REGULATORY  IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CONTROLS ON
      ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
                  FINAL REPORT
                    VOLUME I
               TECHNICAL REPORT
                    Prepared for:
                 Christine Augustyniak
               Office of Toxic Substances
           U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
                   January 19, 1989

-------
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CONTROLS ON
      ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
                  FINAL REPORT
                     VOLUME I
                TECHNICAL REPORT
                     Prepared for:
                  Christine Augustyniak
                Office of Toxic Substances
            U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
                     Prepared by;
                    ICf Incorporated
               Fairfax Virginia 22031-1207
                    January 19, 1989

-------
                        DISCLAIMER
     This document is a draft.   It has not been released
formally by the Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.   It is being circulated
for comments on its technical merit and policy
implications.

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS






                                                                         PAGE







EXECUTIVE SUMMARY		. ,     ES-1




CHAPTER I - -  BACKGROUND ,	      1-1




     A.  Asbestos Background	      1-2




     8.  Asbestos Use Overview	      1-8




     C,  Nature of the Regulatory Alternatives	     I-10




CHAPTER II - - APPROACH FOR COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS 	     II-1




     A.  Approach for Estimating Benefits	     II-1




     B.  Approach for Estimating Costs ,...,...,.....	    11-19




CHAPTER III -- DATA FOR ESTIMATING COSTS AND BENEFITS 	    III-l




     A.  Data Inputs for Estimating Benefits	..,,,,,",,.    III-l




     B.  Data Inputs for Estimating Costs	   Ill-14




CHAPTER IV - - COST/BENEFIT RESULTS	     IV-1




     A.  Costs and Benefits of Regulatory Alternatives	     IV-2




     B,  Sensitivity Analyses	    IV-16




CHAPTER V - -  REFERENCES	     V-l

-------
                                   APPENDICES
                                                                    VOLUME
APPENDIX A - - MODELS AND COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURES	  II

APPENDIX B -- CAPITAL CONVERTIBILITY AND QUASI-RENTS
               DETERMINATION	  II

APPENDIX C -- ECONOMIC IMPACTS DATA AND ANALYSES		...  II

APPENDIX D -- COST FOR ENGINEERING CONTROLS FOR BRAKE
               MAINTENANCE/REPAIR	  II

APPENDIX E -- WELFARE EFFECTS UNDER ALTERNATIVE FIBER
                SUPPLY CONDITIONS	  II

APPENDIX F -- ASBESTOS PRODUCTS USE AND SUBSTITUTES SURVEY  	 Ill

APPENDIX G -- SENSITIVITY ANALYSES	  IV
                                        11

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES

TABLE                                                                 PAGE

Executive Summary


ES-1.  List of Asbestos Products	      ES-3

ES-2.  Summary of Costs and Benefits of Alternatives ,,,,,,,	     ES-10

ES-3.  Sensitivity Analysis for Declining Substitute Prices
        and Alternative Asbestos Exposure Assumptions Using
        Regulatory Alternative J	     ES-15


Chapter.—!
1-1.  Asbestos Fiber Consumption and Final Production for
       Asbestos Product Categories (1985) .,,..,»	      I-11
ChapterIII
III-l.  Exposure Levels and Number of Persons Exposed to Primary
         Manufacturing Products for Occupational and
         Nonoccupational Settings	 .      III-3

III-2.  Exposure Levels and Number of Persons Exposed to Secondary
         Manufacturing Products for Occupational and
         Nonoecupational Settings	      Ill-4

III-3.  Exposure Levels and Number of Persons Exposed to
         Installation of Products for Occupational and
         Nonoccupational Settings	      Ill-5

III-4.  Exposure Levels and Number of Persons Exposed to
         Use of Products for Occupational and
         Nonoccupational Settings	      Ill-6

III-5.  Exposure Levels and Number of Persons Exposed to
         Repair/Disposal of Products for Occupational and
         Nonoccupational Settings	      Ill-7

III-6.  Estimated Values of Lung Cancer and
         Mesothelioma Dose-Response Constants ...................     Ill-10

III-7.  Sex, Race, and Age Distribution of Exposed Populations  ,.     111-12

III-8.  Asbestos Product Market Data Used in ARCM	 .     111-16
                                       iii

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES

TABLE  '                                                                PAGE


III-9.  Baseline Growth Rates of Asbestos  Products: 1985-2000 ...     111-18

111-10. Baseline Growth Rates Products
         18, 19, 36, and 37: 1985-2000	     111-21

III-ll. Quasi-Rent Losses Associated with  an Immediate Ban
         of all Asbestos Products 	,	     Ill-22

III-12. Summary of Substitutes Information for
         Asbestos-Containing Products	     Ill-24

Chapter IV
IV-1.  Fiber Cap Schedules for Phase-down Scenarios -
        Low Decline Baseline		      IV-7

IV-2.  Summary of Costs and Benefits of Alternatives	      IV-8

IV-3.  Welfare Effects by Party for Alternative J
        (discounted at 3 percent)	     IV-12

IV-4.  Product-by-Product Costs and Benefits of
        Alternative J (costs discounted at 3 percent,
        benefits discounted at 0 percent)	     IV-13

IV-5.  Product-by-Product Costs and Benefits of
        Alternative J (costs discounted at 3 percent,
        benefits discounted at 3 percent)	     IV-14

IV-6.  Additional Occupational Exposure Assumptions for
        Primary Manufacturing	     IV-19

IV-7.  Additional Occupational Exposure Assumptions for
        Installation of Products	     IV-20

IV-8.  Additional Occupational Exposure Assumptions for
        Repair/Disposal of Products	     IV-21

IV-9.  Additional Nonoccupational Exposure Assumptions for
        Use of Products 	,				....     IV-23

IV-10. Sensitivity Analysis for Declining Substitute Prices
        and Alternative Asbestos Exposure Assumptions Using
        Regulatory Alternative J	     IV-24
                                        IV-

-------
                                LIST OF FIGURES







FIGURE                                                               PAGE




Chapter_l







1-1  U.S. and World Asbestos Markets	     1-9




ChapterII







II-1  U.S. and World Asbestos Markets	   11-22




II-2  Fiber Usage Phasedown	   11-26




II-3  Staged Ban	 .   11-32




II-4  Combination of Staged Ban and Fiber Usage Phasedown 	   II-35

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




     A,  Introduction




     Many studies have shown that individuals who are exposed to asbestos




fibers have increased risks of contracting a number of diseases, including




cancers of the lung,  the gastrointestinal tract, the lining of the lung and




abdominal cavities (mesothelioma),  and asbestosis.  Initially, these findings




were confined to environments with relatively high concentrations of asbestos




fibers; that is, workplaces where asbestos was mined or where asbestos-




containing products were produced.   More recent evidence, however, points




toward elevated risks at the lower concentrations typically associated with




nonoccupational exposure.  The most important of the diseases are lung cancer




and mesothelioma.  Over 90 percent of individuals who contract these diseases




die from them.




     Cognizant of this scientific evidence and its obligations under the Toxic




Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office




of Toxic Substances has investigated a number of alternative asbestos control




strategies, ranging from controls on exposure to asbestos in certain products




and activities, to product bans and a. phase-down of asbestos fiber usage over




time.




     The purpose of this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is to identify,




quantify, and, where feasible, value benefits and costs of various regulatory




alternatives for controlling exposure to asbestos, ranging from "staged" bans




on asbestos products (i.e., bans on products at different points  in time) to




fiber phase-down options both with and without product bans.  The study




attempts to meet four goals:  (1) to identify properly the potential benefits




and costs of asbestos controls;  (2) to review some of the key relationships and




issues that would affect the magnitude of the benefits and costs  of the






                                      ES-1




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
controls; (3) to project the expected benefits and costs of asbestos controls,




and (4) to assess the distribution of the costs and benefits.   This study will




identify explicitly the logic behind the development of benefit and cost




projections, thereby allowing the public to make a more informed judgment




concerning potential benefits and costs of asbestos controls.




     This RIA for asbestos and asbestos products has been revised to




incorporate the comments received from the public concerning the August 1985




version.  Because of this, the current version of the RIA reflects the efforts




the Agency has devoted to (1) improving and updating the asbestos product




markets information used in the analysis, (2) revising the cost simulation




model, and (3) refining the exposure estimates for some products and




activities.  All of these efforts to improve the analysis are in response to




comments of reviewers both in the Agency and among the public.




     The regulatory alternatives examined in this RIA represent a range of




possible options for controlling asbestos exposures.  No single alternative,




however, is identified as the preferred regulatory alternative.  Instead, these




alternatives were selected to assist In the Agency's regulatory options




selection process.  Thus, the costs and benefits of the regulatory alternatives




presented in this RIA are designed to provide quantitative and qualitative




Information on the possible range of costs and benefits of various different




types and timing of options.  Using this information, the Agency can also




examine combinations of control alternatives based on the results of the other




regulatory alternatives.




     This RIA estimates the costs and benefits of a number of alternatives for




reducing or eliminating exposure to asbestos.  These alternatives are specified




in terms of product bans, phase-downs of fiber usage, and selective exemptions




of certain products.  Table ES-1 lists the product category number and






                                      ES-2




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
         TABLE ES-1. LIST OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
Product #              Product Category
   1.      Commercial Paper
   2,      Rollboard
   3.      Millboard
   4.      Pipeline Wrap
   5,      Beater-add Gaskets
   6.      High-grade Electrical Paper
   7.      Roofing Felt
   8,      Acetylene Cylinders
   9.      Flooring Felt
  10.      Corrugated Paper
  11,      Specialty Papers
  12.      Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile
  13.      Asbestos Diaphragms
  14.      Asbestos-Cement Pipe
  15.      Flat A-C Sheets
  16.      Corrugated A-C Sheets
  17.      A-C Shingles
  18.      Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
  19.      Disc Brake Pads, LMV (OEM)
  20.      Disc Brake Pads (HV)
  21.      Brake Blocks
  22.      Clutch Facings
  23.      Automatic Transmission Components
  24.      Friction Materials
  25.      Asbestos Protective Clothing
  26.      Asbestos, Thread, Yarn, and Other Cloth
  27.      Asbestos Sheet Gasketing
  28.      Asbestos Packing
  29.      Roof Coatings and Cements
  30.      Non-Roofing Coatings, Compounds, and Sealants
  31.     Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
  32.     Missile Liner
  33.      Sealant Tape
  34.      Battery Separators
  35.      Arc Chutes
  36,     Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
  37.     Disc Brake Pads, LMV (Aftermarket)
                           ES-3

        *  *  *   DRAFT  -- DO NOT  QUOTE  OR CITE   *  *  *

-------
description of each product.  Note that there are two entries for light/medium

vehicle drum and disc brakes (products 18, 19, 36, and 37), one corresponding

to the original equipment market (brakes installed on new "vehicles) and the

other to the aftermarket (replacement brakes).  In most of the regulatory

alternatives described below, these two submarkets are treated identically in

terras of the timing and nature of regulations to which they would be subject.

However,  one alternative would regulate the original equipment and aftermarket

segments of these brake markets differently, so the separation of these two

markets into the original equipment and aftermarkets is maintained throughout

the analysis.  Except where noted, however, the two segments are treated

identically.

     In terms of these product categories, the specific regulatory alternatives

examined in this RIA are as follows:

     Alternative B:

          *    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to 1997

          •    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 25  (protective clothing
               and construction products, except  for A/C sheet and
               shingle) in 1987

     Al.ternatiye BX:

          •    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to  1997

          *    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 25  (protective clothing
               and construction products, except  for A/C sheet and
               shingle) in 1987

          •    Products 13 and 32 (diaphragms and missile liner)
               exempt from regulation

     Alternative P:

          •    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to  1997

          .    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25
               (protective clothing and construction products) in
               1987



                                      ES-4

                  * * *  DRAFT --DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
Alternative DX:

     •    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to 1997         ;

     •    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14,  15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) in
          1987

     •    Products 13 and 32 (diaphragms and missile liner)
          exempt from regulation

Alternative.E:

     •    Bans of Products 7, 9, 12, 14,  15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) In
          1987

     •    Bans of Products 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37
          (friction products) in 1992

AlternativeF:

     •    Bans of Products 7, 9, 12, 14,  15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) in
          1987

     *    Bans of Products 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37
          (friction products) in 1992

     •    Bans of all Remaining Products in 1997.

AlternativeFX:

     m    Bans of Products 7, 9, 12, 14,  15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) in
          1987

     .    Bans of Products 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37
          (friction products) in 1992

     •    Bans of all Remaining Products in 1997 except
          Products 13 and 32 (diaphragms and missile
          liner).

Alternative	G:

     •    Bans of all Products in 1987

Alternative GX:

     •    Bans of all Products except Products 13 and 32
          (diaphragms and missile liner) in 1987
                                 ES-5

             * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
     Alternative.; H:

          •    Bans  of all Products in 1992

     Alternative _,_ HX:

          •    Bans  of all Products except Products 13 and 32
               (diaphragms and missile liner) in 1992

     AlternativeI:

          •    Bans  of all Products in 1997

     AlternativeIX:

          •    Bans  of all Products except Products 13 and 32
               (diaphragms and missile liner) in 1997

     Alternative J:

          •    Bans  of Products 1,  2,  4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16,
               17, and 25 in 1987

          •    Bans  of Products 5,  18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
               and 27 in 1991

          •    Bans  of Products 14, 36, and 37 in 1994.


     The identification system for the alternatives were developed in a

previous version of the RIA.  To maintain continuity between versions of the

RIA, the same system of identification is used in this version.  Hence, some of

these alternatives were contained in the original version of the RIA; others

have been specified since that time in light of the cost/benefit results

obtained.  Alternatives B, D, E, and F existed in the original RIA, while

alternatives G, H, I, and J are newer alternatives developed in the process of

evaluating the costs and benefits of the various regulatory alternatives.

     Alternatives whose identifiers contain an "X" are modified versions of

other alternatives with the single added condition that two product categories

(missile liner and asbestos diaphragms) are exempted from either an asbestos

fiber phase-down or asbestos-containing product bans.  Exemption, or "X",

alternatives are specified for those alternatives in which these two product

                                      ES-6

                  * * *  DRAFT --DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
categories would otherwise be regulated (B, D, F, G, H, and I).  Finally,




Alternative J was developed based OB the cost/benefit results for the other




alternatives.  This alternative is a 3-stage asbestos product ban in which (1)




the effective ban dates are slightly modified (1987, 1991, and 1994), (2) some




of the asbestos products are not banned at any stage of the regulation,  and (3)




the original equipment market and the aftermarket drum and disc brake markets




for light/medium vehicles are regulated separately in that they are banned at




different times.




     B.  Limi tat ions o f_the_Analy. sis




     The cost and benefit estimates reported in this RIA are based on extensive




model development, detailed data collection, and intensive review of relevant




literature.  However, there are limitations to the results presented.  First,




only one source of benefits associated with reduced exposure to asbestos --




reduced cancer cases --is estimated quantitatively in this RIA.  Although




asbestos causes other health effects, the cancer risks of asbestos exposure are




well-known and well-researched and hence, are estimated quantitatively here.




This quantification of only cancer cases avoided implies that the numerical




estimates of the benefits developed in this RIA are lower bounds for the




benefits of controlling exposure to asbestos.  Asbestosis, for example, can




have a significant impact in terms of medical care expenses, reduced




productivity, and deterioration of quality of life.




     Families of workers exposed to asbestos, furthermore, are not taken into




account in this analysis, so that any health effects associated with these




secondary exposures are not included in the estimates  of benefits presented




here.  Finally, lack of exposure data for  some asbestos products prevented a




quantitative assessment of benefits for these categories even though benefits




are likely to exist for these products.  For all of these reasons, the benefits






                                      ES-7




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE * * *

-------
estimates of the asbestos regulatory alternatives reported in this RIA are




quite likely to be underestimates of the true social benefits of the regulatory




alternatives.




     Similarly, the costs estimated in this RIA are likely to be overestimates




for several reasons.  First, the central case cost estimates developed in this




analysis assume no decline in the prices of asbestos substitutes as time passes




and as additional experience using these substitutes is gained.  Second, the




model for calculating the costs of the regulatory alternatives does not include




cost-reduction benefits of using lower-cost substitutes for asbestos-containing




products, i.e., asbestos-containing product substitute prices are always




assumed to be greater than or equal to the price of the asbestos-containing




product (on an equal service life basis).   Finally, the cost estimation model




assumes that in the absence of asbestos-containing products, users will switch




to non-asbestos products in proportion to the existing market shares of these




substitutes, and not proportionately more toward the lower cost substitutes.




     C.  Costs, and Benefits ofRegulatoryAlternatives




     For each of the regulatory alternatives examined in this RIA, three




different baselines of asbestos product market growth over time were modeled:




Low, Moderate, and High Declines, as outlined in Chapter III.  In addition, two




different discounting assumptions for calculating the present values of the




costs and the benefits of the regulatory alternatives were used: 3 percent




discounting for both costs and benefits (benefits are discounted from the time




of exposure in this analysis) and 0 percent discounting for benefits and 3




percent discounting for costs.  In the results presented below, costs and




benefits reflecting both sets of discounting assumptions are presented using




the "Low Decline"  baseline asbestos product growth rate assumption outlined in




the Chapter 111 of the RIA.  Selecting this baseline as the "central case"






                                      ES-8




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
amounts to assuming the highest levels of asbestos use through time.  Results




for all regulatory alternatives using the other two baseline growth rate




assumptions are reported in Appendix G - Sensitivity Analyses,




     The quantitatively estimated costs and benefits of Alternatives B, BX, D,




DX, E, F, EX, G, GX, H, HX, I, IX, and J are presented in Table ES-2.  The




table lists for each alternative (1) the total domestic welfare cost imposed,




(2) the total number of cancer cases avoided, and (3) the cost per cancer case




avoided.  There are two sets of these results in the table corresponding to the




two different discounting assumption - - 3 percent for both costs and benefits




and 3 percent for costs and 0 percent for benefits.




     Table ES-2 indicates that the aggregate U.S. welfare losses attributable




to the fourteen regulatory alternatives range from a low of about $603 million




(Alternative E) to just under $7 billion (Alternative G), depending on the




regulatory alternative considered.  The lowest welfare costs  for the U.S. are,




of course, the regulatory alternatives that ban the fewest products




(Alternatives E and J) and the highest are those that ban more products  (or




phase down all fiber usage) and ban them earlier -- Alternatives B, G, and H.




Clearly, the costs of many of the regulatory alternatives are reduced




significantly by excluding certain products, such as asbestos diaphragms and




missile  liner, from both the asbestos fiber phase down and product bans, as




both  the "X" alternatives and Alternatives E and J indicate.




      The figures in the table reporting the quantitatively estimated benefits




also  indicate that the number of  cancer cases avoided changes dramatically




across  the alternatives (using the undiscounted cancer cases  avoided figures),




from  a  low of 90 cases avoided (for Regulatory Alternative IX) to a high of  329




cases avoided (Regulatory Alternative G).  To some extent, however,  the  costs




imposed by the regulatory alternatives  rise  and  fall  as  the numbers  of cancer






                                      ES-9




                   * *  *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR  CITE   * * *

-------
                                  TABLE ES-2.  SfflMARY OP COSTS AND BESEFI1S OF AlfERHATIYES
                                                   (Low Decline Baseline)
*
*
,,,

s
t-rj
3-3
i
1
O
o
21 . M
O W
1-3 (L
*§ °
o
l_^j
w
o
J?3
o
i 	 |
H
M
:
Discounting Scenario Alternative
aad
Costs* and Benefits B BX D .DX

3-Costs/3~Bena£its
Discounting
fotal Cost
($1,000, OOO's}: $ 3,560 1,079 3,607 1,126

Tofcal Cancers
Avoided; 208 208 210 210

Cost Per Case
($l,000,QOO's): 17.1 5.2 17.2 5.4


3-Costs/O-Benefits
Discounting

Total Cost
($1,000, OOO's): $ 3,560 1,079 3,607 1,126

fotal Cancers
Avoided: 266 266 268 268

Cost Per Case
($1,000, OOO's): 13.4 4.1 13.5 4.2
E F FX




603 3,486 1,008


145 150 ISO


4.2 23.2 6.7






603 3,486 1,008


193 200 200


3.1 17.4 5.0
* Total domestic cost

Note:  Table contains rounded entries.

-------
                                                  TABLE ES-2. StMXSAEY OF COSTS AND BEKBFITS OF EHMPTIQR ALT1EH&TIVES

                                                                         (Low Decline Baseline)

                                                                              (continued)
o
o

25    W
O    W
<§
 O
 t-3
 O,
 H
 H
Discounting Scenario Alternative
and
Costs* and Benefits G GX H BX I
3-Costs/3-Beixafits
Discounting
Total Cost
($1,000, OQQ's): $ 6,934 2,286 4,868 1,385 3,035
Total Cancers
Avoided: 266 266 154 153 63
Cost Per Case
($1,000, OOO's): 26.0 8.6 31.7 9,1 49,3
3-Cos ts/0-Bene£i ts
Disc Glint ing
Total Cost
($1,000, OOO's): $ 6,934 2,286 4,868 1,385 3,085
Total Cancers
Avoided: 329 328 206 205 91
Cost Per Case
($1,000, OOO's); 21.1 7.0 23,7 6.8 34.1
IX J

607 748
62 122
9.7 6.1

607 748
90 167
6.7 4.5
                     *  Total domestic cost


                     Note: Table contains rounded entries.

-------
cases avoided rise and fall.  This produces a cost-per-eancer-case avoided




(using the 3 percent discount rate; for both costs and benefits) that ranges




from a low of about $4,2 million per case avoided (Alternative E) to a high of




about $49 million per case avoided (Alternative I).  Most of the overall cost-




per-cancer-case-avoided figures, however, are in the $5 million to $30 million




range,   Alternatives that exempt some asbestos products, such as diaphragms and




missile liner, from the phase down and product bans, of course, are those with




costs per case avoided in the lower end of the range, and those that do not




typically are in the higher end of the range.




     Appendix G, the sensitivity analysis, presents more detailed output from




these model runs.  Appendix G contains tables that provide tabulations of




welfare effects, by party affected and by market, under each of the three




possible baseline growth rate assumptions, and for the fourteen regulatory




alternatives.  The results for these numerous distinct scenarios are consistent




with expectations.  For example, using the High and Moderate Decline baselines




(in which the decline of asbestos products over time is more rapid than in the




Low Decline baseline) reduces both the costs of the regulatory alternatives and




their benefits.  Total costs discounted at 3 percent for these alternatives




range from a low of about $243 million (J - High Decline) to over $6 billion  (G




- Low Decline),




     Appendix G also reports some illustrative results for some regulatory




options and baseline conditions not considered in the fourteen alternatives




discussed in detail in the RIA.  One regulatory option is to require




engineering controls for some of the asbestos products to reduce asbestos




exposures.  To  illustrate this, model runs using engineering controls on




replacement brakes for drum brakes and LMV disc brake pads, rather than bans  on




these asbestos brakes, are presented in Appendix G.






                                     ES-12




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
     Finally, two potentially important factors not included, in the "central




case" analysis of this RIA could have a significant impact on both the costs




and the benefits of the regulatory alternatives.  First, there is the distinct




possibility that substitutes for asbestos products might become cheaper over




time as both experience with their use and the cumulative volume of their




production increase.   Substantial empirical evidence for downward trends in




prices due to "experience" exists.  This suggests that the costs estimated in




this RIA may be higher than they ultimately will turn out to be as asbestos




product substitute costs decline over time.  Second, in many cases data on




releases of and exposures to asbestos were not available.  The "base case"




analysis in this RIA assumes that in these cases these releases and exposures




are zero, which is not likely to be true.  This assumption could impart a




substantial downward bias to the quantitative benefits estimates for the




regulatory alternatives.




     To illustrate the potential impact on the costs and benefits of 1)




allowing for declining prices of asbestos product substitute prices over time,




and 2) introducing release and exposure information where such information is




available, a number of sensitivity scenarios were estimated using Regulatory




Alternative J.   For declining substitute prices, an across-the-board decline




of one percent per year is assumed.  Although this may overestimate the rate of




decline for some products that have been in existence for some time, it may




underestimate the rate of decline for other, newer products or products with




new applications.  On balance, the across-the-board rate of decline of one




percent per year roughly corresponds to typical historical price trends for




many products, as discussed in Chapter IV of this RIA.




     For products and exposure settings in which no data were available to




estimate releases and asbestos exposures directly, two different alternative






                                     ES-13




                  * * *  'DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
exposure scenarios were developed,  as described in Appendix A-6 of this RIA.




First, where possible,  for occupational exposures in manufacturing,




installation, and repair and disposal,  exposures in these settings were




estimated based on analogous exposure settings for product for which exposure




information exists.  This was done  for one product's manufacturing stage, eight




products' repair and disposal stage,  and nine products'  installation stage.




The basic rationale for this procedure is that similar activities involving




roughly similar exposure settings and concentrations are likely to result in




similar exposures.




     In some non-occupational exposure settings for which data did not 'exist




but in which exposures are likely,  one percent of the asbestos content of the




product was assumed to be released per year over the life of the product.




These releases would be caused by normal weathering of products or by various




activities, such as cutting, sawing,  and sanding, that occur to the products in




the course of their use.




     Table ES-3 tabulates the results of these sensitivity analyses using




Regulatory Alternative J (the 3-stage product ban at dates 1987, 1991, and




1994, exempting a number of products such as missile liner and diaphragms,




regulating original equipment and aftermarket drum and disc brakes separately).




The table lists the total costs, total cancer cases avoided, and the implied




cost per cancer case avoided, using  (1) both the 3 percent discount rate for




both costs and benefits and the alternative discounting  scenario of 0  percent




for benefits and 3 percent for costs, and (2) the Low Decline baseline.  Five




distinct scenarios are presented: 1) the base case presented above for




Regulatory Alternative J, 2) declining substitute prices alone, 3) additional




occupational exposure  assumptions, 4) additional non-occupational exposure












                                     ES-14




                   * *  *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE   * * *

-------
                                 TABLE ES-3:  SE8SITIVI1X ANALYSIS FOR DECLIHIHG SUBSTITUTE ERICES AHB ALTERNATIVE
                                               ASBESTOS EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS OSIBS BIGOLAIGRY ALTERNATIVE J
                                                                   (Low Decline Baseline)
*
*
*
o
f> '
»3j
H
1
3
a
°
s; w
O w
H <
)_t
a ^
o
w
o
£0
o
M
w
^
*
*
Dlscotmting Scenario
and
Costs* aftd Benefits
3-Costs/3-Benefits
Piscaijnt.ing
Total Cost
($l,000,000's):

Total Cancers
Avoided :
Cost Per Cass
{$l,000,000's):

3-Costs/O-Bensflts
Discoimtiil^

Total Cost
($l,000,000's):

Tptal Cancers
Avoided:
Cost Per Case
($1,000,000*8):

Declining Additional Additional All
Base Case Substitute Prices** Occupational Exposure Honoccupational Exposure Sensitivity



$ 748 510 748 748 510


122 122 153 177 209

6.1 4.2 4,9 4.2 2,3





748 $ 510 748 748 510


167 167 208 240 281

4.5 3.1 3.6 3.1 1,8

* Total domestic cost
** All substitute prices assumed to decline at 1 porcent per year

Hote; Table contains rounded entries.

-------
as strap tions, and 5) declining  substitute prices  and both sets  of additional




exposure assumptions simultaneously,




     As the figures in the table  indicate, allowing for a decline of  all




asbestos product substitute prices  at a rate of  one percent per year  reduces




the  estimated costs by almost  one-third.  Because  it  is the difference between




the  asbestos product price and the  cost of substitutes  that is counted as  a




cost in the consumer surplus losses, not the absolute level of the prices  of




substitutes, even moderate declines over time  of the  prices of substitutes can




produce fairly large reductions in  the costs of  banning asbestos products.




     The added occupational exposures, as the  table indicates, suggest that an




additional 41 cancer cases  (undiscounted) might  be avoided by Alternative  J if




the  additional occupational exposures assumed  are  accurate.  An even  larger




number of cancer cases,  some 73 additional cases,  might be avoided by this




alternative if the additional  non-occupational exposures developed are




accurate.  Costs and benefits  allowing for both  declining substitute  prices




over time and the two additional  sets of exposures are shown in the final




column of the table,  As these figures indicate, the  impacts of each  of  the




three sensitivity assumptions  are independent  and  additive, at least  for this




regulatory alternative.   That  is,  the decline  in costs for this combination of




sensitivity assumptions  Is  the same as for the declining substitutes  prices




alone scenario, and that the  increased benefits  for this scenario equal  the sum




of  the increased benefits for  the two benefit-side sensitivity analyses




conducted independently.




     Finally, the cost per cancer case avoided (using the 3 percent discounting




for  both costs and benefits)  falls  from  the base case level of $6 million to




$2.5 million for all  three sensitivity assumptions combined.  Again,  although




.these are sensitivity analyses, on the exposures side the assumptions






                                      ES-16




                  * * *   DRAFT -- DO  NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
concerning added exposures to asbestos are intended to address lack of data --




exposure settings in which exposures are believed to occur, but for which data




do not exist.   On the costs of substitutes side, the assumption of a 1 percent




decline in all substitute prices is illustrative only.  However, for many




substitute products, over time costs and prices may well decline as accumulated




production and manufacturing experience make these cheaper to produce and to,




use in place of asbestos products.
                                     ES-17




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE  OR CITE   *.* *

-------
I.  BACKGROI31D




     Asbestos is a naturally occurring substance applied in a wide variety of




industrial uses because of its desirable properties and because it can be




produced at prices competitive with those of available substitutes.  Exposure




to asbestos dust has been shown to increase significantly an individual's risk




of contracting a number of potentially serious diseases.




     The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 requires the U.S.




Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate toxic substances such as




asbestos and to determine if they pose unreasonable risks to health or the




environment.   The unreasonable risk determination is based on a comparison of




the costs of controlling the risk against the benefits of controlling that




risk.  The Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) has performed a preliminary




evaluation of the risks posed by asbestos products and has determined that all




uses of asbestos products may pose an unreasonable risk due to the potential




for exposure to asbestos throughout the life cycle of the asbestos products;




that is, the mining, milling, manufacturing, processing, use, and disposal of




the asbestos product.  Therefore, all uses of asbestos should be controlled as




long as control costs are "reasonable" relative to the risks posed.




     The purpose of this B.IA is to identify, quantify, and, where feasible,




value benefits and costs of various regulatory alternatives for controlling




exposure to asbestos, ranging from "staged" bans on asbestos products (i.e.,




bans on products at different points in time) to fiber phase-down options both




with and without product bans.  The RIA attempts to meet four goals:  (1) to




identify properly the potential benefits and costs of asbestos controls;  (2) to




review some of the key relationships and issues that would affect the magnitude




of the benefits and costs of the controls;  (3) to project the expected benefits




and costs of asbestos controls, and  (4) to assess the distribution of the costs






                                      1-1




                   * * *  DRAFT --  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
and benefits.  This study will identify explicitly the logic behind the




development of benefit and cost projections, thereby allowing the public to




make a more informed judgment concerning potential benefits and costs of




asbestos controls.




     Finally, this RIA is designed primarily to provide data and results for




use in the process of assessing alternative asbestos control strategies.  Thus,




the specific regulatory alternatives discussed in this document are intended




primarily to guide the options selection and development process by providing




information on a wide variety of regulatory alternatives,  By comparing results




of the different scenarios discussed here, the costs and benefits of




alternative regulatory strategies can be assessed,




     A.  AsbestosBackground




     Since 1900, it has become increasingly evident that exposure to asbestos




dust can significantly increase an individual's risk of contracting diseases,




including cancers.  Such diseases frequently end in death, and when they do




not, activity is reduced as respiratory function is restricted.  Initially, the




findings on the hazards of asbestos were confined to oceupationally exposed




individuals, but more recent evidence points to the likelihood that even low




exposures of the non-oceupationally exposed are potentially hazardous.  In




response to such information, the U.S. Government has taken steps to reduce




human exposure to asbestos.  Although asbestos use is declining in the United




States, it is still used in a variety of applications and asbestos dust is




still being released into the environment.




     The only method of completely removing these risks is to remove asbestos




from the marketplace by eliminating the asbestos products, by eliminating the




asbestos fiber used to produce these products, or both.  Thus, one advantage of




a combined ban and phase-down approach is  that selected products can be






                                      1-2




                   * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
eliminated quickly with a ban, and all others can be eliminated over time




through the fiber phase-down rule.




          1.   HlstQ.rical Peifsgective




          The unique physical properties of asbestos fiber have made it an




important component in many diverse manufacturing activities.  Used since the




first millennium B.C., asbestos became increasingly important after 1850.




During the 20th century, however, evidence of the adverse health effects




associated with asbestos exposure at all stages of production and consumption




has been mounting.




     Beginning in 1900 with the first autopsy report of pulmonary fibrosis in




an asbestos worker, asbestos has been linked with numerous ailments, including




asbestosis, a chronic fibrotic lung disease caused by asbestos fiber




inhalation; malignant mesothelioma, a cancer of the pleura or peritoneum;




bronchial carcinoma (lung cancer); and cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.




     Since the initial asbestosis report in 1900, awareness-of potential




dangers of asbestos has grown, albeit slowly.  High lung cancer rates in




asbestosis victims were first observed in 1935.  The tie between asbestos and




malignant mesothelioiaa was documented in 1953.  In 1960 it was reported that,




in addition to miners, residents  of asbestos mining towns are prone to




mesothelioma, indicating that even very brief exposure to asbestos may pose




health risks.




     Increased knowledge of the effects of asbestos on individuals has




precipitated two types of governmental response:  enactment  of compensation




laws, and promulgation of various regulations governing asbestos use.  As early




as 1913, asbestos-related illness was included by three States under workman's




compensation laws.  By 1979, as a result of statutory extensions, 90 percent of




the work force was covered by such provisions.






                                      1-3 '




                   * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
     Federal regulations implemented during the past decade have restricted




worker and consumer exposure to asbestos fibers.  However, some of the more




recent medical studies imply that the current asbestos problem has a somewhat




different focus than previously believed.  In the past, Federal regulations




concerning asbestos worker safety and worker's compensation laws covering




asbestos-related disease addressed the problems of a relatively small group of




workers experiencing high levels of asbestos exposure.  Evidence now indicates




that low-level asbestos exposure in both occupational and nonoccupational




settings is also a problem.  However, while evidence of the health problems




associated with asbestos accumulates, asbestos production and use continue, due




mostly to its relative cost advantage in some areas of manufacturing.




          2,  HistoryofAsbestos Regulation




          Federal regulatory action on asbestos has taken a variety of forms.




Regulations have been promulgated by the EPA, Consumer Product Safety




Commission (CPSC),  Department of Transportation (DOT), Food and Drug




Administration (FDA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and the




Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).




     In 1972, OSHA promulgated regulations to reduce worker exposure to




asbestos dust in occupational settings (37 FR 11318).  These regulations




mandated introduction of new materials handling systems and other measures to




limit the maximum level of airborne asbestos fibers in the workplace to




5 fibers/cubic centimeter  (f/cc) of air  initially, with reduction to 2 f/cc of




air by 1976.




     In 1980, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health




(NIOSH), which acts as advisor to OSHA,  recommended a twenty-fold decrease in




the maximum asbestos-fiber-exposure limit permissible in  the workplace.  NIOSH




suggested increased use of asbestos substitutes and implementation of more






                                      1-4




                   * * *  DRAFT --  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
extensive medical testing procedures.  Employers were encouraged to report




aggregate medical information to their employees and to arrange transfers for




asbestos workers with respiratory disease to lower exposure jobs.  In addition,




further regulations to protect all workers exposed to asbestos and additional




rules for air sampling were recommended for asbestos product manufacturers,




     Recently, OSHA issued a final rule implementing many of these




recommendations and lowering the workplace standard to 0.2 f/cc of air as an 8-




hour time-weighted average (51 FR 22612).  In 1974, MSHA prescribed maximum




exposure levels to asbestos dust for workers in domestic mines of 5 f/cc of air




(39 FR 24316).  In 1978, this requirement was lowered to 2 f/cc (43 FR 54064),




     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 (16 CFR Part 1305),  The GPSC 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 personal protection against thermal injury and so constructed that the




asbestos fibers will not become airborne under reasonably foreseeable




conditions of use" (16 GFR 1500.17).  The FHSA is now administered by the CFSC.




     In 1980, CPSC issues a general order requiring persons to furnish




information on the use of asbestos in certain consumer product categories.




CPSC has also measured potential consumer exposure to asbestos from such




products as asbestos millboard, asbestos paper products, and stove door




gaskets.  In 1986, CPSC issued labeling requirements for "household products




containing intentionally added asbestos that, under any reasonably foreseeable






                                      1-5




                   * * *  DRAFT --  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
conditions of handling and use are likely to release asbestos fibers" (51 FR




33911, September 24, 1986).




     EPA has undertaken regulatory action on asbestos under the Clean Air Act,




the Clean Water Act, and TSCA,  In 1971, under the authority of the Clean Air




Act, EPA designated asbestos a hazardous air pollutant.  On April 6, 1973 (38




FR 8820), EPA promulgated the national emission standard for asbestos.  The




standard prohibited visible emissions from asbestos mills and from nine




different manufacturing industries, specified certain work practices for




demolition of structures that contain friable asbestos, limited to less than




1 percent the asbestos content of spray-on materials used for certain




insulation applications,  and prohibited most uses of asbestos tailings for




surfacing roadways.




     The asbestos NESHAP regulation has been revised several times.  On October




14, 1975 (40 FR 48292), it was revised to prohibit all uses of asbestos-




containing waste and asbestos tailings in road construction.  Regulation of




demolition and renovation was expanded, and the "no visible emissions"




requirement was extended to additional asbestos-using manufacturers.  The




revisions also dealt with waste disposal requirements  for asbestos mills and




manufacturing facilities.  Furthermore, the regulation prohibited insulating




with either friable, molded insulating materials or with wet-applied insulating




materials that become  friable when dry.  Revised in 1977 and again  in 1978, the




regulation currently prohibits visible emissions from milling, manufacturing,




and asbestos waste  disposal activities  (43 FR 26372) .  It also prohibits the




use of asbestos-containing materials for surfacing roadways and provides work




practices guidelines in demolition and renovation operations.




     The 1978 decision by  the' U.S. Supreme Court in Adaiao Wrecking  Company vs.




United States held  that the work practice provisions in  the asbestos standard






                                      1-6




                   * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
were not emission standards and that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 did




not empower EPA to issue non-emission (e.g., work practice) standards.




However, Congress acted to broaden EPA's Authority by amending Section 112 of




the Act, and EPA in 1984 repromulgated the CAA rule  (49 FR 13658).  The 1977




Amendments allow EPA to promulgate design, equipment, and operational standards




to control hazardous emission sources where a numerical emission limit is not




feasible.  Although the 1977 Amendments allowed promulgation of non-emission




standards, they did not specifically authorize enforcement of these standards.




The question of enforceability of non-emission standards, in general, was




resolved through passage in 1978 of the Health Services Research, Health




Statistics, and Health Care Technology Act.  This act equated design,




equipment, work practice, and operational standards  with emission standards,




thereby allowing EPA to enforce both emission and non-emission standards.




     In 1973, EPA cited asbestos as a potential source of water pollution  (38




FR 22606).  Effluent limitation guidelines  for asbestos manufacturing were




promulgated in 1974 and 1975  (39 FR 7528  and 40 FR 1874).




     As mentioned earlier, TSCA provides  a  broad range of alternative control




options that EPA might exercise in its  efforts to  safeguard  the environment




from toxic substances.  Under Section 6 of  TSCA, EPA published a  rule May  27,




1982 (47  FR 23360), requiring inspection  of public and private primary and




secondary schools in the United States  to sample friable material to  determine




whether or not it contained asbestos.   The  schools also were required to notify




any parent-teacher  organizations of the inspection results and  to educate  their




employees on methods of  reducing the risks  of  exposure.




     In  1986, President Reagan  signed  into  law the Asbestos  Hazard Emergency




Response  Act  (AHERA), which enacted Title II of  the  Toxic  Substances  Control




Act  (TSGA).  Title  II  requires  EPA to  promulgate regulations requiring the






                                       1-7




                   * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
Identification and. abatement of asbestos hazards in the nation's schools and to




develop a model accreditation plan for persons who inspect for asbestos, who




develop management: plans for asbestos abatement, and who perform asbestos




abatements.  On October 30, 1987, EPA promulgated rules requiring every school




district to inspect every school building for friable and non-friable asbestos




and to file a management plan for every school building by October 12, 1988 (52




FR 41826, October 30, 1987).




     In 1986,  EPA promulgated a rule under Section 6 of TSCA to extend the




protection of the OSHA Asbestos Standard to state and local employees who




engage in asbestos abatement and who are not covered by and OSHA-approved state




plan or equivalent state regulations (51 FR 15722, April 25, 1986).   (The OSHA




act does not cover state and local employees.)  In 1987, EPA amended  to rule to




make it consistent with OSHA's regulations, which had been recently revised (52




FR 5618, February 25, 1987),




     On July 30, 1982, EPA also published a rule under Section 8(a) of TSCA




requiring manufacturers, processors, and importers of asbestos to make detailed




reports to EPA  (47 FR 33198).  The rule required data on worker  exposure to




asbestos; the quantity of asbestos and asbestos products manufactured,




imported, and exported; and waste and pollution control equipment.  Some of the




data used in this analysis were received by EPA in response to the asbestos-




reporting rule.




     B.  Asbestos UseOverview




     Asbestos fibers have been used  in the manufacture of a variety of products




intended for Industrial and consumer use.  The concentration of  fiber within




the final product depends  on the application, but all products are formulated




according to the diagram in Figure 1-1.  As illustrated, asbestos fiber  from




domestic or imported sources (in 1985, approximately  92 percent  of the  asbestos






                                      1-8




                   * * *  DRAFT --  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
              FIGURE 1-1.  U.S. AND WORLD ASBESTOS MARKETS
o
o
o
25
s
O
O
SO
O
H
H
Domestic
Miners &
Millers
Foreign
Miners &
Millers
                               Foreign
                               Secondary
                               Processors
                                        Foreign
                                        Consumers
             Export of
             Mixtures
Export of
Products
                     Domestic
                     Primary
                     Processors
                          Domestic
                          Secondary
                          Processors
             Domestic
             Consumers
Import
 of
Fiber
Import of
Mixtures
Import of
Products
                                                  Foreign
                                                  Primary
                                                  Processors
                                                           Foreign
                                                           Secondary
                                                           Processors

-------
fiber consumed in the U.S. was imported from Canada) is mixed with other

ingredients by a "primary processor" to form an asbestos mixture.   This mixture

is then processed further, by a "secondary processor" to form a product that

can be used in one or many applications.   It is important to note  that the

output of the primary or secondary processor can be exported or imported and

that final products come from many sources.

     In 1981, the production of asbestos-containing goods was distributed among

the thirty five product categories identified in Table 1-1,  By 1985,  however,

production in some of these areas had ceased and fiber consumption (including

imports) was reported as zero.

     Table 1-1 also reports fiber consumption for all of the product categories

that continued to be produced in 1985 and reports the output of final products

in appropriate units.  The number of firms producing asbestos-containing

products between 1981 and 1985 declined, with only 180 primary processing

plants producing in 1985 compared to 210 in 1981.

     C,  NatureoftheRegulatory Alternatives

     Despite the declining U.S. usage of asbestos fiber during the past years,

continued uncontrolled use of asbestos poses a substantial risk to both workers

and the population at large.  Hence, a number of different regulatory

alternatives for controlling exposures to asbestos were considered in this

Regulatory Impact Analysis.  These  include:

          •    bans of certain asbestos-containing products;
          •    phase-downs of asbestos use; and
          •    combinations of these two approaches.

     Product bans are a direct method of avoiding exposures  to asbestos.  This

form of regulation typically makes  the most sense if  (1) substitutes for

asbestos or  for the product itself  are available at reasonable cost, and  (2)

cost effective means for  reducing exposure are not known or  are not


                                      1-10                             *

                   * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
TABLE 1-1.  ASBESTOS FIBER CONSIMPTIQN AND FIHAL ERODUCflON FOR ASBESTOS PSODBCT CA1EGQSISS
  TSCA
             Product
             Category
Asbestos Fiber
   Consumed
 (short tons)
Production
  Volume
Kuniber of
  Plants
1 Cotrmercial Paper
2 Eollboard
3 Millboard
4 Pipeline Wrap
S Beater-Add Gaskets
6 High Srade Ilsotrical Paper
? Soofing felt
8 Acetylene Cylinders
9 Flooring Felt
10 Corrugated Paper
11 Specialty Paper
12 V/A Floor Tile
13 Asbestos Diaphragms
14 A/C Pipe
IS A/C Sheet, Flat
16 A/C Sheet, Corrugated
17 A/C Shingles
18 Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
19 Disc Brake Pads, LM7 (OEM)
20 Disc Brake Pads (H?)
21 Brake Blocks
22 Clutch Facings
23 Automatic Trans. Components
24 Friction Materials
25 Asbestos Protective Clothing
26 Asbestos thread, etc.
27 Sheet Gaskets
28 Asbestos Packing
29 Soof Coatings
30 Son-Eoofing Coatings
31 Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
32 Missile Liner
33 Sealant Tape
34 Battery Separators
35 Are Chutes
36 Drum Braka Linings (A/K)
37 Disc Brake Pads, LM? (A/M>
0.0
0.0
435.8
1,333.3
12,436.4
744,0
0.0
584.1
0.0
0.0
92.1
10,374.0
977.0
32,690.8
2,578.8
0.0
3,893.0
6,642.3
1,089.2
117.6
2,643.6
993.5
2,5
1,602.5
0.0
558.0
5,441.1
2.1
29,551.2
2,951.4
812.1
700.0
1,660.2
1.0
"! <3 K
AW , «/
18,049.4
6,030.0
0 tons
0 tons
581 tons
296,949 squares
16,505 tons
698 tons
0 tons
392,121 pieces
0 tons
0 tons
434 tons
18,300,000 square yards
9,770 pieces
15,062,708 feet
22,621 squares
0 squares
176,643 squares
34,713,675 pieces
10,077,464 pieces
156,820 pieces
4,570,266 pieces
7,237,112 pieces
585,500 pieces
8,719,541 pieces
0 tons
1,125 tons
3,607,408 square yards
3 tons
75,977,365 gallons
9,612,655 gallons
4,835 tons
4,667 tons
423,048,539 feet
2,046 pounds
900 pieces
94,328,903 pieces
55,791,708 pieces
0
0
1
1
5
1
0
3
0
0
2
1
1
3
2
0
1
13
13
2
8
3
2
5
0
1
6
2
31
51
8
6
4
2
1
**
**
                                         145,000.5
                                                                                    179
    Humber of plants producing OEM and afteanatket (A/M) brakes  cannot be distinguished.
Source:   ICF Asbestos Market Survey
                                      I-11
            * * *   DRAFT  --  DO  NOT QUOTE OR  CITE   *  * *

-------
sufficiently certain to guarantee avoidance of exposure.  Some of the product

bans examined in this RIA are "staged" bans of products in the sense that

groups of products are banned at different points of time in the future.  Such

a strategy allows for banning products earlier if feasible substitutes already

exist and for banning groups of products later for which substitution for

asbestos may require more time.

     A phase-down of asbestos usage is another option for regulating asbestos

exposure.  A phase-down of asbestos fiber use would operate much like quota

systems often used for certain imported goods.  For example, yearly limits on

the total amount of asbestos fiber allowed to be mined or imported could be

defined.  If these quotas declined over time, smaller and smaller quantities of

asbestos fiber would be embodied in products over time.  Although the end

result of this form of regulation is similar to product bans (if fiber use is

phased down to zero, the end result is the same as a complete asbestos product

ban), the operation of a phase-down in the short run is different.  A phase-

down reduces asbestos use over time, allowing some time for substitutes to be

developed and for any dislocations associated with an immediate ban to be

mitigated or avoided by spreading the asbestos use reduction over time.  A

phase-down has the added benefit of distributing the asbestos use allowed to

those activities for which it  is the most costly to substitute away from

asbestos use.

     Finally, combinations of  the two regulatory approaches were also

considered.  For example, some products could be banned immediately while the

fiber use in the remaining products is phased-down over time.  Similarly, the

timing of a phase-down and of various product bans can be altered to create
       This conclusion assumes  that  the mechanism for allocating  fiber under a
phase-down is competitive or that  the rights to the scarce  fiber  can be
reallocated by market forces after the initial allocation.

                                      1-12

                   * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                                 "&
distinct regulatory alternatives.

     This RIA reviews all of the qualitative and quantitative efforts

undertaken to evaluate the many different regulatory alternatives considered.

No "preferred" alternative is identified In this RIA because the primary

purpose of this report is to provide information, data, and results for a wide

variety of possible regulatory alternatives for use in the options selection

process.  Thus, the particular regulatory alternatives presented in this RIA

are designed to span a number of possible control strategies for asbestos.  By

providing information for many options under different conditions, the relative

advantages of different approaches can be assessed qualitatively and

quantitatively,

     The remainder of Volume I of this RIA is organized as follows:

          •    ChapterII outlines the different regulatory
               alternatives evaluated and presents the theoretical
               approach for measuring the costs and benefits of the
               various regulatory alternatives considered;

          *    Chapter:III summarizes the data developed for
               quantitative estimation of the costs and benefits for
               the regulatory alternatives; and

          •    ChapterIV presents the estimated costs and benefits
               for the regulatory alternatives considered.

     Appendices that support the analyses and results  in this RIA follow

Volume  I of this RIA.  These contain (1) additional detail concerning the

theoretical and computational procedures employed in evaluating the regulatory

alternatives Including computer model codes (Volume II), (2) sources and other

information relating to asbestos product markets data  collected and developed
     *  Other methods of regulating  asbestos exposure are also being explored in
this regulatory process.  Such methods as  engineering  controls  to reduce
exposure  In certain activities involving asbestos products  could be feasible
depending on the risk reduction offered and the  costs  associated with them.
These alternative methods of regulating asbestos are not examined In detail In
this version of the RIA, although some illustrative results appear in Appendix
G  of this RIA.

                                      1-13

                   * * *  DRAFT --DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
for the quantitative cost and benefit estimates presented in the RIA (Volume




III), and (3) sensitivity analysis of the cost/benefit results using




alternative assumptions regarding future asbestos use in products ("Volume IV)
                                      1-14




                   * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
II.  APPROACH FOR COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS




     This chapter of the Regulatory Impact Analysis outlines the theoretical




approach developed for estimating the costs and benefits of the regulatory




alternatives for controlling exposure to asbestos analyzed in this RIA.  The




alternatives considered in this RIA are presented to assist in the options




selection process, so the specific alternatives examined here are 'designed to




illustrate quantitatively the range of costs and benefits of various types of




options.




     A.  ApproachforEstimating Benefits




     Only one source of benefits associated with reduced exposure to asbestos




-- reduced cancer cases --is estimated quantitatively in this RIA.  Although




asbestos causes other health effects, the cancer risks of asbestos exposure are




well-known and well-researched and hence, are estimated quantitatively here.




This quantification of only cancer cases avoided implies that the numerical




estimates of the benefits developed in this. RIA are lower bounds for the




benefits of controlling exposure to asbestos.  Asbestosis, for example, can




have a significant impact in terms of medical care expenses, reduced




productivity, and deterioration of quality of life.  Furthermore, families of




workers exposed to asbestos are not taken into account in this analysis, so




that any health effects associated with these secondary exposures are not




included in the estimates of benefits presented here.  Finally, lack of




exposure data for some asbestos products prevented a quantitative assessment of




benefits for these categories even though benefits are likely to exist for




these products.  For all of these reasons, the benefits estimates of the




asbestos regulatory alternatives reported in this RIA are quite likely to be




underestimates of the true social benefits of the regulatory alternatives.











                                      II-l




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
          1.   BenefitsModelOverview




          The approach developed for estimating the reduction in mortality due




to controlling asbestos exposure applies to all of the different regulatory




alternatives  considered.  Put simply, the reduction in mortality due to




asbestos controls equals the baseline level of risk minus the risks remaining




under the relevant regulatory alternative.  For example, the mortality




reduction benefits of banning some of the asbestos products equals' the level of




risk associated with the baseline less the risks remaining due to  the non-




banned products;  the benefits equal the risks avoided by banning these




products.




     The health benefits model developed for estimating the benefits of




asbestos controls is designed to project the health benefits from  regulation-




induced changes in asbestos exposures due to releases from asbestos products




manufactured over the period 1987-2000.  Regulatory alternatives may change the




quantities of asbestos products manufactured over the next twenty  years, and




hence, the number of people exposed to asbestos fiber.  The level  of exposure




is assumed to remain constant at the 1985 level except where impacted by the




OSHA 0.2 f/cc PEL.  Dose-response relationships between exposure level and




disease death rates, for lung cancer, mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal




cancer, are combined with the numbers of people exposed both with  and without




the regulatory alternative's requirements and their levels of exposure to




estimate the number of cancer deaths avoided by the regulatory alternative.




Finally, when combined with the estimated cure rates  for the different




asbestos-related cancers, the number of deaths avoided can be translated into




the number of cancer cases avoided by each regulatory alternative.




     This overview of the benefits approach indicates that two distinct tasks




are necessary: (1) derivation of exposure estimates for both the baseline and






                                      II-2




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT  QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
the regulatory alternatives,  and (2) development of dose-response relationships

to estimate cancer cases based on the duration and intensity of exposure to

asbestos.   Each of these steps is discussed below.

          2.   Expos_ure_____Est:iBiat;.i.on

          Health effects of exposure to asbestos products manufactured between

1987 and 2000 are estimated on a product by product basis.  For each product,

the population- at risk is subdivided into the following exposure categories:

          •    Primary manufacturing, both occupational and
               nonoccupatlonal;

          •    Secondary manufacturing, both occupational and
               nonoccupational;

          •    Installation,  both occupational and nonoccupational;

          •    Use, both occupational and nonoccupational; and

          •    Disposal or repair, both occupational and
               nonoccupational.

     Occupational exposure occurs among individuals employed in the

manufacture,  installation, use,  and repair or disposal of the asbestos product.

Nonoccupational exposure can be subdivided into ambient exposure and consumer

exposure.  Ambient exposure occurs among persons  living or working close to  the

site of manufacture, use, repair, or disposal of  asbestos products.  Consumer

exposure occurs among those consumers who personally install, use, repair, or

dispose of asbestos products.  The timing of exposures depends on the activity

that gives rise to exposure,  Exposures from releases during product

installation, for example, are assumed to be contemporaneous with those from

primary and secondary product manufacturing, while exposures during repair or

disposal are assumed to occur at the end of the average product life.  Finally,

exposures during product use are assumed to be evenly distributed across the

time from product manufacture to repair or disposal.  The methods used to

estimate these sources of exposure  are summarized in the  following subsections.

                                      11-3

                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
               a.  Approach for Estimat_ing_Occug_at:iona..l_E3t^osure

               The basic approach for estimating occupational exposures was to

update previous studies and data sources for the many sources of occupational

asbestos exposure, as outlined in a previous study (IGF 1988),  Available

occupational exposure and air emission data from NIOSH, .academic, and industry

studies were supplemented by OSHA Compliance data and the IGF Exposure Survey

(IGF 1988).   The ICF Exposure Survey, which covered both occupational exposures

and air releases, was sent to all miners/millers of asbestos, primary and

secondary manufacturers of asbestos products, and several relevant industry

groups.  OSHA Compliance data were supplied by  the OSHA Office of Management

Data Systems for the SICs corresponding to manufacturing, construction, and

automotive servicing.

     Although most of the analysis in this RIA  is disaggregated to the level of

some 35 asbestos product markets, the limited availability of exposure data on

products at this level of disaggregation forced the estimation of exposure

levels to a higher level of aggregation.  Hence, exposure estimates were

developed for eight groups of asbestos products.  However, these aggregated

product-category exposures were applied to product-specific worker populations

and population distributions, thus retaining as much detailed product-specific

risk information as possible.  The analysis also assumes that job category

exposures for all products in a given product category are identical, which is

reasonable given that similar job activities in related products are likely to

generate similar exposures.  The product categories for which detailed exposure

analysis was conducted are:

          •    Paper products;
          •    Friction products;
          •    Asbestos cement products;
          •    Asbestos-reinforced plastics;
          •    Coatings;


                                      II-4

                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT'QUOTE  OR  CITE  * *  *

-------
          •    Packings and gaskets;
          •    Textiles;  and
          •    Miscellaneous uses.

     Finally, the approach for developing exposure estimates does not include

products either no longer produced in the U.S. or no longer imported into the

U.S., such as commercial paper, corrugated paper, rollboard, flooring felt,

roofing felt (imported only), corrugated A/G sheet (Imported only), and vinyl

asbestos floor tile.'5

     In the approach developed for estimating occupational exposures, current

exposure levels associated with each job category or task are based on

historical data.  Both geometric and arithmetic means of the raw measurement

data are computed.  The geometric mean represents a typical (median) exposure

level for a worker' performing a particular job, assuming that the observations

follow a log normal distribution which is common for exposure data.  The

arithmetic mean, on the other hand, represents average worker exposure.  The

arithmetic means are used in the health benefits model to assess the

consequences of exposure since total health benefits are dependent on all

worker exposures, high, low, and typical.

     Total 1985 worker populations for primary and secondary product

manufacturing for each product were calculated by summing the worker

populations for each separate asbestos product producer Identified and surveyed

during the IGF Market Survey.  These total worker populations were then

distributed into specific job categories (corresponding to monitoring tests and

results) according to the population distributions for workers in these job

categories contained In the information submitted under the 1981 TSCA Section
     JU
       Occupational exposure levels and population  factors for products no
longer produced or used in the U.S. are presented In Appendix G of the
occupational asbestos exposure assessment, IGF  (1988).
                                      II-5

                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE  OR CITE   * *

-------
8(a) requirement.   Exposed populations for mining and milling were obtained

through telephone  contacts with company representatives.

     Since installation,  repair, and removal jobs are intermittent, populations

for brake repair and construction are calculated as full-time equivalents

(FTEs) .   The FTE population is the number of workers working 250 days/year and

8 hours/day at installing, repairing, and removing the total quantity of an

asbestos product manufactured or imported each year (quantity information for

each asbestos product were developed in the IGF Asbestos Market Survey),

Short-term exposures, which represent exposure during the period of time in

which the actual task is performed, were applied to this population.

     OSHA's recently promulgated final 0.2 f/cc PEL raises a significant issue

in projecting current and future occupational asbestos exposures.  The approach

used in this analysis assumes that for those operations where 8-hour TWA

exposures are currently below 0.2 f/cc, work practices will remain unchanged.

However, for those operations where the 8-hour TWA exposures in 1985 were

estimated to be above 0.2 f/cc, work practices will be changed either with the

addition of engineering controls or respirators to reduce the exposures to the

0.2 f/cc PEL.   Thus, in these cases, exposure estimates were reduced to 0.2

f/cc.

               b,    Approach^fjDr^E^                         Exposure

               Non-occupational exposures were estimated using two methods,

each corresponding to a separate class of exposure.  One method was used to

estimate the exposures that occur due to consumer installation, use, and repair

of asbestos products, such as brakes.  Another method was developed to estimate

the ambient emissions associated with production activities involving asbestos
       The estimated exposures in excess of the  .2 f/ml  PEL  are  due  to older
readings, i.e., prior to the promulgation of the final OSHA  standard.

                                      II-6

                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE   * *  *

-------
and the exposures of populations that result.  The approaches developed for

each of these sources of exposure are discussed separately below and in more

detail in Appendix A-4.

                    i,  Np.Q-p.qc]up.^rtA.!g!.i]|^l.,:Exp_osiare. in Product Use

                    The approach for estimating non-occupational exposure to

asbestos is outlined in detail in Versar  (1987) .  This method focused on five

exposure categories:

          •    Airborne emissions from brake use;
          *    Consumer exposure from coatings, sealants, and paints;
          •    Consumer exposure from asbestos vinyl floor tile;
          •    Consumer exposure during brake repair; and
          •    Consumer exposure to other asbestos products.

     For airborne emissions from brakes, existing estimates in  the literature

of emissions of asbestos during braking were updated using more current

information on vehicle use, brake types, and vehicle.types.  Using these

estimates of emissions, the total emissions of asbestos  in the  U.S. were

calculated based on the number of vehicles registered, the average number of •

miles driven per year, and the distribution of vehicles  across  cars, trucks,

and motorcycles.  The total emissions of asbestos in 24  different cities across

the U.S. were also computed based on gasoline usage and  average vehicle mileage

information.  Ambient concentrations of asbestos due to  these emissions were

estimated using a computerized dispersion model of emissions, land area, and

meteorological characteristics of the 24 different cities.  Finally, exposures

on a national level were developed using  several methods, including best-case

and worst-case assumptions.  Worst-case estimates were generated by assuming

that rural areas experienced the same ambient  concentrations of asbestos as the

group of small cities in the 24 cities modeled and that  all other areas

experience ambient concentrations at the  levels of similar sized cities in the

group of 24 cities modeled.  Best-case estimates, on the other  hand, assumed


                                      II-7

                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE   * * *

-------
zero ambient concentrations in rural areas.  The approach used to estimate




consumer exposures to vinyl asbestos floor tile was based on existing studies




of asbestos inhalation and emission rates both in removal of tiles and in




ordinary wear, as discussed in Versar (1987).




     For consumer exposures to asbestos during brake repair, Versar applied the




fiber concentration estimates for different phases of brake repair contained in




several existing articles to the kinds and durations of activities involved in




consumer "do-it-yourself" brake repair.




     For the other asbestos products, Versar either found no data to estimate




consumer exposures or no evidence of exposure during product use because some




of these products are formulated in such a way that the asbestos fibers are




bound within other materials.  The lack of data for estimating exposures for




some products and activities implies that the benefits estimated for the




regulatory alternatives examined in this RIA are likely to be underestimated.




                         ii.  Ajjjfolent ...Exposure Estimation




                         Ambient exposures due to product manufacture were




estimated by first calculating the emissions attributable to asbestos product




manufacturing activities and then modeling the transport of the asbestos fibers




to the  surrounding population.




     To calculate emissions, air releases were estimated for each




mining/milling and product manufacturing facility using site-specific data and




engineering estimates of baghouse collection efficiencies,  as discussed in




detail  in IGF  (1988).  Air releases  from brake servicing and construction,




however, were calculated as annual  industry  emissions  due to the lack of site




specific information  in these geographically widespread  industries.




     The approach for estimating air  releases  during milling and primary




manufacturing was based mostly on model plant  analyses developed by the EPA






                                      II-8




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), and the EPA Exposure




Assessment Branch as discussed in IGF (1988).  Under this approach, emission




rates from these activities were estimated using information on plant




characteristics -- stack dimensions, exhaust gas velocity, temperature, and




flow rate, collection efficiencies of control devices, and asbestos collection




by the control devices.  These estimates were combined with production




information from the Asbestos Market Survey to produce annual emissions of




asbestos from these operations.




     The approach for the second step in developing estimates of ambient




exposures -- modeling fiber transmission and exposure of the surrounding




populations -- was developed by ¥ersar (1988).  The emissions estimates




developed by ICF (1988) were combined with population information by ZIP Code.




Versar then generated exposure estimates by plant using an atmospheric




dispersion model based on the populations surrounding each plant and the




emissions estimated for each plant.  The resulting exposure estimates were then




aggregated by product category for use in the health effects estimation model,




          3.  Dose-Response Relationships




          Numerous human and animal studies have documented the correlation of




exposure to asbestos fibers with increased incidence of certain diseases,




including asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, gastrointestinal  cancer, and




other cancers,  While much of the research has focused on effects  of exposure




to the levels of asbestos typically associated with occupational exposures




before 1972, evidence indicates that even low exposures are likely to be




hazardous.  Studies indicate that at low concentrations, lung cancer and




mesothelioma present the greatest threat to human health  (Jacob and Anspach




1964; Peto  1979).  According to the Nicholson report  (USEPA 1986), there are




fourteen epidemiologic studies demonstrating increasing exposure to various






                                      II-9




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
forms of asbestos.  Similarly, there are four studies providing quantitative

data demonstrating a dose-response relationship for mesothelioma.

     The asbestos-related diseases that are analyzed in this study are lung

cancer, mesothelioma and gastrointestinal cancer.  To the extent that other

cancers and asbestosis are induced by low exposures, restricting the estimates

of the health benefits of controls on asbestos to these specific cancers will

underestimate the benefits.

     In developing dose-response relationships for exposure to asbestos in both

the baseline and under the regulatory alternatives, a number of key factors

were considered.  These are reviewed briefly below,

               a.   Time..__Be.tween,,Onset of Exposure and :Diagno s i s of Asbestos:-
                    Related Disease

               This analysis is restricted to health changes from regulation-

induced changes in exposure to asbestos between 1987 and 2000.  These effects

would not be expected to be apparent until after 1997 because of the long time

that usually elapses between onset of exposure and diagnosis of an asbestos-

related disease.  For example, the time between onset of exposure and diagnosis

of disease for lung cancer usually ranges from 20 to 40 years.  This range can

be partially explained by the apparent action of asbestos to increase the

general population risk by a factor proportional to cumulative exposure.

Because the general population risk is very low before age 40, cases of

asbestos-induced cancer are unlikely to be observed before this age, no matter

what the age of initial exposure.*  According to Seidman e_t al.,. (1979), a

minimum time period of 10 years is usually observed between onset of exposure

and diagnosis of disease.
       Seidman et al. (1979) reported a shorter lag time when  initial exposures
occurred at the- cancer ages (over age 40), which would be  consistent with this
explanation.

                                     11-10

                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  *  * *

-------
     Mesothelioma also has a long time lag to diagnosis (i.e. 20 to 50 years)



from onset of exposure, but this appears to be independent of age at first



exposure (Peto et al.  1982).   Peto also indicates a minimum period of 10 to 15



years is usually observed between onset of exposure and diagnosis of the



disease.  Among insulation workers, the ratio of excess lung cancer to



mesothelioma has been shown to be greater when exposure started later, over 25



years of age,  rather than between 18 and 25 years.  If the ratio of excess lung



cancer to mesothelioma continues to fall with reduction in age at first



exposure, mesothelioma may constitute the major health hazard when asbestos



exposure begins in childhood,



               b.   Leve1andPuration:of Exposure


    \
               At present, there is no evidence of a safe level of asbestos



exposure for lung cancer or mesothelioma,  Epidemiological studies of these



dose-response relationships have been performed with heavily exposed industrial



cohorts.  The data from these studies, which have been reviewed In the



Nicholson report (USEPA 1986), lead to the conclusion that excess mortality



from lung cancer and mesothelioma Is proportional to both the level and



duration of exposure to asbestos fibers.  The most direct evidence for a linear



dose-response relationship for lung cancer comes from two studies -- Henderson



and Interline (1979) and Dement et al. (1982).  Data available for mesothelioma



are also consistent with a linear relationship to cumulative exposure (Seidman



et al. 1979, Hobbs et al. 1980, Jones et al. 1980).  None of these studies



shows any evidence of a threshold level of exposure below which exposure to



asbestos is considered to be safe.



               c.  FiberType



               Although chrysotile is the main type of asbestos fiber used in



the United States, A/C pipe contains  large quantities of crocidolite.  However,





                                      11-11



                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO  NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * *  *

-------
when the slopes of lung cancer dose-response curves estimated from studies of




various populations of asbestos workers are compared, no clear distinction can.




be found between the experience of individuals exposed to chrysotile and




individuals exposed to other fibers (CPSC 1983, NRG 1984).  A similar lack of




consistency in the observed relationship between type of fiber to which the




population was exposed and incidence of pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma is




seen (NEC 1984).




     Several commissions and study groups have reviewed cancer risks among




cohorts exposed to asbestos fibers and observed that risks appear to vary from




one study to another possibly because of exposure to different fiber types




(ORCA 1984; WHO 1985),  Some have hypothesized that chrysotile asbestos poses a




lesser carcinogenic hazard than other forms of asbestos (Langer 1986),  The




Nicholson report (BSEPA 1986) acknowledged that some of the lowest unit risk




factors observed for  lung cancer are among cohorts exposed to chrysotile




asbestos.  However, this report also points out that the unit risk factors




estimated from the studies by Dement et al.   (1983) and McDonald et al.   (1983)




for textile production workers using predominantly chrysotile are among the




highest factors seen  in all studies of asbestos-induced lung cancer.  One




hypothesis is that long and thin fibers are more potent carcinogens than  short




fibers.  Support for  this hypothesis coaes principally from laboratory studies




of rats and hamsters  in which a higher incidence of mesothelioma was seen in




animals injected with fibers longer than 8 micrograms in  length and less  than




2.5 micrograms in diameter  (Stanton et alv..v 1981),  However, as noted by




Bertrand and Pexerat  (1980), none of the studies conducted to date demonstrates




a threshold at which  fibers become less carcinogenic or not carcinogenic  at




all.  Doll and Peto  (1985) have also examined evidence on fiber length potency




and concluded, as many other scientists have,  that longer fibers appear to be






                                     11-12




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR  CITE  * * *

-------
more carcinogenic, but they note that the boundary between hazardous and non-




hazardous fiber dimensions has not been established.  Furthermore, the animal




results are based on routes of exposure, primarily injection, that are not




comparable to the respiratory route through which many people are exposed.




Therefore, there is no firm evidence that potency varies from one asbestos




fiber type to another.Therefore, in this analysis, it is assumed that the dose




response constants do not vary according to the fiber type or dimension to




which the person is exposed.




               d.  Dose-Response Mode.1 s




               Based on the above discussion, this analysis uses the linear,




no-threshold dose-response relationships proposed by Nicholson  (1983) and used




by GSHA (1986) to develop benefits estimates for the final  .2 f/cc PEL to




convert information on asbestos exposure levels into excess lung cancer and




mesothelioma death rates for each time period.  Using these linear, no-




threshold dose-response relationships is appropriate because they are the




foundation of the final OSHA  . 2 f/cc PEL and thus have received substantial




review in both the scientific and regulatory communities.  Also, the Nicholson




report (U.S. EPA 1986) considered the linear, no-threshold model in an




extensive review of the work by several other agencies and committees.  It was




noted that a linear, no threshold model was supported in publications by a




cross-section of scientific opinion including the Committee on  Asbestos (ACA)




of the British Health and Safety Commission  (1979a,b), the Ontario Royal




Commission (ORCA 1984), the National Academy of Sciences  (NAS 1984)  , and the




Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Asbestos  (USCPSC 1983).  Use of the no-




threshold model for carcinogens is consistent with  the Guidelines for




Carcinogen Assessment (51 FR  33992) published by U.S. EPA  in 1986.











                                     11-13




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE   * * *

-------
     Following the approach used In the OSHA (1986) analysis, asbestos-related

excess death rates from gastrointestinal cancer are assumed to be equal to 10

percent of those for lung cancer in each time period.  This analysis follows

OSHA's relative risk model for lung cancer which includes a minimum 10-year

latency period between onset of exposure and increased risk of death from

cancer.  For mesothelioma, this analysis also follows OSHA use of an absolute

risk model.

     The relative risk model for lung cancer used in this analysis includes a

minimum 10-year latency period between onset of exposure and increased risk of

death from cancer.  The form of these relationships is as follows:

          IL = IE * [1 + KL * f * d(t>1Q)]               for t > 10

          IL - IE                                        for t <- 10

where;

          IL = age-specific lung cancer death rate with exposure to asbestos

          IE = age-specific lung cancer death rate without exposure to
               asbestos

          t  = time from onset of exposure until current age (years)

      d.  1fn - duration of exposure from onset until 10 years  (latency
               period) before current age (years)

           f — intensity of exposure (f/cc)

          KL — dose-response constant

    IL  - IE  ~ absolute excess lung cancer death rates due to  asbestos
               exposure.

      The mesothelioma absolute risk model is:

          IM « KM * f *  [(t-10)3  -  (t-10-d)3]        for t >  ICH-d

          IM = % * f *  (t-10)3                          for 10 + d >=  t <  d

          I  - o                                         for t <= 10
                                      11-14

                   *  *  *  DRAFT --  DO NOT  QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
where:




         t = time since first exposure (years)




         d = total duration of exposure (years)




         f = level of exposure (f/cc)




        Kj^ — dose-response constant




     Data inputs used to specify these dose-response relationships are




presented in Chapter III,




          4.  Projection of HealthBene fits




          Health benefits of the regulatory alternatives for asbestos products




manufactured after 1987, estimated on a product-by-product basis, are equal to




the difference between the adverse health effects from asbestos exposure




without and with the alternatives.  To estimate the adverse health effects from




exposure to asbestos in the baseline and under the regulatory alternatives, the




population at risk is divided into homogeneous exposure categories and into age




cohorts.  Next, the health effects attributable to the first year of exposure




for the members of each age and exposure subgroup, both in the "baseline and




with the regulatory alternative, are estimated using an adaptation of the life




table model described in Eddy (1980).




     The health effects model tracks an individual for each age and exposure




subgroup starting from a single year of exposure, by five year periods, until




age 90, at which point the probability of being alive is assumed to zero.  For




each five-year period the probability of dying of asbestos-related cancers is




estimated as the product of the probability of being alive in that time period




and the probability of dying from an asbestos-related cancer if alive.  The




probability of being alive during any five year time period decreases with age.




The probabilities of dying from asbestos-related cancers if alive are estimated




using the Nicholson dose-response relationships and the exposure data.  These






                                     11-15




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
probabilities increase with time elapsed, since the initiation of exposure since




exposure as follows.  The dose-response relationships assume a minimum ten-year




latency period between exposure and excess cancer risks.   Thus,  the probability




of dying from an asbestos -related cancer will be zero for the first two five




year periods after exposure.   After ten years,  the probability of dying o£ an




asbestos-related cancer increases with time since onset of exposure.  In the




case of isesothelioma, the absolute risk model generates death rates that




increase with time since exposure.  In the case of lung cancer (and




gastrointestinal cancer which is estimated as 10 percent of the lung cancer




rate) the excess risks remain constant over time relative to the baseline lung




cancer death rates.  However, the baseline lung cancer death rates increase




with age and, therefore, the probability of excess lung cancer or




gastrointestinal cancer increases with age or time since onset of exposure.




Thus, for each age cohort, the probabilities of dying from asbestos-related




cancers attributable to a single year of exposure increase with time since the




onset of exposure except at the older ages where competing causes of death




reduce the probability of observing deaths from asbestos-related cancers.




     The probabilities of observing deaths from asbestos-related cancers in




each five year time period for an individual from each age-exposure subgroup




are multiplied by the number of people in the population subgroup to generate




estimates of the expected asbestos-related cancers in the subgroup attributable




to the single year of exposure.  These estimates follow the same time




distribution relative to exposure as the individual probabilities --no cases




for ten years followed by an increasing and then decreasing number with age.




     Estimates of deaths from asbestos-related cancers are generated for




exposures both with and without the regulations and the differences in




asbestos-related cancers computed for each five year period.  These






                                     11-16




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
differences, avoided cancers, are the estimate health, benefits for the




regulation.  When these avoided cancers are aggregated across age-cohorts,




their resultant time distribution ranges from 10 to 80 years with most cases




occurring 35 to 60 years after exposure.




     The results for each population age-exposure subgroup for each product are




added for each five-year time period after the start of the analysis to




determine, for each product, the total avoided cancer deaths during each time




period attributable to the regulatory alternative.  In doing this aggregation




it is assumed that the avoided cancer deaths are distributed uniformly




throughout each five-year period.  Furthermore, the aggregation of the avoided




cancer deaths estimated for different exposure categories has to take into




account the timing of exposures.




     Exposures from releases during product installation are assumed to be




contemporaneous with those from primary and secondary product manufacturing.




Exposures from repair or disposal are assumed to occur at the end of the




average product life.  Exposures during product use are assumed to be evenly




distributed across the time from product manufacture to repair or disposal.




The estimated avoided cancer deaths for the repair/disposal category are




shifted forward in time by a number of years equal to the average product life




before being added to the estimates for primary and secondary manufacturing and




installation.  The estimated avoided cancer deaths for one year of exposure in




the use exposure category are assumed to be replicated for each year of use of




the product, shifted forward in time one year at a time from the time of




manufacture.  Thus estimates are obtained for the number of avoided deaths from




lung cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, and mesothelioma attributable to the




regulation's impact on each product's manufacture in the first year of the




analysis.                   .  •






                                     11-17




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
     After the avoided cancer deaths attributable to asbestos releases from




products manufactured during the first year of the analysis have been




estimated, the avoided cancer deaths for products manufactured in all




subsequent years of the analysis are estimated by multiplying the first year




estimates by the ratio of the level of production in the subsequent year




compared to that in the first year.  The ratio of future to current production




varies according to general trends in the industry baselines as well as




according to features of the regulatory alternatives.




     The total number of avoided cancer deaths attributable to the regulations




impact on asbestos products manufactured 1987-2000 for each product for each




five-year period after the start of the analysis are then calculated by




aggregating the deaths avoided associated with each year of manufacture.  The




timing of the cases relative to the start of the analysis is preserved by




assuming that the deaths in any five-year period are uniformly distributed, and




by shifting the estimated avoided deaths for any given year of manufacture




forward in time by the number of years from the beginning of the analysis.  The




total numbers of avoided excess cancer cases for each five year period are




estimated by dividing the estimated numbers of cancer deaths by the death rates




for each type of cancer.




     Finally, the present value of benefits are calculated assuming two




discount rates, zero percent and three percent.  In all cases, benefits are




discounted from time of exposure to the beginning year of the analysis.  In




some cases, the time of exposure is relatively close to the present, for




example, exposures in manufacturing products occur between the beginning of the




analysis  (1986) and the end of the simulation period for manufacturing




activities (the year 2000 for this model).  On the other hand, exposures due to




repair and disposal may occur far in the future, especially for those products






                                     11-18




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
that have long useful lives,   In these cases,  the benefits are discounted from




a time of exposure in the future that is beyond the time horizon of the




simulation period for manufacturing because the benefits modeling simulates




exposures throughout product life cycles attributable to asbestos products




manufactured during the 1986 to 200 simulation period.




     B.  Approach for Estimating__ Costs




     The regulatory options considered in this analysis include phase-downs of




asbestos fiber usage over time, bans on products that use asbestos, and




combinations of these two types of regulatory schemes.  To estimate the costs




associated with the various regulatory options actually examined, a




mieroeeonomic model of the asbestos industry was developed.  This model is




general in scope and estimates the costs experienced by the many different




economic entities associated with asbestos fiber and product market, both in




the U.S. and internationally.  Before proceeding with the details of the




methods used to estimate the costs of the regulatory alternatives, however,  •




some preliminary comments concerning the nature of the welfare economics that




provide the foundation of this analysis are appropriate.




          1.  Welfare Economics	Foundations of	the	Approach




          An intervention that alters the existing equilibrium in one market or




across several markets will lead to welfare effects or changes in benefits




enjoyed by participants in these markets.  The analysis of these welfare




effects can be carried out in two ways (1) a "distribution" analysis that




measures effects on individual groups, and (2) an "efficiency" analysis that




measures the net effects on society.  Distribution analysis, unlike efficiency




analysis, not only identifies the gross losers and gainers, but also the




magnitudes of these losses and gains, transfers across individual groups, and




therefore, the residual "deadweight" losses or gains to society.  Efficiency






                                     11-19




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
analysis only Identifies the net losses or gains, if any, to individual groups




and the deadweight losses or gains to society.




     Understanding how distribution analysis differs from efficiency analysis




is helpful in understanding estimates of producer and consumer surplus losses




generated by economic models.  However, the term "efficiency losses" is used in




a specific sense here because the benefits of the regulations modeled do not




appear.  Instead, this section focuses on only the cost impact of the




regulations.  Since the benefits may well exceed the costs of the regulations,




the net impact of the regulations may clearly be positive in social welfare




terms.  In economists' terminology, this implies that "deadweight" welfare




gains ensue, since social benefits of the regulations may exceed social costs.




However, because the analytical methods discussed in this chapter focus only on




the costs of the regulatory alternatives, -when losses are called "deadweight"




in this section, these are defined as cost burdens experienced by market




participants net of any transfers between them, but evaluated prior to




adjusting for benefits.




     Given this perspective, the goal of the cost analyses presented in this




chapter is not only to define and measure the net social costs of the various




regulatory alternatives, but also to identify the economic entities who bear




the costs (or who enjoy the benefits in certain circumstances) imposed by the




regulatory alternatives.




     Finally, although there are differences in the details of estimating the




costs of different regulatory alternatives, certain elements of analysis are




common to all of them.  These Include the structure and linkages of the markets




potentially affected by the alternatives, the economic entities affected, and




the baseline relative to which any welfare effects of the alternatives




experienced by these entities can be measured.  Hence, before addressing the






                                     11-20




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
specific methods used to estimate the costs of each type  of regulation, it is

useful to review the economic structure of the potentially affected markets,

the entities affected, and the baseline developed for  the analysis,

          2.  Economic	St.rjuc_,ture__of	Asbe_stos	Markets._...and  Baseline Specification

          The essential function of the economic models of asbestos regulations

is to mathematically describe the economic interactions between  the asbestos

fiber market and the numerous output markets that use  the fiber  as an  input in

the production of a good.  Quantities of the output good  demanded determine

each individual market's demand for fiber.  The total  fiber demanded determines

the price of the fiber, which in turn determines the price in each output

market.  The supply schedule in the fiber market incorporates the supply to

U.S. from domestic and foreign sources.  Figure II-1 shows the interactions of

the U.S. and world markets for fiber and asbestos products.

