used to limit asbp.Btoe exposure is the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA announced its intention to consider . asbestos for Inclusion In its proposed National Revised Primary Dtinking Water Regulations by a Notice published id the Federal Register of October S, 1983 (48FR45502). However, :ven if the SDWA is used to set a drinking water standard for asbestos, it would necessarily ignore the inhalation risk associated with asbestos. , An additional EPA statute that could be used to limit asbestos, exposure is the Resource Conservation arid Recovery Act (RCRA), Under RCRA, ERA could list asbestos as aliazilrdoug waste and subject asbestos waste to general RCRA requirements designed to reduce exposure. However, such action under RCRA would only reduce exposure during the disposal of asbestos and asbestos products. VII. Analysis Under Section 9(e) of TSCA Under section 9(a)(1) of TSCA, the' Administrator is required to submit a report to another Federal agency when two determinations are made. The first determination is that the Administrator has reasonable basis to conclude that a chemical substance or mixture presents or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. The second determination is that the unreasonable risk may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by action taken by another Federal agency under a Federal lew not administered by EPA. Section 9(a)(1) provides that where the Administrator makes these two determinations, EfiA must provide an opportunity to the other Federal agency io assess the risk described in the report, to interpret its own statutory authorities, and Io initiate an action under tire Federal laws that it administers. Section 8(o) of TSCA thus requires EPA to review other Federal authorities not administered by EPA to determine whether action under those authorities may prevent or sufficiently reduce unreasonable risk. The following unit summarizes past and contemplated action by other agencies and then discusses why those agencies are not able to prevent or sufficiently reduce the unreasonable risk presented by asbestos. A. Other Authorities Affecting Asbestos Under the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051) the CPSC has issued rules banning consumer patching compounds containing respirable asbestos (16 CFR Part 1304) and artificial emberizing materials containing respirable asbestos (18 CFR Part 1305). Thu CPSC took those actions based on findings that the use of those products in the household would result in increased risk of cancer. Earlier, the Food and Drug Administration under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1261) banned "general-use garments containing asbestos other than garments having a bona fide application for persona! protection against thermal injury and so constructed that the asbestos fibers will not become airborne under reasonably foreseeable conditions of use" (16 CFR 1500(17). The FHSA is now administered by the CPSC. In 1880, CPSC issued a general order requiring persons to furnish information on die use of asbestos in certain consumer product categories. CPSC has also measured potential consumer exposure to asbestos from such products us asbestos millboard. asbestos paper . products, and stove door gaskets. . OSHA begun to regulate asbestos in the workplace in 1971 under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 51, OSHAct). Since the first workplace standard setting a limit of 12 f/cc was promulgated in May 1971, the workplace standard has been twice revised and is now Z f/cc (TWA). An Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) establishing a permissible level ol' 0.5 f/cc wss published in the Federal Register of November 4.1983 (48 FR 51086). but the ETS was found invalid by a court. OSHA proposed a revised standard in the Federal Register of April 10,1984 (49 FR 14116). The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) acting under the Mine Safety and Health Act has adopted workplace standards designed to protect workers engaged In pit and underground mining and milling. The MSHA standards are similar to those administered by OSHA for other workplaces. The MSHA standard was last amended in 1978 and calls for s PFJ, of 2 f/cc. Possible jurisdiction over other aspects of asbestos risk may lie with stii) other Federal agencies. For example, the Asbestos Information Association (A1A), commenting before * Senate subcommittee on early versions of TSCA, noted that the Federal Trade Commission may have authority to require labeling, distribution, and marketing of asbestos products and that the Department of Transportation has authority lo control transportation of hazardous substances, such as asbestos. 1971 Senate Hearings at 224-227. State and local public employees are generally excluded from coverage under the OSHAct. However, under section 19 of thy OSHAct, OSHA has approved State plans for 23 States and two territories, thus effectively extending OSHA protections to State and local pubbe employees in the jurisdictions. EPA has proposed a rule to establish requirements similar to those of the OSHA Asbestos Standard for State and local public employees not under a Slate plan who conduct asbestos abatement work. However, other public employees, such as firefighters, are not covered by this rule. , B. EPA's Determination Under Section 9(a1 of TSCA EPA is,pot required to submit a report to other agencies under section 9(a) on the asbestos risks described in this notice since EPA has determined that sucji risks cannot be prevented or FMSI02443 Federal Register / Vo), si, No, iV) / Wednesday, January 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules 3753 reduced to a sufficient extent by actions there is no other Federal authority 3. Besidual risks. Even if other taken under Federal law not capable of addressing the combination Federal agencies took additional action administered by EPA. Certain activities of activities involving asbestos. Section to reduce the risk associated with involving asbestos present risks that