Ban on Asbestos Assailed as Costly and Inadequate

A proposed ban on the use of asbestos was attacked by both industry and environmentalists Thursday, with manufacturers complaining that the proposal is unnecessary and too costly to consumers and environmentalists contending that it does not go far enough.

At a news conference in Washington, Lee M. Thomas, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced a proposal to ban five major asbestos products immediately and to phase out all use of the products in the United States during the next 10 years.

Cost to Consumers

The EPA estimated that the proposal eventually would cost consumers $1.8 billion and industry $210 million. Thomas said that substitutes are available for most products that now contain asbestos and described the increased cost to consumers as small in comparison to the health risks now associated with the substance.

“No level of exposure is without risk,” Thomas said. “Our action today begins the process of eliminating that risk. As a result of what we are proposing, we estimate that about 1,900 cancer deaths from asbestos will be avoided.”

However, environmentalists objected to the proposed phase-in of the ban, arguing that, to protect lives, the deadly material must be removed from the marketplace immediately. And, on the other end of the scale, industry representatives insisted that asbestos can be handled safely with strict occupational safety laws and denounced the proposal as unwarranted. Public hearings must be conducted on the proposal before it becomes law.

John Myers, president of KCAC Inc., an asbestos mine and mill in California’s Monterey County, and chairman of the Asbestos Information Assn. of North America, said that the material is essential in many products and cannot be replaced without major cost increases and loss of quality.

“In most cases, a complete reformulation of the product would be necessary,” he said. “It’s not like in a recipe, where you could use honey instead of sugar. There is no product that has the same characteristics.”

The proposal would immediately prohibit the importation, manufacture and processing of five products: saturated and unsaturated roofing felt, flooring felt and asbestos felt-backed sheet flooring, vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestos-cement pipe and fittings and asbestos clothing. EPA officials said that those products account for half of current asbestos consumption.

Myers said that the ban will affect the pipe industry most severely, noting that asbestos is widely used in the making of water and sewer pipes. As substitutes, cast iron or plastic pipes would be more costly and less durable, he said.

Myers contended that occupational safety regulations can protect workers who handle asbestos and face the greatest risks.

Use in Brake Linings

But, environmentalists complained that the ban does not go far enough toward protecting the public. Under the proposed rule, the use of asbestos would be permitted in brake linings for another five years because substitutes are not widely available, EPA officials said.

Karim Ahmed, research director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental group, contended that substitutes are available and that a ban on the material in brake linings should be instituted immediately.