     The link between the fiber market and the other output markets is vital  to

the simulation of the alternative regulatory scenarios.   To understand how

these policies are modeled, consider, for example,  a single year in the

simulation  of a fiber phase-down.  For the phase-down  alternative, a fiber.

"cap" is imposed, which, in essence, is a ceiling  on fiber usage during that

year.  With demand exceeding fiber supply, the price to  consumers rises.    This

increase in price restricts usage of fiber in downstream markets resulting  in

less output of these  goods and, consequently, higher prices.

     The linkages between the asbestos product markets and  the fiber market

also operate in the reverse direction.  Consider a ban of some,  but not all,

asbestos products.  In this case, certain downstream asbestos products are

banned.  This curb on output reduces the demand  for asbestos  fiber, resulting
      *   Here  the  reference is to consumers of fibers who use it as an input for
 the  production of goods,  i.e.,  primary processors.

                                      11-21

                   * * *  DRAFT - - DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * *' *

-------
              FIGURE 11-1. U.S. AND WORLD ASBESTOS MARKETS
O
o
H
o
H
*
*
H
t
K>
          Domestic
          Miners &
          Millers
Foreign
Miners
Millers
                               Foreign
                               Secondary
                               Processors
                           Export of
                           Mixtures
                               Domestic
                               Primary
                               Processors
                     Import
                      of
                     Fiber
                                        Foreign
                                        Consumers
                                                      Export of
                                                      Products
                                        Domestic
                                        Secondary
                                        Processors

                                                         Import of
                                                         Mixtures
                                                  Foreign
                                                  Primary
                                                  Processors
                                                                   Domestic
                                                                   Consumers

Import of
Products
                                                           Foreign
                                                           Secondary
                                                           Processors

-------
in a decreased price of fiber In the market.  This translates to lower product

prices in the non-banned downstream markets.  Thus, banning some products can

benefit consumers and producers of other products precisely because of the

vertical and horizontal structure of the affected markets.

     The welfare effects computed by the cost estimation models consist of

transfers and "deadweight" losses caused by the regulation.   For example,

consider an increase in the price of asbestos fiber due to a regulatory

restriction on the total amount of fiber that may be sold or imported during a

given year (a fiber "cap").  In general, this will cause consumer and producer

surplus losses in all downstream markets.  Consumers either pay higher' prices

for asbestos products or switch to more costly substitutes.  Producers of these

products may suffer profit losses and reductions In the value of their

equipment as asbestos fiber's price rises.  Furthermore, losses in producer

surplus also occur in the fiber market because the quantity cap limits the

quantity that can be supplied and competitive forces produce a decline in the

price of fiber received by these producers.

     On the other hand, some downstream consumer and producer surplus losses

and some of the producer surplus losses in the fiber market represent transfers

to those who are permitted to mine or use fiber, which are valuable rights when

a regulatory option restricts the available fiber supply.  Hence, parties that

hold these rights are made better off.  Thus, not all losses of producer and

consumer surplus in the fiber and product markets are net losses to society

because at least some of these losses may be transferred to other economic

entities.  Finally, there are foreign entitles at all levels of asbestos use

and production whose losses or gains are not included in computing welfare
     *  As explained earlier,  deadweight losses- as  referred to  in this  section
 do not  consider  the benefits  side  of regulations.

                                      11-23

                  * * *  DRAFT --'DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE   *  * *

-------
effects on domestic parties.   Welfare effects of the regulatory alternatives




not only must be developed by the nature of the economic entity affected, but




also in terms of whether the entities are included in the U.S. welfare analysis




or not.




     Net changes in domestic and world welfare are distinguished, (net of the




explicit health-related benefits, of course) in this analysis.  Except for the




foreign miners and millers, foreign primary processors, and the foreign




asbestos product purchasers,  all other parties are included in the computation




of net domestic (i.e., U.S.)  welfare changes due to the regulation.  That is,




adding all domestic welfare changes yields the domestic net welfare impact of a




regulatory alternative.  Adding the individual welfare change of all parties




(including foreign entities)  on the other hand, gives the net world welfare




change.  Given the fact that a major share of U.S. fiber supply comes from




foreign suppliers, their share of the producer surplus loss (caused by all




forms of regulation) may be substantial.  Since these foreign losses are not




considered part of U.S. welfare, the impact of the regulations on net U.S.




welfare may be substantially different from their net impact on world welfare.




     Finally, all of the welfare changes computed using the techniques




described in this section are defined relative to a "baseline", which is the




state of the world that would have developed had no regulation been imposed.




In essence, the baseline is the equilibrium that would have existed in the




absence of regulation.  Specifying this baseline is not necessarily easy




because the analysis spans several decades, making the evolution of the many




markets that use asbestos difficult to ignore.  Consequently, modeling future




gains and losses of market participants due to regulatory interventions




requires that the individual markets using asbestos be scrutinized closely to




determine their future paths of growth or decline.






                                     11-24




                  * * *  D1AFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
     One final issue in the baseline specification is that market expectations

about proposed regulatory implementation may affect the baseline definition,

In many instances, market participants anticipate the enactment of regulations,

If this happens, some of the adjustments induced by the policy may occur before

the regulation is actually effective.  However, because of the difficulties of

determining these anticipatory responses, no efforts were made to adjust

baseline values for any endogenous anticipations of market participants.

          3.  SElegujLatojry^^Qptions .....
          Although a number of different regulatory options are reported in

this analysis, these are comprised of different combinations and timing of the

two basic phase-down and product ban alternatives.  Hence, the discussion below

describes the operation of the cost model for a fiber phase-down alone, for

product bans alone, and for a combined fiber phase -down and product ban.

               a.  .Fibe.r___Phase_-D
-------
                    FIGURE  II-2


           FIBER USAGE  PHASEDQWN
                   (Fiber Market-
Price of
Fiber
      :'Capv=:.Q
Fiber Quantity
                 Air Output '•Market-
    ' of
Output
Good
                                    Quantity of
                                    Output Good
                      11-26


     * * *  DRAFT --  DO SOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
period of time is equal to the difference "between P p and P" j» (in the top




panel),  'Since P p represents the value to users of the marginal unit of fiber




and P  p measures the marginal fiber supply price by the competitive producers




of fiber.




     The second consequence is that the total cost of producing fiber-using




outputs rises, reflecting the higher "full" price of fiber (where "full" price




equals the price of the fiber itself plus the value of the right to purchase of




use the fiber).  This increased cost of production of the output goods is




represented as an upward shift of the supply schedules in these output markets




(S gr to S gr in the bottom panel).




     This analysis assumes that the long-run supplies of the output goods using




asbestos fiber are perfectly elastic, so that there is no producer surplus to



                                                                       IT
lose in the long run.  Hence, the supply schedules appear flat, as is S" in




the bottom panel of Figure II-2.*  However, there may be "quasi-rents" that




accrue to factors in these markets and which can be forfeited in the short run




if the price that producers receive falls.  For example, amortization payments




for a factory building are "quasi-rents" which might be foregone for some




period of time if no other economically viable use exists that yields a higher




return.  In the long run, however, these payments are necessary to retain




producers in this industry.  Thus, areas 7 and 8 above the output market short




run supply schedules represent short run producer surpluses.  In the long run,




since the supply curves for the output goods are perfectly elastic, no producer




surplus losses in these markets exist.  Instead, the cost of the regulation




that is borne in these markets is shouldered by consumers of these output




goods.
        The supply function in the fiber market, however,  is  assumed to be both

 the  short-run and the long-run curve.  Hence, producer  surplus  exists in  that

 market  even in the long run.




                                     11-27




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR  CITE   *  * *

-------
     In the efficiency analysis,  three  different areas in these graphs are the

central focus.  These are;

          *    Area_4	in_the£ib_er	market --  the deadweight losses
               borne by factors of production associated with the
               supply of fiber;

          •    Areas	6.._in	the	_Q\itput.jiimarkets   - - the deadweight
               losses borne by consumers  of the  products made from
               asbestos fiber (area  6 in  each output market is taken
               into account); and

          «    Areas 8 in the output, markets  - -  the short run
               deadweight losses  borne  by factors of production
               (other than those  in  the fiber market) associated with
               the supply of each of these different products.

     Areas 4, 6, and 8 represent  the net  burdens imposed on various

participants  in these markets in  the short run (prior to considering the value

of rights to use or purchase fiber).  That is, these areas measure the net

impacts on society after subtracting any  transfers between economic entities.

However, for purposes of performing  distribution analysis, it is precisely the

gross welfare effects and the transfers between economic actors that are of

interest.  To discuss the distribution  of the gains and losses imposed on

various menbers of society, the analysis  must backtrack to gross gains and

losses; the net losses that are the  center of attention in the efficiency

perspective are not sufficient for the  distribution analysis.

     In terms of Figure II-2, the analysis in this section is concerned not

only with areas 4, 6, and 8, but  also with areas 2, 5, and 7.  These

rectangular areas are important because by adding them to the triangles that

are the focus of the efficiency analysis, the gross gains and losses

experienced by the participants in these  markets in the short-run are revealed.

In particular:

          m    Ar.ea,...^... .i.n..i...the,.i...f.ibe.r....BU|rkjjJi;m.i..§,1Ja.dd&d to area 4 to
               obtain the total loss of producer surplus by the
               factors associated with  fiber production;


                                     11-28

                  * * *  DEAFT  -- DO NOT  QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
               Areas 5 in the output markets are added,, to areas 6 to obtain an
               estimate of the gross short rim consumer surplus losses
               experienced in these output markets ;   and
          *    Areas 7 ijCL.the^ output markets ........ .are added to :: areas 8 to
               obtain the gross short run producer surplus losses
               experienced by factors (other than those in the fiber
               market) associated with the production of these output
                  ,  A*
               goods .

     Areas 1 and 3 in the fiber market are precisely equal to the sum of areas

5, 6, 7, and 8 across all of the output markets.  That is,  (1) the sum of areas

5 and 7 in all of the output markets equals area 1 in the fiber market, and (2)

the sum of areas 6 and 8 in the output markets equals area 3 in the fiber

market.  Thus, if 5, 6, 7, and 8 are examined separately, areas 1 and 3 need

not be analyzed.

     With this taxonomy of gross losses, it is possible to understand why the

triangular areas are identified as the net losses to society,  Combined,

rectangular areas 5 , 7 , and 2 measure precisely the total value of the rights

to use or purchase the limited supply of scarce fiber during a phase -down.

This can be understood by noting first that the upward shift of the short-run

supply curve in the output market (from S^sr to S^sr) is caused by the rise in

the "full" price of fiber.  In other words, the "full" price of fiber rises by

the difference between P^p and P°p,  and this price increase is directly

translated into a vertical shift of the short run supply functions in the
     *  The areas under the demand curves in the  output markets represents
strictly speaking, the combined surpluses of the  consumers of final goods and
of "downstream" producers who purchase these intermediate output goods to
fashion final consumption goods.

     **  Note that areas 8 in the output markets  do not incorporate area 4 in
the fiber market for technical reasons.  Basically, since there are multiple
downstream purchasers of fiber, representing fiber market producer surplus in
the output markets is quite difficult using standard  output market supply
functions that have intuitive interpretations.  Therefore, the approach used in
this model measures producer surplus of fiber producers in the fiber market
itself.
                                     11-29

                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE  OR CITE  * * *

-------
output markets.*  therefore, the difference between Pj_ and P.]_ in the output

markets directly reflects the rise in the full price of fiber (P p - P p).  It

is reasonably intuitive, as a consequence, that areas 5 and 7 in the output

markets measure the portion of the total value of rights to use or to purchase

fiber (areas 1+2) represented by area 1 in the fiber market.  Similarly,

areas 6 and 8 in the output markets (when summed across all output markets)

equal area 3 in the fiber market.

     The remainder of the value of the rights to use fiber is produced by the

drop in the supplier price of fiber from P°p to Pp.  In other words, the

value of the rights to use or purchase fiber is derived from the combination of

a rise in the demand price for fiber (from P^j? to P p) and a fall in the price

necessary to pay producers of fiber for their reduced output (P p to

P'^p).  As a result, those who enjoy the right to use or to purchase fiber gain

areas 2, 5, and 7 at the expense of the factors of production in both the fiber

and the output markets, and the consumers of the output goods made with fiber.

Because areas 5 and 7, summed across all output markets, equal area 1 in the

fiber market, the fiber users' gain can be measured as the sum of areas 1 and 2

in the fiber market.  Areas 4, 6, and 8 can be identified as the deadweight, or

social loss in this framework.  All of the rectangular areas represent

transfers from the three groups of market participants to those who have the

right to use or purchase fiber; after subtracting  these transfers from gross

losses, only the triangular areas  (4, 6, and 8) remain.
     *  The assumption that the higher  "full"  price of fiber is  not completely
passed on  to the buyers of output  goods is  significant.   Because this  is  a
short-run  analysis,  the producers  in the output markets  bear some of the  burden
of  the regulation.   In fact,  the extent to  which consumer (or gross) prices  do
not rise by the full amount of the increased fiber price, translated into
production cost increases for the  output goods, indicates the extent to which
producers  bear this  burden.  Thus,  (PQ  - P_j_)  is commonly thought of as a
measure of the proportion of the total  burden of the regulation  (P  -  B_]_)
borne by producers In the output markets.

                                      11-30

                  *  * *  DRAFT --  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
     Although this analysis identifies all losses and transfers across markets,




it is necessary to distinguish between the burden borne by domestic and foreign




parties.  First of all, the rights to use or purchase fiber are welfare gains




which are assumed normally to accrue only to domestic parties.  However, a




major share (approximately 92%) of the producer surplus loss in the fiber




market is borne by foreign miners and millers because they are major suppliers




of asbestos fiber to the United States.  On the other hand, the distribution of




downstream output market losses is dependent on the trade orientation of each




individual market.  If a market is export oriented, i.e., domestic consumption




is less than the domestic production, all consumer and producer surplus losses




are borne by domestic parties -- foreign purchasers do not bear any losses.  It




is assumed that they can switch to alternative sources of asbestos product




supply and will do so rather than pay a higher price to U.S. producers.  For




markets with no trade, all losses are obviously borne by domestic parties.  For




markets with an import orientation,  i.e., domestic consumption is greater than




domestic production, all consumer surplus losses are borne by domestic




purchasers.  However, since foreign  primary processors are assumed to be




identical in terms of short-run producer surplus to their domestic




counterparts, producer surplus losses in these markets are borne by domestic




and foreign primary processors in the ratio of the amounts supplied.




               b.  Pro duct Bang




               Figure II-3 shows graphically the impact of banning one  or more




output goods on the fiber market  (top panel), a representative non-banned




market  (middle panel), and a representative banned market  (bottom panel).  The




mechanics of staged ban regulation are simpler than those described in  the




previous section  for fiber usage phase-down.  First, the price of fiber falls,




since the product bans reduce  the derived demand for fiber.   Consequently, the






                                      11-31




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR  CITE  * *  *

-------
                  FIGURE II-3
                STAGED BAN
               Fiber Market
 Price of
 Fiber
                 Q,  Q0
Quantity of
Fiber
       A Non-Banned Output Market
Price of
Output
Good
                                Output Good
        A Banned Output Market
 Price of
 Output
 Good
                         Quantity of
                         Output Good
                 11-32
            ._ nn
                          ni? r.TTir.  * * *

-------
remaining users of fiber are made better off.  In the top panel of Figure II-3,




the fiber market derived demand curve is shifted inward, reflecting the product




bans.  Since fiber supply is upward-sloping, the price of fiber falls from P y




to Pp.  The gross loss of fiber market producer surplus is the sum of areas 2




and 4  (top panel of Figure II-3), and the gain to the remaining purchasers of




fiber, i.e., the output-markets that are not banned, is area 2. The fall in




price  of fiber results in a drop in the price, from P0 to P-j_, of the output




products in the non-banned markets,  The gain in consumer surplus in each




non-banned output market is the sum of areas 5' and 6'  (middle panel of




Figure II-3).  Area 2 corresponds to the sum of areas 5' and 6' across all the




remaining (non-banned) output markets.  Area 4 in the fiber market is the




"deadweight" loss borne by the factors of production associated with the supply




of fiber.




     The bottom panel of Figure II-3 shows  the losses borne by the banned




markets.  Area 6 identifies the consumer surplus loss.  Since this analysis




assumes that long-run supplies of output goods using asbestos fiber are




perfectly elastic, there are no producer surpluses to lose in the long run.




However, there may be "quasi-rents" that accrue to factors in these markets




which  can be forfeited in the short-run.  Thus, areas 8 above the banned output




markets' supply schedules represent short run producer  surplus losses,




     Finally, the analytical distinction between domestic and foreign parties




can now be made clear.  As before, a major  share of producer surplus loss in




the fiber market is borne by foreign miners and millers.  The remaining




producer surplus loss is borne by their domestic counterparts.  Consumer




surplus losses in banned markets are borne  totally by domestic purchasers




whereas consumer surplus gains in non-banned markets are shared by domestic and











                                   -  11-33




                  * * * ' DRAFT - - DO MOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                                                            *&
foreign purchasers in the ratio of their respective demands.   This is so

because foreign purchasers will not be affected by product bans given their

alternative sources of supply.  On the other hand, "quasi-rent" losses in all

banned markets are borne by domestic and foreign primary processors in the

ratio of the amounts supplied.

               c.  Combinations of Fiber Phase-Down___and Product Bans.

               Figure II-4 shows graphically the impact of banning one or more

output goods followed by imposing a cap on the total usage of  fiber.  The ban

of certain output goods results in a reduced derived demand for fiber, shown by

the inward movement of the derived demand in the top panel.  A cap on the total

fiber usage is then imposed on the recomputed derived demand  (Qinter^•  ^ie

bans reduce the demand for fiber from Q0 to Qj_nter a^d the cap further reduces

fiber consumption and production to QQ to Qinter-  f^e mechanics  of modeling

this regulation are in two stages.  First, the staged ban element of the

regulation is simulated.  This causes an "intermediate" drop  in the price of

fiber since the product bans  reduce the derived demand of fiber to Q-Lnter-  ^s

in subsection b, areas 6 and  8 in the banned markets are computed and represent

loss of consumer surplus and  "quasi-rents" respectively (bottom panel of

Figure II-4).  However, since this is an intermediate step for the non-banned

output markets no computations are made for them.  The second stage  involves

the effects of  the fiber cap, which reduces fiber consumption and production to

Q]_ (top panel of Figure II-4).  From this point on the analysis  is similar  to
      •4*
         The only  gain  to  foreigners  accrues  to foreign purchasers,  given a.
 decrease in the price  of  downstream  products caused by a staged ban.   This is
 the  net   gain  to  foreign  purchasers  (prior to adding the losses suffered by the
 foreign  primary processors  and foreign domestic miners and millers) and accrues
 to the purchasers of goods  produced  by U.S.  primary processors.  The net gain
 to the remaining  foreign  fiber producers and purchasers (who purchase goods
 produced by non-U.S. primary  processors) due to the drop in the price of
 asbestos fiber caused  by  a  staged ban is captured by the slope of the asbestos
 fiber supply curve.

                                      11-34

                   * *  *   DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                           FIGURE II-4


COMBINATION OF STAGED BAN AND FIBER USAGE PHASEDOWN
                       Fiber Market
           Price of
           Fiber
                Cap=QI     QINTER Q0  Quantity
                                      of Fiber
               A Non-Banned Output Market
          Price of
          Output
          Good
                                   Quantity of
                                   Output Good
                 A Banned Output Market
          Price of
          Output
          Good
                qt-0
                            11-35
Quantity of
      Good
           * * * DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE * * *

-------
that described in subsection a.  The result of this restriction of fiber usage

translates into two effects of interest.  First, the value of the right to use

or purchase a. unit of fiber has a positive price if the fiber cap is effective

in reducing consumption.  That is, as long as Qj_ is less than Qj^ter' these

rights are valuable.  The value of the right to purchase, sell, or use one unit

of fiber in this period of time is equal to the difference between P-*-p and P"

•"-p, since P^p represents the value to the remaining users of the marginal unit

of fiber and P" p measures the marginal fiber supply price by the competitive

producers of fiber.

     The second consequence, as before, is that the total cost of producing

fiber-using output rises, reflecting the higher "full" price of fiber.  This

increased cost of production of the non-banned output goods is represented as

an upward shift of the supply schedules in these output markets (S gr to S sr\ ,

as shown in the middle panel of Figure II-4.

     Areas 1-8 in the fiber and the non-banned output markets have the same

interpretation as that in subsection a.  However,  (1) area 1 in the fiber

market equals the sum of areas 5 and 7 in all the  non-banned output markets,

and (2) area 3 in the fiber market equals the sum  of areas 6 and 8 in all the

non-banned output markets.

     The triangular areas in all three panels of Figure II-4 are the

"deadweight" losses.  These are:

          •    Area 4 in thefiber market which represents the
               deadweight losses borne by factors  of production
               associated with the supply of fiber; and

          *    Areas 6 and 8.. in^the output markets which represent
               the deadweight losses borne by consumers of the
               products made from asbestos fiber and the short-run
               deadweight losses borne by factors  of production
               (other than those in the fiber market) associated with
               the supply of each  of these different products
               respectively.


                                     11-36

                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR  CITE  * * *

-------
     The rectangular areas in Figure II-4 are important for identifying gross

losses and gains experienced by market participants.  In particular:

          *    Area 2... in.	the	fiber	market._ i s added to are a 4  to
               obtain the total loss of producer surplus by the
               factors associated with fiber production;

          •    Ar.ea....5._ in the non-banned output ^markets	ar.e....added__..tQ
               are a 6 in all output marke ts to obtain an estimate  of
               the gross consumer surplus losses experienced  in  all
               output markets;

          •    Are a 7 _inthe	non-bannedLoutput .markets are added to
               areaj^.in all...output markets to obtain an estimate  of
               the gross short-run producer surplus losses
               experienced by factors (other than those in the fiber
               market) associated with the production of all  goods;
               and

          •    Area....!	in___the.._...£lbe_r___market is added to area .2  to
               obtain the total value of the rights inherent  in  the
               allocation of the limited supply of scarce fiber
               dur ing the phas e-down.

     The distinction between domestic and foreign parties is  exactly  as  in the

case where only fiber usage phase-down was implemented, with  the exception of

losses in the banned markets,

               d,  groduct__ExemptloTis

               Some of the alternatives considered call for exemptions of

certain product categories from the regulatory mechanism.  In the  "product bans

only" alternatives, the exempted product categories get fiber at the  world

supply price based on the equilibrium that exists in after the required

products have been banned.   In the case of phase-down of  fiber usage, the

regulated products pay the "full price" of fiber whereas  the  exempted products

pay the "supply price" of fiber based on the  "cap" quantity and the  quantity

demanded by the exempted products.  In either  case, the fiber price  facing the
     *  Alternatively,  the measure of  the value  of these rights can be obtained
by the sum of area 2 in the fiber market and areas 5 and 7 in the non-banned
output markets.


                                     11-37

                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
exempted products under regulation is lower than the price in the baseline, and



therefore, a net consumer surplus gain accrues to the exempted product markets.




               d.  Engineering Controls



               The product categories that are exempted from regulation may be



                                                                      *$*
subject to alternative regulation in the form of engineering controls.   The




per unit cost of engineering controls is first offset against the decrease in




the price of the product (due to a lower fiber price facing the exempted




products).  If the cost increase due to the engineering controls exceeds the



cost decrease due to declining fiber prices, this net cost increase is




transmitted as a higher product price, thereby causing consumer surplus losses




as well.  Because it is possible for the decreased cost of fiber to be larger




or smaller than the increased costs associated with the engineering controls,




the net welfare impact on exempted markets subject to engineering controls




cannot be ascertained a priori.
       This  is  true  in  the  sensitivity  analyses  for  aftermarket  drum brake pads

and disc brake  linings  for  light  & motor vehicles.



                                      11-38



                  *  * *  DRAFT  -- DO  NOT QUOTE OR CITE   * *  *

-------
III.  0414 FOR ESTIMATIHG_CQSTS	.AND BENJFITS




     The previous chapter outlined the basic theoretical structure of the




models used to estimate the costs and benefits of the various regulatory




alternatives for controlling exposure to asbestos.  As that discussion makes




clear, a large amount of data is required to produce quantitative estimates of




these costs and benefits.  This chapter presents these input data in as concise




and understandable a form as possible.  Details of the derivations of the data




and the sources used appear in appendices referenced throughout this chapter.




     A.  Data Inputs,	for Estimating Benefits




     The input data for the benefits estimation divide into several distinct




groups -- exposure data, dose-response data, and background information on




population characteristics, mortality rates, and cure rates for the cancers




analyzed in this study.  This section presents these groups of data used in the




benefits estimation procedures.




          1.  Data Inputs for__Estimat:ing .Exposure,




          Quantitative benefits estimates under each of the various regulatory




alternatives depend on how far below the baseline exposure are the estimated




exposures under each regulatory alternative.  This, in turn, depends on the




output of each product and the number of people exposed and exposure level in




each setting under the relevant regulatory alternative.  Thus, from an




analytical perspective, the benefits of a given regulatory alternative are




driven by the difference between the exposures in the baseline and the




exposures under the regulation.




     As outlined in the previous chapter, the health effects of exposure to




asbestos products manufactured between 1987  and 2000 are estimated on a




product-by-product basis.  For each product, the population at risk is




subdivided into the following exposure categories t






                                     III-l




                  * *  *  DRAFT  --  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
          *    Primary manufacturing,  both occupational and
               nonoccupational;

          H    Secondary manufacturing,  both occupational and
               nonoccupational;

          •    Installation, both occupational and nonoccupational;

          •    Use, both occupational and nonoccupational; and

          •    Disposal or repair, both occupational and
               nonoccupational.

     Occupational exposure occurs among individuals employed in the

manufacture, installation, use,  and repair or disposal of the asbestos product.

Nonoccupational exposure can be subdivided into ambient exposure and consumer

exposure.   Ambient exposure o'ccurs among persons living or working close to the

site of manufacture, use, repair, or disposal of the product.  Consumer

exposure occurs among those consumers who personally install, use, repair, or

dispose of the asbestos product.

     For each exposure category for each product, data on the mean level of

exposure and the number of people-exposed in a single year from products

manufactured in 1985 have been derived from compilations of exposure data

presented in detail in Versar (1987) and ICF (1988).  In general, the

occupational exposure information was generated using emissions estimates

produced by ICF while the nonoccupational data were estimated using emissions

estimates developed by ICF and dispersion modelling by Versar (1988).  Appendix

A.4 of this RIA reviews the calculations and assumptions used to develop the

detailed inputs for the benefits model from the information provided in the ICF

and Versar studies.

     The complete set of estimated exposure levels and numbers of people

exposed is presented in Tables III-l through III-5.  These tables report both

occupational and nonoccupational populations exposed and levels of exposure in

the five categories of asbestos-related activities based on 1985 estimates of

                                     III-2

                  * * *  .DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                                       TABLE III-l. EXEQSUBE LEVELS  (IH MILLIOHS FIBERS  IUHALED PER YEAR)  AND HUMBER OF PERSOHS EXPOSED


                                                    10 miMAR? HANUFACTOHIHG PRODUCTS FOE QCCUPATXOHAL AHD RON-OCCUPATIONAL SEIIIK6S
O
o
o


§
H



f
(-3
M
o

M
1-3

W
 *


 *
1-1

M
                                                                             Occupational




                                                                    No,  of People     Mil. Fib./Yr
                                                                                                               Noisoccupational




                                                                                                  Bo. of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16,
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23,
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Mlllboarci
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Soofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
DrraB Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, OT
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transtniss, CoBp,
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatin$s
Ron-Roofing Coatings
Asb, Reinforced Plastics
Missile iinara
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Braka Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, LM? (A/M)
Mining and Milling


12
35
235
27

206


2

650
286
53

11
421
140
15
283
239
11
191

78
167
9
582
553
157
380
134
207
2
1,14+
776
155


145
134
110
113




111

87
270
47B

473
385
390
385
377
406
113
398

4S7
208
198
273
220
164
220
220


385
390
121


5,7*7,875
4,847,937
37,082,888
254,772






19,744,593
3,313,602
21,232,368

891,143
.9,292,154
3,681,659
1,704,883
9,785,424
8,761,571

12,922,247

16,306,866
43,468,616
7,031,484
84,570,429
70,389,388
19,923,386




25,249,953
20,383,263
841,214


0.0232
0.0476
0.0373
0.405






0.00000185
0.167
0.0218

0.00361
0.0575
0.0214
0.000000827
0.00388
0.0027

0.00234

0.00214
0.00561
0.0000534
0.00233 '
0.0000394
0.0018




0.0575
0.0214
0.407

-------
                                        TABLE  III-2.  EXPOSURE LETOLS (IN MILLIONS FIBERS INHALED PER YBAR)  AND HUMBES OF PEESONS EXPOSED
                                                    TO SECONDARY MAHHFACTlfRING PEDDOCTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL AMD RON-OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS
 I
 "fj
 H
 O
 o
 ES    M
 s    a
€    *
 S
 M
 O
o
H
 *

 *

 *
                                                                             Occupational                            Nonocoupational


                                                                    No. of People     Mil. Fib./Yr      Ho. of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7,
8.
9,
10.
11.
12.
13,
14.
15,
16.
17.
18,
19.
20.
21,
22,
23.
24,
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32,
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Hoofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (OEM)
Disc Braka Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transmiss, Comp.
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn ate.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Hon~Soo£ing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant Taps
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Braka fads, LW (A/M)
Mining and Milling


448

1,296
30




149






731
46

19
4e

28

208
885
25


529




1,988
254



57

57
57




57






125
146

127
166

195

408
276
276


239




125
146


-------
                                       TABLE III-3. EXPOSURE LEVELS (IS MILLIONS FIBERS INHALED PER fEM) AMD MJMBER OP PEKSQHS EXPOSED

                                                   TO  INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS  FOR OCCUPATIONAL AMD NON-OCCUPATIONAL  SEIIIHSS
                                                                            Occupational                            Boiioccupatlonal




                                                                   No. o£  People     Mil.  Fib./Yr       Ho.  of People         Mil.  Fib./Yr
 *


 o
 O
 O



 I


•a
 o
 H
O
n
M
 *


 *
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Conmerclal Paper
Sollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt 396
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corragated Paper
Specialty Papar
V/A Floor Hie
Diaphragpis
A/C Pipe 933
A/C Flat Sheet 49
A/C Corrugated Sheet 7
A/C Shingles 323
Drum Brake Linings 
-------
                                           TABLE III-4.  EXPOSURE LEVELS (IH MILLIONS FIBERS INHALED PEE YEAR)  AHD HUMEEE OF PERSONS
                                                       EXPOSED 10 OSE OF FHODtlCTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL ABB NOK-OCCUPATIOHAL SETTINGS
                                                                            Occupational

                                                                   So. of People     Mil. Fib./Yr
                                                                                  Nonoecupational

                                                                     Ro. of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
O
o
g
H
S
w
o
M
H

*
*
 1.  Commercial Paper
 2.  Sollboacd
 3.  Millboard
 4.  Pipeline Hrap
 S.  Beater-add Gaskets
 6.  High-grade Elect. Paper
 7,  Roofing Felt
 8.  Acetylene Cylinders
 9.  Flooring Felt
10.  Corrugated Paper
11.  Specialty Pajpar
12.  V/A Floor Tile
13.  Diaphragms
14.  A/C Pipe
15.  A/C Flat Sheet
16.  A/C Corrugated Sheet
17.  A/C Shingles
18.  Drum Braka Linings (OEM)
19.  Disc Braka Pads, LMV (OEM)
20.  Disc Braka Pads, SV
21.  Brake Blocks
22,  Clutch Facings
23.  Auto. Transffiiss. Camp,
24.  Frictioti Materials
25.  Protective Clothing
26,  Thread, yarn etc.
27,  Sheet Gaskets
28.  Asbestos Packings
29.  Soof Coatings
30.  Son-Roofing Coatings
31.  Asb. Reinforced Plastics
32.  Missile Liners
33.  Sealant Tape
34,  Battery Separators
35.  Arc Chutes
36.  Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
37.  Bisc Brake Pads, LM? (A/M)
38.  Mining and Milling
                                                                                                         60,943,018
                                                                                                         34,659,752

                                                                                                        226,546,000
                                                                                                                                 0.00058
                                                                                                                                 0.00064

                                                                                                                                  0.0061
                                                                                                        165,602,982
                                                                                                        191,886,248
                                                                                                                                 0.00058
                                                                                                                                 0.00064

-------
                                       TABLE III-5. EXPOSURE LEVELS (IH MILLIONS FIBERS IHHALEB PER YEAR) AHD BOMBER OF PERSONS EXPOSED

                                                    TO REPAIR/DISPOSAL OF PRODUCTS  FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND HOR-QCCBPAtlGNAL SETTINGS
                                                                             Occupational



                                                                    Ho.  of People     Mil,  Fib./YE
             Sonoc cupational



Ho. of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
 *

 *

o

?
IT)
O
o

53
O
t-3
O
H
O


o
M

w


if
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
11.
12.
13,
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23,
24.
25.
26.
27,
28.
29.
30.
31.
32,
33.
34,
35.
36.
37.
38,
Cownerctal Paper
Rollbaard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt 263
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Fait
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sh«8t 61
A/C Corrugated Sheet 9
A/C Shingles 225
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, HV 117
Brake Blocks 3,985
Clutch Facings 73
Auto. Transmiss. Consp.
Friction Materials 43
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn ate.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Hon~Roo£ing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant Taps
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M) 86,398
Disc Brake Pads, LM9 (A/M) 32,568
Hining and Milling






296 171,136,373 0.0000067







2,080 171,136,373 0.0000173
2,080 171,136,373 0.0000025
244 171,136,373 0.0000067
49,442,265 0.0123
27,453,272 0.00624
390 170,871,494 0.000000587
388 170,871,494 0.0000171
125

120











378 134,351,509 0.0123
386 151,989,122 0.00624


-------
asbestos-related production activities.  In some cases, additional information




useful for developing exposure estimates exists concerning production




activities after 1985,  In the exposure assessment study (IGF 1988), this




information was taken into account.  Similarly, this additional information is




taken into account in the cost/benefit modeling through the estimated future




growth rates for each asbestos-containing product.  Hence, to render the




exposure information reported in the exposure assessment document consistent




with the time frame of the cost/benefit calculation models, the exposure data




developed in the exposure assessment was adjusted (as outlined in Appendix A.4




of this RIA) from post-1985 production activity levels to 1985 production




activity levels.  These adjustments are then "undone" as the cost model moves




through the early years of the simulation period.




     In each table, when no data are listed for a particular product or




exposure setting, this means that no data were available for the particular




product and exposure category.  In many of these cases, no exposure occurs.




However, if in some cases exposures occur even though no data are available,




the estimated benefits for the regulatory alternatives will be biased downward.




One of the analyses conducted to determine the sensitivity of the cost/benefit




results focuses on this lack of exposure information.  The results of that




analysis are discussed in Chapter  IV of this RIA.  Finally, as  the tables




indicate, the light/medium vehicle disc and drum brakes are separated into the




original equipment and aftermarkets.   This is necessary because one of  the




regulatory alternatives treats the aftemarket differently from the original




equipment market.  In particular,  the  aftermarket is banned a number of years




after the original equipment market in Regulatory Alternative J,  The exposure




estimates presented for these two  brake markets separated  into  the original




equipment and aftermarkets were derived from overall brake market exposures  and






                                      III-8




                  * * *  DRAFT  --  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE *  * *

-------
concentrations as outlined in Appendix A.4 of this RIA.




          2,  Data. Inputs irfor	grojecting__Health .Effects.




     As discussed, in the previous chapter, the dose-response relationships used




to estimate cancers attributable to asbestos exposure are the linear no-




threshold dose-response relationships proposed by Nicholson (1983).  In




addition to the exposure information, the following data inputs are also used




in the projections of health effects.




     Dose-responseconstants were estimated using data from human studies of




asbestos related diseases.   As Table III-6 indicates, these vary in magnitude




considerably.  The values for the dose-response constants used in this analysis




are the mean values proposed by the CPSC  (1983) of l.OE-2 (f-yr/cc)"^ for lung




cancer and l.OE-8 (f-yr/cc)~^- for mesothelioma.




     The unit .measure.	for^exposure.., level  in the equations used in the OSHA




analysis is fibers per cubic centimeter  (f/cc).  These equations were developed




from studies that used disease data from  occupationally exposed workers with a




typical exposure of 8 hours per day, 250  days per year and a breathing rate of




1.3 cu m/hour.  For a worker so exposed,  an exposure level of 1 f/cc is




equivalent to 2,600 million fibers breathed per year (1 x 1,000,000 x 1.3 x 8 x




250).  However, OSHA's dose-response relationships are used in this study for




exposure categories and activities where  exposure levels, breathing rates, and




hours-exposed-per-year may all be different than those for a full-time worker.




Hence, the exposure levels for these other categories  in terms of millions-of-




fiber-breathed-per-year were derived based on the exposure time, estimated




breathing rate, and numbers of days per year for each  exposure category and




setting in this study.  The resulting estimates of exposure -- in terms of




millions of fibers breathed per year -- were then divided by a normalizing




factor of 2,600 millions of fibers per year to  convert these exposure levels






                                     HI.9




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT  QUOTE  OR CITE * * *

-------
        Table III-6.  Estimated Values of Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma
                            Dose-Response Constants
                                     Estimated "Value        Estimated Value
         Mortality Study           Lung Cancer Constant  Mesothelioma Constant

                                       (f-yr/cc)-1           (f-yr/cc)'1
Finkelstein et al.  1983                    4.8 E-2                1.2  1-7

Seidman et al. 1979, pp. 61-89             6.8 E-2                5.7  E-8

Dement et al.  1982                        2.3-4,4 E-2

Selikoff et al. 1979, pp. 569-585          1.0 E-2                1.5  E-8

Peto 1980, pp. 829-836                     1.0 E-2                7,0  E-10

Henderson and Enterline 1979,            3.3-5.0 E-3
  pp. 117-126

Hughes and tfeill 1980, pp. 627-637         3.1 E-3

Rubino et al.  1979                          1.7 E-3

Nicholson et al.  1979                      1.2 E-3

McDonald et al. 1980                       6,0 E-4

Berry and Newhouse  1983, pp. 1-7           6,0 E-4


Source:  Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Asbestos.  1983 (July),   Report  to
         the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Washington B.C.
          p. 11-129.
                                    111-10

                 * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
into OSHA's full-time-equivalent worker exposure level  (measured as f/cc)




before use in the dose-response relationships.




     For all products and exposure categories, future exposure  levels are




assumed to remain constant at the levels presented in the exposure data tables




(Tables III-l through III-5 in the previous subsection).  Changes in production




levels are assumed to change the number of people exposed,




     Age-specific £ive-year__death rates, for	lung____cancer.|t. ...gastrointestinal




cancer, mesothelioma.and,all.other causes attributable  to agbestosexposure




and to background„causes	are ..estimated.^.  This analysis  assumes  that




mesothelioma death rates do not depend on  age, sex, race, or smoking habits.




However, excess lung cancer and gastrointestinal cancer  death rates and other




mortality rates do vary according to these demographic  characteristics.  For




simplicity, it is assumed that the nonoccupational population is identical to




the U.S. population in terms of sex, race, and smoking habits,  and age




distribution for 1980 (see Table III-7) and will remain constant until 2000.




All occupational categories are assumed to have the  same  demographic




characteristics and stay constant until 2000.  These are  estimated from




industry data for 1983 (see Table III-7),  Smoking habits are assumed  to be the




same as in the general population.  If the population was allowed to change




over time, the benefits estimates would be lower.  For  all products and




exposure categories, future exposure levels are assumed to remain constant at




the levels presented in the exposure data tables  (Tables III-l  through III-5 in




the previous subsection).  Changes in production  levels are  assumed to change




the number of people exposed.




     Age-specific five-year baseline lung cancer  rates  were  taken from the




Vital  Statistics  of the United States for 1977  (U.S. Department of Health and




Human  Services, 1981).  Baseline lung cancer  for  the year 1990  is projected






                                     III-ll




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE   * *  *

-------
   Table III-7.  Sex,  Race, and Age Distribution of Exposed Populations
                          Pr op_Qr_t io_n_o£_JEopul at ion (Bee imal Share1
       Characteristic          Occupational     Nonoccupational


                                   1983               1980
         Sex

         Male                       0.79                0.49
         Female                     0.21                0.51

         Race

         White                      0.88                0.88
         Nonwhite                   0.12                0.12

         Age
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
- 9
- 19
- 29
- 39
- 49
- 59
- 69
- 79
- 89
0.0
0.1
0.205
0.210
0.193
0.175
0.117
0.0
0.0
0.146
0.174
0.176
0.139
0.108
0.099
0.083
0.055
0.020
Sources:   For occupational:   Research Triangle
          Institute 1985 (August).   Regulatory Impact
          Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos
          Products.  Prepared for the Office of Pesticides
          and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA.   Washington, D.C.
          Appendix B.  For nonoccupational: UDOC.  1980.
          U.S.  Department of the Census.   Statistical
          Abstract of the United States.   Washington B.C.:
          Bureau of the Census.
                                111-12

             * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
using the 1977 rates and Inflated for the older cohorts as suggested in Doll

and Peto (1981),   Increases of 2 percent per year for men over 50 and 4 percent

per year for women over 40 are assumed.  These increases are projected because

of past increases in smoking.  Since smoking rates have been declining in

recent years, the projected 1990 lung cancer death rates are likely to

overstate the baseline death rates that will be observed in the twenty-first

century.

     Five-year death rates for all causes by sex, race, and age are estimated

based on the 1978 U.S. life tables and are assumed to remain constant in the

future (Cooper et al. 1983).  All persons alive at age 89 are assumed to die

during their ninetieth year.

     Finally, to estimate the avoided cases of cancer from the estimates of

avoided cancer deaths, the cure rates for the three asbestos-related cancers

are estimated from the equation:

        (Relative survival rate at time t)  =  c + (1-c) (1-b)*-

where:

          c »•  cancer cure rate (the proportion of people with
               the disease for whom it is no longer life
               threatening);

          b =  annual mortality rate for dying patients; and

          t =  time  since diagnosis (years).

     Estimated values for both c and b are obtained using publicly available

data on survival for lung cancer, gastrointestinal cancer (Axtell et al. 1986)

and mesothelioma (Chahinian  1982).  The values of the cure rates estimated and

used in the analysis are 8 percent for lung cancer, 36 percent for

gastrointestinal cancer, and 2 percent for mesothelioma.  The cure rates were

used to convert estimates of cancer deaths  to estimates of cancer cases as

follows:  Cases  =   Deaths / (1 - Cure Rate).


                                     111-13

                  *  * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
     B.  Data,InputsforEstimating Costs

     As Is apparent from the discussion of the theoretical approach for

estimating the costs presented in the previous chapter, a large amount of

detailed information is required to develop quantitative estimates of the

regulatory alternatives' costs using these approaches.  This section presents

the data used in developing quantitative cost estimates for the various

regulatory options.  Detailed presentations of the derivations of and sources

for the data appear in the Appendices to this report, as noted below.

     The data elements required as inputs for the Asbestos Regulatory Cost

Model  (ARCM) consist of three separate classes of data: (1) data required for

each separate asbestos product market, (2) information on substitutes for each

asbestos product, and (3) data on the asbestos fiber market.  This section

describes these groups of input data and reports the values of the variables

used in the model,   Of course, all of these data interact in the ARCM to

produce year-by-year estimates of quantities, prices, and related information

for both the baseline and the regulatory scenarios, as shown in the following

chapter.'  Hence, the purpose here is simply to indicate what these input values

are and in which appendix more detail is provided on derivations and sources.

               a.  Data for Asbestos PrQduct..iMarket.s

               The data required for each asbestos product market consist of:

          •    Baseline prices and domestic production quantities for
               all product markets in 1985.
        The model is designed to accept information for any year as input.  To
avoid confusion, we refer to 1985 as this is the year for which all data are
available at the time of writing.

                                     111-14

                  * * *  DRAFT --DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
          •    Amount of asbestos (In tons) used per unit of output,  In all
               output markets.  This coefficient can be derived if information
               on the amount of asbestos fiber used in each output market (for
               the same data year) is available.  It "is computed as the ratio
               of the amount of asbestos fiber used by a market to the baseline
               output quantity produced.  In the remainder of this section this
               coefficient is referred to as the Product Asbestos Coefficient
               (PAG).

          i    The service life of the asbestos product.  This is
               necessary for calculating the present values of
               substitute prices.

          •    The consumption-production ratio for all output
               markets.  This ratio captures the import-export
               orientation of each market and can be computed by
               taking the ratio of domestic consumption to domestic
               production of output goods.   A value greater than one
               implies an import orientation, and a value less than
               one implies an export orientation.

          «    Baseline output quantities for all product markets,
               for the specified period.  These are obtained by
               applying the annual growth rates developed in the
               Baseline Projections Model described in Appendix A.I
               to the output quantity data available for the data
               year.

          •    Quasi-rents (i.e., short-run producer surplus) per
               unit of output and the duration of these quasi-rents,
               by market.

     The first four of these six pieces of information required for the ARCM

were obtained through an extensive survey of asbestos product manufacturers and

importers designed to update previous information on asbestos markets and

products.  This results of this survey are reported in detail in Appendix F.

Based on the survey,  Table III-8 reports for each product, the (1) the baseline

quantity (1985 value), (2) the baseline price (1985 value), (3) the ratio of

imports to domestic production, (4) ratio of asbestos fiber usage per unit of

the product, and (5)  the service life of the asbestos product.  Again, as the

table indicates, there are 35 distinct asbestos product categories.  In

modeling the effects of the various regulatory alternatives, however, two

product categories, drum and disc brakes for light/medium vehicles, have been


                                     111-15

                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO.NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                                                        TABLE III-8.  ASBESTOS PRODUCT HAEKET DATA USED IN MCM
O
o
<§
O
H
M
 o
 H
 1-3
 PS
 *

 *

1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.
28.
29.
30.

31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Product Category
Co-iHBercial Paper
Kollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt*
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Papers
Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
Asbestos-Cement Pipe
Flat A-C Sheets
Corrugated A-C Sheets*
A-C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LW COEM)
Disc Brake Pads CHV)
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Transmission Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos, Thread, Yarn, and
Other Cloth
Asbestos Sheet Basketing
Asbestos Packing
Hoof Coatings and Cements
Hon-Roofing Coatings, Compounds,
and Sealants
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, LM9 
-------
divided into the original equipment market and the aftermarket, the latter of




which refers to replacements of brakes.  This is to facilitate analysis of




options that regulate the original equipment and aftermarket sectors




differently (e.g., Regulatory Alternative J).  In addition, two product




categories -~ "battery separators and arc chutes -- are not simulated due to




lack of detailed information on substitutes for these products.  These are




extremely small users of asbestos, so their absence from the explicit




simulation is not likely to affect the quantitative estimates of the costs and




benefits of the regulatory alternatives for the other products.  Arc chutes and




battery separators are, however, intended to be included in the product bans or




phase-downs of fiber use over time (their exclusion from the simulation is not




intended to indicate an exemption).  As a result, while there are 35 physically




distinct product categories, the analysis operates in terms of 37 separate




products because of the possibly different regulatory treatment for the two




brake product markets, of which 35 are actually included in the simulations.




     The baseline growth rates for each product were developed for three




alternative scenarios.  The "High Decline" scenario is based on the actual




growth rates experienced in each of these product markets  from 1981 to 1985,




These two years were selected as basepoints  for computing  these growth rates




because these are the two years with the most complete information:  1981 was




the TSCA Section 8(a) reporting requirement, which yielded a fairly complete




accounting of asbestos use, and 1985 is the year for which data were collected




in the IGF Asbestos Market survey.  The term decline is used because virtually




all products experienced negative rates of growth during this period.  Thus,




the "High Decline" scenario uses the actual  negative rates of growth for each




product to project the baseline usage  of fiber and the output  of the products




through time.  This is reported in Table III-9 as "High Decline".






                                     111-17




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  *  * *

-------
     TABLE XII-9.   BASELIKE SEOWTH HATES OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:  1985-2000
                                                  Growth Sates  1985-2000 (X)

1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6,
7.
8.
9.
10,
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17,
18.
19,
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35,
36.
37.
Product, Category
Commercial Paper
Sollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Sooting Fait
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet , Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LtW (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads (W)
Brake Blocks
Clwteh Facings
Automatic Transmission Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sb««t Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Hoofing Coatings
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, Wff (A/M)
Low
Decline .
n/a
n/a
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00 a
n/a
n/a
0.00
n/a
0.00
0.00
0.00 b
0.00
0.00
c
c
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00 d
0,00
B/«
0.00
0.00
0.00 e
0.00 t
0.00 g
0.00 h
0,00
0.00
A**
***
c
c
Moderate
Decline
n/a
n/a
-16.15
-19.51
-5.39
-0,14
0.00
-8. 41 a
n/a
n/a
-16.25
n/a
0.00
-5.98
-26,36 b
0.00
-4.89
e
e
-17.67
-15.96
-0.27
0.00 d
-8.13
n/a
-16.96
-11.59
-14,92 e
-0.76 f
-13.94 S
-10,48 h
0,00
3,27
**#
ftAft
C
C
High
Decline
n/a
n/a
-32.31
-39.03
-10,77
-0,28
0,00
-16.82 a
n/a
n/a
-32.50
n/a
0.00
-11.95
-52.72 b
0.00
-9.78
c
0
-35.33
-31.93
-0.54
0.00 d
-16,26
n/a
-33.92
-23.17
-29,84 e
-1,53 f
-27.89 g
-20.96 h
0.00
6.54
***
***
c
0
   a Growth rate for 1985-86 is -21.42%.

   b Growth rate for 1985-86 is -77,172,

   c Growth rates for this category are based on the Brakes  Model and are different for
     each year.   See next table for all growth rates.

   d Growth rate for 1985-86 is -54.70%, for 1986-87 is -78,302, and for 1987-88 is -4,40%.

   e Growth sate for 1985-86 is -66.67%.

   f Growth rats for 1985-86 is -26.33%.

   g Growth rate for 1985-86 is -19.41%,

   h Growth rate for 1985-86 is -12.102,

n/a; Not applicable as products are no longar made or sold in the United States,

 *** fhis product is not Included in the ARCH simulations.
                                 111-18

       * *  *   DRAFT  --  DO  NOT QUOTE  OR CITE  * *  *

-------
     The second scenario for projecting the baseline usage of fiber and output




of the asbestos products was to halve the rates of decline in the High Decline




scenario to product the "Moderate Decline" scenario.  This is also shown in




Table III-9.  Finally, the "Low Decline" scenario was generated by assuming




that the future output (and usage of fiber) of each product market would remain




the same as the 1985 figure developed in the ICF survey,  This Low Decline




scenario, as shown in Table III-9, represents the largest amount of fiber




consumption and product output over the course of the simulation.




     It is difficult to identify one of the baseline growth rate scenarios as




the correct one for several reasons.  The "High Decline" baseline, in effect,




assumes that future substitution away from asbestos and asbestos products would




continue to occur through the future at the rates experienced in the past.  On




the other hand, the "No-Decline" baseline assumes no continued substitution




away from asbestos in the future.  The former assumption is probably an




overstatement of future declines in asbestos products because eventually the




pace of substitutions may decline as substitutes for remaining products and




uses become increasingly difficult to identify.  On the other hand, assuming no




further substitution in the future would probably overstate the levels of




future asbestos product output.  Because of this uncertainty, the results




presented in this RIA are provided for all three of the baseline product growth




rate scenarios.




     There are a few exceptions  to the general rules outlined above for




developing the baseline product market growth rates.  For a few products, such




as missile liner, so little was known about the past, present, and future




output and usage of fiber that the growth rate was  set equal zero.  In a few




other cases, additional information was available from the ICF survey




concerning the output of products in 1986, 1987, and 1988,  In these cases, the






                                     m-19




                 ' * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
listed growth rates reflect this information.

     Finally, two products (disc and drum brake OEM and aftermarkets for light

and medium vehicles -- Products 18, 19, 36, and 37) have growth rates developed

using a more detailed modeling procedure that yielded year-by-year growth rates

throughout the duration of the simulation.  These year-by-year growth rates

(for the Low, Moderate, and the High Decline baseline scenarios) are reported

in Table 111-10.  The methods and data used to estimate these growth rates are

discussed in Appendix A-l of this RIA,

     Finally, the quasi-rents for each product market are shown in

Table III-ll.  As discussed in the previous chapter, quasi-rents are payments

that are necessary in the long run to" the producers and factors of production

involved in supplying goods to maintain supply, but which are forfeitable in

the short run.  Naturally, the amount of these quasi-rents that are actually

lost under any given regulation depends on a number of factors which are

generated in the course of simulating the regulation.  Thus, Table III-ll

reports only the total quasi-rents that would be lost if all markets were

banned immediately (the Domestic fie World Quasi-Rent Loss columns).

               b.  Asbestos Product.	Subs. tltutes

               Another set of inputs to the ARGM consists of information on

substitutes for each asbestos product.  The following information is necessary

for estimating product demand curves, and therefore, the derived demand curve

for asbestos fiber.

          •    Price of the substitute in 1985 in  the same units as
               the price of the asbestos product.

          •    The market share for each substitute.  This refers to
               the share of the existing market that shall switch to
               the substitute, given the non-availability of the
               asbestos product.
                                     111-20

                  * * *   DRAFT  --DO NOT QUOTE  OR CITE  * * *

-------
                                                  TABLE  III-10.   BASELINE GROWTH RATES OF PRODUCTS 18,  19,  36,  AMD 37; 1985-2000
O
O.
O
O
O
H
W
O
H
H
      M
      M
      1-0
Growth Sates
IS. Drum

Year
1985-19863
1986-1987
1987-1988
1988-1989
1989-1990
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
1994-1995
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
Low
Decline
1.52
3,56
0.59
-1.94
-7.87
-3.18
11. SI
6.46
-5.83
-3.23
6.89
8.68
-2.40
-5.26
4.61
Brake Linings (OEM)
Moderate
Decline
1.52
-7.94
-11.98
-15.95
-23.22
-22.55
-16.37
-29.03
-52.92
-100.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
High
Decline
1.52
-17.15
-24 . 56
-34.63
-53.93
-100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19, Disc Brake Pads,
tow
Decline
-54.05
3.57
0,54
-1.92
-7.89
-3.16
11.57
6,44
-5.92
-3.27
6.95
8.69
-2.47
-5.31
4.59
Moderate
Decline
-54.05
-17.14
-24.60
-34.62
-53.94
-100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Uff (QEH)
ffigh
Decline
-54.05
-30.95
-49.73
-100.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1985-2000
36. Drtun
Low
Decline
-3.54
-8.66
6.46
-0.16
-1.45
-1.95
4.85
-0.02
-3.45
-0.80
7.26
2.70
-4.62
-1.59
7.43
(%>

Brake Linings (A/M)
Moderate
Decline
-3.54
-8.66
6.46
-0.16
-1.45
-6.48
0.18
-4.61
-7.40
-9.93
-4.84
-10.37
-16.05
-19.15
-7.92
High
Decline
-3.54
-8.66
6.46
-0.16
-1.45
-10.11
-3.90
-8.98
-11.53
-20.35
-7.56
-12.65
-16.39
-26.97
-11.25


37. Disc Brake Pads,
Low
Dee line
-6.25
-7.04
-1.36
-4.07
-18,35
-6.64
-4.15
-8.57
-22.28
-5.83
-1.93
-6.99
-19.60
-4.02
1.77
Moderate
Decline
-6.25
-7.04
-1.36
-4,07
-18.35
-9.13
-7.03
-11.87
-26.73
-14.25
-9.86
-16.47
-32.36
-18.12
-12.76

LMV (A/M)
High
Decline
-6.25
-7.04
-1.36
-4.07
-18.35
-10.79
-9.04
-14.29
-24 . 82
-13.31
-13.39
-21,18
-29.38
-14.70
-18.05
                          Growth rates £or 19S5-86 are based on actual information available.

-------
                                          TABLE III-ll.   QllASI-REif LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH AN IMMEDIATE BAH OF ALL ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
O
O
o
S3
s


I
w

i.
o
H
H

1.
2.
3.
4.
5,
e.
7.
8.
<)_
10.
11.
12,
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33,
34.
35,
36.
37.

Product Category
Conraercial Paper
Sollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Saskets
High-grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Papers
Vinyl-Asbestos Floor file
Asbestos Diaphragms
Asbestos-Cement Pipe
Flat A-C Sheets
Corrugated A-C Sheets
A-C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LM? (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads (HV)
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Transmission Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, Yarn, etc.
Asbestos Sheet Gasfcating
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings and Cements
Non-Roofing Coatings, etc.
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, LM? (A/M)

Industry Segment
Classification
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Asbestos Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Vinyl-Asbestos Floor TiJLe
Chlor-Alkali Industry
Asbestos-Cement Pipe
Asbestos-Cement Sheet
Asbestos-Cement Sheet
Asbestos-Cement Shingle
Friction Products
Friction Products
Friction Products
Friction Products
Friction Products
Friction Products
Friction Products
Textiles and Packing
Textiles and Packing
Sheet Gasketing
Textiles and Packing
Coatings and Sealants
Coatings and Sealants
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Coatings and Sealants
Coatings and Sealants
Textiles and Packing
Arc Chutes
Friction Products
Friction Products

Conversion
Cost
Perpetuity
($/unit)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.001
0.19
0.19
0.00
0.00
0,19
0.19
0.19
0.00
19,801.60
0.21
19.2?
19.27
3.31
0,005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
***
**-*-
0,005
0.005

Reformulation
Cost
Perpetuity
($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
248,500
308,000
24,500
154,000
31,500
10,500
105,000
0
0
0
0
40,600
78,400
16,800
12,600
7,000
###
Aft-fr
248,500
308,000

Domestic
Quasi-Sent
Loss
('000 $)
0.00
0.00
1.58
4.24
44.80
1,89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.18
0.00
2,763,737,60
45,188.12
1,421.68
0.00
8,352.69
5,693.81
4,040.04
361,20
2,504.67
918.72
154.11
2,122.82
0.00
0.00
8,245.50
0.00
580.00
1,120.00
233.01
180.00
100.00
*•**
***
9,023.38
7,170.51
2,861,201.57
World
- Quasi-Rent
Loss
{'000 $)
0.00
0.00
1.58
10.61
45.70
1.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.18
0.00
2,763,737.60
45,766.53
1,634.93
1,062.33
11,443.19
6,547.88
4,807.65
361.20
2,529.71
1,028.97
154.11
2.122.B2
0.00
0.00
8,822.69
0.00
580.00
1,120.00
240.00
180.00
100.00
***
•fi-fi*
1Q.376.S9
8,532.91
2,871,210,37
                              ***  Product is not included  in ASCM simulations.

-------
          «    The service life of the substitute.  This information
               is used to obtain the present value of the
               substitute's price, for the life of the asbestos
               product.


     Much of this information was obtained from the IGF Asbestos Market Survey

conducted in 1986 to update existing information on asbestos product markets

and substitutes.   Appendix F reports the results of this Use and Substitutes

survey.  As indicated in that appendix, the survey results divide the product

markets into submarkets for which a given substitute is appropriate.  Hence,

there are actually far more than the 35 physically distinct product markets to

consider for purposes of defining substitution possibilities and timing.

     Table III-12 summarizes the substitutes information reported in detail in

Appendix F of this RIA on a product-by-product basis.  This table lists name of

the relevant substitute, its price, its useful life, and the market share which

this substitute would capture in the absence of the asbestos-containing

product.

               c.  Asbestos Fiber Market

               Given the. information on the amount of asbestos used per unit of

output, and the amount of output in all product markets, the additional data

elements required for this market are:

          •    Price of asbestos fiber per ton in 1985.  This price
               will be a weighted average of the prices for the
               various grades of asbestos fiber, i.e., the price of
               the "representative" asbestos fiber, which is assumed
               to be the only one used in the downstream markets.

          •    The elasticity of fiber supply.  This is used in
               conjunction with price and quantity data to obtain the
               equation for the fiber supply curve.

          •    The proportion of fiber supply imported from foreign
               nations.
                                     111-23

                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                           TABLE III-12




SUMMARY OF SUBSTITUTES INFORMATION FOR ASBESTOS-CGMTAINING PRODUCTS
Product Category/
Substitute Name
1.
2.
3.

4,


5.

6.

7,
8.

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Standard Board
Premium Board
Pipeline Wrap
Mineral Felt
Safelt(R)
Duraglass(R)
Beater Add Gaske t s
Cellulose
Aramid
Fibrous Glass
PTFE
Graphite
Ceramic
Electrical Paper
Aramid Paper
Ceramic Paper
Asbestos Felt
Fiberglass Felt
Modified Bitumen
Single -Ply Membrane
Acetylene Cylinders
Glass Fiber Filler
Price
N/A
N/A

$2,560/ton
$6 , 800/ton

$5 , 80/square
$6.20/square
$5. 80/square

$1, 800/ton
$3,38Q/ton
$3,000/ton
$5,240/ton
$3,000/ton
$4,500/ton

$10.48/lb.
$7.04/lb.
$3,85/square
'$7.48/square
$29.26/square

$93.00/ton
Useful Life
N/A
N/A

25 years
25 years

25 years
25 years
25 years

5 years
5 years
5 years
5 years
5 years
5 years

3 years
3 years
18 years
18 years
18 years

1 per cylinder
Market Share
N/A
f
N/A

80%
20%

48%
32%
20%

25%
30%
20%
10%
10%
5%

80%
20%
40%
50%
10%

100%
                            111-24




          * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                                 TABLE III-12

      SUMMARY OF SUBSTITUTES IIFORMATION FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS
                                  (continued)
Product Category/
Substitute Name
 Price
Useful Life     Market Share
9-  Flooring Felt

    N/A

10,  Corrugated Paper

    N/A

11.  Specialty Papers

    Diatomaceous Earth and    $4,000/ton
      Cellulose Filter Paper
    Loose Cellulose Fiber     $2,000/ton
      Filter Paper

12.  Mnyl-4sbestos_ Floor Tile

    N/A

13.  Asbestos.,_Di_aphragnis

    Mercury and Membrane Cells  N/A

14,  A/C Pipeand Fittings
    PVC Pipe
    Ductile Iron Pipe

15. A/C Flat Sheet
$11.08
$15.87
                 1 use

                 1 use
                 N/A
 50 years
 50 years
                     50%

                     50%
                     N/A
92.63%
 7,37%
Calcium Silicate
Construction/Utility
Flat Sheet
Non-Calcium Silicate
Construction/Utility
Flat Sheet
Substitute Laboratory
Work Sheet
$182.00
$417.00
$217.00
25 years
25 years
25 years
76%
4%
20%
                                  111-25

                * * *  DRAFT --  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                                 TABLE III-12

      SUMMARY OF SUBSTITUTES INFORMATION FOR ASBESTOS - CONTAINING PRODUCTS
                                  (continued)
Product Category/
Substitute Name                Price          Useful Life     Market Share
16. Corrugated 4/C
FRP
Aluminum
Steel
PVC
17. A/C Shingles
Wood Siding and
Vinyl Siding
Asphalt Roofing
Aluminum Siding
Tile Roofing
Sheet
$246
$188
$157
$301

Roofing $162/square
$106/square
Shingles $ 49/square
$128/square
$173/square

20 years
20 years
15 years
20 years

30 years
50 years
20 years
50 years
50 years

48%
32%
11%
9%

32%
27%
20%
19%
2%
18. Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
NAG
Semi-Metallic
19. Disc Brake Pads
Semi -Metallic
20. Disc Brake Pads
Semi -Metallic
21. Brake Blocks
NAO
Full-Metallic
$0.79/piece
$l.G9/pieee
, LMV (OEM)
$0.67/piece
(Heavy Vehicles)
$12.50/piece

$8.04/piece
$6.89/piece
5 years
4 years
7.4 years
0 . 75 years

0.65 years
0 . 5 years
99%
1%
100%
100%

99.5%
0.5%
                                  111-26

                * * *  DRAFT --  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                                  TABLE 111-12

      SUMMARY OF SUBSTITUTES  INFORMATION FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING  PRODUCTS
                                   (continued)
Product Category/
Substitute Name
 Price
Useful Life
23. Automatic TransmissionComponents
    Cellulose

24. Friction..Jlaterials

    Fiberglass and
     Kevlar(R)

25. Pr.o.S.e_cJ:jjye__C.l.othjLng

    N/A

26. Asbestos Textiles
$2.00/piece
$34.65/piece
  4-7 years
  0.5 years
Market Share
22. Clutch Facings
Woven fiberglass
(European product)
Woven fiberglass
(U.S. Product)
Molded aramid fiber,
fiberglass, cellulose
and ceramic fiber
( Nuturn ' s pro due t )
Molded fiberglass

$2.92/piece

$2.92/piece

$2.55/plece



$2.55/pieee

7.5 years

7 . 5 years

6 . 25 years



6.25 years

50%

30%

10%



10%
    100%
    100%
Glass Fiber Mixtures
Ceramic Fiber Mixtures
Aramid Fiber Mixtures
Carbon Fiber Mixtures
FBI Fiber Mixtures
$ 3,460
$ 7,920
$19,800
$52,800
$79,200
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year
50%
15%
15%
10%
10%
                                  111-27

               * * *   DRAFT --  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE   *  *  *

-------
                                  TABLE III-12

      SUMMARY OF SUBSTITUTES INFORMATION FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS
                                  (continued.)
Product Category/
Substitute Name
Price
Useful Life
Market Share
27.






28.





29.



30,


31.






Sheet Gaskets
Aramid
Fibrous Glass
Graphite
Cellulose
PTFE
Ceramic
Asbestos Packings
Aramid
Fibrous Glass
PTFE
Graphite
FBI
Roof Coatings
Cellulose Mixture
Polyethylene Mixture
Other Mixtures
Non-Roof Coatings
Fiber Mixture
Non- Fiber Mixture
Plastics
Glass -Reinforced Plastic
Teflon-Reinforced Plastic
Product X
Porcelain
Silica-Reinforced Plastic
Carbon-Reinforced Plastic

$9.72
$11.38
$11.38
$ 6.83
$19.91
$11.38

$135,900
$120,800
$211,400
$120,800
$181,200

$2.95/gal
$3.36/gal
$3.03/gal

$15.10/gal
$14,42/gal

$ 1.40/lb.
$ 2.25/lb.
$11.22/lb.
$ 4.08/lb.
$ 3.00/lb.
$47,25/lb.

5 years
5 years
5 years
5 years
5 years
5 years

1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year

10 years
10 years
10 years

10 yrs
10 yrs

1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year

30%
25%
15%
15%
10%
5%

30%
30%
15%
10%
15%

87.42%
7.62%
4.95%

70%
30%

47.9%
42.5%
7.4%
1.4%
0.5%
0.3%
                                     III-28

                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                                 TABLE  III-12

      SUMMARY OF SUBSTITUTES INFORMATION FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS
                                  (continued)
Product Category/
Substitute Name
 Price
Useful Life
Market Share
32. Missile Liner

    Kevlar(R) Liner

    Ceramic Fiber Liner

33. Sealant	Tape

    Cellulose Tape

    Structural Urethane
    Carbon-Based Tape
    Non-Curing Tape
$ 29,000/ton

$14Q,000/ton
$0.05/ft.

$0.07/ft.
$0.32/ft.
$0.10/ft.
34. Batte.ry	Sjapajrators

    N/A

35. ArcChutes

    N/A

36, Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
37. Disc Brake Pads... LMV (Aftermarket)
    Semi-Metallic
$0.67/piece
  1 use
  1 use
  15 years
  20 years
  20 years
    N/A
NAO
Sen! -Metallic
$0.79/piece
$1.09/piece
- 5 years
4 years
  7.4 years
      80%
      20%
    56.4%
    36.8%
     6.6%
     0.2%
                                                                    99%
                                                                      1%
    100%
                                 111-29

              * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR  CITE  * * *

-------
     The weighted average asbestos fiber price of $323.80 is based on 1985

Bureau of Mines data.*  The same source reports the proportion of fiber

imported from foreign nations as 91,6 percent.  The derivation of the

elasticity of supply for fiber is reported in Appendix A.2.   Based on that

analysis, the elasticity of fiber supply is assumed to be 1.46.
     * U.  S. Department of the Interior,  "1986 Bureau of Mines Minerals
Yearbook."  Bureau of Mines, USBQI, Washington, B.C.
                                     Ill-30

                   * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
IV.  COST/BENEFITRESULTS




     This section reports the estimated costs and benefits of the seven




regulatory alternatives examined in this analysis.  As is true with any




modeling of complex economic behavior and highly technical exposure and dose-




response relationships, the qualitative results can be sensitive to the input




assumptions.  Thus, a number of different "runs" of the cost and benefit models




were performed using alternative input data to test and document the




sensitivity of the results to different input assumptions.  Most of these are




reported in detail In Appendix G.  The results presented here are considered to




be the "central" results of the analysis, based on mostly likely values of the




important input parameters and the relevant policy variables, and thus most




relevant for options selection.  In addition to these base case cost/benefit




results, however, this chapter also reports the results of a set of sensitivity




analyses conducted using just one of the regulatory options.  These sensitivity




analyses concern the impacts on the costs and benefits of possible declines in




the future prices'-of asbestos product substitutes and of additional information




about the levels of occupational and nonoccupational exposures for products and




exposure settings In which data were not available for the RIA.




     The regulatory alternatives examined in this RIA represent a range of




possible options for controlling asbestos exposures.  No single alternative,




however, is Identified as the preferred regulatory alternative.  Instead, these




alternatives were selected to assist in the Agency's regulatory options




selection process.  Using the results for these policy options, the costs and




benefits of alternative combinations and timing of options can be assessed




quantitatively and qualitatively.




     Finally, the quantitative estimates of the costs and benefits of the




regulatory alternatives should be Interpreted with care.  As Chapter II of this






                                      IV-1




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
volume of the RIA emphasizes, the benefits estimated quantitatively in this RIA




are a. subset of all of the benefits attributable to the regulatory




alternatives.  For example, only cancer cases are considered in the analysis,




so that asbestosis and other asbestos-related diseases are not explicitly




included in the benefit estimates presented below.  In addition, exposure




information was not available for many of the product/exposure settings,




although such exposures may well occur.  Hence, additional benefits beyond




those quantitatively estimated in the base case presented in this RIA may




exist.




     Similarly, the costs estimated in this RIA are likely to be overestimates




for several reasons.  First, the central case cost estimates developed in this




analysis assume no decline in the prices of asbestos substitutes as time passes




and as additional experience using these substitutes is gained.  Second, the




model for calculating the costs of the regulatory alternatives does not include




cost-reduction benefits of using lower-cost substitutes for asbestos-containing




products, i.e., asbestos-containing product substitute prices are always




assumed to be greater than or equal to the price of the asbestos-containing




product (on an equal service life basis).  Finally, the cost estimation nodel




assumes that in the absence  of asbestos-containing products, users will switch




to non-asbestos products in  proportion to the existing market shares of these




substitutes, and not proportionately more toward the lower cost substitutes.




     A.  Costs and Benefits.. p£_ Regulatory	Alternatives.




          1.  SpecificationofRegulatoryAlternatives




          Fourteen regulatory alternatives involving product bans, fiber phase-




downs, and combinations of the two policies  (as well as exemptions of certain




product categories) were considered  in detail  for this RIA.  Product bans  in




each  of these alternatives prohibit  the  manufacture, importation, or sale  of






                                      IV-2




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
the specific products banned.  Since the timing and scope of the bans in the

•various alternatives are different, the bans are referred to as "staged" bans.

Phase-downs of fiber use, on the other hand, operate as quotas, so that

gradually decreasing amount of fiber can be mined or imported  (in products or

as fiber) over time.  As the phase-down occurs, asbestos fiber is allocated to

the uses that face the highest costs of foregoing use of the fiber until the

phase-down is completed.  Thus, once the phase-down is completed, the result is

the satae as a complete ban on all asbestos products.

     The fourteen specific regulatory alternatives examined in this RIA are:

     Alternativeg;

          •    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to 1997

          •    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14,  25  (protective clothing
               and construction products, except  for A/C sheet and.
               shingle)  in 1987

     4lternatiyeTi.iBX:

          •    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to 1997

          •    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14,  25  (protective clothing
               and construction products, except  for A/C sheet and
               shingle)  in 1987

          •    Products  13 and 32  (diaphragms  and missile liner)
               exempt from regulation

     AlternativeD:

          «    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to 1997

          •    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14,  15, 16, 17, 25
               (protective clothing, construction products) in 1987

     Alternative....^:

          •    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to 1997

          •    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14,  15, 16, 17, 25
               (protective clothing and construction products)
               in  1987

          •    Products  13 and 32  (diaphragms  and missile liner)
               exempt from regulation

                                      IV-3

                   * * *  DRAFT --DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
Alternative E:
     *    Bans of Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) in
          1987

     •    Bans of Products 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37
          (friction products) in 1992

Alternative _F:

     *    Bans of Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) in
          1987

     .    Bans of Products 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37
          (friction products) in 1992

     •    Bans of all Remaining Products in 1997.

AlternativeFX:

     •    Bans of Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) in
          1987

     •    Bans of Products 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37
          (friction products) in 1992

     «    Bans of all Remaining Products in 1997 except
          Products 13 and 32  (diaphragms and missile
          liner).

Alternat iye ...G:

     •    Bans'of all Products  in 1987

Alternative,GX:

     •    Bans of all Products  except Products  13  and  32
          (diaphragms and missile liner)  in 1987

AlternativeH:

     *    Bans of all Products  in 1992

AlternativeHX:

     •    Bans of all Products  except Products  13  and  32
          (diaphragms and missile liner)  in 1992
                                 IV-4

              * * *  DRAFT --  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
     AlternativeI:

          *     Bans  of all Products in 1997

     Alternative IX:

          •     Bans  of all Products except Products 13 and 32
               (diaphragms and missile liner)  in 1997

     Alternative J:

          •     Bans  of Products 1,  2,  4,  7, 9,  10,  12, 15, 16,
               17,  and 25 in 1987

          •     Bans  of Products 5,  18, 19, 20,  21,  22, 23, 24,
               and 27 in 1991

          •     Bans  of Products 14, 36,  and 37  in 1994.


     For each of these regulatory alternatives, three different baselines of

asbestos product market growth over time were modeled;  High, Moderate,  and Low

Declines, as outlined in Chapter III of this RIA.  The results presented in

this chapter reflect the "Low Decline" baseline growth rate assumptions

outlined in the previous chapter.  As Chapter III pointed out,  the "Low

Decline" baseline assumes the highest levels of future asbestos use and, as

such, probably overstates both the level of future production of asbestos

products and therefore, the costs of the regulatory alternatives.  Results

using the other two baseline growth rate assumptions are reported in Appendix G

- Sensitivity Analyses.  Two different discounting scenarios for calculating

the present value of the costs and benefits of the regulatory alternatives were

used; 3 percent for both costs and benefits, and 3 percent for costs and 0

percent for benefits.  In addition, when benefits are discounted, they are

discounted from the time of exposure  (e.g., the time of manufacture for

manufacturing-related exposures, the  time of future repair and disposal for

those types of exposures).
                                      17-5

                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
     In addition to the input data presented in Chapter III, two other pieces




of information are necessary to complete the model specifications for the




regulatory alternatives.   These are the fiber phase-down schedule for each case




in which it is relevant and the exact mechanism for allocating the valuable




rights to mine,  use, or purchase asbestos fiber to economic entities.




     The fiber-phase-down schedule in each relevant case is designed to reduce




fiber consumption across the time horizon of the phase-down in equal




increments, starting at the level of fiber usage in the beginning of the




scenario (1986 in these cases) ad jus ted	f or __ any p r o due t bans..  That is, the




fiber cap schedule in designed to reduce fiber consumption by non-banned




product markets in equal increments over time, so in cases in which products




are banned, the fiber usage associated with these products is first subtracted




from the total before determining the fiber phase-down schedule.  Table IV-1




shows the fiber cap schedule for Alternatives B and D, the two alternatives in




which a phase-down is used.  Finally, the value of the rights to use, purchase,




or mine asbestos fiber are assumed to accrue to the government.  Should these




instead be allocated to various of the parties associated with these asbestos




markets, their losses would be reduced by the value of these rights.




          2.  Results




          The aggregated costs and benefits of Regulatory Alternatives B, BX,




D, DX, E, F, EX, G, GX, H, HX, I, IX, and J are presented in Table IV-2.  The




table lists for each alternative  (1) the total domestic welfare cost imposed,




(2) the total number of cancer cases avoided, and (3) the cost per cancer case




avoided.  There are two sets of these results in the table corresponding to the




two different discounting assumption - - 3 percent for both costs and benefits




and 3 percent for costs and 0 percent for benefits.











                                      IV-6




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
Table IV-1.   Fiber Cap Schedules for Phase-Down Scenarios
                  Low Decline  Baseline
                          (tons)
      Year      Alternative B  Alternative D
      1987        88,902.58        83,138.57
      1988        80,012,32        74,824.72
      1989        71,122.07        66,510.86
      1990        62,231.81        58,197.00
      1991        53,341.55        49,883.14
      1992        44,451.29        41,569.29
      1993        35,561.03        33,255.43
      1994        26,670.77        24,941.57
      1995        17,780.52        16,627.71
      1996         8,890.26         8,313.86
      1997             0.00             0.00
                           IV-7

        * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                                  TABLE IV-2, SUMMARY OF COSTS AMD BEHEFItS OF ALTERNATIVES
                                                    (Low Decline Baseline)

*
*
o
l>
H
,
i
o'
o
K ._, '
O S
H f
•s °°
a
o
H
W
O
JO
o
M
M
*
Discounting Scenario Alternative
and
Costs* and Benefits B BX D DX
3-Costs/3-Benefits
DiscpuBtiGB
Total Cost
($l,000,000's): $ 3,560 1,079 3,607 1,126
Total Cancers
Avoided: • 208 208 210 210

Cost Per Case
($l,OOQ,000«s): . 17.1 5.2 17,2 5,4


3-Costs/O-Benefits
Discounting


Total Cost
($l,OOOrOOO's): $ 3,560 1,079 3,607 1,126

Total Cancers
Avoided: 266 266 268 268

Cost Per Case
($l,000,000's): 13.4 4.1 13,5 4,2
E F FX



603 3,486 1,008

145 150 150


4,2 23.2 6.7







603 3,486 1,008


193 200 200


3.1 17.4 5.0
* Total doitiestic cost

Note;  Table contains rounded entries.

-------
                             TABLE IV-2.  SUM«SY OF COSTS AMD BENEFITS  OF EXEMCTIQB ALTERNATIVES
                                                    (Low Decline Baseline)
                                                         (continued)

*

o

§
H

1
o
o
3 M
S f
•2 *
g
H
W
O •
0
H
PI

*
*
sfr
Discounting Scenario Alternative
and
Costs* and Benefits 6 GX H . HX I
3-Costs/3-Benefits
PiscguntinB

Total Cost
($l,000,000's>: $ 6,934 2,286 4,868 1,385 3,085

Total Caaeers
Avoided: 266 266 154 . • 153 63

Cost Per Case
($1,000, OOO'a): 26.0 fl.6 31.7 9.1 49.3

3-Costs/O-Benefits
piscounting

Total Cost
($1,000, OOO's): $ 6,934 2,286 4,868 1,385 3,085
Total Cancers
Avoided; 329 328 206 205 91

Cost Per Case
($1,000, OOO's): 21.1 7.0 23.7 6.8 34.1


IX J




607 748


62 122


9.7 6.1





607 748

90 167


6.7 4.5


*  Total domestic cost

Hote: Table contains rounded entries.

-------
     Table IV-2 indicates that the aggregate U.S. welfare losses attributable




to the fourteen regulatory alternatives range from a low of about $603 million




(Alternative E) to just under $7 billion (Alternative G),  depending on the




regulatory alternative considered.  The lowest welfare costs for the U.S. are,




of course, the regulatory alternatives that ban the fewest products




(Alternatives E and J) and the highest are those that ban more products (or




phase down all fiber usage) and ban them earlier -- Alternatives B, G, and H.




Clearly, the costs of each regulatory alternative are reduced significantly by




excluding certain products, such as asbestos diaphragms and missile liner, from




both the asbestos fiber phase down and product bans, as both the "X"




alternatives and Alternatives E and J indicate.




     The figures in the table reporting the quantitatively estimated benefits




also indicate that the number of cancer cases avoided changes dramatically




across the alternatives (using the undiscounted cancer cases avoided figures),




from a low of 90 cases avoided (for Regulatory Alternative IX) to a high of 329




cases avoided  (Regulatory Alternative G).  To some extent, however, the costs




imposed by the regulatory alternatives rise and fall as the numbers of cancer




cases avoided rise and fall.  This produces a cost-per-cancer-case-avoided




(using the 3 percent discount rate for both costs and benefits) that ranges




from a low of about $4.2 million per case avoided (Alternative E) to a high of




about $49 million per case avoided (Alternative I).  Most of the overall cost-




per-cancer-case-avoided figures, however, are in the $5 million to $30 million




range.  Alternatives that exempt diaphragms and missile liner from the phase




down and product bans, of course, are those with costs per case avoided at the




lower end of the range, and those that do not typically are in the higher end




of the range.