fall 9(a) requires EPA to consider the issues esbestos 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 substantia] ClSHAct, 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 still remain. statute, other then TSCA, can Federal laws, presents an unreasonable Many groups outside of OSHA adequately address all its risks. Referral risk. Second, EPA examines the residual jurisdiction are at risk 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 residua! risks protected by OSHA regulations in about risk, and an adverse effect on public would still be unreasonable. half (he States. The general population health. Furthermore, even if EPA were to 2. Capability of other Federal is exposed to asbestos in the ambient air refer asbestos risks to other agencies, authorities to deal with the combination as a result of release during the action taken by those other agencies of asbestos activities. EPA has manufacture, processing, use. repair, would still leave 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 will conclusion are set forth below. referral to other agencies. It is a develop cancer as a result of exposure 1. Interpretation of section 9(al 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 based on all its risks and. consumer products. With the exception Ev en if OSHA promulgates and thereby, allows the Government to oi TSCA, there is no one unified achieves 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 the risk. exposures. No one of the other potential residual risk would remain. About 1.325 (Statement of the President on signing S. Federal regulatory authorities, in looking persons would still develop cancer as u 3149 Into Law. October 12,1978. Weekly at its specific part of the overall result of exposure to asbestos in Compilation of Presidential Documents, exposures, can either evaluate or deal products imported or manufactured over vol, 12. No. 42, Oct. 18.1970, at 148ft S. with the totality of the risk presented. the next 15 years. These Include cancers Rep. No. 94-098.94th Cong.. 2d Sess. at Thus, OSHA may set exposure limits for in populations totally outside of OSHA's 2.J 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 the atmosphere; EPA, . workplace PEL, EPA estimates that dangers of a fragmented regulatory under the Clean Air Act, may regulate about 540 persons will develop cancer approach were recognized even during ambient emissions, but not workplace or from exposure to asbestos tn the the early congressional hes rings 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 (he process, only a fraction of the risk is f/cc, EPA estimates that about 78S 212-214; 1972 House Hearings at 85-67. 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's analysis of.the jurisdiction over well-accepted models. EPA used the would be a total ban on their production the risks pressnted by asbestos among a 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 suthorlties Is set out below. OSHA has cases and tile Nicholson absolute risk asbestos and the dangers of fragmented authority under the 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 1971 Senate manufacturing, construction, and service constants used tn the risk assessment Hearings and 1973 Hearings. Asbestos employees from workplace exposures, were those estimated by Selikoff 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. tH.R. has authority under the CPSA and studies have estimated dose-response Rep. No. 94-1341,94th Cong., 2d Sess., at FHSA concerning risk presented to constants for asbestos-related diseases 5 (1976).) Members of Congress believed consumers from consumer products. The end estimates vary by as much as an it intolerable that no agency could deal Mine Safety and Health Administration order ofmagnitude. The Selikoff comprehensively with chemical risks, has authority under the Mine Safety and estimates fait approximately in the including the 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 Tunney to Dow Chemical asbestos. State and local public mesothelioma. In addition, the Selikoff Company); 1975 Senate Hearings at 131 employees, such as firefighters who may estimates have the lowest variance 133 (Remarks of Senator Tunney). wear asbestos clothing, (n about half the among all 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 and are subject to were recommended by the CPSC's two parts. First, EPA determine* that State authority. Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on FMSI 02444 3754 Federal Register / voi, 51. Mo. 19 ( Wednesday. January 29, 1986 / Proposed Rules asbestos (Ref. t) and were also used by OSHA to estimate the risk posed by asbestos in support of the proposed revision of OSHA's asbestos standard. OSHA's choice of 0.2 f/cc as e proposed PEL was based on the feasibility of measuring asbestos levels in the workplace. At a level oi 0.2 f/cc, OSHA, using the same lung cancer and mesothelioma models as EPA, estimates . that there would be 670 excess cancer deaths per 100.000 workers exposed over a working career (Ref. 12). In 1980, a joint NIOS1 i/OSHA Asbestos Work Group stated that there was no level of exposure to asbestos below which clinical effects did not occor and recommended a PEL. of 01 f/cc based on the limitation of current technologies for measuring air concentrations of asbestos (Ref. 7). Even a level of 0.1 f/cc, OSHA estimates that there could be 336 excess cancer deaths per 100,000 workers exposed over a vvorking career IRef. 12). It is likely that a PEL of 0.2 f/cc will be exceeded in many cases since it is particularly difficult to apply the PEL in the construction and service sectors. Many of the workplace exposures to asbestos occur downstream In the construction and service sectors rather than the manufacturing sector. Over 80 percent of workers exposed to asbestos are in the construction and service sectors. Employees in those sectors often do not know when they are exposed to asbestos because they do not know that they are working with asbestos products. Compliance inspections are also difficult in the