                                     IV-10




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
     While the aggregated costs and "benefits of the fourteen regulatory

alternatives presented in Table IV-2 are Informative, product-by-product

comparisons are also useful.  Appendix G for this RIA contains detailed tables

for each of the fourteen regulatory alternative under each baseline (Low,

Moderate, and High Declines).  Clearly, these are too numerous to place in the

body of this chapter.  Instead, detailed cost and benefit results are presented

here only for Alternative J.  Appendix G contains Identical detailed

information for each of the other combinations of regulatory alternatives and

baselines,

     Tables IV-3 through IV-5 present detailed cost and benefit information for

Regulatory Alternative J.  The first table reports the welfare losses and gains

of each distinct set of parties affected by Regulatory Alternative J, e.g.,

domestic miners and millers, domestic primary processors, foreign product

purchasers, etc., using the 3 percent discount rate for costs.  These are the

gains and losses of each set of parties in their capacities as, for example,

                   *&
primary processors.

     Table IV-3 also reports the aggregate world welfare loss and the aggregate

welfare change for the U.S. taken as a whole due to Regulatory Alternative J.

Tables IV-4 and IV-5 report detailed product-by-product cost and benefits

results for Regulatory Alternative J using the 3 percent discount rate for

costs and benefits for Table IV-4 and 3 percent for costs and 0 percent for

benefits in Table IV-5.  These tables present the welfare cost imposed by the

regulatory alternative on II.S. entities for each separate product In column
       Under phase downs of asbestos  fiber which occur  in  alternatives B, BX,
D, and DX, however, valuable rights to use and purchase asbestos  fiber during a
phase down might be allocated to some of these parties,  so that their net gains
or losses might be affected by ownership of  these rights.   Hence,  detailed
results  tables in Appendix G for these phase down scenarios reflect  these
valuable rights during the phase down, but these are  allocated to the
government alone rather than any individual  parties.

                                      IV-11

                  * * *  DRAFT --DO  NOT QUOTE OR CITE   *  * *

-------
          TABLE 17-3. WELFARE EFFECTS Bt PARTY FOR ALIEHHAIIVE  J - LOW DECLINE BASELIHE




                      (Present values, in million dollars, discounted at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
7.31
79,76
,00

77.58
8.64
663,34 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
Het Loss
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8.64
663.54
.00
.00
                                   SET WELFARE LOSSES
                              0.  S. Welfare:




                              World Welfare:
748.43




836.84
Note:  Kegafcive entrias  ajrs welfare gains.
                                      IV-12




            *  *  *   DRAFT  --  DO  NOT QUOTE OR CITE  *  *  *

-------
           TABLE IV-4. COSTS AM) BENEFITS BY PRODUCT CATEGORY FOR ALTERNATIVE J - LOW DECLINE EASELIHE

                              (Costs discounted at 3S; Benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Sollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Saskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Hoofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LKV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Aatonatic trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Soof Coatings
Hon-Soofing Coatings
Asbestos-leinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftensarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
fotal
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.96
207.38
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
189.34
1.35
.62
63.31
. 9.69
.08
.01
17.10
24.66
.17
.20
.00
-.83
157.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
,00
12.31
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Swrplus
Loss
{KT6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
,04
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
.31
2,17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
7,55
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10*6 S)
,00
.00
-.43
1.97
207.42
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
225.01
2,73
.62
71.42
14.43
3.54
.33
19.27
25.48
.30
2.06
.00
-.83
164.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
19.87
3,59
7.31
748.43 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.741$
7.7573
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
3.1110
1.0504
.1435
.6395
8.3800
.9927
.2165
14,4204
.6049
,0005
.5244
.0000
.0000
2.4658
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
106.2551
15.8541
1 , 1258
166.7950
Cost per
. Cancer Case
Avoided
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.13
26.74
n/«
5.89
n/a
n/a
n/a
a/a
n/a
n/a
72.33
• 2.60
4.30
111,68
1.72
3.57
1.51
1.34
42.12
637.88
3.92
n/a
n/a
66.75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
a/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.19
.23
6.50
4.49
n/a;  Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
                                              IV-13

                     *  * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT  QUOTE  OR CITE   *  * *

-------
            TABLE IV-5. COSTS AHB BENEFITS BY PRODUCT CATEGORY FOR ALTERNATIVE J - LOW DECLINE BASELINE

                               (Costs discounted at  3%; Benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
f SCA f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rail-board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Hoofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Dron Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Cosiponents
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Saskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Hon-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads IMV ( Af termarket )
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consuner
Surplus
Loss
(10-6 S)
,00
,00
-,43
1.96
207,38
-.73
8.90
-.45
,00
,00
-.09
.00
-.97
139.34
1.35
.62
63.31
9.69
.08
.01
17.10
24,66
.17
.20
.00
-.83
157.60
.00
-21,50
-2,35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
12.31
-.74
,00

Domestic
Pr oduc er
Surplus
Loss
(10" 6 $)
,00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
33.67
1.38
.00
8,10
4.74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.S6
.00
.00
7.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.35
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
C10"6 $}
.00
.00
-.43
1.97
207.42
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
,00
-.97
225.01
2.73
.62
71.42
14.43
3.54
,33
19.27
25.48
.30
2.06
.00
-.83
164.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
19.67
3.59
7.31
748.43 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.4052
5.8793
.0000
1.2196
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
,0000
2.2514
.8475
.1158
.5160
6,3280
.7495
.1641
10.9292
.4585
.0004
.3974
.0000
,0000
1,8688
.0000
,0000
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
,0000
,0000
76.7895
11.5777
.8457
122.3435
Cost par
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10*6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.40
35.28
n/a
7,30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
99,94
3,22
5.33
138. 42
2.28
4,72
1.99
1.76
55.57
841.65
5.18
n/a
n/a
88.08
a/a
ii/a
n/a
n/«
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.26
.31
8.65
6,12
ji/a:  Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned,  e«»pted, at exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
                                                  IV-14

                        * * *   DRAFT  -- DO  NOT  QUOTE  OR CITE   *  *  *

-------
three,  which Is also divided into consumer and producer welfare losses in




columns one and two.  The fourth column of these two tables reports the number




of cancer cases avoided on a product-by-product basis.  The fifth column of




these tables reports the cost-per-eancer-case-avoided for the regulatory




alternative, which is simply the number of cancer cases avoided divided by the




cost of the regulatory alternative In each market.




     Finally, listed at the bottom of these tables are (1) the cost of the




regulation to U.S. entities taken as a whole, (2) the total number of cancer




cases avoided across all products, and (3) the implied cost-per-cancer-case-




avoided for all products taken together.




     These detailed tables provide a significant amount of information




concerning the costs and benefits of Regulatory Alternative J.  First, several




of the product markets (e.g., Commercial Paper, Rollboard), as the tables




Indicate, contribute neither costs nor benefits, since these products are no




longer produced or consumed in the U.S.  Second, a number of products that are




still either produced or Imported to the U.S. are not banned in this scenario.




These products (e.g., diaphragms, thread, acetylene cylinders) actually gain




from the regulation because the product bans cause the price of asbestos fiber




to fall (the consumer surplus loss and total loss entries are negative




indicating welfare gains).  This yields increased consumer surplus to consumers




of these products.  Third, the bulk of the costs of the regulatory alternative




is borne by consumers through higher costs for asbestos products and




substitutes for these products.  That is, the producer surplus losses amount to




only about 10 percent of the total domestic cost of the regulation.  Fourth,




the product-by-product details indicate that although there is a wide range for




the product-specific cost-per-cancer-case-avoided figures, the cost per case




tends to be•lower for products that contribute the largest number of cancer






                                     IV-15




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
cases (e.g., the friction product categories).  Thus, the cost-per-case-avoided




for this set of products are among the lowest, for example, $260,000 per case




for drum brake linings in the aftermarket using the 3 percent discounting for




both costs and benefits.  Overall, the cost-per-case-avoided ranges from the




$230,000 per case for aftermarket drum brakes to a high of over $800 million




per case for automatic transmission components (although this latter figure is




produced by the extremely small estimated cases avoided for this product).




     These product-by-product costs and benefits are quite useful in




understanding which markets yield high benefits and which impose relatively




higher costs.  This information, contained in its entirety in Appendix G of




this RIA, can be used to "fine tune" the regulatory alternatives and to explore




other combinations of policies.




     B,  Sensitivity Analyses




     Appendix G presents more detailed output from these model runs.  The




tables presented in Appendix G provide tabulations of welfare effects, by party




affected and by market under the two different discounting scenarios, under the




three possible baseline growth rate assumptions, and for each of the fourteen




regulatory  alternatives.  The results for these numerous distinct cases are




consistent with expectations.  For example, using the High and Moderate Decline




baselines (in which the decline of asbestos products over  time is more rapid




than in  the Low Decline baseline) reduces the costs  of the regulatory




alternatives and their benefits.  Similarly, using high discount rates reduces




the benefits and the costs.  The total costs for these alternatives  discounted




at 3 percent ranges from a  low of about  $243 million (J -  High Decline) to over




$6 billion  (G  - Low Decline).




     Appendix G also reports some illustrative results for some regulatory




options  and baseline conditions not considered in  the  fourteen alternatives






                                      IV-16




                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO  NOT QUOTE OR"CITE  *  *  *

-------
discussed In detail in this Regulatory Impact Analysis.  One regulatory option




is to require engineering controls for some of the asbestos products to reduce




asbestos exposures.  To Illustrate this possibility, model runs using




engineering controls on replacement brake markets (for drum brakes and 1MV disc




brakes), rather than bans on these asbestos brakes, are presented in




Appendix G.




     Finally, two potentially important factors not included in the "central




case" analysis of this RIA could have a significant impact on both the costs




and the benefits of the regulatory alternatives.  First, there is the distinct




possibility that substitutes for asbestos products might become cheaper over




time as both experience with their use and the cumulative volume of their




production increase.  Substantial empirical evidence for downward trends in




prices due to "experience" exists.  This suggests that the costs estimated in




this RIA may be higher than they ultimately will turn out to be as asbestos




product substitute costs decline over time.  Second, in many cases data on




releases of and exposures to asbestos were not available.  The "base case"




analysis in this RIA assumes that in these cases these releases and exposures




are zero, which is not likely to be true.  This assumption could impart a




substantial downward bias to the quantitative benefits estimates for the




regulatory alternatives.




     To illustrate the potential impact on the costs and benefits of 1)




allowing for declining prices of asbestos product substitute prices over tine,




and 2) Introducing release and exposure information where such Information is




available, a number of sensitivity scenarios were estimated using Regulatory




Alternative J.   For declining substitute prices, an across-the-board decline




of one percent per year is assumed.  The basis for the possible decline in




asbestos substitute prices over time is primarily the empirical observation in






                                     IV-17




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO"NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
the business and economics literature of both economies of scale and experience

curves (both of which lead to reduced prices for goods over time).    However,

the results presented for this scenario are designed to indicate the

sensitivity of the costs of the regulatory alternatives to changing substitute

prices over time, hence the one percent fall per year in all asbestos

substitute prices is an assumption made for illustrative purposes.   Although

this may overestimate the rate of decline for some products that have been in

existence for some time, it »ay underestimate the rate of decline for other,

newer products or products with new applications.

     For products and exposure settings in which no data were available to

estimate releases and asbestos exposures directly, two different alternative

exposure scenarios were developed, as described in detail in Appendix A-6,

First, where possible, for occupational exposures in manufacturing,

installation, and repair and disposal, exposures in these settings were

estimated based on analogous exposure settings for product for which exposure

information exists.  This was done for one product's manufacturing stage, eight

products' repair and disposal stage, and nine products' installation stage.

The basic rationale for this procedure is that similar activities involving

roughly similar probable exposure paths and concentrations are likely to result

in similar exposures.  Tables IV-6 through IV-8 tabulate'the additional

occupational exposure information developed for this sensitivity analysis for

these three different exposure settings (primary manufacturing,  installation,

and repair and disposal).

     In some non-occupational exposure settings for which data did not exist

but in which exposures are likely, one percent of the asbestos content of the
     * Recent articles concerning pricing, costs,  and the  experience  (or
learning) curve  include Bass  (1980), Lieberman  (1984),  and Oilman (1982).

                                     IV-18

                  *  * *'  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE  OR  CITE  *  * *

-------
                                              TABLE IV-6, ADBHIOML OCCUPAIIOHAL EXPQSUB! ASSUMPTIONS fQR PRIMARY MANUFACIBRIKG




                                                                             Occupational                            Wonoeeupational

                                                                    Ho. of People     Mil. Fi*./Yr      Ho. of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
~r
                                    1.   Comnercial Paper
*                                   2.   Bollboard
•j.                                   3.   Millboard
                                    4.   Pipeline Wrap
Q                                   5.   Beater-add Gaskets
fg                                   6.   High-grade Elect. Paper
£                                   ?.   goofing Felt
H                                   8.   Acetylene Cylinders                                200
 ,                                   9.   Floorins Felt
 1                                  10.   Corrugated Paper
j-j                                 11.   Specialty Pa|ser
O                   .              12.   V/A Floor Tile
53    t-<                           13.   Diaphragms
O    <3                           14.   A/C Pipe
H    ^j                           15.   A/C Flat Sheet

-------
*
*
O
O


§
O
H
PJ

O
JO

O
t-l
H
w
                                            TABLE IV-7. ABDIIIOHAL QCCOTATIQNAL EXKJSURl ASSUMPTIOBS FOR  IHSIAULATION OF  PRODUCTS







                                                                            Occupational                            Honoccupafcional


                                                                   So. of People     Mil. Fib./Yr      No. of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
8.
9.
10,
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16,
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Commercial Paper
RollBoard
Millboard 20
Pipeline Wrap 2,725
Beater-add Gaskets 53,417
High-grade Elect. Paper 300
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper 350
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LOT (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto, fransmiss. Comp.
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets 5,741
Asbestos Packings 2
Hoof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings 1,780
Asb. Seiuforeed Plastics
Missile iinsrs 260
Sealant laps
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/SI)
Disc Brake Pads, LM? (A/M)
Mining and Milling


57
52
57
57




57















276
276

364

57







-------
                                          TABLE IV-8. ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSWTIQRS FOR HEPAIR/DISPOSAL OF PRODUCTS




                                                                            Occupational          -                  Nonoccupational

                                                                   Ho,  of People     Mil.  Fib.Ar      Ho.  of People         Mil.  Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
Contn©rcial Pepsi;
RoUboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Elect, Paper
Roofing Felt


20
2,725
53,417
300



57
18
57
57

 i                                 8.  Acetylene Cylinders
„                                9.  Flooring Felt
O                                10.  Corrugated Paper
„    H                          11.  Specialty Paper                   350                 57
O    <                          12.  V/A Floor Tile
*"3    *                           13.  Diaphragms
XD    M                          1*.  A/C Pipe                        1,458                296
g                                15.  A/C Flat Sheet
rt                                16.  A/C Corrugated Sheet
W                                17.  A/C Shingles
O                                18.  Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
f*5                                19.  Disc Brake Pads, UN  (OEM)
Cj                                20.  Disc Braka Pads, HV
jj                                21.  Brake Blocks
£0                                22..  Clutch Facings
                                  23,  Auto. Transtniss. Comp.
 >{.                                24,  Friction Materials
 y,          •                      25.  Protective Clothing
                                  26.  Thread, yarn etc.
 *                                27.  Sheet Gaskets                   5,741                276
                                  28,  Asbestos Packings                  2                276
                                  29,  Roof Coatings
                                  30,  HoiK~Roofing Coatings
                                  31.  Asb. Reinforced Plastics
                                  32.  Missile Liners
                                  33,  Sealant Tape
                                  34,  Battery Separatees
                                  35.  Arc Chutes
                                  36.  Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
                                  37.  Disc Brake Pads, LMV  
-------
product was assumed to be released per year over the life of the product.




These releases would be caused by normal weathering of products or by various




activities, such as cutting, sawing, and sanding that occur to the products in




the course of .their use.  The assumptions are described in greater detail in




Appendix A-6 of this RIA.  Table IV-9 tabulates these additional




nonoccupational exposure assumptions for exposures in use of asbestos products.




describes the procedures used to develop these additional non-occupational




exp o s ur e data.




     Table IV-10 tabulates the results of these sensitivity analyses using




Regulatory Alternative J (the 3-stage product ban at dates 1987, 1991, and




1994, exempting a number of products such as missile liner and diaphragms,




regulating original equipment and aftermarket drum and disc brakes separately).




The table lists the total costs, total cancer cases avoided, and the implied




cost per cancer case avoided, using (1) both the 3 percent discount rate for




both costs and benefits and the alternative discounting scenario of 0 percent




for benefits  and 3 percent for costs, and (2) the Low Decline baseline.  Five




distinct scenarios are presented; 1) the base case presented above for




Regulatory Alternative J, 2) declining substitute prices alone, 3) additional




occupational  exposure assumptions, 4) additional non-occupational exposure




assumptions,  and 5) declining substitute prices and both sets of additional




exposure assumptions simultaneously.




     As the figures in  the table indicate, allowing for a decline of all




asbestos product substitute prices at a rate of one percent per year reduces




the estimated costs by  almost one-third.  Because it is the difference between




the asbestos  product price and the cost of substitutes that is counted as a




cost in the consumer surplus losses, not  the absolute level of the prices of




substitutes,  even moderate declines over  time of the prices of substitutes can






                                     I?-22




                  * * * DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
                                               TABLE IV-9. ADDITIOIAL NOHOCCUPATIOHAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR USE OF PRODUCTS
O
a    M
o    <
s
O
H
H
PJ
                                                                            Occupational


                                                                   Ho. of People     Mil. Fib,/¥r
             Efonoccupatd onal


Ho. of People         Mil, Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
fi.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20,
21.
22.
23.
24.
25,
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Coranercial Paper
Roilioard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Papes
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Til*
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, B¥
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transiaiss. Comp,
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Soof Coating*
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asb. Seinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant f ape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings 
-------
                                                 IABLI IV-10.  SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR BECLINIHS SUBSTITUTE PRICES AND ALTERHATIVE
                                                               ASBESTOS EXFOSIKE ASSUMPTIONS OSIKG KEGBLATQSY ALTERKiTIVE Jt
                                                                                   (Low Decline Baseline)
                Discotinting Scenario
                       and
                Costs* and Benefits
                                            Base Case
                                                Declining               Additional                 Additional                   All
                                            Substitute Prices**    Occupational Exposure    Honoeeupatioual Exposure       Sensitivity
*

cs
               3-Costs/3-B
-------
produce fairly large reductions in the costs of banning asbestos products.  The




added occupational exposures, as the table indicates, suggest that an




additional 41 cancer cases (undiscounted) might be avoided by Alternative J if




the additional occupational exposures assumed are accurate,  An even, larger




number of cancer cases, some 73 additional cases, might be avoided by this




alternative if the additional non-occupational exposures developed are




accurate.  Costs and benefits allowing for both declining substitute prices




over time and the two additional sets of exposures are shown in the final




column of the table.  As these figures indicate, the impacts of each of the




three sensitivity assumptions are independent and additive, at least for this




regulatory alternative.  That is, the decline in costs for this combination of




sensitivity assumptions is the same as for the declining substitutes prices




alone scenario, and that the increased benefits for this scenario equal the sum




of the increased benefits for the two benefit-side sensitivity analyses




conducted independently.




     Finally, the cost per cancer case avoided  (using the 3 percent discounting




for both costs and benefits) falls from the base case level of about $6 million




to $2.5 million for all three sensitivity assumptions combined.  Again,




although these are sensitivity analyses, on the exposures side the assumptions




concerning added exposures to asbestos are intended to address lack of data --




exposure settings in which exposures are believed to occur, but for which data




do not exist.  On the costs of substitutes side, the assumption of a 1 percent




decline in all substitute prices is illustrative only.  However, for many




substitute products, over time costs and prices may well decline as accumulated




production and manufacturing experience make these cheaper to produce and to




use in place of asbestos products.











                                     IV-25




                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE  OR CITE  * * *

-------
V.  REFERENCES
Advisory Committee on Asbestos.  1979a,  Asbestos volume 1: final report of the
Advisory Committee.  London, UK: British Health and Safety Commission (as
reported in USEPA 1986).

Advisory Committee on Asbestos.  1979b.  Asbestos volume 2: final report of the
Advisory Committee.  London, UK: British Health and Safety Commission (as
reported in USEPA 1986),

Axtell, LM, Asire, AJ, Myers, MH.-  1976.  Cancer Patient Survival.  Report
No, 5.  Washington, B.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office.

Berry, G and Kewhouse, ML.  1983.  Mortality of Workers Manufacturing Friction
Materials Using Asbestos.  Br, J. Ind. Med: 40,  pp. 1-7.

Bertrand, R.,  Pezerat H.   1980.  Fibrous Glass: carcinogen!city and dimensional
characteristics.  In Biological effects of mineral fibers,  IARC 2:901-911.

Chahinian, AP.  1982.  Malignant Mesothelioma.  In: Cancer Medicine, 2nd
edition, Holland, JE and Frie, E, eds., Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger,

Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel of Asbestos.  1983 (July).  Report to the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission by the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on
Asbestos.  Washington D.C.: Consumer Products Safety Commission.

Cooper, R, Cohen, R, Amiry, A.  1983.  Is the Period of Rapidly Declining Adult
Mortality in the U.S. Coming to an End?  Am, J. Public Health :73.      pp.
1091-1093.

Dement, JM, Harris, RL, Symons, MJ, et al.  1982.  Estimates of Dose-Response
for Respiratory Cancer among Chrysotile Asbestos Textile Workers.  In:  Inhaled
Particles ¥.,  Walton, TO, ed,, Oxford  : Pergamon.

Dement JM, Harris RL, jr., Symons MJ, Shy CM.  1983.  Exposures and mortality
among chrysotile asbestos workers,  PArt II: Mortality,  Am J Ind Med 4:421-
433.

Doll, R and Peto, R.  1981,  The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of
Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today.  J. Nat, Cancer
Inst.:  66.  pp. 1191-1308.

Doll, R and Peto, R.  1985.  Asbestos: Effects on the health of exposure to
asbestos.  London, UK:  Health and Safety Commission.

Eddy, DM.  1980.  Screening for Cancer: Theory, Analysis, and Design.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Henderson, VI and Enterline, PE.  1979.  Asbestos Exposure: Factors Associated
with Excess Cancer and Respiratory Disease Mortality.  Annals NY:  Academy of
Sci: 330.  pp. 117-126.
                                      V-l

                  * * *  DRAFT -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
Hobbs, MST.,  Woodward,  SD, Murphy, B et al.  1980,  The Incidence of
Pneumoconiosis,  mesothelioma, and other respiratory cancer In men engaged in
mining and milling crocidolite in Western Australia.  Biological Effects of
Mineral Fibers:  2.  pp. 615-625, IARC Scientific Publication No, 30.

Hughes, J and Weill, H.  1980.  Lung Cancer Risk Associated with Manufacture of
Asbestos-Cement Products. Lyon, France; IARC Scientific Publication No.  30,
pp. 627-635,

IGF Incorporated.   1988 (March),  Asbestos Exposure Assessment.  Prepared for
Dr Kin Wong,  Chemical Engineering Branch, Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. EPA- Draft Report.

Jacob, G and Anspach, M.  1964,  Pulmonary Neoplasia among Dresden Amosite
Workers.  Annals N.Y. Academy of Sci.: 316.  p. 536.

Jones, JSP, Smith, PG,  Pooley, FD et al.  1980.  The Consequences of Exposure
To Asbestos Dust in a Wartime Gas Mask Factory.  Biological Effects of
Mineral Fibers:  2.  pp. 637-653, Lyon, France: IARC Scientific Publication  No.
30.

Langer, AM.  1986 (April 18).  Letter to Document Control Officer (&S-793),
Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from Dr.
Arthur M. Langer,  Associate Director, Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Mount
Sinai Medical Center, NY.

McDonald, JC, Liddell,  FDK, Gtbbs, GW et al.  1980.  Dust Exposure and
Mortality in Chrysotile Mining, 1910-1975. Br, J. Ind. Med. :  37. pp. 11-24.

McDonald AD,  Fry JS, Wooley AJ, Mcdonald JC.  1983.  Dust exposure and
mortality in an American chrysotile textile plant.  Br J Ind Med 40:361-367.

National Research Council.  1984.  Nonoccupational Risks of Asbestiform Fibers,
Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Nicholson, WJ, Selikoff, IJ, Seidman, H et al.  1979.  Long-Term Mortality
Experience of Chrysotile Miners' and Millers in Thetford Mines, Quebec. Annals
NY Academy of Sci. : 330,  pp. 11-21.

Nicholson, WJ.  1983.  Quantitative Risk Assessment for Asbestos-Related
Cancers.  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Association, Contract J-9-F-2-0074,

Peto, J.  1979.   Dose-Response Relationships for Asbestos-Related Disease:
Implications for Hygiene Standards, Part II, Mortality.  Annals N.Y.  Academy
Sci  :330.  p. 195.

Peto, J.  1980,   Lung Cancer in Relation to Measured Dust Levels in an Asbestos
Factory.  In: Biological Effects of Mineral Fibers.  Wagner, JG, ed. Lyon,
France  : IARC Scientific Publication No. 30, pp.  829-836.

Peto, H, Seidman, H, and Selikoff, IJ. 1982.  Mesothelioma Incidence In
Asbestos Workers:  Implication for Models of Carcinogenesis and Risk
Assessment.   Br. J. Cancer  :45.  pp. 124-135.

                                      ¥-2

                  * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE  * * *

-------
Rubino, GF,  Piolatto,  G,  Newhouse,  ML et al.   1979.  Mortality of Chrysotile
Asbestos Workers at the Balangero Mine, Northern Italy.  Br. J. Ind. Med: 36.
pp. 187-194.

Seldman, H, Selikoff,  IJ and Hammond, EC.  1979.  Short-Term Asbestos Work
Exposure and Long-Term Observations.  Annals of N.Y. Academy Sci,:  330. pp.
61-89.

Selikoff, IJ, Hammond,  EC, Seidman,  H.  1979,   Mortality Experience in
Insulation Workers in the United States and Canada.  Annals of N.Y. Academy of
Sci.:  330.  pp. 91-116.

Stanton, MF, Layard M,  Tegeris, A.,  et al.,.  1981.  Relation of particle
dimension to carcinogenicity in amphibole asbestos and other fibrous minerals.
JNCI 64:965-975.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.   1981.  Vital Statistics of the
United States 1977:  Volume II -- Mortality Part A, Hyattsville, Md:
National Center for Health Statistics.

U.S. Department of Labor.   1986 (June 11).  Occupational- Safety and Health
Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis.  Final Regulatory Impact and
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses of the Revised Asbestos Standard.

USEPA 1986.  Airborne Asbestos Health Assessment - Update.  Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, EPA/600/8-84/003F, Research Triangle Park, SO
June.

USCPSC.  1983.  U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Chronic hazard
advisory panel on asbestos (CHAP). Washington, DC; U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.

Versar Incorporated.  1988.  Asbestos Modeling Study.  Prepared for Exposure
Evaluation Division, Exposure Assessment Branch, Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA Final Report.

Versar Incorporated,  1987 (September 25).  Nonoccupational Asbestos Exposure.
Prepared for Exposure Evaluation Division, Exposure Assessment Branch, Office
of  Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA Final Report.

WHO,  1985.  World Health Organization.  Environmental health criteria document
on  asbestos and other natural minerals.  Draft.
                                      V-3

                   * * *  DRAFT  -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE   * *  *

-------
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CONTROLS
      ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
                  FINAL REPORT
                    VOLUME II
                  APPENDIX A~E
                    Prepared for:
                , Christine Augustyniak
               Office of Toxic Substances
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     Prepared by:
                   ICF Incorporated
               Fairfax Virginia 22031-1207
                   January 19,  1989

-------

-------
                                  VOLUME II
                              TABLE OF CONTEHTS
Appendix A  - - Models and Computation Procedures	  A-l


   A. 1  Baseline Projections Models	  A.1-1

   A. 2  Fiber Supply Function Estimation  	,	  A.2-1

   A. 3  Ban/Phase-Down Simulation Model	,»	  A. 3-1

   A. 4  Exposure and Benefits Models Calculation Methods	  A.4-1

   A.5  Health Effects Computer Model	  A.5-1

   A.6  Additional Occupational and Nonoccupational Exposure
         Assumptions for Sensitivity Analysis	  A.6-1


Appendix B  -- Capital Convertibility and Quasi-Rents Determination ....  B-l

Appendix C  -- Economic Impacts Analyses	  C-l

Appendix D  -- Cost for Engineering Controls for Brake
                Maintenance/Repair	    D-1

Appendix E  -- Welfare Effects Under Alternative Fiber
                Supply Conditions	    E-l

-------

-------
           APPENDIXA,,",-,,MODELS AND  COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURES
Sect.ion A. 2 - -
   This appendix reports the details of the specific computational techniques
and computer models developed for the analysis of the regulatory alternatives
for asbestos.  The appendix is organized  into five separate sections, each of
which presents details concerning different models and computational
procedures developed.  These five sections are as follows:

   Section A.I - - Presents procedures and models associated with estimating
                  the baseline growth rates for the asbestos products modeled
                  in this analysis.  These consist of growth rate projections
                  methods for non-brake products and a model of baseline
                  growth rates for brake  products.

                  Outlines the method used by Research Triangle Institute
                  (1985) to estimate the  supply function for fiber to the U.S.
                  This provides the elasticity of fiber supply for use in the
                  Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model (ARCM).

                  Presents the exact calculations performed and the computer
                  model for the ARCM.

                  Presents information on the calculations required to develop
                  health model exposure inputs from data reported in ICF
                  (1988) and Versar (1987) and an overview of the
                  computational methods of the health model.

   Section A,5 - - Presents the computer model used to estimate the health
                  effects in the baseline and under the different regulatory
                  alternatives considered in this analysis.

   Section A.6 -- Reviews the procedures used and the results of efforts to
                  estimate occupational and nonoccupational exposure
                  information for products and exposure settings for which  '
                  exposures are suspected by for which no quantitative data
                  are available,
Beetion A.3 --
Section A.4 --

-------

-------
A.I  BAS ELIHE  PRDJECTIOiS:i::: MODELS

   This appendix presents the  analyses  performed to estimate  baseline
quantities of  outputs  for each of  the asbestos  product markets  and to estimate
the baseline growth  rates for  asbestos  products over the course, of the several
decade timeframe considered  in this  study.   The baseline quantities of
asbestos product outputs were  developed based on the information collected in
the survey of  asbestos product manufacturers , which is reported in detail  in
Appendix F.  However, because  information for some  manufacturers of asbestos
products was not available,  techniques  were  required for developing total
production volume estimates  in light of these nonrespondents .   Thus,  the first
section of this appendix reports the methods used to estimate total production
volumes for each asbestos product  market based  on the survey  results ,

   Given these total production volumes for  each asbestos product markets,  the
next step is to define the future  outputs of these  markets in the absence  of
regulatory controls, that is,  the  baseline.   These  baseline growth rates are
important in the simulation  modeling because they determine the evolution  of
the asbestos fiber and products markets over time and thus determine the
characteristics of the markets that  will be  affected by the various regulatory
alternatives examined,
                             *

   Two different analyses' were conducted to  develop baseline  growth rate
estimates for  the numerous asbestos  product  markets.   Growth  rates for the
vast majority  of these product markets  were  developed using a very          <
straightforward projection technique based on the 1981 to 1985  growth
experienced in each  market.  Using this information,  as outlined in the second
section below, three different baseline growth  rate scenarios were developed,
ranging from a scenario in which the future '  output  of each product was simply
set equal to its 1985  (in most cases) output, to one in which the baseline
future growth  rates  for each product were set equal to their  1981 to 1985
growth rates .  Section 2 below outlines this method and the resulting growth
rate series in detail.

   The second  analysis undertaken  to develop baseline growth  rate figures
focused on two products exclusively  --  disc  brake pads and drum brakes for
light and medium weight vehicles.  Unlike most  of the other product markets, a
great deal is  known  about current  and past use  of asbestos in brakes and -about
trends in substituting non-asbestos  brakes in newer vehicles.   Coupled with
the facts that future sales  forecasts for automobiles are available (and of
reasonably high quality) and that  scrappage  rates for older vehicles are
reasonably well -documented,  this implies that a more sophisticated model of
future asbestos brake product  may  be warranted.   That is,  given the quantity
and quality of information available about the  future determinants of asbestos
brake production, a  model that captures the  influences of these determinants
in a coherent  fashion seems  appropriate.  Thus,  a "brake model" was developed
to predict future baseline 'growth  rates "for  asbestos  brake production.  This
model is presented in detail in Section 3 below.

   1.  Derivation of Total ..... ]?Jg|^acJ^.pJ3m^JL1SMfe§J.^fiJ^As|?^g-tQS ..... Products
   This section describes the three possible methods of  accounting for non-
respondents to the survey and presents the results for the methods that  appear
to be the best estimates for actual output of asbestos -containing products in
1985..

                                    A. 1-1

-------
    210  firms  were  surveyed and  responses were received  from  191 of them.  The
balance of 19 are  classified as non-respondents and  are listed in Exhibit
A,1.1-1 along with their  products.  Of  the  191 firms that have responded, 118
processed  asbestos in  1985 and  73  did not.

         1.1  Adjustment Methods

         Because  the asbestos regulatory cost aodel (ARCM) estimates the total
costs of regulating asbestos, the  model requires total  production of asbestos-
containing products to obtain accurate  results.  Some firms  have been
unwilling  to  provide this information,  so it must be estimated using the other
information to which we have access --  1981 TSCA 8
-------
                Exhibit A.1.1-1.   Asbestos  Survey Non-Respondents
         Company
                     Products
Abex Corporation
Allied Automotive
Alsop Engineering Company

American Cyanamid

Beaver Industries, Inc.

Boise Cascade Corporation

Brake Systems


Brassbestos


Capco Pipe Company, Inc.

Crane Packing

Karnak Chemical Corporation

Koch Asphalt Company


Koppers Company

Minnesota Mining &
  Manufac tur ing C omp any

Mortell Company

National Paint & Oil
  Company
Drum Brake Linings  (18)a
Disc Brake Pads for Light and Medium Vehicles (19)
Brake Blocks  (21)

Drum Brake Linings  (18)
Disc Brake Pads for Light and Medium Vehicles (19)
Disc Brake Pads for Heavy Vehicles  (20)
Brake Blocks  (21)

Specialty Paper (11)

Non-Roofing Adhesives, Sealants, and Compounds (30)

Specialty Paper (11)

Beater-Add Gaskets  (5)

Drum Brake Linings  (18)
Disc Brake Pads for Light and Medium Vehicles (19)

Drum Brake Linings  (18)
Disc Brake Pads for Light and Medium Vehicles (19)

Asbestos-Cement Pipe  (14)

Asbestos Packing (28)

Roof Coatings and Cements (29)

Roof Coatings and Cements (29)
Missile Liner (32)

Roof Coatings and Cements (29)

Non-Roofing Adhesives, Sealants, and Compounds (30)


Non-Roofing Adhesives, Sealants, and Compounds (30)

Roof Coatings and Cements (29)
                                    A.1-3

-------
                          Exhibit A.1.1-1  (Continued)
         Company
                     Products
Raymark Corporation
Brake Blocks (21)
Clutch Facings (22)
Automatic Transmission Components (23)
Friction Materials (24)
Steelcote Manufacturing     Non-Roofing Adhesives, Sealants, and Compounds (30)
Wheeling Brake Block
  Manufacturing
Brake Blocks (21)
Friction Materials (24)
aNumbers In parentheses indicate new TSCA product category numbers.
                                    A.1-4

-------
in several Industries be removed.  Second, BOM's method of data collection
involves the possibility (indeed, a strong -likelihood) that significant
double-counting and misclassification could occur.  As a result, it is likely
that for many of the BOM product groups the BOM totals are not reliable.
Similarly, it may also be the case that BOM's total' fiber consumption figure
(171,6 thousand short tons) is also probably in excess of the actual 1985
fiber consumption.  These considerations are explored further in the final
section below.  Finally, the 1985 survey results combined with the 1981 survey
strongly suggest that the rates of output change among the component products
that compose many of the BOM product groups were different.  Hence, to
allocate (apparently) missing fiber defined as the difference between the BOM
and ICF estimates would not be appropriate since the evidence suggests that
the component product categories in the BOM groups change at different rates.

        1.2  Results

        The problem that this analysis attempts to solve is a difficult one
since trying to determine the outputs of nonrespondents based on several
related pieces of information can yield multiple answers.  Nevertheless, there
are guides to selecting adjustments.  First, any adjustments should appear to
be reasonable and consistent with common sense.  Second, adjustments should
result in estimates that are consistent, to the extent possible, with all of
the information available.  Finally, adjustments should attempt to use all of
the information in the survey, including information obtained from respondents
concerning the activities of non-respondents.  Hence, in selecting the
recommended adjustment for each product category all of these considerations
were taken into account and are described below.

    Exhibit A.1.1-2 presents 1981 asbestos production data, reported 1985
asbestos production data (quantities reported in the 1985 survey), and Method
1 and Method 2 adjusted 1985 asbestos production data.  Adjusted 1985 asbestos
production data are the same as reported 1985 asbestos production data for 22
of the 36 product categories because there are no non-respondents in these
product categories.  Adjusted 1985 data using Methods 1 and 2 were computed
for 12 of the remaining 14 products.  These adjustment methods could not
generate estimates for 2 product categories (specialty paper and automatic
transmission components) because the only respondents have ceased processing
asbestos,

    Both methods of adjustment yield the same total production estimates
whenever all the respondents processed asbestos in 1985.  This occurs in 2 of
the 12 cases.  In all other cases, Method 2 yields a higher estimate because
it models non-respondents based on only the non-zero respondents, while Method
1 models them based on all respondents.  The difference between the two
estimates ranges widely, however, in most cases the difference is
approximately 15-25 percent.

    Method 2 is recommended in almost all cases for making the required
adjustments for two reasons.  First, it is fair to assume that a company that
refused to provide production information is probably still processing
asbestos.   Many of the non-respondents cited the cost and difficulty of
obtaining this information as the reason for their refusal.  If they did not
process asbestos, this probably would not be true.  Second, Method 2 yields
estimates which are broadly more consistent with BOM data.  Although both
                                    A.1-5

-------
                                                    Exhibit A.1.1-2  Adjusted 1985  Domestic Asbestos Production
Product
Commercial Paper (1)
Rot (board (2)
Millboard (3)
Pipeline Wrap (4)
Beater-ftdd Gaskets (5)
High-Grade Electrical Paper (6)
Roofing Felt (7)
Acetylene Cylinders (8)
Flooring Felt (9)
Corrugated Paper (10)
Specialty Paper (11)
Vinyl -Asbestos Floor Tile (12)
Asbestos Diaphragms (13)
Asbestos- Cement Pipe (14)
Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet (15)
Asbestos -Cement Corrugated
Sheet (16)
Asbestos -Cement Shingle (17)
Drum Brake Linings (18)
Oisc Brake Pads - l«V (19)
Disc Brake Pads - HV (20)
Brake Blocks (21)
Clutch Facings (22)
Automatic Transmission
Components (23)
Friction Haterials (24)
Asbestos Protective Clothing (25)
Asbestos Cloth, Yarn, and
Thread (26)
Sheet Gaskets (27)
Asbestos Packing (28)
Roof Coatings and Cements (29)
Non-RoofSng Adhesives, Sealants,
arid Compounds. (30)
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic (31)
Missile Liner (32)
Sealant Tape (33)
Battery Separator (34)
Arc Chutes (35)
Miscellaneous Products (36)
1981 Production
936 tons
0 tons
2,767 tons
2,150,615 squares
26,039 tons
706 tons
3,107,538 squares
819,212 pieces
127,403 tons
46 tons
2,090 tons
58,352,864 sq. yds,
N/A pieces
25,060,263 feet
452,683 squares
105,628 squares
266,670 squares
162,263,833 pieces
110,644,603 pieces
896,720 pieces
21,284,408 pieces
7,396,110 pieces
381,500 pieces
17,732,455 pieces
0 tons

5,901 tons
10,353,431 sq. yds.
714 torts
80,795,905 gallons
35,544,826 gallons
12,388 tons
4,006 tons
328,347,768 feet
2,226 pounds
20,406 pieces
d/
Reported
198S Production
0 tons
0 tons
581 tons
296,949 squares
15,023 tons
698 tons
0 squares
392,121 pieces
0 tons
0 tons
0 tons
18,300,000 sq. yds.
50 pieces
13,432,916 feet
22,621 squares
0 squares
176,643 squares
71,673,204 pieces
27,285,544 pieces
9,964 pieces
2,652,010 pieces
7,233,476 pieces
530,000 pieces
8,592,178 pieces
0 tons

1,125 tons
3,607,408 sq. yds.
149 tons
67,031,499 gallons
7,352,819 gallons
4,835 tons
1,008 tons
423,048,539 feet
2,046 pounds
900 pieces
0 tons
Adjusted
1985 Production
(Hethod 1)
0 tons
0 tons
581 tons
296,949 squares
16,463 tons
698 tons
0 squares
392,121 pieces
0 tons
0 tons
a/ tons
18,300,000 sq. yds.
b/ pieces
14,983,125 feet
22,621 squares
0 squares
176,643 squares
129,042,578 pieces
56,208,100 pieces
16,678 pieces
4,143,346 pieces
7,237,112 pieces
c/ pieces
8,718,609 pieces
0 tons

1,125 tons
3,607,408 sq. yds,
3 tons
73,781,734 gallons
9,019,715 gallons
4,835 tons
14,236 tons
423,048,539 feet
2,046 pounds
900 pieces
0 tons
Adjusted
1985 Production
(Hethod 2)
0 tons
0 tons
581 tons
296,949 squares
16,505 tons
698 tons
0 squares
392,121 pieces
0 tons
0 tons
Q 1 IhQflC
18,300,000 sq. yds.
b/ pieces
15,062,708 feet
22,621 squares
0 squares
176,643 squares
129,042,578 pieces
65,869,172 pieces
156,820 pieces
4,570,266 pieces
7,237,112 pieces
c/ pieces
8,719,541 pieces
0 tons

1,125 tons
3,607,408 sq. yds.
3 tons
75,977,365 gallons
9,612,655 gallons
4,835 tons
14,526 tons
423,048,539 feet
2,046 pounds
900 pieces
0 tons
a/  Hethod 1 and Method 2 adjusttnents could not be made  for  this product category.  See text for explanation.

bi  Method 1 and Method 2 adjustments could not be made  for  this product category because most of the firms were not surveyed in 1981
    or 1985.  Total industry production  is estimated based on  information supplied by Chlorine Institute.

c/  S.K. Wellman was the only positive 1985 respondent,  but  it plans to stop processing in 1987.  There is one non-respondent,
    however, we do not believe it Is appropriate to make an  adjustment on the basis of only one company which no longer processes
    Hence, the non-respondent's 1985 production is assumed to be equal to its 1981 production.

d/ Consistent units for this category do not exist.

-------
methods yield estimates that are lower than BOM's data,  Method 2 yields
estimates of total asbestos use that are closer to BOM's total.

    Exhibit A.1.1-3 reports the final adjusted quantities for all of the 36
asbestos-containing products.  In addition to the product quantities, both the
implied amount of fiber consumed in each category and the method of adjustment
are shown in the table.  The "Method of Adjustment" column reflects the 22
products for which no adjustment was required ("No Adjustment") and the 10 for
which Method 2 is recommended  ("Method 2").

    Exhibit A.1.1-3 also indicates that other methods are recommended for
three product categories -- specialty paper (11), automatic transmission
components (23), and missile liner (32).  As stated above, method 2 could not
be used to make corrections for specialty paper (11) or automatic transmission
components (23) because all of the respondents in those categories indicated
that they had stopped (or plan to stop) processing asbestos.^  Since the
adjustments use information on respondents' production levels, clearly these
corrections are infeasible.  Furthermore, the BOM estimates for the broader
product categories cannot be used to determine 1985 production for these two
products because so many other products are included in the BOM totals.
Hence, in these cases, setting 1985 production equal to 1981 production for
the non-respondents is reconnaended because no other adjustment method appears
to be feasible.  This assumption is likely to overstate the production levels
for these products, but this is not quantitatively important because 1981
asbestos fiber consumption by  these companies was less than 400 tons.

    An alternative method for  adjusting the 1985 reported quantities for and
missile liner (32) is recommended.  In this case, Method 2 produced results
that diverged widely from expectations and the BOM data.  Method 2 estimated
that consumption of asbestos fiber in missile liner was 2,180 tons while BOM
estimated that fiber consumption for Insulation Materials was 700 tons.  The
reason Method 2 yields such large estimates in this case is that the 1985
respondents in these categories produced small amounts in 1981, while the 1981
industry leaders refused to respond to the 1985 survey.  However, output from
these small companies increased .greatly from 1981 to 1985.  Consequently, when
the large growth rate of these small firms is applied to the 1981 industry
leaders, a very large estimate of 1985 production results.

    Finally,  the Method 2 adjustment for missile liner (32) is"an order of
magnitude greater than the 1981 fiber consumption level, again because of the
same problem that affected the packings and "gaskets category.  Adjusting the
estimate of fiber consumption  in missile liner (32) by assuming the BOM figure
for insulation material to be  correct -- missile liners is the only product
that falls into this category  -- is recommended.  Although the BOM data are
not always accurate due to aisclassification and multiple-classification,
missile liner is the only product in this BOM category.  Furthermore, given
the nature of the product,  -it  seems less likely that much miselassification
could occur in this category.  Hence, assuming that the single non-respondent
in this category accounts for  the entire difference between our survey data
and BOM data in this category  seems reasonable.   Therefore, the IGF and BOM
estimates for this category are identical.
     *- The only processing respondent in automatic transmission components
(23) had indicated it planned to stop processing asbestos in March 1987.

                                    A.1-7

-------
              Eshibit A.1.1-3  Final Adjusted 1985 Doraasfcic Aabeatos  Production
Product
Commercial Paper (1)
Roll board (2)
Millboard (3)
Pipeline Wrap (4)
Beater -Add Gaskets (5)
High-Grade Electrical Paper (6)
Roofing Felt {7)
Acetylene Cylinders (8)
Flooring Felt (9)
Corrugated Paper (10)
Specialty Paper (11)
Vinyl -Asbestos Floor Tile (12)
Asbestos Diaphragms (13)
Asbestos-Cement Pipe (14)
Asbestos -Cement Flat Sheet {15)
Asbestos -Cement Corrugated
Sheet (16)
Asbestos -Cement Shingle (17)
Drum Brake linings (18)
Disc Brake Pads - LMV (19)
Disc Brake Pads - H¥ (20)
Brake Blocks {21)
Clutch Facings (22)
Automatic Transmission
Components (23)
Friction Materials (24)
Asbestos Protective Clothing (25)
Asbestos Cloth, Yarn, and
Thread (26)
Sheet Gaskets (27)
Asbestos Packing (28)
Roof Coatings and Cements (29)
Non-Roofing ftdhesiws, Sealants,
and Compounds (30)
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic (31)
Hissile Liner (32)
Sealant Tape (33)
Battery Separator (34)
Arc Chutes (35)
Miscellaneous Products (36)
Final Adjusted
1985 Production
0 tons
0 tons
581 tons
296,949 squares
16,505 tons
698 tons
0 squares
392,121 pieces
0 tons
0 tons
434 tons
18,300,000 sq. yds,
9,770 pieces
15,062,708 feet
22,621 squares
0 squares
176,643 sejuares
129,042,578 pieces
65,869,172 pieces
156,820 pieces
4,570,266 pieces
7,237,112 pieces
585,500 pieces

8,719,541 pieces
0 tons

1,125 tons
3,607,408 sq. yds.
3 tons
75,977,365 flat Ions
9,612,655 gallons

4,835 tons
4,667 tons
423,048,539 feet
2,046 pounds
900 pieces
0 tons
1985 Fiber
Consumption
0.0 tons
0.0 tons
435.8 tons
1,333.3 tons
12,436.4 tons
744.0 tons
0.0 tons
584.1 tons
0.0 tons
0,0 tons
92.1 tons
10,374.0 tons
977.0 tons
32,690.8 tons
2,578.8 tons
0.0 tons
3,893.0 tons
24,691.8 tons
7,119.2 tons
117.6 tons
2,643.6 tons
993.5 tons
2.5 tons

1,602.5 tons
0.0 tons

558.0 tons
5,441.1 tons
2.1 tons
29,551.2 tons
2,951.4 tons

812.1 tons
700.0 tons
1,660,2 tons
1.0 tons
13.5 tons
0.0 tons
Adjustment
«ethod
Bo Adjustment ml
Ho Adjustment
Mo Adjustment
Wo Adjustment
Method 2 b/
Ho Adjustment
No Adjustment
No Adjustment
No Adjustment
No Adjustment
Other c/
No Adjustment
Other d/
Method 2
Mo Adjustment
No Adjustment
No Adjustment
Method 2
Method 2
Method 2
Rethod 2
Hethod 2
Other e/

Method 2
Method 2

Method 2
Method 2
Method 2
Method 2
Method 2

No Adjustment
BOM estimate f/
No Adjustment
No Adjustment
No Adjustment
No Adjustment
Footnotes on next page.

-------
Exhibit A.1,1-3 (Continued)

FOOTHOTES

a/  Ho adjustment was made in product categories where all companies responded.

b/  Method 2 adjustment is described in the text,

c/  1085 asbestos production in this category was set equal to the 1981 production of the two non-respondents
    because all respondents no longer process asbestos.

d/  1985 asbestos production in this category was estimated based on information supplied by the Chlorine Institute,

e/  1985 asbestos production for this category has been asjuatetj by assuming that the nonrespondenb
    produced at its 1981 level.  See text for explanation.

f/  1985 asbestos production for this category was set equal to the BOM estimate for insulation.   See
    text for explanation.

-------
         1.3,   Comiparisonwith BOM Data

         In addition to the,1981 and 1986 production 'data,  the recommended
 adjusted figures can also be compared with the BOM's 1985  fiber usage.
 However,  because BOM uses only 13 product categories,  both the ICF reported
 and the  ICF recommended adjusted production data have  been multiplied by
 fiber-to-output ratios to yield fiber consumption for  each product category,
 These fiber consumption quantities were then sorted and summed according to
 the groups of products that compose each BOM category,

     Exhibit A.1.1-4 shows the resulting ICF reported fiber consumption,  the
 ICF adjusted consumption, and the BOM estimate of total fiber consumption for
 each BOM product category.   In most cases,  the adjusted ICF estimates are
 fairly close to the BOM estimates.   Except for a few cases,  differences
 between  the ICF and BOM estimates are small over- and  under-estimates.   The
 explanation for these small divergences could be the result of several
 factors:   (1)  applying fiber-to-output ratios to the ICF production data (to
 obtain fiber consumption) that do not exactly match those  experienced by all
 consumers of fiber;  (2)  misreporting of fiber use by survey respondents;  and
 (3)  misreporting of fiber use by the BOM survey respondents.

     This  last possible reason for the many small differences  between  the two
 sets of  estimates is important to point out.   In 1985  BOM  altered  the method
 by  which  it obtains asbestos consumption information.   The current method uses
 a survey  of domestic miners and millers in combination with import data  from
 the Census Bureau to estimate fiber consumption.

     In addition to the small positive and negative divergences between the BOM
 and ICF estimates of fiber consumption in these BOM categories,  two larger
 differences  are  in the two estimates of fiber consumption  in the Coatings and
 Compounds category and the total fiber used.   The Adjusted ICF estimate  for
 Coatings  and  Compounds is 3.0 thousand short  tons and  the  BOM estimate is 25.5
 thousand  short  tons.   Note that this is the ICF Adjusted estimate.

     At first  glance one  might conclude that the ICF estimate  for this category
 is  too low.   However,  it is possible that it  is the BOM estimate that is not
 quite  accurate.   There are  several reasons  that argue  for  the ICF  estimate an
 against the BOM  estimate.   First,  the adjusted ICF estimate makes  sense  when
 one  considers  the 1981 quantity,  the reported 1985 quantity,  and the  1981
 production levels of the non-respondents  in this  category.  There  are five
 non-respondents  in this  category which accounted  for about 25 percent of the
 1981 production  quantity of about 35,000,000  gallons.   The reported 1985
 production level  for the respondents  was  only slightly  above  7,000,000 gallons
 (see Exhibit A.1.1-2 for these  figures),  while  the ICF  adjusted quantity for
 1985  (using Method 2)  is almost 10,000,000  gallons.  This  implies  that the
 estimated production levels  for the  nonrespondents is slightly less than half
 of  their  level in 1981,  which  does not seem to  be unreasonable in  a market in
 which the  respondents' production (75  percent  of  1981 output)  declined by 70
 percent between  1981 and 1985.

     Second, if the  BOM estimate of fiber  consumption for Coatings  and
 Compounds  is correct for 1985,  then  this  implies  that the  nonrespondents  in
 this category would  have  to  have  produced more  than 7 times their  total  1981
 production  in 1985.   This does  not seem to  be reasonable given that production
by respondents declined  by  about  70 percent during that  period.

                                    A.1-10

-------
   Exhibit A.1.1-4.   1985 Domestic Asbestos Fiber Consumption
                  (in thousands of short tons)
Product Category
Asbestos -Cement Pipe
Asbestos -Cement Sheet
Coatings and Compounds
Flooring Products
Friction Products
Insulation Materials
Packings and Gaskets
Paper Products
Plastics
Roofing Products
Textiles
Other
Total
IGF
(Reported)3
29.6
6.4
2,3
10.4
20.2
0.2
5.1
13.7
0.8
26.1
0.6
3.2
118.6
IGF
(Adjusted)11
32.7
6.5
3.0
10.4
37.2
0.7 .*
5.6
15.0
0.8
29.6
0.6
iri 3,2
145.1
BOMC
30.9
7.3
25.5
7.7
37.4
0.7
7.1
18.5
0.8
28.9
1.3
171.6
aICF survey of prinary processors of asbestos.

blCF estimates.

CU.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Bureau of
Mineral Minerals Yearbook.
                            A.1-11

-------
    Another reason to believe that the ICF estimate for this category is
probably more accurate is that the possibility of misclassifying, and more
serious, double-classifying fiber use is particularly severe in the case of
Coatings and Compounds.  Coatings and compounds are very similar to Roofing
Products,  We believe that a substantial amount of fiber use in the BOM data
is double-classified in these two categories.  BOM's estimates of fiber
consumption in these two categories over the 1981 to 1985 period are quite
revealing.  These are tabulated in Exhibit A.1.1-5.

    The table shows that for these two categories, BOM's estimate of fiber
usage for the two products together until 1985 seem reasonable.  The 1985
total, however, is much higher than any previous year.  Furthermore, the split
of the total fiber used between the Coatings and Compounds and Roofing
Products categories changed dramatically across the years.  Note, however,
that the ICF estimate of total fiber use in these two categories (33 thousand
tons) is approximately the same as the BOM total for 1984 (31.6 thousand
tons).

    Another aspect of the BOM survey is also relevant here.  The BOM survey
attempts to determine fiber purchases, not necessarily use of fiber during the
year.  To the extent that firms are stockpiling fiber for use in future years,
the BOM estimates of fiber purchases will be larger than actual fiber use
during 1985.

    Finally, the reported 1981 production level in 1981 for Coatings and
Compounds and for Roofing Products were about 35 million gallons and 80
million gallons respectively.  These imply that 1981 fiber usage was about
31.5 thousand tons for Roofing Products and 11 thousand tons for Coatings and
Compound.  Thus, in 1981 the amount of fiber used in Coatings and Compounds
was far less than that used in Roofing Products, which is consistent with the
ICF estimates for 1985 but inconsistent with BOM's 1981 figures for fiber
usage in 1981.

    Based on these considerations, using the ICF estimate for Coatings and
Compounds and, consequently, the ICF estimate for total 1985 fiber
consumption, is recommended.
                                    A.1-12

-------
          Exhibit A.1.1-5.  Selected Bureau of Mines (BOM)
                  Asbestos Fiber Consumption Data
                    (in thousands of short tons)
                           1981     1982     1983     1984     1985


Coatings and Compounds     14.4     27.7     13.0     23.8     25.5

Roof Products              17.6      7.7      7.2      7.8     2g::g9

     Total                 32.0     35.4     20.2     31.6     54.4
                              A.1-13

-------
                                  ATTACHMENT
Method 1

    Mathematical Formulation:

    Let X^ represent 1981 asbestos production for a  1985 respondent  (i ranges
from 1 to R, where R Is the number of respondents).

    Let Xj represent 1981 asbestos production for a  1985 non-respondent  (j
ranges from 1 to N, where N is the number of non-respondents).

    Let Y£ represent 1985 asbestos production for a  1985 respondent.

    Let ¥4 represent corrected 1985 asbestos production for a 1985 non-
respondent .

                                      R
                                      t
                                     1-1 Yt
                                Y* -	x X*
                                 J    R        J
                                      e
                                     i-l Xj_

    Example:

    Suppose three companies produced asbestos-cement pipe  in 1981.   Company A
produced 200 tons,  Company B produced 500 tons, and  Company C produced 100
tons.  In 1985, Company B has told us it produced 450 tons of asbestos-cement
pipe, Company C has told us it produced 0 tons of asbestos-cement pipe,  and
Company A has refused to respond.  Total production  for Companies B  and  C was
600 (500 + 100) tons .in 1981,  and it fell to 450 (450 4- 0) in 1985.  Thus,
1985 output of respondents was 75 percent (450/600)  of 1981 production.  We
would then assume that the same decline was true for Company A. and estimate
its 1985 output to be 150 (0.75 x 200) tons.
                                    A.1-14

-------
Method:i::2

    Mathematical _. .Formulation :

    Let Zj, represent 1981 asbestos production for a 1985 non-zero respondent
(k ranges from 1 to P, where P is the number of non-zero respondents).

    Let Zj represent 1981 asbestos production for a 1985 non- respondent  (j
ranges from 1 to N, where N is the number of non - respondents ).

    Let Y|j represent 1981 asbestos production for a 1985 non-zero respondent,

    Let Yj represent corrected 1985 asbestos production for a 1985 non-
respondent .

                                      P
                                      £
                                     K-l Yk
                                      R
                                      fi
                                      -1 Zk
    Example :
    Suppose three companies produced asbestos -cement pipe in 1981.  Company A
produced 200 tons, Company B produced 500 tons, and Company C produced 100
tons.  In 1985, Company B has told us it produced 450 tons of asbestos -cement
pipe, Company C has told us it produced 0 tons of asbestos-cement pipe, and
Company A has refused to respond.  Total production for the non-zero
respondents (Company B) was 500 tons in 1981, and fell to 450 in 1985.  Thus,
1985 output of the non-zero respondents was 90 percent (450/500) of 1981
production.  We 'would then assume that the same was true for Company A and
estimate its 1985 output to be 180 (0.90 x 200) tons.
                                    A.1-15

-------
     2.   Baseline. Jgrowth:Rate  Projectlpns,jfor Asbestos Products

     This section  describes  the methods and rationale for .the alternative
baseline growth rate  assumptions used in the calculations  of costs  and
benefits.   The projections  of product growth rates presented in this  section
are  based on the  large  amount of information generated in  the course  of
conducting the survey of asbestos  products described in Appendix F.  ,Along
with historical information concerning the evolution of asbestos markets, the
information obtained  in the survey concerning 1985 production quantities is
invaluable as a guide,to developing appropriate assumptions  for the future
development of these  markets.

     The  remainder of  this section  is organized as  follows:

         «   Subsection 2.1 reviews  the findings of  the ICF  survey of
            1985 production  volumes for asbestos products and computes
            the growth rates actually experienced during the  1981 to
            1985 period,  and

         »   Subsection 2.2 outlines the methods used to develop
            alternative  baseline growth rates for the asbestos
            products.

         2.1   1985 Survey Results and Actual  Growth Rates from__1981  to  1985

         Exhibit A.1.2-1  shows  the  1981 production  quantities for the  asbestos
products,  the ICF adjusted  1985 quantities of these products developed from
the  ICF  survey, the implied annual rates of  growth for the products from the
1981 to  1985  experience,  and  the amount of fiber used in each product  in 1985.
Note first  that 5 of  the  36 products are no  longer produced  in 1985 according
to the ICF  survey.  Of  the  remaining 31 products,  3 do not have definable
rates of growth because  in  two cases (products 2 and 25) both 1981 and 1985
quantities  are zero,   and in the case of Miscellaneous Products (36), no
consistent units or definitions exist.  This leaves 28 products for which
meaningful non-zero growth  rates are definable.

     In most cases, the  actual  experience during the 1981 to  1985 period was
fairly steep  declines in output.   There are,  however,  a few  cases in which
actual experience during the  1981  to 1985  period was an increase, suggesting
that new uses or expanded use  of these products  occurred during that period.
However, in all cases in which positive growth occurred (including the newly
classified products 32 and  33),  the  amount of fiber used in  the product
category is extremely small relative to the  total,  as  shown  in the column
listing the amount of fiber for each product market.   Furthermore, in  the case
of product 23, the source of the positive  growth between 1981 and 1985 is the
introduction  of a new product  line which is  now being  phased out by the
product's- maker.   In  this case,  the  ICF survey contains detailed information
concerning the 1985,   1986,  1987, and 1988  production volumes  for this  company,
so projecting the  future  production  volumes  for  this market  is  reasonably
straightforward as discussed below.
                                    A.1-16

-------
                       Exhibit A, 1.2-1,  Comparison of Actual and Estimated Product Growth  Rates
Product
Coiwiercial Paper (1)
Rollboard (2)
Hillboard (3)
Pipeline Wrap (4)
Beater-Add Gaskets (5)
Hifh-Grade Electrical Paper (6)
Roofing Felt <7>
Acetylene Cylinders (8)
Flooring Felt (9)
Corrugated Paper (10)
Specialty Paper (11)
Vinyl -Asbestos Floor Hie (12)
Asbestos Diaphragms (13)
Asbestos -Cement Pipe (14J
Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet {15}
Asbestos-Cement Corrugated
Sheet (16)
Asbestos-Cement Shingle (17)
Drum Brake Linings (18)
Disc Brake Pads - LHV (19)
Disc Brake Pads - HV (20)
Brake Blocks {21 5
Clutch Facings (22)
Automatic Transmission
Components (23)
Friction Materials (24)
Asbestos Protective Clothing C25)
Asbestos Cloth, Tarn, and
Ihread (26)
Sheet Gaskets (27)
Asbestos Packings (28)
Roof Coatings and Cements (29)
Non-Roofing Adhesives, Sealants,
and Compounds (30)
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic (11)
Hissile Li|ier (32)
Sealant Tape (33)
Battery Separator (34)
Arc Chutes (35)
Miscellaneous Products (36)
1981 Production
936 tons
0 tons
2,767 tons
2,150,615 squares
26,039 tons
706 tons
3,107,538 squares
819,212 pieces
127,403 tons
46 tons
2,090 tons
58,352,864 sq. yds.
N/A pieces
25,060,263 feet
452,683 squares
105,628 squares

266,670 squares
162,263,833 pieces
110,644,603 pieces
896,720 pieces
21,284,408 pieces
7,396,110 pieces
381,500 pieces
17,732,455 pieces
0 tons

5,901 tons
10,353,431 sq. yds.
714 tons
80,795,905 gallons
35,544,826 gallons

12,388 tons
4,006 tons
328,347,768 feet
2,226 pounds
20,406 pieces
a/
Final Adjusted Growth Rate Original 1985 Fiber
1985 Production 1981 - 1985 Growth Rate Consumption
0 tons
0 tons
581 tons
296,949 squares
16,505 tons
698 tons
0 squares
392,121 pieces
0 tons
0 tons
434 tons
18,300,000 sq. yds.
9,770 pieces
15,062,708 feet
22,621 squares
0 squares

176,643 squares
129,042,578 pieces
65,869,172 pieces
156,820 pieces
4,570,266 pieces
7,237,112 pj«ce«
585,500 pieces
8,719,541 pieces
0 tons

1,125 tons
3,607,408 sq. yds.
S tons
75,977,365 gallons
9.612,655 gallons

4,835 tons
4,667 tons
423,048,539 feet
2,046 pounds
900 pieces
0 tons
-100.0QX
N/A
-32.31%
-39.04%
-10.77%
-0.28X
-100.00X
-16.82%
-100.00%
•100.00%
•32. SOX
-25.17X
N/A
-11,95%
-52,72%
-100.00X

-9.78X
-5.57%
-12.16%
-35.33%
-31.93%
-0.54%
11.30X
-16.26X
N/A

-33.92%
-23.17%
-74.54%
-1.53%
-27.89%

-20,96%
3.89%
6.54%
-2.09%
-54.17%
N/A
-3 .83%
M/A
-3.83X
-12.50%
-2.22%
-12,50%
-13.02%
If/A
-6.41%
-3,83%
-3.83X
-6.41X
N/A
-6.11X
-3. 18%
-3.18X

-3.18X
2.60%
3.30% b/
4.81% b/
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
4.78%
-15.60%

-15,60%
-2.22%
-2.22%
-10.74X
-10.09%

-53.60X
N/A
U/A
N/A
N/A
-10.09%
0.0 tons
0.0 tons
435.8 tons
1,333.3 tons
12,436.4 tons
744.0 tons
0.0 tons
584.1 tons
0.0 tons
0.0 tons
92.1 tons
10,374.0 tons
977.0 tons
32,690.8 tons
2,578.8 tons
0.0 tons

3,893.0 torn
24,691.8 tons
7,119.2 tons
117.6 tons
2,643.6 tons
993.5 tons
2.5 tons
1,602.5 tons
0.0 tons

558.0 tons
5.441.1 tons
24
•* tons
29,551.2 tons
2,951.4 tons

812.1 tons
700.0 tons
1,660.2 tons
1.0 tons
13.5 tons
0.0 tons
»/  Consistent  units do not exist for this product,
b/ These are the growth rates actually used in the PEM.  Thay are not th* same as the arotrth rates In the «IA.
ti/A:  This information is either not available or not  applicable.

-------
          2.2   Baseline_Zroduct Growth Rates •

          In brief,  the basic approach for developing baseline  product growth
  rate  projections  is to define three alternative scenarios  for the  non-brake
  markets  (treated  separately in the next section).  'These are:

          •  Low Decline --  growth rates  equal to zero for all  products
            except where more detailed information  is available;

          «  High Decline --  growth rates equal to actual  1981  to  1985
            experience;  and

          »  Moderate Decline --  growth rates  equal  to one-half of the
            actual  1981 to  1985  declines.

     The  Low Decline scenario is very likely  to overstate the  amount  of
  asbestos used in  the future as  well as  the outputs of the  asbestos products
  because  the actual experience has been  substantial declines over time.
  However, this  scenario provides,  in a sense,  an upper bound for  the  amount of
  asbestos and  the  outputs of the asbestos  products  for the  future,  thereby
  probably overstating both  the costs and the  benefits of  the regulatory
  alternatives.   The High Decline scenario  may well  understate  the future.
  outputs  of these products  since it is conceivable  that the high  declines in
  the outputs of these products in the recent  past may not continue.   Thus, one
  might argue that  the High Decline scenario offers  a lower  bound  for  the costs
  and benefits of the Regulatory  Alternatives.   Finally, the Moderate  Decline
  scenario represents the midpoint of the two  extrenes.

     There  are  a few exceptions  to the general assumption that  future
  production for these products will either be  the same as in 1985 or  that the
  future growth  rates will be equal to (or  one-half  of)  the  1981 to  1985
  experience.  "These are  cases in which the IGF survey produced  additional
  information about  various companies'  production plans in 1986  and  1987.  In
  some cases companies indicated  that their 1986  production  levels would be
  zero, and  in one case,  a company provided its 1986 production  level  and
  indicated  that it  would cease processing  asbestos  during 1987.   In these
  cases, this additional  information is taken  into account for setting the 1986
  and 1987 production levels,  but that from these years forward, the future
  growth rates follow the assumption listed above.

     The  special cases  in which  additional information beyond 1985 is  available
  are products 8, 12,  15,  23,  28,  29,  30, and 31.  Hence,  in Table 2A  for
  example, the 1985  to 1986 growth rate for the Low  Decline  scenario is not
  zero, as it is  for  the  other products.  In one  case,  the 1985 to 1986 growth
  rate recommended is  -100 percent,  because  the survey indicated that  the
3 product quantity would  be zero  in 1986.   In the other cases,  the 1985 to 1986
  growth rate is negative, but  not  large  in absolute value,  indicating  that some
  additional information  about  1986  production  plans was available from the
  survey.   Finally,   in the Low  Decline  Scenario,  except  in the case of  product
  23 (for which  there  is  information on 1987 production as well),  the
 recommended growth  rate  after 1986 -for  these  special  cases is zero.

     The Low Decline  growth  rates  from 1985 to 1988  for product 23 were
 developed based on very  detailed  information  provided by one of  the  two
 producers of this  product.   This  company provided  its production quantities

                                     A. 1-18

-------
 for 1985, 1986, and 1987 for product 23, so specific rates of growth can be
 associated with each year.  However, this product also is produced by one
 nonrespondent company for whom little, if any, information is available.
 Hence, as outlined in a the previous subsection, the 1985 quantity of product
 23 is assumed to be equal to the 1981 production of the nonrespondent plus the
 reported production for the respondent company.  The 1985 to 1986 growth rate
 for this product is computed from the reported drop in production by the
 respondent based on continued production by the nonrespondent equal to its
 1981 production level.  Similarly, the 1986 to 1987 growth rate for this
 product is computed from the reported drop in production by the respondent and
 an unchanged level of production for the nonrespondent.  Since the respondent
 indicated that it would cease producing this asbestos product during 1987, the
 1987 to 1988 growth rate reflects this exit from the market and the growth
 rate for the product after this time is assumed to be zero, consistent with
 the assumption that the nonrespondent would continue to produce at its 1981
 level (because no other information is available).

     Finally, there are a few cases in which the 1981 to 1985 experience was
 positive growth.  These are products 23, 32, and 33.  Product 23, as discussed
 above, has growth rates for post-1985 years based on the actual experience of
 a company in this market,  andsthis information suggests that this market will
 experience declines in 1986 and 1987.  However, several considerations suggest
 that in the cases of products 32 and 33, the future growth rates will not be
 positive.  The case of sealant tape, product 33, is one in which growth
 occurred during the 1981 to 1985 period.  However,  the .IGF survey suggests
 that during the same period,  the quantity of asbestos fiber used per foot of
 .tape declined.   Hence, the rate of increase of sealant tape footage production
 is not indicative of the rate of increase of fiber:usage in this category --
 which was about 2 percent  per year during this period,  rather than the 6
 percent output growth listed in the table.   Furthermore,  the ICF survey also
 indicates that many competitive substitute materials are now available or are
 nearly on the market.   Thus,  one would not necessarily expect the 1981 to 1985
 trend in asbestos usage to continue for this product.  In light of these
 considerations,  the zero future growth assumption in all scenarios for this
 product seems reasonable.

     Missile liner (32) is  another category.in which positive growth appears to
.have occurred during the 1981 to 1985 period.   However, one should consider
 two important facts for this  product.  First,  the 1985  total production figure
 is based on the  BOM estimate  of 1985 fiber usage.   As outlined in the previous
 section,  this procedure was necessary because the respondents in this category
 produced very small amounts of missile liner in 1981, but grew substantially
 (in percentage terms)  between 1981 and 1985.   Applying  this percentage growth
 to the single non-respondent  results in a very large estimate for "1985 missile
 liner because the non-respondent's 1981 production was  large.   Given the data
 problems  for this category, and the fact that the BOM category including this
 product contains only missile liner,  using the BOM estimate Is reasonable.
 However,  as outlined in that  same previous  memorandum and as indicated in
 Exhibit A. 1.2-2  above,  the BOM estimates should not necessarily be regarded as
 absolutely correct.   Second,  the amount of fiber used in missile liner is,  for
 the most  part,  confidential information given the nature  of the ultimate
 product into which the fiber  goes.   Most of this information is classified by
 DoD and,  hence,  not available to the study.   Finally,  the future course of
 missile production is  extremely difficult to predict because it depends on the
 economic  viability  of the  space shuttle and on future strategic arms policies.

                                    A.1-19

-------
                    Exhibit A.1.2-ZA  ARCH Product Growth Rates - Low Decliaa
Product
Commercial Paper (15
Rollboard (2)
Millboard (3)
Pipeline Wrap (4)
Beater-Add Gaskets (5)
High-Grade Electrical Paper {6}
Roofing Felt (7)
Acetylene Cylinders (8)
Flooring Felt (9)
Corrugated Paper (10)
Specialty Paper (11)
Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile (12)
Asbestos Diaphragms Ct3)
Asbestos -Cement Pipe {14)
Asbestos- Cement Flat Sheet (15)
Asbestos -Cement Corrugated
Sheet (16)
Asbestos-Cement Shingle (17)
Drum Brake Linings (18)
Disc Brake Pads - L«V (19)
Disc Brake Pads - HV (20)
Brake Blocks (21)
Clutch Facings (22)
Automatic Transmission
Components (23)
Friction Materials (24)
Asbestos Protective Clothing (25)
Asbestos Cloth, Yarn, and
Thread (26)
Sheet Gaskets (27)
Asbestos Packings (28)
Roof Coatings and Cements (29)
Non-Roofing Adhesives, Sealants,
and Compounds (30)
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic (31)
Missile Liner (32)
Sealant Tape (33)
Battery Separator (34)
Arc Chutes (35)
Miscellaneous Products (36)
Recomnended Recommended Recommended Recommended
Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate
1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 1988-2000
N/A
N/A
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0,00%
N/A
-21.42%
N/A
N/A
O.OOX
-100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-77.17%

0.00%
0.00%
a/
a/
0,00%
0.00%
0,00%
-54.70%

0.00%
N/A
0,00%

0,00%
-66.67%
-26.33%
-19.41%

-12.10%
0.00%
0,00%
b/
b/
N/A
N/A
H/A
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
O.OOX
N/A
0,00%
«/A
«/A
0.00%
M/A
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0,00%
0.00%
a/
a/
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-78,30%

0.00%
N/A
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
b/
b/
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
0,00%
«/A
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
a/
a/
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-4.40%

0.00%
K/A
0.00%

0,00%
0.00%
O.OOX
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
0,00%
b/
b/
»/A
»/A
»/A
0.00%
0.00%
0,00%
0.00%
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
a/
a/
0,00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
N/A
0,00%

0,00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
b/
b/
N/A
a/  Growth rates for this product were estimated using a separate model and are presented In the ntxt section,
b/  These categories were not included in the ARCH.
N/A: Growth  rates are not applicable for this product because qantfty produced is zero.

-------
                     Exhibit A.1.2-2B ARCM Product Growth Rates - Modsrata Decline
Product
Commercial Paper {1}
Roil board {2}
Millboard (3)
Pipeline Wrap (4)
Beater-Add Gaskets (5)
Hfgh-Grade Electrical Paper (6)
Roofing Felt (7)
Acetylene Cylinders (8)
Flooring Felt (9)
Corrugated Paper (10)
Specialty Paper (11)
Vinyl -Asbestos Floor Tile (12)
Asbestos Diaphragms {13}
Asbestos-Cement Pipe {14)
Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet (15)
Asbestos-Cement Corrugated
Sheet (16}
Asbestos-Cement Shingle (17)
Drum Brake Linings {18}
Disc Brake Pads - LHV {19}
Disc Brake Pads - HV {20}
Brake Blocks (21 J
Clutch Facings {22)
Automatic Transmission
Components (23)
Friction Materials (24)
Asbestos Protective Clothing {25}
Asbestos Cloth, Yarn, and
Thread (26)
Sheet Gaskets {27}
Asbestos Packings {28}
Roof Coatings and Cements (29)
Non- Roof ing Adhesives, Sealants,
and Conpounds {30}
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic {31}
Missile Liner {32}
Sealant Tape {33}
Battery Separator {34}
Arc Chutes {35}
Miscellaneous Products {363
Recommended Recommended Reeoiroended Reeonmended
Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate
1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 1988-2000
H/A
M/A
-16.15%
-19.51%
-5.39%
-0.14%
N/A
-8.41%
N/A
N/A
-16.25%
-100.00%
0.00%
-5.98%
-26.36%

O.OOX
-4.89%
«/
a/
-17.67%
-15.96%
-0.27%
-54.70%

-8.13%
N/A
-16.96%

-11.59%
-66.67%
-0,76%
-13.94%

-10.48%
0.00%
3.27%
b/
b/
N/A
N/A
N/A
-16.15%
-19.51%
-5.39X
-0.14%
N/A
-8.41%
N/A
N/A
-16.25%
N/A
0.00%
-5.98%
-26.36%

0.00%
-4.89%
a/
a/
-17.67%
-15.96%
•0.27%
-78.30%

-8.13%
N/A
-16.96%

-11.59%
-14.92%
-0.76%
-13.94%

-10.48%
0.00%
3.27%
b/
b/
N/A
N/A
N/A
-16.15%
-19.51%
-5.39%
-0.14%
N/A
-8.41%
N/A
N/A
-16.25%
N/A
0.00%
-5.98%
-26.36%

0.00%
-4.89%
B/
a/
-17.67%
-15.96%
-0.27%
-4.40%

-8.13%
N/A
-16,96%

-11.59%
-14.92%
-0.76%
-13.94%

-10.48%
0.00%
3.27%
b/
b/
N/A
N/A
N/A
-16.15%
-19.51%
-5.39%
-0.14%
N/A
-8.41%
N/A
K/A
-16.25%
N/A
0.00%
-5.98%
-26.36%

0.00%
-4.89%
»/
a/
-17.67%
-15,96%
-0.27%
0.00%

-8.13%
N/A
-16.96%

•11.59%
-14.92%
-0.76%
-13.94%

-10.48%
0.00%
3.27%
b/
b/
N/A
a/  Growth rates for this product were estimated using a separate model and are presented in the next section.
b/  These categories were not included in the ARCM.
H/A:  sronth rates are not applicable for this product because qanttty produced is zero.

-------
                     Exhibit A.1.2-2C  ARCH Product Growth Satas - High Daelino
Product
Commercial Paper (1)
Rotlboard (2)
Millboard (3)
Pipeline Wrap (4)
Beater-Add Gaskets (5)
High-Grade Electrical Paper <6>
Roofing Felt (7)
Acetylene Cylinders (8)
Flooring Felt (9)
Corrugated Paper {10}
Specialty Paper (11)
Vinyl -Asbestos Floor Tile {12}
Asbestos Diaphragms (13)
Asbestos-Cement Pipe (14)
Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet (15)
Asbestos-Cement Corrugated
Sheet (16)
Asbestos-Cement Shingle <17>
Drum Brake Linings <18)
Disc Brake Pads - LMV <19)
Disc Brake Pads - HV <20)
Brake Blocks (Z1)
Clutch Facings (22)
Automatic Transmission
Components (23)
friction Materials (24)
Asbestos Protective Clothing (25)
Asbestos Cloth, Yarn, and
Thread (26)
Sheet Gaskets (27)
Asbestos Packings (28)
Roof Coatings and Cements (29)
Bon-Roofing Adhesives, Sealants,
and Compounds (30)
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic (31)
Missile Liner (32)
Sealant Tape (33)
Battery Separator (34)
Arc Chutes (35)
Miscellaneous Products (36)
Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended
Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate
1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 1988-2000
N/A
N/A
-32.31%
-39.03%
-10.77%
-0.28%
N/A
-16.82%
N/A
N/A
-32.50%
-100.00%
0,00%
-11.95%
-52.72%

0.00%
-9. 78%
a/
a/
-35,33%
-31.93%
-0.54%
-54.70%

-16.26%
H/A
-33.92%

-23.17%
-66.67X
•1.53%
-27.89%

-20.96%
0.00%
3.27%
b/
b/
N/A
N/A
H/A
-32.31%
-39.03%
-10.77%
-0.28%
N/A
-16.82%
N/A
H/A
-32.50%
H/A
O.OOX
-11.95%
-52.72%

0.00%
-9,78%
a/
a/
•35.33%
-31 .93%
-0.54%
-78.30%

-16.26%
N/A
-33.92%

-23.17%
-29.84%
-1.53%
-27.89%

-20.96%
0.00%
3.27%
b/
b/
N/A
N/A
N/A
-32.31%
-39.03%
-10.77%
-0.28%
H/A
-16.82%
H/A
N/A
-32.50%
N/A
0,00%
-11.95%
-52.72%

0.00%
-9.78%
a/
a/
-35.33%
-31.93%
-0.54%
-4.40%

-16.26%
N/A
-33.92%

-23.17%
-29.84%
-1.53%
-27.89%

-20.96%
0.00%
3.27%
b/
b/
N/A
N/A
H/A
-32.31%
-39.03%
-10.77%
-0.28%
H/A
-16.82%
H/A
H/A
-32.50%
H/A
0.00%
-11.95%
-52.72%

0.00%
-9.78%
a/
a/
-35.33%
-31 .93%
-0.54%
0.00%

-16.26%
N/A
-33.92%

-23.17%
-29.84%
-1.53%
-27.89%

-20,96%
0.00%
3.27%
b/
b/
N/A
a/  Growth rates for this product were estimated using a separate model  and are presented in the  next section.
b/  These categories were not included in the ARCM.
H/A:  Growth rates are not applicable for this product because qantlty produced Is  zero.

-------
Therefore, It again does not seem unreasonable to assume a zero growth rate in
all scenarios for this product as well.
                                   A,1-23

-------
     3.  Asbesto_s_Brakje...Produc.$ii.o^:.Forecast;

        3.1   Introduc t ion

        This  section presents  the three  sets of baseline growth rates  for
 asbestos drum brakes in light  and medium vehicles (product category 18)  and
 asbestos disc brakes in light  and medium vehicles (product category 19)  to  be
 used in the Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model (ARCM).   It reviews  the  methodology
 underlying the model and presents the input data used,  the assumptions made,
 and  the results obtained.   This model generates forecasts of changes in  output
 of asbestos drum brakes and asbestos disc brakes which,  along with  the 1985
 levels of  output of  these categories,  provide the .baseline forecast of
 asbestos product quantities for these two categories in the ARCM.   Growth
 rates for  the other  products being modeled are derived separately.