construction and service sectors since employees frequently do not have a fixed worksite. In fact, the current PEL of 2.0 f/cc has been exceeded in many cases in these sectors. Thus, it is likely that many workers in the construction and service sectors wilt develop cancer unless EPA takes action. Finally, many asbestos control measures, in particular, the use of respirators, only put the asbestos exposure problem elsewhere because they do not control the release of large quantities of asbestos to the ambient environment, where it continues to present a risk both to other workers and the general population. Similarly, C1PSC cannot evaluate or deal with the totality of the risk presented by asbestos. CFSC may ban or require safety standards for asbestoscontaining consumer products based exclusively on risk to consumers. CPSC is unable to consider risk to other groups from releases of asbestos during the lifecycle of those products. After carefully analyzing other Federal authorities, EPA concludes that action under TSCA is appropriate to reduce tbe unreasonable risk to human health posed by asbestos. Use of other Federal authorities cannot reduce risk to e reasonable level because (1) they csnnot reduce the total volume of asbestos in commerce, (2) they cannot protect the many population groups at risk, and (3) they all have jnrisdictional gaps. Vtn. Provisions of the Proposed Rule 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 the restrictions on the mining and importation of all asbestos and asbestos products become effective. Thus, when this rule becomes operational, no person could mine or import asbestos without a permit issued by EPA. In addition, no person could manufacture, import, or process the following asbestos containing products: Asbestos cement pipe and fittings, roofing felts, flooring felts (and feltbecked sheet flooring), vinyl-asbestos floor tile, and asbestos clothing. EPA is proposing to ban asbestos clothing because it presents a particularly serious risk because of high exposure potential. EPA is proposing to ban the other products because effective substitutes are currently available for all applications. As an alternative, EPA is considering banning these several asbestos products by a date soon after the promulgation of this rule. B. Mining and Import Restrictions EPA proposes to prohibit the mining or importation of bulk asbestos, and the importation of the asbestos products listed in f 763.145 of the proposal, unless the miner or importer holds a permit issued by EPA allowing mining or Importation of that quantity of asbestos. EPA is considering lie requirement that products made under tbe permitting system be labeled as containing asbestos. Labeling would ensure that persons working with or otherwise handling the products would know that the products contained asbestOB. and it would enable them to take steps ta reduce the likelihood of exposure. EPA proposes to reduce the amount of asbestos that may be imported or mined in set decrements eech year for 10 years. EPA proposes to define "mine" a* "to produce asbestos other than as an unintended contaminant or impurity by extracting asbestos-containing ore so that the ore may be (1) distributed in commerce or (2) milled for distribution in commerce." Thus, the unintentional mining of asbestos in connection with mining of another substance such as vermiculite would not be.covered by this proposal unless the asbestos were later nulled or sold for use. EPA is concerned about possible unintended asbestos contamination of vermiculite and other minerals. However, any attempt to cover the unintentional mining of asbestos under this rule would complicate the operation of the rule considerably and perhaps make it unworkable. The proposal defines "import" as "to bring into the customs territory of the United States except for (1) shipment through the customs territory of tbe 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 during normal personal or business activities involving use of the product." Thus, asbestos that is shipped through the United States for export without any domestic processing or use would not be covered by this proposed rule. The proposed rule also excludes from coverage situations where an item, such at an automobile containing asbestos, travels across the United States border in the course of normal personal or business activities. In addition, asbestos contained in products that are imported in small quantities solely for persona! use by consumers would not be covered by the proposal. Thus, under this provision an individual could bring an item such as a consumer appliance containing asbestos into the United States for his or her own use without obtaining a permit. EPA believes that any attempt to cover these situations would make this rule very complex and difficult to administer. However, EPA specifically requests comment on whether, in view of the serious health hazard posed by asbestos, all asbestos products should lpe covered by this rule. This proposal covers mining and importation of asbestos and the importation of specific asbestos products. EPA proposes to define "asbestos" as "tbe asbestiform varieties of: chrysotile (serpentine); crocidolite (riebecklte); amosite (cummingtonitegrunerite); tremolite: anthophyllite, and actinolite that are mined or milled.'' EPA requests comment on this definition, including whether asbestos which has been chemically treated or altered should be included within the definition. EPA also proposes to cover under this phase-down the asbestos contained in a number of products listed in $ 783.145 of this proposal. Persons would be allowed to import these products only if they held permits allowing the importation of thp amount of asbestos contained in tf FMSI 02445 Foderal Register / Vol. 5i. An. to i Wednesday. January 29. lWfd / Proposed Rules 3755 amaimRMMaMMMRWBnMniMnWMMMMMHHnWMVWaMHHnMMMI products. EPA is covering Ihose particular products in this proposal because they represent the largest quantities of asbestos imported as part of products. EPA is proposing to cover asbestos in products because of the risk posed by possible asbestos exposure during use and disposal of the products end to treat domestic producers and importers of these products similarly. To implement this program. EPA is proposing that importers of listed products estimate the typical asbestos content of the 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 the exact asbestos content of products they import, they can rely on the EPA figures to estimate the amount of asbestos they import. 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 if EPA 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-dotvn of asbestos use. C Permits to Aline or Import Asbestos EPA proposes to issue current miners and importers of asbestos permits that would allow those persons to mine or import set amounts of asbestos. The permit would be letters from EPA stating the amount of asbestos that a person may import or mine during each year of the 10-year phase-down period. The "permitted" amount of mining or importation would be a uniform percentage of the average amount of asbestos each person mined or imported yearly during the base period of 1981, 1982. and 1983. The "permitted" amount of asbestos would be 30 percent of the person's average base year volumes during the first year of the. phase-down period and would decline to 27 percent of average base year volumes during the second year, 24 percent during the third year and so on until it reached 3 percent in year 10. EPA chose these "permitted" amounts based on projections of future asbestos use after analysis of current use trends, publicly available information on asbestos use. and information reported under the section 8(a) asbestos reporting rule. In addition, the "permitted" amounts choBen reflect the EPA has proposed to ban certain high volume uses of asbestos where suitable substitute products are avilable. i'erstan would apply to EPA for permits, listing in their applications their mining ur import volumes during those years Versons ivho do not apply for perinit* would not be grunted any. EPA would compare volume information included in applies boos with information reported under the section Bi] asbestos, reporting rule, which covered 1981. United States Customs Service data, and Bureau of Mines data. Persons who include false 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 the products listed in this rule. Those persons would apply for permits, including in their application the total amount of asbestos in their imported products during the base years 1981.1982, and 1983. Those persons could use EPA's estimates of typical asbestos content of products if they do not know the 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 the proposed rule would allocate each miner and importer a uniform percentage of their base volume levels, EPA would expect few appeals. The only issue in an appeal tvotild be whether EPA allocated permits based on the correct base years' 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 asbestos, and importers of asbestos in products would be interchangeable. Persons could transfer all nr only part of their yearly permitted amount to one person or a number of persons.'Persons transferring all of purl of their permitted amount would be required to reporl each transfer to EPA. Persons would also be allowed to reserve or "bank" permisison to import asbestos during any year of the phasedown period for use during any later year of the phase-down period. Persons would be required to report each "banking" of asbestos permits to EPA. A person who banks permission to mine or import a certain amount of asbestos would be allowed to use only part of that amount during later years of the phase-down period. The amount of asbestos mining or importation permitted bv banked permits would decline yearly at a rate of 10 percent. Permits not used by the conclusion of the 10-year phase-down period would no longer permit the holder to import or mine asbestos in any quantity and would have no value of any kind fur any [m'pose. EPA is considering an alternative of having banked permits not decline in value. This alternative would provide greater incentive for the bonking of permits and thus incentive for greater reductions in asbestos mining and importation in early years of the phase- down period. Under the proposed approach, at the end of the ld-year phase-down period, oil mining or importation of asbestos would be banned except that allowed under an exemption procedure. EPA would consider applications for exemptions and grant them lor essential uses of asbestos for which substitutes are not available. In addition. EPA is considering a requirement that products not banned be labeled as containing asbestos. This requirement could be imposed as par! of this rulemaking or by a separate rulemaking. As an alternative, EPA is considering " alluwing a residual amount of asbestos mining and importation after the 10-year phase-down period. This general appniar.li would avoid the potentially heavy administrative burden and expense of an exemption process. As part of this alternative, EPA is considering allowing permits bunked during the 10-year phase-down period to continue to be used during the later period when s much smaller percentage of base years volume is permitted. Such an approach would provide additional incentive For tbe banking of permits and thus additional incentive for greater reductions in asbestos mining and importation during early years of the phase-down period. EPA specifically requests comment on this aeries of alternatives to a ban with an exemption process after the 10-vear phase-down fieriod. fJ. Reporting EPA proposes to require persons tu report the amount of asbestos imported during each import transaction. EPA specifically requests comment on whether this report should be sent directly to EPA or whether persons should turn the report over to the United States Customs Service, which would forward the report to EPA. Requiring the report to be turned over to the Customs Service