     Drum brake systems  consist primarily of two parts --a round brake drum
 which is attached  to the rotating wheel  and axle and a pair of  curved,
 semi-circular brake  shoes which are  inside the drum.   The vehicle is stopped
 when the brake shoes are forced out  against the brake drum.   This action
 creates friction,  which arrests the  motion of the axle and the  wheel.  The
 brake shoes are lined with asbestos  because of its  thermal stability,
 reinforcing properties,  flexibility,  and resistance to wear.  Because each
 wheel is attached  to a  drum and each drum contains  two brake shoes  and
 asbestos linings,  there are eight linings on a vehicle that has front and rear
 drum brakes.

     Disc brake systems  consist primarily of two parts --a flat, circular
 rotor which is attached to the rotating  wheel and axle and a caliper which
 contains two  flat  disc  brake pads that are suspended on either  side of the
 rotor.  The vehicle  is  stopped by pressing the brake pads onto  the  rotor in
much the same way  that  bicycle hand  brakes are pressed onto a bicycle wheel.
This creates  friction which arrests  the  motion of the axle and  the  wheel.   The
brake pads consist of asbestos because of its thermal stability, reinforcing
properties, flexibility,  .and resistance  to wear.  Because each  wheel is
 attached to a rotor  and each rotor requires two disc pads to  stop it, there
 are  eight pads on  a  vehicle that  has  front and rear disc brakes.

     Estimating total sales  of  asbestos disc brakes  and asbestos drum brakes
 involves two distinct exercises.   One  is  estimating sales of  brakes in new
vehicles and  the other  is  estimating  sales of replacement brakes on existing
vehicles.   Further complicating the projection analysis  is the  fact that many
future brakes will not  be  made of asbestos mixtures.   Some will continue to be
asbestos,  but others will  be composed  of substitutes  such as  serai-metallic  or
aramid fiber mixtures.

    The task of estimating new brake  sales  is  relatively straightforward --
depending primarily  on  the  forecasts  for  new car  sales and the  type of brake
system installed as  original equipment --  however,  forecasting  replacement
sales is much more complex.  Replacement  brake  sales  depend on  a number  of
factors including:

        •   sales of new  light  vehicles in previous  years;

        •   the type of brakes  installed  as  original equipment (i.e.,
           disc vs, drum) ;

                                   A.1-24

-------
         •   the  composition of brakes  installed as  original  equipment
            (i.e.,  asbestos vs. non-asbestos)';

         •   the  expected life of brakes, which,  in  turn,  depends  on;

                the number  of miles  a  brake  lasts;

                the type of surface  and environment the vehicle is
                driven on;  and

                the number  of miles  the vehicle  on  which  it  is
                placed is driven annually;

         •   the  survival probability or scrappage rate for existing
            vehicles which  depends on:
               new vehicle prices;
               used vehicle prices;
               scrap values; and
               repair costs.
    Correctly accounting for all these influences is quite difficult.  Our
methodology tries to address all of these issues in an operational and
systematic manner by making a number of assumptions drawn from aggregated
data.  These assumptions pertain to the following:  type of future brake
systems (proportion of drum brakes to disc brakes), composition of future
brake systems (proportion of asbestos brakes to non-asbestos brakes), average
life of brake systems, survival probabilities for light vehicles  (cars and
light trucks), current stock of light vehicles, and future sales  of  light
vehicles,

    The rest .of this memorandum consists of five sections.  Section  3.2
outlines the methodology used; Section 3.3 deals with the key assumptions made
and data used for producing our forecasts; Section 3.4 reports the results of
our forecasts; Section 3.5 discusses the sensitivity of these results to
various data inputs; and Section 3.6 summarizes the conclusions.

        3.2  Methodology

        Brake forecasts have been developed for four product categories:
asbestos disc brakes on trucks, asbestos drum brakes on trucks, asbestos disc
brakes on cars,  and asbestos drum brakes on cars.  Although the same
procedures have been used to develop forecasts for all four categories, the
methodology will be described in detail using the first category as an
example.

    There are four major steps in forecasting asbestos brake sales:

        •  estimate the outstanding stock of asbestos brake pads or
           linings,  by model year,  in 1985;

        •  compute the future stock of brake pads or linings on
           existing vehicles, by model year;
                                   A.1-25

-------
         *   compute the future stock of asbestos brake pads  or linings
            on vehicles not yet "built,  by model year,  and

         »   compute annual replacement  and new asbestos brake pad. or
            lining sales.

     The  outstanding stock of asbestos  disc brake pads in trucks,  by model
year,  in 1985 is obtained by multiplying the outstanding number of trucks  in
1985 by  three factors:   the number of  brake pads or linings (8) on each  truck
(this  gives us the number of brake pads or linings  on the existing stock of
trucks), the percentage of total brake pads or linings which are  disc brake
pads (this  gives us the total number of disc brake  pads on  the  existing  stock
of  trucks),  and the percentage of disc brake pads which are asbestos (this
gives  us the total number of asbestos  disc brake pads on the existing stock of
trucks),

     The  future stocks  (1986 and beyond) of asbestos disc brakes on existing
trucks, by  model year,  are obtained by multiplying  the existing stock of
brakes by the appropriate survival probabilities.   This can best  be
illustrated through an example.

     Suppose there are  100 disc brake pads on 1970 model year trucks
outstanding in 1985.   To  compute the number of disc brake pads  on 1970 model
year trucks outstanding in 1986,  we multiply 100 by the conditional
probability that a truck  that has survived fifteen  years will survive into its
sixteenth year.   The conditional probability can be computed by dividing the
sixteen year survival  probability by the fifteen year survival  probability
(38.5  percent/44,8 percent or 0.859 in this case).  This computation is
performed for each year from 1986 until the year 2000 for each  model year.
For  example,  multiplying  100 by 0,859  yields 86 as  the number of  disc brakes
on  1970 model year trucks outstanding  in 1986,

     The future stocks  (1986 and beyond)  of asbestos disc brake  pads in trucks
not  yet built is computed in two steps.   We first compute the-number of  new
asbestos disc brake-pads  that will be  installed in  trucks each  year.  This is
forecasted  truck sales  multiplied by the percentage of total brake  pads  and
linings which are disc  pads (assumed to be 55 percent),  the percentage of disc
brake  pads  which are asbestos (assumed to be 15 percent), and the number of
brake  pads  or linings  per truck (8).   The second step is to take  this number
and  to project it into  the future by multiplying it by the  appropriate truck
survival probability.   For instance, if 100 asbestos  disc brakes on 1987
trucks are produced in 1987,  we  multiply 100 by the one year survival
probability  for  trucks  to generate the  stock of these brake pads existing on
surviving trucks  in 1988.   To generate  the stock of these brake pads existing
on surviving trucks in  1989 we multiply 100 by the  two year survival for
trucks; this  process is repeated for each year of the forecast.

     To estimate  the number of disc brake pads that  were replaced in 1986, we
computed the  number of  trucks that were built in 1982,  1978,  1974,  1970, 1966,
1962,  and 1958,  (all brakes are  assumed to be replaced every four years, as
discussed below)  that are still  surviving.   The number of surviving trucks of
each model year  is  then multiplied by  8  (to get the total number of brake
pads),  by the  percentage  of disc  brake  pads installed on trucks of  that model
year,  (to get  the number  of disc  brake  pads),  and by  the  percentage  of disc
brake pads which were asbestos  in that  model year (to get asbestos  disc brake

                                    A.1-26

-------
pads).  This gives us  the number  of  replacement asbestos  disc  brake  pad  sales
for  trucks  in 1986.  When we  add  this number  to the  number of  new asbestos
disc brake  pads on 1986  trucks, we have  our forecast for  total 1986  asbestos
disc brake  pad sales for trucks.  This step is  repeated for each year  of the
forecast,

     This methodology is  then  repeated for  the other  three categories --
asbestos drum brake linings on trucks, asbestos disc brake pads on cars,  and
asbestos drum brake linings on cars.  Appendix  A presents the  mathematical
formulation which underlies the model,

        3.3  Key Assumptions  and  Data Inputs

             3.3.1  Type of JBrake.	Systerns

             The data  on types of brake  systems are  derived from data  in
various issues of Wardf,5 Automotive Yearbook.^   The  data  had to be derived
using certain simplifying assumptions because it was either unavailable  for
some years  or not exactly the information we  needed.   Specifically,  we need to
know the percentage of all brake  systems on cars and on trucks that  are  disc
and  the percentage that  are drum  for each model year.

     The first data series we  examined was percentage of domestic cars  with
disc brake  systems,  Ward's Automotive	.Yearbook 1986 provides  this information
for  domestic cars for  the years 1954-1985.  Because  no domestic cars had disc
brake systems prior to 1966,  we have assumed  that all brakes on cars of
earlier model years are  drum  brakes.  Second, we have assumed  that disc  brakes
were placed only on front axles.  Therefore,  to obtain the percentage  of total
brake systems, we must multiply the percentage  of cars with front disc brakes
by 0.5.  All remaining brakes are assumed to  be drum brakes.   This method is
used for the years 1963-1974.  Separate data  for imported cars is not
available.  Therefore, it has been assumed that the  domestic percentages  also
apply to imports.

    Ward's Automotive  Yearbook 1976 and subsequent issues provide separate
data for imported cars.  Therefore, we used this information for model years
1975-1985 to compute a weighted average of the  percentage of all cars  with
disc brakes.  Once again, it  was  assumed that all other brakes are drum
brakes.  Ward's Automotive Yearbook 1978 and  subsequent issues provide data on
cars with disc brakes  on both the front and rear axles.   Accordingly,  this
information is used in computing  the weighted average of  the percentage  of all
cars with drum brakes  for model years 1977-1985,

    This last computation is  the  one we would have ideally used for  all model
years if the data had been available.  However,  the  simplifying assumptions we
have made should not alter our results greatly.  Domestic cars accounted  for
approximately 75 percent of all U.S. sales for  model  years  1963-1974 so  the
percentage of disc brakes on  domestic cars and  the percentage  of disc  brakes
on all cars will not differ significantly.  In  addition,  the numbers are
similar in the years for which we have data --  1975-1985.   Second, data  on
cars with disc brakes  on both front and rear  axles is  not available  prior to
model year 1977 (model year 1978  for imports).   Since only 3.2 percent of all
     2 Ward's Automotive Yearbook, 1976-1986,
                                    A.1-27

-------
cars had disc brakes  on both  axles  in  1977,  It  is not  likely  that a
significant number of cars, if  any,  in earlier  model years had disc brakes on
both axles.  Table A.1.3-1 presents  the data for the percentage of brakes that
are disc.

    The data for  trucks is not  as complete as the car  data.   First of all,
data on disc brakes on trucks for model years prior to 1976 is unavailable.
In addition, separate data for  imported trucks  is not  available.  Finally,
there is no information on trucks with front and rear  disc brakes.

    As a result,  we have assumed that  the percentage of disc  brakes on trucks
is the same as the percentage of disc  brakes on cars for model years prior to
1976.  Furthermore, we have assumed  that the percentage of disc brakes on
domestic cars is  the  same as  the percentage  of  disc brakes on all (domestic
and imported) cars,   Because  disc brakes are placed on the rear wheels of
predominantly luxury  and high-performance cars, it is  likely  that a very small
percentage, if any, of trucks have rear disc brakes.   Therefore, we have
assumed that no trucks have rear disc  brakes.   Finally, it should be noted
that Ward's Automotive Yearbook 1982 and subsequent issues only provide data
for power disc brakes.  In model years 1979  and 1980,  100 percent of trucks
had either manual or  power disc brakes.  It  has been assumed  that this holds
true for subsequent years and all front brakes  which are not  power disc are
manual disc for model  years 1981-1985.

    The final assumptions, we  need are  for the percentage of future brake
systems that will be  disc brakes.  We  have assumed that the 1985 percentages
for both cars and trucks will apply  for model year 1986 and all future model
years.  Thus, 53.4 percent of all car  brake  systems will be disc brakes while
50 percent of all truck brake systems  will be disc brakes.  It should be noted
that this may understate the  number  of disc  brakes and overstate the number of
drum brakes slightly because  more cars may move to front and  rear disc brakes
in the future, but this will  be examined in  the sensitivity analysis.  Table
A.1.3-1 presents  the  data for the percentage of car brakes that are disc while
Table A.1.3-2 presents the data for  the percentage of  truck brakes that are
disc.

             3.3.2  Composition of BrakeaiSystems

             Before 1982, almlrii.brakemmpads	and .linings .were made using,,, asbestos.
However, currently between 80 percent  and 90 percent of all disc brake pads
are made using asbestos substitutes, and between 5 percent and 10 percent of
all druni brake linings are made using  asbestos  substitutes (IGF 1987).  We
have assumed that 85 percent  (the midpoint of the 80 percent  to 90 percent
range) of all current  and future original equipment market (OEM) disc, brakes
will not contain  asbestos.  We  have also assumed that  7.5 percent (the
midpoint of the 5 percent and 10 percent range) of all  current and future OEM
drum brakes will not  contain  asbestos.  These are conservative assumptions
because they assume that no further substitution away  from asbestos will
occur.

    We could not  find  data on the percentage of disc and drum brakes made
using asbestos for vehicles manufactured between 1982  and 1986.  However, we
know that 1982 was the first  year that non-asbestos disc and  drum brakes were
used (IGF 1987).  Therefore,  we have assumed a  linear  decline in asbestos
brake composition from 100 percent in  1981 to the known 1986  levels.  Thus,

                                    A.1-28

-------
                                      Table A.1,3-1  Disc Brake as A Percentage of Total Brakes
                                                      for Modal Years 1963-2000 Cars
Mode 1 Yea r
1963
1961
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
19TO
1971
1972
1973
1971
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986-2000
Percentage
or Domestic
Domestic Cars with front
Car Safes Disc Brakes Only
»
#
*
*
#
N
*
*
tt
#
»
*
6,789,707
8,391,811
H
9,239,287
9,500,893
6,957,191
7,086,129
5,585,01*1
6, 156,861
8,621,712
8,172,599
-»
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
6.1%
12.7%
27.8%
11.0%
63.1%
73.6%
85.7%
81.1%
92.6%
98.8%
96.8%
96.8%
96.9%
97.1%
97.8%
98.6%
97.0%
97.0%
97.3%
N/A
Percentage of Percentage
Domestic Cars of Imported
with Front and Imported Cars with front
Rear Disc Brakes Car Sales Disc Brakes Only
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
o.oj
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3 . 2%
3.2%
3.1%
2.9%
2.2%
1.1%
3.0%
3.0%
2.7%
N/A
•tt
#
*
#
*
#
»
*
*
*
*
*
1,662,278
1,687,715
*
1,976,516
2,301,331
2,362,727
2,211,768
2, 191,937
2,305,512
1,878,169
2,176,586
#
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
91.5%
90.8%
N/A
90.1%
87.7%
81.5%
80.3%
80.7%
79.1%
67.1%
79.1%
N/A
Percentage
of Imported Cars
wi th Front and
RTea r Disc Brakes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0%
0.0%
N/A
9.9%
12.3%
15.5%
19.7%
19.3%
20.9%
32.9%
20.9%
N/A
Oi sc Brakes
ass
Percentage
of Totnl
Car Brakes
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
3.1%
6.1%
1 3 . 9%
20,5%
31.6%
36.8%
12.9%
12.1%
16.5%
18.7%
5J.6%
52.2%
52.1%
53,0%
53.2%
53.2%
53.9%
51.2%
53.1%
53.1%
*  Not  appIicable.
N/A = Not available.
Source:   Ward's Automotive Yearbook (1976-1986),  see text  for explanation.

-------
Table A.1.3-2,
 Disc Brakes as a Percentage of Total Brakes
  for Model  Years  1955-2000  Trucks
Model Year
Percentage of Domestic
  Trucks with Front
     Disc Brakes
 Disc Brakes as a
  Percentage of
Total Truck Brakes
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986-2000
Source: Ward's
0,0%
0,0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
'0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
6.1%
12.6%
27.8%
63.1%
73.6%
85.7%
84.1%
92.6%
98.8%
97.8%
99 . 2%
99.9%
100 . 0%
100 . 0%
100 . 0%
100.0%
100.0%
100 . 0%
100.0%
100.0%
Automotive Yearbook
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
3.1%
6.3%
13.9%
31.6%
36,8%
42.9%
42.1%
46.3%
49.4%
48.9%
49.6%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50,0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
(1977-1986), see text
         for explanation.
                          A.1-30

-------
 asbestos disc brake composition declines linearly from 100 percent in 1981 to
 15 percent in 1986 (17 percent each year),  and asbestos drum brake composition
 declines linearly from 100 percent In 1981 to 92.5 percent In 1986 (1.5
 percent each year).'  Table A.1.3-3 and Table A.1.3-4 present a summary of the
 type and composition of existing and future brake systems on the wheels of
 cars and light trucks.

     One further assumption we made related to the type and composition of
 brakes is that brakes used for replacement would be of the same type as those
 placed originally on the vehicle. ' For instance, if a car was originally
 produced with an asbestos disc brake pad, we will assume that it will be
 replaced by an asbestos disc brake pad, even though it may be possible to
 replace an asbestos disc brake pad with a non-asbestos disc brake pad.  This
 assumption has been made after having detailed discussions with automobile
 manufacturers who recommend this practice for safety reasons.   See Appendix F
 to this RIA.   They claim that replacing asbestos disc brake pads with
 non-asbestos disc brake pads Involves redesigning the whole brake system, and
 a simple exchange of one pad for another may cause safety hazards.
 Furthermore,  the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) concluded
 that use of asbestos-free materials as direct substitutes in vehicles designed
 for asbestos-based linings ma$r be restricted for the following reasons:  (1)
 braking balance between front and rear breaks may be adversely affected; (2)
 parking brake capacity may be reduced; and (3) no meaningful brake lining
 effectiveness ratings exist (ASME 1987).   It should be noted that this
 assumption is probably also a conservative  one and will cause us to
 overestimate the sale of asbestos brakes if asbestos brakes are actually
 replaced with non-asbestos brakes,

              3.3,3  Average Lifeof Brakes

              The rate at which vehicles in operation have their brakes
 replaced is a key assumption having a direct bearing on replacement brake
 sales.  The rate of replacement installation for a given collection of
 vehicles is influenced by (1) the number of miles an average vehicle is
 driven, (2) the age of existing brake systems, and (3) the useful life of
 brake linings.   The useful life of brake linings, in turn, depends on the
 weight and other characteristics of the vehicle, the driving habits of the
-operator,  and the location of vehicle operation (city/highway).  A detailed
 study of the influence of each one of the listed variables on replacement
 sales should be done to determine the size  of the brake replacement market.
 Such a study,  however,  is outside the scope of the present assignment.  For
 the purpose of this forecast the average number of miles that brakes are
 expected to last is estimated and then divided by the number of miles an
 average vehicle is expected to be driven in a year.  This computes the average
 useful life for the brakes on a given collection of vehicles.

     The U.S.  Department of Transportation (DOT) estimated annual average miles
 travelled per passenger car to the year 2000 to be 10.5 thousand miles (DOT
 1976).  This  is a dated forecast, so we decided to review more recent data
 which are presented in Table A.1.3-5.  An average car was driven 9,809 miles
 in 1984 while an average light truck was driven 9,974 miles.  For forecasting
                                    A.1-31

-------
Table A.1.3-3.
Type and Composition of Brake Systems on the
Wheels of Passenger Cars, by Model Year
                (percent)

Year
1954-1965
1966 '
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984 .
1985
1986-2000
Sources :
Asbestos
Drum
100.0
98.0
96.9
93.6
86.1
79.5
68.4
63.2
57.1
57.9
53.5
51.3
48.4
47.8
47.6
47.0
46.8
46.1
44.7
43.7
43.8
43.1
Non- Asbestos
Drum
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.4
2.1
2.8
3.5
Ward's Automotive Yearbook
Total Asbestos
Drum
100.0
98.0
96.9
93.6
86.1
79.5
68.4
63.2
57.1
57.9
53.5
51.3
48.4
47.8
47.6
47.0
46.8
46.8
46.1
45.8
46.6
46.6
(1976-1986)
Disc
0.0
2.0
3.1
6.4
13.9
20.5
31.6
36.8
42.9
42.1
46.5
48.7
51.6
52.2
52.4
53.0
53.2
44.1
35.6
26.6
17.1
8.0
and IGF,
Non- Asbestos
Disc
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
"9.1
18.3
27.6
36.3
45.4
see text for
Total
Disc
0.0
2.0
3.1
6.4
13.9
20.5
31.6
36.8
42.9
42.1
46.5
48.7
51.6
52.2
52.4
53.0
53.2
53.2
53.9
54.2
53.4
53.4

 explanation.
                          A.1-32

-------
Table A.1.3-4,
Type and Composition of Brake Systems on the
Wheels of Light Trucks, by Model Year
                (percent)

Year
1954-1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986-2000
Sources :
Asbestos
Drum
100.0
98.0
96.9
93.7
86.1
68.4
63.2
57.1
57.9
53.7
50.6
51.1
50.4
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
49,3
48.5
47.8
47.0
46.3
Non-Asbestos
Drum
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.5
2.2
3.0
3.7
Ward's Automotive Yearbook
Total Asbestos
Drum
100.0
98.0
96.9
93.7
86.1
68.4
63.2
57.1
57.9
53.7
50.6
51.1
50.4
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
(1977-1986)
Disc
0.0
2.0
3.1
6.3
13.9
31.6
36.8
42.9
42.1
46.3
49.4
48.9
49.6
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
41.5
33.0
24.5
16.0
7.5
and ICF,
Non-Asbestos
Disc
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.5
17.0
25.5
34.0
42.5
see text for
Total
Disc
0.0
2.0
3.1,
6.3
13.9
31.6
36.8
42.9
42.1
46.3
4S-.4
48.9
49.6
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0

 explanation.
                          A.1-33

-------
     Table A.1.3-5.  Average Annual Miles Travelled
              Passenger Cars           Single Unit Trucks
Year              (miles)                    (miles)
1965
1970
1975'
1980
1982
1983
1984
9,387
9,978
9,634
9,135
9,533
9,654
9,809
10,003
9,807
8,882a
10,070
9,805
9,704
9,974
According to the source for this data series, this
entry is not comparable to previous years for reasons
not explained in the source.

Source:  Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association,
         Motor Vehicle. Fa_cts andFigures  '86. 1986,
         p. 52.
                        A.1-34

-------
 purposes,  we have used a figure of 10,000 miles for the average number of
 miles a car or light truck is driven each year,^

     Reliable brake life data are not readily available.  In part,  this is
 because data on brake replacement are expensive to collect primarily because
 replacement occurs in service stations,  independent repair shops,  self-service
 fleet shops,  and new car and truck dealerships throughout the country.   In
 December 1980,  DOT reported that front brake drum linings and/or disc pads
 would be replaced every 30-35 thousand miles and rear brake drum linings
 and/or disc pads would be replaced every 45-50 thousand miles (DOT,  1980).4
 These data are consistent with the opinions of industry experts who  estimate
 that brakes last between 30,000 and 50,000 miles with 40,000 being average
 (IGF 1986),   Thus,  on average all four brakes have been assumed to be replaced
 every 40,000 miles.   Combining this with the assumption of 10,000  miles driven
 per year on average,  we have concluded that all brake linings (or  pads) are
 replaced every four years.

              3.3.4  Survival Probabilities

              Table A.1,3-6  presents the  survival probabilities for passenger
 cars and light trucks that  were used to  make the forecasts (Wharton
 Econometrics  1983).   Sixty-eight percent of all cars manufactured  10 years ago
 are in operation today,  while 78 percent of all light trucks manufactured 10
 years  ago  are in operation  today.   Cars  are not expected to survive  in
 significant numbers  for more than 21 years while trucks are not expected to
 survive in significant numbers for more  than 30 years.   These survival
 probabilities are  assumed to apply to both the current stock of outstanding
 cars•and to all  future cars.

              3.3.5   Outstanding Stock of Light Vehicles

             .The data on the outstanding stock of light vehicles (cars  and
 trucks), by model year,  as ..of 1985  were  obtained from two sources.   The data
 for cars produced  after 1970 and the data for trucks produced after  1969 were
 obtained from R.L. Polk & Co.   Because this source  did not provide
 disaggregated data  for earlier years,  we estimated  the outstanding stock of
 earlier model years by multiplying  the vehicles produced in those years by the
 appropriate survival  probabilities.   The data used  are presented in  Table
A. 1.3-7.   Because  cars  are assumed  not to survive in significant quantities
 after  21 years,  the first car model year we have presented is  1964.   Because
     •3
       It is important to note that the miles-driven assumptions have to be
chosen so that the brake like is an integer number of years for the
forecasting model as discussed below.

     4 DOT cited the 1975 Hunter Job Service Analysis which reported 35
million axle sets (1 axle set contains 4 pads or linings) of replacement sales
in 1976.  This figure was adjusted to 50 million in order to account for
facilities that are not covered by the Hunter survey.  This figure corresponds
to five axle sets being replaced for every 100,000 miles.  It is not clear
whether this data included truck brakes, but we have assumed that truck brakes
and car brakes have the same expected life, because we could not obtain
separate data.
                                    A.1-35

-------
Table A.1.3-6.
Cumulative Survival Probabilities for
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
             (percent)
Vehicle
Age
1
2
3
4
• 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Cars
99.8
99.5
98.8
97.7
95.9
93.3
89.5
83.9
77.1
68.1
56.6
45.1
34.9
26.5
20.0
14.9
11.2
8.4
6.2
4.4
3.1
0.0









Light Trucks
99.6
98.9
97.8
96.6
95.0
93.0
90.5
87.2
82.9
77.7
71.9
65.2
58.2
51.4
44.8
38.5
32.5
27.1
22.1
17.8
14,1
11.1
8.6
6.5
4.9
3.7
2.7
2.0
1.5
1.1
0.0
  Source:   Wharton Econometric Forecasting
           Associates,  1983.
                       A.1-36

-------
Table A.1.3-7.
Light Vehicles Outstanding In 1985 By Model Year
               (in thousands)
    Model Year
         Passenger  Cars
Light Trucks
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976 -
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
251
411
560
700
1,081
1,428
2,154
2,534
3,713
4,883
5,196
4,836
7,195
8,735
9,503
9,602
8 , 502
8,039
7,322
7,716
10,401
11 . 042
115 , 804
0
11
14
18
21
36
47
61
95
141
196
276
362
419
595
1,005
1,105
1,105
1,603
1,952
2,050
1,677
2,437
3,059
3,429
3,669
2,088
2,075
2,181
2,495
3,819
4.682
'- 42 , 723
    Sources:  Cars after  1969  and Trucks  after 1970 --
              R.L. Polk & Co,  published in MotorVehicle
              Factsi::l&::i:Figures  f86t pps,  26-7,

              Cars before 1969 and Trucks before 1970 --
              Derived by  IGF using Motor  Vehicle
              Manufacturers Association,  Moitpriiiyehicle
              Facts &.JFigur.es  '86. 1986,  p. 7  and survival
              probabilities provided by Wharton Econometric
              Forecasting Associates,  1983 (as explained in
              text).

                             A.1-37

-------
 cars  are  assumed not to survive in significant quantities after 21 years,  the
 first car model  year we have presented in 1964,   Because trucks are assumed
 not to survive  in significant quantities after 30 years, the first truck model
 year  presented  is 1955.

              3.3.6  Future,,Sales of ...Light Vehicles

              Forecasting consumer behavior is  always difficult.  Vehicle sales
 are subject  to  large year-to-year fluctuations.   This point is illustrated by
 Table A.1.3-8 which presents new car and light truck sales and percentage
 changes in these sales.  In  addition,  new car  sales  are  influenced strongly by
 factors that are difficult to predict -- business cycles,  energy prices, and
 the prices of alternative transportation such  as  used cars or public transit.
 We  have used DRI's 1986 forecasts for new car  and light  truck sales and have
 relied on them  to have  taken most of the relevant factors into account  in
 making their forecasts.  These data are  presented in Table A.l.3-9.5

    A summary of all the major assumptions and data  inputs for this analysis
 is  provided  in Table A.1.3-10.

        3-4   Results

        Table A,1.3-11  presents the forecasts  for asbestos disc brake pads and
 for total disc brake pads for both cars  and light trucks.   Notice that  sales
 of  total  disc brake  pads  are increasing  while  sales  of asbestos disc brake
 pads  are  decreasing.  Total  disc brake pad sales  are increasing for a number
 of  reasons.   First of all, disc brakes will claim a  larger share of the total
 stock of  brakes  as we move into the future,  This will occur because older
 vehicles  which had drum brakes  on both axles or only the rear axle will be
 scrapped  and replaced with vehicles that have  disc brakes  on the front  axle or
 on  both axles.   Second,  the  total stock  of brakes will increase as we move
 into  the  future.   This  will  occur because the  number of  new vehicles solid
 exceeds the  number of vehicles  scrapped.   These two  factors will both cause
 replacement  sales  of total disc brakes to increase.   Finally,  new vehicle
 sales  are forecast to be  cyclical with a rising trend.   As a result,  new total
 disc brakes  will  increase over  time.   The net  result of  these three effects is
 an  increase  in sales  of total disc brakes.   It is important to note that the
 cyclical  nature  of- the-car -and  truck industries-may  result in some years in
 which  there  is actually a decline in forecasted sales, even though the  trend
 is  clearly positive.

    Asbestos  disc brake pad  sales are  decreasing  despite the  facts  that the
 stock  of vehicles  is  growing and that  new car  sales  are  increasing.   This
 occurs because the stock  of  asbestos disc  brakes  is  decreasing.   Cars with
 asbestos  disc brakes  are  being  scrapped  and replaced with  cars with
 semi-metallic disc brakes.   Because we assume  that only  15 percent  of new  disc
brakes contain asbestos,  this effect dominates the other two  and the  net
 effect is a  decline  in  asbestos  disc brake  sales.  Figure  A.1.3-1  graphically
       It should be noted that we examined forecasts of light vehicle sales
made by General Motors and concluded that they were not significantly
different from the Data Resource's Inc. forecasts.  The General Motors
forecasts are confidential business information (CBI).

                                   A.1-38

-------
Table A.1,3-8.
New Car and Light Truck Sales, 1970-1985
            (in  thousands)
Percent Change

Year
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
Source :

Passenger
Cars
11,042
10,391
9,182
7,982
8,536
8,979
10,673
11,314
11,183
10,110
8,624
8,853
11,424
10 , 940
10,242
8,400
From
Previous Year
6.3
13.2
15.0
-6.5
-4.9
-15.9
-5.7
1.2
10,6
17.2
-2.6
-22.5
4.4
6.8
21.9
-
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Facts and
Figures '86, 1986.
Light
Trucks
4,682
4,093
3,129
2,560
2,260
2,48?
3,480
4,109
3,675
3,181
2,478
2,688
3,148
2,629
2,096
1,811
Association,
p, 7.
Percent Change
From
Previous Year
14,4
30.1
22.2
13.3
-9.1
-28.5
-15.3
11.8
15.5
28.4
-7.8
-14.6
19.7
25.4
15.7
-
Motor, 	 Vehic le

                         A.1-39

-------
Table A,1.3-9.  Annual Sales Forecasts for Passenger
                Cars  and  Light  Trucks (in thousands)
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Source :
Passenger Cars
10 , 900
11 , 300
11 , 300
11,100
11,300
11,500
11 , 700
11,900
12,100
12,300
12,300
12 , 200
12 , 200
12,300
12,400
Data Resources, Inc.. U.S.
Light Trucks
4,510
4,660
4,750
4,630
4,650
4,680
4,770
4,910
5,040
5,180
5,250
5,270
5,330
5,410
5,520
Long-Tenn Review
     (Spring 1986).
                       A.1-40

-------
           Table A.1.3-10.  Summary of Assumptions and Data Inputs
       Assumption/Data Input
               Description
Type of Brake System
Composition of Brake System
Average Life of Brakes
Survival Probabilities
Outstanding Stock of Light Vehicles
Future Sales of Light Vehicles
Type of brake system is derived from
data in Ward's Automotive Yearbook
(1976-1986); it is assumed that 53.4
percent of new car brakes will be disc
and 46.6 percent will be drum; and it
is assumed that 50 percent of new truck
brakes will be disc and 50 percent will
be drum,

Composition of brake system is based on
transcribed telephone conversations
with industry experts; it is assumed
that 15 percent of all new disc brakes
will contain asbestos; and it is
assumed that 92.5 percent of all new
drum brakes will contain asbestos.

Disc and drum brakes on both cars and
light trucks are assumed to have an
average life of 4 years based on a 1980
DOT report and transcribed telephone
conversations with industry experts.

Survival probabilities for cars and
light trucks are based on a 1983
Wharton Econometrics report.

The outstanding stock of cars and light
trucks is based on data from R.L. Polk
& Co.

Future sales of cars and light trucks
is based on forecasts published by Data
Resources, Inc.
                                   A.1-41

-------
   Table A.1.3-11.   Sales Forecast of Total Disc Brake Pads and
 Asbestos Disc Brake Pads, 1986-2000, for A Four Year Brake Life
                          (in thousands)
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total
Light
Total
Disc Pads
47 , 741
46,901
45,228
45,316
56,157
55,098
55,050
55,580
64,059
62,926
64,472
66,369
72,082
70,345
73.351
880,673
Trucks
Asbestos
Disc Pads
32,407
31,057
29,078
29,540
26,725
25,717
23,945
23,782
20,619
19,941
18,991
18,801
16,218
15,698
15.588
348 , 104
Passenger
Total
Disc Pads
126,319
121,759
122,407
116,936
136,703
132,532
136,634
133,235
148,561
144 , 704
152,570
155,924
160,638
154,975
164.451
2,108,350
Cars
Asbestos
Disc Pads
86,739
80,726
81 , 374
76,630
60,995
56,495
56,239
51,008
39,224
36,665
37,369
35,218
29,113
27,670
28.836
784,302
Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source:  ICF, see text.
                              A.1-42

-------
                                  Figure A.1,3-1
1 70 -i


160 -


ISO -;


140 -


I30 H
     I;

120 -j


1 1 0


100 -


 90 -


 80 -


 70 -


' GO


 50 ~-


 40


 30


 20 -I
   Q-,
                                                  £r—--,-
0
 1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000
    D
            ASB. DISC PADS
TOTAL DISC PADS

-------
presents  the  results  for  cars  while  Figure A.1.3-2  graphically presents the
results for trucks.

    Table A. 1.3-12 presents  forecasts  for asbestos  drum brake linings and for
total drum brake  linings  for both  cars and light trucks.  Two general points
are worth noting.  First,  sales  of asbestos drum brake linings closely mirror
sales of  total brake  linings.  This  occurs because  more than 92.5 percent of
all drum  brakes sold  in any  year are asbestos.  Second, the difference between
asbestos  drum brakes  and  total drum  brakes is growing over time.  This is a
direct result of  the  assumptions which underlie these forecasts.  In any given
year, 92.5 percent of all new  drum brakes are asbestos, and between 92.5
percent and 100 percent of all replacement brakes are asbestos,  fhe exact
percentage of replacement drum brakes  that is asbestos is a function of the
stock of  drum brakes.  It starts out being exactly  100 percent in 1986 and
approaches 92.5 percent over time.   (It would reach exactly 92.5 percent in
trucks in 2017 (1986  -f 31) and in  cars in 2008 (1986 -f- 22).)

    It is also important  to  note that  the behavior  of asbestos drum brake
sales in  cars and in  trucks  differs.  The basic underlying trends are the
same, but some number differ in'  magnitude, and this causes the net effects to
diverge.  First of all, the  percentage of drum brakes that are asbestos in
declining for both types  of  vehicles.  Second, the  stock of asbestos drum
brakes is declining for cars but incteasing for trucks.  The share of asbestos
drum brakes to total  brakes  is declining for both vehicles.  However, the
stock of  total truck  brakes  is growing so fast that the net effect is an
increase  in replacement asbestos drum brakes sales.  The stock of total truck
brakes is growing fast because new truck sales greatly outnumber truck
scrappage.  Because the stock  of total car brakes is growing more slowly, the
net effect is that replacement asbestos drum brake  sales do not change much.
The same  arguments apply  to  the  new  vehicle market.  Because truck sales grow
faster than car sales, new asbestos  drum brakes in  trucks increase faster than
new asbestos  drum brakes  in  cars.  The net result of all these effects is that
sales of  asbestos drum brakes  in trucks increase while sales of asbestos drum
brakes in cars fluctuate  but remain  fairly constant.  Figure A.1.3-3
graphically presents  the  results for trucks while Figure A.1.3-4 graphically
presents  the results  for  cars.   Two  points are worth noting.  First, sales of
asbestos  drum brake linings  closely  mirror sales of total brake linings.  This
occurs because more than  92.5  percent of all drum brakes are asbestos in any
year.  Second, the difference  between asbestos drum brakes and total drum
brakes is growing over time.   This makes sense when we consider the
assumptions which underlie these forecasts.  In any given year, 92.5 percent
of all new drum brakes are asbestos, and between 92.5 percent and 100 percent
of all replacement brakes  are  asbestos.  The percentage of replacement drum
brakes that is asbestos is a function of the stock  of drum brakes.  It starts
out being almost  100  percent and approaches 92.5 percent over time.  (It would
reach exactly 92.5 percent in  trucks in 2017 (1986  + 31) and in cars in 2008
(1986 + 22).  Figure  A.1,3-3 graphically presents the results for trucks while
Figure A. 1.3-4 graphically presents  the results for cars.

    Table A.1.3-13 presents  the  forecasts for asbestos brake sales in four
categories; light truck asbestos drum brake sales,  light truck asbestos disc
brake sales, passenger car asbestos  drum brake sales, and passenger car
asbestos  disc brake sales.   The  following points summarize the major findings
already discussed;
                                    A.1-44

-------
                              A.1.3-2
                           E
3 A n c
RUC
                                                              .&-
                                                                  -er'
                              -A—-
D    TOTAL DISC PADS
        A    ASB- DISC PADS

-------
  Table A.1,3-12.   Sales Forecast  of  Total  Drum Brake  Linings  and
    Asbestos Drum Brake Linings, 1986-2000,  Four Year Brake Life
                           (in thousands)
 Year
  Total
                 ....Likht Trucks
                                    PassenEer Cars
   Total
Drum Linings
  Asbestos
Drum Linings
   Total
Drum Linings
  Asbestos
Drum Linings
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
61,045
58 , 644
60,624
61,244
62,466
61,071
63,912
66,500
66,755
65,874
69,478
73,425
73,064
71,652
75.881
59,692
57,246
59,199
59,852
59,869
58,478
61,167
63,695
62,923
62,081
65,465
69,228
68,135
66,830
70.785
137,762
130,125
136,771
134,742
131,113
128,290
138,005
139,147
133,824
131,710
142,139
147,593
141,316
136,901
146.380
134,714
126,965
133,612
131,639
125,283
122,435
131,815
132,815
125,405
123,391
133,269
138,298
131,189
127,098
135.938
  991,636
  944,645
 2,055,818
 1,953,867
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Source;  ICF, see text.
                              A.1-46

-------
                                    Flgurs A.l.3~3
                 )  -.'11
                 >   K /
o -   ..— — T — ....... -,
  fj86   1987  1988
                                    :, I'uPLCASI
                                                      -A-
                                                             •A"
                                                                         .B--
                                                                         . A—
                              -r- -------- 1 ..... ------ 1 -------- ..... -j ------------- 1 ............ --'i      r" ..... ~""r '  ' ~T ...... T
                              990  1 99 1   1992  1993  1 99^1  199^  1996  1997   1998  1999  2000
H     h if Al.  [j(JHM  I Hill !
-------
                                 Figure A,1,3-4
          ~F~
                 CHUM  BRAKE  	N N
                             SALES FORECAST,  1 986--2000
                'T
"T
                                                T"
                           T		r
                                                       i    —}—
;987  1988  1989  1990' 1991  1992  1993  1994  1995 1996  1997  1998 1999  2000
r:.i    TOTAL DRUM LIMINGS
                         ASB, DRUM LININGS

-------
    Table A.1.3-13.   Sales Forecast of Asbestos Drum Brake Linings  and
        Asbestos Disc Brakes Pads,  1986-2000,  Four Year Brake Life
                              (in thousands)
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total
Light
Drua
59,692
57,246
59,199
59,852
59,869
58,478
61,167
63,695
62,923
62,081
65,465
69,228
68,135
66,830
70.785
944/645
Trucks
Disc
32,407
31,057
29,078
29,540
26,725
25,717
23,945
23,782
20,619
19 , 941
18,991
18,801
16,218
15,698
15.588
348 , 104
Passenger
Drum
134,714
126,965
133,612
131,639
125,283
• 122,435
131,815
132,815
125,405
123,391
133,269
138,298
131,189
127,098
135.938
1,953,867
Cars
Disc
86,739
80,726
81,374
76,630
60,995
56,495
56,239
51,008
39,224
36,665
37,369
35,218
29,113
27,670
28.836
784,302
Total
Drum
194,406
184,211
192,811
191,491
185,152
180,914
192,982
196,510
188,327
185,473
198,733
207,526
199,324
193,928
206.723
2,898,512 1,

Disc
119,146
111,783
110,452
106,170
87,719
82,211
80,184
74,790
59,843
56,606
56,360
54,019
45,331
43,368
44.425
132,406
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Source:  ICF, see text.
                                  A.1-49

-------
         •  future asbestos drum brake sales In trucks are cyclical,
            but rising;.

         •  although total future disc brake sales in trucks increase,
            asbestos disc brake sales IB trucks decline;

         •  future asbestos drum brake sales in cars are  cyclical with
            no discernible upward or downward trend; and

         *  although total future disc brake sales in cars increase,
            asbestos disc brake sales in cars decline over time.

    A more  detailed understanding of the factors driving the market  can be
obtained by looking at a breakdown of brake sales into new brakes and
replacement brakes.   These results are presented in Tables A.1.3-14  through
A.1.3-17 and in Figures A.1.3-5 through A.1.3-8.

    Table A.1.3-14 presents the results for asbestos drum brake  sales  in
trucks.   We can see that new sales cycle with a slight upward trend  and
replacement sales rise slightly.   This occurs because new brake  sales  closely
mirror new  truck sales,  and the stock of existing trucks grows slightly over
tine.  The  breakdown is shown graphically in Figure A.1,3-5.

    It is worth noting that replacement sales of asbestos drum brakes  drop
significantly in 1987,   The major reason for this drop is that asbestos drum
brakes in model year 1971 and 1975 trucks are noticeably fewer than  asbestos
drum  brakes in model year 1970 and 1974 trucks (see Attachment B-2).   Because
the model assumes that all 1971 and 1975 brakes will be  replaced in  1987 and
that  all 1970 and 1974 brakes will be replaced in 1986,  there is a significant
decline  in  1987 forecasted replacement sales relative to 1986.   The  effects of
these two model years can be observed In 1991,  1995,  and 1999, although it is
less  pronounced as fewer of these vehicles  continue to survive.

    Table A,1.3-15 presents the results for asbestos disc brake  sales  in
trucks.   We can see that new sales cycle with a. slight upward trend  while
replacement sales decline dramatically.   This decline occurs  because the
existing trucks with asbestos disc brakes are being scrapped and replaced with
trucks with non-asbestos disc brakes.   Thus,  the stock of asbestos disc brakes
in trucks is  declining across time.   Once again new brake sales  closely follow
new truck sales.   The breakdown is shown graphically in  Figure A. 1.3-6.

    It is worth noting that replacement sales of asbestos disc brakes  decline
noticeably  in 1990,  1994, -and 1998.   The major reason for this decline is that
we assume all truck  brake are replaced every fourth year.   Thus,  in  1990, we
are replacing brakes  on 1966,  1970,  1974,  1978,  1982,  and 1986 model year
trucks.   The  two most recent model years (1982  and 1986)  are  assumed to have a
lower percentage of  asbestos disc brakes (substitution starts  in 1982).  In
1989, we  replace  brakes  on  1965,  1969,  1973,  1977,  1982,  and  1985.   Only the
1985  trucks are assumed  to  have  a lower percentage  of asbestos disc brakes.
The fact  that two  model  years  in  the  1990 replacement group have a reduced
asbestos percentage  while only one model year in the  1989 replacement  group
has a reduced asbestos percentage accounts  for this  significant  decline.  The
same event  occurs  in 1994.   The only  difference  is  that  three model years in
the replacement group (1982,  1986,  and 1990)  have  a lower asbestos percentage
and only  two  model years  in the  1993  replacement group (1983  and 1987)  have a

                                    A.1-50

-------
Table A.1.3-14.  Asbestos Drum Brake Linings  for  Light Trucks
                  Sales Forecasts, 1986-2000 (in thousands)
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total
Total Sales
59,692
57,246
59,199
59,852
59,869
58,478
61,167
63,695
62,923
62,081
65,465
69,228
68,135
66,830
70.785
944,645
New Sales
16,687
17 , 242
17,575
17,168
15,910
15,318
16,872
18,019
17,353
16,946
17,871
19,388
19,277
18,500
19.425
263,551
Replacement Sales
43,005
40,004
41,624
42,684
43,959
43,160
44,295
45,676
45,570
45,135
47,594
49,840
48,858
48,330
51.360
681,094
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Source;  IGF, see text.
                           A.1-51

-------
H
3
to
             en
                                                                               \  \
                                   Y//////
                                   \ / / /.,_/ //
                                                                                                            en
                                                                                                            en
                                                                                                            CO
                                                                                                            en
                                                                                                            cn
                                                                                                            cn
                                                                                                            CD
UD
cn
en
                                                                                                            cn
                                                                                                            cn
                                                                                                            K)
                                                                                                            CM
                                                                                                            cn
                                                                                                            cn
                                                                                                            cn
                                                                                                            cn
                                                                                                            oo
                                                                                                            cn
                                                                                                            CO
                                                                                                            CO
                                                                                                            03
                                                                                                            cn
                                                                                                                    in
                                                                                                                    LU
                                                                                                                    	i
                                                                                                                    <
                                                                                                                    cn
                                                                                                                     
-------
 Table A. 1.3-15.
Asbestos  Disc  Brake  Pads  for  Light  Trucks
Sales Forecast, 1986-2000 (in thousands)
Year .
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total
Total Sales
34,407
31,057
29,078
29 , 540
26,725
25,717
23,945
23,782
20,619
19,941
18,991
18,801
16,218
15,698
15.588
348,104
New Sales
2,706
2,796
2,850
2,784
2,580
2,484
2,736
2,922
2,814
2,748
2,898
3,144
3,126
3,000
3.150
42,738
Replacement Sales
29,701
28,261
26,228
26,756
24,145
23,233
21,209
20,860
17,805
17,193
16,093
15,657
13,092
12,698
12.438
305 , 366
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Source:  IGF, see text.
                           A.1-53

-------
                              Figure A.1.3-6
fc



4
  -H
1986  1987
   -I--..




1 Q O O
! JULJ
                                                  TRUCKS
                                  \
                                  \ \
                                            V

                                                                       _,
                  989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995  1996  1997  1998 1999 2000
                                      REPLACEMENT SALES

-------
 lower  asbestos  percentage.   Finally,  this occurs again in 1998  for the  same
 reason.   This time  we have  four model years rather than three model years with
 a  lowered asbestos  content  in the replacement group.

    Table A.1.3-16  presents the results  for asbestos  drum brake sales In cars.
 We can see that new sales exhibit year fluctuations with an upward trend,
 while  replacement sales  exhibit yearly fluctuations with no upward or downward
 trend.  One might expect the replacement sales to show a slight decline since
 new cars  have fewer drum brakes than  older cars,  but  this is outweighed by the
 fact that the stock of outstanding cars  is rising as  we move further into the
 future.   New brake  sales again closely follow new car sales.  The  breakdown  is
 shown  graphically in Figure A. 1.3-7.

    A  close examination  of  Table A. 1.3-16 reveals an  interesting pattern.
 Asbestos  drum brake replacement sales decline in 1987,  1991,  1995,  and  1999,
 but they  increase in 1988,  1992,  1996, and 2000.   The primary reason for this
 drop is the asbestos drum brakes on 1971 and 1975 model year cars  are
 significantly fewer than asbestos drum brakes on 1970 and 1974  model year
 cars.  The primary  reason for this increase is that there are more asbestos
 drum brakes on  1976 and  1984 model year  cars than on  1975 and 1983 model year
 cars.  Once again,  we see that  a noticeable pattern repeats • itself every four
 years.                       *

    Table A.1.3-17  presents the results  for asbestos  disc brake sales in cars.
 We can see that new sales rise  while  replacement sales  decline  dramatically.
 This parallels  the  case  of  disc brake sales in trucks.   Cars with  asbestos
 disc brakes are being scrapped  and replaced with cars with non-asbestos disc
 brakes.   Thus, the  stock of asbestos  disc brakes  is declining across time.
 Once again new brake sales  closely follow new car sales.   The breakdown is
 shown  graphically in Figure A. 1.3-8.   It is worth noting that replacement
 asbestos  disc sales on cars decline significantly in  1990,  1994, and 1998.
 These  are  the same  years in which *& noticeable decline  in replacement asbestos
 disc sales  on trucks decline significantly,  and the reason is the  same.
 Specifically, the number of model years  in the replacement group which  have a
 lower  asbestos percentage increases relative to the previous  year.   The only
 difference between  cars  and trucks  is that the decline  in cars  is  steeper.
 This occurs because the  stock of total disc brakes for  cars  is  not growing as
 fast as the stock of total  disc brakes for trucks.  Detailed printouts  of all
 the results, by model  year,  are presented in Attachments  A-D.

        3,5  Sensitivity Analysis

        There are six  key assumptions and data inputs that have been used for
making the  forecasts.  The  assumptions pertain to:

        •   type of  brake systems  (disc versus drum brake  system) --we
           have assumed  a 55  percent/45  percent split for cars  and a
           50 percent/50 percent  split for trucks  in  1986 and the
           future years;

        •  composition of brakes  -- we have  assumed 15  percent  of  new
           disc brakes and  92.5 percent  of new drum brakes  to contain
           asbestos  throughout  the forecast period; and

        «  average  life  of  brakes-- we have  assumed a four year life.

                                    A.1-55

-------
      Table A.1.3-16.  Asbestos Brian Brake Linings for
          Passenger Cars Sales Forecast, 1986-2000
                       (IB thousands)
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total
Total Sales
134,714
126,965
133,612
131,639
125,283
122,435
131,815
132,815
125,405
123,391
133,269
138,298
131,189
127,098
135.938
1,953,867
New Sales
37,588
38,967
38,967
38,277
35,174
34,139
38,277
40,691
37,932
36,553
39,312
42,760
41,381
38,967
40.691
579,676
Replacement Sales
97,127
87,998
94,645
93,361
90,109
88,296
93,538
92,124
87,472
86,838
93,957
95,538
89,808
88,131
95.247
1,374,191
Detail may not add to total due to rounding,

Source:  ICF, see text.
                           A.1-56

-------
(£>
00
\   \
                                                                                    \
                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                            CM

                                                                                                            en
                                                                                                            en
                                                                                                            CO
                                                                                                            00

                                                                                                            en




                                                                                                            en
                                                                                                            CD
                                                                                                            en
                                                                                                            en
                                                                                                            en
                                                                                                            en
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           CM
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           O
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           GD
                                                                                                          • en
                                                                                                           03
                                                                                                           CO
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           C3D
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           CO
                                                                                                           en
LLJ

2
UJ
CJ
<
	I
Q.
UJ
cr
                                                                                                                     LU
                                                                        O
                                                                                            O        O

-------
       Table A.1.3-17.  Asbestos Disc Brake Pads for
          Passenger Cars Sales Forecast,  1986-2000
                       (in thousands)
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total
Total Sales
86,739
80,726
81,374
76,630
60,995
56,495
56,239
51,008
39,224
36,665
37,369
35,218
29,113
27,670
28.836
784,302
New Sales
6,985
7,241
7,241
7,113
6,536
6,344
7 , 113
7,561
7,049
6,792
7,305
7,946
7,690
7,241
7.561
107,718
Replacement Sales
79,755
73,485
74,133
69,517
54,459
50,151
49,126
43,446
32,175
29,872
30,064
27,272
21,424
20,429
21.275
676,584
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Source:  IGF, see text.
                          A.1-58

-------
            Figure A.1.3-8
1989 -1990  1991  1992 1993  1994  1995 1996  1997  1998 1999 2000

-------
     In this  section,  we present the impact of changing these key assumptions
 on the results of our forecasts.

     Tahle  A.1,3-18 presents the results for brake sales if we assume a five
 year brake life,  while Table A,1.3-19 presents the results for brake sales if
 we assume  a  three year brake life.   Obviously, a shorter brake life leads  to
 more sales in all categories.   For  example,  a one year decrease in brake life
 from 4 years  to 3 years increases the asbestos disc brake pad sales in light
 trucks in  1986 from approximately 31,163,000 to 37,987,000,   In addition,  a
 longer brake  life leads to fewer  sales in all categories,  for instance, a one
 year increase in brake life from  4  years to 5 years decreases the asbestos
 disc brake pads in light trucks in  1986 from 31,163,000 to 22,434,000.   The
 more subtle  changes occur in the  trends in each category.  As the brake life
 changes, different groups of model  years take on either more or less
 importance.   This is  particularly important for model years in which a large
 swing in vehicle  production or a  large decline in the percentage of brakes
 composed of  asbestos  took place.

     These  points  are  illustrated  in a number of instances.   For example, if we
 look at the  forecasted sales of drum brakes in light trucks assuming a five
 year brake life,  we see a large decline in 1990 and 1995.  The major reason
 for  this is  the steep decline  in  truck sales between 1979 and 1980.   In 1985,
 there were approximately 3.7 million outstanding 1979 trucks and only 2^1
 million outstanding 1980 trucks.  Because the brakes on all the 1979 trucks
 are  assumed  to be replaced in  1989  and 1994 and the brakes on all the 1980
 trucks are assumed to be replaced in 1990 and 1995 when the brake life is  five
 years,  there  is a large fall in forecasted sales for these particular years.

     The car market is characterized by more declines than the truck market.
 In particular,  we see declines in 1988,  1990,  1991,  1995,  1999,  and 2000 in
 drum Brake sales.   The decline is not always attributable to the same model
 years.  For instance,  the 1988 decline occurs  mainly because there are fewer
 1968  and 1973 model year cars  than  1967 and 1972 model year cars.   By 1993,
 these cars represent, a small fraction of the outstanding vehicles, and the
 decline does  not  recur.  .The 1991 decline is similar in that is does not recur
 in 1996.   The 1990 decline,  however,  does recur in 1995 and 2000 because in
 this  case  there are declines in 1990,  1980,  and 1975 model  year cars and their
 effects are able  to endure.

     This disc brake market will follow these declining patterns in general,'
 and  it will be augmented by the overriding decline expected as a result of the
 shift to non-asbestos disc brakes.   For example,  we see a large decline in
 forecasted disc brake sales between.1989 and 1990 in trucks.   Fart of this
 decline is attributable  to' the drop in truck sales between 1979 and 1980, and
part  is attributable  to  the drop  in asbestos disc brakes on 1985 trucks
 relative to 1984  trucks.   Because the  drum brake forecasts  are driven
primarily  by  the  stock of outstanding vehicles,  any year in which drum brake
 sales  are  forecasted  to  fall will correspond to a fall in disc brake sales.
 In some cases,  this fall will  be  large because of the compounded effects shift
 to non-asbestos brakes.

    The patterns  discussed for a  five  year brake  life can be seen when the
brake  life is  assumed to be three years,  but they are not always as  distinct
because more  model  years are replaced every  year.   For example,  the  fall in
 truck  sales between 1979 and 1980 manifests  itself in declining drum brake

                                    A.1-60

-------
          Table A.1,3-18,   Forecast of Drum and Disc Brakes Sales,
                      1986-2000, Five Year Brake Life
                               (In thousands)
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
199?
1998
1999
2000
Total
Light
Drum
45,019
48,109
50,953
53,852
46,413
46,831
50,290
53 , 044
55,191
51,129
52,255
56 , 247
58,031
58,199
57.224
782,789
Trucks
Disc
22,686
24,948
25,635
27,433
20,036
18,022
19,082.
19,434
20,390
15,618
13,570
14,178
14,302
14,562
12,502
282,397
Passenger
Drum
108,471
109,360
109 , 244
113,715
104,556
102,460
106,530
108,802
110,298
104,311
105,893
113,766
114,702
110,726
108,768
1,631,602
Cars
Disc
70,226
68,300
66,368
64,067
52,671
45,226
42,093
40,122
38,715
32,021
26 , 749
26,894
26,262
25,106
23.199
648 , 019
Total
Drum
153,491
157,469
160,197
167,567
150,969
149,292
156,819
161,846
165,489
155,440
158 , 149
170,013
172,734
168,924
165.991
2,414,391

Disc
92,912
93,248
92,003
91,500
72,707
63,248
61,176
59,556
59,105
47,638
40,319
41,072
40,564
39,668
35,701
930,416
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Source;  ICF, see text.
                                   A.1-61

-------
           Table A.1.3-19,   Forecast of Drum and Disc Brakes Sales,
                       1986-2000,  Three Year Brake Life
                                (in thousands)
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total
. Light
Drum
73,611
74,230
78,929
74,856
75,585
78,961
77,440
80,066
81,991
81,071
84,541
87,102
86,867
89,000
91.778
1,216,027
Trucks
Disc
38,906
41,320
42,438
34,565
36,117
36,060
29,279
30,508
29,713
24,235
25,228
24,519
20,627
21,187
20.764
454,467
Passenger
Drum
169,982
172,000
170,161
164,195
165,988
162,928
163,409
168,342
163,275
164,265
170,410
169,622
169,835
172,050
173.499
2,519,960
Cars
Disc
116,312
114,773
105 , 540
91,451
89,287
78,429
66,662
65,447
56,507
47,937
47 , 843
43,275
38,599
38,498
36.730
1,037,290
Total
Drum
243,593
246,230
249,090
239,051
241,573
241,889
240,849
248,407
245,266
245,335
254,951
256,724
256,702
261,050
265.277
3,735,987 1

Disc
155,218
156,093
147,978
126,016
125,404
114,489
95 , 941
95,955
86,220
72,172
73,071
67,795
59,226
59,685
57.494
,492,757
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Source:  ICF, see text.
                                    A.1-62

-------
 forecasts  for  1988  and 1991,   However,  by 1994  many  other model years have
 become  Important  and an increase  in sales is  forecasted.  Thus, the three year
 brake life scenario reduces  the importance of any  one model year.

    Once again drum brake  sales closely mirror  the stock of vehicles.  Because
 both disc  brake forecasts  have a  downward trend, they always fall whenever
 forecasted drum brake sales  fall,  and they increase  only in years in which
 forecasted drum brake sales  also  increase.

    In  addition to  altering  the brake life, there  are two other assumptions
 that can be altered:   brake  type  and brake composition.  Changing either one
 of  these has very similar  effects because they  both  effectively alter future
 new and replacement asbestos brake sales.   Table A.1.3-20 compares the results
 of  assuming that  all new disc  brake pads are  asbestos-free by 1991 (the year
 ASME has concluded  industry  could replace asbestos in the OEM) or by 1989 with
 the current assumption that  fifteen percent of  all disc brakes continue to be
 made with  asbestos.   If asbestos  disc brake pads are replaced with
 semi-metallic  pads  on all  new  cars by 1991, the car  forecast is reduced by
 over 75 percent by  the year  2000,  if asbestos disc brake pads are replaced
 with semi-metallic  pads on all new cars by 1989, the car forecast is reduced
 by  almost  80 percent by the year  2000.   The same holds true for trucks, but
 the effect is  not quite as strong because the stock  of total truck disc brakes
 is  growing faster than the stock  of total car disc brakes.

    It  is  worth pointing out that noticeable  declines occur in 1990, 1994, and
 1998.   This decline occurs for the same reason  noted earlier.  The replacement
 group in these  years  includes  one more  set of model  year cars with a lower
 asbestos percentage than the replacement group  in  the preceding year.  Once
 again the  decline is  greater in cars than in  trucks  because the total stock of
 disc brakes  on cars is growing slower than the  stock of disc brakes on trucks.

    Finally, it is  worth pointing out that forecasts of disc brakes in light
 trucks  are  very similar to forecasts of disc  brakes  in cars by 2000 under the
moderate and high decline  scenarios.  This  may  appear surprising because
 annual  car sales  greatly exceed annual  truck  sales.  This result is occurring
because trucks  have a much longer life  than cars.  These two scenarios assume
 that asbestos  disc  brakes  on new  cars will  be phased out.  As a result, the
 sales of asbestos brakes will  come from older vehicles, and the stock of truck
with asbestos  disc  brakes  will eventually equal the  stock of cars with
 asbestos brakes because of their  longer life.

    Table A. 1.3-21  compares the results of assuming  that all new drum brake
 linings are asbestos-free  by (the year  ASME has concluded industry could
 replace asbestos  in the OEM) or by 1995 with  the current assumption that 92.5
percent of  all  drum brakes continue to  be made  with  asbestos.  If asbestos
 drum brake  linings  are replaced on all  new cars, the car forecast is reduced
by approximately  85 percent by the year 2000, and  as we continue to move out
 further in  time,  this  assumption  becomes  more significant because it affects a
 greater number  of vehicles.  Once  again,  the  same  holds true for trucks, but
 the effect  is not quite as strong. .

    The decline in  drum brake  forecasts is  not  as  significant as the disc
brake forecasts simply because fewer non-asbestos  drum brake are produced.
Once again,  it  is worth nothing that noticeable declines occur In 1990, 1994,
and 1998 for the  same  reason mentioned  earlier.  The replacement group in

                                    A.1-63

-------
         Table A.1.3-20.
              Asbestos Disc Brake Pad Sales Forecast
               Under Different Assumptions
                  (in thousands)
Year
Low Decline
Light
Cars Trucks
Moderate JDecline
Light
Cars Trucks
High Decline
Light
Cars Trucks
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
 86,739
 80,726
 81,374
 76,630
 60,995
 56,495
 56,239
 51,008
 39,224
 36,665
 37,369
 35,128
 29,113
 27,670
 28.836
32,407
31,057
29,078
29,540
26,725
25,717
23,945
23,782
20,619
19,941
18,991
18,801
16,218
15,698
15.588
86,739
79,278
78,478
72,362
55,766
48,736
46,297
39,277
27,067
22,459
20,685
16,304
10,150
 7,817
 6.864
32,407
30,497
27,938
27,870
24,661
22,693
20,107
19,246
15,811
14,306
12,456
11,378
 8,574
 7,512
 6.510
86,739
78,312
76,547
69,517
54,459
47,793
44,410
36,497
25,789
21,649
19,065
13,917
 9,053
 7,382
 5.993
32,407
30,125
27,178
26,756
24,145
22,333
19,373
18,171
15,312
13,981
11,793
10,407
 8,124
 7,269
 6.014
  Total
784,302   348,104
           618,278   281,964
                     597,123   273,386
Assumptions
Low Decline
Moderate Decline
High Decline
          15 percent of new vehicles are made with asbestos
          disc brake systems in 1986-2000.

          15 percent of 1986 vehicles are made with asbestos
          disc brake systems, 0 percent of vehicles made after
          1990 are made with asbestos disc brake systems.  (A
          linear decline is assumed in the intermediate years,)

          15 percent of 1986 vehicles are made with asbestos
          disc brake systems, 0 percent of vehicles made after
          1988 are made with asbestos disc brake systems.  (A
          linear decline is assumed in the intermediate years.)
Detail may not add to total due to rounding,.

Source:  IGF, see text.
                                  A.1-64

-------
         Table A.1.3-21.
    Asbestos Drum Brake Lining Sales Forecast
      Under Different Assumptions
         (in thousands)
Low Decline
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Cars
134,714
126,965
133,612
131,639
125,283
122,435
131,815
132,815
125,405
123,391
133,269
138,298
131,189
127,098
135.938
Light
Trucks
59,692
57,246
59,199
59,852
59,869
58,478
61,167
63,695
62,923
62,081
65,465
69,228
68,135
66,830
70.785
Moderate
Cars
134,714
122,635
124,952
118,879
109 , 650
99,239
97,837
88,701
76,414
64,676
61,761
53,912
43,750
34,554
31.524
Decline
Light
Trucks
59,692
55,331
55,293
54,129
52,798
48,118
46,146
44,152
40,667
35,244
33,322
31,312
27,792
23,290
21.741
High Decline
Cars
134,714
119,172
118,025
108,672
97 , 144
80,682
78,309
69,686
59,981
46 , 946
43,483
36,514
29 , 140
20,261
17.695
Light
Trucks
59,692
53,798
52,169
49,551
47,141
39,829
37 , 504
35,725
33,274
27,331
25,165
23,452
20,996
16,355
14.800
  Total    1,953,867   944,645   1,263,200   629,028    1,060,424   536,783
Assumptions
Low Decline
Moderate Decline
High Decline
92.5 percent of new vehicles are made with asbestos
drum brake systems in 1986-2000.

92.5 percent of 1986 vehicles are made with asbestos
drum brake systems, 0 percent of vehicles made after
1994 are made with asbestos drum brake systems.  (A
linear decline is assumed in the intermediate years.)

92.5 percent of 1986 vehicles are made with asbestos
drum brake systems, 0 percent of vehicles made after
1990 are made with asbestos drum brake systems.  (A
linear decline is assumed in the intermediate years.)
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Source:  ICF, see text.
                                   A.1-65

-------
 these years  Includes  one  nore  set  of model year  cars  with a lower  asbestos
 percentage than  the replacement  group in the  preceding year.   The  decline is
 again greater  in cars because  the  stock of drum  brakes on cars is  growing
 slower than  the  stock of  drum  brakes  on trucks.

    Once again,  we notice the  effect  of the longer  service life of trucks as
 truck sales  approach  car  sales by  2000 in the high  decline scenario.  The
 effect is less noticeable because  drum brake  are assumed to be on  more
 vehicles than  disc brakes,  and they are assumed  to  be phased out later.
 Appendices F-M provide detailed  printout of the  results for the medium and
 high decline scenarios, by model year.

    Finally, we  looked at the  effect  of altering our  assumption about the type
 of brake system.  Table A.1.3-22 presents the results when we  assume that all
 light vehicles (cars  and  trucks) have 60 percent disc brake systems (instead
 of 55 percent  of cars and 50 percent  of trucks)  and 40 percent drum brake
 systems (instead of 45 percent of  cars  and 50 percent of trucks).  (This would
 be likely to occur as more  vehicles switched  to  all disc brake systems.)  As
 would be expected, the total sale  of  asbestos disc  brakes rises while the
 total sale of  asbestos drum brakes falls relative to  our base  case.  In
 addition, the  total number  of  asbestos  brakes falls because a  smaller
 percentage of  disc brakes contains asbestos.  It is also worth noting that the
 shift to disc brakes will not  cause an increase  in  sales of asbestos disc
 brakes because it is outweighed  by the  substitution away from  asbestos and
 toward seal-metallic  in disc brake applications.  The total sale of asbestos
 disc brake pads  in cars and trucks increases  from 1,162,415,000 to
 1,203,125,000 while the sale of  asbestos drum brake linings decreases from
 3,000,781,000  to  2,729,618,000.

    Table A.1.3-23 presents the  forecasts of  asbestos disc brakes  and asbestos
 drum brakes'  in both cars  and light trucks for the three ARGM scenarios, while
 Table A.1.3-24 presents the growth rates implied by these forecasts.  These
 forecasts and growth rates  are valid  when new (OEM) and replacement
 (Aftermarket) sales are considered together.  In order to simulate the two
 sub-markets  (new  and replacement sales)  independently,  the forecasts are also
made separately.   Tables  A.1.3-25-A.1.3-28  show  the forecast of sales of new  .
 and replacement brakes assuming  a  low,  moderate,  and  high decline  scenario
 respectively.  Table A.1.3-28 presents  the  growth rates  implied by these
 forecasts for new and replacement  brakes  separately.   The  ARCH will take the
 1985 production volumes determined from the IGF  survey for these asbestos
products and then multiply  them by the  growth rates to compute the baseline
production quantities.

        3.6  Conclusions

        This analysis leads to the following  conclusions:

        •  Annual sales of asbestos drum brake linings  for  both trucks
           and cars are forecasted to increase slightly.   The  total
           annual sale of asbestos drum brake linings will  increase
           from approximately 193,000,000 in  1986 to  202,000,000 in
           2000.
                                    A.1-66

-------
      Table A.1.3-22.   Sales Forecast of Asbestos Drum Brake Linings and
            Asbestos Disc Brake Pads,  Under Different Assumptions2
                                (in thousands)
 Year
            LightTrucks
                      JPassenger.	Cars..
Drum
Disc
Drum
Disc
                                           Total
Drum
  Total   840,380   361,629
                     1,788,957   789,677
Disc
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
59,692
53,798
55,684
56,418
56,687
52,083
54,397
56,774
56,378
52,726
55,566
58,875
58,152
54,936
58.213
31,163
30,971
29,482
30,494
26,532
26,372
24,941 .
25,060
21,363
21,285
20,553
20,531
17,721
17,559
17.605
133,424
121,446
128,093
126,217
119,041
112,208
121,002
121,756
114,083
108,860
117,774
122,063
115,318
109,976
117.698
83,473
78,461
80,357
75,074
59 , 543
56 , 144
56,802
51,682
39,913
38,152
39,422
37,508
31,319
30 , 180
31 . 646
193,115
175 , 244
183,777
182,636
175,728
164,292
175,399
178,530
170,461
161,586
173,340
180,938
173,470
164,912
175.910
114,635
109,433
109,839
105,568
86,515
82,515
81,743
76,742
61,276
59,437
59,975
58,039
49,040
47,739
49.251
                                   2,629,337   1,151,307
a Sixty percent of brakes produced after 1986 are disc and 40 percent are
  drum, as opposed to the baseline assumption of 55 percent disc and 45
  percent drum.

Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Source:  ICF, see text.
                                    A.1-67

-------
Table A.1.3-23.  Sales Forecasts of Asbestos Drum Brake Linings
     and Asbestos Disc Brake Fads in Cars and Light Trucks
                         (in thousands)
Disc Brake Pads

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Low
Decline
137,836
119 , 146
111,783
110,452
106,170
87,720
82,212
80 , 184
74,790
59,843
56 , 606
56,360
53,929
45,331
43,368
44,424
Medium
Decline
137,836
119 , 146
109,775
106,416
100,233
80,427
71,429
66,404
58,523
42,878
36,765
33,141
27,682
18,724
15,329
13,374
(IMV)
High
Decline
137,836
119 , 146
108,437
103,725
96,273
78,604
70,126
53,783
54,668
41,101
35,630
30,858
24,324
17,177
14,651
12 , 007
Drum Brake Linings (IMV)
Low
Decline
198,735
194,406
184,211
192,811
191,491 •
185,152
180 , 913
192,982
196,510
188,328
185,472
198,734
207,526
199,324
193,928
206,723
Medium
Decline
198,735
194,406
177,966
180 , 245
173,008
162,448
147,357
143,983
132,853
117,081
99,920
95,083
85,224
71,532
57 , 844
53,265
High
Decline
198,735
194,406
172,970
170,194
158,223
144 , 285
120,511
115,813
105,411
93,255
74,277
68 , 648
59,966
50,136
36,616
32,495
                            A.1-68

-------
Table A,1,3-24.  Growth Rates for Asbestos Disc Brake Pads
 and Asbestos Drum Brake Linings in Cars and Light Trucks
                         (percent)
Disc Brake Pads

1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Low
Decline
-0.14
-0.06
-0.01
-0.04
-0.17
-0.06
-0.02
-0.07
-0.20
-0.05
0.00
-0.04
-0.16
-0.04
0.02
Medium
Decline
-0.14
-0.08
-0.03
-0.06
-0.20
-0.11
-0.07
-0.12
-0.27
-0.14
-0.10
-0.16
-0.32
-0.18
-0.13
(IMV)
High
Decline
-0.14
-0.09
-0.04
-0.07
-0.18
-0.11
-0.09
-0.14
-0.25
-0.13
-0.13
-0.21
-0.29
-0.15
-0.18
Drum Brake Linines ( IMV)
Low
Decline
-0.02
-0.05
0.05
-0.01
-0.03
-0.02
0.07
0.02
-0.04
-0.02
0.07
0.04
-0.04
-0.03
0.07
Medium
Decline
-0.02
-0.08
0.01
-0.04
-0.06
-0.09
-0.02
-0.08
-0.12
-0.15
-0.05
-0.10
-0.16
-0.19
-0.08
High
Decline
-0.02
-0.11
-0.02
-0.07
-0.09
-0.16
-0.04
-0.09
-0.12
-0.20
-0.08
-0.13
-0.16
-0.27
-0.11
                          A.1-69

-------
                    Table A.1.3-25.   Sales Forecast of Drum and Disc Brakes under Low Decline tesumptiotf
                                                             (in thousands)
Asbestos Drum Brake Linings
Sew Sales (OEM)

Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

Car
37,588
38,967
38,967
38,277
35,174
34 , 139
38,277
40,691
37,932
36,553
39,312
42,760
41,381
38,967
40,691
Light
Trucks
16,687
17,242
17,575
17,168
15,910
15,318
16,872
18,019
17,353
16,946
17,871
19,388
19,277
18,500
19,425

Total
54,275
56,209
56,542
55,445
51,08*
49,457
55,149
58,710
55,285
53,499
57 , 183
62,148
60,658
57,467
60,116
Replacement Sales (A/H)

Car
97 , 127
87,998
94,645
93,361
90,109
88,296
93-, 538
92,124
87,472
86,838
93,957
95,538
89,808
88,131
95,247
Light
Trucks
43,005
40,004
41,624
42,684
43,959
43,160
44,295
45,676
45,570
45,135
47,594
49,840
48,858
48,330
51,360

fotal
140,132
128,002
136,269
136,045
134,068
131,456
137,833
137,800
133,042
131,973
141,551
145,378
138,666
136,461
146,607
Asbestos Disc Brake Pads (LMV)
Hew Sales (OEM)

Car
6,985
7,241
7,241
7,113
6,536
6,344
7,113
7,561
7,049
6,792
7,305
7,946
7,690
7,241
7,561
Light
Trucks
2,706
2,796
2,850
2,784
2,580
2,484
2,736
2,922
2,814
2,748
2, am
3,144
3,126
3,000
3,150

Total
9,691
10,037
10,091
9,897
9,116
8,828
9,849
10,483
9,863
9,540
10,203
11,090
10,816
10,241
10,711
Eeplacement Sales (A/M3

Car
79,755
73,485
74,133
69,517'
54,459
50,151-
49,126--
43,446
32,175
29,872
30,064
27,272
21,424
20,429
21,275
Light
Trucks
29,701
28,261
26,228
26 , 756
24,145
23,233
21,209
20,860
17,805
17,193
16,093
15,657
13,092
12,698
12,438

Total
109,456
101,746
100,361
96,273
78,604
73,384
70,335
64,306
49,980
47,065
46,157
42,929
34,516
33,127
33,713
  15 percent of new vehicles are made with asbestos disc brake syatens in 1986-2000 and 92.5 percent of new vehicles are
  nrada with asbestos dnsn brake systems in 1986-2000.
Source:  ICF, sae testt.

-------
                 Table A.1.3-26.
Sales Forecast of Drian and Disc Brakes under Moderate Decline Assuutptlon8
                           (in thousands)
Asbestos Drum Brake Linings


Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
New

Car
37,588
34,637
30,308
25,518
19,541
15,173
12,759
9,042
4,215
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sales (OEM)
Light
Trucks
16,687
15,326
13,669
•11,445
8,839
6,806
5,624
4,004
1,928
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
54,275
49,964
43,977
36,963
28,380
21,981
18,383
13,047
6,143
0
0
0
0
0
0
Replacement Sales (A/H)

Car
97,127
87,998
94,645
93,361
90,109
84,066
85,077
79,658
72,199
64,675
61,760
53,912
43,74f
34,553
31,524
Light
Tracks
43,005
40,004
41,624
42,684
43,959
41,309
40,522
40, 148
38,739
35,244
33,322
31,311
27,791
23,290
21,741

Total
140,131
128,003
136,269
136,045
134,069
125,376
125,599
119,806
110,938
99,919
95,082
85,223
71,541
57,843
53,265
Asbestos Disc Brafca Fads (LH7)
New Sales (OEM)

Car
6,985
5,793
4,345
2,845
1.307
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Light
Trucks
2,706
2,237
1,710
1,114
516
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
9,691
8,030
6,055
3,959
1,823
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Replacement Sales 
-------
                   Table A.1.3-27.
Sales Forecast of Drum and Disc Brakes under High Decline Assumption*
                          (in thousands)
Asbestos Drum Brake Linings
Mew Sales (OEM)

fear
1986
198?
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

Car
37,588
31,174
23,380
15,311
7,035
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Light
Tracks
16,687
13,794
10,5*5
6,867
3,182
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
54,275
44, 967
33,925
22,178
10,217
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Replacement Sales (A/M)

Car
97,127
87,998
94,645
93,361
90,10?
80,682
78,309
69,686
59,981
46,9*6
43,483
36 , 514
29,140
20,261
17,695
Light
Trucks
43,005
40,004
41,624
42, 684
43,959
39,829
37,504
35,725
33,274
27,331
25,165
23,452
20,996
16,355
14,800

Total
140,131
128,003
136,269
136,045
134,069
120,511
115,813
105,411
93,255
74,277
68,648
59,966
50,136
36,616
32,495
Asbestos Disc Brake Fad* (TJW)
Haw Sales (OEM)

Car
6,985
4,827
2,414
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Light
Trucks
2,706
1,864
950
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
9,691
6,691
3,364
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Replacement Sales (A/M)

Car
79,755
73,485
74,133
69,517
54,459
47,793
44,410
36,497
25,789
21,649
19,065
13,917
9,053
7,382
5,993
Light
Trucks
29,701
28,261
26,228
26,756
24,145
22,333
19,373
18,171
15,312
13,981
11,793
10,407
8,124
7,269
6,014

Total
109,455
101,745
100,361
96,273
78,603
70,125
63,783
54,668
41,102
35,630
30,858
24,323
17,177
14,651
12,007
  15 percent of 1986 vehicles are made with asbestos disc brake systems,  0 percent of vehicles made after 1988  ass made
  with asbestos disc brake systems and 92.5 percent of 1986 vehicles are  made with asbestoa drran brake  systems,  0 percent
  of vehicles made after 1990 are made with asbestos drum brake systems.   {A linear decline is assigned  in the
  intermediate years.)

Source:  ICF, see text.

-------
Table A. 1.3-28.   Baseline Growth Sates  of Drum and Disc  (UW) Brakes used in the ARCM: 1986-2000
Growth Rates


Year
1986-1987
1987-1988
1988-1989
1989-1990
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
1994-1995
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
18. Dcum
Low
Decline
3.56
0,59
-1.94
~7.8?
-3.18
11.51
6.46
-5.83
-3. 23
6.89
8.68
-2.40
-5.26
4.61
Brake Linings COSM)
Moderate
Decline
-7.94
-11.98
-15.95
-23.22
-22.55
-16.37
-29.03
-52.92
-100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
High
Decline
-17.15
-24.56
-34.63
-53.93
-100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19. Disc Brake Pads,
Low
Decline
3.5?
0.54
-1.92
-7.89
-3.16
11.57
6.44
~5.92
-3.27
6.95
8,69
-2,47
-5.31
4.59
tfoderate
Declina
-17,14
-24 . 60
-34.62
-53.94
-100.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
LMV (OBI)
High
Decline
-30.95
-49.73
-100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1985-2000
36. Drum
Low
Decline
-8.66
6.46
-0.16
-1.45
-1.95
4.85
-0.02
-3.45,
-0.80
7.26
2.70
-4.62
-1.59
7,43
«>

Brake Linings (A/M)
Moderate
Decline
-8.66
6.46
-0.16
-1,45
-6.48
0.18
-*.«!
-7.40 •
-9.93
-4.84
-10.37
-16.05
-19.15
-7.92
High
Decline
-8.66
6.46
-0.16
-1.45
-10.11
-3.90
-8.98
-11.53
-20.35
-7.58
-12.65
-16.39
-26.97
-11.25


37, Disc Brake Fads,
Low
Decline
-7.04
• -1.35
-4.07
-18.35
• -6.64
-4.15
-8.57
-22.28
-5.83
-1.93
-6.99
-19,60
-4.02
1.77
Moderate
Decline
-7.04
-1.36
-4.07
-18.35
-9,13
-7.03
-11.87
-26.73
-14.25
-9.86
-16.47
-32.36
-18.12
-12,76

LMV (A/M)
High
Decline
-7,04
-1,36
-4.07
-18,35
-10.79
-9,04
-14.29
-24 . 82
-13,31
-13.39
-21.18
-29.38
-14.70
-18.05

-------
Annual sales of disc brake pads are forecasted to increase
for both cars and trucks, but annual sales of asbestos disc
brake pads will fall dramatically.  This will occur because
vehicles with asbestos disc brake pads will be scrapped and
replaced with vehicles with semi-metallic disc brake pads.
The total annual sale of asbestos pads will fall from
approximately 115,000,000 in 1986 to 45,000,000 in 2000.

Yearly fluctuations in vehicles sales are not forecasted to
have a dramatic effect on brake sales because the vast
majority of brakes are sold as replacement brakes.

The results presented in this paper tend to be conservative
because they are based on the assumptions that the disc
brake substitution in new vehicles away from asbestos
remains at its current level, that all asbestos .pads are
actually replaced with asbestos pads, and that no
substitution away from asbestos in drum brakes takes place.
                        A.1-74

-------
REFERENCES
American Society of Mechanical  Engineers, Analysis  of  the ..Feasibility
    Replacing Asbestos  In Automobile  and Truck	Brakes.  1987.

Data Resources, Incorporated, U.J|..jmL_ong ..lens	Review (Spring	J.9861, Lexington,
    MA, 1986.

ICF Incorporated, 1986.   Mark Handwerger, Washington,  B.C.  20006.  Transcribed
    telephone conversations with Thomas  Johnson, GM Corporation, Detroit, MI.
    Representative, Mazda, Incorporated, Irvine, CA.   Representative Volvo
    Cars of North America, Rockleigh,  NJ.  Representative,  Mercedes-Benz of
    North America, Incorporated,  Montvale, NJ.  Representative, Audi of
    America, Troy, MI.  Representative,  Volkswagen  of  America,  Incorporated,
    Troy, MI.  David Jenkins, America Honda Motor Company,  Incorporated,
    Gardena, CA.  Robert  Mitchell, BMW of North America, Incorporated,
    Montvale, NJ.  Representative, P.T.  Brake  Lining Co., Lawrence, MA.  Jerry
    Clark, Delco Morraitie Division of General  Motors,  Dayton, OH.  Jim Bowman,
    Nissan Motor Corporation in USA,  Gardena,  CA.   Representative, Ford Motor
    Company, Detroit, MI.

ICF Incorporated.  1987.  Rick  Hollander, Washington,  D.C.  20006.
    Transcribed telephone conversation with Dr. Shawn  Rhee, Allied/Bendix
    Automotive, Troy, MI.

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, Eg.JSoxJfeM.cle_J!ftct;fi_jand_Flgure_'jBi6t
    1986.

R.L. Polk and Company,  Detroit,  Michigan in Motor Vehicle Facts,.and Figures
    '86. pps. 26-27.

Roberts D,  1987 (February 16).   General Motors Corporation, Detroit, MI,
    48202.  Letter and  attachments to C. Augustyniak,  Office of•Toxic
    Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  Washington, D.C. 20460.
    EPA CBI Doc. Control  No. 63-870000062.

U.S. Department of Transportation, The Reportby theFederalTask Jgorceon
    Motor Vehicle Goals Beyond  1980.  Washington, D.C.,  1976.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Automotiye  Maintenance Data  Base..£or. Model
    Years 1976-1979. Washington,  D.C.  1980.

Versar Incorporated,  1987 (September 25).  Nonoccupational Asbestos Exposure.
Prepared for Exposure Evaluation Division, Exposure Assessment  Branch, Office
of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA Final  Report.

Ward's Communication Incorporated, Ward's Automotive .Yearbook.  (1974-1986).

Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, Philadelphia, PA, 1983.
                                    A.1-75

-------
                             LIST OF ATTACHMENTS


A   Mathematical Formulation of Underlying Model.

B-l Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Drum Brakes  in Light Duty Trucks - Low
    Decline,

B-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Drum Brakes for Light Duty Trucks  - Low Decline.

C-l Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Disc Brakes  in Light Duty Trucks - Low
    Decline,

C-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Disc Brakes for Light Duty Trucks  - Low Decline.

D-l Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Drum Brakes  in Cars - Low Decline.

D-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Drum Brakes for Cars - Low Decline,

E-l Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Disc Brakes  in Cars - Low Decline.

E-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Disc Brakes for Cars - Low Decline.

F-l Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Drum Brakes  in Light Duty Trucks - Medium
    Decline.

F-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Drum Brakes for Light Duty Trucks  - Medium
    Decline.

G-l Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Disc Brakes  in Light Duty Trucks - Medium
    Decline,

G-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Disc Brakes for Light Duty Trucks  - Medium
    Decline.

H-l Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Drum Brakes  in Cars - Medium Decline.

H-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Drum Brakes for Cars - Medium Decline,

1-1 Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Disc Brakes  in Cars - Medium Decline.

1-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Disc Brakes for Cars - Medium Decline.

J-l Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Drun Brakes  in Light Duty Trucks - High
    Decline.

J-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Drum Brakes for Light Duty Trucks  - High Decline.

K-l Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Disc Brakes  in Light Duty Trucks - High
    Decline.

K-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Disc Brakes for Light-Duty Trucks  - High Decline.

L-l Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Drum Brakes  in Cars - High Decline.
                                   A.1-76

-------
L-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Drum Brakes for Cars - High Decline.




M-l Outstanding Stock of Asbestos Disc Brakes in Cars - High Decline.




M-2 Future Sales of Asbestos Disc Brakes for Cars - High Decline,
                                   A.1-77

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT A
    This attachment presents a mathematical  formulation of  the model which
underlies this analysis.  The formulation is presented only for one of the
four categories  -- asbestos disc brakes  in trucks.  However, the equation can
be extended to the other three categories.
                              TS. - OEMS, + RS.                          (1)
where:
      TS. - total sale of asbestos disc brakes for trucks in year j.

    OEMS. - original equipment market  sale of asbestos disc brakes  for
        -"   trucks in year j.

      RS, - replacement sale of asbestos disc brakes for trucks in  year j.


                          OEMS. - 8K.  * NTS,     (for all i - j)           (2)
                              J1J
where:

       K. - percentage of total truck  pads and linings which are asbestos
            disc in year i..

     NTS. - new truck sales in year j,


                                 K. -  T. * C.                             (3)
where:
       T. — percentage of total truck pads  and  linings which are disc
            pads in year i,

       C. — percentage of total disc pads which are asbestos in year i.
              RS. -   fi     8K. * OT., g -I-   t     8K. * FT., g          (4)
                J   l-J-31    ±      lj      i-j-31    J      1J


where

        g — 1 if {j-i)/4 « integer
        g - 0 else

       K. •" percentage of total truck pads  and  linings which are asbestos
            disc in model year i.

     OT. . - stock of outstanding trucks of  model year i in  year j for
       1J   i § 1985.

                                    A. 1-78

-------
     FT.. - stock of outstanding trucks of model year i In year j for i
       13     1986.
                          OT.. - OT.. , * P. , .   .  .                    (5)
                            ij     ij-1    j-l-i, j-i                    <• 7
where
    ?._-,_.  ._. - conditional probability that a truck which has survived
          '       j-l-i years survives into its j-i year.
                           FT.. - FT..^ * Pj-1                          (6)
where
    F. .      - probability that a truck will survive into its j-i year.
                                   A.1-79

-------
EXHIBIT B-I: OUTSTANDING STOCK or ASBESTOS DRUM BRSKFS IN LOTS
	 	 	 . — 	 - 	 , 	 - - .-

MODEL
YEAR
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989

1O03
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

TOTAL



NUMBER OF
ASBESTOS mm BRAKE
PADS IN LOTS ESTIMATED TO BE IN OPERATION BY MODEL
YEAR



(IN THOUSANDS)
1986
0
169
226
256
439
601
774
1,206
1,842
3,676
3,692
4,665
5,470
7,949
6,108
6,078
5,393
6.795
7,904
8,968
6,865
9,338
11,726
13,216
14,281
8,176
8,163
8,61?
9,376
13,652
15,855
16,687











208,161
1987
0
0
166
192
325
438
585
909
1,392
2,848
2,907
3,695
4,405
6,482
5,093
5,130
4,635
5,923
6,980
8,005
6,226
8,641
10,990
12,564
13,761
7,956
7,991
8,474
9,261
13,500
15,744
16,620
17,242











209,080
1988
0
0
0
141
244
325
427
686
1,049
2,153
2,252
2,909
3,490
5,221
4,154
4,278
3,913
5,090
6,084
7,070
5,557
7,835
10,170
11,776
13,082
7,666
7,776
8,296
9,107
13,334
15,569
16,503
17,173
17,575











210,904
1989
0
0
0
0
179
244
316
501
792
1,623
1,702
2,254
2,747
4,136
3,345
3.489
3,263
4,297
5,228
6,162
4,908
6,994
9,222
10,897
12,262
7,288
7,492
8,073
8,915
13,113
15,378
16,320
17,052
17,505
17,168











212,864
1990
0
0
0
0
0
179
23?
371
578
1,225
1,283
1,703
2,128
3,256
2,650
2,810
2,661
3,583
4,414
5,295
4,278
6,177
8,232
9,882
11,346
6,831
7,123
7,778
8,676
12,837
15,123
16,120
16,863
17,382
17,099
15,910


"
"






214,829
1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
278
428
894
969
1,284
1,609
2,522
2,086
2,226
2,143
2,922
3,680
4,470
3,676
5,384
7,270
8,821
10,289
6,321
6,676
7,395
8,359
12,492
14,804
15,853
16,656
17,188
16,979
15.846
15,318



~ *


""


215,014
1992
0
o
0
0
0
Q
0
204
321
662
707
970
1,213
1,906
1,616
1,752
1,697
2,353
3,001
3,727
3,103
4,627
6,337
7,790
9,184
5,732
6,178
6,931
7,947
12,037
14,407
15,519
16,380
16,97?
16,790
15,735
15,257
16,872
-•







217,934
1993
0
g
Q
0

Q
g
0
236
497
524
70S
916
1,437
1,222
1,358
1,336
1,864
2,417
3,040
2,588
3,906
5,446
6,790
8,111
5,117
5,602
6,414
7,449
11,443
13,881
15,102
16,035
16,696
16,584
15,560
15,150
16,805
18,019







222,249
1994
0
0
g
o
g
0
g
g
0
364
393
524
668
1,085
921
1,026
1,835
1,467
1,915
2,448
2,110
3,257
4,597
5,835
7,070
4,519
5,001
5,816
6,893
10,725
13,197
14,551
15,604
16,345
16,310
15,369
14,981
16,686
17,947
17,353






226,012
1995
0
g
0
P

g
o
0
0
288
393
495
792
695
774
783
1,137
1,507
1,939
1,700
2,656
3,833
4,926
6,076
3,939
4,416
5,192
6,250
9,925
12,369
13,834
15,035
15,905
15,966
15,115
-- 14,797
16,501
17,831
17,284
16,946





229,287
1996
0

g
g

g
g
0
0
0
288
371
587
507
584
590
859
1,168
1,527
1,346
2,139
3,126
4,107
5,129
3,385
3,849
4,585
5,579
9,000
11,446
12,966
14,294
15,325
15,537
14,796
14,552
16,298
17,623
17,162
16,878
17,871
-•



233,475
1997
0
n
g
Q


g
0
0
0
0
272
440
376
426
445
648
883
1,183
1,060
1,694
2,518
3,349
4, 277
2,857
3,308
3,996
4,927
8,034
10,379
11,998
13,397
14,570
14,970
14,399
14,246
16,028
17,406
16,971
16,760
17,800
19,388
--


239,005
1998
0
g
0
g

g
o
0
0
0
0
0
323
282
316
325
489
665
894
821
1,334
1,994
2,698
3,488
2,383
2,792
3,434
4,295
7,095
9,265
10,880
12,397
13,656
14,232
13,874
13,863
15,691
17.118
16,763
16,573
17,674
19,310
19,277
--

244,201
1999
0
n
n
n

g
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
207
23?
241
357
502
674
621
1,033
1,570
2,137
2,809
1,943
2,328
2,899
3,691
6,184
8,182
9,712
11,242
12,636
13,340
13,189
13,357
15,269
16,758
16,485
16,370
17,478
19,175
19,?00
18,500

2.8,3*
2000






n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
181
264
367
509
468
781
1,216
1,682
2,225
1,565
1,899
2,417
3,116
5,114
7,132
8,577
10,035
11,459
12,344
12,362
12,699
14,712
16,307
16,138
16,099
17,263
18,961
19,065
18,426
19,425
253,182

-------
EXHIBIT H-Z: FUTURE SftlES OF ASBESTOS DRUM BRAKES  FOR IDTs
• • 	 	 	 _,..-^.......um. 	 ,.„...,— . 	
SALES FORECASTS: DRUM BRWCE PW5S FOR tIGHT DUTY
HODEl
YEAR
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1998
t993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
?000
TOW SALES:
«EW SAIES:
REPlACEMrNT SALES:
(IN THOUSANDS)
1986
0
0
0
256
0
0
0
1,206
0
0
0
4,665
0
0
0
6,078
0
0
0
8,968
0
0
0
13,216
0
0
0
8,617
0
0
0
16,687







•59,692
16,687
45,005
1987
0
0
0
0
325
0
0
0
1,392
0
0
0
4,405
0
0
0
4,635
0
0
0
6,226
0
0
0
13,761
0
0
0
9,261
0
0
0
17,242



--
--


57,246
17,242
40,004
1988
0
0
0
0
0
325
0
0
0
2,153
0
0
0
5,221
0
0
0
5,090
0
0
0
7,835
0
0
0
7,666
0
0
0
13,334
0
0
0
17,575







59, 199
17,575
41,624
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
316
0
0
0
1,702
0
0
0
3,345
0
0
0
5,228
0
0
0
9,222
0
0
0
7,492
0
0
0
15,378
0
0
0
17,168




..


59,852
17,168
42,684
1990
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
371
0
0
0
1,703
0
0
0
2,810
0
0
0
5,295
0
0
0
9,882
0
0
0
7,778
0
0
0
16,120
0
0
0
15,910






--
59,869
15,910
-43,959
1991
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
428
0
0
0
1,609
0
0
0
2,143
0
0
0
3,676
0
0
0
10,289
0
0
0
8,359
0
0
0
16,656
0
0
0
15,318







58,478
15,318
43,160
1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
662
0
0
0
1,906
0
0
0
2,353
0
0
0
4,627
0
0
0
5,732
0
0
0
12,037
0
0
0
16,977
0
0
0
16,872







61,167
16,872
44 , ?95
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
524
0
0
0
1,222
0
0
0
2,417
0
0
0
5,446
0
0
0
5,602
0
0
0
13,881
0
0
0
16,584
0
0
0
18,019





--
63,695
18,019
45,676
TRUCKS, 1986-2000

1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
524
0
0
0
1,026
0
0
0
2,448
0
0
0
5,835
0
0
0
5,816
0
0
0
14,551
0
0
0
15,369
0
0
0
17,353





62,923
17,353
45,570

1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
495
0
0
0
783
0
0
0
1,700
0
0
0
6,076
0
0
0
6,250
0
0
0
15,035
0
0
0
14,797
0
0
0
16,946




6?, 00!
16,94ft
«,-Ur>

1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
587
0
0
0
859
0
0
0
2,139
0
0
0
3,385
0
0
0
9,000
0
0
0
15,325
0
0
0
16,298
0
0
0
17,871



65,465
17.K71
'>7.rnf,

1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
376
0
0
0
883
0
0
0
2,518
0
0
0
3,308
0
0
0
10,379
0
0
0
14,970
0
0
0
17,406
0
0
0
19,388


69,228
19,380
49,840

1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
316
0
0
0
894
0
0
0
2,698
0
0
0
3,434
0
0
0
10,880
0
0
0
13,874
0
0
0
16,763
0
0
0
19,277

68, 135
19,277
4B,f»S8

1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
241
0
0
0
621
0
0
0
2,809
0
0
0
3,691
0
0
0
11,242
0
0
0
13,357
0
0
0
16,370
0
0
0
18,500
66,830
IS, 500
48,130

2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
264
0
0
0
781
0
0
0
1,565
0
0
0
5,314
0
0
0
11,459
0
0
0
14 712
g
0
0
17,263
0
0
0
19 6?1;
70, 785
i
-------
EXHIBIT C-1:  OUTSTANDING STOCK OF  ftSBSSTOS DISC  BRAKFS  IN lots
1 	 •• •" 	 — - ~™~" 	 	 — _ 	
MODEL
YERR
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
5999
2000

lOTfll


1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
85
250
943
2,401
2,835
4,859
5,869
6,886
6,133
8,936
11,540
13,216
14,281
8,176
8,163
7,152
6,514
7,433
5,969
2,706









124,391


1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
68
204
787
2,026
2,437
4,235
5,183
6,146
5,561
8,269
10,816
12,564
13,761
7,956
7,991
7,034
6,434
7,350
5,927
2,695
2,796







--

120,276


1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
29
54
164
642
1,690
2,057
3,639
4,517
5,428
4,964
7,498
10,008
11,776
13,082
7,666
7,776
6,886
6,327
7,260
5,861
2,676
2,785
2,850







-.

115,636

BUH8ER OF
1989
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
23
43
130
517
1,378
1,715
3,072
3,882
4,731
4,384
6,693
9,076
10,897
12,262
7,288
7,492
6,700
6,194
7,140
5,789
2,646
2,765
2,839
2,784




,.




110,440 t

ASBESTOS
1990
0
0
g
o
Q
0

n


0
17
33
102
409
1,110
1,399
2,562
3,277
4,066
3,821
5,911
8,101
9,882
11,346
6,831
7,123
6,456
6,027
6,989
5,693
2,614
2,734
2,819
2,773
2,580









04,676

DISC BRAKE PADS 1» LOTS ESTIMATED TO 8£ IN OPERfttlOtt
(IN THOUSAWDS)
1991
0










25
79
322
879
1,127
2,089
2,733
3,432
3,284
5,152
7,155
8,821
10,289
6,321
6,676
6,138
5,808
6,801
5,573
2,571
2,701
2,787
2,753
2,570
2,484









98,583

1992
a





0


0
m
19
60
250
692
892
1,683
2,228
2,862
2,772
4,428
6,236
7,790
9,184
5,732
6,178
5,753
5,521
6,553
5,424
2,517
2,656
2,753
2,723
2,552
2,474
2,736
" "







92,677

1993
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0

14
45
18f
536
703
1,333
1,795
2,334
2,312
3,738
5,359
6,790
8,111
5,117
5,602
5,323
5,175
6,230
5,226
2,449
2,600
2,708
2,689
2,523
2,457
2,725
2,922


"




87,011
-
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
34
142
405
544
1,049
1,422
1,880
1,885
3,117
4,524
5,835
7,070
4,519
5,001
4,827
4,789
5,839
4,968
2,360
2,530
2,651
2,645
2,492
2,429
2,706
2,910
2,814




* •

81,403

1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
8
25
107
306
411
813
1,119
1,489
1,518
2,542
3,772
4,926
6,076
3,939
4,416
4,309
4,342
5,404
4,657
2,243
2,438
2,579
2,589
2,451
2,40!
2,676
2,890
2,803
2,748





75,998
	
1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
18
78
231
310
614
867
1,172
1,203
2,047
3,076
4,107
5,129
3,385
3,849
3,806
3,876
4,900
4,309
2,103
2,318
2,485
2,520
2,399
2,360
2,643
2,858
2,783
2.737
2,898




71,090
	
8T MGOEl
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
14
58
168
234
463
655
908
947
1,622
2,478
3,349
4,277
2,857
3,308
3,317
3,423
4,374
3,907
1,946
2,172
2,363
2,428
2,335
2,310
2,599
2,823
2,752
2,718
2,886
3,144



66,840

YEAR
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
44
125
171
350
494
686
734
1,277
1,963
2,698
3,488
2,383
2,792
2,850
2,984
3,863
3,488
1,764
2,010
2,214
2,308
2,250
2,248
2,544
2,776
2,718
2,688
2,866
3,131
3,126
-•

63,042
	

1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
94
127
255
373
517
554
989
1,545
2,137
2,809
1,941
2,328
2,406
2,564
3,367
3,080
1,575
1,823
2,049
2,163
2,139
2,166
2,476
2,717
2,673
2,655
2,834
3,109
3,113
3,000

59,615
--

2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
95
189
27?
591
418
748
1,197
1,682
2,225
1,565
1,899
2,006
2,165
2,893
2,685
1.391
1,627
1,858
2,002
2,005
2 059
2 386
2,644
2,61?
2,611
2,799
3,075
3,092
2,988
3,150
56. SO?

-------
EXHIBIT C-2:WTURE SALES OF ASBESTOS DISC BRAKES FOR  LDTs
	 • ' — .—••"— — .-. — — — — ~-~__i^__, — 	 	 	

MODEL
YEAR
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
19B1
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

TOTAL SALES:
MFU SALES:
REPlrtCFMENT SALES:


SALES
FORECASTS: DISC BRAKE PADS FOR UGHT DUTY TRUCKS
1986-2000

-------
EXHIBIT 0-1: OUTSTANDING STOCK OF ASBESTOS DRUM  BRAKES  IK  CARS
"" " 	 - 	 	 -t- 	
MQOEl
YEAR
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

TOTAL

NUH8ER OF ASBESTOS DRUM BRAKE PADS IN CARS EST (HATED
(IN THOUSANDS?
1986
0
0
2 314
3,114
4,011
6,080
7,392
10,206
10,480
14,255
17,291
19,211
17.589
25,726
32,108
35,634
36,844
33,086
31,564
28,962
29,115
37,331
37,468
37,588









477.367
1987
0
Q
2,194
2,84?
4,488
5,544
7,672
7,808
10,758
13,129
14,866
14,015
21,381
28,360
32,74«
34,538
31.738
30,708
28,428
28,790
37,068
37,355
37,512
38,967









470,914

1988
0

0
2,006
3,185
4,092
5,754
5,869
8,015
9,909
11,288
10,845
17,037
23,571
28,923
31,739
29,753
29,457
27,658
28,260
36,656
37,092
37,400
38,889
38,967







- ,

466,363

1989
0
0
0
0
2,244
2,904
4,247
4,402
6,025
7,382
8,519
8.235
13,184
18,782
24,039
28,034
27,341
27,614
26,531
27,494
35,980
36,679
37, 137
38,772
38,889
38,277









462,711

1990
0
0
0
0
0
2,046
3,014
3.249
4,518
5,549
6,347
6,215
10,011,
14,534
19,155
23,300
24,150
25,376
24,871
26,374
35,005
36,004
36,723
38,499
38,772
38,201
35,174
. .
..







457,085

1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,123
2,306
3,335
4,162
4,771
4,630
7,555
11,036
14,823
18,566
20,071
22,414
22,855
24,724
33,579
35,027
36,046
38,071
38,499
38,086
35.103
34,139


*"
""





451,922

1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,624
2,36?
3,072
3,578
3,480
5,629
8,329
11,255
14,367
15,993
18,629
20,187
22,720
31,478
33,601
35,069
37,369
38,071
37,818
34,998
34,071
38,277



""




451,982

1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,668
2,180
2,641
2,610
4,231
6,205
8.494
10,909
12,376
14,844
16,778
20,068
28,927
31,498
33,641
36,356
37,369
37,397
34,752
33,968
38,201
40,691



""
""


455,805

1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,536
1,874
1,927
3,173
4,664
6,328
8,233
9,397
11,487
13,369
16,679
25,550
28,945
31,536
34,875
36,356
36,708
34,365
33,729
38,086
40,610
37,932



. •


457.361

TO BE IN OPERATION
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,320
1,367
2,342
3,498
4,757
6,134
7,092
8,722
10,346
13,290
21,236
25,567
28,980
32,693
34,875
35,713
33,732
33,354
37,818
40,488
37,857
36,553





457,733

1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
963
1,662
2,582
3,568
4,611
5,284
6,583
7,856
10,284
16,921
21,249
25,597
30,043
32,693
34,258
32,817
32,739
37,397
40,203
37, 743
36,480
39,312




460,845

8Y HQOEL
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,171
1,832
2,633
3,458
3,972
4,904
5,929
7,809
13,094
16,932
21,275
26,536
30,043
32,115
31,480
31,852
36,708
39,755
37,477
36,370
39,233
42,760


."
467,339

YEAR
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,291
1,869
2,552
2, 979
3,686
4,417
5,894
9,942
13,102
16,952
22,055
26,536
29,512
29,511
30,555
35,713
39,023
37,060
36,114
39,115
42,675
41,381
--

471,934


1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,317
1,811
2,199
2,765
3,320
4,391
7,504
9,949
13,118
17,574
22,055
26,067
27,119
28,643
34,258
37,965
36,377
35,712
38,840
42,546
41,298
38,967
•-
473,794


2000
0
0
0
0
0
0 -
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
1,276
1,560
2,04!
2,490
3,300
5,590
7,509
9,961
13,599
17,574
21,665
23,953
26 321
32 115
36,419
35,391
35,054
38,408
42,247
41,174
38,889
40,691
477, 2?7


-------
EXHIBIT D-2: FUTURE SALES OT ASBESTOS ORUH BRAKES  FOR CARS
I , 	 ••"•-• — ™— ~— 	 -~™ 	 . _ ... rr
SALES FORECASTS:
MODEL
TEAR
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL SALES:
HEW SALES;
REPLACEMENT SfttES;

1986
0
0
0
3,114
0
0
0
10,206
0
0
0
19,211
0
0
0
35,634
0
0
0
28,962
0
0
0
37,588

,.
, „

--
..

134,714
37,588
97,127

1987
0
0
0
0
2,847
0
0
0
7,808
0
0
0
14,015
0
0
0
34,538
0
0
0
28,790
0
0
0
38,967


•



--
126,965
38,967
87,998

1988
0
0
0
0
0
3,185
0
0
0
8,015
0
0
0
17,037
0
0
0
29,753
0
0
0
36,656
0
0
0
38,967




,,

--
133,612
38,967
94,645

1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,904
0
0
0
7,382
0
0
0
18.782
0
0
0
27,614
0
0
0
36,679
0
0
0
38,277







131,639
38,277
93,361

1990
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,014
0
0
0
6,347
0
0
0
19,155
0
0
0
24,871
0
0
0
36,723
0
§
0
35,174






..
125,283
35,174
90,109
ORUH BRAKE LIIUDSS FOR CARS. 1986-2000
(IN
1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,306
0
0
0
4,630
0
0
0
18,566
0
0
0
24,724
0
0
0
38,071
0
0
0
34,139

"




--
122,435
34,139
88,296
THOUSANDS)
1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,367
0
0
0
5,629
0
0
0
15,993
0
0
0
31,478
0
0
0
38,071
0
0
0
38,277

" *

"


•-
131,815
38,277
93,538
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,180
0
0
0
6,205.
0
0
0
14,844
0
0
0
31,498
0
0
0
37,397
0
0
0
40,69!



""

--
132,815
40,691
92,124

1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,874
0
0
0
6,328
0
0
0
13,369
0
0
0
31,536
0
0
0
34,365
0
0
0
37,932





125,405
37,932
87,472

1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,367
0
0
0
6,134
0
0
0
13,290
0
0
0
32,693
0
0
0
33,354
0
0
9
36,553


" *

123,391
36,553
H6.838

1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,662
0
0
0
5,284
0
0
0
16,921
0
0
0
32,693
0
0
0
37,397
0
0
0
39,312


--
133,269
39,312
93,957

1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,832
0
0
0
4,904
0
0
0
16,932
0
0
0
32,115
0
0
0
39,755
0
0
0
42,760


138,298
42,760
95,538

1998
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,869
0
0
0
4,417
0
0
0
16,952
0
0
0
29,511
0
0
0
37,060
0
0
0
41,381

131,189
41,381
89,808

1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.811
0
0
0
4,391
0
0
0
17,574
0
0
0
28,643
0
0
0
35,712
0
0
0
38,967
127,098
38,967
88,131

2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,560
0
0
0
5,590
0
0
0
17,574
0
0
0
32,115
0
0
0
38,408
0
0
0
40,691
135,938
40,691
95,247

-------
EXHIBIT E-1: OUTSTANDING STOCK OF ASBESTOS OJSC BRAKES  IN C/IRS
	 	 	 :":•„ 	 	 •--; i . .•"- 	 — 	 	 	 	
WUHBE!? OF ASBESTOS DISC BRAKE PADS
HOOEl
YEAR 1986
1963 0
1964 o
1965 0
1966 64
1967 128
1968 415
1969 1,193
1970 2,632
1971 4,835
1972 8,300
1973 12,968
1974 13,944
1975 14,952
1976 24,760
'977 33,136
1978 37,201
1979 38,612
1980 35,071
1981 33,584
1982 25,913
1983 21,926
1984 21,707
1985 15,065
1986 6.985
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

TOTAl 353,391

IN CARS ESTIMATED
TO BE 1M
OPERATION
BY HOOEL
"


	 	 <1» THOUSANDS)
1987 1988
0
0
0
45
91
307
895
1,978
3,602
6,264
9,847
10,791
11,914
20,578
29,268
34,186
36,196
33,643
32,673
25,436
21,682
21,554
15,019
6,971
7,241


..
--
--
--
--

330,181
0
o
Q
g

218
661
1,484
2,707
4,667
7,432
8,194
9,220
16,397
24,325
30,196
33,263
31,538
31,342
24,746
21.282
21,314
14,914
6,950
7,227
7,241








305,380

1989
0



153
469
1,095
2.031
3,508
5,537
6,184
7,000
12,689
19,383
25,097
29,380
28,982
29,381
23,738
20,705
20,921
14,748
6,901
7,205
7,227
7,113








279,446

1990
0



0
330
777
1,499
2,631
4,162
4,607
5,283
9,635
14,999
19,997
24,418
25,599
27,000
22,253
19,862
20,354
14,476
6,824
7,154
7,205
7,099
6,536






..

252,701

1991
0

0
0
0
0
0
548
1,064
1,942
3,121
3,463
3,936
7,272
11,389
15,475
19,457
21,276
23,848
20,450
18,619
19,525
14,084
6,698
7,074
7,154
7,077
6,523
6,344








226,339

1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
749
1,378
2,304
2,597
2,959
5,417
8,595
11,750
15,057
16,953
19,821
18,062
17,110
18,303
13,510
6,517
6,944
7,074
7,028
6,503
6,331
7,113
- -

,.





202,077

1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
971
1,635
1,917
2,219
4,072
6,404
8,868
11,433
13,119
15,794
15,012
15,113
16,820
12,665
6,251
6,756
6,944
6,949
6,458
6,312
7,099
7,561

, ,





180,371

1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,152
1,360
!,638
3,054
4,813
6,607
8,628
9,961
12,222
11,962
12,561
14,857
11,638
5,860
6,481
6,756
6,821
6,386
6,268
7,077
7,546
7,049






160,698

1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
958
1,162
2,254
3,610
4,966
6,428
7,518
9,280
9,257
10,009
12,348
10,280
5,385
6,075
6,48!
6,636
6,268
6,198
7,028
7,524
7,035
6,792





143,492

1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
819
1,600
2,665
3,725
4,832
5,601
7,004
7,029
7,745
9,839
8,544
4,757
5,583
6,075
6,366
6,098
6,084
6,949
7,475
7,0!4
6,779
7,305
--



129,881

1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,127
1,891
2,749
3,624
4,210
5,218
5,305
5,881
7,614
6,808
3,953
4,931
5,583
5,968
5,850
5,919
6,821
7,388
6,964
6,759
7,291
7,946



119,798
	 _
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,332
1,951
2,675
3,158
3,922
3,952
4,438
5,781
5,268
3,150
4,098
4,931
5,484
5,484
5,678
6,636
7,251
6,887
6,711
7,269
7,930
7,690


lit, 677

1999
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,375
1,898
2,331
2,942
2,971
3,307
4,363
4,000
2,438
3,266
4,098
4,844
5,039
5,323
6 366
7 055
6,760
6,636
7,217
7,906
7,674
7,241

105,049

2000
o

0
g
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,337
1,654
2,171
2,228
2,486
3,251
3,019
1,851
2,527
3,266
4,026
4,451
4,891
5 968
6 767
6 577
6,514
7,137
7,851
7,651
7,227
7,561
100,410


-------
EXHIBIT E-2: FUTURE SALES OF ASBESTOS DISC BRAKES FOR  CARS
	 ~~^- 	 ' 	 	 	 ~
MODEL
TEAR
"
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL SAIES:
HEM SftlES:
REPLACEMENT SALES:

1986
0
0
0
64
0
0
0
2,632
0
0
0
13,944
0
0
0
37,201
0
0
0
25,913
0
0
0
6,985
--
. ^






86,739
6,985
79,755

1987
0
0
0
0
91
0
0
0
3,602
0
0
0
11,914
0
0
0
36, 196
0
0
0
21,682
o
0
0
7,241








80,726
7,241
73,485

1988
0
0
0
0
0
218
0
0
0
4,&67
0
0
0
16,397
0
0
0
31,538
0
0
0
21,314
0
0
0
7,241







--
81,374
7,341
74,133
SALES
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
469
0
0
0
5,537
0
0
0
19,383
0
0
0
29,381
0
0
0
14,748
0
0
0
7,113
--





..
--
76,630
7,113
69,517
FORECASTS: DISC BRAKE PAOS FOR CARS, 1986-2000 	
{IN THOUSANDS)
1990
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
777
0
0
0
4,607
0
0
0
19,997
0
0
0
22,253
0
0
0
6,824
0
0
0
6,536
--






--
60,995
6,536
54,459
1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,064
0
0
0
3,936
0
0
0
19,457
0
0
0
18,619
0
0
0
7,074
0
0
0
6,344






--
56,495
6,344
50,151
1992
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
1,378
0
0
0
5,417
0
0
0
16,953
0
0
0
18,303
0
0
0
7,074
0
0
0
7,113
""

""



--
56,239
7,113
49, 126
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,635
9
0
0
6,404
0
0
0
15,794
0
0
0
12,665
0
0
0
6,949
0
0
0
7,561

—
"



51,008
7,561
43,446
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,360
0
0
0
6,607
0
0
fj
11,962
0
0
0
5,860
0
0
0
6,386
0
0
0
7,049

~ ~
"

--
39,224
7,049
32,175
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,162
0
0
0
6,428
0
0
0
10,009
0
0
0
6,075
0
0
0
6,198
0
0
0
6,792




36,665
6,792
29, 872
1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,600
0
0
0
5,601
0
0
0
9,839
0
0
0
6,075
0
0
0
6,949
0
0
0
7,305



37,369
7,305
30,064
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,891
0
0
0
5,218
0
0
0
6,808
0
0
0
5,968
0
0
0
7,388
0
0
0
7,946


35,218
7,946
27,272
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,951
0
0
0
3,952
0
0
0
3,150
0
0
0
5,484
0
0
0
6,887
0
0
0
7,690

29,113
7,690
21,424
1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,898
0
0
0
3,307
0
0
0
3,266
0
0
o
5,323
0
0
o
6,636
0
0
0
7,241
27,670
7,241
20,429
2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,654
0
0
0
3,251
0
0
0
3,266
0
o
0
5 968
0
o
0
7,137
0
0
0
?B,B36
7,561
21,275

-------
EXHIBIT F-t: OUTSTANDING STOCK OF  ASSESIQS  DRUM BRAKES IN  LOTs
. "~" 	 -
HQOEL
TEAR
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

„„„ 	 ,„__„_.

— . _







NUHBER OF ASBESTOS DRW BRAKE PADS IN IDTs ESTIMATED
--.,,.-...,.„.. flu Ylfrtfreiiuise**
1985
0
188
230
301
346
602
796
1,027
1,595
2,377
4,669
4,661
5,792
6,707
9,532
7,236
7,072
6,188
7,694
8,854
9,889
7,419
9,962
12,334
13,716
14,676
8,352
8,300
8,724
9,481
13,748
15,919






1986
0
Q
169
226
256
439
601
774
1,206
1,842
3,676
3,692
4,665
5,470
7,949
6,108
6,078
5,393
6,795
7,904
8,968
6,865
9,338
11,726
13,216
14,281
8,176
8,163
8,617
9,376
13,652
15,855
16,687






1987
0
0
g
166
192
325
438
585
909
1,392
2,848
2,907
3,695
4,405
6,482
5,093
5,130
4,635
5,923
6,980
8,005
6,226
8,641
10,990
12,564
13,761
7,956
7,991
8,474
9,261
13,500
15,744
16,620
15,326






1988
0
0
o
141
244
325
427
686
1,049
2,153
2,252
2,909
3,490
5,221
4,154
4,278
3,913
5,090
6,084
7,070
5,557
7,835
10, 170
11,776
13,082
7,666
7,776
8,296
9,107
13,334
15,569
16,503
15,265
13,669






1989
0
0

0
179
244
316
501
792
1,623
1,702
2,254
2,747
4,136
3,345
3,489
3,263
4,297
5,228
6,162
4.908
6,994
9,222
10,897
12,262
7,288
7,492
8,073
8,915
13,113
15,378
16,320
15,158
13,615
11.445




~ ~

1990
0
0
0
0
0
179
237
371
578
1,225
1,283
1,703
2,128
3,256
2,650
2,810
2,661
3,583
4,414
5,295
4,278
6,177
8,232
9,882
11,346
6,831
7,123
7,778
8,676
12,837
15,123
16, 120
14,989
13,519
11,400
8,839



--
-,

1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
278
428
894
969
1,284
1,609
2,522
2,086
2,226
2,143
2,922
3,680
4,470
3,676
5,384
7,270
8,821
10,289
6,32!
6,676
7,395
8,359
12,492
14,804
15,853
14,805
13,369
11,319
8,804
6,808

..

-.


'O'«l- 208,390 2UH.I6T zo?,164 205,090 201,357 195,522 188 131 1








1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
204
321
662
707
970
1,213
1,906
1,616
1,752
1,697
2,353
3,001
3,727
3,103
4,627
6,337
7,790
9,184
5,732
6,178
6,931
7,947
12,037
14,407
15,519
14,560
13,205
11,194
8,742
6,781
5,624
,,
..




1993 1994
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
236
497
524
708
916
1,437
1.222
1,358
1,336
1,864
2,417
3,040
2,588
3,906
5,446
6,790
8,111
5,117
5,602
6,414
7,449
11,443
!3.881
15,102
14,253
12,986
11,056
8,644
6,733
5,602
4,004






80,027 170,679


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
364
393
524
668
1,085
921
1,026
1,035
1,467
1,915
2,448
2,110
3,257
4.597
5,835
7,070
4,519
5,001
5,816
6,893
10,725
13,197
14,551
13,870
12,713
10.873
8,538
6,658
5,562
3,988
1,928

_ ,




159,548


TO 8E IB
:> IN I.UI



OPERATION BY HOOEL VE«R
1995 1996 1997 1998
0 0 0 o
0 n n n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
288
393
495
792
695
774
783
1,137
1,507
1,939
1,700
2,656
3,833
4,f26
6,076
3,939
4,416
5,192
6,250
9,925
12,369
13,834
13,364
12,371
10,644
8,397
6,577
5,500
3,960
1,920
Q






146,651
	
0 n n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
288
371
5B7
507
584
590
859
1,168
1,527
1,346
2,13f
3,126
4,107
5,129
3,385
3,849
4,585
5,579
9,000
11,446
12,966
12,705
11,920
10,358
8,220
6,468
5,433
3,916
1,907

0




134,065

0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
272
440
376
426
445
648
883
1,183
1,060
1,694
2,518
3,349
4,277
2,857
3,308
3,996
4,927
8,034
10,379
11,998
11,908
11,332
9,980
7,999
6,331
5,343
3,868
1,886
0
0
0

" "

121,719

0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
323
282
316
325
489
665
894
821
1,334
1,994
2,698
3,488
2,383
2,792
3,434
4,295
7,095
9,265
10,880
11,020
10,621
9,488
7,708
6,161
5,230
3,804
1,863
0
0
0
0

,.
109,667
	 .
....
1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
207
237
241
357
502
674
621
1,033
1,570
2,137
2,809
1,943
2,328
2,899
3,691
6,184
8,182
9,712
9,993
9,828
8,893
7.327
5,937
5,090
3,724
1,832
0
0
0
0
0

97,951



2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
181
264
367
509
468
781
t,216
1,682
2,225
1,565
1,899
2,417
3,116
5,514
7,132
8,577
8,920
8,912
8,229
6,868
5,644
4,904
3,624
1,793
0
0
0
0
0
0
86,781

-------
EXHIBIT F•?; FUTURE SALES OF  ASBESIQS DRUM BRAKES  TOR  LDIs
— „,_ — : — -— ~~ —
MODEL
TEW

1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

IOTAI SAIES:
MEW SALES:
REPLACEMEHT SALES:

— 	
	 	 	







SALES FOREGASFSt DRUM BRAKE PADS FOR LIGHT DUTY
	 	 	 { IH THOUSAMJSi
1985

301
0
0
0
1,027
0
0
0
4,661
0
0
0
7,236
0
0
0
8,854
0
0
0
12,334
0
0
0
8,300
0
0
0
15,919

'.'.




58,633
15,919
42,714
1986
"
o
256
0
0
0
1,206
0
0
0
4,665
0
0
0
6,078
0
0
0
8,968
0
0
0
13,216
0
0
0
8,617
0
0
0
16,687






59,692
16,687
43,005
1987

0
325
0
0
0
1,392
0
0
0
4,405
0
0
0
4,635
0
0
0
6,226
0
0
0
13,761
0
0
0
9,261
0
0
0
15,326






55,331
15,326
40,004
1988

0
0
325
0
0
0
2,153
0
0
0
5,221
0
0
0
5,090
0
0
0
7.835
0
0
0
7,666
0
0
0
13,334
0
0
0
13,669






55,293
13,669
41,624
1989

0
0
0
0
316
0
0
0
1,702
0
0
0
3,345
0
0
0
5,228
0
0
0
9,222
0
0
0
7,492
0
0
0
15,378
0
0
0
11,445

--

" -
- .

54,129
11,445
42,684
1990

0
0
0
0
0
371
0
0
0
1,703
0
0
0
2,810
0
0
0
5,295
0
0
0
9,882
0
0
0
7,778
0
0
0
16,120
0
0
0
8,839

--
-•



52,798
8,839
43,959
1991

0
0
0
0
0
0
428
0
0
0
1,609
0
0
0
2,143
0
0
0
3,676
0
0
0
10,289
0
0
0
8,359
0
0
0
14,805
0
0
0
6,808


,,
--
• -

48,118
6,808
41,310
1992

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
662
0
0
0
1,906
0
0
0
2,353
0
0
8
4,627
0
0
0
5,732
0
0
0
12,037
0
0
0
13,205
0
0
0
5,624
""

..



46,146
5,624
40,522
1993

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
524
0
0
0
1,222
0
0
0
2,417
0
0
0
5,446
0
0
0
5,602
0
0
0
13,881
0
0
0
11.056
0
0
0
4,004

..




44,152
4,004
40, 148

TRUCKS,
1994

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
524
0
0
0
1,026
0
0
0
2,448
0
0
0
5,835
0
0
0
5,816
0
0
0
14,551
0
0
0
8,538
0
0
0
1,928





40,667
1,928
38.739

1986 2080
1995

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
495
0
0
0
783
0
0
0
1,790
0
0
0
6,076
0
0
S»
6,250
0
0
0
13,364
0
0
0
6,577
0
0
0
0




35,244
0
35,244


1996

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
587
0
0
0
859
0
0
0
2,139
0
0
0
3,385
0
0
0
9,000
0
0
0
11,920
0
0
0
5,433
0
0
0




33,322
n
33,322

	
1997

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
376
0
0
0
883
0
0
0
2,518
0
0
0
3,308
0
0
0
10,379
0
0
0
9,980
0
0
0
3,868
0
0
0



31,312
31,312

7°_ .——_,..„
1998

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
316
0
0
0
894
0
0
0
2,698
0
0
0
3,434
0
0
0
10,880
0
0
0
7,708
0
0
5
1,863
0
0
0
0

27,792
0
27, 792


1999

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24 1
0
0
0
621
0
0
0
2,809
0
0
0
3,691
0
0
0
9,993
0
0
0
5,937
0
n
fl
0
0
0
0
0
23,290
0
23.290


2000

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
264
0
0
0
78 1
0
0
0
1,565
0
0
0
5,314
0
0
0
8,912
0
0
0
4,904

0
0
0
0
0
21,741
0
?i,741

-------
EXHIBIT G-1: OO1STM10ING STOCK OF ASBESTOS DISC BRAKES  IN  LOTs
1 ' 	 	 ' 	 	 —_ ™ 	 	 ._m_^_
HOTEL
YEAR
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

IOTAL
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
104
300
1,118
2,793
3,253
5,501
6,574
7,593
6,628
9,534
12,138
13,716
14,676
8,352
8,300
7,241
6,587
7,485
5,993




--


--
-•

127,944
1986
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
85
250
943
2,401
2,835
4,859
5,869
6,886
6,133
8,936
11,540
13,216
14,281
8,176
8,163
7,152
6,514
7,433
5,969
2,706


. ,





--

124,391
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
37
68
204
787
2,026
2,437
4,235
5,183
6,146
5,561
8,269
10,816
12,564
13,761
7,956
7,991
7,034
6,434
7,350
5,927
2,695
2,237








-.

119,717
1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
n
0

29
54
164
642
1,690
2,057
3,639
4,517
5,428
4,964
7,498
10,008
11,776
13,082
7,666
7,776
6,886
6,327
7,260
5,861
2,676
2,228
1,710





..

..


113,939
NUMBER OF ASBESTOS DISC BRAKE PADS
1989 1990 1991 1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0




23
43
130
517
1,378
1,715
3.072
3,882
4,731
4,384
6,693
9,076
10,897
12,262
7,288
7,492
6,700
6,194
7,140
5,789
2,646
2,212
1,703
1,114










107,081
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0


17
• 33
102
409
1,110
1,399
2,562
3,277
4,066
3,821
5,911
8,101
9,882
11,346
6,831
7,123
6,456
6,027
6,989
5,693
2,614
2,188
1,691
1,109
516










99,274
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
25
79
322
879
1,127
2,089
2,733
3,432
3,284
5,152
7,155
8,821
10,289
6,321
6,676
6,138
5,808
6,801
5,573
2,571
2,161
1,672
1,101
514
0

- .
* ~






90,736
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
19
60
250
692
892
1.683
2,228
2,862
2,772
4,428
6,236
7,790
9,184
5,732
6,178
5,753
5,521
6,553
5,424
2,517
2,125
1,652
1,089
510
0
0

* *
..

""
""


82,159
l»l LOTs ESTIMATED TO BE IK OPERATION
(IN THOUSANDS)
1993 1994 1995 1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
14
45
189
536
703
1,333
1,795
2,334
2,312
3,738
5,359
6,790
8,111
5,117
5,602
5,323
5,175
6,230
5,226
2,449
2,080
1,625
1,076
505
0
0
0



" "



73,672
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
34
142
405
544
1,049
1,422
1,880
1,885
3,117
4,524
5,835
7,070
4,519
5,001
4,827
4,789
5,839
4,968
2,360
2,024
1,590
1,058
498
0
0
0
0






65,396
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
8
25
107
306
411
813
1,119
1,489
1,518
2,542
3,772
4,926
6,076
3,939
4,416
4,309
4,342
5,404
4,657
2,243
1,950
1,548
1,036
490
0
0
0
0
0





57,449
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
18
78
231
310
614
867
1,172
1,203
2,047
3,076
4,107
5,129
3,385
3,849
3,806
3,876
4,900
4,309
2,103
1,854
1,491
1,008
480
0
0
0
0
0
0



"
49,922
BY MOOil
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
14
58
168
234
463
655
908
947
1,622
2,478
3,349
4,277
2,857
3,308
3,317
3,423
4,374
3,907
1,*946
1,738
1,418
971
467
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--

""
42,903
YEAR
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
44
125
171
350
494
686
734
1,277
1,963
2,698
3,488
2,383
2,792
2,850
2,984
3,863
3,488
1,764
1,608
1,329
923
450
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


36,472
1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
94
127
255
373
517
554
989
1,545
2,137
2,809
1,943
2,328
2,406
2,564
3,367
3,080
1,575
1,458
1,229
865
428
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

30,677
2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
69
95
189
272
391
418
748
1,197
1,682
2,225
1,565
1,899
2,006
2,165
2,893
2,685
1,391
1,302
1,115
801
401
0
Q
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
25,508

-------
EXHIBIT G-2:FUTURE SALES OF  ASBESTOS DISC BRAKES FOR  LDTs
SALES FORECASTS: DISC
HGOEL
TEAR
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
196?
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL SALES:
NEW SALES:
REPLACEMENT SALES:
BRAKE PAOS FOR UGHT DUTY TRUCKS, 1986-2000
(IN THOUSANDS)
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,118
0
0
0
6,574
0
0
0
12,138
0
0
0
8,300
0
0
0
5,993




--










34,123
5,993
28,130
1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
2,401
0
0
0
6,886
0
0
0
13,216
0
0
0
7,152
0
0
0
2.706
..
•-

--

--
•-

,.
--




32,407
2,706
29,701
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
0
0
0
2,437
0
0
0
5,561
0
0
0
13,761
0
0
0
6,434
0
0
0
2,237








--


•-

30,497
2,237
28,261
1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
164
0
0
0
3,639
0
0
0
7,498
0
0
0
7,666
0
0
0
7,260
0
0
0
1,710

-•
--
--

--




--

27,938
1,710
26,228
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
517
0
0
0
3,882
0
0
0
9,076
0
0
0
7,492
0
0
0
5,789
0
0
0
1,114
--

--
--
-•
--
..


--
--
27,870
1,114
26,756
1990
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
1,110
0
0
0
4,066
0
0
0
9,882
0
0
0
6,456
0
0
0
2,614
0
0
0
516

--
-•
--
--
--
- - .

--

24,661
516
24,145
1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
1,127
0
0
0
3,284
0
0
0
10,289
0
0
0
5,808
0
0
0
2,161
0
0
0
0
..
--
,,
--
--

..
,,
--
22,693
0
22,693
1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
1,683
0
0
0
4,428
0
0
0
5,732
0
0
0
6,553
0
0
0
1,652
0
0
0
0
..
--
-.
- -
,-

-.
--
20, 107
0
20,107
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
189
0
0
0
1,795.
0
0
0
5,359
0
0
0
5,602
0
0
0
5,226
0
0
0
1,076
0
0
0
0
.,
--
-.


• -
--
19,246
0
19,246
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
405
0
0
0
1,880
0
0
0
5,835
0
0
0
4,827
0
0
0
2,360
0
0
0
498
0
0
0
0
..



,.
•'
15,811
0
15, ati
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
411
0
0
0
1,518
0
0
0
6,076
0
0
0
4,342
0
0
0
1,950
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
..



•-
14,306
0
14,306
1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
614
0
0
0
2,047
0
0
0
3,385
0
0
0
4,900
0
0
0
1,491
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



--
12,456
0
12,456
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
0
0
0
655
0
0
0
2,478
0
0
0
3,308
0
0
0
3,907
0
0
0
971
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


..
11,378
0
11,378
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
125
0
0
0
686
0
0
0
2,698
0
0
0
2,850
0
0
0
1,764
0
0
0
450
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

--
8,574
0
8,574
1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
127
0
0
0
554
0
0
0
2,809
0
0
0
2,564
0
0
0
1,458
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0

7,512
0
7,512
2000
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
189
0
0
0
748
0
0
0
1,565
0
0
0
2,893
0
0
0
1,115
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
6,510
0
6,510

-------
EXHiill H-1: OUTSTANDING STOCK OF ASBESTOS ORUN BRAKES IN CARS
	 	 .:•_•; 	 	 _.. 	 	
MODEL
YEAR
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

TQTAt
1985
0
2,009
3,285
4,388
5,434
8,107
9,834
13,699
13,886
18,773
22,345
24,109
21,162
29, 125
34,940
38,012
38,408
34,008
32,156
29,288
29,321
37,444
37,543
--
--




--

487,277
1986
0
0
2,314
3,114
4,011
6,080
7,392
10,206
10,480
14,255
17,291
19,211
17,589
25,726
32,108
35,634
36,844
33,086
31,564
28,962
29,115
37,331
37,468
37,588






'•-

477,367
1987
0
0
0
2,194
2,847
4,488
5,544
7,672
7,808
10,758
13,129
14,866
14,015
21,381
28,360
32,746
34,538
31,738
30,708
28,428
28,790
37,068
37,355
37,512
34,637






--

466,584
1988
0
g
o
o
2,006
3,185
4,092
5,754
5,869
8,015
9,909
11,288
10,845
17,037
23,571
28,923
31,739
29,753
29,457
27.658
28,260
36,656
37,092
37,400
34,568
30,308

..




--

453,383
NUMBER OF ASBESTOS DRUM SRAKE PADS (K CARS ESTIMATED TO BE IN OPERATION
ON THOUSANDS)
1989 1990 1991 W""*,^ 	 W4 	 1995"""""l996
0
Q
0
Q
0
2,244
2,904
4,247
4,402
6,025
7,382
8,519
8,235
13,184
18,782
24,039
28,034
27,341
27,614
26,531
27,494
35,980
36,679
37. 137
34,464
30,247
25,518



..




437,001
0


g
e
2,046
3,014
3,249
4,518
5,549
6,347
6,215
10,011
14,534
19,155
23,300
24,150
25,376
24.871
26,374
35,005
36,004
36,723
34,222
30,156
25,467
19,541








415,825
0



0
0
2,123
2,306
3,335
4,162
4,771
4,630
7,555
11,036
14,823
18,566
20,071
22,414
22,855
24,724
33,579
35,027
36,046
33,841
29,944
25,391
19,502
15,173








391,874
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,624
2,367
3,072
3,578
3,480
5,629
8,329
11,255
14,367
15,993
18,629
20,187
22,720
31,478
33,601
35,069
33,217
29,611
25,212
19,441
15,143
12,759
""
""






366,763
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,668
2,180
2,641
2,610
4,231
6,205
8,494
10,909
12,376
14,844
16,778
20,068
28,927
31,498
33,64!
32,317
29,065
24,931
19,306
15,097
12,734
9,042
~ "
~ "
""




339,563
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,536
1,874
1,927
3,173
4,664
6,328
8,233
9,397
11,487
13,369
16,679
25,550
28,945
31,536
31,000
28,277
24,472
19,091
14,991
12,695
9,024
4,215
• •



..

308,466
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,320
1,367
2,342
3,498
4,757
6,134
7,092
8,722
10,346
13,290
21,236
25,567
28,980
29,061
27,125
23,808
18,740
14,824
12,606
8,997
4,206
0
--




274,019
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
963
1,662
2,582
3,568
4,611
5,284
6,583
7,856
10,284
16,921
21,249
25,597
26,705
25,428
22,839
18,232
14,551
12,466
8,934
4,194
0
0



"
240,507
BY MOOEl
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,171
1,832
2,633
3,458
3,972
4,904
5,929
7,809
13,094
16,932
21,275
23,588
23,367
21,410
17,489
14,156
12,236
8,834
4,164
0
0
0
..
••

208,254
VEAR
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,291
1,869
2,552
2,979
3,686
4,417
5,894
9,942
13,102
16,952
19,605
20,639
19,675
16,395
13,580
11,904
8,672
4,118
0
0
0
0
--

177,272
1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,317
1,811
2,199
2,765
3.320
4,391
7,504
9,949
13,118
15,621
17,154
17,378
15,066
12,730
11,419
8,437
4,042
0
0
0
0
0

148,220
2000
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,276
1,560
2,041
2,490
3,300
5,590
7,509
9,961
12,088
13,669
14,443
13,307
11,698
10,705
8,093
3,932
0
0
0
0
0
0
121,663
	 ~ 	 — 	 . 	 	 	 	

-------
EX"J8IT H-2: FUTURE SALES OF AS8ESIOS  DROH  BRAKES  FOR CARS
- - - 	 	 • - 	 — — — 	 ~ 	 	 	 	
SALES FORECASTS:
MODEL
TEAR
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL SALES:
»EU SALES:
REPLACEMENT SALES:

1985
0
0
3,285
0
0
0
9,834
0
0
0
22,345
0
0
0
34,940
0
0
0
32,156
0
0
0
37,543





..
	



140,102
37,543
102,560

19B6
0
0
0
3,114
0
0
0
10,206
0
0
0
19,211
0
0
0
35,634
0
0
0
28,962
0
0
0
37,588









--
134,714
37,588
97,127

1987
0
0
0
0
2,847
0
0
0
7,808
0
0
0
14,015
0
0
0
34,538
0
0
0
28,790
0
0
0
34,637









--
122,635
34,637
87,998

1988
0
0
0
0
0
3,185
0
0
0
8,015
0
0
0
17,037
0
0
0
29,753
0
0
0
36,656
0
0
0
30,308









--
124,952
30,308
94,645

1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,904
0
0
0
7,382
0
0
0
18,782
0
0
0
27,614
0
0
0
36,679
0
0
0
25,518
- -








•-
118,879
25,518
93,361

1990
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,014
0
0
0
6,347
0
0
0
19,155
0
0
0
24,«71
0
0
0
36,723
0
0
0
19,541


" *
"
"



•'
109,650
19,541
90,109
DRUM BRAKE UNIXGS FOR CASS, 1986-2000
(IN
1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,306
0
0
0
4,630
8
0
0
18,566
0
0
0
24,724
0
0
0
33,841
0
0
0
15,173
--



~ -
~ ™

--
99,239
15,173
84,066
THOUSAHDS)
1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,367
0
0
0
5,629
0
0
0
15,993
0
0
0
31,478
0
0
0
29,611
0
0
0
12,759




- -

--
97,837
12,759
85,077
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,180
0
0
0
6,205
0
0
0
14,844
0
0
0
31,498
0
0
0
24,931
0
0
0
9,042





..
88,701
9,042
79,658

1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,874
0
0
0
6,328
0
0
0
13,369
0
0
0
31,536
0
0
0
19,091
0
0
0
4,215
--




76,414
4,215
72,199

1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,367
0
0
0
6,134
0
0
0
13,290
0
0
0
29,061
0
0
0
14,824
0
0
0
0



--
64,676
0
64,676

1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,662
0
0
0
5,284
0
0
0
16,921
0
0
0
25,428
0
0
0
12,466
0
0
0
0
-•
--
::
61,761
0
61,761

1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,832
0
0
0
4,904
0
0
0
16,932
9
0
0
21,410
0
0
0
8,834
0
0
0
0
••

53,912
0
53,912

1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,869
0
0
0
4,417
0
0
0
16,952
0
0
0
16,395
0
0
0
4,118
0
0
0
0

43,750
0
43,750

1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,811
0
0
0
4,391
0
0
0
15,621
0
0
0
12,730
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34,554
0
34,554

2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,560
0
0
0
5,590
0
0
0
13,669
0
o
0
10,705
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31,524
0
31,524

-------
EXHIBIT 1-1: OUfSTAWIHG STOCK OF  ASBESTOS CISC BRAKES  IN CARS
t 	 — — 	 	 	 - 	
HODEL
YEAR
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
19F7
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

TOTAL
NUMBER Of ASBESTOS OISC BRAKE PADS !« MRS ESTIMATED TO BE IN OPERATION
(IN THOUSANDS)
1985
0
0
0
90
174
554
1,588
3,533
6,406
10,931
16,758
17,500
17,990
28,032
36,058
39,685
40,252
36,048
34,214
25,865
21,959
22,098
15,095









--

374,828
1986
0

64
128
415
1,193
2,632
4,835
8,300
12,968
13,944
14,952
24,760
33,136
37,201
38,612
35,071
33,584
25,913
21,926
21,707
15,065
6,985











353,391
1987
0

45
91
307
895
1,978
3,602
6,264
9,847
10,791
11,914
20,578
29,268
34,186
36, 196
33,643
32,673
25,436
21,682
21,554
15,019
6,971
5,793











328,733
1988
0
0
0
64
218
661
1,484
2,707
4,667
7,432
8,194
9,220
16,397
24,325
30,196
33,263
31,538
31,342
24,746
21,282
21,314
14,914
6,950
5,781
4,345











301,038
1989
0
0
0
0
153
469
1,095
2,031
3,508
5,537
6,184
7,000
12,689
19,383
25,097
29,380
28,982
29,381
23,738
20,705
20,921
14,748
6,901
5,764
4,336
2,845



"







270,846
1990
0
0
0
0
0
330
777
1,499
2,631
4,162
4,607
5,283
9,635
14,999
19,997
24,418
25,599
27,000
22,253
19,862
20,354
14,476
6,824
5,723
4,323
2,839
1,307










238,900
1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
548
1,064
1,942
3,121
3,463
3,936
7,272
11,389
15,475
19,45?
21,276
23,848
20,450
18,619
19,525
14,084
6,698
5,660
4,292
2,831
1,305
0
• *

* *
"
"




206,253
1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
749
1,378
2,304
2,597
2,959
5,417
8,595
11,750
15,057
16,953
19,821
18,062
17,110
18,303
13,510
6,517
5,555
4,245
2,811
1,301
0
0


• •

..



174,995
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
971
1,635
1,917
2,219
4,072
6,404
8,868
11,433
13,119
15,794
15,012
15,113
16,820
12,665
6,25!
5,405
4,166
2,780
1,292
0
0
0
•-




"

145,934
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,152
1,360
1,638
3,054
4,813
6,607
8,628
9,961
12,222
11,962
12,561
14,857
11,638
5,860
5,185
4,054
2,729
1,277
0
0
0
0


• •

* ~

119,557
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
958
1,162
2,254
3,610
4,966
6,428
7,518
9,280
9,257
10,009
12,348
10,280
5,385
4,860
3,888
2,655
1,254
0
0
0
0
0





96,112
1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
819
1,600
2,665
3,725
4,832
5,601
7,004
7,029
7,745
9,839
8,544
4,757
4,466
3,645
2,546
1,220
0
0
0
0
0
0




76,035
BY MODEL
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,127
1,891
2,749
3,624
4,210
5,218
5,305
5,881
7,614
6,808
3,953
3,945
3,350
2,387
1,170
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--


59,231
1EHK
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,332
1,951
2,675
3,158
3,922
3,952
4,438
5,781
5,268
3,150
3,279
2,959
2,194
1,097
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•-

45,155

1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,375
1,898
2,331
2,942
2,971
3,307
4,363
4,000
2,438
2,613
2,459
1,938
1,008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

33,640

2000
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,337
1,654
2,171
2,228
2,486
3,251
3,019
1,851
2,022
1,959
1 610
890
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24,478

-------
EXHIBIT 1-2: FUTURE SALES OF  ASBESTOS DISC BRAKES  FOR  CARS
•"•"'• 	 	 I' 	 " 	 	 ™ 	 -- 	 ™-,™_->™™.,. 	 	 :, 	 	 „„.

Hooet
YEAR
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1983
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL SALES:
MEW SALES:
REPLACEMENT SALES:




SALES
FORECASTS
: DISC BRAKE PADS
FOR CARS
, 1986-2000
UN THOUSANDS)
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,588
0
0
0
16,758
0
0
0
36,058
0
0
0
34,214
0
0
0
15,095

..






--
103,713
15,095
88,618
1986
0
0
0
64
0
0
0
2,632
0
0
0
13,944
0
0
0
37,201
0
0
0
25,913
0
0
0
6,985






. ,


86,739
6,985
79,755
1987
0
0
0
0
91
0
0
0
3,602
0
0
0
11,914
0
0
0
36,196
0
0
0
21,682
0
0
0
5,793









79,278
5,793
73,485
1988
0
0
0
0
0
218
0
0
0
4,667
0
0
0
16,397
0
0
0
31,538
0
0
0
21,314
0
0
0
4,345








--
78,478
4,345
74,133
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
469
0
0
0
5,537
0
0
0
19,383
0
0
0
29,381
0
0
0
14,748
0
0
0
2,845









72,362
2,845
69,517
1990
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
777
0
0
0
4,607
0
0
0
19,997
0
0
0
22,253
0
0
0
6,824
0
0
0
1,307









55,766
1,307
54,459
1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,064
0
0
0
3,936
0
0
0
19,457
0
0
0
18,619
0
0
0
5,660
0
0
0
0
,.






--
48,736
0
48,736
1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,378
0
0
, 0
5,417
0
0
0
16,953
0
0
0
18,303
0
0
0
4,245
0
0
0
0






--
46,297
0
46,297
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,635
0
0
0
6,404
0
0
0
15,794
0
0
0
12,665
0
0
0
2,780
0
0
0
0
..
""



--
39,277
0
39,277
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,360
0
0
0
6,607
0
0
0
11,962
0
0
0
5,860
0
0
0
1,277
0
0
0
0
""
*"


--
27,067
0
27,067
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,162
0
0
0
6,428
0
0
0
10,009
0
0
0
4,860
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

..


22,459
0
22,459
1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,600
0
0
0
5,601
0
0
0
9,839
0
0
0
3,645
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


-,
20,685
0
20,685
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,891
0
0
0
5,218
0
0
0
6,808
0
0
0
2,387
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

.,
16,304
0
16,304
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,951
0
0
0
3,952
0
0
0
3,150
0
0
0
1,097
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

10,150
0
10,150
1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,898
0
0
0
3,307
0
0
0
2,613
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,817
. 0
7,817
2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,654
0
0
0
3,251
0
0
0
1,959
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,864
0
6,864

-------
EXHIBIT j-1; OUTSfAHDINS STOCK OF ASBESTOS DRUM BRAKES IN IDTs
	 - - - :'"" ' 	 • 	 — — 	
NUMBER OF ASBESTOS DRUH BRAK6 PADS
MODEL
YEAR
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

TOTAL
IN LOTs ESTIMATED TO BE IS
OPERATION
§T WOOEl
YEAR


,. 	 {IS THOUSANDS)
1985
0
188
230
301
346
602
796
1,027
1,595
2,377
4,669
4,661
5,792
6,707
9,532
7,236
7,072
6,188
7,694
8,854
9,889
7,419
9,962
12,334
13,716
14,676
8,352
8,300
8,724
9,481
13,74B
15,919







.-


208,390
1986
0
0
169
226
256
439
601
774
1,206
1,842
3,676
3,692
4,665
5,470
7,949
6,108
6,078
5,393
6,795
7,904
8,968
6,865
9,338
11,726
13,216
14,281
8,176
8,163
8,617
9,376
13,652
15,855
16,687



, „
	





208,161
1987
0
0
0
166
192
325
438
585
909
1,392
2,848
2,907
3,695
4,405
6,482
5,093
5,130
4,635
5,923
6,980
8,005
6,226
8,641
10,990
12,564
13,761
7,956
7,991
8,474
9,261
13,500
15,744
16,620
13,794

,_
,.
.,






205,632
1988
0
o
o
o
141
244
325
427
686
1,049
2,153
2,252
2,909
3,490
5,221
4,154
4,278
3,913
5,090
6,084
7,070
5,557
7,835
10,170
11,776
13,082
7,666
7,776
8,296
9,107
13,334
15,569
16,503
13,738
10,545










200,439
1989
0
Q

0
g
179
244
316
501
792
1,623
1,702
2,254
2,747
4,136
3,345
3,489
3,263
4,297
5,228
6,162
4,908
6,994
9,222
10,897
12,262
7,288
7,492
8,073
8,915
13,113
15,378
16,320
13,642
10,503
6,867








,.

192,151
1990
0

n
u
n
u
179
237
371
578
1,225
1,283
1,703
2,128
3,256
2,650
2,810
2,661
3,583
4,414
5,295
4,278
6,177
8,232
9,882
11,346
6,831
7,123
7,778
8,676
12,837
15,123
16,120
13,490
10,429
6,840
3,182










180,716
1991
0





174
278
428
894
969
1,284
1,609
2,522
2,086
2,226
2,143
2,922
3,680
4,470
3,676
5,384
7,270
8,821
10,289
6,321
6,676
7,395
8,359
12,492
14,804
15,853
13,325
10,313
6,792
3,169
0









166,625
1992
0
0
0



0
204
321
662
707
970
1,213
1,906
1,616
1,752
1,697
2,353
3,001
3,727
3,103
4,627
6,337
7,790
9,184
5,732
6,178
6,931
7,947
12,037
14,407
15,519
13,104
10,186
6,716
3,147
0
0
" "
"*






153,076
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
236
497
524
708
916
1,437
1,222
1,358
1,336
1,864
2,417
3,040
2,588
3,906
5,446
6,790
8,111
5,117
5,602
6,414
7,449
11,443
13,881
15,102
12,828
10,018
6,634
3,112
n
0
0
• -

""




139,992
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
364
393
524
668
1,085
921
1,026
1,035
1,467
1,915
2,448
2,110
3,257
4,597
5,835
7,070
4,519
5,001
5,816
6,893
10,725
13,197
14,551
12,483
9,807
6,524
3,074
0
0
0
0




""

127,305
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
288
393
495
792
695
774
783
1,137
1,507
1,939
1,700
2,656
3,833
4,926
6,076
3,939
4,416
5,192
6,250
9,925
12,369
13,834
12,028
9,543
6,386
3,023
0
0
0
0
0





114,898
1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
288
371
587
507
584
590
859
1,168
1,527
1,346
2,139
3,126
4,107
5,129
3,385
3,849
4,585
5,579
9,000
11,446
12,966
11,435
9,195
6,215
2,959
0
0
0
0
0
0



.,
102,943
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
272
440
376
426
445
648
883
1,183
1,060
1,694
2,518
3,349
4,277
2,857
3,308
3,996
4,927
8,034
10,379
11,998
10,718
8,742
5,988
2,880
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



91,398
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
323
282
316
325
489
665
894
821
1,334
1,994
2,698
3,488
2,383
2,792
3,434
4,295
7,095
9,265
10,880
9,918
8,193
5,693
2,775
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--

80,351
1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
207
237
241
357
502
674
621
1,033
1,570
2,137
2,809
1,943
2,328
2,899
3,691
6,184
8,182
9.712
8,993
7,582
5,336
2,638
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

69,876
2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
\7i,
181
264
367
509
468
781
1,216
1,682
2,225
1,565
1,899
2,417
3,116
5,314
7,132
8,577
8,028
6,875
4,938
2,472
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,200

-------
EXHIBIT J-2: FUTURE SALES OF  ASBESTOS DRUM  BRAKES  rOR  IDTs
1 1 , J " -™-™*™__ — „____ , 	 „.. 	 	 . —
SALES FORECASTS: DRUM BRAKE PADS FOR LIGHI PUTT
MODEL
YEAR











TOTAL SALES:
NEW SALES:
REPLACEMENT
(IB THOUSANDS)
.......
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000


SALES:
1985
301
0
0
0
1,027
0
0
0
4,661
0
0
0
7,236
0
0
0
8,854
0
0
0
12,334
0
0
0
8,300
0
0
0
15,919




--
-.

--

58,633
15,919
42,714
1986
0
256
0
0
0
1,206
0
0
0
4,665
0
0
0
6,078
0
0
0
8,968
0
0
0
13,216
0
0
0
8,617
0
0
0
16,687

~ -



--

,.

59,692
16,687
43,005
1987
0
0
325
0
0
0
1,392
0
0
0
4,405
0
0
0
4,635
0
0
0
6,226
0
0
0
13,761
0
0
0
9,261
0
0
0
13,794





..,



53,798
13,794
40,004
1988
0
o
0
325
0
0
0
2,153
0
0
0
5,221
0
0
0
5,090
0
0
0
7,835
0
0
0
7,666
0
0
0
13,334
0
0
0
10,545








--
52, 169
10,545
41,624
1989
0
o
0
0
316
0
0
0
1,702
0
0
0
3,345
0
0
0
5,228
0
'0
0
9,222
0
0
0
7,492
0
0
0
15,378
0
0
0
6,867







..
--
49,551
6,867
42,684
1990
0
Q
0
0
0
371
0
0
0
1,703
0
0
0
2,810
0
0
0
5,295
0
0
0
9,882
0
0
0
7,778
0
0
0
!6,120
0
0
0
3,182









47,141
3,182
43,959
1991
0
0
0
0
0
428
0
0
0
1,609
0
0
0
2,143
0
0
0
3,676
0
0
0
10,289
0
0
0
8,359
0
0
0
13,325
0
0
0
0







--
39,829
0
39,829
1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
662
0
0
. 0
1,906
0
0
0
2,353
0
0
0
4,627
0
0
0
5,732
0
0
0
12,037
0
0
0
10,186
0
0
0
0







37,504
0
37,504
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
524
0
0
0
1,222
0
0
2,417*
0
0
0
5,446
0
0
0
5,602
0
0
0
13,881
0
0
0
6,634
0
0
0
0
- -




--
35,725
0
35,725
TRUCKS, 1986-2000

1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
524
0
0
0
1,026
0
0
0
2,448
0
0
0
5,835
0
0
0
5,816
0
0
0
14,551
0
0
0
3,074
0
0
0
0
* •




33,274
0
33,274

1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
495
0
0
0
783
0
0
0
1,700
0
0
0
6,076
0
0
0
6,250
0
0
0
12,028
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


"'

27,331
0
27,331

1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
587
0
0
0
859
0
0
0
2,139
0
0
0
3,385
0
0
0
9,000
0
0
0
9,195
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



25,165
0
25,165

1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
376
0
0
0
883
0
0
0
2,518
0
0
0
3,308
0
0
0
10,379
0
0
0
5,988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--

23,452
0
23,452

1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
316
0
0
0
894
0
0
0
2,698
0
0
0
3,434
0
0
0
10,880
0
0
0
2,775
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
" *
20,996
0
20,996

1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
241
0
0
0
62 1
0
0
0
2,809
0
0
0
3,691
0
0
0
8,993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16,355
0
16,355

2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
264
0
0
0
781
0
0
0
1,565
0
0
0
5,314
0
0
0
6,875
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,800
0
14,800

-------
EXHIBIT K-t: OUTSTAKDING STOCK OF ASBESTOS DISC BRAKES III LOTs
TTrrrrrrTT: 	 ~~ 	 	 	 	 	 •»- 	 	 	 	
NUHBER OF ASBESTOS DISC BRAKE PADS IH LDTs ESTIMATED
HOOEi
*EAR
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

TOTAL
TO BE IK OPERATION
BY MODEL
	 {IN THQUSAWS)
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
104
300
1,118
2,793
3,253
5,501
6,574
7,593
6,628
9,534
12,138
13,716
14,676
8,352
8,300
7,241
6,587
7,485
5,993







'..

--
..

127,944
1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
85
250
943
2,401
2,835
4,859
5,869
6,886
6,133
8,936
11,540
13,216
14,281
8,176
8,163
7,!52
6,514
7,433
5,969
2,706







,.




124,391
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
68
204
787
2,026
2,437
4,235
5,183
6,146
5,561
8,269
10,816
12,564
13,761
7,956
7,991
7,034
6,434
7,350
5,927
2,695
1,864



,.

..






119,344
1988
0
0
0
0
p
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
29
54
164
642
1,690
2,057
3,639
4,517
5,428
4,964
7,498
10,008
11,776
13,082
7,666
7,776
6,886
6,327
7,260
5,861
2,676
1,857
950












112,808
1989
0
o
o
o
o
o
n
V
o
o
o
(J
o
23
43
130
517
1,378
1,715
3,072
3,882
4,731
4,384
6,693
9,076
10,897
12,262
7,288
7,492
6,700
6,194
7,140
5,789
2,646
1,843
946
o










,.

104,842
1990
0
g
g
0



0"

0

Q
17
33
102
409
1.110
1,399
2,562
3,277
4,066
3,821
5,911
8,101
9,882
11,346
6,831
7,123
6,456
6,027
6,989
5,693
2,614
1,823
940
n
V
0










96,533
1991
0










13
25
79
322
879
1,127
2,089
2,733
3,432
3,284
5,152
7,155
8,821
10,289
6,321
6,676
6,138
5,808
6,801
5,573
2,571
1,801
929

0
0









88,017
1992
0



0

0




10
19
60
250
692
892
1,683
2,228
2,862
2,772
4,428
6,236
7,790
9,184
5,732
6,178
5,753
5,521
6,553
5,424
2,517
1,771
918

0
0
0
""
""






79,472
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
14
45
189
536
703
1,333
1,795
2,334
2,312
3,738
5,359
6,790
8,111
5,117
5,602
5,323
5,175
6,230
5,226
2,449
1,734
903
0
0
0
0
0


"•




71,023
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
34
142
405
544
1,049
1,422
1,880
1,885
3,117
4,524
5,835
7,070
4,519
5,001
4,827
4,789
5,839
4,968
2,360
1,687
884
0
0
0
0
0
0



""


62,796
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
a
25
107
306
411
813
1,119
1,489
1,518
2,542
3,772
4,926
6,076
3,939
4,416
4,309
4,342
5,404
4,657
2,243
1,625
860
0
0
0
0
0
0
0





54,910
1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
18
78
231
310
614
867
1,172
1,203
2,047
3,076
4,107
5,129
3,385
3,849
3,806
3,876
4,900
4,309
2,103
1,545
828
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



""
47,463
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
14
58
168
234
463
655
908
947
1,622
2,478
3,349
4,277
2,857
3,308
3,317
3,423
4,374
3,907
1,946
1,448
788
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

--

40 , 546
TEAR

1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
44
125
171
350
494
686
734
1,277
1,963
2,698
3,488
2,383
2,792
2.850
2,984
3,863
3,488
1,764
1,340
738
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--

34,240


1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
94
127
255
373
517
554
989
1,545
2,137
2,809
1,943
2,328
2,406
2,564
3,367
3,080
1,575
1,215
683
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

28,595


2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
g
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
95
189
272
391
418
748
1,197
1,682
2,225
1,565
1,899
2,006
2,165
2,893
2,685
1,391
1,085
619
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23,594
	 — 	 — — ~ — — 	 	 	

-------
EXHIBIT K-2:FUTURE SALES OF ASBESTOS DISC  BRAKES  FOR  LDTs
1 - 	 - 	 :'.-.-.* 	 — 	 	 : 	 	
SALES FORECASTS: DISC BRAKE PADS FOR LIGHT BUf*
MODEL
YEAR
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
19?2
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAl SSIES;
NEU SRIES:
REPLACEMENT SALES:
	 	 	 
-------
EXHIBIT L-1: OUTSTAW1NG STOCK Of  ASBESTOS DRUM BRAKES !«  CARS
- - 	 , :". :'; , : 	 •.- . 	 	 —
MODEL
VEAR
1963
1964
1965
1966
196?
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
19?3
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

TOTAL
NUMBER OF ASBESTOS DRUM BRAKE PADS IN CARS ESTIMATED
	 (IN THOUSANDS)
1985
0
2,009
3,285
4,388
5,434
8,107
9,834
13,699
13,886
18,773
22,345
24,109
21,162
29,125
34,940
38,012
38,408
34,008
32,156
29,288
29,321
37,444
37,543

* „




,.




487,277
1986
0
o
2,314
3,114
4,011
6,080
7,392
10,206
10,480
14,255
17,291
19,211
17,589
25,726
32, 108
35,634
36,844
33,086
31,564
28,962
29,115
37,331
37,468
37,588
.,




	





477,367
1987
0
Q
o
2,194
2.847
4,488
5,544
7,672
7,808
10,758
13,129
14,866
14,015
21,381
28,360
32,746
34,538
31,738
30,708
28,428
28,790
37,068
37,355
37,512
31,174



.
..
.,



--

463,120
1988
0

Q
2,006
3,185
4,092
5,754
5,869
8,015
9,909
11,288
10,845
17,037
23,571
28,923
31,739
29,753
29,457
27,658
28,260
36,656
37,092
37,400
31,111
23,380











442,998
1989
0


0
2,244
2,904
4,24?
4,402
6,025
7,382
8,519
8,235
13,184
18,782
24,039
28,034
27,341
27,614
26,531
27,494
35,980
36,679
37,137
31,018
23,333
15,311











416,434
1990
0
0

0
0
2,046
3,014
3,249
4,518
5,549
6,347
6,215
10,011
14,534
19,155
23,300
24,150
25,376
24,871
26,374
35,005
36,004
36,723
30,799
23,263
15,280
7,035

"








382,817
1991
0
0

0
0
0
2,123
2,306
3,335
4,162
4,771
4,630
7,555
11,036
14,823
18,566
20,071
22,414
22,855
24,724
33,579
35,02?
36,046
30,457
23,100
15,234
7,021
0



""
...




343,835
1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,624
2,367
3,072
3,578
3,480
5,629
8,329
11,255
14.367
15,993
18,629
20,18?
22,720
31,478
33,601
35,069
29,895
22,842
15,127
7,000
0
0




" •
""


306,243
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,668
2,180
2,641
2,610
4,231
6,205
8,494
10,909
12,376
14,844
16,778
20,068
28,927
31,498
33,641
29,085
22,422
14,959
6,950
0
0
0



-

* "

270,486
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,536
1,874
1,927
3,173
4,664
6,328
8,233
9,397
11,48?
13,369
16,679
25,550
28,945
31,536
27,900
21,814
14,683
6,873
0
0
0
0






235,970
TO BE IN OPERATION
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,320
1,367
2,342
3,498
4,757
6,134
7,092
8,722
10,346
13,290
21,236
25,567
28,980
26, 155
20,925
14,285
6,746
0
0
0
0
0
--




202,762
1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
963
1,662
2,582
3,568
4,611
5,284
6,583
7,856
10,284
16,921
21,249
25,597
24,035
19,616
13,703
6,563
0
0
0
0
0
0




171,077
B¥ KOOEl
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,171
1,832
2,633
3,458
3,972
4,904
5,929
7,809
13,094
16,932
21,275
21,229
18,026
12,846
6,296
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



141,406
YEAR
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,291
1,869
2,552
2,979
3,686
4,417
5,894
9,942
13,102
16,952
17,644
15,922
11,805
5,902
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
••

113,957

1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,317
1,811
2,199
2,765
3,320
4,391
7,504
9,949
13,118
14,059
13,233
10,427
5,424
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
»
0

89,5t6

2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,276
1,560
2,041
2,490
3,300
5,590
7,509
9,961
10,880
10,544
8 666
4.791
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68,608

-------
EXHIBIT L-2: FUTURE SALES OT  ASBESTOS D«UM  BRAKES  FOR  CARS
— ™~ — -_.~— — ...... 	 .. 	 ^___,__ — m™_mi^______,,___
SALES FORECASTS:
MODEL
YEAR











TOTAL SALES:
MEW SALES:
REPLACEMENT

	
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000



SALES;

1985
0
0
3,285
0
0
0
9,834
0
0
0
22,345
0
0
0
34,940
0
0
0
32,156
0
0
0
37,543










140,102
37,543
102,560

1986
0
0
0
3,114
0
0
0
10,206
0
0
0
19,211
0
0
0
35,634
0
0
0
28,962
0
0
0
37,588

..