as part of each import transaction may facilitate enforcement of the rule. The proposal also would require persons to report to EPA each transfer of .permission to mine or import asbestos. This reporting would be under authority of section 8(a) of TSOA anti FMS1 02446 T 3756 Federal Register / Vot. 57., No. IB / Wednesday, January 29, 1986 / Proposed Rules would apply to all importers. Including small businesses. Section 8[a) exempts small businesses from reporting in certain eases. However, EPA may require miners and importers of a substance subject to a rule under section 6 of TSCA to report. Since asbestos is already subject to rules under section 6 and would be subject to this one. the small business exemption of section 8(a) would not apply. EPA believes that these reporting requirements represent very little burden and are necessary for effective enforcement of the phase-down rule. EPA would use the information in those reports lo maintain a compiiloriml record of the quantities of asbestos each person is permitted to mine or import as compared lo 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 asbestus that a person is permitted to mine or import ami take appropriate enforcement action for any violation of the phase-down rule. To facilitate the transfer of permits, EPA is considering making readily available lo interested parties information concerning the persona holding permits and the quantities they hold. EPA may allow persons computer access to an EPA data bank if this would not reveal confidential business information. F.PA specifically requests comment on whether EPA should facilitate the transfer of permits and on ways for EPA to accomplish this withotii revealing confidential business information. , E. ft'*" `rdhiw/.ww F.I'A proposes 'o require persons to retain doaiincntuiion of information concerning eM transfers of permission to mine or import asbestos and the amount of asbestos mined or imparted each year. The proiios.il would require these records to I- kepi I'm 5 years alter the end cd die I,km year of die phase-down period covered by the rule, Importers of a.djosqis contained ip products covered by this prouosal would also bar e to keep records copi'erning their levels of inipii iation. MPA believes that these reeor,`keepim; pxivicums would be essential !o enlo'-i etpeol of this proposed rule. IX. Enforcement ft'X lion l.`Vof TPCA makes it unlawful lo fail or refuse io comply with any provision of a ride promulgated under section 0 of TSCA. Therefore, any failure to comply with inis proposed rule when it becomes effective would be a violation o! section 15 of TSCA. In addition, section is of TSCA makes it unlawful for any person to: (1) Fail or refuse to establish and maintain records as required by this ruin: (21 fail or refuse to permit access to or copying of records, as required by TSCA; or (3) fail or refuse to permit entry or inspection as required by /section 13 of TSCA. Violators may be subject to both civil and criminal liability. Under the penalty provision of section 16 of TSCA. any person who violates section 15 could be subject to a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for each violation. Each day of operation in violation of this rule when it becomes effective could constitute a separate violation. Knowing or willful violations of this rule when it become;; effective could lead to the imposition of criminal penalties of up to $25,000 for each day of violation and imprisonment for up to 1 year. In addition, other remedies are available to EPA under sections 7 and 17 of TSCA, such as seeking an injuction to restrain violations of this rule when it becomes effective and seizing any chemical substance or mixture manufactured or imported in violation of tiiis rule when it becomes effective. Individuals, as well as corporations, could be subject to enforcement actions. Sections 15 ami 16 of TSCA apply to "any person" who violsies various provisions of TSCA, EPA may, at its discretion, proceed against individuals us well as companies. In particular. EPA may proceed against individuals who report false information or cause it to be reported. X. Confidentiality A person may assert u claim of confidentiality for any information, including public, comments, submitted to EPA in connection with this proposed rule or in connection wilh this rule after il is promulgated. Any person who submits a confidential public comment must also submit a nonconfideiUiul version. Any-claim of confidentiality must accompany the information when it is submitted io EPA Persons would claim information confidential by circling, bracketing, or underlining it and marking it with "CONFH3ENTIA!/' or some other appropriate designation. EPA will discin'1'; information subject to a claim of confidentiality only la the extent permitted by sect' er, 14 of TSCA and 40 CFH Part 2. Subpart 13. if s person docs not assert n claim ot confidentiality for information at the t'a c it is submitted to EPA, EPA may make the information public wilhout further notice to that person. XI. Rulemaking Record EPA bss established a record for this rulemaking (docket control number OPTS--62040). A public version of the record, without any confidential business information, is available in the Office of Toxic Substances Public Information Office, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.ni., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. The Public Information Office is located in Rm. E-107, 401 M St.. SW.. Washington, D C The record includes information considered by EPA in developing thisproposed rule. EPA will supplement the record with additional information as it is received. The record now includes tbe following categories of information: tl) Federal Register notices, (2) support documents. (3) reports, and (4) memoranda and letters. EPA will identify the complete rulemaking record by date of promulgation. EPA will accept additional material for inclusion in the record at any time between this notice and designation of the complete record. The final rule will also permit persons to point out any errors or omissions in the record. XII. References (1) IJSCPSC. Report to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Asbestos. |uty 1003. |ZJ USEPA. OPTS, OTS. Exposure Assessment for Asbestos. Draft |aousry 9, ias4, (3) LI5F.PA. OKI'S, OTS. Regulatory Impart Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products. January 1988. (4| USEPA. OPTS. OTS. Support Document fur Final Rale on Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials In School Buildings--Health Effects and Magnitude of Exposure. January. 