134,714
37,588
97,127

1987
0
0
0
0
2,847
0
0
0
7,808
0
0
0
14,015
0
0
0
34,538
0
0
0
28,790
0
0
0
31,174




..



. _

119,172
31,174
87,998

1988
0
0
0
0
0
3,185
0
0
0
8,015
0
0
0
17,037
0
0
0
29,753
0
0
0
36,656
0
0
0
23,380










118,025
23,380
94,645

1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,904
0
0
0
7,382
0
0
0
18,782
0
0
0
27,614
0
0
0
36,679
0
0
0
15,311










108,672
15,311
93,361

1990
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,014
0
0
0
6,347
0
0
0
19,155
0
0
0
24,871
0
0
0
36,723
0
0
0
7,035










97, 144
7,035
90,109
DRUM BRAKE UUINGS FOR CARS, 1986-2000
(IN
1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,306
0
0
0
4,630
0
0
0
18,566
0
0
0
24,724
0
0
0
30,457
0
0
0
0









80,682
0
80,682
THOUSANDS)
1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,367
0
0
0
5,629
0
0
0
15,993
0
0
0
31,478
0
0
0
22,842
0
0
0
0








78,309
0
78,309
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,180
0
0
0
6,205
0
0
0
14,844
0
0
0
31,498
0
0
0
14,959
0
0
0
0

~ ~





69,686
0
69,686
1994
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,874
0
0
0
6,328
0
0
0
13,369
0
0
0
31,536
0
0
0
6,873
0
0
0
0




* *

59,981
0
59,981
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,367
0
0
0
6,134
0
0
0
13,290
0
0
0
26,155
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

—
—


46,946
0
46,946
1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,662
0
0
0
5,284
0
0
0
16,921
0
0
0
19,616
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



--
43,483
0
43,483
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• 0
0
1,832
0
0
0
4,904
0
0
0
16,932
0
0
0
12,846
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



36,514
0
36,514
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,869
0
0
0
4,417
0
0
0
16,952
0
0
0
5,902
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


29,140
0
29, 140
1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,811
0
0
a
4,391
0
0
0
14,059
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

20,261
0
20,261
2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,560
0
0
0
5,590
0
0
0
10,544
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17,695
0
17,695

-------
EXHiBiT M-1: OUTSTANDING STOCK OF AS8ESTOS DISC BRAKES  IN  CARS
• - — — 	 —— -^^
HUMBER OF ASBESTOS DISC BRAKE PADS
MODEL
YEAR
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

TOTAL
I« CARS ESTIMATED TO BE IN OPERATION
8Y HQOEL
YEAR

	
	 {IN THOUSANDS)
1985
0
0
0
90
174
554
1,588
3,533
6,406
10,931
16,758
17,500
17,990
28,032
36,058
39,685
40,252
36,048
34,214
25,865
21,959
22,098
15,095




--



--



374,828
1986
0
0
0
64
128
415
1,193
2,632
4,835
8,300
12,968
13,944
14,952
24,760
33, 136
37,201
38,612
35,071
33,584
25,913
21,926
21,707
15,065
6,985
„ „









--

353,391
1987
0
0
0
45
91
307
895
1,978
3,602
6,264
9,847
10,791
11,914
20,578
29,268
34,186
36,196
33,643
32,673
25,436
21,682
21,554
15,019
6,971
4,827












327,767
1988
0
Q
0
Q
64
218
661
1,484
2,707
4,667
7,432
8,194
9,220
16,397
24,325
30,196
33,263
31,538
31,342
24,746
21,282
21,314
14,914
6,950
4,818
2,414







,,
.,
.,


298,144
1989
0



153
469
1,095
2,031
3,508
5,537
6,184
7,000
12,689
19,383
25,097
29,380
28,982
29,381
23,738
20,705
20,921
14,748
6,901
4,803
2,409










..

265,113
1990
0



0
330
777
1,499
2,631
4,162
4,607
5,283
9,635
14,99*
19,997
24,418
25.599
27,000
22,253
19,862
20,354
14,476
6,824
4,769
2,402

0
" ~
*"








231,878
1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
548
1,064
1,942
3,121
3,463
3,936
7,272
11,389
15,475
19,457
21,276
23,848
20,450
18,619
19,525
14,084
6,698
4,716
2,385
0
0
0

""







199,267
1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
749
1,378
2,304
2,597
2,959
5,417
8,595
11,750
15,057
16,953
19,821
18,062
17,110
18,303
13,510
6,517
4,629
2,358
0
0
0
0

"
""





168,071
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
971
1,635
1,917
2,219
4,072
6,404
8,868
11,433
13,119
15,794
15,012
15,113
16,820
12,665
6,251
4,504
2,315
0
0
0
0
0



" "

""

139,111
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,152
1,360
1,638
3,054
4,813
6,607
8,628
9,961
12,222
11.962
12,561
14,857
11,638
5,860
4,320
2,252
0
0
0
0
0
0






112,886
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
958
1,162
2,254
3,610
4,966
6,428
7,518
9,280
9,257
10,009
12,348
10,280
5,385
4,050
2,160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--




89,666
1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
819
1,600
2,665
3,725
4,832
5,601
7,004
7,029
7,745
9.B39
8,544
4,757
3,722
2,025
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--



69,905
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,127
1,891
2,749
3,624
4,210
5,218
5,305
5,881
7,fi14
6,808
3,953
3,287
1,861
0
0
0
0
0
*0
0
0
0

--

53,528
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,332
1,951
2,675
3,158
3,922
3,952
4,438
5,781
5,268
3,150
2,732
1,644
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-•

40,004
1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,375
1,898
2,331
2,942
2,971
3,307
4,363
4,000
2,438
2,177
1,366
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

29,167
2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,337
1,654
2,171
2,228
2,486
3,251
3,019
1,851
1,685
1,089
g
n
u
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,770
	 • ™~~ ~— ~ 	 — "• — — ~~ 	 	 	 	 ____

-------
EXHIBIT M-2: FUTURE SALES OF ASBESTOS DISC  BRAKES  FOR  CARS
	 ___ 	 — — "~_ 	
SALES FORECASTS:
DISC BRAKE PADS TOR CARS,
1986-2000
(IN THOUSANDS)
HOOEL
YEAR
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL SALES:
NEW SALES:
REPLACEMENT SALES;
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,588
0
0
0
16,758
0
0
0
36,058
0
0
0
34,214
0
0
0
15,095


•-

•-




103,713
15,095
88.618
1986
0
0
0
64
0
0
0
2,632
0
0
0
13,944
0
0
0
37,201
0
0
0
25,913
0
0
0
6,985



..




~ *
86,739
6,985
79,755
1987
0
0
0
0
91
0
0
0
3,602
0
0
0
11,914
0
0
0
36,196
0
0
0
21,682
0
0
0
4,827
* *



,



::
78,312
4,827
73,485
1988
0
0
0
0
0
218
0
0
0
4,667
0
0
0
16,397
0
0
0
31,538
0
0
0
21,314
0
0
0
2,414
* *
** -

* ~




.,
76,547
2,414
74,133
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
469
0
0
0
5,537
0
0
0
19,383
0
0
0
29,381
0
0
0
14,748
0
0
0
0

"


"



...
69,517
8
69,517
1990
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
777
0
0
0
4,607
0
0
0
19,997
0
0
0
22,253
0
0
0
6,824
0
0
0
0


""



""

--
54,459
0
54,459
1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,064
0
0
0
3,936
0
0
0
19,457
0
0
0
18,619
0
0
0
4,716
0
0
0







"
..
47,793
0
47,793
1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,378
0
0
0
5,41?
0
0
0
16,953
0
0
0
18,303
0
0
0
2,358
0
0








,-
44,410
0
44,410
1993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,635
0
0
0
6,404
0
0
0
15,794
0
0
0
12,665
0
0
0
0
0
n







--
36,497
0
36,497
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,360
0
0
0
6,607
0
0
0
11,962
0
0
0
5,860
0
0
0
0
0
o
g
0






25,789
0
25,789
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,162
0
0
0
6,428
0
0
0
10,009
0
0
0
4,050
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0




-•
21,649
0
21,649
1996
0
0
* 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,600
0
0
0
5,601
0
0
0
9,839
0
0
0
2,025
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



-•
19,065
0
19,065
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,891
0
0
0
5,218
0
0
0
6,808
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


--
13,917
0
13,917
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,951
0
0
0
3,952
0
0
0
3,150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

--
9,053
0
9,053
1999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,898
0
0
0
3,307
0
0
0
2,177
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
7,382
0
7,382
2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,654
0
0
0
3,251
0
0
0
1,089
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,993
0
5,993

-------

-------
A. 2  FIBER SUPPLY FUNCTION ESTIMATION

    Bans on selected asbestos-containing products and restrictions on asbestos
fiber consumption may. significantly disrupt the upstream market for asbestos
fiber.  In particular, the price of asbestos fiber as well as the quantity of
asbestos fiber produced may change.  This appendix first examines the asbestos
fiber industry and conditions in the asbestos fiber market.  The results of
this examination are then used to estimate the elasticity of supply of
asbestos fiber.  This is a measure of the percentage change in the quantity of
fiber supplied in response to a one percent change in fiber price.  The
elasticity of supply is used to estimate the extent to which the price of
asbestos fiber would fall in response to a products ban or other exogenous
shifts in fiber demand.

    1.  Asbestos fiber Industry Profile

    Asbestos is characterized by high tensile strength, non-combustibility,
and resistance to chemical and thermal corrosion.  These properties render it
useful in a broad range of manufacturing activities,  Several different
mineral fiber types fall Into the asbestos group; chrysotile, amosite, and
crocidolite are the primary commercial fibers.

    Chrysotile is the principal variety, constituting, by weight, 93 percent
of U.S. consumption and virtually all of North American production in 1982.
Chrysotile is graded according to fiber length.  Since most North American
production of asbestos occurs in Canada, the Quebec grading system provides a
general industry standard.  The Quebec system grades fibers from Grade 1
(longest) to Grade 8 (shortest).  Further grading divisions are based oa other
physical and mineralogical characteristics such as color, tensile strength,
and chemical composition.

    Asbestos is mined through a number of techniques, including open pit,
surface, and underground workings.  In the important U.S. districts around
Morrisville, Vermont, and Copperopolis, California, open pit techniques are
used.  The mined ore is milled close to the mine site and the fiber generally
separated from surrounding rock by a dry process.  Wet-milling and
reprocessing of waste tailings have proven particularly useful in the
production of short fibers and reduces harmful dust emissions (Clifton 1975,
1980).  One U.S. mill currently uses the wet process.

        1.1  AsbestosProduction

        Exhibit A.2.1-1 lists asbestos fiber production data for the United
States, Canada, and the world.   The United States is a relatively small
producer of asbestos, producing about 1 percent of world asbestos fiber in
1982.  U.S. production grew substantially in the 1960s and peaked in 1973 at
136,00 metric tons.  Since 1973, U.S. production has declined 54 percent to
63,000 metric tons.  The U.S. export data of Exhibit A.2.1-1 show that a
growing proportion of U.S. production of asbestos fiber is exported.  Thus,
although Clifton (1983a) observes that the net import reliance of the United
States was 74 percent in 1982,  over 90 percent of U.S. production was exported
and approximately 98 percent of U.S fiber consumption was supplied by foreign
fiber producers.  As shown in Exhibit A.2.1-2, three asbestos fiber producers
currently operate in the United States:  Calavaras Asbestos Corporation and
                                    A.2-1

-------
Exhibit A.2.1-1
                   •*« jtries of J.S. 3-oayetian, £*0ortj, jna [moor's
              3f 4so«itos Fiptr, i.*fndUn, *nd norig ?roauc-ion
                              C104 i»tr
-------
                 A.2,i-2   U.S. Deposits Mined Over the Past Decade
      Mi ne
  Arizona;
    Chrysotile
  Cali forni a:
    Santa Cruz
    Copperopolis




    Christie


    Santa Rita


 North Carolina;
   Hippy


   Boot Hill
 Vermont;
   Lowe 11
                             Owner
 Jaquays Mining
  Corporation
 Atlas Asbestos
  Corporation

 Calaveras  Asbestos
  Corporation
Coalinga Asbestos
 Co.,  Inc.

Union  Carbide
 Corporation
Powhaten Mining
 Company

Powhaten Mining
 Company
                        Vermont Asbestos
                         Group
                                               Closed in 1979.
 Previously  owned  by  Pacific
 Asbestos  Corp.  Closed year end
 1974.   Reopened as Copperopolis
 in  1975,

 Closed  year end 1974.
Ceased operation in 1979,


Ceased operation in 1972.
                      Previously owned by the GAP
                      Corporation.   Mine scheduled
                      for closure in March 1975.
                      Remained open for operation
                      after purchase by an employee
                      group in 1975.
Source:  USOOI.  1957-1983,   U.S.  Department of the Interior.   Minerals
         yearbook.   Washington,  DC:   Bureau of Mines.

-------
Union Carbide Corporation, both with mines in California, and the Vermont
Asbestos Group  (Clifton, 1983b).

    Canada is a major world producer of asbestos.  It shipped 821,000 metric
tons in 1982, 19 percent of world production.  Canadian shipments peaked at
1,627,000 metric tons in 1973.  Like the United States, Canada has experienced
a sharp reduction in shipments since 1978.  Canada is the leading source of
asbestos fiber for the U.S. market, supplying approximately 95 percent by
weight of all imported fiber  (see Exhibit 3).  Crocidolite and amosite are
exclusively supplied to the United States by South Africa (Clifton, 1983a,
p. 13).

    Current and recent U.S. and Canadian producers of asbestos fiber are
listed in Exhibits A.2.1-2 and A.2.1-4.  Past production figures and current
capacity estimates for Canadian producers indicate the industry is
experiencing a period of prolonged excess fiber capacity in North America.
This has led to both permanent and temporary closings of nines and mills over
the past decade in both the United States and Canada.

    In the United States, four mines have closed since 1974 and two others
have continued operation under new ownership.  In Canada, one mine closed for
lack of reserves and another closed after less than 2 years of operation.
Temporary closings- and a dramatic change in the structure of ownership over
the past few years also have occurred.  "Foreign" ownership of Canadian mines
and mills (e.g., Johns-Manville, Eternit, General Dynamics, Turner & Kewall,
and Rio Tinto-Zinc) has been replaced by Canadian interests.  These interests
include financial and legal intervention on behalf of the Quebec and
Newfoundland provincial governments.  A Quebec provincial corporation,
Societe Nationale de 1'Andante (SNA) now owns-and operates five commercial
asbestos deposits.  In the process, vertical ties between mining and milling
of asbestos and production of asbestos products have been weakened
considerably.  Thus, recent and substantial changes in the structure of
asbestos fiber production in North America apparently have occurred.  In North
America, the asbestos fiber industry has become, more than ever, an industry
of relatively few producers, with the top four producers accounting for
approximately 80 percent of North American capacity.

    Costs of asbestos fiber production have been affected by a variety of
influences over the past decade.  Using aggregate data for Canadian asbestos
mines,  the ratio of energy and materials costs (in real terms) to the output
of the mines has increased by about 60 percent over the last decade.  The
ratio of labor costs (in real terms) to the output has increased by 40 percent
over the last decade.  Both these values suggest that, at least in aggregate
terms,  operating costs have increased a good deal.  It is interesting to note
that between 1979 and 1980, the first year of a dramatic production decline in
Canada, these ratios each declined by almost 10 percent.

    The cost of meeting environmental and health regulations probably had a
major impact on the cost of producing asbestos during the mid-1970s.  In the
United States, GAF, Inc., claimed that the expense of investing in equipment
required to meet the new environmental and health regulations in the United
States  was a major reason it chose to close the Lowell mine.  The permissible
limits of exposure to asbestos in mines and mills we're reduced in Canada as
well and firms were required to upgrade their environmental controls.  In
addition, indirect increases in the cost of asbestos fiber production in

                                    A.2-4

-------
      Exhibit A,z.i-3   Time Series of U.S.  Imports  by  Country  of Origin;
                 Canada, Republic of  South  Africa,  and  Other
                             (103 metric  tons)
Year
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
Canada
229.1
318.4
315.5
495.9
543,2
516.1
560.4
456.9
670.7
693.8
Republic
of South
Africa
11.4
17.1
10.3
16.3
24.9
20.4
18.2
16.3
21.5
22,8
Other
1.3
2.1
1.5
0.8
1.9
14.2
18.1
15,3
3.1
2.6
Total
241.8
337.6
327.3
513.0
570.0
550.7
596.7
488.5
695.3
719.2
Sources:    USDOI.  1973-1983.   U.S.  Department of the  Interior.
            yearbook.  Washington,  DC;   Bureau of Mines.
Minerals

-------
       Exhibit A.2.1-4
                                                                  *beslos Deposits in Canada
 Newfoundland;
   Bale Verte
Quebec:
  East Brouyhton
  Asbestos Hill
                                              Mill  capacity
                                             Jjnetrie  tonsj
Mine
Producers;
Owner

Ore/day fiber/yr

Remarks

  British Canadian
  King  Beaver

  Normandie
  Bell  Asbestos
  Mine

  Black Lake
 Bale Verte
  Nines, Inc.
                                            6,600
  80,000
                                                                     Formerly owned by Advocate Mines
                                                                     Ltd. with major  interests held
                                                                     by Johns-Manvilie and Itern it.
                                                                     Expropriated by  the Government of
                                                                     Newfoundland in  September 1982
                                                                     after mine closure.   Subsequently
                                                                     sold to Transpacific Asbestos
                                                                     Corporation.   Hine reactivated as
                                                                     Baie Verte Mines.
Jim Walter Corp-
oration  through
Carey Canada,  Inc.
Societe  nationale
de I'amiante (SNA),
an arm of the
Quebec provincial
government
                                            6,800
                                           5,400
210,000



 90,000
                                                                     All  four  are  former Asbestos
                                                                     Corporation Limited (ACL) mines
                                                                     purchased by  SNA  in 1982.  ACi
                                                                     formerly  owned by General Dynamics
SNA
SNA
SNA
SNA

Lake Asbestos of
Quebec Ltd.
12,000
7,000

2,700

9,000

210,000

Sb.OOO

23b,000



Closed because reserves exhausted
Purchased in 1980 by SNA from
Turner & Newall, Ltd.
Lake Asbestos is a subsidiary of
                                                                                      (continued)

-------
                                       Exhibit A,2.1-4 (continued)
    Hi »e
  Quebec (tout,imied):

    Ihelford Mines


    Jeffrey Mine


  BriLisi) Columbia:
    Cassiar Mine


Prospective producers;

  Ontario:

    Haichewai)


  Quebec:

    Awos
    Cliibou()atnau
  Owner
Lake Asbestos of
 Quebec

Johns-Manyilie
 Canada,  Inc.

Brinco Mining,
 Ltd.
United Asbestos,
 Inc.
Abitibi Asbestos
 Mining Company,
 Ltd.

MeAdam Mining
 Corporation, Ltd.
  Mill capacity
  (metric tons)

Ore/day   F iber/yr
 4,000
30,000    450,000
 5,000    100,000+
 3,600    100,000*



11,000


 4,500
        Remarks
the U.S.  firm ASARCO,

Sold to private Canadian inter-
ests in 1983.

Formerly  owned by Rio  Tinto-Zinc
Corporation, ltd.
Inactive.  Operated  from late
1975 to March 1977.
                                                                       Feasibility study has been under-
                                                                       taken.
Feasibility study has been  under-
taken.

-------
recent years has  come  in  the  form of  thousands  of  lawsuits claiming health
damage owing to asbestos  exposure.  The  "third  party"  suits mostly originate
in the United  States,  but both Canadian  and U.S. firms  are subject to the
judicial rulings.  Johns-Manville specifically  cited the  expected liability
from these  suits  as  the principal reason for  its filing for bankruptcy in
1983.  It claimed-that the number of  lawsuits could jump  to 52,000 and cost it
$2 billion  by  the'end  of  the  century  (C&EN, 1983).

    Another type  of  cost, the so-called  user  cost, will also influence
production.  If firms  expect  that asbestos  fiber will be  worth less in the
future, then the  user  cost of producing  asbestos fiber  in the present will
decline.  This nay very well  be the expectation of asbestos fiber producers.
If so, it makes estimating the direction and  magnitude  of shifts in the cost
structure of the  industry very difficult indeed.

        1.2 Asbestos  Consumption

        The world production  figures  of  Exhibit 1  suggest that world
consumption of asbestos has not declined as dramatically  as it has in North
America and Western  Europe.   Indeed,  it  has been estimated that, until
recently, consumption  of  asbestos fiber  has been rising about 4.4 percent
annually in developing nations, largely  because of rapid  growth in
construction activity  and freedom from regulation.  After peaking around 1970,
consumption of asbestos fiber in North America  and Western Europe has declined
markedly.   As shown  in Exhibit A.2.1-5,  U.S.  asbestos fiber consumption for
all three commercial types has dropped since  the early  1970s, but this drop
was most dramatic  since 1978.  Total U.S. consumption of  asbestos decreased
from 607,000 metric  tons  in 1977 to 247,000 metric tons in 1982.  Exhibit 3
shows that  asbestos  fiber imports fell from 551,000 metric tons in 1977 to
242,000 metric tons  in 1982.

    Exhibit A.2.1-6  shows the U.S. consumption  of  chrysotile asbestos fiber by
fiber grade from  1974  to  1982.  The most dramatic  declines in consumption have
come in the larger grade  fibers.  By way of illustration, short fibers (Grades
6 and 7) constituted 63 percent of consumption  by  weight  in 1974.  In 1982,
these grades accounted for 84 percent of consumption by weight and nearly 60
percent of  consumption fay sales value.

    Exhibit A.2.1-7  shows fiber consumption in  the United States by end use in
1982,  In recent years, only  consumption of asbestos friction materials and
asbestos-based coatings and compounds 'has remained relatively stable.  The
products bans considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
would have  a proportionally larger impact on  consumption  of longer fibers,
especially  in the  case of asbestos/cement (A/C) pipe.   All other things equal,
if the products ban  is put into effect,  the North  American market would be
principally for short  fibers.

    The decline in U.S. consumption of asbestos can probably be attributed in
large part  to leftward shifts in demand  for asbestos associated with health
concerns. Sone of  this shift  is attributable  to regulation.  In 1972, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated regulations
requiring reductions in asbestos dust levels  in the workplace and in 1983
issued notice of  intent to tighten exposure limits further.  In 1973 EPA
promulgated the national emission standard  for  asbestos,  which was
subsequently revised to its final form in 1978.  The current EPA regulation

                                    A.2-8

-------
    Exhibit A.2.i-s  Time  Series  of  U.S.  Asbestos  Consumption by  Fiber Type
                             (103  metric  tons)
Year
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
Chrysoti 1e
229,8
334.1
347, 8
546.4 •.
600.6
578.6
634.2
517.9
724.1
761. 5a
698. 7b
Croc idol ite
16.0
14.0
10.5
13.6
16.9
24.5
19.4
20.6
33.9
16.3
14.2
Amos ite
0.7
0.7
0.4
0,5
1.2
3.8
4.1
11.6
8.5
3.9
5.2
Total asbestos
246.5
348.8
358.7
560.5
618.7
606. 9C
' 657. 7C
550. 1C
766. 5C
781. 7C
718. 1C
Adjusted to reflect only 96 percent of apparent  consumption.   Data
 collected on completely revised  form  and expanded .list  of  consumers.

 Adjusted to reflect only 95 percent of apparent  consumption.   Data
 collected on completely revised  form  and expanded  list  of  consumers.
 Total does not include anthophyllite.

Source:   USOOI.   1972-1982.   U.S. Department of the  Interior.   Ninerals
         yearbook--asbestcs.  Washington, DC:  Bureau  of Mines.

-------
        Exhibit A.2.1-6
                      Time Series of U.S. Consumption of Chrysotile
                               Fibers by Grade
                              (103 metric tons)
Year
1982
1981
1980
1979.
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
Grades
1 & 2
-
0.1
0.4
3.8
4.2
4.4
1.5
•1.0
1.1
Grade
3
2.3
3.8
3.9
13.1
14.4
15.8
13.5
12.4
21.0
Grade
4
18.4
75.0
88.6
90.2
99.1
108.4
92.9
100.2
116.9
Grade
5
15.0
54.9
94.3
154.1
169.4
186,1
66.1
70.6
124.6
Grade
6
18.8
20.5
25.0
64.5
70.9
77.8
48.0
66.1
92.8
Grade
7
^175.3
179.8
135.6
220.7
242.6
266.4
411, 9
267.4
361.4
Total
229.8
334.1
347.8
546.4
600.6
658.9
634.2
517 ..9
724. 14
Grade
3
-
-
.
,
-
_
0.2
0.2'
6.4
Source:   USOOI.  1974-1982.   U.S.  Department of the Interior.
          yearbook.  Washington,  DC:   Bureau of Mines.
Hinerals

-------
                       Exhibit A,2.1-7   US   A,IK", I us  Cofl&uBptton by Ind Use,  Grade,  and
                                                        <103  »elric Ions)

A/C pip*
A/C siren t
Mooring products
Rooting products
Packing and gaskets
insulation:
Ihemat
[ lectrical
Friction products
toatinys and itm-
fiuunds
Plastics
Jextiles
Paper
Other
total
thr^&olil*
Grades tirade Grade Grade Grade
1*23 4 b 6
156 5.0 1.0
02 10 72
--
30
04 0.5 08

~~
l.tt 1.9 67
--
0.2
I.I
„ 1 , „
12 1.2 0.3 O.I
-- 2. J 18.4 15,0 18.8

Grade
7
„.
2.4
49 0
40
11,9

0 I
31 3
25.0
0.2
--
1.5
43.3
175.3
Total
21,6
10 8
49.0
7.0
13 6

0.7
S? 9
25 0
04
1,1
16
46.1
229.8
Crocido- Aao- lutal
lite site dbbvstus
16.0 -- J/ 6
10 tt
490
JO
13 b

0.2 02
07
M 9
250
0.4
I.I
1.6
0,5 46.6
160 0.7 2465
Source:   DSOOI   1982.   U.S. DepartBent at the Interior.  Minerals yearbook.   Washington, DC:  Bureau of Kinei.

-------
 limits emissions  from milling and manufacturing,  prohibits  certain uses of
 asbestos-containing materials,  provides  for work  practices  in demolition and
 renovation operations,  and specifies  procedures for waste disposal and
 disposal site  maintenance.   EPA also  has taken action on asbestos exposure
 under the Toxic Substances Control Act  (TSCA)  of  1976,  requiring inspection of
 schools to identify asbestos hazards  and establishing a reporting rule in
 1982.   A number of additional agencies,  including the Food  and Drug
 Administration (FDA)  and the Consumer Product  Safety  Commission  (CPSC) also
 have  imposed regulations on the use and  handling  of asbestos.  These rules
 either prohibit or raise the cost of  asbestos  use to  manufacturers of
 asbestos-containing products,  encouraging the  use of  asbestos  substitutes.  In
 addition,  the  growing number and size of tort  suits related to asbestos
 exposure in the 1970s raised the implicit cost of asbestos  use to the
 manufacturers  of  asbestos  products.   Finally,  consumers, perhaps alerted by
 the press surrounding the  regulations and tort suits,  have  probably
 voluntarily reduced their  consumption of some  asbestos-containing products.

         1.3 Asbestos Prices

         The price of  asbestos fiber can  vary considerably with its grade,
 color,  tensile strength, purity,  and  other physical characteristics.  Exhibits
 A.2.1-8 and A.2.1-9 present posted prices for  various  fiber grades for Vermont
 and Quebec asbestos fiber.   In 1983,  Grade 3 (tensile  grade) asbestos had an
 average posted price  of  $1,962  (Canadian)  per  metric  ton in Quebec, and Grade
 7 had  an average  posted  price of $234 (Canadian)  per metric ton:  the longer
 fibers  were over  eight times  more expensive.   Similar  price differentials
 among  grades also hold for  "Vermont.   Vermont prices, when corrected for the
 exchange rate  between Canadian  and U.S.  dollars,  are very close  to Quebec
 prices.   It is generally acknowledged that because of  the production dominance
 of Quebec  fiber producers,  Quebec prices  lead  the market.   Posted prices
 nearly  doubled between 1972  and 1977  in nominal terms.   Since  that time, the
 nominal price  has been relatively steady.  In  real terms, however, the price
 of asbestos  fiber has declined  dramatically since 1977  (see Exhibit A.2.1-10).
 Actual  prices  paid for asbestos  may deviate from  the posted price for a
 variety of reasons.   For example,  it  is  generally acknowledged that over the
 past few years of slack  demand  considerable price discounting.relative to
 posted  price has  occurred.

    Large,  long-term  purchasers  of asbestos can ordinarily  negotiate contracts
 at prices  below the posted  or  "spot"  price.  The  significance  of these
 influences  is  suggested by  the  time series of  "shipment" prices  presented in
 Exhibit A.2.1-11.   Based  on  data  from  the  Canadian Minerals  Yearbook, these
 prices  were  up to  25 percent below posted prices  in 1982.   The reader should
be cautioned, however, that  these  shipment prices, particularly  for the years
 in which supplies were tight  from the late 1960s  to the mid-1970s,  reflect
 transfer pricing  policies from wholly owned fiber producers  to parent firms in
 the United States.  As a result,  they too may  deviate  from  competitive market
 prices.

    2-   Estimating  the Supply Elasticity  of Asbestos Fiber

    In  principle,   two general methods can be used to make the estimate of the
own price  elasticity of supply:  econometric estimation based on past market
data and engineering cost estimation based upon analysis of production costs
 for various production technologies or plants.   The former  is the primary

                                   A.2-12

-------
  Exhibit A.2.1-8
Series of fostea Prices;
   Grade for Vermont
                                                    Chrysott'e
•"ear
1383
1982
1981
1980 .
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
.968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
i960
1959
1958
1957
HA » Hot 1

Grace
3
1360
1237
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
380
369
332
332
NA
34S
374
374
374
374
397
397
399
399


Grade
4
79§
865
NA
729
729
651
477
418
484
337
295
2S5
220
271
263
241
240
NA
236
251
2S1
251
251
200
200
1S1
191


Grade
5
660
589
NA
521
521
504
144
306
259
196
171
171
174
158
153
144
153
NA
133
131
131
131
131
131
131
136
136

. -,— •» AC^_ •*«"r^
6
407
396
NA
351
351
313
228
200
173
131
114
114
116
10S
102
96
93
NA
88
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86


Srade
7
188
179
NA
226
226
207
139
122
114
82
69
59 .
70
68
66
52
58
NA
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
SS
58

. J! _ * _ _ 1 fifVJt
Month
Jan,
Jan.
--
J*n.
July
Jan.
Jan.
Jan,
Jyn.
May
Fefi.
Jan.
July
Jan,
Jan.
Aug.
April
..
All
All
All
All
nay
All
Nov.
(1-1}
Dec.

* 4«M*t - — -.
 art ivtngtt of p«ft*d
Sources:    USOOL  1957*1983,  U.S. 0*p*rtMnt  of  tr>«  Intirior.   Minerals
            y**rt!k.  Hattifngtan, DC.  8uf**u of Mints.
            Econoaic Report af tf* Pr«*?a«nt.  19«3.  Washington,  DC:
            U.S. 5ov*rnMnt Prlnfinf Office.
            International Monetary Fund.   International  Financial  Statistics.
            Asbestos.  1983 (January).  Asbestos aining  industry  review  1982.
            64(7).

-------
     Exhibit A,2.1-9
                       ri*«  Jtrits Of Postid Prices:   ChrvSOtit* Sy
                      Gr*a«  foe Queotc (Canadian dollar*)
fear
19S3
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
197?
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1963
19*7
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
19S9
1958
1957
Grtat
I
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3650
3496
3496
2428
174S
ISIS
1615
1525
1480
1410
1410
NA
1410
1443
1443
1443
1443
1443
1*43
1710'
1710
Graat
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
2530
2168
1986
1879
1S79
1320
945
875
875
82$
800
760
760
NA
758
742
742
742
742
742
742
1020
1020
Grid*
3
1962
1099
1762
1585
1449
1233
1275
1177
1177
818
$88
$44
544
524
508
4«4
474
MA
455
613
613
613
613
613
613
525
525
Grad«
4
12 BO
1053
1161
1074
936
793
€15
. 661
661
447
327
305
305
294
286
181
267
NA
2S5
213'
213
213
213
213
213
218
218
QracSi
5
726
592
6S3
637
534
412
358
335
335
252
193
190
180
171
166
156
153
NA
136
135
135
135
us-
us
135
1*0
140
Grade
6
513
417
460
419
376
30f
260
240
240
180
129
120
120
114
110
104
101
NA
95
86
86
86
86
36
86
89
89
Graft)
7
234
189
208
196
183
160
145
144
144
111
80
76
76
72
71
S6
66
NA
60
60
60
60
60
£0
60
SO
60
Month
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan,
Jan,
Jy»y
July
Qtc.
Aug.
Nay
All
July
Jan.
Jan.
April
April
--
Jan.
AH
All
All
All
All
Nov.
A11
All
Snflax for
Cbnvirsion
to U.S.
dollars
81. 14*
81. 01
83.41
85.53
85.39
87,73
• 94.11
101.40
98.29
102.26
91.98
•100.94
99.02
95.80
92.86
92.80
92.27
»•"•
93.02
93.10
92.52
92,78
95.87
100.39
104.93
103. 72
101. SS-
KA » Not «f»pHcabl'«. •

**o«inal priCM art In S/iftort ton 1957- If?? ami S/wtrlc ton  if 78-1383  and  *rt
 •w«r»g»i of tf» postati ran«s.
        of tf» postati rang«s.


Sourcts:     USOOI.   19S7-1M3.   U. S.  OwartMnt of th« InMHor.
            ywrtwott.   Wwhiftfion,  OC:   8urt*y of
                            af t»» fnnietont,  ' 19§3.   WMdinfton,  OC:   U.S.
            So*trn«mt CHrstlnf Off let.
            !coftc«ic Report of  tin  I»r««f4«nt.   19S4.   Wtsninoton,  OC;   U.S
                                Off1«.
            l'nt«rB*tion«l  Montury  Funa.   Various  ytars.   tnt»rn«10ft*1
            Fm*f»ei«i  Statistics.

            A*B»tta$.   1983  (January),  Aibtttoj Hiding  inauitrv
            19S2.   64(7).

-------
    A.2.1-10   Tim,  S«ries of fiaai Prices of Canadian Snipn«nts By Graat*
                           (1972 $/«etric ton)
r«ar
1982
1S81
1SSO
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1961
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
I960
1959
1958
1357
ursaa
*
322. 706
351.269
361.430
3SS.340
371.401
406.554
379.938
290.329
248.207
207.218
215.478
228. 07S
228.602
228. 363
223.486
232.716
232. 04*
234.611
235.231
254. 703
260.124
278.092 '
296.272
310.524
310.140
294.632
3 race
5
217.552
236. 602
265.298
252.906
256.976
278.548
262. 756
220.309
210.313
161. 979
158.173
176. 328
175,026
17S.7S9
164. 284
168. 107
164.621
175.953
171. 595
172.613
176.181
187. 673
199.880
215.013
205. 690
205. 169
Grade
6
13S.770
147,696
152. 126
153.315
164, $87
174.340
175.014
145.809 -
134.407
111. 391
107.636
108. 703
119. 714
120.926
107.142
106.130
103.454
99. 347
1(34. OS6
110. 799
116.678
123.922
130.978
139,171
139. S7S
139. 320
Grade
7
58. 3244
63.4756
58.436}
72. 1097
79.2072
86.7593
85.7501
81.5917
71.2544
60.S346
57.4687
SS.3S74
57.7482
57.8577
5S.S637
54.7f06
52. S432
57.6890
54. 3703
56.7035
5S.7624
62.3672
67.1271
72.8721
72.6393
72.4S32
          prict*  «r.  toual  to  the  ratio  of  tut valu* of tftipstnts to
 Quantity                                                 ^^
Sourcts:     Entity,  Hints, and Kaiourcci Canada.  Varioui y«ars
            Canadian «1n«rali ytartook,  Ottawa, Canada.

            Statistics Canaaa.   1911-1377.  Production ami sMpsmts
            of  aso«ftoi uy CanacUan tints.  Publication *26-20S—
            A»D*ttoi.  Ott«w«. Canada.

            Statistics Canada.   1978-1981.  Prooyction and
            of  
-------
     Exhibit A.2.1-11    Time »«Hts of  No* 1 nil  Pr-icts of C«n«(3iar>
                             SMpmtntS  Oy Gratl«*
                           (C*n*aian $/short  ton)
fear
1382
1981
1980
1379
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1S73
1972
1971
1970
1969
1966
19€7
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
Grade
3
..
1,142.75
1,011.14
936,14
922.43
1,041.60
1,003.50
982.01
495.31
425.75
3t7,OS
395.23
390. 09
381. 75
397.79
406. 42
381. 06
384.62
332.36
396. 42
400.90
334.39
438. 18
429.47
341. 11
341. S«
GrsQ«
4 '
749.1
747. 152
685.019
617.975
577.856
549.014
449.926
337.236
253.470
19S.8SO
133.617
200.676
198.023
193.680
180.379
190.120
175. 173
170.186
166, 84«
179.042
179.643
182.493
134.000
181. 535
179.193
170. S48
Graa«
5
505.004
503.255 ,
102.820
439.214
399. 824
376.154
311. 158
256.184
214. 772
151,469
142.755
155. 143
151.514
149.914
132.596
130. 116
124,274
127.637
121. 710
121.337
121.672
123.157
124. 136
125. 699
118.844
US. 041
6ria«
6
315.163
314.150
288,325
266. 257
256.078
235,431
207.253
1S8. 475
137.257
106.914
96. 715
95.643
103, 700
'. 102.56.
86.476
82. 145
78. 098
72.067
73.805
77.8«5
80.579
81.321
81.344
31.361
80, 702
90.834
Snot
7
13 S. 389
135.013
129. 707
125.231
123.237
117.161
101. 546
94.774
72. 715
58. 102
51. 638
48. 707
50.024
49.070
44.846
42.408
39.665
41.84fi
38. 564
39.859
38.510
40.927
41.689
42.602
41.970
42.038
 ShipMnt prfcai ar» «jua! te tft« ratio of tn« valu* of sMoMflti  to
 Quantity
Soureti:     Energy,  ttlrws.'and Saieurcii Canada.   Various years.
                     *in«riU yMro««i(.   Ottawa,  Canafla.
            Statutici Canada.   1959-1977.   Prodyetlon  aiw »ft1pM«itt
            of «»bt*to* &y Canadian *1n*i.   Publication *26-2Q5--
            *»o«»to».   Ottawa,  Canada.

            Sutistics Canada.   1978-1981.   Production  anti ttiipwinti
            of asMctot 8y Canad'tan «in«i,   ?«B!ication f26-224--
            AiB«fWi.   Ottawa,  Canada,

-------
  approach  selected  for  this  study.  However,  rough engineering cost  data  are
  the used  to check  the  results  of  the  econometrically derived estimates,

         2- 1   Econometric  Estimation

         Estimating the supply  elasticity  of  asbestos econometrically presents
  formidable difficulties.  Given the above-described asbestos fiber  grades and.
  types, microeconomic theory suggests  a multimarket approach  that available
  data are  not  able  to support.  To narrow  the scope and  simplify the commodity
  definition, the econometric analysis  focuses on North American production and
  consumption of short,  chrysotile fiber (Quebec Grades 6  and  7).  As previously
  discussed, this fiber's type and grade account for much  of the North American
  fiber trade and its relative role is  likely  to grow even larger under the
  proposed  products  ban.

     A variety of econometric models were  formulated and  estimated.  Assuming a
  perfectly competitive  fiber market, the most attractive  of these, on strictly
  theoretical grounds, were versions of the "prototype  micro model" as
  described, for example, by  Intriligator (1978).  A general form of  such  a
 model is  shown in  Equations 1  through 3.
            Qs " «s + Pl?a + £2pf + *s                                      (1)

            Qd - "
-------
           In Q - a -f ft  In Pa                                              (4)

Equation 4 was estimated from  1977  to  1981  annual data.  The quantity variable
is the estimated annual  metric tonnage of short  fiber  (Grades 6 and 7)
produced and consumed in North America (as  defined in  Exhibit 12).  The price
variable is the consumption-weighted average  shipment  price of Grades 6 and 7
asbestos fiber converted to constant U.S. dollars.  As noted above, these
prices are substantially lower than current posted prices.  These and other
raw data are listed in Exhibit A.2.1-12.

    The parameter estimates and associated  standard errors that resulted from
the ordinary least squares regression  are presented as

           In Q - 6.32 + 1.46  In Pa                                       (5)
                 (3.56)  (0.78)

The price elasticity of  supply is directly  interpretable as the coefficient in
In Pa.  It is positive and statistically significant (different from zero) at
the 0.80 level.  The supply of short asbestos fibers is therefore estimated to
be "elastic"; a shift in demand of  10  percent would result in a 6.7 percent
change in price.

    The logic of this specification can be  supported in at least two ways.
First, one can contend that the supply function  of asbestos fiber was
relatively stationary over the  estimation period and that shifts In demand
"trace" points along the supply function.   If this is  indeed the case, the
identification problem,  implicit in single-equation models of this type, would
be eliminated.  Alternatively,  if the  industry,  because of its high degree of
concentration, is more monopolistic in character than  it is perfectly
competitive, the price and quantity variables may be tracing out a monopoly-
like industry response function to  shifts in demand given a stable industry
cost function.

    Whichever the case,  the short (5-year)  time  series used to estimate the
relationship makes the assumption of a stable supply or cost function more
tenable.  In particular,  the estimation period if coincident with the period
of contracting, demand and postdates some of the  changes that may reasonably be
thought to have shifted  supply  (e.g.,  asbestos exposure regulations and
general strikes).  In addition, the errors-in-measurement problem associated
with the price variable  may have been  reduced in this  period because transfer
pricing distortions aay  have been mitigated by virtue  of divestiture trends
and the smaller gains to be realized.

        2.2  Enginee.rin.g....Cp.st	Analysis

        In a separate analysis, engineering cost data were used to derive a
supply elasticity estimate.  Capital,  capacity,  and operating data for a
number of mines in Canada and  the United States  were used to construct a crude
supply function for North America.  The data were obtained from
nonconfidential portions of U.S. Bureau of  Mines field reports and
supplemented by judgment and rough  estimation where detailed or mine-specific
data were lacking.  The  cost estimates were constructed so as to represent
"intermediate-term" average variable costs.  In  general, this means that the
cost of replacement capital needed  to  operate the mines under the current
mining plan was included as a  cost  of  production, but  major capital investment

                                    A.2-18

-------
                Exhibit A.2,1-12
 1981
- •- - - — 	 ™ 	 _ 	 ,,
Can. )>iod
of *6
(S Ions)
199, bob
281,854
285,250
229,121
286, ITO
Can. prod.
or */
(S Ions)
426.435
441,866
582. 750
581,626
562.199
lot. esl. US.
prod of f6, J
(S tons)
51,646
54,746
6J.7J6
63,612
61,054
OS. e*pt
of short
f itoers
(S tuns)
15,422 .5
I?. 99$. 9
11,572 I
20,569,9
19, 4/9.0
Can. tot
eiip, of
short fibers
(S tons)
597,727
621,938
617,628
780,649
782,030
Can. e«p
of short
f ibers
to W S,
(S tons)
292,118
288.915
430,114
456,279
429,372
Unit vjluec
of Ib
(t/S ton)
314. ISO
288.325
266 257
2S6 078
235 431
Unit valuec
of fj
($/S ton)
135 013
129. 707
12S. 231
123 237
117 161
Canadian
ext hdiigc
rate
(Can |/US »
0 8)41
0 8b5 J
0 8M9
0 8773
0 9411
I - short tons. — — 	 • 	 -— 	 . 	
 197B
 19/7

 S  ton
 GWP  = Gross National  Product.
     *I«ports «f Gr«tei 8 and 9 ar«
                                            to be negligible
             Canadian production  *  Canadian product ion
                of 6 and 1              al 6 and j
 the estimate of W. S,  production of Grades 6 and 7 is based
                                                                              production proportions
                                                                                                                 u* « S  BurMU .,
Sources
            USOO,    Various y.-rs.   US  0«ParU««t of  «„  .nteM.r.  Ni^ra.s y.,rbook.  W«MngtOn. DC:
            Iconic «eport of  the  ^reSi«l,nt    mj   Mashin8lon. OC;  US  Ckiver™*^ Printing Office
            Internal ion. I lto«.tary  fwrf.  varjol»s years.  lntern,t,»na, Hwncial Statistics
            tnorgy,  Woes a«» «esourc«s Canada   l»»j   Hsbeslos export salary   Otia«a
                    NIM, and fie*o»rces Canada   1983 (Ja^ry-S.pl^.r)   Cana
-------
in deposit development was not.  Also included in the average variable cost
estimates were estimates of operating cost, including the cost of labor,
supplies, energy, and administration.  Capital costs reflect mine and mill
plant and equipment cots as well as  infrastructure costs.

    The cost per ton of ore was calculated by adding the capital and operating
costs, and a cost per ton of fiber was derived by dividing the cost per ton of
ore by the estimated ratio of fiber  capacity to ore capacity for the nine.
This average cost per ton of fiber for each mine was then compared to an
estimate of the average revenue a given mine would receive for a ton of fiber
as a rough test of the validity of the engineering cost estimates.  The
average revenue estimate was the 1982 weighted price of fiber based on Bureau
of Mines proportions of production by grade and either the shipment or posted
prices previously discussed.  The- weighted posted price for all grades in
North America is estimated to be about $612 (U.S.); the weighted shipment
price is estimated to be about $452  (U.S.).

    When production costs were compared to the average weighted prices for a
given mine, 11 of the 13 mines had cots that were lower than either of the
price estimates.  Of the remaining two mines, one had costs higher than the
shipment price an lower than the posted price, and the other had cots higher
than both the shipment and posted prices.

    To estimate the supply elasticity, the Canadian mines were ranked in order
of increasing cost per ton of fiber, and the capacities of the ranked mines
were summed to form a measure of total fiber supplied at a given cost.  The
plot of total cost per ton of fiber  against the cumulated capacity forms an
automated intermediate term supply curve for Canadian fiber.  The supply
elasticity is estimated by regressing the natural logarithm of the summed
capacity against the natural logarithm of the cost per ton of fiber;

               In (capacity) - a + ft In (cost)                             (6)

where /9 is directly interpretable as the supply elasticity.  The same
procedure was used to obtain the supply elasticity for U.S. mines,

    The elasticity of supply for asbestos fiber for Canada estimated in this
fashion was found to be 1.726.  The U.S. elasticity was 0.671.  Estimates of
the supply elasticity were also derived using pooled data for all North
American producers and for composite and individual fiber grades.  Due to
fiber grade differences, the varying prices among fiber grades, and the fact
that different mixes of the various grades are produced at the individual
mines, different supply elasticities may apply for the different fiber grades.
Thus, a single elasticity estimate for all fiber grades may be imprecise.

    The estimated supply elasticities by fiber grades vary widely.
Interestingly, for Grade 7, the estimate over all North American producers is
1.45, with & standard error of 0.204.

        2.3  Interpreting the.Eesults

        The supply elasticity estimate for asbestos fiber presented above must
obviously be used with caution; the standard error of the econometric estimate
suggests populations whose true elasticity of supply could easily range from
0,71 to 2,27.   The sensitivity of the result also can be estimated by adding

                                   A.2-20

-------
another observation to  the data set.  Based on an unofficial estimate of
Canadian production of  Grades 6 and 7 fibers  in  1982, rerunning the regression
with 1982 data yields an estimate of the  supply  elasticity of 2.59.  This is
an extreme example since 1982 was a year  of generally depressed economic
conditions, but it reinforces the point that  the "true" supply elasticity may
vary substantially from that selected for analysis.

    As noted above, microeconomic theory  suggests an economic model of the
fiber market that is much more complex than any  of the specifications employed
in this study.  For example, interaction  with the world market for asbestos
fiber and the joint production features of fiber production are clearly
relevant to the supply  decisions that characterize the industry.  Furthermore,
the literature-on the theory of exhaustible resources introduces further time-
dependent considerations that might be considered in the characterization of
firm behavior.  For asbestos, the prospect of continued declines in demand
suggest that user cost  may be dropping, thereby  stimulating current production
despite declining real  prices.

    Microeconomic theory and business practice also distinguish between short
and long-run supply adjustments to changing prices.  These notions were behind
the applications of lagged adjustment and pure expectations models employed in
the simultaneous equation framework discussed above.  Although the application
of such models is subject to reservation  (Griliches, 1967), the microeconomic
principle is that supply tends to be more elastic as firms adjust fixed inputs
over time.   This argues perhaps for treating  the current estimate as being on
the low side of a longer term supply response to declining demand in North
America,  Such an inference should be made cautiously in the absence of a
clearer understanding of the influence of the lag structure of production, the
quantity of asbestos reserves, and the interactive influences between the
North American and world markets and among different grades of asbestos fiber.
                                    A.2-21

-------
REFERENCES
Asbestos Magazine.  1983 (January),  Asbestos mining industry review, 1982.
    64(7).

Chemical and Engineering News.  March 28, 1983.  Legal remedies for victims
    begin taking shape,  p, 15.

Clifton RA.  1975, 1980.  Minerals facts and problems--asbestos.  Washington,
    DC:  Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Clifton RA.  1983a.  Mineral commodity summaries--asbestos.  Washington,
    DC:  Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Clifton RA.  1983a.  Minerals yearbook.  Washington, DC:  Bureau of Mines,
    U.S. Department of the Interior.

Economic Report of the President.  1983.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Government
    Printing office.

Energy, Mines, and Resources Canada.  1983 
-------
A. 3  BAN/PHASE-DOWN  SIMULATION MODEL

    A number  of  the  regulatory alternatives  examined  in  this  study consist of
product bans, fiber  phase-downs,  or  combinations of these policies.  To
examine the costs  of these  different alternatives  and to generate information
for the exposure, and health effects  models to use  in  estimating  their
benefits,  the Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model (ARCM) was  developed and
computerized.  The theoretical underpinnings of the ARCM are  reviewed in
Chapter II in the  main body of the RIA report, and data  inputs for the model
are presented in Chapter  III of the  RIA.

    The theoretical  approach of the  ARCM presented in Chapter II of this RIA
is presented  in  terms of  smooth demand and supply  functions for  ease of
exposition.   However, the actual  computational procedures are, for the most
part, conducted  in terms  of "step functions", which are  analytically the same
as the more convenient and  conventional functions  familiar from  textbooks, but
are more consistent  with  the character of the underlying data available to the
model.  Thus, Section 1 below  presents the ARCM's  approach in terms of these
s tep-functions.

    Section 2 reviews the exact welfare effects computations  performed by the
ARCM for simulating  product bans  and fiber phase-downs.  Finally, Section 3
presents an annotated copy  of  the FORTRAN computer code  for this interactive
model.                       »

    1-  ARCM  in  Step^Function	Format

    This section discusses  the approach used in the ARC  model for the
estimation of the  supply  curves in all markets, product  demand curves,
individual market  derived demand  curves for  asbestos  fiber, and  the asbestos
fiber demand  curve.

        1.1   Supply.  Curves

             •1.1.1  Asbestos Fiber Market

              The elasticity of supply of asbestos  fiber  to the U.S. from
domestic and  foreign sources was  estimated using a simple econometric model. •*•
A log-linear  (constant elasticity) specification was  used and the parameter
estimates  were reported as:

                           In Q - 6.32 + 1.46 In Pa

where:

    Q  — the  estimated annual  metric tonnage of short fiber (Grades 6 and 7)
         produced  and consumed in North America, and

    Pa - the  consumption-weighted average shipment price of Grades € and 7
         converted to constant U.S.  dollars.
     ^  The derivation of this equation and its econometric estimation is
discussed in Appendix A.2 above.
                                    A.3-1

-------
     Since  this  implies  an elasticity  of  1.46,  the  ARC Model  uses  this as the
 default,   Using the quantity  and price of  asbestos fiber in  the data year, the
 ARC  model  translates  this (constant)  elasticity into  an equation  for a linear
 supply curve,   The exact computation is:

                               N
                           Qa  - Fl (Qi  * PAC>
                              i-1

                        SLOPE  - P8/(SELAST  » Qa)

                   INTERCEPT  - Pa - (SLOPE • Qa)

 where:

         Qa — total quantity  of asbestos fiber  consumed by all markets in
              1985;

        PAC - Product Asbestos Coefficient (as  described in  Section 3);

         Qi - output quantity in product market  'i' in 1985;

           N - number of product markets;

      SLOPE - slope of asbestos fiber supply curve;

         Pa - price of asbestos fiber reported  in  1985;

     SELAST - fiber supply elasticity, as  described above; and

  INTERCEPT - ordinate intercept of the fiber supply  curve.   .  '


     It should be noted that it is the supply of asbestos  fiber to the U.S.
 from domestic and foreign sources that is  modeled  above.  Since this is the
 short-run  and long-run supply function, producer surplus  will exist in this
market in  the long run, given the positive slope of the  supply curve.

             1.1.2  Product Markets

             The supply schedules in  the output markets  are  short-run curves.
 Short-run  schedules with upward slopes imply that  some  factors earn rents in
 the  short-run.   However,  there are no long-run rents.  The rents earned by
 factors of production in markets exhibiting upward sloping short-run curves
 are  shown  as the shaded area  in the top panel o£ Exhibit  A.3-1.  However, data
 available  for this modeling were not  sufficient to generate  upward sloping
supply functions.   Instead, supply curves  at the level of average variable
costs were designed based  on  the price and other engineering cost data
gathered in the survey and by PEI's survey of capital convertibility and the
costs of exit from the various asbestos product markets.

    Given  these supply functions,  quasi-rents for  all product markets are
incorporated as shown in the middle panel of Exhibit A.3-1.  The shaded area
between price and the average variable cost measures the  quasi-rents earned in
the  short-run.   These quasi-rents that accrue to factors  of  production in the

                                    A.3-2

-------
  Price of
  Fiber
                 Exhibit A.3-1
                                     • sr
   •:AVC.

iPrice of
 Output
'
    0?P.
                              Quantity of;
                              Output Good

-------
 short-run and can be forfeited If the price that producers receive falls.
 Thus,  the shaded area represents short-run producer surplus.   In the long-run,
 since  the supply curve for output is assumed to be perfectly elastic,  no
 producer surplus losses in these markets exist.  Instead,  the cost of
 regulation is borne entirely by consumers of these output goods.   Finally,  if
 quasi-rents do not exist in the short-run the short-run supply schedules
 coincide with the long run schedules, which are assumed to be perfectly
 elastic  (bottom panel of Exhibit A.3-1), and average variable cost is  equal to
 price,

         1.2  Demand,Curves

         A number of output goods use asbestos fiber.  The demand for these
 products gives rise to the demand for asbestos fiber.   Hence, characteristics
 of  the demand function In each output market help to determine the shape and
 the location of the fiber deaand function.

     The  approach used by the M.CM to estimate demand curves In all markets,  as
 described here,  attempts to use all  possible information from the use  and
 substitutes analysis,  but not go beyond that information.   Step demand
 functions are suggested most directly by this type of analysis (which  is the
 only Information available regarding the demand of each asbestos  product).

     A step demand function is a continuous  non-smooth function (Exhibit
 A.3-2).   It depicts purchaser behavior as ceasing to demand certain quantities
 of  asbestos products once certain prices of these products are reached because
 they switch to non-asbestos substitutes.   The amount of demand that switches
 to  the non-asbestos substitute good  is determined by the quantity of the
 asbestos  product currently used In a manner for which the  use of  the
 particular substitute  product Is appropriate.

     The principal advantage of using step demand functions in the ARC  model is
 that construction of the demand functions do not require assumptions in
 addition  to those already necessary  to perform the use and substitutes
 analysis.   Furthermore,  such a specification does not assume  that demand for
 the  product decreases  (increases)  at a constant rate as its price Increases
 (decreases).   Not only would such an assumption go beyond  available data, it
may  also  be  particularly inappropriate In cases where  the  cheapest substitute
product  is  much  more expensive then  the asbestos product.   In such a case,  a
 small change in  the -price of the asbestos product should not  induce large.
 substitution away from the product (a linear downward-sloped  demand curve,  on
 the  other hand,  would  imply some amount of  such substitution).

     On 'the  other hand,  the use of step demand functions have  certain minor
 disadvantages.   First,  the use of currently available  substitutes analysis
 indicates  that for a few markets the substitutes are (presently)  cheaper than
 the  asbestos  product itself.   Since  full  substitution  has  yet to  occur, this
 information contradicts  an assumption underlying step  demand  functions  that
 full substitution occurs  once  the  price of  the  asbestos product exceeds that
of the substitute,   Instead, use of  step  demand curves  requires some method  to
handle data  that suggest  that  presently available substitutes  are cheaper than
the  asbestos  product.  As described  in the  next sub-section,  the  model  assumes
such substitutes  to have  the  same  price as  the  asbestos product in 1985,
                                    A.3-4

-------
                     Exhibit A.3-2
Price of

                                          " Demand



-------
     The other disadvantage of step demand functions is that they dictate  the
 complete and instantaneous substitution for a product given a large enough
 rise in the price of the asbestos product.   Though this response may seen
 unrealistic,  a step demand function is the  best available alternative.  The
 other alternatives either do not use all the information available  from the
 use  and substitutes analysis'or impose outside assumptions not necessarily
 justified by or consistent with available information .

     The exact manner in which the step demand functions are generated is
 outlined below,

              1.2.1  Product Demand Curves

              Each step in the demand curve  corresponds to the price of a
 particular substitute,  and its associated quantity*.   Exhibit A.3-2  shows  the
 product demand curve for a market with non-zero quasi-rents..  (For  markets
 with no quasi-rents,  average variable cost  is equal to the baseline price.)
 The  price of each substitute provides the height of each step;  and  the
 quantities provide the lengths of the corresponding steps.   However,  the
 asbestos product and its substitute(s)  may  differ in their useful lives,  so
 calculating the price of the substitute(s)  for comparison with the  price  of
 the  asbestos  products must be done carefully.   The formulae used to calculate
 the  present value prices of substitutes are as follows:

     Let:

          r -  firm's  real discount rate;

         TO -  total cost of'the product,  which is the sum of the  installation
              and delivered purchase costs;^

         Na —  useful  life of the asbestos product;

         Ns  -  useful  life of the substitute  product;  and

         PV -  present  value price of the  substitute product calculated
              for  life of the  asbestos product.

     (1)  If the  life of  the substitute product  equals  that of  the  asbestos
         product,  the  present  value  price of the  substitute  is  calculated
         simply  as  TC  the sum  of-the installation and delivered purchase
         costs,  i.e.,

            PV - TC
     o
        The formulae listed here do not include annual O&M costs because such
costs were always considered "equivalent" across all substitutes and the
asbestos product.
                                    A.3-6

-------
     (2) If the  life  of  the substitute product  is not equal to that of the
        asbestos product, the present value  price of the substitute is
        computed as:^
           PV - TC  •  (H-  r)NS  -
                                            r)Ns
     (3) Finally,  if the present value price  of any substitute is less than
        the price of the asbestos product  in the data year, it is set
        equal to  the price of the asbestos product.

The  quantities associated with each step are computed based on the market
share of each substitute.

     The baseline domestic production quantities for all asbestos product
markets with an import orientation i.e., markets with a consumption-production
ratio greater than one, are adjusted by the  consumption-production ratio to
obtain the baseline domestic consumption quantity.  The domestic consumption
quantity is distributed in the ratio of the  market shares of substitute (s ),
i.e., the shares of the existing market that switch to the substitutes, given
the  non- availability of the asbestos product.

     For markets with an export orientation,  i.e., markets with a
consumption-production ratio "less than one,  an additional step is generated.
This adjustment for export oriented markets  is based on the assumption that
foreign consumers have other options, such as purchasing the product from
foreign suppliers.  Thus, the height of this step is the baseline price of the
asbestos product.  The corresponding length  is obtained by taking the
difference in the domestic production and  domestic consumption quantities,
i.e., the amount of exports.  Hence, it is assumed that foreign consumers will
not  tolerate any increase in the price of  these imports above the baseline
price.  The only adjustment for import oriented markets is mentioned above.
This quantity is then used as the appropriate baseline quantity.  For all
other modeling purposes these markets are  treated exactly the same as those
markets with no trade, i.e., markets with  a.  consumption-production ratio of
one.  The only other differences arise in  the distribution analysis, which is
described below.

             1.2.2  Product Derived Demand, Curves

             The total derived demand for  fiber is obtained by the horizontal
summation of the individual product (derived) demands for fiber.  However,
these product-by-product derived demands oust be computed carefully to account
for non-zero quasi-rents in the product markets, since. quasi -rents increase a
product market's derived demand for fiber.
     •*  The procedure used to calculate present value prices assigns the
present value of the remaining useful life of the longer lasting product as a
proportion of the asbestos that product's useful life.  This procedure assumes
that present values- can be distributed linearly over time.  Given the need to
convert present value prices to the same useful life of the asbestos product
(which is necessary for estimating consumer surplus), this procedure was
deemed adequate for purposes of the ARC model.

                                    A.3-7

-------
    For markets with zero quasi-rents, the height of each derived demand step
is obtained by first calculating the difference between -the height of the
corresponding step in the product demand curve and the baseline product price
in the data year.  This difference is then multiplied by the product asbestos
coefficient and the result added to the baseline asbestos .fiber price in the
data year , i . e . ,
                   pfn - (pn - p°> • PAC + P°F
    where :
        PI! - height of the ntn step in the product derived demand curve
              (Exhibit A,3-3);

         Pn - height of the ntn step in the product demand curve
              (Exhibit A.3-2);

         pQ « baseline product price (Exhibit A.3-2);

        PAC - product asbestos coefficient; and

        P°p - baseline asbestos fiber price (Exhibit A,3-4).


     The step-length is obtained by multiplying the corresponding step length
in the product demand curve by the PAC, i.e.,

                   qfn - qn » PAC

    where:

        qfn - length of the n"1 step in the product derived demand curve
              (Exhibit A.3-3);
                             th
         qn - length of the n   step in the product demand curve
              (Exhibit A.3-2); and

        PAC - product asbestos coefficient.


    The baseline fiber quantity used by each market is obtained by multiplying
the baseline product quantity by the PAC,  i.e.,

                   qO£ ± - q° « PAC

    where:

        qO, .  - baseline fiber quantity used by a product market 'i'
           >:L   (Exhibit A. 3-3);

           qO „ Daseline product quantity (Exhibit A.3-2); and

          PAC — product asbestos coefficient.
                                    A.3-8

-------
                    Exhibit A.3-3
          Product Derived E>einand Curve
 Price of
i Fiber .'.••;.
                                        Derived Demand
                          f ,:;' .
                                  ^i_i'. * •'

-------
                         Exhibit A.3-4
                   .: Fibeir '
 Price of
'''
                                              Derived Demand (Total)
                                                      : Quantity :b'f•
                                                      •:iFtbier:v ::••:•>=

-------
    For markets with existing quasi-rents, the procedure outlined above is
followed with one modification.  The willingness of primary producers with
quasi-rents, to bid away their quasi-rents in order to obtain asbestos fiber
is incorporated in this procedure.  This is achieved by adjusting upwards the
maximum price of asbestos fiber the producers are willing to pay.
Computationally, the height of each step is the difference between the height
of the corresponding step in the product demand curve and the product's
average variable cost  in the data year rater than the product's price., i.e,

                   pfn - (pn ~ ATC) * pAC 4- P°F

    where:

        Ffn -  height of the n step in the product derived
               demand curve (Exhibit A. 3-3);

         Pn -  height of the n   step in the product demand
               curve (Exhibit A. 3-2);

        AVC -  average variable cost per unit of output in the
               product market;

        PAC "•  product asbestos coefficient; and

        P°p -  baseline asbestos fiber price (Exhibit A.3-4).

             1.2.3  Asbestos Fiber DemandCurve

             The asbestos fiber demand curve is the horizontal summation of
all product derived demand curves.  The baseline fiber price is determined by
identifying the intersection of the fiber demand curve and the fiber supply
curve.  This is achieved by using the equation of the supply function, as
described earlier, i.e.,
    and                  P°F - INTERCEPT + SLOPE • QQ

    where:

             .  Qo - baseline asbestos fiber quantity in the fiber market
                    (Exhibit A.3-4);

            q f s ~ baseline fiber quantity used by product market 'i'
                    (Exhibit A.3-3);

             • pOj, = baseline asbestos fiber price (Exhibit A.3-4);

        INTERCEPT - ordinate intercept of the fiber supply curve; and

            SLOPE — slope of the asbestos fiber supply curve.



                                    A.3-11

-------
              1.2.4   Baseline  .Computation

              The baseline  quantities  in each product  market  for  any  one year
are  obtained  by applying the  appropriate growth rate  to  the  previous years
quantity,  i.e.,

           q°.   - baseline product  quantity for market  '!' in year  't';
            J. j U

        q  £ t-1 ™ Baseline product  quantity for market  'i' in year  't-1'; and

              rj_ - growth rate for market 'i'  from year  't-1'  to  year 't'.


     The baseline fiber quantities demanded by each product market are computed
as explained  in Section  1.2.2.   The total fiber demand in the baseline, and
hence the  price of fiber are  computed as described in the previous section.

     The change in the fiber price based on the fiber  price in 1985,  i.e., the
difference between the 1985 fiber price and the freshly  computed baseline
fiber price,  is translated into  the baseline  price for each  product  market.
This is achieved by  dividing  this change in fiber price  by the product
asbestos coefficient and adding  the result to individual market  prices in the
data year, i.e.,

                   pO «.  Pd +  <-pOf _

    where:

         pO „ baseline product price  (Exhibit 2);

        P°f - baseline asbestos  fiber price (Exhibit  4);

         Pd - product price in 1985;

        P"f - asbestos fiber  price  in 1985; and

        PAC - product asbestos coefficient.

    2.  Computation  of Welfare Effects  in theARCM

    The theoretical  discussion of the welfare economic foundations underlying
the ARCM in Chapter  II of  the RIA Identified  areas 1, 2,  3,  and  4 in the
asbestos fiber market and  areas  5,  6, 7,  and  8 in the output markets that
represent  losses and transfers to the various  parties involved in asbestos,
This section discusses the  algorithms used by the ARCM to compute these areas,

        2.1  Computation of ScenarioPrices andQuantities

        Prior to calculating  areas  1-8,  it is  necessary  to compute the prices
and quantities in all output markets  and the  fiber market under  the  regulation
option being considered.   The algorithms  used by  the ARCM are described below.
                                    A.3-12

-------
             2.1.1  Asbestos. Fibeg Market

             The algorithm for computing prices and quantities in this market
depends on the type of regulation being considered.  The three types of
regulation that this model is capable of simulating are:

         (i)  staged asbestos product bans;

        (ii)  staged asbestos product bans and phase down of annual
              asbestos fiber usage; and

       (iii)  phasedown of annual fiber usage,

    Staged Asbestos Product Bans .  After banning one or more product, the
fiber demand curve is recomputed, as using the derived demands of the
non-banned products only.  The total quantity of fiber obtained is the
scenario  fiber quantity.  The scenario price (P^p in Exhibit A. 3- 5) is
computed by using this scenario quantity in the equation for the fiber supply
curve.
                        Usage .  The scenario fiber price in this case is the
"full" price of fiber (PXF in Exhibit A, 3-6).  However, for calculating all of
the relevant areas it is also necessary to compute the supply price of fiber
(P'^f in Exhibit A. 3-6).  The scenario quantity is identical to the fiber cap
specified.  Using this value with the fiber supply equations yields P'^f.  To
compute P p, the algorithm steps down the fiber demand function until it
locates the first vertical segment (Qg in Exhibit A. 3-6) of the step-function
at which the quantity is greater than (or equal to) the specified fiber cap.
The "full" price of fiber then is the price associated with this particular
step (Pg in Exhibit A. 3-6).

    Staged . Product Bans and Phasedown of Usage .............. Fiber .  Scenario price and
quantity in the fiber market under this scenario is computed in the same way
as in the previous scenario, with one exception.  The demand curve in the
fiber market is • recomputed , as in the case of product bans only, by excluding
the derived demand of the banned markets .   The fiber cap is then imposed on
this newly computed fiber demand, and the calculations proceed as in the
phase -down only scenario.

             2.1.2  Product Markets

             The scenario prices in the non-banned product market are computed
using the change in the fiber price.   The translation of this change is done
as follows:
     where :
              scenario price of the itn product;

              baseline price of the i"1 product;

              scenario price of asbestos fiber;
                                   A.3-13

-------
                     Exhibit A.3-5
 Pricebf
;• Fiber-. •/:
                  .:•; ;;;:B:;-Fiber ;;Marke|-
                  '. j(Pr pdu M:
                              Post-ban Fiber Demand
                                          Fiber Demand
                                         (Total Derived Demand)
                                                Quantity of
                                                Fiber

-------
                          Exhibit A, 3-6
::.Price::-of
      ;$•:
      '•*•;>;

                                               Derived Demand (Total)
                                                           Qiiaiitity of

-------
P f - baseline price of asbestos fiber; and
                                            th
        PAC£ - Product Asbestos  Coefficient for the  ith product.


    As  can be seen,  ?•*•£ < P"j_ for  product  bans only,  since P^-f < P®f occurs
 only  in these scenarios.   The opposite  is  true for  the other  two regulatory
 options, as shown  in Exhibit A. 3-7.

    The price -change algorithm  applies  for all cases  and all  markets with one
 exception.  The  scenario  price  for markets with existing quasi-rents in a
 scenario with a  fiber cap is computed as follows:

                   plt .  AVC£ + (P1f -  P°f )  .  PAC£

 where :

    AVC^ - average variable cost in the baseline for  the ith  producer market,
           and all other  variables are  as"  defined before.

    However, if  the  P1f computed for such  markets is  less  than P°it  the
 baseline product price, the scenario price is  the same as  the baseline  price.
 Nevertheless, even in such a case, P^j_  needs to be  retained for  use  in  the
 computation of areas for  welfare analysis.

    The methods  for  computing scenario  quantities depends  on  the regulation
 option  chosen.   For  staged bans  the scenario quantities in all non-banned
 markets are the  same as the baseline quantities because the price drops along
 the last vertical segment of the demand curve.   Of  course,  the scenario
 quantities for banned markets are  zero.  However, for the  other  two  regulatory
 options, the calculations are not  as straightforward  and are  described  in
 detail  below.

    Computation  of Scenario ..... Quantities  in  Non-Banned  Product  Markets When
 Fiber Cap is ^Imposed in the Fiber  Market .  The first  step  in  computing  product
 scenario quantities given a fiber  cap is to determine the  amount' of  asbestos
 fiber demanded by individual markets.   To  calculate this,  the algorithm "steps
 down" the product derived demand curves until  It identifies the  first
horizontal segment at which the  height  of  the  step  is  less  than  or equal to
 the "full" price of fiber.  If the identified  segment's  height  is less  than
 the full price of fiber,  then the  quantity of  fiber allocated to that market
 is the  quantity  associated with  this step.  On the  other hand, the Identified
horizontal segment's height could be equal to  the "full" price of fiber  in
which event the  quantity  of fiber  allocated to  this market  is somewhat more
complicated to describe.   The quantity  of  fiber  used by  such  a market cannot
be estimated directly.   Mathematically, it is  determined as:
  Qfls  - Q»lf  + (Qn+1lf - Q"lf)
                                        - V
                           A.3-16

-------
       Exhibit A.3-7
•Areas -in the Pptput

-------
 where:

        Q -   - scenario quantity of asbestos fiber used by the i market,  as
               shown in Exhibit A.3-8;

        Qnif - quantity of asbestos fiber associated with the horizontal  step
               lf just  greater than the "full"  price of fiber in the demand
               curve of the  itl1 product (Exhibit  A.3-8);

      Qn  £f - quantity of asbestos fiber associated with the step identified
               whose height is equal to the  "full" price' of fiber in  the
               desired  demand curve of  the ic^  product (Exhibit A.3-8);

        Qcap - specified fiber cap  (Exhibit  A.3-6);

        Qg-1 " vertical step  at which the quantity is just lesser than Qcap  in
               the fiber demand curve (Exhibit  A,3-9);  and

          Qg - vertical step  at which the quantity is just greater than Qcap in
               the fiber demand curve (Exhibit  A.3-9),

    As  can  be seen by  the above computation, if the  specified fiber cap
 overlaps  a  vertical segment  in the fiber demand curve,  then

                                   Qcap ~* Qg

 and therefore,

                                Q1.   -Q1*1.,
                                 IS      if

    After having  estimated the  scenario quantity  of  fiber used by all
 non-banned  markets,  the  scenario quantity in the  product  markets is computed
 as:
where

    ^^is " scenario quantity in the ith product market  (Exhibit A.3-7)
           and the other variables are as defined earlier.

        2.2  Computation of AreasUsed inWelfare AnalysIsof Markets

    After computing the scenario prices and quantities  for all output markets
and the fiber market, the areas used in the welfare analysis can be measured.

             2.2.1  Product Bans Only

             The relevant areas for measuring the welfare effects of product
bans alone are identified below along with the formulae used to calculate
them.
                                    A.3-18

-------
                    Exhibit A,3-8
   Derived Demand Curve of an Output Market
     SKowing Usage of Fiber under Phasedown
;'Pricie"0f
-Tiber.' '>;.
                                     Quantity of
                                     asbestos fiber
                                     used by this
                                     market under
                                     regulation
                                          Cjtiantity of
                                          •.Fiber

-------
                      Exhibit A.3-9
-Output':
                     M^
                                           Quantity of
                                           Output Good

-------
         •  Area  2  (Exhibit A.3-5):   The  loss in fiber market producer
           surplus  transferred  to  the non-banned output markets  in the
           form  of  gains  in  consumer surplus (due to  the  drop in the
           price of fiber).

                    Area 2 -  Q1  •  (P°f -  P1  )

         •  Area  4,,,,(Exhibit A.3-5) :   The  deadweight losses borne  by
           factors  of production associated with the  supply of fiber.

                    Area 4-0.5 •  (Q0 -  Qj)  «  (P°f -  p!f)

         •  Area  2 + Area 4 - Total  loss  of  producer surplus by the
           factors  of production associated with fiber production,

         «  Area  6  (Exhibit A.3-10 >:   Deadweight losses borne by
           consumers of each banned product.

                              si
                    Area 6  - f|   (q^ -  q*'1,,  •  (P\ - **>
                              n-1             i)      i    i)

           where S1 - number of steps in the step demand  function of
                      market "i".

         •  Area8(Exhibit A.3-10):   The short-run deadweight losses
           borne by factors  of production (other than those in the
           fiber market) associated with the supply of each banned
           market with existing quasi rents.

                    Area 8j_ - qb£ •  Pb£ - AVC^

         •  Area  CSG....(Exhibit,.,.A. J-11) :  Consumer surplus gain in  each
           non-banned market.

                    CSGj. - qbi . p^i - pS

Note that:
                             Nnb
                     Area 2 - ff   CSG£
                              i-1

where N   «• number  of non-banned output  markets.


             2.2,2   FiberPhase-down

             Computing the welfare  effects  associated with  a regulation
scenario involving  fiber phase-down is the  same whether or  not certain output
markets  are banned.

    If certain output markets are banned prior  to imposing  the fiber  cap,
Areas 6  and 8 in the banned markets,  as  computed  in Section 2.2.1 above, also
exist and are calculated in  addition to  the  areas identified below.
                                    A.3-21

-------
                     Exhibit A.3-10
•price ;.: of •
Output
  ;>px:
  M^tfr
                        ,6
                  II

-------
                  Exhibit A.3-11
         A Hbii-Banned Quitput Market in a
        v::--C-:>Stageif::B|in.?uiily Scenario
:
-------
Asbestos
       Ar ea rii 1 .^ ( Exh ibit A. 3-6):  Consumer  and producer  surplus
       losses in  the downstream output markets represented  In the
       fiber market as part of willingness  to pay  for. fiber.

               Area 1 - Q    • (P°_ - f'le)
                          cap      f       f

       Area, 2 ,„ jExhib i t A .3 - 6 ) :  Transfer  of welfare  in the  form of
       valuable rights to purchase of use fiber derived from the
       producer surplus losses borne of factors of production
       associated with the supply of fiber.

               Area 2-0    • (P°f - P"1-?)
                          cap      r       T

       Area 3 ( Exhlb i . t .._A . 3- 6 ) :  Deadweight  losses  borne by
       consumers  of products made from asbestos fiber  and the
       short- run  deadweight losses borne  by factors  of production
       (other than those  in the fiber market) associated with the
       supply of  all products in all downstream markets , as
       measured in the fiber market.
       Area 3 -  f]     ' ?n ~ ?°f +  (Qg ~ Qcap)  '  C^f - P°f)
                n-g                                    F

       where;  S* —  number of steps in the fiber demand function, and
                     other variables are as defined earlier.

    •  Area 4 (Exhibit A. 3-6):  Deadweight losses borne by factors
       of production associated with the supply of fiber,

               Area  4-0.5 • 
-------
                  gl
        Area 6 -  T   (qn+I± -  q\)  .
                 n-j

        where Sj_ - number of steps  in demand function of product i;

         and qJ£ - quantity associated with the  first vertical  step  greater
                   than q^-j_ if P^-£  is at the same  level  as  a horizontal  step;

       else, qJj_ - q^j_ — scenario quantity in market 'i'.

        «  Areai::ii7:i:i: (Exhibit 7.):   Short run losses borne by factors of
           production (other than those in the fiber market)
           associated with the supply of each non-banned market and
           transferred to owners of the rights to  purchase  or use
           fiber in the fiber  market.

           If ¥li - P0!, then:

               Area ?£ - (P°i  - AVC|_)  » qli

           else if P1! > V°it  then4

               Area 7j_ - (P1!  - AVC£)  • q1^

        *  Area8(Exhibit 7):   The short-run deadweight losses borne
           by factors of production (other than  those in the fiber
           market) associated  with  the supply of each non-banned
           asbestos product.

           If fl± - p°it then:

               Area 8t - (P°i  - AVCj.)  « (q°i - q1!) .

           else, if P1i > P0if  then:

               Area 8j_ - (Pl±  - AVCj.)  • (q°i - q1!)

        «  Area 5j_ + Area 6j_ - Gross  consumer surplus loss  experienced
           in the ith market,

        •  Area ?£ 4- Area 8^ •» Gross  short-run producer  surplus losses
           experienced by factors (other than those  in the  fiber
           market) associated  with  the production  of output good "i".

        2.3  Welfare AnalysisbyParty

        The eight groups affected by  regulation  of asbestos were identified  in
Section 2,2,  These eight groups are  made up of  the'parties shown below:
        As explained in Section 5,1,  in  such  cases  the  scenario  price  is  the
same as P^ the baseline price, but  the value  of  Pj  (which measures  the
increase in AVC due to higher fiber prices) is required for  the  computing
areas 7 and 8.

                                    A.3-25

-------
         (1)  Domestic Miners and Millers;
         (2)  Foreign Miners and Millers-;
         (3)  Importers of Bulk Fiber, Mixtures and Products;
         (4)  Domestic Primary Processors;
         (5)  Foreign Primary Processors;
         (6)  Domestic Purchasers; and
         (7)  Foreign Purchasers.
         (8)  U.S. Government.

    The producer surplus losses in the fiber market are distributed to the
domestic and foreign miners and millers in a ratio of 1:10.9.^  This ratio
can be changed interactively by the user, if desired (refer to User's Manual
for details).

    For all product markets that have inports, i.e., markets with a
consumption-«production ratio greater than one, the short-run producer surplus
losses, if any, are divided between domestic and foreign primary processors in
the ratio of domestically produced quantity to imported quantity.  Since
foreign producers of goods are assumed to be identical to domestic producers,
this is the only further allocation of producer surplus losses that is
required.

    The consumer surplus losses are all allocated to the domestic secondary
processors/consumers.   Foreign consumers do not experience any surplus losses
since they are assumed to have viable alternatives.  However, consumer surplus
gains in markets with exports, i.e., markets with a consumption- production
ratio less than one,  are divided between domestic and foreign consumers in the
ratio of domestically consumed quantity to the exported quantity.

    The distribution as described above gives the gross distribution of losses
and/or gains experienced by the participants in the market associated with
asbestos. However, for any form of regulation involving fiber phase-down, the
allocation of the rights to purchase or use fiber to the parties identified by
the user (refer to User's Manual) are added to the losses/gains identified
above.  This gives the actual distribution of losses/gains across all parties
after allocating these rights.

    The net world welfare loss is obtained by summing the losses/gains across
all parties in the world.  The net U.S. welfare loss, on the other hand, is
obtained by summing the losses/gains for domestic miners and millers;
importers of bulk fiber, mixtures, and products; domestic primary processors;
and domestic secondary processors/consumers.