1982. 15) /Valinas! Research Council. "Asbestos" In: "Drinking Water and Health." Voi. 3. National Academy Press. Washington. D.C. (19821: 223 -263, (6) National Research Council. "Noitoccupationel Health Risks of AsItesiiTorm Fibers." National Academy Press. Washington! D.C. (1964). (7) NIOSH-OSMA Asbestos Work Croup. Workplace Exposure io Asbestos: "Review and Recommendations" DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 81-103. U S. Government Priming Office, Washington, D.C. 2D402. 11880). 16) OSHA. "Quantitative Risk Analysis fot Asbestos-Related Cancers: A PteLintinary Report.11 (1083). (>J| Ik'.dn an, I t. Sclikvff. U. Hammond, E.C., "Slier1-Term Asbestos 'VnT Exposure and Pons-Term Observation." A itnuls nf 'tie iw'iv York Acmiemy ofScience, 33011979): tii-an. (10)Selikoff, l.|., Anderson. H A.. Srldmen. 11. "Asbestos Disease Among Household Contacts ol Asbestos Workers" In: "Disability Compensation for Asbestos Associated Disease in the U.S.." edited by I.). SfSikort. Environmental Sciences Laboratory. Mount Sinai School of Medicine of flic City University of New York. (19(17.): 73-7R. FMSt 02447 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 29, 1986 / Proposed Rules 3757 (11)Sellkofl. 1.)., Hammond. E.C., Seidman H,, "Mortality Experience of Insulation Worker* in the U.S. and Canada, 1943-1976." Annals of the New York Acnrltmy ofScience, 330 (1979): 91-119. (1Z) USDOL OSHA. "Occupational Exposure to Asbestos; Emergency Temporary Standard." (November 4,1983; 48 FR 51086) (13) USDOL, OSHA. "Occupational Exposure to Asbestos; Proposed Rule and Notice of Hearing" (April 10.1964; 49 FR 14116). (14) USEPA, OPTS. OTS. Asbestos Substitutes and Related Materials. April 24. 1985. XIII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements A. Executive Order 12291 Under Executive Order 12291, EPA has determined that this proposed rule <8 a "Major Rule" and has developed an RIA. The RIA estimates that this . proposed rale would cost about $1.96 billion over 15 years. However, the RIA also estimated that this proposed rule, if promulgated, would avoid approximately 1,930 cases 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 (OMB) for review as required by Executive Order 12291. B. Heguhtory Flexibility Act EPA has analyzed the economic impact of this proposed rule on small businesses. A summary of EPA's analysis appears in Unit III. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The reporting and recordkeeping provisions in this proposed rule will be submitted lo the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Comments on these requirements should Itc submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 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. Datnd; January 22.1986. Lee M. Thomas, Administrator. PART 763--(Amended) Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR Part 763 be amended as follows; 1. The authority citation for Part 763 is revised to read as follows: Authority; 15 U.8.C. 2605 end 2607(c). 2. By adding new Subpart H to read as follows: Subpart H--Asbestos Mining and Import Restrictions Sec. 703.140 Scope. 763.143 Definitions. 763.145 Mining and import restrictions. 763.147 Permits to mine or Import asbestos. 763.148 Issuance of permits. 783.149 Appeals concerning permits. 763.150 Transfer of permits. 763.151 Banking of permits. 763.153 Recordkeeping. 763.164 Reporting. 763.158 Enforcement. 763.157 Inspections. 763.158 Confidentiality and public access to information. Subpart H--Aaboatoa Mining and Import Restriction* $763,140 Scope. This Subpart prohibits the mining or importation of asbestos, including asbestos in certain asbestos products, unless authorized by a permit issued by EPA. $763.1*3 Definition*. The definitions in section 3 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2602, apply to this Subpart, in addition, the following definitions apply: (a) The terms "act." "article," "byproduct," "customs territory of the United States." "EPA." "importer," "manufacturer," "persons," and "United States" have the same meanings as in $ 720.3 of this chapter. (b) "Asbestos" means the asbestiform varieties of: chrysotile (serpentine); crocidolile (rfehockite): amosite, (cummlngtonile-grunerita): tremolite; anthophyllite, and actinolite that are mined or milled. (c) "Asbestos product" means any mixture or article containing asbestos. (<!} "Consumer" moans a natural person who uses a product for persona) rather than business purposes. fe) "import" means to bring into customs territory of the United States for any purpose 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 during normal personal or business activities involving use of the product. (fl "Milled" means the separation of asbestos fibers from asbestos ore, the grading and 8orting of asbestos fibers, or the fiberizing of asbestos ore. (g) "Mine" means to produce asbestos other than as an unintended contaminant or impurity by extracting asbestos-containing ore so thai the ore may be (1) distributed in commerce or (2) milled for distribution in commerce. (b) "Miner" means a person who mines asbestos. g 763.146 Mining end import restrictions. (a) 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 other than a person authorized by a permit issued by BPA as provided in this pari may; (1) Mine asbestos in the United States or (2) Import asbestos, including asbestos in an asbestos product listed in this section, except in small quantities solely for jiersonal consumer use. into tiie 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 as provided in this Subpart: (1) Appliances. (2) Pipeline wrap. (3) Thread, yarn, lap, roving, cord, rope, or wick. (4) Sheet gasketing, rubber encapsulated compressed. (5) Disc brake pads [light-medium vehicles). (6) Cloth, other than asbestos clothing. (7| Brake blocks. (8) Millboard. (9) Packing. (10) Mixed or repackaged asbestos lilicr. (11) Thermoplugs. (12) Tape. (13) Roof coatings. (14) Clutch facings. (15) Automotive gasket kit. (16) Drum brake linings. (17) Yarn. (18) Automobiles and other motor vehicles. 763.147 Permits to mine or import ssbsstoe. (a)Persons may mine in the United States or import into the customs FMSI 02448 3758 Fedeial Reghdcw- / luiicsda;,, {unuttry 29, 198fl / Proposed Rules lerritory of the United StaI'is only the 11muntity of asbestos for which'they bold permits issued under this Subpart. |b) The amount of asbestos contained in imported product listed ill 5 763.145 will count inword the total amount of asbestos a person may mine or import during a year. ` (>) Versons must estimate typical asbestos content of imported asbestos products covered by this rulo. Persons may use KPA's estimate of typical asbestos content if they are not certain of the typical asbestos content, of a pioduct. 764.116 Issuance of permits. (a) (1) KI'A will issue permits for the mining or import of asbestos, including asbestos contained in 'ho asbestos products listed in 753.145. (2| Applies (.ions for permits must be sent to the Officii of Toxic Substances (T8-792), HPA, 401 M St.. SVV Washington, P.G. 20460, (b) (1) Persons nuisl apply to KI'A for permits by 30 days after the effective il.i'r of thiu ruie IT; Versons must list ip their application fin permits; the uoumnt oi asbestos, including asbestos eori'aiued in the .asbestos prodoets listed in 70.'1.14-1. ihat they imported or mined during I'lHI. 103-', nod 1!W:j ti'd If an application is mailed ie EVA. ille application .hum! lie nn-uniarked bv 31! days u!Uo the effective date of this ride (dl i.l'A will allncrde to icisous who apply for permits a uniform |)iTi-itta;;e ot Ibe a mount ot asbestos those persons 1.`parte,) alining or ;in;ior'ing daring Hitt. 9H2 oui 1:143. |ei i.arti permit will allow o person to mine ot import tin- following percentages ot the average amount of asbestos he o> she mined or imported yearly durutg tUKt. 1904. and ltttt.5. Vear 1- lio percent. Year i-- 2" pe;'.eiil Yeai ;i - -7. 1 per. eni Yeai 4 - :! I percent V e,.: a-- tii pci cent, i -' (I- t.i pmniet Year 7 - I !. perceni. Yea" :l.. 0 per-rm V . a it- C per-'.eiO Yni! 11r---d T.eo.er i 5 763.149 Appeals concerning permits. (a/ A person may appeal ETA':. initial disposition of his or her application for a pencil (b) "I he person must appea* in willing fo bit; nuecloi i o'ihi' Office d? Toxic Substances (TS-792J. EPA. 401 M St.. SW,, Washington, DC .20460. Vvitliin 20 days niter receipt of KI'A'8 announcement of the disposition of ids or her application. If the appeal is untiled, the letter mus' be postmarked within 20 days after receipt of EVA's announcement of disposition. (c) A person must indicate in an appeal why he or she should receive a permit or fie allowed to mine or import additional asbestos under the permit, (d) The Director of the EPA Office of Toxic Substances will either grunt or deny the appeal within 60 days after its receipt. The disposition of the appeal will be announced by letter to the poison making the appeal. $ 763.150 Transtar of permits. fa) A person issued a permit by EVA to mine or import a quantity of asbestos may transfer that permit in whole or in par' to another person. fill 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 t, the Office of Toxic Substances ITS-7921. EVA, 401 M St., SW.. Washington. DC 204(50. within It) days of the transfer. (v) The parties involved m transfer may report either jointly or Separately (d) IT u report is mailed to EPA, the report must be postmarked within 10 days of the transfer $763,151 Banking of permits. la) Persons issued permits by EPA to mine or import a quantity of asbestos during ope particular year may reserve or "bank'' ill or pari ol the permitted atiuuail and use it to mine or impor1 asbestos daring a lat'i year dicing I he Id-year phase-down period lb| The ameiait nf asbestos that a person is permitted to mine or import will decline from yeai to yeuv when il is reserved nr `'hanked" id a rate of 10 percent pm year. |.1 A persiin who "banks'' a permit sn whole oi in part must report That "ImiiI big" Id the OETce "t Substances IT'S-792), EPA, 401 M St SW.. Wash'ngi.tn, TIC 20400, within 90 bays if the end of ihe year for which 'he penile u is ivs.eed. hi) If a report is mailed to EPA, the renun tuns' he pos'aiat'.er! within Ot) dm* of the uml of the ye:t for which 'he "bunked" permd was issued s7S3 153 Recordkeeping. (a) Any person who mines ot import a aabeatos or any asbestos product listed in $ 70:1.145 must retr/in in one locution documentation of infoneulion showing: (1 ( The name nf any person to whom It" ot she transferred permission to mine or itnpoi t asbestos. 12) The nanus of any person from whom he or she received permission to mine or import asbestos. (3) The amount of asbestos mined or imported each year, including asbestos imported in any asbestos product listed in 763.145. (4) Tire typical asbestos content of any asbestos product listed in 8 763.145. (5) Thn number of individual asbestos products listed in 5 763.148 imported each year. (b) This information must be retained for 5 years from the end of the last year of the 10-year phase-down period covered by this rule. 1763.154 Reporting. (a) Any person who imports asbestos, including asbestos in an asbestos product listed in 5 763.145, must report to the Office of Toxic Substances (TS79.2), EVA. 401 M. St. SW., Washington, DC 20480, within ?. days of the day of import indicating: (1) The person's name, (2) The amount of asbestos Imported. (3) The number of individual asbestos products hated in | 783.145 imported. (4) A certification that the