    The discounted welfare analysis by markets and by party are available for
all discount rates specified by the user.  The User's Manual should be
consulted for specifying scenarios, discount rates, changing default settings,
and running the ARC model.
     •*  91.6% of asbestos fiber consumed in the U.S. is supplied by foreign
miners and millers.  United States Department of the Interior.  "Asbestos,"
reprint from the 1985 bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook, Washington, B.C.

                                   A.3-26

-------
    3.  ARCM ComputerCode

    This section provides a copy of the FORTRAN computer code for the ARCM.
The code is "commented" so that the purpose and operation of each section of
the program are clear.

    In order to simulate declining substitute prices and engineering controls
on aftennarket brakes, two standard ARCM subroutines are modified and an
additional subroutine is added.  This is done because the "standard" ARCM that
handles phase-down of fiber usage (and normal bans) is not capable of handling
the interactive "stock flow" issues that arise when aftermarket brakes are not
banned within four years of the OEM brakes,  (The baseline of the aftermarket
brakes is dependent on the number of OEM brakes produced with a four year lag
because the life, of a brake is assumed to be four years.)  These subroutines
have appropriate "comments" at the beginning of their listings.
                                    A.3-27

-------
ARCW.FOR                      Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00  AM                        Page 1
    1 c
 3 c
 4 c     ASBESTOS REGULATORY COST MODEL (ARCH) : MAIN PROSRAM
 5 c
 6 c     Version 6.31  : Hay 31, 1988.
 7 c
 8 c     Program written fay:
 9 e
10 c                           Vikrant yidge
11 c                           ICF Incorporated
12 e                           9300 Lee Highway
13 c                           Virginia 22031-1207
14 c
15 c                           (703) 934-3000
16 c
17 c     Accompanying Documentation:
18 c
19 c           1. User's Manual
20 c           2. Technical Support Document
21 e
22 c _
23 c                            "
24 c
25 Sineludes'stdsub'
26 * large
27 c
28 c
29       program   arcm
30 c
31 Sincluder'stdvar'
32 $include:'vars.cran'
33 c
34       character istr£6)*S5
35 c
36 c _
37 e
     e                     "•                                       — —
  38 c            this section prints the opening statement on the screen
  39 c _
  40 c                           ' -
  41 c
  42       call vinit
  43       call crt els
  44       call box~{0,3,15,63,vnonti>
  45       cell pcsa (1,17,'EPA/OTS Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model (ARCM)'c,
  46       -           vbold)
  47       call pes  <2,17,'                 Version 6.3' c)
  48 c
  49       jstr(1)*'This program models the economic impacts and costs of c
  50       istr{2)='asbesto$ fiber and product regulations.  It permits a'c
  51       istr£3>s'vanety of regulatory options to be implemented and'c
  52       f str(4)*'al lows flexibility m their implementation.  For'c
  53       istr(5)='assist8ttee in using this model please refer to the'c
  54       istr(6)='acco»panying user"s manual and related documentation.'c
  55 c
  56       do 1 i=1,6
  57        call  pcs (!+7,13,istr(i5>
  58 1     continue
  59 c
  60       call pes (20,20, 'Please respond to queries as indicated. 'c)
  61       call pcs (24, 25, 'Press eny key to eontinue'c)
  62       call setcur (vy,vx)
  63       ipse=key getcO
  64 c
  65       call eeop (5,0)
  66       call pes (9, 20, 'Refer any specific questions regarding'c)
  67       call pcs £10, 20, 'operation of this program to:'c>
  68       call pcs (12,30, 'Vikriw yidge'e)
  69       call pcs (13,30, 'ICF Incorporated' c)
  70       call pcs (14, 30, '9300 Lee Highway'c)
  71       call pes £15, 30, 'Virginia 22031-1207'c)
  72       call pes (17,30, '(703) 934-3000'c)
  73 c
  74       call pcs (24, 25, 'Press any key to eontinue'c)
  75       call seteur (vy,vx)
  76       ipse=key getcO
  77 c
  78       call eeop (5,0)
  79       call pcsa £12,25,'  Initializing... 'c.vrev)
  80       call setcur (vy,vx-1)

-------
ARCH.FOR                      Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM                       Page 2


   81 c
   82    ,   call sinit
   83       call asbin
   84 c
   85 c          			
   86 c
   87 c  this section sets up the product demand curves for all  markets,  transforms
   88 c  data from year of data (fbyd} to specified baseyear,  and calculates  quasi-
   89 c  rent perpetuities by including the reformulation cost perpetuities.
   90 c			
   91 c	'	
   92 c
   93       do 300 1=1,np
   94 c
   95         do 3001 js1,nsub(i>
   96             a={1«-fdisert)**ns(i,j)
   97             ba(1+fdisert)**na(i>
   98 c
   99             do 199 iy=1,ie
  100               if (ns(i,j) .ne.  r»{O)
  101      -          aps(iy,i,j>*8ps*{a/b>*(b-1)/(e-1>
  102 c
  103               if («ps(iy,i,j> .It. epp{1,i» then
  104                 aps(iy,i,j)=epp(1,f>
  105               endif
  106 199         continue
  107 c
  108 3001     continue
  109 c
  110         if (nsub(i) .eq. 1) then
  111           ps(1,i,1>=aps(1,i,1)

  113 c         m }'  "0mS ''
  114           do 4641 iy=2,ie
  115             if (multsub) then
  116               ps(iy,i,1)=aps(iy,i,1)
  117             else

  119             endif
  120 4641       continue
  121 c
  122         else
  123           insub=0
  124           do 201 j<=1,nsub{i>
  125             do 2011 k=1,insub
  126               if {aps{1,i,j}  .eq. ps(1,i,k» then
  127                 ms{i,k)=ns(i,k)+8ms(5,j)
  128                 go to 201
  129               endif
  130 2011         continue
  131 c
  132             insub^insub*!
  133             ps(1,i,insub)saps(1,f,j>
  134             ms(i,insub}=Bms(i,j)
  135 c
  136   ,.          do 4642 iy=2,ie
  137     '          if (multsub) then
  138                 ps(iy,f,insub)»aps(iy,f,j)
  139               else
  140                 ps(iy,t(insub}=ps(1,i,insub>
  141               endif
  142 4642         continue
  143 c
  144 201        continue
  145           nsubd')=insub
  146 c
  147           do 4630 iy=1,ie
  148             do 4631 j=1,nsub(i}-1
  149               do 46311  k=j+1,nsub(i)
  150 c
  151                 if (ps(iy,i,j)  .eq. ps(iy,i,k))  then
  152                   call  eeop (5,0)
  153                   call  setcur (12,0)
  154                   write (*,*) '     PRICES  OF SUBSTITUTES STIiL EQUAL'
  155                   write (*,*) '     reAR:',baseyr+iy-1,<  MARKET:'.Wp(i>
  156                   write (*,*) '     SUBSTITUTES:',j,k
  157                   write (*,*) '     PRICES:',ps(iy,i,j),ps(iy,i,k)
  158                   call  setcur (22,03
  159                   stop
  160                 endi f

-------
ARCH,FOR                      Tuesday Hay 31, 1988  12iOO AM                        Page  3
161 c
162
163
164
165
166
16?
168
169 c
170 46311
171 4631
172 4630
173
174 c
175 462
176
177
178 4621
179 c
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188 c
189 c
190
191 c
192
193
194
195
196 c
197
198 c
199
200 c
201
202 t
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211 357
212 c
213
214 c
215 300
216 c
217 c
218 c
219
220
221
222 c
223
224
225 c
226
227 c
228
229
230 4638
231 c
232
233
234
235 c
236
237
238 .
239
240

if (ps(1y,i,j) .gt. ps(iy,i,k}} go to 46311
ptemp=ps
if (iy .eq. 1} enrtempsms(i,j)
ps{iy,f,j}=ps(iy,i,k)
if (iy .eq. 1) msCi, j)=ms{i,k)
ps(iy,i(k>=ptemp
if (iy .eq. 1) =emtenp

continue
continue
eorrt i nue
endif

count=0
do 4621 j=1,nsub(i)
count=eount+ms( i , j )
continue

if (count .ne. 1.0} then
call eeop (5,0)
cstl setcur (12,0)
write (V(5x,2a,i2,a,f14.7}'> 'MARKET SHARE(S) OF '
'SUtSTllUtES in MARKET ',idp(i},' ADD TO ', count
caU'setcur (22,0}
stop
endif


iinpinfd"}*. false.

if (cprat(i) .eq. -1} then
cprat(i)=1
inpinf (i)=.true.
endif

if (cprat(i) .gt. 1) epq(1,i5=epq(1,i}*cprat(i)

bbpq(i)=epq(1,i>

fqeC 1 }=f qe( 1 J+epq( 1 , i >*a*rt< i )

idif=baseyr-ibyd
do 357 ij=1,idif
if (ij .It. 15} then
ig=ij
else
ig=15
endif
epq(1,i>=epq(1,i)*{1+grthrt(i,ig}>
continue

bepq(1,i}sepq(1,i}

continue



slope=fpe(1>/(selast*fqe{1 )}
rlnt=fpe(1}-stope*fqe(1}
if (selast .eq. 1) Mnt=0

bbfq»fqe(1)
fqe(1}=0

yr-1

do 4638 i=1, np
fqed >sfqe(1)+epqC1 , i }*ant( i }
continue

afpe=fpeC1)
fpe(1)Brint+slope*fqe<1)
if (fpe(1) .gt. afpe) go to 44444

do 468 i»1,np
aepp( i }*app(1 , i 5
epp( 1 , i )=(f pe( 1 > -af pe)*awt( i )+epp( 1 , i )
bepp(1,i)=epp(1,i>
do 4681 j«1,nsiA>(i)

-------
ARCH.FOR                      Tuesday May 31, 1988  12:00 AM                       Page 4
241
242
243 4681
244 c
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253 c
254
255
256
257 4682
258 c
259 c
260 c
261 c
262 c
263 c
264 c
265 4683
266
267
268 4688
269
270
271
272 c
273
274
275
276
277
278
279 c
280 468
281 c
282
283
284 c
285 c
286
287 e
288 c
289 c
290 c
291 c
292 c
293 c
294 1111
295 c
296
297 c
298
299
300 c
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308 4001
309 c
310
311
312 c
313
314
315
316 c
317 c
318 c
319
320 c
qs(1,l, j)sepq(1,i)*«s*epq(1 , i )+rcost( i }
avc{ i )=epp( 1 . i > - (qrarea{ j )/epq{ 1 , i »
elseif (ccostd) .gt. 0} then
avc( f )aepp( 1 , i }-ccost{ 1 5
else
go to 4683
endif

s«qr{ i }=1
do 4682 j=1,nsyb(f)
lnsub(i,j}=.trye.
continue



adjustment of steps in export -oriented markets.


if {epratci) .It. 1) then
do 4688 js1,nsub(i>
qsC1,i,j)=qs(1,i,j)*cprat
bfqe(1)=fqt(1>


yr*2



this section awdifies the product demand curves annually.



qeap(yr )=qcapm(yr >

do 400 1*1, np

i g j=baseyr- ibyd*yr- 1
if (Igj -it. 15) igj=15

do 4001 j=1,nsub{i)
qsCyr, i , j)*qs(yr-1 , i , |)*(1+grthrt{ i, igj»
if (j .eq. 1) then
qs1(yr,i , j)sqs
endif
continue

rq=qs1 .eq. 1) then
qrareaC i >=ccost( i }*rq+rcost( i 3
endif . .

**** engineering control cost calculation ****

if (rq .ne. 0) ecost{i)=+vecost(i)*rq)/rq

-------
ARCH.FOR                      Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                       Page 5


  321         if (exmpt(idp(i))) then
  322           if (qeap(yr) .eq. 0) then
  323             qeapm(yr)=qcapm(yr)+(8wt(i)*qs1{yr,i,nsub(i)»
  324           else
  325            qcaptyr)=qcap(yr)-(aHt(i)*qs1{yr.i.nsub(i))>
  326 c
  327            if (qcap{yr) .It. 0) then
  328              coll eeop (5,0)
  329              call seteur (12,0)•
  330              write t*,'{10x,a,i4//)') 'MODIFIED  FIBER  CAP < 0  IN  '//
  331      -                                'YEAR  ',baseyr+yr-1
  332              write (*,'(2(10x»i,f13.7/))') 'INPUT  CAP    «  ',qeapfn(yr),
  333      -                                    'MODIFIED CAP =  <,qeap(yr>
  334              write (*,'(/10x,a,i2)') 'ERROR  AT EXEMPTED PRODUCT #'
  335      -                               idp{i)
  336              call setcur (22,0)
  337              stop
  338            endif
  339 e
  340           endif
  341         endif
  342 400   continue
  343 c
  344       call iddc (0)
  345       call tddc (0)
  346       call eqpq
  347       if (afpe .ge. fpe(yr» go to  2222
  348 c
  349 44444 iyr»yr+baseyr-1
  350       call eeop (5,0)
  351       call setcur (12,0)
  352       write (*,'(1Sx,a//)'> 'BASELINE FIBER  PRICE  >  '//
  353      -                      'DATA YEAR FIBER PRICE'
  354       Hrite (*,'{10x,a,i4,a,f14.7/)') 'Baseline  fiber  price for ',
  355      •                                iyr,'  = ',fpe(yr)
  356       write (*,'(10x,a,i4,a,f14.7)')  'Data year  C'.ibyd,
  357                                      *} fiber price  = ',afpe
  358       call setcur <22,0)
  359       stop
  360 c
  361 c
  362 2222   bfpe(yr)=fpe(yr>
  363       bfqe(yr)=fqe(yr)
  364       do 210  i=1,np
  365         beppCyr,j>-epp(yr,i)
  366         bepq(yrri)=epq(yr,t)
  367 c
  368 c setting  price of  exports  equal to baseline price.
  369 c
  370         if (cprat(i)  .It.  1)  then
  371            ps(yr,i,nsyb{i))=bepp{yr,i)
  372         endif
  373 c
  374 210    continue
  375 c
  376 c adjustment  of  fiber demand curve to reflect export
  377 c markets'  last  step adjustment.
  378 c
  379
            380        if  ((enf  .or. Ibf)  .and.
  381       -     (((option .eq.  1)  .and,(ibchk .gt.  yr))  .or.
  382      -     ((option  .eq. 2)  .and. (ibehk .gt.  yr) .and.
  383      -      (qcap(yr)  .gt. 0» .or.
  384      -     ((option  .eq. 3)  .and. (qcap(yr) .gt. 0))))  then
  385         call enlbl
 .386         call  idde (1)
  387       endi f
  388 c
  389       call tddc  (1)
  390        if (option  .eq. 3) go to 2339
  391        call bancsqr
  392        call eqpq
  393  c
  394        if (option  .eq. 1) then
  395          if (fpe(yf> .eq. 0) fpe(yr)=rim
  396         call aronban
  397         so to  8888
  398        endif
  399  c
  400  2339  capr=.false.

-------
ARCH.FOR                      Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 W                        Page 6
401
402
403
404 c
405 8888
406
407 c
408
409
410
411 c
4t2
413
414
415
416
417
418
419 c
420
421
call fpc1234
call fppfpq
ff (exf) call exempt

yr*yr+1
if {.not.Cyr .gt. ie» go to 1111

call benout
call asbout
call pesa {15,38,' completed 'c,vrev)

if (fr«we(3) .rw. 'Ipt1'> then
call pcss <1S,15,'T0 PR1MT OUTPUT FILE '//
fname{3X1:teneh(fnane(3m//'
call pcsa {19,15, " 'ff ARC« '//fnane(3>(1:
'"AT THE OOS PI?(»IPT.'c,\*told}
endff
call seteur (22,0).

stop
end













ENTER'C.vbold)
lencb(fname<3»)//







-------
AREAS678.FOR                  Tuesday May 31,  1988   12:00 AM                        Page 1
    1 c.	
    2 c         ™	
    3 e
    4 c     ARCH :  CALCULATION OF AREAS 5,  6,  7 AND 8
    5 c
    6 c     Version 6.31  ;  May 31, 1988,
    7 c
    8 c     Program written by:
    9 c
   10 c        Vikram Widge,  !CF  Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c         	
   14 c'	'	
   15 c
   16 $large
   17 c
   18 c               	
   19 c~~	;	
   20 c               This  subroutine calculates AREAS 5, 6, 7, and 8.
   21 c
   22 c—	
   23 c
   24       subroutine 8rea5678 (i)
   25 c
   26 $inelude;'vars.cim'
   27 c
   28 c
   29       area5(yr,i}= .eq.  0)  .or.  (fpq(yr,i) .eq. 0)) then
   42         0rea7(yr,i}*0
   43         do 90  j«1,nsubO>
   44           if  <.not.(lnsubCi,j»>  90 to 90
   45           areaSCyr,i)=area8(yr,i >*di f*qs(yr,i,j >
   46           areafipCyr,i}=»rea8p{yr,i}+dif*qs(yr,f,j)*(1/fdisert-1)
   47           lnsubCi,j>».false,
   48 90       continue
   49         swqr(i)eQ
   50         return
   51       endff  '
   52 c
   S3       do 100  j»1,nsub(i)
   54         if (.not.dnsubci,j)» return
   55         if =area7(yr,i>*dif*(fpq{yr,i)-qs1(yr,i,j-1»
   63           endi f
   64           area8(yr,i >*aren8(yr,i)+dif*(qs1*area8p(yr,1>+dt f*qs(yr,i,j}*<1/fdi scrt* 1)
   68           lnsub{i,j)=.false.
   69           if (j  .eq. 1) swqr(i)=0
   70         endff
   71  100    continue
   72 c
   73       return
   74       end

-------
ARQMBAN.FOR                   Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AH                       Page 1
1 c
2 c 	
3 c
4 c
5 c
6 c
7 c
8 c
9 c
10 c
11 c
12 c
13 c
ARCH : CALCULATION OF AREAS UNDER SANS ONLY
Version 6.31 ; May 31, 1988.
Program written by:
Vfkraw Wldge, ICF incorporated, 9300 Lee Bwy., VA 22031-1207
(703) 934-3000
14 c 	 " 	 "~ 	 	 	
15 c
16 $ targe
17 c
18 c
19 c
20 c
21 c
22 c
23 c 	
24 c
25
26 t
This subroutine calculates the CS sains
and PS tosses when only bans take place.
subroutine aronban
   27 $fnclode:'vars.cim'
   28 c
   29 c
   30       pedif*bfpe{yr)-fpe{yr)
   31       area2(yr)*pedff*fqe(yr)
   32       8re84
   36 230   continue
   37       return
   38       end

-------
ASBIN.K3R                     Tuesday Hay 31, 1988  12:00 AH                       Page  1
    1 c	
    2 c	
    3 c
    4 c     ARCM : USER AND DATA INPUT
    5 c
    6 c     Version 6.31 : Hay 31, 1988.
    7 c
    8 c     Program written by;
    9 c
   10 c        Vikrant Widge, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee H«y.,  VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c	
   14 c            '	~	
   15 c
   16 $include:'stdsub'
   17 Slarge
   18 c
   19 e__	
   20 c~~	
   21 c             This subroutine accepts data from user interactively
   22 c             and reads data from input files.
   23 e	_	
   24 c              :                                                '	~
   25 c
   26 c
   27       subroutine asbin
   28 c
   29 $include:'stdvar'
   30 $include:'vars.cmn'
   31 e
   32 c
   33       real      taps{25,i«,ks),sub dec(ks)
   34 c
   35       integer   pid(10),beyr
   36 c
   37       character res,dstr1*65,dstr2*52,cistr4*40,estr2*60,
   38      -          estr3*60,fstr1*60,fstr2*53,dstr5*40,dstr9*65,
   39      -          dstr7*65,dstr8*54,dstrO*65,fstr3*60,nye*4,nzc*4,
   40      -          fstr4*53,prm1*60,pnn2*65,cc(c*10
   41 e
   42       logical   ccap
   43 c
   44 c	
   45 c	
   46 c              this  section obtains the inputs from the  operator.
   47 c	
   48 c       "                            '    ~     '	
   49 c
   50       call eeop (5,0)
   51       call pcs (7,10,'Three regulatory scenarios are supported '//
   52      -               'by this program'c)
   53       call pcs (10,25,'1. BAN OF PRODUCTS ONLY'c)
   54       call pcs (12,25,'2. BAN OF PRODUCTS AND AN 'c)
   55       call pcs (13,25,'     ANNUAL FliER CAP'c)
   56       call pcs (15,25,'3. ANNUAL FIBER CAP ONLY'c)
   57 5550   call pcs {19,22,'Enter # of option desired HH'c)
   58       optionsjchk (1,3)
   59       if (option  .eq. -99) BO to 5550
   60 c
   61       call eeop (5,0}
   62       call pesa (8,28,' SIMULATION PERIOD 'c.vrev)
   63 5551   call pes (12,20,'Please enter BASE year MM'c)
   64       baseyrsichk (-99,-99)
   65       If (baseyr  .eq. -99) go to 5551
   66
             67 5552  call  pcs (14,20,'Please enter END year   MM'c)
   68       endyr=iehk  (baseyr-t-1,-99)
   69       if (endyr .eq.  -99) go to 5552
   70       call eeop (22,0)
   71 c
   72 c     if (endyr .le.  baseyr) then
   73 C       call  pcsa (22,15,' EM5 YEAR SHOULD SE GREATER THAN BASE YEAR  'i
   74 c    -            vrev)
   75 c       go to 5551
   76 c     endif
   77 c
   78.       ie=endyr-baseyr+1
   79       if ((endyr-baseyr) .gt, ny-1) then
   80         write 
-------
ASBIW.FOR
                              Tuesday May 31,  1988   12:00 AN
Page 2
81
82
83
84
85 c
86
87
88 c
89 4780
90
91
92 c
93
94
95
96 46921
97 4692
98 c
99 4780!
100
101
102
103 c
104
105
106
107
108 22
109 c
110
111
112
113
114
115 c
116
117
118
119 c
120
121
122
123 9571
124 957
125 c
126
127
128 c
129
130
131
132 c
133
134
135 55
136 44
13733
138
139 c
140 4922
141 c
142
143
144 4923
145
146
147

149
150
151
152 c
153 416
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
calt pcsa {22,15,' THIS P8QORAH SUPPORTS A SPAN OF '//nyc(1:2>//
' YEARS 'c,vrev)
go to 5551
endif

ccap=. false.
fnaroe(1)='capenn.dat'

if {{option .eq. 1) .or, (option .eq. 2)) then
call eeop {5,0}
calt pcsi (8,28,' PRODUCT 8ftN SCHEDULE 'e.vrev)

do 4692 iyy=1,ny
do 46921 fxy*1,ip
isfoan(tyy,ixy)!sO
continue
continue

calt pcs {12, 5, 'Enter the number of years in '//
'which bans will take place MM'e}
call yr chk (byrs,0,22)
call eeop {9,0}

do 22 n*1,byrs
write (nye,'{i2)') n
call pcs (12,15, 'Enter ban year #'//nyc{1:2>//' NH'c)
call yr_chk (byear{n>,1,22>
continue

ibchk*99
call eeop (9,0)
do 33 n=1,byrs
beyr»byear(n}-baseyr+1
call nprd_chk 
if (iban .eq. 99} then
ibchk=beyr
byrs=n

do 957 lHPl,ip
do 9571 ll»beyr,ie
isban{ll,im)=1
continue
continue

90 to 4922
endif

call eeop {9,0)
do 44 nn*1,iban
call tsca (nn,nban,'b',12)

do 55 ll-i»yr,ie
isban(ll,nban}=1
continue
continue
continue
endif

if (option .eq. 1) 90 to 9966

call eeop (5,0)
call pcsa {8,28,' F1SER CAP SCHEDULE 'c,vrev}
cell pcs (12, 5, 'Please enter fiber end amount {tons} MM'c)
endamt=rchk {OdO,-99dO}
if (endamt .eq. -99.} go to 4923

148 415 call pcs (14, 5, 'What year will phase down terminate? HM'c)
call yr chk 
-------
ASBIN.FOR                     Tuesday May. 3t, 1988  12:00 AH                       Page 3
161
162
163
164 c
165 418
166
167
168 66
169 c
170 4792
171 c
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193 45821
194 4582
195 c
196 4583
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204 c
205
206
207
208
209
210 c
211
212
213

215
216
217
218

220
221
222
223 836
224 c
225
•226
227

229
230
231
232

234
235
236
237
238
239
240 c
call cchk (fneme(D)
call eeop (22,0)
go to 416

read (1,*> (qcapmd ),i=2,is-1)
do 66 nsis.ie
qcapm(n)=endamt
continue

if (option .ne. 2) go to 4583

do 4582 i=2,ie
if (qcapmO") .ne. 0) go to 4582
ieby=i+baseyr-1
do 45821 n*1,byrs
if (ieby .gt. byear(n)} go to 45821
call eeop (5,0)
call pcsa (8,3,' YOU HAVE SPECIFIED PRODUCT BAMS TOR '//
'YEAR(S) AFTiR FIBER CAP GOES TO ZERO 'C,vrev>
write (nye,'(i4)') ieby
call pcs (10, 10, 'Fiber cap goes to zero in '//nyc//' 'c>
call pcs (12,10, 'One or more products have been banned '//
'in the following years:'c)
call setcur (14,0)
write (*,'(t15,4<5(i4,3x)/))') (byeartj), j=1,byrs)
call pcsa (20,8,' YOU WILL BE PROMPTED FOR BAN AND '//
'FIBER CAP SCHEDULES AGAIN 'C.vrev)
close (1)
call pcs {24,25, 'Press any key to eontinue'c)
call seteur (vy,vx)
ipseskey peteO
go to 47SB
continue
continue

cstr2=' 'i
estr3*< Year Fiber Cap Amount (tons)'e
call eeop (5,0)
call pcsa (5,28,' FIBER CAP SCHEDULE 'e,vrev)
call pcs (6,13,cstr2>
call pcs (8,13,estr3)
call pcs (9,13,cstr2)
call setcur (11,0)

if (eendyr .eq. endyr) then
ixeie
else
i x=eendyr -baseyr
endif

do 836 i=2,ix
jssQ+l

214 if (i .gt. 11) then
call more
j=20
endif

219 write (nyc,'{i4)') baseyr+i-1
write (eqc,'(f10,2)'} qcapm(i)
call pcs (j, 22, nyc//' 'c)
call pcs 
write (cqc,'(f10.2)') endamt
call pcs (j,vx-f-13,cqc//( 'c)
endif


-------
ASBIN.FOR                     Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                       Page 4


  241       if (ix .gt. 9} ix=1Q
  242       call pcs (ix+11,13,cstr2)
  243       call pes (ix+13,10,'Do you want  to change the annual  '//
  244      -                   'fiber caps?  (Y/H) MM'c)
  245       call yncbk (*4775,*777B)
  246 c
  247 4775  ccap=.true.
  248       go to 4922
  249 c
  250 4777  do 7777 kk=baseyr+1,eendyr-1
  251         write 
  256 	    if (qeapmCU)  .eq. -99.) so to 4778
  257 7777  continue
  258 c
  259       do 77771 kk*eendyr,endyr
  260         Il*kk-faaseyr+1
  261 	    qcapm(U)=efidamt
  262 77771 continue
  263       go to 4792
  264 c
  265 7778  prm1«'		        |   »e
  266       prro2='Party             '            Tormage'c'
  267       rewind 1
  268       read (1,*)
  269       read (1,*} {palocei),i=l,9)
  270 c
  271 9879  call eeop <4,0)
  272       call pcsa {4,28,'  PERMIT ALLOCATION 'c,vrev>
  273       call pcs (5,1Q,prm1)
  274       call pcs (7,10,prm2)
  275       call pcs <8,1Q,prm1)
  276 c
  277       do 6890 i*1,9
  278         j=i+9
  279         write (nyc,'(i2)') i
  280         call pcs //'  'c>
  281         write //', '//permCi)//'  'e)
  287       call pcs 
  289 c
  290       call pcs (23,10,'Do you want  to  change any of these '//
  291      -                'allocations  (Y/N> MM'c)
  292       call ynchk <*9876,*9877)
  293 c
  294 9876  call eeop (23,0)
  295       call pcs (23,10,'Enter  ID # of party with new allocation  '//
  296      -               '{0 to end) MM'c)
  297       isichk (0,9)
  298 c
  299       if (i .eq. -99)  call pty chk  (0,*9876)
  300       if {I .eq. 0) 90 to 9877"
  301 c
  302 98761 call pcs (23,10,'Enter  new allocation for '//
  303      -     perm{i)(1:lench(perm(i)3)//'  MM'c)
  304       paloc(i)=rchk (OdO,-99dO)
  305       if (paloe(i)  ,eq.  -99.) go to  98761
  306
            307       write  (nyc,'(i2)')  i
  308       cell pcs (i+9,13,nye(1:2)//'.  '//pena(i)//'  »c)
  309       write (cqc,'(f10.2)') paloc(i)
  310       call pcs (vy,vx+6,cqc//' 'c)
  311       go to 9876
  312 c
  313 9877  call eeop (23,0)
  314 2469  call pcs (23,10,'Enter  # of parties to whom permits are to  '//
  315      -                'be allocated  MM'c)
  316       ires=ichk (1,9)
  317       call eeop (24,0)
  318 c
  319       if (ires .eq. -99) call pty_chk  (1,*2469)
  320 c

-------
ASBIH.FOR                     Tuesday May 31,  1988  12sOO AM                        Page 5


  321       call eeop (23,0)
  322       do 9965 1=1,10
  323         pflag(i)=0
  324 9965  continue
  325 c
  326       do 99651 ii=1,ires
  327         write (nye,'(i1)')  ii
  328 2472    call pcs (23,10,'Please enter  ID of  party #'//nyc(1:1)//' MK'c)
  329         pid(ii)*ichk (1,10)
  330         call eeop (24,0)
  331 c
  332         if (pid(ii)  .eq. -99)  call  pty chk (0,*2472)
  333         if C(pid(fi) .eq. 10)  .and.  (ires .ne.  1})
  334      -     call pty  chk (2,*2469)
  335 c                 ~
  336         pflag(pid(ii))*1
  337 99651 continue
  338 c
  339 9966  if ({option .eq. 1) .and.  (iban  .It. ip))  go to 8693
  340 c
  341  -     exf=.false.
  342       call eeop (4,0)
  343       call peso (8,28,' PRODUCT  EXEMPTIONS 'e.vrev)
  344       call pcs (12,5,'Do tny products  get exempted from  '//
  345      -               'regulation?  (Y/N)  HM'e)
  346       call ynehk (*8692,*8693)
  347 c
  348 8692  exf=.true.
  349       call pcs (14,5,'Please enter  the number  of products '//
  350      -               'to be  exempted MH'c)
  351       ixmpt=ichk (0,ip}
  352       call eeop (16,0)
  353 c
  354       if (ixjipt .eq. ip) then
  355         call pcsa (18,20,'    YOU HAVE EXEMPTED  ALL PRODUCTS 'c.vrev)
  356         call pcsa (19,20,'  IS TH6R6  ANY  POINT  IN CARRYING ON ?lI 'C,
  357      -                  vbold)
  358         call setcur  (23,0}
  359         stop
  360       endif
  361 c
  362       if ((ixnpt .It.  1) .or.  (ixnpt .gt. {ip-1>5> then
  363         write (nyc,'Ci2>'>  ip
  364         cell pcsa (22,10,' NUMBER OF PRODUCTS  SHOULD BE  GREATER '//
  365      -                   'THAN  1 OR  LISS THAN  '//nyc(1t2>//' 'c,vrev>
  366         90 to 8692
  367       endif
  368 c
  369       do 86921 nn=1,ixmpt
  370         Nrite (nyc,'(i2)'> nn
  371         call tsca (nn»ires,'x',16)
  372         exmpt (ires)=.true.
  373 86921 continue
  374 c
  375 8693  If ((option .eq. 1> .end.  (iban  .eq. ip»  go to 8695
  376 e
  377       enf*.false.
  378       lbf=.false.
  379 e
  380       call eeop (4,0)
  381       call pcsa (8,28,'  6«G!NEER1NG  CONTROLS 'e,vrev)
  382       call pcs (12,5,'Do any products  have engineering controls '//
  383      -               'put on them?  (Y/H) MM'c)
  384       call ynchk (*8682,*8684)
  385 c
 386 8682  do 5692 iyy=1,ny
  387         do 56921 ixy~1,ip
  388           enctKiyy, ixy)=. false.
  389 56921   continue
  390 5692  continue
  391 c
  392       enf=.true.
  393 c
  394       call pcs (14,5,'Enter  the  number of years  in which '//
  395      •  'engineering'c)
  396       call pcs (15,5,'controls will  be put on products IW'c)
  397       call yr chk (ienyrs,0,16)
  398       call eeop (9,0)
  399 c
  400       do 522 n=1,ienyrs

-------
ASBIN.FOR
                              Tuesday May 31, 1988  12:00 AM
Page 6
401
402
403
404
405 522
406 c
407
408
409
410
411
412 c
413
414
415
416 c
417
418
419
420 59571
421 5957
422 c
423
424
425 c
426
427
428
429
430
431 555
432 544
433 533
434 c
435 c
436 8684
437
438
439
440
441 c
442 8688
443
444
445 66921
446 6692
447 c
448
449 c
450
451
452
453
454
455 c
456
457
458
459
460 622
461 c
462
463
464
465
466
467 c
468
469
470
471 c
472
473
474
475 69571
476 6957
477 c
478
479
480 c
Mrite (nyc,'(i2)') n
call pcs (12,15, 'Enter CONTROL year #'//nyc(1:2)//' HM'c)
call eeop (14,0)
call yr_chk (enyr(n>,1,14)
continue ~

ienehk*99
celt eeop (9,0)
do 533 n=1,ienyrs
i enyr=enyr(n) -baseyr+1
call nprd_chk (ien,14,'e',enyr(n))

tf (ien .eq. 99) then
ienehk=ienyr
i eny rs— n

do 5957 lm=1,ip
do 59571 ll=ienyr,ie
enctUU,la)*.true.
continue
continue

go to 8684
endif

cell eeop (9,0)
do 544 nn»1,ien
call tsca (nn.nen. 'e',12)
do 555 ll=ienyr,ie
enct 1 ( U ,nen)=. true.
continue
continue
continue *


call eeop (4,0)
call pcse (8,28,' PRODUCT LABELING 'c.vrev)
call pcs (12, 5, 'Do any products have labels '//
'put on them? (Y/N) We)
call ynchk (*8688,*8695)

do 6692 iyy-1,ny
do 66921 ixy»1,ip
label(tyy,ixy>=. false.
continue
continue

lbf=.true.

call pcs (14, 5, 'Inter the number of years in which'//
' labeling'e)
call pcs (15, 5, 'retirements will be introduced We)
call yr_chk (ilyrs,0,16)
call eeop (9,0)

do 622 n»1,Uyrs
write (nyc,'(i2)') n
call pes (12,15, 'Enter LABEL year #'//nyc(1:2)//< MM'c)
call yr_chk (lyr(n),1,14)
continue ~

i lchk=99
call eeop (9,0)
do 633 n»1,ilyrs
i lyr=lyr(n) -baseyr+1
call nprd_chk (ilbl,14,'l',lyr(n))

if (ilbl .eq. 99) then
i lchk*i lyr
i lyrssn

do 6957 l»=1,ip
do 69571 ll=flyrtie
label(ll,lm)=.true.
continue
continue

go to 8695'
endif


-------
ASBIN.FOR
                              Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM
Page ?
481
482
483
484
485
486 655
487 644
488 633
489 c
490 8695
491
492
493
494
495 c
496 8685
497
498 c
499 8686
500
501 c
502 8694
503
504 86941
505
506
507
508 c
509
510
511
512
513
514 c
515
516
517
518
519
520 c
521
522
523 8623
524
525
526
527 c
528
529
530
531
532 86922
533 c
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541 c
542
543
544 c
545 8629
546
547 c
548
549
550
551
552 86291
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
call eeop (9,0)
do 644 nn=1,ilbi
call tsca (nn,nl,'l',12)
do 655 lt=ilyr,ie
label(ll,nl)=.true.
continue
continue
continue

call eeop (4,0)
call pcsa (8,28,' SUBSTITUTE PRICES 'c.vrev)
call pcs {12,5, 'Should different substitute prices be used'e)
call pcs {13,5, 'for each year of the simulation? (Y/N) MK'c)
call ynchfc (*8685,*8686)

muUsub=.true.
go to 8694

multsub=. false.
go to 8694

call eeop (4,0)
call pcsa (8,28,' DISCOUNT RATES 'c.vrev)
call pcs (12, 5, 'Please enter number of discount rates '//
'desired (upto 10) MM'e)
nodrt»ichk (1,10)
call eeop (14,0)

if (nodrt .eq. -99) then
call pcsa (22,10,' NUHiER OF DISCOUNT RATES SHOULD BE '//
'SPECIFIED BETWEEN 1 AND 10 'c.vrev)
80 to 86941
endif

dstr1='Please enter the discount rate(s) desired in decimal 'c
dstr8*' equivalent. For example, enter 5% as 0.05 or ,05'c
dstr9s' YOU HAVE ENTERED AN UNACCEPTABLE DISCOUNT RATE'C
call pcs {16,5,dstr1)
call pes (17,5,dstr8)

do 86922 1*1, nodrt
write (nyc,'(i2)') i
call pcs(19,5, 'Please enter discount rate #'//
nyc(1;lench(nyc))//' MM'c)
discrt(s)=rchk (OdO,-99dO)
call eeop (18,0)

if (discrt(i) .eq. -99.) then
call pcsa (24,13,dstr9,vrev)
go to 8623
endif
continue

dstr7« '/
'c
dstrO= Entity Value to be */
used' e
dstr4= 1. Percentage of foreign fiber supply'e
dstr5= 2. Elasticity of fiber supply'e
dstr9= YOU HAVE 6HTEREO AM UNACCEPTABLE PERCENTAGE' C

f sup=91 .60
selast=1 .46

call eeop (4,0)
call pcsa (8,30,' MISCELLANEOUS 'c.vrev)

call eeop (9,0)
call pcs (10,8,dstr7)
call pcs (12,8,dstrO)
call pcs (13,8,dstr7)
call pcs (15,8,dstr4>
write (cqc,'(f6.2)') fsup
call pcs (15,vx+9,cqc(1:6)//'X'c)
call pcs (16,8,dstr5)
write (cqc,'(f6.2)') selast
call pcs (16,vx+17,cqc(1:6)//' 'c)
call pcs (17,8,dstr7)
call eeop (18,0)
call pcs(19,8,'Do you want to change any of the above (Y/N} MM'c)

-------
AS8IN.FOR                     Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00  AM                       Page 8
561
562 c
563 86Z2
564
565
566 c
567
568
569
570
571
572 c
573
574 e
575 8627
576
577 c
578 8624
579
580
581
582 86241
583
584
585 c
586
587
588
589
590 c
591
592
593 e
594 8625
595 86251
596
597
598
599
600 c
601
602
603
604
605
606 c
607
608 c
609 7783
610 c
611
612
613
614 7784
615
616
617 c
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627 c
628
629
630
631
632 c
633
634
635 6661
636
637
638
639 c
640
call ynchk (*8622,*8627)

cat I pcs (21, 8, 'Please enter ID of item to be changed MM'c)
ires=iehk (1,25
call eeop (22,0)

if (Ires .eq. -99) then
call pcsa (24,15, ' YOU HAVE ENTERED AN UNACCEPTABLE OPTION 'c,
vrev)
go to 8622
endif

go to (8624,8625) ires

fsup=fsup/100.
go to 7783

call eeop (19,0)
dstr1=' Please enter the new percentage of foreign supply in'c
dstr2«'deciiBal equivalent, i.e., enter 80% as 0.8 or ,8 IW'c
call pcs (19,8»dstr1)
call pcs (20,8,dstr2)
fsup=rehk (OdO,1dO)
call eeop (21,0)

if (fsup .eq. -99.) then
call pcsa (24,17,dstr9,vrev5
go to 86241
endif

fsup*fsup*100.
go to 86291

call eeop (19,0)
call pcs (19, 8, 'Please enter the new elasticity of '//
'supply MM'c)
selast*rchk C-99dO,-99dO)
call eeop (20,0)
if (selast .eq. -99.) §o to 8625

if (selast .It. 1) then
call pCSS (24, 15,' AN ELASTICITY OF LESS THAN '//
'OHi IS UNACCEPTABLE 
-------
ASB1M.FOR                     Tuesday Hay 31, 1988  12:00 AM                        Page 9
641
642
643
644
645 c
646

648
649
650
651 e
652
653
654
655
656
65? c
658 6664
659
660 c
661
662
663
664
665 c
666
667
668
669 c
670 7781
671
672 c
673 7782
674 c
675 7799
676
677 c
678 7791
679
680 c
681 7792
682 c
683 6660
684
685 1924
686
687 c
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696 c
697 1926
698 1927
699
700
701
702
703
704 c
705
-706
707
708
709
710 c
711 1929
712 2927
713
714
715
716
717
718 c
719
720
open (2,iostatsierr,file=fname{2),status='old')
if (ierr .l«. 0} go to 6662
call file_chk (0,2)
go to 6661


647 6662 call pcs (15,5,fstr3)
call pcs (16,5,fstr4)
call cchk (fnarne(4)}
call eeop {17,0}

ierr*Q
open {4,iostatsjerr,fUe=fname(4),statos='old')
if Cferr .le. 0) go to 6664
call file chk (0,4)
go to 6661

call eeop (4,0)
call pcsa (8,28,' OUTPUT OPTIONS 'c,vrev>

If {option .eq. 1} then
eresf=0
80 to 7799
endif

call pcs (12,5, 'Would you like e printout of the '//
'consistency check (Y/K) MH'c)
call ynchk (*7781,*7782)

eresf=1
go to 7799

cresfaQ

call pcs (14,5, 'Would you like a detailed printout (Y/N) MH'c)
call ynchk (*7791 ,*7792)

dprf*1
go to 6660

dprf=0

call pcs (16,5, 'Would you like the simulation output'c)
call pcs (17,5, 'to be routed to the printer or diskt'e)
call pcs (19,5, 'Please enter P or 0 HM'c}
call cchk (res)

if ({res .eq. 'P') .or, (res .eq. 
call eeop (14,0)

ierr=0
open (8,f i le=fname(8) , iostat=ierr,status='neH' )

-------
ASBIH.FOR                     Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM                       Page 10


  721       if (ierr .le. 0) go to 2929
  722       call file ehk (1,8)
  723       call ynchi" (*2929,*2927)
  724 c
  725 2929  call eeop £9,0)
  726 3927  call pcs {12,5,'Please enter none  of file where ALTERNATIVE '//
  727      -               Mndices'c)
  728       call pcs (13,5,'should be stored.  (include path if '//
  729      -               'necessary,) HM'e)
  730       call cchk {fname(9»
  731       call eeop (14,0>
  732 c
  733       ierr»0
  734       open (9,file*fname(9)riostats1err,status=*rtew')
  735       if tierr .le. 0) go to 3929
  736       call file chk (1,9)
  737       call ynchk" <*3929,*3927>
  738 e
  739 3929  call eeop (9,0)
  740 4927  call pcs (12,5,'Please enter name  of file where cost-benefit '//
  741      -               'TAlliS'"c)
  742       call pcs (13,5,'DATA should be stored. (Include path if '//
  743      -               'necessary,) We)
  744       call cchk (fr*oe(6»
  745       call eeop (14,0)
  746 c
  747       ierr=0
  748       open (6,fHe=ffiaiae(6),iostBt=ierr,st8tus='new',forni='unfonnatted')
  749       if (ierr .le. 0) go to 4929
  750       call file chk Cl,6>
  751       call ynchlc (*4929,*4927)
  752 c
  753 4929  call eeop (4,0)
  754       call pcsa (12,25,' Processing... 'c,vrev)
  755       call setcur (vy,vx-1)
  756 c
  757 c	
  758 c              '                                            ~    '	
  759 c                   this section reads the input data files
  760 c	
  761 c
  762 c
  763       read <2,*) fpe{1),fdisert,ibyd
  764 c
  765       i«1
  766 2125  read {2,'(i2,2x,a24)',end=2130) idp(i),desc(i)
  767       read (2,*) idp(i)fairt,reost{i),epp(1,i),epq(1,i),
  768      -           na(i),eprat(i),feeost idp(i),(grthrt(i,k),k*1,1S)
  780         read (2,*)
  781       else
  782         read (2,*)
  783         read (2,*)
  784         read (2,*) idp(i),CgrthrtCi,k),k=1,15)
  785       end if
  786 e
  787       read (4,*) idpCi),nsub(i>,(taps£1,i,j),ns(i,j),
  788      -                           affls(i,j),j=1,risub(i))
  789       read (4,*) idp£i),(sub decCj),j=1,nsi4>(i))
  790 c
  791       if (multsub) then
  792         do 2124 j=1,nsub(i)
  793           sps(1,i,j>"taps(1,i,j)*(1+sub  dee(j»**(baseyr-ibyd)
  794           do 21241 iy=2,ie
  795             sps{iy,i,j)=eps(iy-1,i,j)*(1+sub dec(j))
  796 21241      continue
  797 2124    continue
  798       else
  799         do 2123 j=1,nsub(i)
  800           do 21231 iy=1,ie

-------
ASBIN.FOR                     Tuesday May 31,  1988  12sOO AH                       Psge 11


  fSl -,--,       aps(iy,i,j)=taps(1,i,j>
  802 21231     continue
  803 2123    continue
  804       endif
  805 c
  806       do 2126 iks1,ny
  807         If (Cisbanm.idptm .eq.  1}  .and.  {.not.
  808      -     swban(fk,f>»1
  809 2126  cwitinue
  810       i*i+1
  811       go to 2125
  812 c
  813 2130  npM-1
  814 c
  815       close (1)
  816       close (2)
  817       close {4}
  818 c
  819       return
  820       end

-------
ASBQUT.FOR                    Tuesday May SI, 1988  12sOO AM                        Page 1
    \ c	
    2 £""°'"="~	
    3 c
    4 C     ARCH : OUTPUT SUBROUTINE
    5 c
    6 c     Version 6.31 : Kay 31, 1988,
    7 c
    8 c     Program written by:
    9 c
   10 c        Vikram Widge, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c	
   14 c	—
   15 c
   16 $include;'stdsub'
   17 Slarge
   18 c
   19 c,	..	                      	
   20 c~            :           '	*	
   21 c            This subroutine writes the output to a file or printer
   22 c	
   23 c	'	~"	
   24 c
   25       subroutine asbout
   26 c
   27 Sincludei'stdvar'
   28 Sincludes'vars.cran'
   29 c
   30       real         psl(1Q>,csl(10>,a1t(ny>,a3t(ny>,v(10>,r(10>
   31 c
   32       character    opt*4Q,bopt*16,bans2*1QO,bans1*125,temp*4,
   33      -             temp1*125,ten|32*100   .
   34 c
   35       character*80 bstr1,bstr2,pstr1,fstr1»es1,es2,cs3,pQ,p1,p2
   36 c
   37 c
   38       if (option .eq.  1)  then
   39         opta'Product ban  only'
   40       elseif (option .eq. 2) then
   41         opt*'Product ban  and annual, fiber caps'
   42       else
   43         opts'Annual fiber caps  only'
   44       endif
   45 c
   46       if {ibgr .eq. 1> then
   47         bopt='Low Decline'
   48       elseif (ibgr .eq. 2}  then
   49         bopta'Moderate decline'
   50       else
   51         bopt='High Decline'
   52       endif
   S3 c
   54       if {fname{3> .eq. 'IptT') then
   55         p»brlc«M'
   56       else
   57         pgbrk="
   58       endif
   59 c
   60 c	
   61 c                                                '	
   62 c                   this  section divides all areas  by 1,000
   63 c                        	
   64 c	
   65 c
   66       do 8893  yn=1,ie
   67         a1t=0
   69         do 88931 j«1,np
   70           area5(yr,|)«area5(yr,j>/1000.
   71           Bre86(yr,j>5»area6(yr,j)/1000.
   72           area7(yr,j}=area7(yr,j>/1000.
   73           area8(yr,j}=area8(yr,J)/1000.
   74           area8p(yr,j)*area8p(yr,j)/1000,
   75 c
   76           if (option .eq. 1) 50 to 88931
   77           if ((swban(yr.j)  .eq. 1) .or.  exmpt(idp(j)3)  go to 88931
   78           a1t+area5(yr,j)+area7(yr,j)
   79           a3t(yr)=a3t(yr}+area6(yr,j)+area8(yr,j)
   80 c

-------
ASBQUT.FQR                    Tuesday May 31,  1988  1Z:00 AH                        Page 2


   81 88931   continue
   82           area1(yr)=area1(yr)/10QO.
   83           area2s'<2x,a25,1x,f13.2,1x»f12.2,1x»f12.2,1x,f12.2)'
   97       fmt<4)='(8x,14,2x,f12.3,5x,f12,3,4x,f12.3,4x,f12.3)'
   98       fflit<5>='C1§x,i2»B2,a30,f12.2>'
   99       fmt(12)*''
  100       fnrtC14)*'<2x,a25,15x,f12.2,1x,f12.2,1x,f12.2)'
  101       fmt(15)='
  108       if {iday ,ps.  10)  then
  109         write (dstr,'(2(i2,1h/>,i4)') imon,iday,iyr
  110       else
  111         write (dstr,'(i2,2h/0,i1,1h/,i4)') imon,iday,iyr
  112       endif
  113       if (imin .ge.  10)  then
  114         write (tstr,'U2,1h;,i2)') ihr,imin
  T15       else
  116         write (tstr,»{i*2,2h:0,i1)')  Ihr.iniin
  117       endif
  118 c
  119       call  pcsa (12,36,'  completed 'c,vrev)
  120       call pcsa (15,23,'  Writing  output... 'c,vrev)
  121       call setcur (vy,vx-1)
  122 c
  123       open  (3,fite*fname(3j)
  124       open  (6,filesfnameC65,fontF'unfonnatted')
  125       if (fnaroe(3)  .eq.  UptT) write (3,'(a)') pgbrk
  126       ipage*0
  127       call header (0)
  128       write  {3,»(//7x,a19,1x,a/)') 'Regulation Ration s',opt
  129       write  (3,'(7x,a19,1x,i4/>'5 'Beiiming Year    :<,buseyr
  130       write  (3,'(7x,a19,1x,i4/)') 'Ending Tear       :',erxiyr
  131       write  (3,*{7x,a19,1x,a/)')  'Baseline Growth   :',bopt
  132       write  (3,'{7x,a19,1x,10(f4.1,a,2x)//)') 'Discount Rate(s)   ;',
  133      -CdiscrtC i)*100.,'%',i=1,nodrt)
  134       fsup*fsup*10Q.
  135       dsup=dsup*100.
  136       write  <3,'(/7x,a,f7.2/}')   'Elasticity of fiber supply  ',setast
  137       write  <3,'(7x,a,f6.1,a/5')  'Foreign fiber supply        ',fsup,'%'
  138       write  <3,'(7x,a,f6.1,a/>')  'Domestic fiber supply       ',dsup,'%'
  139       iline=19
  140       fastrl*',^	    	'
  141       if (option ,eq,  3)  go to 200
  142       write  (3f'(//7x,a/)')  'PRODUCT BAN  SCHEDULE'
  143       bstr2*'     Year  of  Ban         TSCA Product Nos.'
  144       write  C3,'(15x,a//,15x,a/,15x,a/)') bstr1,bstr2,bstr1
  145       iline=iline+7
 J46 c
  147       do 10  n=1,byrs
  148         jf  (ibchk .eq. 99) po to  103
  149         if  (ibchk .eq. byear(1)-baseyr+1) then
  150          write {bans1,'<22x,i4,13x,a\)') byear(n),'AU Products  '
  151          go to 105
  152         etseff  (ibchk  .eq. byear{n)-baseyr+1) then
  153          write {bans1,'(22x,i4,13x,a>')  byear(n),
  154      •                                  'All Remaining Products '
  155          go to 105
  156         endif
  157 c
  158 103      write {bans1,'(22x,543'>  byear(n)
  159         ix=byear(n)-baseyr+1
  160         ic=0 '

-------
ASBOUT.FOR                    Tuesday Hay 31, 1988  12:00 W                        Page 3
161
162 c
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175

177
178 1011
179

181 101
182

184
185 10
186 c
187
188 c
189 105
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204 1051
205
206
Z07 c
208 102
209
210 c
211 c
212 200
213
214
215
216
217
218 c
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
.226
227
228
229 c
230 203
231
232
233
234 c
•235
236
237
238
239
240
flag1=0

do 101 nn=1,ip
if C(isban(ix,nn) .eq. 1) .and. (.not. exmpt(m)}) then
tempi =bans1
If (flagl .eq. 0) then
write Ctenp,'(i2>'} m
bans1=tenpU1 :39)//tewp
ftasW
else
write (tenp,' bansl
ilinesiline+1
write (bar»2,'{40x,a)'> 'except'
ic=0
do 1051 i=1,ip
temp2=bans2
if (exmptti)) then
if (ic .eq. 0) then
write  ' ' ,i
else
write (temp, '(a, i2}'} ',',!
endif
b6ns2»teap2C 1 : 46+i c*3)//temp
ic=ic+1
endif
continue
if Cic .gt. 0} write <3,'(a)') »»ns2
Hine=iline*1

write (3,'(15x,a//)') bstr!
iline=itine+3


if (.not.Cenf)} go to 703
If Ciline .gt. 50) call header {0}
write <3,'(//7x»a/)') 'ENGINEERING CONTROLS SCHEDULE'
bstr2=' Year of Control TSCA Product Nos.'
write (3,'C15x,8//,15x,a/,15x,a/)') bstr1,bstr2,bstr1
iline=f line+7

do 70 n=1,ienyrs
if Cienchk .eq. 99) so to 203
if (ienehk .eq. enyr(1)-baseyr+1> then
write (bansl, '(22x,i4r13x,s\)'} enyr(n),'AU Products '
go to 702
elseif (ienehk .eq. enyr(n)-baseyr+1) then
write (bansl, '(22x, 14, 13x,a)') enyr{n3,
'All Remaining Products '
go to 702
endif

write (bans1,'(22x, 14)') enyr(n)
i x=enyr( n}- baseyr+1
ic=0
fl8i1=0

do 701 r»»1,tp
if  .nn
bansl "tempi ( 1 :39>//temp

-------
ASBOUT.FOR                    Tuesday May 31, 1988  12:00 AM                        Page 4
341
242
243
244
245
246
247 c
248
249
250
251 7011
252 c
253
254 701
255 c
256
257
258 70
259 c
260
261 c
262 702
263
264 7021
265
266 c
267 703
268
269
270
271
272
273
274 c
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285 c
286 503
287
288
289
290 c
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303 c
304
305
306
307 901 1
308

310 901
311

313
314 90
315 c
316
317 c
318 902
319
320 9021
flag1=1
else
write (temp, '{a,i2\)'> ',',nn
bansl«tenp1(1:41+ic*3)//tetnp
ic=ic+1
endif

enctl{0,nn>=.true.
do 7011 m=ix,ie
enct Km, nn}=. false.
continue

endif
continue

write (3, '(a)') bansl
i line*! line+1
continue

go to 7021

write C3,'(a)'5 bansl
Hine=Hine*1
write (3,'<15x,a//>'> bstrl
iline*»line*3

if (,not.(lbf» go to 903
if ((option .ne. 3) .and. enf> call header (0)
if Ciline .gt. 50> call header (0)



























write <3,' 'PRODUCT LABELING SCHEDULE'
bstr2*' Year of Labeling TSCA Product Nos,
write (3,'C15x,a//,15x,8/,15x,a/>') bstrl, bstrZ,
H5ne=iline+7

do 90 n»1,Hyrs
if (ilchk .eq. 99) go to 503
if (ilchk .eq. lyr(1}-baseyr+1) then
writ* (bansV(22x»i4,13x,a\)'> lyr(n),'All
So to 902
elseif (ilchk .eq. lyr(n)-baseyr+1> then
write (bans1,'C22x,i4,13x,a)') lyrtn},
'All Remaining
go to 902
endif

write (bans1,'{22x,i4)'} lyrCn)
ixs=lyr-baseyr+1
ic=0
flag1=0

do 901 nn=1,ip
if ( label (ix,rm)> then
tempi -bansl
if (flagt .eq. 0> then
write (terap,'(i2}'} nn
faans1-terap1 { 1 :39>//temp
flag1=1
else
write (tenp,'(a,i2\)'> ',',nn
bans1=tenpU1 ;41+ic*3j//tenv
ic*ie+1
endif

label(0,nn)=.true.
do 9011 m=ix, ie
label (m,nn}s. false.
continue

309 endif
continue

312 write (3,'(a)'> bansl
iline=i line+1
continue

go to 9021

write (3, '(a)') bansl
5line=n line+1
write (3, '(15x,a//)') bstrl
/
bstrl





Products



Products






































-------
ASBOUT.FOR                    Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AH                       Page 5


  321       iline=iline+3
  322 c
  323 903   write (3,'{5(/),7x,a>'> 'PRODUCT EXEMPTIONS'
  324       icaQ
  325       do 21 1=1,ip
  326         tempi=bans1
  327         if (exnpt(i» then
  328           if (ic .eq. 0) then
  329             write (terap,'(i2)') i
  330             bans1='  '//temp(1:2>
  331           else
  332             write (tesp,'(a,i2}'>  ', ',i
  333             bans1=teap1<1nc*4}//tewp(1:4)
  334           endif
  335           1c«fc*1
  336         endif
  337 21    continue
  338       if Cic .gt. 0) then
  339         write (3,'{/1Qx,a/)') 'The following products have  been  '//
  340      -                        'exenpted from regulation:'
  341         write (3,'(15x,a)'> bansl
  342       else
  343         write (3,'(/10x,a/)'> 'No  products  have been exempted  '//
  344      -                        'from refutation'
  345       endif
  346 c
  347 c
  348       if (option .eq. 1) go to 300
  349       if (iline .gt. 42) call header (0)
  350       pstr1='            Party                      Tomage'
  351       write (3,'(//7x,a/)') 'FIBER PERMIT ALLOCATION (by tonnage)'
  352       write (3,'(15xfa//,15x,a/,15x,a/5'> bstr1,pstr1,bstr1
  353       iline-illne+7
  354       atoc=0
  355       ipid*0
  356       if Cpflas<10> .eq. 1) then
  357         write {3,'(15x,2a,7x,e>'}  »1.  ',perm(10}f'ALl'
  358         go to 47
  359       endif
  360       do 45 i=1,9
  361         if (pflag(i) .eq. 0) then
  362           paloc(i)*0
  363           go to 45
  364         endif
  365         ipidsipid+1
  366         write (3»fint(§)> ipid,'. ', perni(i)fpaloc
  367         aloc=aloc+paloc(i)
  368         HfneMline+l
  369 45    continue
  370       write <3,'(/19x,a29,1x,f12.2)'5  perra(11),aloc
  371 47    write (3,'<15x,a//>'> bstrl
  372       iline=iline*4
  373       if (iline .gt. 25) call header (0)
  374 c
  375       write (3,'{//?x,a/}'> 'FIBER CAP SCHEDULE'
  376       fstr1='      Year                Fiber Cap (tons)'
  377       write (3,'(/10x,a/10x,8/tOx,a//)'3  'The fiber cap schedule '//
  378      -      'shown below is the effective cap '.'schedule,  i.e., '//
  379   •   -      'it does not include fiber demanded by1,'exempted  markets.'
  380       write (3,'(15x,a//,15x,a/,15x,a/)'} bstrl,fstrl,bstrl
  381       if (cendyr .eq. endyr) then
  382         ix=endyr
  383       else
  384         ix=cendyr-1
  385       endif
 -386       do 20 i=baseyr+1,ix
  387         cap=qc8p{i-baseyr+1)
  388         write  (3,'(20x,i4,19x,f10.2>') i,cap
  389 20    continue
  390 c
  391       if (cendyr .ne. endyr) then
  392         write  (3,'(20x»i4,e,i4,14x,f10.2)') cendyr,'-',endyr,endant
  393       endif
  394       write (3,'{15x,a)') bstrl
  395       if (.not.(capr)} go to 300
  396       write (3,'(5(/3,5x,2a/,5x,2a))'3 'Mote: Fiber cap schedule ',
  397      -'revised during model run to','       ensure that  cap  Ss  ',
  398      -'binding in all years.'
  399 c
  400 300   call header (1}

-------
ASBOUT.FOR                    Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 Ml                       Page 6
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408 3001
409
410 c
411
412
413
414
415 c
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423 c
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431 c
432
433-
434 c
435 310
436 c
437 c
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449 c
450
451
452
453
454
455
456 c
457
458 c
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
-466 c
467
468 c
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477 c
478 301
479 c
480
write <3,'{t20,a)'} 'DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT CATEGORIES'
if (pgfork .eq. '1') write (3,' write (3,'(15x,i2,27x,a>'> idp(t>,desc(i>
continue
write a,'C5x,B/)'} us1

do 310 j*1,np
banm(j)=' '
jf (exmpt(idp(j>» ban»(j>s'X'
if  .eq. ' ') then
tempi*' I'
else
teinp1=', 1'
endif
endif

If  then
if CbanrtCjM1:1> .eq. ' '} then
terap2»' L>
else
terap2=',L'
endif
endif

temp=banm(j)
barm(j>«' '//terBp(1:1)//tenpK1:2>//teinp2(1j2)

continue


write {6} nodrt
do 346 f*1, nodrt
dcsl*0
dpsUO
fcsl=0
fpsl-0
do 30 j*1,np
dcons{j}=0
dpros(j)=0
feons{j)=0
fprosCj)=0

do 301 yr=2,ie
area5d=area5(yr,j}/(1+dSsert**(yr-1)
area6d=8rea6(yr»j)/{1+discrt{i))**(yr-1)
ar8a7d=8rea7(yr,j)/{1+discrt(i}}**(yr-1}
area8d=area8(yr » J >/( 1+di scrt < i } )**(yr- 1 >
ar8pd=area8p(yr,j)/(1+discrt(i}}**(yr-1}

cons=a rea5d*e rea6d

if ((option .eq. 1) .and. (eprat(j) .It. 1) .and.
(areaSd .It. 0)} then
dcons{ j )=dcons{ j )+cons*cprat{ j }
f cons{ j )=f cons{ j )+cons* ( 1 -cprat ( j ) )
else
deons( j )ssdcons( j )+cons
.endif

pros*area7d*area8d*ar8pd

if ((cf>rat(j> .eq. 1) .and. inpinf(j)) then
f pros( j >*f pros( j }+pros
elseif (cprat(j) .gt. 15 then
dpros( j }«dpros( j 5+pros/cprat ( j )
f pros( j }=f pros( j }+pros*( 1 • 1/epratC j ) >
else
dpros( j )=dpros( j }+pros
endif

cont 1 nue

des I =dcs I +deons ( j )

-------
ASBOUT.FOR                    Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM                        Page 7
481
482
483
484 30
485 c
486
487
488
489
490
491
492 c
493
494
495
496
497 c
498
499
500
501 40
502 c
503
504 c
505
506
507
508 c
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
.546
547
548
549
550 c
551 555
552
553
554
555
556 c
557
558-
559 c
560 575
dps I s»dps l+dpros( j )
fcsl=fcsl+fcons(j)
fpsl*fpsl+fpros(j)
continue

fmcs=dcsl+fcsl+dpsl+fpsl
fmdcsssdcsl+dpsl
frapssO
fmdpssQ
pval-0
do 40 yr*2,ie

area1d«area1(yr)/<1+disert(i}>**(yr-13
area3d=area3«dSsert(i 3*100.
call tabagg (1,discrt( i ),fmcs, fmps.pval)
call tabagg (2,discrt(i3,f«dcs,fffldps,pvat)

write (3, '(a)' 3 pgbrk
ipage=ipege+1
write (3,'(t64,2a3'3 'Date: ',dstr
write (3,'(t64,2a3'3 'Time! «,tstr
write (3,'(t64,a,i2/3'> 'Page: 'ripage
write (3,'
-------
ASEOUT.FOR
                              Tuesday May 31, 1988  12:00 AM
                                                                        Page 8
  561
  562
  563
  564
  565
  566
  567
  568
  569
  570
  571
  572
  573
  574
  575
  576
  577
  578
  579
  580 c
  581
  582 c
  583 346
  584
  585 c
  586 c
  187 c
  588 c
  589 c
  590 c~~
  591 c
  592
  593
  594
  595
  596
  597
  598
  599
  600
  601
  602
  603
  604
  605
  606
  607
  608
  609
  610
  611 59
  612
  613
  614
  615
  616
  617
  618
  619
  620
  621
  622
  623 c
  624
  625 c
 .626
  627
  628
  629
  630
  631 c
  632 600
  633 c
  634
  635
  636
  637 c
  638
  639
  if (pflag(IO) .eq. 1} then
    write (3,fmt(15» perra(105,pv8l»pval
    v(1Q)=pval
    r(10)sspval
    USW=LIS w+pva L
  else
    write (3,fmt(f5)} perm(10},zero.zero
    p(10)=0
  endif
  write (3,'(2x,a/>'> pO
  write (3,'(4{/>,t30,a>') '(JET WELFARE LOSSES'
  if (pgbrk .eq. 'V> write (S,'(a,t3Q,e}'>'+',
  write (3,'(//20x,a,fl6.2/F>'Li. S. Welfare: ',usw
  write (3f'(20x,a,f16.2//>') 'World Welfare: ',ww
  write (3,'(///10x,8)'} 'Note: Negative entries are welfare '//
                         'gains.'

  write (6> discrt(iMesl(j>,psl(,D,v(jJ,r-(J>»j*1,tG),usw,ww

continue
if (eresf .eq. 05 go to 600
             this section writes the consistency check
write (3,'(a)'} pgbrk
ipag,e=ipage+1
write (3,'(t64,2a)') 'Date: ',dstr
write (3,'(t64,2a)') 'Time: ',tstr
write (3,'(t64,a,i2/)') 'Page: ',ipage
write (3,'(t26,a)O '   MODEL CONSISTENCY CHECK'
if (psbrk .eq. '1') write (3,'(a,t26,a)') '+',

write (3,*)
                               Sum of                         '//

                             AREAS 5 & 7        AREA 3    *   '//

                           over output mkts.   (Fiber Mkt.) '//
    '  Sum of
cs2='tear      AREA 1
    'AREAS 6 & 8'
es3='       (Fiber Kkt.>
    'over output n*ts.'
write <3,'{//7x,a//,3(8x,a/},7x,a//)'> us1,cs1,cs2,cs3,us1
do 59 yra2,ie
  iyr=yr*baseyr-1
  write (3,fmt(4)} iyr,areaKyr),8lt{yr),area3(yr},83t the consistency check is due to  '//
       engineering'
y(155*          controls and/or labeling requirements.'

write (3,'(/3(10x,a/»'> y(9)»y(12},y(13)

if (enf .or. Ibf) then
  write (3,'(2(10x,a/}>'> y(14},y(15)
else
  write (3,'C10x,a>'> y{10)
endif

if (dprf .eq. 1) call detout (ie)

if (fname(3) .eq. 'Ipt1'> write (3,'(a>') pgbrk
endfile 3
close (3>

return
end

-------
BANCSOR.FOR                   Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AH                       Page
    1 c                 	
    2 c	
    3 c
    4 c     ARGN :  CALCULATION OF CS AND OR LOSSES FOR BANNED PRODUCTS
    5 c
    6 c     Version 6.31 :  Hay 31, 1988.
    7 c
    8 e     Program written fay:
    9 c
   10 c        Vikram Widge,  ICF Incorporated,  9300 Lee »ny., VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c	
   14 c                       '	~~	
   1i c
   16 $large
   17 c
   18 c	
   19 c                                                              "	
   20 c      This subroutine calculates the CS  and QR  losses in banned markets.
   21 c		
   22 c	
   23 c
   24       subroutine bancsqr
   25 c
   26 $include:'vars.cnn'
   27 c
   28 c
   29       do 80 i«1,np
   30         if {snban{yr,i) ,eq. 0) go to 80
   31         do 801 j=1,nsubCi>
   32           area6(yr,i}=area6{yr,i)+(ps(yr,i,j)-epp(yr,i}>*qs(yr,i,j}
   33           if  (swqr{i} .ne. 1} go to 801
   34           if  (lnsub(i,j» then
   35            areeSpCyr,i}=area8p(yr,i)+{epp{yr,i)-avc(i}}*qs(yr,i,j >/
   36      -                   fdiscrt
   37             lnsub(t,j>=.false.
   38           endif
   39 801      continue
   40         swqr
-------
86NOUT.FOR                    Tuesday Hay 31, 1988  12:00 AH                        Pagt 1
    1 c	
    2 c—	_
    3 e
    4 c     ARCH ;  BENEFIT  MODEL  INTERFACE ROUTINE
    5 c
    6 c     Version 6,31  ;  Hey 31,  1988,
    7 c
    8 c     Program written by:
    9 c
   10 e        Vikram Widge,  ICF  Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c	
   14 c	'	'
   15 c
   16 $large
   17 C
   18 c	
   19 c         '          !	
   20 e     This subroutine writes  the index files for yse in the Benefits  Model
   21 c			
   22 c—	'"		
   23 c
   24       subroutine benout
   25 c
   26 $incLude:'vars.om'
   27 c
   28 c
   29       real        bi(2:nylip*1},ai(2sny,ip+1}
   30 e
   31       integer     ina(;p)
   32 c
   33 c
   34       open (8,file=fname{8}>
   35       open (9,file=fn»e(9»
   36 c
   37       write <8,'«) ie-1,baseyr,endyr
   39 c
   40       do  10 ib»1,1p
   41        ira{ib)=0
   42        do 101  ia=2,ny
   43           bi{ia,ib>*0
   44           ai(ia,ib)=0
   45 101     continue
   46 10    continue
   47 e
   48       do  5 i*1,np
   49        if (na(i) .It.  1.5 then
   50           ina(idp(i»=1
   51         else
   52           ina(idp{i5)=naUH0.5
   53        endif
   54 5     continue
   55       write (8,'(37i3,a)'} ina,'  1'
   56 c
   57       do  20 ia=2,ie
   58        do 201  ib=1,np
   59 c
   60           bi(ia,idpCib))=bepq(ia,ib5/bbpq(ib}
   61  c
   62           if  (swban(ie,ib) .eq. 1} 90 to 201
   63           if  (option  .eq. 1) then
   64            ai(ia,idp{ib»=bi(iafidp
   67      -        go  to 201
   68            ai(ia,idpCib»=fpqCia,ib>/fabpq(!b>
   69          •endif
   70 c
   71  201     continue
   72 c
   73        bi{ia,ip+1)»bfqe{ia)/bbfq
   74  c
   75         if {option .eq. 1) then
   76           af(ia,ip*1}=fqe
-------
iENOUT.FOR                    Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                       Page 2


   81         write <8,<<38(f4.2,1x»'> (bi(i8,ib),1bsl,iprt-1>
   82         write C9,'(38(f4.2,1x))') {ai(ia,ib),ib=1,ip»-n
   83 c
   84 20    continue
   85 c
   86       ervdf \ is 8
   8?       endfite 9
   88 c
   89       close <8)
   90       close {9}
   91 c
   92       return
   93       end

-------
DETOUT.FOR                    Tuesday Hay 31, 1988  12:00 W                       Page 1
    1 c			
    2 c	_________	_	

    3 c
    4 c     ARCH : DETAILED OUTPUT SUBROUTINE
    5 c                                         :'
    6 c     Version 6.31 : May 31, 1988.
    7 c
    8 c     Program written by:
    9 c
   10 c        Vikram Widge, !CF Incorporated,  9300 Lee  Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (7035 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c 	
   14 c                                    "	
   15 c
   16 $large
   17 c
   18 c	
   19 c           !	~~	T
   20 c        .   This subroutine writes the detailed output if requested
   21 c             	
   22 c	'	:	
   23 c
   24       subroutine detour
   25 c
   26 Sinctudes'vars.cmn'
   27 c
   28 c
   29       character   banr»*6,begn(2}*11,nf*20
   30       charecter*8Q ffmt(4)
   31  c
   32       yd>='             Baseline      Baseline      Scenario        ')
   33      -     'Scenario'
   34       y(2>='   Year       Price        Quantity       Price          ')
   35      -     'Ouantity'
   36       fB)t(6>='d2x,i4,1x,f13.2,1xtf13.2,a12,10x,a6)'
   37       fBitC7>s'{12x,i4,1x,f13.2,1x,f13.2,1x,f13.2,1x,f15.2}'
   38       fiat(10)«'d2x,i4f1x,f13.2,1x,f13.2,10x,a3,2x,f15.2)'
   39       fmtd1)='d2x,i4,1x,f13.2,1x,f13.2,8x,a6,10x,a6>»
   40       fmtd2>a'd2x,i4,10x,a3,2x,f13.2,10x,a3,2x,f1S.2>'
   41        fmt(13)>='d2x,i4,1x,f13.2,1x,f13.2f10x/a3,1x,f16.2)'
   42       ffmtd>-'(9x,i4,1x,f10.2f1x,f12.2,6x,a3,9x,a3,14x,a3>'
   43       ffmt{2>*'(9x,i4,1x»f10.2,1x,f12.2,1x,f10.2,8x,a3,4x,f14.2)'
   44       ffBttC3>*'t9x,i4,1x,f10.2,1x»f12.2,1x,f10.2,2x,f1Q.2,3x,f14.2>'
   45        ffmt(4>='<9x,i4,1x,f10.2,1x,f12.2,7x,e3,9x,a3,4x,f14.2)'
   46       ifp*0
   47       do 70  i*1,np*1                                            f
   48         write  (3,'(a)')  pgbrk
   49         ipage=ipage+1
   50          write  (3,'(t64,2a)'> 'Date:  ',dstr
   51          write  (3,'Ct64,2a)') 'Time:  ',tstr
   52          write  C3,'{t64,a,i2/)')  'Page:  ',ipage
   53          write  (3,'(//t28,a)'>  'PRICES AMD QUANTITIES BY MARKET'
   54          if (pgbrk  .eq.  '1') write  {3,'{aft28,a)') '+',
   55       -                     '	_^_	'
   56          write  <3,'  then
   58           y<1)='                                  Scenario    Scenario'
   59           y{2>='        Baseline     Baseline      Supply     '//
   60       -         ' Demand        Scenario'
   61           y<3>=' Year     Price      Quantity      Price       '//
   62       -         'Price        Quantity'
   63  c
   64           write  {3,'{t33,2a>'5 'Market: ','Asbestos Fiber*
   65           write  <3,''> ys1,Cy(k>,k=1,3),us1
   66    •      else
   67           write  (3,'{t28,a,I2,2a}')  'Market: ',idp(i),'.  ',dese
   68           if (exmpt(5dp(i») write (3,'
   6°       -                      'This market is EXEMPTED from regulation'
   70           write  (3,'(/7x,a//,2(8x,a/),7x,a/)'} us1,y(1),yC2},us1
   71          endif
   72  c
   73          if {i  .eq. np+1)  then
   74           write  (3,ffmt{15) baseyr,fpe(1),fqe(1),'  -','  -','  -'
   75          else
   76           write  (3,fnrt(6)3 baseyr,epp(1,i),epq{1,i),'-','    -'
   77          endif
   78  c
   79          do 701 yr=2,ie
   80           iyrsbaseyr+yr-1

-------
DETQUT.FOR                    Tuesday May 31,  1988   12:00 AM                        Page 2


   81           if {i  .eq.  (np+1»  then
   82             if  (fqe(yr>  .eq.  0) then
   83               ifp=1
   84               if {(option .eq.  1) .or.  (qeapm(yr)  .eq. 0» then
   85                 write {3,ffmt(4» iyr,bfpe(yr>,bfqe(yr),'+++
   86      -                            fqe(yr)
   87               else
   88                 write (3,ffiut(2)> iyr,bfpeCyr>,bfqe(yr),pf1(yr5,'w,
   89      -                            qeapmCyr)
   90               endif
   91             eiseif {option .eq. 1) then
   92               write  <3»ffmt{2» iyf-,bfpeCyr),bfqe(yr),fpe{yr>,' - ',
   93      -                          fqe(yr)
   94             eiseif  iyr,bfpe(yr),bfqe{yr),'+++»,'+++',
   98      -                            qeap(yr)
   99              else
  100                 write (3,ffmt(2)> iyr,bfpe(yr},bfqe(yrJ,pf1{yr>,'*-H-'>
  101      -                            qcapm(yr>
  102              endif
  103             else
  104              write  (3,ffint(3» »yr,bfpe{yr},bfqe(yr),pf1(yr>,pf(yr>,
  105      -                          qcapm(yr)
  106             endif
  107           endif
  108 c
  109           if {i  .te.  np>  then
  110             if  (bepq{yr,i)  .eq.  0.) then
  111              Nrite  (3,f«nt{123) iyr,'n/a',bepq(yrti),'n/a',bepq(yr,i>
  112             etseif   .eq.  0) .or. {(t}c*p(yr> .eq. 0} .and.
  117      -            (.not.  exnpt(idp
  127             endif
  128           endif
  129 701     continue
  130 c
  131        write C3,'(?x,a,4'}  'Note : "***" indicates either  ',
  141      -                              'scenario price is greater than'
  142           write  {3,'(7x,2a}'} '       maximum substitute price or ',
  143      -                        'fiber cap is zero.'
  144        endif
  145 c
  146 69      if ((qcapm(yr) .eq. 0)  .end. (i  .eq. (np+1») then
  147           if  (option  .eq. 1) then
  148            begn{1)='ttote : '
  149            begn(2)s»       •
  150            nf='(7x,a7,a}'
  151           else
  152             begnd)*'       3.  '
  153             begn{2)*'           '
  154             nf='(7x,a10,a}'
  155           endif
  156           write  (3,nf> begnd),  '"+++" indicates either '//
  157      -                 'all markets have been banned or'
  158           write  (3,nf3 begn(2),'  fiber cap is zero and '//
  159      -                 'price is no longer meaningful.'
  160        endif

-------
DETOUT.FOR                    Tuesday May 31»  1988  12:00 AH                        Page 3


  161 c
  162 70    continue
  163       y(3}=' Market       Area 5        Area 6         Area 7        '//
  164      -     '  Area 8'
  165       y(4)='(TSCA #)'
  166       y(5)='Note: 1. Areas 1-4 in the fiber market ere listed under '//
  167      -     'Areas 5-8.'
  168       y(6)='      2. Areas 6 & 8 include consumer and producer *//
  169      -     'surplus losses for'
  170       y{7)»'         all banned, exempted,  and non-banned markets.  '//
  171      -     'Hence, this is a'
  172       y(8>='         complete accounting of all welfare effects.'//
  173      -     '  The model'
  174       y(11}s'         consistency check, however, is defined in terms'//
  175      -      'of non-banned'
  176       y{15}='         and non-exempted product markets and the fiber '//
  177      •      'market.  There-'
  178       y{16)*'         fore, to perform this check using the '//
  179      -      'figures in this table,'
  180       y{17)ss'         the welfare effects !n the banned and '//
  181      -      'exempted markets should'
  182       y(18>='         be excluded.   Refer to user"s guide for '//
  183      -      'further explanation.'
  184 c
  185       fflite8)='<13x,i2,1x,f15.3,1x,f14.3,1x,f14.3,1x»f14.3>'
  186       fmt<9>*' 'Time;  ',tstr
  194         write <3,'(t64,a,i2/)'> 'Page: 'fipage
  195         write (3,'(t30,a,i4>'> 'AREAS 1-8 FOR »,iyr
  196         if Cpflbrk ,eq. '1')write(3,'(a,t30,a}'} '+','	__'
  197         write <3,'(/t29,a/)'J '(Ondiscounted Values)'"""~~"
  198         write (3,'(7x,a//,2(10x,a/),7x,a/}'> us1,yC3),y(4)rus1
  199         do 801  i=1,np*1
  200           if (i  .eq. (np+133 then
  201             write (3,fmt{9» 'Fiber',area1Cyr>,area2Cyr),area3 then
  205               pros=area8(yrr i}+8rea8p(yr,i)
  206               write (3,fmt(8» Wp(i),area5(yr,O,8rea6(yr,<),
  207      -                         area7(yr,fJ.pros
  208           endif
  209 801      continue
  210 c
  211         write (3,'(7x,a/)'3 us1
  212         write <3,'{7x,a//,8{7x,a/»'>  (y(k>,lc=5,8),y<11)rrk=15,18)
  213 80    continue
  214 c
  215       return
  216       end

-------
EULBL.FOR                     Tuesday May 31, 1988  12sOQ AH                        Page 1


    1 c	
    2 c                       ——-—              —             —	

    3 c
    4 c     ARCH : ENGINEERING CONTROL' AND LABELIMB COSTS CHECK
    5 c
    6 c     Version 6.31 s May 31, 1988.
    7 c
    8 c '    Program written by:
    9 c
   10 c        Vikram Widge, ICf Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy.,  VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c	
   14 c
   15 e
   16 $inctude:'stdsub'
   17 $lar§e
   18 c
   19 c	
   20 c"''
   21 e      This subroutine checks to see if the costs of engg. control  and/or
   22 c      labeling added to the baseline price exceed the 1st step of  the
   23 c      product's demand function.
   24 e_	
   25 c                         '	
   26 c
   27       subroutine enlbl
   28 c
   29 $include;'stdvar'
   30 Sincludes'vers.etin'
   31 c
   32 c
   33       character   nyc*4
   34 c
   35 c
   36       istop=Q
   37       n=0
   38 c
   39       do 10 ia1,np
   40         tempsO
   41         if (enctl(yr,idp(i}» temp»te»p+ecost(i>
   42         if (label{yr,idp(i)» t«np=tenf»-lGostCi>
   43         if  then
   53             call eeop (4,0)
   54             write (nyc,'
   59             call setcur (12,0)
   60           endif
   61 c
   62           if (swqrCi) .eq. 1) then
   63             tempsavc(i)
   64           else
   65             t«np=bepp(yr,i)
   66           endif
   67 c
   68           if (n .gt. 10) then
   69             call pcsa (22,12,' Hore to come... ',vrev3
   70             call pcsa (23,12,' Press any key to continue',vbold)
   71             ipse»key geteC)
   72             call eeop (10,0)
   73             call setcur (12,0)
   74           endif
   75 c
   76           urite (*,30) 'Product ',idp(i),SHqr(i),temp,ecost{i},lcost(i),
   77      -                 ps(yr,i,nsub(i»
   78 30        format (t12,a,i2,t25,i2,5x,4f10.2)
   79           istop=1
   80   •      endif   '

-------
ENLBL.FOR                     Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AH                        Page 2


   81 c
   82 10    continue
   83 c
   84       if Cistop .eq.  1} then
   85         call  setcur (20,0)
   86         stop
   8?       endif
   88 c
   89       return
   90       end

-------
EQPQ.FOR                      Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                        Page 1
    1 c              	
    2 c—	_________	

    3 c
    4 C     ARCH : E8U1LIBRIUH PRODUCT PRICES AND QUANTITIES
    5 c
    6 c     Version 6.31 : Hay 31,  1988.
    7 c
    8 e     Program written by:
    9 c
   10 c        Vikram Widge, ICF Incorporated,  9300 Lee Hwy.,  VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703 > 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c,		-
   14 c                                     '	
   15 c
   16 $large
   17 c
   18 c		.	
   19 c	:	—	
   20 c               this subroutine calculates  the equilibrium price
   21 c                   £ quantity in the asbestos fiber market.
   22 c	
   23 c		        "'	
   24 c
   25       subroutine eqpq
   26 c
   27 $inelude:'vars.onn'
   28 c
29
30 c
31 c
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 9!
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55 90
56
57
58
59
60 c
61 c
62 c
63 c
64 c
65 c
66 c
67 c
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Integer swpe


swpe=0
qerat=1.0
do 90 i=1,nstd
f pe(yr)=slope*tfqs( i 5+rint
if ((fpe(yr) .eq. tfps(i»







.or.
(fpe(yr) .oe. tfps
Ci+2») then



.and.


fqe(yr>=(fpe(yr5-rint)/slope
if (i .eq. 1) then
qerat*=f qe(yr >/tf qs 1 1 )
else


qerat=(fqe{yr}-tfqsCi-1»/{tfqs(i>-tfqs{i-1))
endif
end if
cont i nue
if (nstd .eq. 0) then
fpe{yr)=0
fqe{yr>«0
endff













This section translates fiber equilibrium price (fpe) to
product market equilibrium price (epp> and quantity {epqK



do 150 i=1,np
ff (fps(i,1) .It. fpe(yr»
qfe(yr,i)=0
go to 151
else
do 1501 JBl,nsub(i>




then



if Cfps .51. fpe(yr>5 then
if (j .eq. nsub(i» then
qfe{yr,i>*fqs{yr,i,
go to 151
else
go to 1501
endif
j)





-------
EQPQ.FOR
                              Tuesday Hay 31, 1988  12:00 W
Page 2
   81             elseif (fps(i,j) .tt. fpe(yr)) then
   82               qfe{yr,i)=fqs(yr,i,j-1>
   83             else
   84               if {j ,eq.- 1) then
   85                 qfe(yr,f)=fqs{yr,i,1)*qerat
   86               else
   87                 cjf e(yr, i }={fqs(yr, i, j )-fcjs(yr, i, j-1 ))*qerat+
   88      -                     fqs{yr,i,j-1)
   89               ersdif
   90               go to 151
   91             endif
   92 1501      continue
   93         endif
   94 151     epqsqfe(yr,O/ant(i}
   95         epdif=fpeCyr}-afpe
   96         epp(yr,i3=epdif*BMt(i>+aepp(i)
   97         ff ((swqr(i) .eq.  1) .and. (epq{yr,i) .nc. 0)) then
   98           avc(i)=epp(yr,i)-qrarea{i)/epq(yr,t}
   99         cndif
  100 150   continue
  101       return
  102       end

-------
EXEMPT.FOR                    Tuesday Hay 31,  1988   12:00 AM                        Page 1
    1 c		
    2 c™~~	
    3 c
    4 c     ARCH : CALCULATION OF  SCENARIO PRICES AND CS BAINS IN EXEMPTED MARKETS
    5 c
    6 c     Version  6.31  :  May 31,  1988.
    7 c
    8 c     Program  written by:
    9 c
   10 c        Vikram yfdge,  ICF  Incorporated, 9300 lee »wy., VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
  •13 c	
   14 G~~	
   15 c
   16 Slarge
   17 c
   18 c	
   19 c         ~	!	
   20 c                  This subroutine  calculates the price and
   21 c                  consuner surplus gains in exempted markets.
   22 c		
   23 c	
   24 c
   25       subroutine exempt
   26 e
   27 $include;'vars,emn'
   28 c
   29 c
   30       do 10  i=1,np
   31         ?f (.not. exmpt(idp(i)» go  to  10
   32         tfpp(i)=0
   33         fppflag(i)=0
   34 c
   35         fpq(yr,i)=bepq(yr,i)
   36         pr drop=-1,*(pf1(yr}-bfpe(yr»*awt(i)
   37 c
   38         t«rp=0
   39         if (enctl(yr,idp(l)»  ternp=tenp*ecost{i)
   40         if (labeUyr.idpd')))  tenp=tempHGOSt-avc(i))*fpq(yr,i)
   52         else
   53           fpp(yr,i)»bepp(yr,i)
   54           area5(yr,i)=0
   55           area7(yr,i)=(tfpp{i >-avc(i))*fpq(yr,i)
   56         endi f
   57         go to  10
   58-c
   59 20       pr__drop=-'}.*(pr_drop-teiip)  .
   60         fpp(yr,i)*pr_drop*-t5eppCyr,i)
   61         area5(yr,i >=?fppCyr,i)-bepp(yr,i))*fpq(yr,i)
   62         area7(yr,i)aO
   63 c
   64 10     continue
   65       return
   66       end

-------
FPC1234.FOR                   Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AN                        Page 1
    1  c	
    2  C            —„-— :  :	_

    3  c
    4  c     ARCH :  CALCULATION OF FINAL  SCENARIO FIBER PRICE AND AREAS 1, 2, 1, AND 4
    5  c
    6  c     Version 6.31  : Hey 31,  1988,
    7  c
    8  c     Program written  by;
    9  c
   10  c        Vikram Midge, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Bwy., VA 22031-1207
   11  c        (703) 934-3000
   12  e
   13  c                          	
   14  c~~	
   15  c
   16  *inelude:'stdsub'
   17  $ltrfe
   18  c
   19  c                                            	   .
   20  c	'	
   21  c                this  subroutine calculates fiber price after a
   22  c                usage cap and  then calculates areas 1, 2, 3, and 4.