person was pilhei issued a permit by EPA to import at least that amount of asbestos that year or obtained that permission from another person as provided in { 763.14ft (b) Within 66 days of the end of each year covered by this Subpart, each person who mines or imports asbestos including asltustos in an asbeBtos product listed in 8783.145 must report to the Office of Toxic Substances (TS-7H2I, EPA, 461 M. St., SW,, Washington. DO 20400: (1) Tin total amount of bulk asbestos thus person mined or imported that yeai (2) The total amount of asbestos that person imported in asbestos products Iisled in 76.5,14.5 that year, 13) The numbei nf individual asbestos products listed in 8763.145 thet person imported that year. (4) The amount of asbestos that iiar.rim had permission to mine ur import that year (;) il a report is mailed to KVA. the report rousi be postmarked wiihin 80 day-; of the end of each year covered by this Sui4'i.u 1 $763 156 Entoi cement. (a) Failure to comply with any provision ot Ibis Sulipmt is a violation of section 15 of the Ant (15 U SC. 2614). |bj 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 the Act (15 IJ.8.C. 2014). (<:) F.iiHn.e or refusal to permit entry or (neppr.tion us required by section 11 of the Act (15 t'.S.C. 2610) Is a violation of section IS of the Aol (15 U.S.C. 2814) FMSI 02449 Federal Register / Vol. SI, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29. 1986 / Proposed Rules 3759 Jd) Violators may be subject to the civil and criminal penallies in section Hi of the Act (IS U.S.C. 2m 5) for each 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. 2000 or 2616). 763.157 Inspection*. F.PA will conduct inspections under section U of the Act (15 ll.S.C. 2610) to ensure compliance with this Subpart and to verify that information submitted to EPA under this Subpart is correct. $ 763.159 Confidentiality and public access to Information, (a) A person may assert a claim ot confidentiality for any information he ot she submits to EPA under this Subpart. (b) Any claim of confidentiality must accompany the information when it is submitted to EPA. (c) EPA will disclose information subject to a claim of confidentiality asaerted under this section only to the extent permitted by TSCA and Part 2 of this title. Id) If a person does not assert a claim of confidentiality for information at the lime it is submitted to EPA, KPA may make the information public without further notice to that person. 3, By adding new Subpart 1 to read as follows: Subpart I--Prohibition of tti Manufacture, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce of Certain Asbestos-Containing Products Sec. 783.160 703.183 763.165 783.167 763.169 Scope. Definitions. Manufacture--prohibitions. Processing--prohibiiions Enforoemcn!. Subpart l--Prohlbition of the Manufacture, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce of Certain Asbestos-Containing Products $763,180 Scope. This Subpart prohibits the manufacture, importation Rnd processing, of the following categories of asbestos-containing products; asbesloscontaining roofing fell, asbestoscontaining flooring felt (including vinyl sheet flooring backed with flooring fe!t|, vinyl-asbestos floor tile and asbesloscement pipe 8nd fittings and asbestos clothing. 763.183 Definitions. 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 of; chrysotilc (serpentine); crocidolite (riebecldte); amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite); tremolite; snthophyllite, 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, (c) "Asbestos clothing" means an asbestos-containing product made of clolh and designed to be worn by individuals. (cl) " Asbestos-con)Hitting producl" means any maierial which contains more than 1.0 percent asbestos by weight. (e) "Flooring felt" means mi asbestoBconi.'.ining product made of paper felt and intended as an undorlaytnent for floor coverings, or to be bonded to the underside of vinyl sheet flooring, |f) "Roofing felt" means an asbestoscontaining product made of paper felt nnd intended for use on building roofs as a covering or underlayment for other roof coverings. (g) "Vinyl-asbestos floor HIe" means an asbestos-containing product composed of vinyl resins, conluining fillers, stabilizers and pigments and used as floor tile. 763.165 Manufacture--prohibitions. 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 rhati manufacture or import the following asbesloscontainlng products either for use in the United States or for export: asbestoscontaining roofing felt, asbestoscontaining flooring felt (including vinyl sheet flooring backed with flooring felt), vinyl-asbestos floor tile, nsbe3toscement pipe and fittings, and usheslos clothing. $ 763.167 Processing--prohibitions. 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 Stales or for export: asbestoscontaining roofing felt, asbestoscontaining flooring felt (including vinyl sheet flooring backed with flooring felt), vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestoscement pipe and fittings, and asbestos clothing. $ 763.169 Enforcement. (a| Failure to comply with any provision of this Subpart is a violation of section 15 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2614). (h) Failure or refusal to establish and maintain records or to permit access to or copying of records, as required by the Act, 1b a violation of section 15 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2614). (c) Failure or refusal to permit entry or inspection as required by section 11 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2610) is a violation of section 15 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2614). (d) Violators may be subject to the civil and criminal penallies in section 16 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2815) for each violation. (e) EPA may seek to enjoin the manufacture or Import of asbestos products in violation of this Subpart, or act to seize any 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 2816). |FR Doc. 86-1801 Filed 1-28-86:8:45 am| . ataiHO CODE *560-50-* FMSI 02450