   24  c™"™ '''	
   25  c
   26        subroutine fpc1234
   27  c
   28  $include:'stdvar'
   29  $include:'vars.cmn'
   30  c
   31  c
   32        integer   st3,end3,ltag3
   33  c
   34        character res,nyc*4,nzc*15

   36  c
   37        i ysyr+baseyr -1
   38        write (nyc,'(i4}'> |y
   39  40     ff  (qcap(yr) .ge.  fqe(yr» then
   40         capr=,true.
   41         call  eeop (4,0)
   42         call  pcsa (9,12,'  THE FIBER CAP QUANTITY SPECIFIED FOR '//nyc//
   43                      'IS NOT BINDING 'c.vrev)
   44         call  pes (12,15,'   The  relevant variable values ares'c)
   45         call  pes (13,15,'                             YEAR * 'II
   46       -                   nyc//'  'c)
   47         write (nzc,'(f10,2}'> qcap(yr)
   48         call  pes (14,15,'               FIBER CAP QUANTITY « '//
   49       -                   nzc{1:10}//' 'c)
   50         write (nze,'{f15.7)') fqe(yr)
   51         call  pes (15,15,'             EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY "'//
   52       -                   nzc//'  'c>
   53         call  DCS (16,15,'(after bans & exemptions,  if any>'c>
   54         write (nzc,'(f15.7)'} bfqe(yr)
   55         call  pes (18,15,'    BASELINE EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY * 'II
   56       -                   nzc//'  'c>
   57         call  pes (20,15,'   Do you want to continue?  go to 45
   68         if (qcap(yr) ,ge.  fqe(yr)J go to 40
   69  e
   70         call  eeop (4,0)
   71         call  pcsa (12,25,'  Processing... 'c,vrev>
   72         call  setcur  (vy,vx-1)
   73       endif
   74 c
   75       qcrat=1.0
   76        if (qcap(yr) .eq. 0}  then
   77         pf(yr)-tfps(1)
   78         st3=1
   79         qcrat=0
   80         go to 251

-------
FPC1234.F0R                   Tuesday Hay 31,  1988   12:00 AH                        Page 2


   81        endif
   82  c
   83        do 250 i*1,nstd
   84          if (tfqs(i) .eq.  qcap(yr)) then
   85            pf(yr)=tfps(i)
   86            st3=i+1
   87            go to 251
   88          elself (tfqs(i)  .gt. qeap/(tfqs(i>-tfqs(i-1))
   95            endif
   96            go to 251
   97          endif
   98          if (bfpe(yr)  .ge.  tfps(i)} then
   99            end3*f-1
  100            go to 252
  101          endif
  102  250    continue
  103  251    end3=nstd
  104  c
  105  252    pf1(yr>=slope*qcapm(yr)+rint
  106        fpdif=pf(yr>-bfpe(yp}
  107        if  .It. bfpe(yr)) go to 300
  108        area1s(tfqs(st3>-qeap(yr»*{tfps{st3>"bfpe{yr»
  115            flag3=1
  116          else
  117            area3{yr)sarea3{yr>-KtfqsU}-tfqs(j-i:>>*-bfpe(yr}>
  118          endif
  119  255    continue
  120        area4(yr>a0.5*(fafpe(yr>-pf1(yr»*(bf<|e(yr)"qcapni(yr»
  121        return
  122  c
  123  300    call  eeop (4,0)
  124        call  pcsa {15,25,' W//nyc//'> < BWs('//nye//'} 'c.vrev)
  125        call  setcur (22,0)
  126        stop
  127        end

-------
FPPFPQ.FOR                    Tuesday Kay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                       Page  1
1 c
2 c
3 c
4 c
5 c
6 c
7 c
8 c
9 c
10 c
11 c
12 c
13 c
H c
15 c
16 Slarge
17 c
18 c
19 c
20 c
21 c
22 c
23 c '


ARCM : CALCULATION OF SCENARIO PRODUCT PRICES AMD QUANTITIES
Version 6.31 : May 31, 1988.
Program written by;
Vikram Uidge, ICF incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
{703} 934-3000

this subroutine calculates the final price and
quantities for all the product markets, using the
final price and cap quantity in the fiber market.


      c
   25  c
   26        subroutine fppfpq
   27  c
   28  $include:'vars.cnin'
   29  c
   30  c
   31        do  140  i=1,np
   32         if  {exinpt(idpti))  .or.  (swbanCyr,!)  ,eq. 1» go to 140
   33         if  (fps(i,1)  .It.  pf(yr)) then
   34           qf(yr,i)=0
   35           go  to  141
   36         else
   37           do  1401 j=1,nsub(i>
   38             if (fpsCi,j> .It. pf(yr» then
   39               qf
   40               go to 141
   41             elseif {fps{i,j> .eq. pf{yr» then
   42               if (j ,eq, 1) then
   43                  qf{yr,i)=fqrf(yr,f,1>*qcrat
   44               else
   45                  qf=(fqs(yr,i,j)-fqs/awtCi>
   54  c
   55         if  (enctl{yr,idp(i}» fpp(yr»i)=ecost(i)
   56         tf  (label-qrarea{i)/bepq .It. bepp(yr,i» then
   64             fppfl8i(f>s1
   65             tfpp(i)=fpp(yr,i)
   66             fpp(yr,i)=bepp(yr,i)
   67           endif
   68  c
   69         else
   70           fppfl8g{i)=0
   71           fPP*fppCyr,f >+fpdif*swt{i>+bepp(yr,i)
   72         endif
   73         call area5678 (!)
   74  140   contirwe
   75       return
  76       end

-------
HEADER.FOR                    Tuesday Nay 31,  1988   12:00 AM                        Page 1
    1 c	
    2 c:	~~	
    3 c
    4 C     ARCH :  OUTPUT HEADER SUBROUTINE
    5 c
    6 c     Version 6.31  : May 31,  1988.
    7 c
    8 c     Program written by:
    9 c
   10 c        Vikram Nidge,  1CF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c		
   14 c                     ~~~~       '	!	
   15 e
   16 Slarge
   17 c
   18 c	
   19 c                                   _____        ,	.	:	

   20 c     This subroutine writes  the  header for the output to a file or printer
   21 c_	
   22 c	'•	'—'	
   23 c
   24       subroutine header (idt)
   25 c
   26 $inelyde:'vsrs.ewi'
   27 c
   28 c
   29         if (ipage .ne.  0) write (3,'(a)') pgbrk
   30         ipage=ipage+1
   31 c
   32         write {3,'(t64,2a)'>  'Date:  'rdstr
   33         write (3,'(t64,2a)'}  'Tine:  ',tstr
   34         write (3,'{t64»a,i2/}') 'Page: '.fpage
   35 c
   36         if {idt .eq, 1) return
   37 c
   38         if (ipage .eq.  1) then
   39           write (3,'(t28,e>'> 'REGULATION SCENARIO'
   40           if  (pgbrk  .eq.  'V> write  <3,'
-------
IDDC.FOR                      Tyesday Bay 31,  1988   12:00 AX                        Page 1
    1  c	       	
    2  c~  ~	'	
    3  c
    4  c    ARCM  ;  INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT  STEP-DEMAND FUNCTIONS
    5  c
    6  c    Version 6.31  :  Hay 31,  1988.
    7  c
    8  c    Program written by;
    9  c
   10  c       Vikram Midge,  ICF  Incorporated, 9300 Lee Huy.,  VA 22031-1207
   11  c       (703)  934-3000
   12  c
   13  c	
   14  c           '	'	!	
   15  c
   16  Slarge
   17  c
   18  c		
   19  c                                      :	

   20  e                  This Subroutine calculates the Individual
   21  c                    product  market Derived Demand Curves,
   22  c                                     	
   23  c                         '   ~~   '	
   24  c
   25       subroutine Iddc (elc fl)
   26  c
   27  $include:'vars.c«n'
   28  c
   29       integer elc fl
   30  c
   31  c
   32       do 30 i=1,np
   33         temp=Q
   34         if (enctl(yr,Sdp(i))) tefnp=tefflp+ecost(t)
   35         if (label tenpsterap+lcost(i)
   36         temp=tenip*elc fl
   37  c
   38         do 301  j=1,nsub(i>
   39           fps(i,j)=8fpe*{psCyr,i,j>-aepp{i>-terap)/OHt(iJ
   40           f qs(yr, i, j >=C)S*fqs(yr,i,j-1>
   44           endif
   45  c
   46  301     continue
   47  c
   48         if 
   50           if +qrarea{iJ/fcis(yr,i,r»syb{i}>
   52  302     continue
   53  30    continue
   54  c
   55       return
   56       end

-------
RES_CHK.FOR                   Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                       Page 1
1 c
2 c
3 c
4 c
5 c
6 c
7 e
8 c
9 c
10 c
11 c
12 c
13 c
ARCH ". USER RESPONSE CHECK SUBROUTINES
Version 6.31 : Kay 31, 1988.
Program written by:
Vikram yidge, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA
(703) 934-3000
22031-1207
14 C
15 c
16 Sine lode s'stdsub'
17 Slarge
18 c
19 c
20 c 	
21 c
22 c
checks for a Y/N response

23 C 	 — 	 ' 	 	
24 c
25 subroutine ynchk (*,*)
26 c
27 $inctude;'stdvar'
28 c
29 c
30 character res
31 c
32 c
33 fy=vy
34 fx=vx
35 c
36 10 cell setcur (iy,ix)
37 call eeol (vy,vx>
38 read (*,'(a>'> res
39 c
40 if ({res .eq. '¥'} .or. (res .eq. 'y'» return 1
41 if ((res .eq. 'N'J .or. (res .eq. 'n'» return 2
42 90 to 10
43 c
44 end
45 e
46 c
47 c
48 c 	
49 c
50 c
51 c
This subroutine scrolls the fiber cap screen
at a tine to display the complete schedule.
one line
53 e
54 subroutine more
55 c
56 $melude:'stdvar'
57- c
58 c
59 call pcsa (22,28,' More to come... 'c,vrev)
60 kk=vx-1
61 call pcs (24,25,'Press any key to continue'cj
62 call setcur (22, kk)
63 ipse*=key getcO
64 call eeop (22,0)
65 call upscroll ( 1,1 1,20,0, 79, vnonn)
66 c
67 return
68 end
69 c '
70 c
71 c
72 c
73 c
74 c
75 c
76. c 	
77 c
78
79 c
This subroutine checks to see if output file
and informs user appropriately.
subrout i ne f f 1 e_ehk ( i , j 3
exists

   80 $include;'stdvar'

-------
RiS_CHIC.FOR                   Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM                        Pafe  2


   81 $inelude:'vars.cmn'
   82 c
   83 c
   84       If 
  119       if  {a  .eq.  'e'>  call  pcs (vy,vx,'CONTROLLED'e>
  120       if    call  pcs (vy,vx,'LABELED'c)
  121 c
  122       call pcs (vy.vx,' product  #'//nyc//' HK'c)
  123       j=ichk d,ip)
  124       call eeop (22,0}
  125 c
  126       if  (j  .eq.  -99>  then
  127        urite  (nyc,'(i2)'>  ip
  128        call pcsa (22,10,'  THE TSCA  # OF THE PRODUCT SHOULD '//
  129      -       'BE BETWEEN  1  AND '//nyc//' 'c,vrev>
  130        go to  10
  131       endIf
  132 c
  133       return
  134      end
  135 c
  136 c
  137 c		
  138 c                                                   ~~~	
  139 c             This subroutine requests a year end checks to see if year  is
  140 c             specified correctly within the scenario.
  141 c	*____
  142 c      '               —	
  143 c
  144      subroutine yr chk (ir,ifl,iye>
  145 c
 •146 $lnclude:'stdvar'
  147 Sincludes'vars.emn'
  148 c
  149 c
  150      character   nye*4,nze*4
  151  c
  152 c
  153       iysvy
  154       ix=vx
  155 c
  156 10    vy=iy
  157      vx=ix
  158 c
  159       if  (ifl  .eq. 0)  then
  160        ir=ichk (1,endyr-baseyr)

-------
RES_CHK.FOR                   Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM                       Page 3


  161       else
  162         fr=ichk (baseyr+1,endyr>
  163       endif
  164 c
  165       call eeop (iye,0)
  166 c
  167       if 
  172         else
  173           write (nyc,'(i4)') baseyr
  174           write {nzc,'(i4)') endyr
  175           call  pcsa (22,25,' YEAR NOT  IN SPECIFIED  RANGE  'e,vrev)
  176           call  pesa (23,20,'SHOULD 8E  SPECIFIED  BETWEEN '//nyc//
  177      -                     'AMD '//nzc//'  'e.vbold)
  178         endif
  179         go to  10
  180       endif
  181 c
  182       return
  183       end
  184 c
  185 c
  186 c	
  187 c                                 ~	:	
  188 c            This  subroutine checks to  see  if the  tuiriber of products
  189 c            specified ore in the acceptable range.
  190 c.	
  191 c    —	——
  192 c
  193       subroutine nprd chk (ir,fye,a,iy4>
  194 c
  195 $inelude:'stdvar'
  196 $include:'vars.cmn'
  197 c
  198 c
  199       character  nyc*4,a
  200 c
  201 c
  202
            203 tO     write 
  205 c
  206       if  (a .eq. 'b') call  pcs (vy,vx,'BANNED'e>
  207       if  (a .eq. 'e') call  pcs (vy,vx,'CQNTRQLLED'e>
  208       if  (a .eq. 'I') call  pcs (vy,vx,'LA8EUsD'e>
  209 c
  210       call  pcs  (vy.vx,'  in  '//nyc//' (99 for all products} MW'c)
  211        ir=ichk C1,99)
  212       call  eeop (iye,0>
  213 c
  214       if  (ir .eq. -99) go to 10
  215       if  ((ir .gt.  ip) .and.  (ir .ne. 995) then
  216        write (nyc,'(i2)')  ip
  217        call pcsa (22,20,'  A MAXIMUM OF  '//nyc(1:2>//
  218      -                    '  PRODUCTS MAY'BE SPECIFIED 'c,vrev>
  219        go  to 10
  220       endi f
  221  c
  222       return
  223       end
  224  c
  225  c
 -226 c	,	
  227 c         ~~   ~                 '	:	——————	.	.	
  228 c            This subroutine displays the appropriate error message
  229 c            regarding party id during  the  permit allocation process.
  230 c	
  231  c~      ~~~	
  232  c
  233       subroutine pty  chk  (!,*)
  234  c
  235  $iriciude;'stdvar'
  236 e
  237 c
  238       if  (i .eq. 03 then
  239        call pcsa (24,20,'  THE  PARTY ID  ENTERED  IS NOT VALID 'c.vrev)
  240       elseif (i .eq.  1} then

-------
RESJIHK.FOR                   Tuesday «ay 31,  1988  12:00 AH                        Page 4


  241         call pesa (24,10,' THE NUMBER OF PARTIES SHOULD BE '//
  242      -                   'SPECIFIED BETWEEN 1  AMD 9 'C,vrev)
  243       elseif 
-------
SAREA6.FQR                   Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM                        Page 1


    1 c		
      c                     •   -                   —        —

    3 c
    4 c     ARCH :  CALCULATIOM OF AREA 6
    5 c
    6 c     Version 6.31  : Nay 31, 1988.
    7 c
    8 c     Program written fay:
    9 c
   10 c       Vikram Widge, 1CF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   11 c       <7Q3) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c	
   14 c                                        "
   15 c
   16 Slarge
   17 c
   18 c
19 c
20 c
21 c
22 c
23 c
24
25 c
This Subroutine calculates AREA 6.
subroutine sarea6 (i)
   26 iinclude:'vars.cmn'
   27 c
   28 c
   29       integer st6,end6.f Ug6
   30 c
   31 c
   32       area6(yr,i)=0
   33       If  {fpq(yr,i3 .eq. bepq(yr,i3) return
   34 c
   35       do  190 j=1,nsyb(i)
   36        if  {(qcap(yr) .eq. 0) .or. (fpq(yr,f)  .eq.  0)5 then
   37          st6=1
   38          fpq(yr,i)=0
   39          go to 193
   40        endif
   41  -      if  (qsKyr.l.j) .It. fpq(yr,i» ao to  190
   42        if  (qs1(yr,i,j) .eq. fpq(yr,i» st6=j+1
   43        if  (qs1(yr,i,j) .gt. fpq(yr,i» st6«j
   44        §o  to 193
   45 190   continue
   46 193   flag6sO
   47       do  195 l=st6,nsubCi>
   48        if  {flag6 .eq. 0) then
   49          area6(yr,j)=(qs1(yr,i,st6>-fpct-bepp(yr,i}5
   SO          fUi6=1
   51        etse
   52          area6{yr,i)sarea6-Kqs1{yr»i,!}-qs1{yr,i,l-1)>*
   53      -                            (psCyr.i.U-fae^Cyr.f}}
   54        endif
   55 195   continue
   56       return
   57       end

-------
SINtT.FOR                     Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM                       Page 1
    1 c	
    2 c	;	~
    3 c
    4 c     ARCM : INITIALIZATION OF Ail ARRAYS
    5 c                                                          •
    6 c     Version 6.31  ; May 31, 1988.
    7 c
    8 c     Program written by:
    9 e
   10 c        Vikrara Uidge, ICF Incorporated,  9300 Lee Hwy.,  VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c__	
   14 c                                        		
   15 c
   16 $large
   17 c
   18 c			
   19 c	"	
   20 c                   This Subroutine INITializes all  arrays.
   21 C	;	r
   22 c~	—	
   23 c
   24       subroutine sinit
   25 c
   26 Sincludes'vars.cnn'
   27 c
   28
29
30
31
32
33
54
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 c
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 c
60
61
62
63
64
65 4747
66 3737
67 c
68
69
70 3738
71 2727
72 c
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
do 2727 l»1, ny
fpeCl}-0
fqe(l)«0
bf pet I )«0
bfqe*0
area2(t)~0
area3{l>=0
area4( I )=0
. pf(l>=0
pfUl>*0
qcap{ I )=0
qcapmC I )=0
byear< t >«0

do 3737 ia1,itn
epp(l,i)=0
^sq( i , i >=0
beppC t , i )=0
bepqU,i>=0
area5(l,i}=0
are«6( I , i >=0
area7Cl,l)=0
areaSC 1 , i )=0
«rea8p{ l,i )«0
qfe(l,i>-0
qf(t,i>=0
f pq< 1 , i )~0
f pp{ I , f )=0
swbanC I , i >=0

do 4747 j»1,ks
ps(l,i,j)«0
qs(l,f,j>«0
qt1Cl,f,J)«0
fqs(l,i,j)=0
continue
continue

do 3738 i*1,ip
isban(l,i>aO
continue
cont 1 nue

do 5757 1»1,1m
avcC i >=0
swqr(i>=0
nsubC 1 >=0
fppf iag(i)KO
tfpp(i)=0
qrarea{ i >=0
  80 c

-------
SIKlt.FOR                     Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12sOO AM                        Page 2
81
82
83 6767
84 5757
85 c
86
87
88 1234
89 C
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101 C
102
103
do 6767 j=1,ks
fps=0
continue
cent i nue

do 1234 i=1,1Q
dfscrt(i)=0
continue

perra(1)='Dooi. Miners S Millers'
pern!C2>=* Foreign Miners & Milters'
penn(3}=' Importers Of iylk Fiber'
perniC4)»'Dom. Primary Processors'
perm(5 5* 'Foreign Primary Processors'
perm(6}*' Jnparters Of Mixtures'
pennC7)sf Importers Of Products'
perra(8)='Dom. Product Purchasers'
perm(9J='For. Product Purchasers'
perraC 1 0 )* ' Sovernraent '
p«rm(11)='Total'

return
end

-------
TABAGG.F0R                    Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AH                        Page 1
    1 c	
    2 c	~	
    3 c
    4 c     ARCH ; AGGREGATE TABLES OUTPUT  SUBROUTINE
    5 c
    6 c     Version 6.31  :  May 31,  1988.
    7 c
    8 c     Program written by:
    9 c
   10 c        Vikran Widge, 1CF Incorporated, 9300  Lee Buy., VA 22031-120?
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c	
   U c      :	~~~	
   15 c
   16 Starge
   17 c
   18 c		
   19 c      ——	-___	

   20 c        This subroutine writes the 'welfare effects by market' tables
   22 c        •	,____

   23 c
   24       subroutine tabagg (itab,drt,fjbes,fibps,pval}

   26 $include:'vars.cnn'
   27 c
   28 c
   29       real         c(ip),p(ip>
   30 c
   31        character   ctab*2
   32 c
   33       character*80 us2.us3
   34 c
   35 c
   36       write <3»'{a>«)  pgbrk
   37       ipage=ipage+1
   38 c
   39       if  Citab .eq. 1> Gtab=»'1A'
   40       if  (itab .eq. 2) ctab='1S'
   41  c
   42       write (3,'(t64,2a3'> 'Date: ',dstr
   43       write (3,'(t64,2a)') 'Time: ',tstr
   44       write (3,'(t64,a,i2/>'>  'Page:  ',ipage
   45        write (3,'(t26,2a)'> '           TABLE ',etab
   46       if  (pgbrk .eq.  '1'}  write C3,'<«,t26,a>') *+','           	'
   47       write <3,'C//t26,a>') 'WELFARE EFFECTS §Y PRODUCT MARKET'
   48       if  (pgbrk .eq.  M'} write C3,'(a,t26,a)') '+',
   49     -            .        '                           	   I
   50        if  {itab .eq. 2)  write (3,'C/t31,a>'} '(Domestic Iffacts only)'
   51        write (3,'C/t15,2a,f4.1,a//)') '(Present Values, in thoisand ',
   52      -                         'dollars, at ',drt,'  percent)'
   53        us2=' Market        CS Loss       PS Loss         Permit'
   54        us3='=cons
  69           p(idp(j))=pros
  70         endif
  71 c
  72         write  (3,firrtC1)3 idp(j3,cons,pros,banni(j}
  73 30    continue
  74 c
  75        if  (itab  .eq. 2} Write (6) drt,(c(i),p(i),i=1,ip>,fibcs,fibps
  76 c
  77        if  (option .eq.   1} then
  78         write (3,fmt{12}> 'Fiber',fibcs,fibps
  79       else
  80         write (3,fmt(2» 'Fiber',fibcs,fibps,pval

-------
TABACS.FOR                    Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00  AH                       Page 2
81
82 c
83
84 c
85
86
87
88
89
90 c
91
92
93
94
95
96
9?
98 c
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106 c
107
108
endif

write (3,'(7x,a/)') us

write {3,'C/10x»a/)'>
write {3,'(10x,a}')
write <3,'(10x,a>')
write (3,'(1Qx,a)'>
write (3,'<10x,a//)')

write C3,'(/10x,a)'> '
» i
write {3,'')
-

if  then
write{3,'C1Qx»8>'} '
,. t
else
writeC3,'{10x,a}'> '
i
endif

return
end


1

L1GENO FOR PRODUCT STATUS:'
B Banned'
X exempted from regulBtiort'
E Engineering controls active'
I Labeling requirements'

Note: 1. Negative entries are welfare'//
gains.'
' 2. CS Loss in the Fiber market is*//
' the sun of all downstream'
producer and consumer welfare losses.'
' 3. Consumer and producer surplus '//
'losses reported above are'


for foreign and domestic '//
consumers and producers.'

for domestic consumers and '//
producers only.*





-------
TDDC.FOR                      Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                       Page 1


    1 C	
    2 C
    3 C
    4 C     ARCH :  TOTAL DERIVED STEP-DEMAND  FUNCTIONS
    5 C
    6 C     Version 6.31 :  Hey 31,  1988.
    7 C
    8 C     Program written by:
    9 C
   10 C        Vikrain Midge, 1CF incorporated,  9300 Lee Hwy.,  VA 22031-1207
   11 C        {703) 934-3000
   12 C
   13 C	
   14 C
   15 C
   16 SUrge
   17 C
   18 C	
   19 C                               !
   20 C       This  subroutine calculates  Total  Derived Demand  Curve for fiber.
   21 C	
   22 C                                      :
   23 c
   24       subroutine tddc (bftag)
   25 c
   26 $inelude:'vars.cnn'
   27 c
   28
29
30 c
31
32 c
33 c
34
35
36
37
38
39 5757
40 c
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 2011
52
53
54 201
55 20
56 c
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 2101
64 210
65 c
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80 1011
real tfhq(250),tfvq(2505

integer bflag


do 5757 a»*1,250
tfpS(Bl)sQ
tfqs(m)=Q
tfhq(ai>=0
tfvq<»>=0
continue

nstd=0
do 20 i=1 ,np
if ((option .eq. 1) .and. (bflag .eq, 1} .and.
(SHban(yr.i) .eq. 1» 90 to 20
if ((option .ne.1> .and. (bfleg .eq. 1} .and.
((swbarKyr, f) .eq. 1) .or. exmpt(idpCi)))) 90 to 20
do 201 js1,nsub(i)
if (fqs(yr,i,j) .It. 0.0001> go to 201
do 2011 k=1,nstd
if (fps(i,j> .eq. tfps(k)) go to 201
continue
nstd=nstd+1
tfps{nstd)=fps(i,j>
cont i nue
continue

do 210 i=1,nstd-l
do 2101 j«i+1,nstd
if (tfps(i) .flt. tfps(j» go to 2101
ttonpBtf ps( 1 )
tfps(i>«tfps{j>
tfps(j)«tt«np
eont 5 nue
continue

do 10 k-l.nstd
do 101 1=1, np
if ({option .eq, 1) .end. (bftag .eq. 1} .and.
(swtenCyr.i) .eq. 1» go to 101
if {(option .ne.1) .end. (bflag ,eq. 1> .and.
((swbarKyr, i) .eq. 1) .or. exmpt{idp(i»)> go to 101
do 1011 j=1,nsub(i3
if (tfps(k) .le. fps(i,j» then
if 
-------
TODC.FOR                      Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 W                        Page 2


   81 101     continue
   82 10    continue
   83 c
   84       return
   85       end

-------
ARCM_AMD.FOR                  Tuesday May 31, 1988  12:00 AH                        Page 1
    1 c	
    2 c                                                  ™~~—
    3 c
    4 c     ASBESTOS REGULATORY COST MODEL (ARCH) :  MAIN PROS8AM
    5 c
    6 c     Version AMD : Hay 31 ,1988.
    7 c
    8 c     (version for use instead of  apcm.for «hen either
    9 c      aftermrket brakesc are not banned within 4 years
   10 c      of OEM brakes or if declining prices of substitutes
   11 c      are used)
   12 c
   13 c     Program written by:
   14 c
   15 c                           Vikranr yidge
   16 e                           ICF Incorporated
   17 c                           9300 Lee Highway
   18 c                           Virginia 22031-1207
   19 e
   20 c                           (703)  934-3000
   21 e
   22 c     Accompanying Documentation:
   23 c
   24 c           1. User's Manual
   25 c           2. Technical Support Document
   26 c
   27 c	
   28 c           ——	
   29 c
   30 $inctude:'stdsyfa'
   31 Slarge
   32 c
   33 c
   34       program   arcm
   35 c
   36 $include:'stdvar'
   37 Sincluder'vars.cmn'
   38 c
39
40 c
41
42
43 c
44
45 c
46 c
47 c
48 c
49 c
50 c
51 c
integer onsub(im)
character istr{6}*55
real amq{ny,36:37)
common/ amq/amq
this section prints the opening statement on the screen

   52       call  vfnit
   53       call  crt els
   54       call  box~(0,3,15,63,vnorm)
   55       call  pcsa {1,17,'EPA/OTS Asbestos  Regulatory Cost Model  (ARCK)'c,
   56      -           wold)
   57       call  pcs  {2,17,'                  Version AMD'c)
   58 c
   59       istr(1)='This  program models  the economic impacts and costs of'c
   60       istr{2)='ssbestos  fiber and product  regulations.  It permits a'c
   61       istr<3)a'variety of regulatory  options  to be implemented and'c
   62       istr{4)='allows  flexibility in  their implementation.  For'c
   63       istr(5)='assistanee in using  this  model please  refer to  the'c
   64       istr(6)='acGompanying user"s manual and  related docunentatton.'c
   65 c
   66       do 1  i=1,6
   67        call pcs Ci+7,13»istr{i>3
   68 1      continue
   69 c
   70       cell  pcs (20,20,'Please respond to queries as indicated.'c)
   71       call  pcs (24,25,'Press any key  to  continue'c)
   72       call  setcur (vy,vx)
   73       ipse=key geteC)
   74 c
   75       call  eeop (5,0)
   76       call  pcs (9,20,'Refer any specific questions regarding'c)
   77       call  pcs {10,20,'operation of this program to:'c)
   78       call  pcs (12,30,'Vikram Widge'c)
   79       call  pcs (13,30,'ICF  Incorporated'c)
   80       call  pcs (14,30,'9300 Lee Higbway'c)

-------
ARCMJWD.FQR                  Tuesday May 31,  1988   12:00 AM                        Page 2


   81       call  pcs (15,30,'Virginia 22031-1207'c)
   82       call  pcs (17,30,'(703)  934-3000'c)
   83 c
   84       call  pcs (24,25,'Press  any key to  continue'c)
   85       call  setcur (vy.vx)
   86       ipse=key gete()
   87 c
   88       call  eeop (5,0)
   89       call  pcsa (12,25,'  Initializing...  'c,vrev)
   90       call  setcur (vy,vx-1)
   91 c
   92       call  sinit
   93       call  asbin
   94 c
   95 c
   96       if  (option .ne.  1)  then
   97        write <*,*)  'this  version is for  declining substitute prices'
   98        write (*,*)  'and  currently does not support non-ban options'
   99        stop
  100       endif
  101 c
  102       do  1492 i=1,np
  103        if (=.true.
  127        endif
  128 c
  129        if  (cprat(i) ,gt.  1) epq(1,i)aepq(1,i)*cprat(i)
  130 c
  131         bbpq(i>=epq(1,i)
  132 c
  133        fqe(1)=fqe(1)+epq(1,i)*awt(i)
  134 c
  135         idif=baseyr-ibyd
  136.        do 357  ij=1,idif
  137          if  (ij  .It. 15)  then
  138            ig=ij
  139          else
  140            igs15
  141           endif
  H2          epq(1,i)=epq(1,i)*(1+grthrt(i,ii»
  143 357     continue
  144  c
  145         bepq(1,i)=epq(1,i>
 -146 c
  147 310   continue
  148  c
  149  c                                     '
  150  c
  151       slope=fpe(1)/(selast*fqe(1))
  152       rint=fpe(1)-slope*fqe(1)
  153       If (selast  .eq. 1) Hnt=0
  154  c
  155       bbfcpfqed)
  156       fqe(1)BO
  157  c
  158
  159  c
  160       do 4638 i=1,np

-------
ARC«_W®.FOR                  Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                      Page 3
161
162 4638
163 c
164
165
166
167 c
168
169
170
171
172 c
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181 c
182
183 c
184 468
185 c
186
187
188 c
189 c
190
191 c
192
193 c
194 c
195 c*~
196 c
197 c
198 c
199 c
200 1111
201 c
202
203
204
205 c
206
207
208 c
209
210
211
212 c
213 3001
214 c
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
•226 2011
227 c
228
229
230
231 201
232 e
233
234 c
235
236
237 c
238
239
240
fqe{1>=fqe(1)+epq(1,i)*aHtCi)
cent i nue

afpe=fpe(1>
fpe(1)=rint+slope*fqe(1>
if (fpe(1) .gt. afpe) go to 44444

do 468 f=1,np
aepp(i)=epp(1,i 5
epp<1 , f )=(f pe(1 )-afpe)*awt(i >+epp(1 , i )
bepp(1,i}sepp{1,i>

if (reost{i) .gt. Q> then
qrareaC i >«ccost{ f )*epq< 1 , i )+rcost( i )
avc{ i )=epp{ 1 , i } - (qrareaf 5 )/epq( 1 , i ) )
elseif (ecostO") .gt. 0) then
avc( i >=epp{ 1 , i" ) -ccostC i )
else
go to 468
endif

swqr(i)*1

continue

bfped>=fpe(1>
bfqe{1)=fqed)


call adjust

yr=2



this section modifies the product demand curves annually.



do 300 i=1,np

do 3001 jsl,onsub(i)
a*(1+fdiscrt>**ns(i,j)
b»C1+fdisert)**na{i)

if (ns(i,j) .ne. na{i»
aps(yr,i,j>*aps(yrfi,j}*(8/b)*(b-1>/(a-1}

if (aps(yr,i,j) .It. aepp(i» then
apsCyr i IJ^aeppCi}
endif

continue

if 
do 2011 k=1,insub
If (aps(yr, j,j) .eq. ps(yr,f,k» then
ms< i , k)=ms( i , kH-amst i , j 5
go to 201
endif
cent i nue

insubMnsub+1
psCyr, i , insub)*aps(yr, i , j)
ms( i , i nsub)sanis( i , j 5
continue

nsub(i)sfnsub

do 4631 j=1,nsub(f)-1
do 46311 k=j+1,nsubCi)

ff (ps(yr,i,j) .eq. ps(yr,i,k» then
call eeop (5,0)
call seteur {12,0}

-------
ARCM_AMD.FOR                  Tuesday May 31,  1988   12:00 AH                        Pas* 4
241
242
243
244
245
'246
247
248 c
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256 c
257 46311
258 4631
259
260 c
261 462
262
263
264
265
266 4621
267 c
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277 c
278 300
279 c
280 c
281
282 e
283 c
284
285 c
286
287
288 c
289
290
291
292
293
294 c
295
296 4002
297 c
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305 4001
-306 c
307
308
309 c
310
311
312
313 c
314 c
315 c
316
317 c
318
319
320
write (*,*) ' PRICES OF SUBSTITUTES STILL EQUAL'
write (*,*) ' YEAR:',baseyr+yr-1,' MARKET:' ,idp(i)
write (*,*) ' SUBSTlTUTES:',j,k
write {*,*) ' PRICES:', ps(yr,i, j),ps(yr,i,k)
call seteur (22,0)
stop
endif

if (ps(yr,i,j) .gt. ps{yr,i,k» go to 46311
ptemp=ps(yr,i,j>
efnte«p=i!)S(i,j)
ps(yr,i,j5=ps(yr,i,k)
ros(i,j}=ms{i,!O
ps(yr,i,k)=ptemp
ms(i,k)=emtenp

continue
continue
endif

eount=0
do 4621 j=1,nsub{i)
count=count+»s( i , j }
lnsub( i , j >= . false.
if (swqr(i) .eq. 1) InsubCi, j)=.true.
continue

if ((count .It. 0.999999} .or. {count .gt. 1.000001)) then
call eeop (5,0)
call sttcur (12,0)
write (*,'(5x,2a,i2,a,f14.7,atl4)') 'MARKET SHARE(S> OF ',
'SUBSTITUTES I« MARKET ',idp(}),' ADD TO ', count, ' IK YEAR ',
yr+baseyr-1
call seteur (22,0)
stop
endif

continue


qcap(yr)=qcapm(yr)


do 400 i«1,np

cur bseq=epq(1,i)
do 4002 ig=baseyr-ifayd+1,yr

if (ig .gt. 15) then
5gj=15
else
lgj=ig
endif

cur bseq»cur bseej*(1+grthrt(i,igj))
continue ~

do 4001 j«1,nsub(i)
qs(yr, i , j )scur_bseq*fns( i , j )
if (j .eq. 1) Ihen
qs1(yr*qs1 (yr, i , j-1 )+qs(yr, i , j )
endif
continue

rq=qs1 (yr , i » nsyb( i ) )
if (rq .eq. 0.) swqr(i)*0

if (swqr(i) .eq, 1) then
qrspea( i )=ccost ( i )*rq*rcost( 5 )
endif

**** engineering control cost calculation ****

if (rq ,ne. 0) eeost(i)=(fecost(i>+vecost(i)*rq)/rq

if (exrapt(»dp(i))) then
if (qeap(yr) .eq. 0) then
qc8pm(yr)ssqG8pm(yr>+(8Mt(i >*qs1(yr, i , nsubci ))}

-------
ARCM_AW>.FOR                  Tuesday May 31,  1988  12sOO AM                        Page 5


  321           else
  522            qeap(yr)=qe8p{yr}-(awtci)*qs1(yr,i,nsub{i»>
  323 c
  324            if (qcap(yr)  .It.  0) then
  325              call  eeop (5,0)
  326              call  setcur (12,0)
  327              write (*,'(10x,a,i4//>'>  'MODIFIED  FIBER CAP < 0  IN  '//
  328      -                                'YEAR  ',baseyn-yr-1
  329              write (*,'{2(10x,a,f13.7/»'>  'INPUT CAP    « '.qcapmCyr),
  330      -                                     'MODIFIED CAP « ',qeap 'ERROR  AT EXEMPTED PRODUCT #'
  332      -                               idpCi)
  333              call  setcur (22,0)
  334              stop
  335            endif
  336 c
  337           endff
  338         endff
  339 400   continue
  340 c
  341       call iddc (0)
  342       call tddc {Q>
  343       call eqpq
  344       if (afpe ,ge.  fpeCyr}}  go to  2222
  345 c
  346 44444 lyr=yr+baseyr-1
  347       celt eeop (5,0)
  348       call setcur  (12,0)
  349       write (*,'(15x,8//)'> 'BASELINE  FIBER  PRICE > '//
  350      -                     'DATA YEAS FIBER PRICE'
  351       write tVClOx,8,i4,a,f 14.7/)')  'Baseline  fiber price for ',
  352      -                                iyr/  »  ',fpe{yr5
  353       write  'Data year  C'.ibyd,
  354      -                              ')  fiber  price  « ',afpe
  355       call setcur  <22,0)
  356       stop
  357 c
  358 c
  359 2222  bfpe{yr)sfpe(yr)
  360       bfqe{yr>=fqe(yr>
  361       do 210 i*1jnp
  362         beppC yr,i ><=epp{yr,i)
  363         bepq=ainc)(yr,idp(i))*ins(i,j3
  392 c
  393             if 
-------
ARCMJWO.FOR                 Tuesday May 31,  1988  1Z:00 AN                       Pafe 6


  401 4926  continue
  402 c
  403       call  iddc (0>
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
41S
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
c

c ***********************#******«»#»*****«*********
c
call tddc {1}
if (option ,eq. 3)
call banesqr
call eqpq
c
if (option .eq. 1}
If (fpe(yr) .eq.
call aronban
90 to 8888
endif
c
2339 capr=. false.
call f pel 234
call fppfpq


go to 2339



then
0) fpe .ne.
call pcsa (18,15,


ie» fo to 1111



completed 'c,vrev>

'Ipt1'> then
'TO PRINT OUTPUT FILE '//
fnajne(3H1:lencbCfnameC3m//' ENTER'c.vbotd)
call pcsa (19,15,
tn AT
endif
call seteur (22,0)
c
stc^>
end
">PT ARCK '//fn8meC3)(1:lerK:h(fname(3)»//
THE DOS PROMPT. 'c.vbold)






-------
ADJUST.FOR                    Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AH                       Page 1
    1 c		
    2 c~~~	
    3 c
    4 c     A8GM : AFTERMAKET ADJUSTMENT DUE TO OEM SAN
    5 c            (used only with srcm_amd.for)
    6 c
    7 c     Version At® s Hay 31,  1988.
    8 c
    9 c     Program written by:
   10 c
   11 c        Vikram yidje, ICF Incorporated,  9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   12 c        C703) 934-3000
   13 c
   14 c _,...__	
   15 c	—
   16 c
   17 c	;	.
   1g c_—	:	

   19 c   Adjustment of Aftermarket due  to OEM  ban  and  calculation of OEM losses
   20 c	
   21 c                 ~     !	
   22       subroutine adjust
   23 c
   24 $inelude:'vars.cmn'
   25 c
   26       real       amq(ny,36:37),oenq)*<1+3rthrt£i»igj5)
   43 20       continue
   44         endif
   45 c
   46         if  (CidpCi) .eq. 36) .or.  {idp{i> .eq. 37)J then
   47          amc|{1,idp{i))*bepq(1,i)
   48          do 30 iy=2,enoVr-t>aseyr+1
   49             igj=baseyr-Ibyd+iy-1
   50             if 
   79                 if (k  .eq. 4)  then
   80                   atemp=oemq{iy-4,idp(i»*0.977

-------
ADJUST. FOR                    Tuesday May 31, 1988  12:00 W                        Page 2


   81                 elseif (k .eq. 8} then
   82                   8tempa8temp*oemq(fy-8,idp(i»*0.839
   83     .            elseif (i>+18)  .te.  0)  then
   92                 call  pcs (15,10, 'aftermarket qty.  < or = O'c)
   93                 call  seteur (17,10}
   94                 write (*,51) 'year',i"vN-baseyr-1,'mkt.',idp(i}+18,
   95      '                       'a/m  qty.',amq{iy,idpCi}+18)
   96 51               format (t11,8,2x,i4,3x,a,2x,i"2,3x,a,2x,f10.1J
   97                 call  seteur (20,0)
   98                 stop
   99               endif
  100             endif
  101           endif
  102 60       continue
  103 40    continue
  104 e
  105      return
  106      end

-------
RRiANJW.FOR                  Tuesday May 31,  1988   12:00 AH                        Page 1
    1 c.  ..   .               	
    2 c~~	"
    3 c
    4 c     ARCH :  CALCULATION  OF  AREAS UNDER  BANS ONLY
    5 c            (version of  aror»ban.for  used with aron and.for)
    6 c
    7 c     Version A» :  May 31,  1988.
    8 c
    9 c     ProiraM written by:
   10 c
   11 c        Vikram Widge,  ICF  Incorporated, 9300 lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   12 c        (7035 934-3000
   13 c
   14 c	              	
   15 c"	'	
   16 c
   17 SUrge
   18 c
   19 c	;	
   20 c'	
   21 c                   This subroutine calculates the CS gains
   22 c                   and PS  losses  when only bans take place,
   23 c		
   24 c	
   25 c
   26       subroutine aronban
   27 c
   28 Sincludes'vars.cim'
   29 c
   30       real       amadj(ny,36:37)
   31       eonreon/amadj/amadj
   32 c
   33       pedif*bfpe-fqeCyr)}
   36       do 230  1=1,np
   37         if  (swbarrtyr, i) .eq. 1)  go to 230
   38         area5(yr,i}s(epp(yr,i>-beppCyr,i»*epqCyr,i}
   39 c
   40         if  CtidpCi)  .eq. 36) .or.  (idp(i) .eq. 37)) then
   41          atempsO
   42          do  10 j»t,nsubCf)
   43            atemp=atemp+«nadjCyr,fdp(i))*ms< i,j)*(ps(yr,S,j)-beppCyr,i)}
   44 10        continue
   45
            46 c ***** areaS is a gain  here and so is a negative entity *****
   47          area5Cyr,i)=area5(yr,i)+atenp
   48         endif
   49 c
   50 230    continue
   51       return
   52       end

-------
A.4   EXPOSURE AND BENEFITS MODELCALCUIATION METHODS

   This appendix presents details concerning the calculations required for two
aspects of the benefits measurement approach outlined in Volume I of this
Regulatory Impact Analysis.  The first section below reviews the procedures
used  to translate the emissions and related results derived in the IGF (1988)
and Versar (1987) studies of asbestos exposure in occupational and
nonoccupational settings.  The second section provides a step-by-step overview
of the calculations performed by the benefits estimation model.

   A.  EXPOSURECALCULATIONS

   The information provided by the ICF and Versar studies of emissions and
populations exposed are the basic inputs for the health model's calculations.
To derive the direct inputs to the model, however, several additional steps
were  required.  These are outlined below for each major activity giving rise
to asbestos exposures as follows:

   *    Primary manufacturing, both occupational and nonoccupational
   •    Secondary manufacturing, both occupational and nonoccupational
   •    Installation, both occupational and nonoccupational
   •    Use, both occupational and nonoccupational
   •    Disposal or repair, both occupational and nonoccupational

   It must be noted, however, that the "number of people exposed" and the
"million fibers breathed per year" numbers shown for each exposure setting are
correct only for the underlying quantities of each asbestos product, as
reported in the ICF study.  These quantities in turn were based on the latest
information available for each category.  The cost model, on the other hand,
uses  the 1985 quantity for each product category and applies appropriate
growth rates to .arrive at the correct quantity information in the years after
1985, provided such information was available.  In order to make the inputs to
the cost and benefit models consistent, the numbers reported in sections 1, 2,
3, and 5 below are adjusted as described in section 6,   The actual input to
the health benefits model are shown in section 6.

        1-  Exposurefrom Primary Manufacturing

        Emissions from primary and secondary manufacturing were combined for
the dispersion modelling and are all included here under nonoccupational
exposures from primary manufacturing.  ICF's occupational exposure level data
were presented in fibers/cubic centimeter (f/cc).  These estimated exposure
levels represented the arithmetic averages of the many observed occupational
exposure levels for each product assuming compliance with the OSHA 0,2 f/cc
PEL.   To convert f/cc to units of million fibers breathed per year, it was
necessary to multiply exposures measured in f/cc by the volume of air (in
cubic meters) breathed per hour and hours of exposure per year.  For
occupational exposure,  a breathing rate of 1.3 cu m/hour was assumed
        Section 4 reports the data for the nonoccupational exposures from
product use only as there are no occupational exposures for this exposure
setting.  The numbers reported were derived from emissions estimates and
dispersion modelling by Versa" (1988) and are not based on any quantity data
per se, and therefore are not adjusted in section 6.

                                    A,4-1

-------
 (Jennings,  1985).   For  many products,  2000 hours  (8 hours/day x  250 days/year)
 of exposure per year were  assumed (IGF 1988).  However  for products 3, 4, 5,
 6, 11, and  23, exposure durations of 8 hours/day  for only 209, 201, 204, 202,
 202, and  202  days/year  respectively were  assumed  (IGF 1988).  Further
 exceptions  include: product 13,  220 days/year, product  26, 240 days/year, and
 products  30,32, and 33,  200 days/year (IGF 1988).

   'Versar's nonoccupatlonal exposure level data were presented in
 mierograms/cubic meter.  Again,  these estimated exposure levels  represented
 the arithmetic averages of the many estimated nonoccupational exposure levels
 for each  product.   To convert micrograms/cu m to  units  of million fibers
 breathed  per  year  it was necessary first  to convert micrograas/cu m to
 nanograms/cc  by dividing by 1000.   A conversion rate of 30 f/nanogram was then
 used to convert these exposure levels to  f/cc (BSEPA, 1986).  To convert f/cc
 to units  of million fibers breathed per year, the f/ce  were multiplied by
 volume of air breathed  (in cu m)  per hour and hours of  exposure  per year.  A
 breathing rate of  1.1 cu in/hour  was assumed for nonoccupational  exposure
 (Jennings,  1985).   For  all products,  8,760 hours  (24 hours/day x 365
 days/year)  of exposure  per year  were assumed (TJSEPA, 1986).

   Finally, for the mining and milling category,  exposure data* from the ICF
 exposure  assessment (ICF 1988) were combined by summing the populations
 exposed to  each activity,  and calculating a weighted average exposure level
 using the population weights.  The data used to compute the weighted average
 are as follows:
                                                   Mining   Milling


             Population Exposed                      44       111

             Level of Exposure (million  f/yr.)       49       147
   The exposure data underlying the adjustments in section 6 are shown in
Table A.4-1.

        2,  Exposure from,, Secondary Manufacturing

        First, all nonoccupational exposures due to Secondary Manufacturing
are included in the nonoccupational exposures due to Primary Manufacturing, as
discussed above.  Second, the numbers of people exposed from secondary
manufacturing of friction products (products 18-24) in 1985 were estimated
using the 8(a) CBI data for 1981, adjusted for each product by multiplying by
the ratio of production in 1985 to that in 1981.  Furthermore, ICF  (ICF 1988)
assumed the exposure levels from secondary manufacturing to be the  same for
all friction products  (products 18-24).  ICF's exposure level data were
presented in f/cc.  These levels represented the arithmetic average of the
many observed occupational exposure levels for each product assuming
compliance with the OSSA 0,2 f/cc PEL.  To convert f/cc to units of million
fibers breathed per year it was necessary to multiply exposures in f/cc by the


                                    A.4-2

-------
Table A.4-1. Exposure Levels  (in millions  flbars  inhaled p«r year)  and Hunker of Persons
    Exposed to Primary Manufacturing Products for Occupational and Ron-Occupational Settings
                             Occupational

                    No.  of People     MM-.  Fib./Yr
                         •     "C        jasSS;.;-      '
             Honoccupat totnal

No, of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
1,
2,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8,
' 9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1*.
15.
16.
17.
is.
».
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
3*.
35.
36.
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grads Elect. Paper
Booting Pelt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt •
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheat
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings
Disc: Braka Pads, IMV
Disc Brake Fads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto, fransraiss. Comp.
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile iiners
Sealant Taps
Eattary Separators
Arc Chutes
Hintog and Milling


12
27
227
27

162


6

650
7.86
12

11
1.115
ais
14
232
239
1
187

78
163
5
438
497
138
380
134
207
2
155


145
134
110
113




111

87
270
478

473
385
390
385
377
406
113
398

457
208
198
273
220
164
220
220


121


5,747,875
4,847,937
35,897,272
254,772






19,744,593
3,313,602
4,847,937

891,143
24,605,781
21,421,488
1,396,558
8,034,916
8,761,571

12,628,656

16,306,866
42,550,071
5,659,488
63,673,717
59,487,018
17,504,019




841,214


0,0232
0.0476
0.0373
0,405






0.00000185
0.167
0.0218

0.00361
0.0575
0.0214
0.000000827
0.00388
0.0027

0.00234

0.00214
0.00561
0.0000534
0.00233
0.0000394
0.0018




0.407

-------
volume of air  (in cu m) breathed per hour and hours of exposure per year.  A-
breathing rate of 1.3 cu m/hour was assumed  (Jennings, 1985),  For all
products 2000 hours (8 hours/day x 250 days/year) of exposure per'year were
assumed (ICF 1988),    The exposure data underlying the adjustments in section
6 are shown in Table A.4-2.

        3.  Exposure from Installation

        Most of the nonoccupational data were derived from emissions estimates
by ICF Incorporated (ICF 1988) and dispersion modelling by Versar (Versar
1988).  These exposures occur as a result of releases of asbestos to the air
during occupational installation of asbestos products used in construction.
These included products 7, 14, 15, 16, and 17.  Consumer installation exposure
exists for product 29 only, as estimated by Versar (Versar 1987).  For
occupational exposures, ICF data were presented in f/cc.   The levels
represented the arithmetic average of the many observed occupational exposure
levels for each product assuming compliance with the OSHA 0.2 PEL.   fo convert
f/cc to units of millions of fibers breathed per year, it was necessary to
multiply exposures in f/cc by the volume of air breathed (in cu m)  per hour
and hours of exposure per year, hence a breathing rate of 1,3 cu m/hour was
assumed (Jennings, 1985).  For all products, although exposures were typically
less than 8 hours/day, a 2000 hour (8 hours/day x 250 days/year) annual
exposure was assumed for all the exposed population, since the number of
people exposed were estimated as number of full-time-equivalent employees (ICF
1988).

   For ambient exposures to asbestos from construction activities,  Versar
(1988) provided only estimates for total population exposed from installation
and repair and did not allocate the exposed population to the primary products
and exposure categories.  Versar's estimated total number of people exposed
from occupational construction activities was assumed to be equal to the
number exposed from each of the products separately for modeling purposes.

   For consumer installation of product 29, spray roof coatings, such coatings
were assumed to be applied every 4 years (the mid-point of Versar estimate of
3-5 years) by a total of 841,000 persons (Versar 1987).  Thus the number of
persons exposed per year in this category was assumed to be 210,250
(841,000/4).

   For ambient occupational exposures in construction activities, Versar
(1988) provided only estimates for total exposures from installation and
repair.  To allocate these exposures to the primary products by exposure
category,  these total exposure levels were divided according to the proportion
of emissions from each individual product and exposure category as estimated
by ICF (ICF 1988, Exhibits 42-46).

   For ambient exposures to occupational construction activities, Versar's
exposure level data were presented in microgram/cu m.  These levels
represented the arithmetic average of the many estimated ambient exposures for
each product.   To convert microgram/cu m to units of millions fibers breathed
per year It was necessary first to convert micrograms/cu m to f/cc and then
multiply by volume of air breathed (in cu m) per hour and hours of exposure
per year.   Micrograms/cu m was converted first to nanograms/ce by dividing by
1000.  A conversion rate of 30 fibers/nanogram was used to convert these
exposure levels to f/cc (USEPA, 1986).  A breathing rate of 1.1 cu m/hour was

                                    A.4-4

-------
        Table A.4-2.  Exposure Levels (in millions  fibers inhaled per year)  and Honisar of Persona
        Exposed to Secondary Manufacturing Products for Occupational and Non-Geeopational Settings
                                    Occupational                            Konoceupational

                           No. of People     Mil. Flb./fr      Ho. of People         Mil.  Fib./Yr
 1.  Coronercial Paper
 2.  Bollboard
 3.  Millboard                  448                57
 ft.  Pipeline Wrap
 5.  Beater-add Gaskets       1,264                57
 6,  Bigh-grada Elect. Paper     20                57
 7.  Roofing Felt
 8.,  Acetylene Cylinders
 9.  Flooring Felt
10.  Corrugated Paper
11.  Specialty Paper            145                57
12.  V/A Floor Tile
13.  Diaphragms
14.  A/C Pipe
15.  A/C Flat Sheet
16.  A/C Corrugated Sheet
17.  A/C Shingles
18.  Drum Brake Linings       1,937               125
19.  Disc Brake Pads, 1MV       267               146
20.  DisC Braku Pads, H?
21.  Brake Blocks                16               127
22.  Clutch Facings              48               166
23.  Auto Transmiss. Corap.
24.  Friction Materials          27               195
25.  Protective Clothing
26.  Thread, yarn etc.          208               408
27.  Sheet Gaskets              878               276
28.  Asbestos Packings           25               276
29.  Roof Coatings
30.  Son-Roofing Coatings
31.  Asb. Reinforced Plastics   456               239
32.  Missile Liners
33.  Sealant Tape
34.  Battery Separators
35.  Arc Chutes
36.  Mining and Milling

-------
 assumed (Jennings,  1985).   For  all  ambient  exposures  8,760  (  24 hours/day x
 365  days per year)  hours  of exposure per year were  assumed  (USEPA,  1986).

   For  exposures  from consumer  installation of product  29,  an annual exposure
 duration of 4 hours ( 4 hours/day x I  day/year) was assumed.   The estimated
 mean exposure level for product 29  was 0.2  f/cc which was the mean  exposure
 level from consumer installation from  the three studies cited by Versar
 (1987).  The exposure data  underlying  the adjustments in section 6  are shown
 in Table A.4-3.

        4.  Exposure frpmJJse

        Nonoccupational exposures from product use  were derived from emissions
 estimates and dispersion  modelling  by  Versar (1988).  Versar  presented an
 estimate of the average national ambient air asbestos concentration
 attributable to brake use in 1985 of 0.039  ng/cu m  for  the  226,546,000 people
 in the  U.S.  These  exposures were assigned  among the  four brake products, drum
 brakes  for light  and medium vehicle, disc pads for  light and  medium vehicles,
 disc  pads for heavy vehicles, and brake blocks for  heavy vehicles,  as follows:

   Versar estimated that  in'1985:

        •    Cars accounted for 31  percent  of asbestos  emissions;

        «    Light  trucks accounted for 15  percent  of asbestos
             emissions; and

        •    Heavy  trucks accounted for 54  percent  of asbestos
             emissions.

   The  national exposure  level, 0.039  ng/cu m, can  be subdivided using these
 percentages to cars, 0.012  ng/cu m  (0.31 x  0.039),  light trucks,
 0.0058  ng/cu m (0.15 x 0.039),  and  heavy trucks, 0.021  ng/cu  m (0.54 x 0.039).
 Car brakes were assumed to  be 55 percent disc brakes  and 45 percent drum
brakes  (See Appendix A.I).   Emissions  from  brakes were  estimated to be in the
 ratio 1.1 ; 1.0 for disc  ;  drum brakes (Letter from Lynn Delpire to Jo
Mauskopf dated June  17, 1987),  and  thus the .012 ng/cu  m was  assigned to
products 18 and 19  as 0.0052 ng/cu  m and 0.0070 ng/cu m respectively.  ICF
 estimates that light trucks have 50 percent drum brakes and 50 percent disc
brakes  (See Appendix A-l),  and  thus 0.0027  ng/cu m was  assigned to product 18
 for light trucks and 0.0030  ng/cu m was assigned to product 19, accounting for
 the 1.1 : 1.0 emission ratio described above.  Versar assumed that heavy
 trucks  have drum brakes only, and thus 0.021 ng/cu m  was assigned to product
 21.  The total U.S. population was  assumed  to be exposed to emissions from
each  of the four friction products.

   The  ambient exposure data from emissions  from use  of brakes was  further
adjusted for the benefits analysis.  The exposure levels derived above were
attributable to emissions of all brakes being used  in 1985.   For the benefits
analysis exposure data set,   estimates  of exposures  attributable to the first
year of exposure of brakes manufactured during 1985 were needed.  ICF assumed
a brake lifetime of 4 years  for drum brakes  and disc  pads for  light and medium
vehicles, and a decline in production  of approximately  0,9 percent per year
since 1981 for drum brakes  and  8.6  percent per year for disc pads.1  Thus,
approximately 0.247 x (0.0052 + 0.0027) - 0.0020 ng/cu m can.be assigned to

                                    A.4-6

-------
Table A.4-3. Exposure Levels {in millions fibers inhaled per year) and Runfcer of Parsons
     Exposed to Installation of  Products  toe Occupational  and Hon-Ooctspational Settings
                            Occupational

                   Ho. of People     Mil. Fib./fr
                         Nonoecupatlonal

             Ho. of People         Mil. Fib./Xr
 1.  CociBerciai Paper
 2.  Rollboard
 3.  Millboard
 4.  Pipeline Wrap
 5.  Beater-add Gaskets
 6.  High~sra
-------
 product 18 for drum brakes manufactured In 1985 and 0.217 x (0.0070 + 0,0030)
 - 0,0022 ng/cu IB to product 19 for disc brakes manufactured in 1985 where  the
 factors 0.247 and 0,217 were derived as follows:

       If "N" is the number of drum brakes installed in 1982,  the total number
 of drum brakes on the road in 1985, assuming a decline in production each  year
 of 0.9 percent and brake life of 4 years, is given by;

              (N + 0.991 x N 4- 0.991 x 0.991 x N + 0.991 x 0.991
              x 0.991 x N) - 3.946 x N

    The proportion of the drum brakes on the road in 1985 that were
 manufactured in 1985 is thus assumed to be approximately given by;.

              (0.991 x 0.991 x 0.991 x N)/3.946 x N  - 0.247

    Similarly for disc pads,  the total number on the road in 1985, assuming a
 decline in production each year of 8.6 percent and brake life of 4  years,  is
 given by:

 •'             (N + 0.914 x N + 0.914 x 0.914 x N + 0.914
            x 0.914 x 0.914 x N)  - 3.513 x N

    The proportion of the disc brakes on the road in 1985 that were
 manufactured in 1985 is thus assumed to be approximately given by:

              (0.914 x 0.914 x 0.914 x N )/3.513 x N - 0.217

    Finally,  no exposures from use were assigned to product 20,  and
 0.021 ng/cu m were assigned to product 21 (since brake blocks are assumed  to
 have  an average life of only half a year,  all brake blocks were assumed to be
 used  in the year of manufacture).   The exposure data used for the health
 benefits analysis are shown in Table A.4-4.

         5.   Exposure from Repair/Disposal

         Some of the nonoccupational data for estimating exposures in
 repair/disposal were derived from emissions  estimates by ICF  (1988)  and
 dispersion modelling by "Versar (1988).   Other data were derived from
 nonoccupational exposure data compiled by Versar (1987),   ICF estimated
 exposures  from automotive rebuilding for all friction products  together.   The
 total population exposed in  automotive rebuilding was the  number estimated fay
 OSHA  (1986).   This population was  divided among the individual  friction
 products (products 18-24)  in the  same  proportion as those  exposed in secondary
 manufacturing of. these  products  in 1985.

   Occupational population exposure estimates for brake repair  for brakes
 manufactured during 1985  were  estimated using the ICF estimates  for  sales  of
 replacement  brakes for  1989  (Appendix  A.I).   The sales  of  replacement brakes
 for consumer repair were  netted out of these total sales estimates and  then
 the full-time-equivalent employees  required  to install  the remaining brakes
were  estimated.   The IGF estimate  for  total  replacement brakes  sales in 1989
 is 136,045,000  for drum brakes  (product  18)  and 96,273,000 for  disc  brakes
 (product 19).   The total  occupationally-exposed population for brake repair
was estimated by adding together  the exposed population estimates for

                                    A.4-8

-------
        Table A.4-4.  Exposure Levols (in millions fibers inhaled par year)  and Number of Persons
                 Exposed to Use of Products for Occupational and Non-Occupational Settings
                                    Occupational                            Honoccupational

                           Ho. of People     Mil. Fib./Yr      Ho. of People         Mil.  Fib./Yr


 1.  Coranaxeial Paper
 2.  RolUsoard
 3.  Millboard
 4.  Pipeline Wrap
 5.  Beater-add Gaskets
 6.  High-grade Elect. Paper
 7.  Booting Felt
 8.  Ao«tyl«n» Cylinders
 9.  Flooring Pelt
10.  Corrugated Paper
11.  Specialty Paper
12.  V/A Floor Tile
13.  Diaphragms
14.  A/C Pip«
15.  A/C Flat Sheet
16.  A/C Corrugated Sheet
17.  A/C Shingles
18,  Dram Brake Linings                                         226,546,000               0.00058
19.  Disc Brake Fads, IMT                                       226,546,000               0.00064
20.  Disc Brake Pads, m
21.  Brake Blocks                                               226,546,000                0.0061
22.  Clutch Facings
23.  Auto. Iransmtss. Coinp.
24.  Friction Materials
23.  Protective Clothing
26.  Thread, yarn ate.
27.  Sheet Gaskets
28.  Asbestos Packings
29.  Roof Coatings
30.  Non-Roofing Coatings
31.  A»b. Reinforced Plastics
32.  Missile Liners
33.  Sealant Tape
34.  Battery Separators
35.  Arc Chutss
36.  Mining and Milling

-------
automotive rebuilding  and  repair  for  each of the  friction products.

   ICF estimated the exposures  from automotive rebuilding for all friction
products together  (ICF 1988).   The exposure levels were assumed to be the same
for each product.  The exposure levels during occupational brake repair and
rebuilding were derived from the  estimates in the ICF asbestos exposure
assessment by converting the f/cc estimate to million fibers/year.  For this
conversion breathing rates of 1.3 cu  m/hour (Jennings, 1985) and annual
exposures of 2000 hours (8 hours/day  x 250 days/year) (ICF, 1988) were
assumed.

   The exposures from  automotive  rebuilding by primary friction product were
combined with those from occupational brake repair in the exposure data set by
summing the populations exposed to each activity, and calculating a weighted
average exposure level using population weights.  The data used for
occupational exposure  from repair for products 18, 19, and 21 are as follows:
                                             Occupational   Automotive
                                             Brake Repair   Rebuilding
        Population Exposed
             18                                71,395          4,009
             19                                38,890            551
             20                                   117              0
             21                                 3,832             33

        Level of exposure (millions f/yr.)
             18                                   390            133
             19           ,                        390            130
             20                                   390              0
             21                                   390            133
    For ambient nonoccupational exposure from occupational brake repair or
construction removal activities, Versar provided only total population
estimates and did not allocate the population exposed to the primary products
(Versar 1988).  In both cases, Versar's total number of people exposed from
occupational brake repair or construction removal activities was assumed to be
the same as the number exposed from each of the products separately.

    The nonoccupational population exposed estimates from consumer brake
repair for the brakes manufactured during 1985 were derived from survey data
for 1981 (Versar 1987).  The survey indicated that 9,132,000-people actually
purchased brakes and a further 4,054,000 people who were members of the
purchaser's household helped to install them. • The number of people doing home
brake jobs was assumed to remain constant over time and each brake job was
assumed to consist of changing 4 disc pads and 4 brake drums, although the
proportion of those jobs that used asbestos brakes was assumed to change over
time as the population of asbestos brakes declines.
                                    A.4-10

-------
     The number of  consumers  exposed while  changing asbestos brakes  in  1985 was
 therefore computed as,  12,922,280  (13,186,000  x 0.98)  for brake drums  (product
 18)  and 8,570,900  (13,186,000 x  0.65)  for  disc pads (product  19).   The factors
 0.98 and 0.65 were obtained  from Tables  11 and 12  of Appendix A.I and  are the
 ratios of asbestos brakes  to total brake sales for 1989  for drum and disc
 brakes respectively.  The  total  number of  asbestos brake drums and  disc pads
 installed by consumers  in  1989 (as they  repair brakes  manufactured  during
 1985) was calculated as 35,797,440 (0.98 x 9,132,000 x 4) and 23,743,200 (0.65
 x  9,132,000 x 4) respectively.

     The total nonoccupational exposed  population from  brake repair  is
 estimated by adding together the estimates of  the  exposed population from
 ambient exposure from occupational brake repair and consumer  installation of
 brakes.

     For ambient nonoccupational  exposure from  occupational brake repair or
 removal of construction products Versar  provided only  total exposure estimates
 and  did not allocate the exposures from  repair to  the  individual construction
 or friction products.   These exposure  levels were  divided between the
 individual friction or  construction products according to the proportion of
 emissions from the specific  products as  estimated  by IGF (1988, Tables 42-
 46).

     The ambient exposure estimates were  presented  by Versar in micrograms per
 cubic meter.  In order  to  convert them to  units of million fibers per  year the
 unit were first converted  to nanograms/cc  by dividing  by 1000.  These
 exposures were converted to  f/cc by multiplying by a 30  f/nanogram  conversion
 factor (USEPA, 1986).   To  convert f/cc to  million  fibers per  year a breathing
 rate of 1.1 cu m/hour (Jennings, 1985) and an  annual exposure duration of
 8,760 hours (24 hours/day  x  365  days/year)  (USEPA,  1986) were assumed.

     The exposure level  during nonoccupational  brake repair was derived from
 the  estimates in the Versar  nonoccupational exposure assessment (Versar 1987)
 as follows;  Versar assumed  that 39 percent of consumer  brake repairs  were
 done in a garage and the remaining 61  percent  outdoors.  For  those  jobs done
 outdoors,  exposure was  estimated to be at  0.71 f/cc for  .3 hours for one day
with a breathing rate of 1.3 cu  m /hour.   Thus,  0.28 (0.71 x  0.3 x  1.3)
million fibers will be  breathed  during the year for each consumer changing
brakes outside.  For those jobs  done in  a  garage,  consumers were assumed to be
 exposed for 0.3 hours to 0.71 f/cc and then for a  further 2.4 hours at 0.035
 f/cc.  Thus, 0.39  ((0.71 x 0.3 x l,3)-f-(0.035 x 2.4  x 1.3)) million  fibers will
be breathed during  the  year  by each consumer changing  brakes  in a garage.  The
weighted average exposure  level  for all  consumers  changing brakes is,
consequently, 0.32  ((0.39 x  0.39) + (0.61  x 0.28))  million fibers per  year.
 Since consumers were assumed to  change an  equal number of drum and  disc brakes
 and  the exposures  from  changing  these  brakes were  assumed to  be approximately
 the  same,  the weighted  average exposure  level  of 0.32  million fibers/year was
divided equally between products 18 and  19.

    The nonoccupational  exposures from releases  from occupational brake repair
were combined with those from consumer brake repair in the exposure data set
by summing the populations exposed to  each activity, and calculating a
weighted average exposure level  using  population weights.  The data used for
products 18 and 19 are  as follows:
                                    A.4-11

-------
                                              Occupational      Consumer
                                              Brake Repair    Brake Repair
         Population Exposed
              18                               170,871,494      12,922,280
              19                               170,871,494       8,570,900

         Level of exposure (millions  f/yr.)
              18                                   0.00006           0.16
              19                                   0.00003           0.16
    The exposure  data underlying  the adjustments  in  section 6 are shown in
Table A.4-5.                  '  -

        6.  Adiustment of Exposure Data

    The "number of people exposed" and the  "million  fibers breathed per year"
numbers shown for each exposure setting  in  the previous sections are correct
only for the underlying quantities of each  asbestos  product, as reported in
the IGF (1988') study.  These quantities  were based on the latest information
available for each category, but  the ARCM (the cost  model), on the other hand,
uses the 1985 quantity for each product  category  and applies appropriate
growth rates to arrive at the correct quantity information In the years after
1985, provided such information was available.  In order to make the inputs to
the cost and benefit models consistent,  the numbers  reported in the previous
sections are adjusted as described in this  section.

    The set of exposure information in the  ICF (1988) study (also referred to
as the AEA in the tables) was "adjusted" by the ratio of the actual 1985
quantity to the quantity used in  the ICF study because the ICF study had used
the latest available quantity information.   This allows the ARCM to generate
its baseline from 1985 to 2000 taking into account plant closings and other
post-1985 information and thereby reduce the associated exposures/populations
appropriately.

    The exposure  assessment quantity information  is  listed by exposure
setting,•e.g., primary manufacturing, installation,  etc.  Cases in which the
ICF study's quantity or exposure  information have been revised are noted by
footnotes which provide explanations for each change.  Table A.4-6 shows the
"adjustment" factors for the relevant exposure settings, Tables A.4-7 and
A.4-8 show the "adjusted" population (number of people exposed) or the
exposure level (million fibers breathed per year) for occupational and
nonoccupational exposures respectively,*
        The "Use of Products" category has only nonoccupational exposure data
for products 18, 19, and 21.  These data were based on Versar's report and
remain unchanged.

                                    A.4-12

-------
Table A.4-5. Exposure tevals (in millions fiber* inhaled per year) an<3 Nunfcer of Persons
  Exposed to Repair/Disposal of Products for Occupational and Non-Occupational Settings
                            Occupational

                   No, of People     Mil. Fib,/Yr
             Honoceupational

Ho. of People         Mil. Pib./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
CoaiBsreial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt 263
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Fait
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor file
Diaphragms
A/C Pipo
A/C Flat Sheet 20
A/C Corrugated Sheet 9
A/C Shingles 164
Drum Brake Linings 75,404
Disc Brake Pads, UMV 39,441
Disc Brake Pads, HV 117
Brake Blocks 3,865
Clutch Facitiga 100
Auto. Transmiss. Coinp.
Friction Materials . 57
Protective Clothing
fhread, yaan etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Mining and Milling


296 171,136,373 0.0000067







2,080 171,136,373 0.0000057
2,080 171,136,373 0.0000025
244 171,136,373 0.0000049
376 183,793,774 0.0113
386 179,442,394 0.00767
390 170,871,494 0.000000587
388 170,871,494 0.0000169
125

120













-------
                                                                 fable A.4-6.  Adjustment factors for Exposed Populations and ixposure Levels
Product Category
                            Units
  Primary
 Quantity
used in AEA

Commercial Paper                   Tons                  0          00
Rollboard                          Tons                  0          0.0
Millboard                          Tons                581         157.3
Pipeline Wrap                      Squares         296,949 g/        0,0
Beater-add Caskets                 Tons             15,940 b/    4  869.6
High-grade ftectrical Paper        Tons                698        '  17 6
Roofing Felt                       Tons                  0          olfl
Acetylene Cylinders                Pieces          308,121          0.0
Flooring Felt                      Tons                  0          0.0
Corrugated Paper                   Tons                  0          0.0
Specialty Papers                   Tons                434         587.0
Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile          Sq. Yards             0          0,0
Asbestos Biaphragms                Pieces         -   9,770 c/        0.0
Asbestos-Cement Pipe               Feet         15,062,708 d/        0.0
Flat A-C Sheets                    Squares           5,165          0.0
Corrugated A-C Sheets              Squares               0          0.0
A-C Shingles                       Squares         176,643          0.0
Drum Brake Linings 
                                                                            n/i,
                                                                            "/*
                                                                    9«»
                                                                    9,612,6550
                                                                        ,   M*
                                                                        4,667.0
                                                                            "/•
                                                                            «/•
                                                                            «/»
a/»
0.0
0.0
                                             .
                                              1S6.BZO.O
                                            4,570,266.0
                                                    «*•
                                                    rtf.
                                                    "/«
                                                    n/«
                                                    "/*
                                                    «*«
                                                    "/«
           156,820
         4,570266
         7,237,112
           585,500
        5>,&«,g5
            4,835
            4,667
      423.048.5J9
            2.M6
                                                                                                                     n/a
                                                                                                                  is
1.0000
1.0100
1.1200
1.0000
1.0000
1.0300
1.0000
1.0000
1. 0000
1.0000
    156820.0
  4,615968.7
  8105565.4
    585 500.0
   ..
  9612655.0
      4,980.1
      4,667.0
423,048539.0
      2,046,0
        9BO.O
                                                                                                        -
                                                                                                      ,J;?
   d/
   d/
   d/
   /a
1  0000
 n/a
 n/I
 n/8
                                                                                   1.0200
                                                                                   1.0000
                                                                                   1.0000
                                                                                    n/a
                                                                                    n/a

                                                                                                                                                                                                      :
n/a
n/I
n/S
n/l
n>a
n/a
                           a/  The AiA reported 276,949 tons but population Mas actually based on 296,949 tons.

                           b/  16,505 tons are reported in the A6A,  but  only  15,940 were used to estimate population in the AEA.

                           c/  The AEA calculated the exposed populetion ba»«d on *. chlorin* capacity (usina asbestos diaphraspsj of 9,295,000 Metric ton* In 1985.  Since the ARCH uses
                               P*"0*^'0" wJujet, the utiltiation rate  of  TTH is used to calculate the actual production of chlorine in 1985.  However,  this does not affect the existing
                           d/  The 216,903 tons used in the AEA  were converted using a conversion factor of .0144 tons/foot.

                           e/  Population exposed due to secondary manufacturing is calculated by applying the primary population correction factor to the existing secondary populations
                               {See text for explanation.)                                                                                                                 ^*^

                           f/  Exposed population for Asbestos Packfnjs was recalculated entirely -- the existing exposed population associated with the output of 1 ton in
                               primary manufacturing is 3 for occupational and 3,601,492 for oonoccupatioroil.

                           g/  Production eject tries as some companies Mere reclassified ma producer* of Specialty Papers.  However, population still increases  fro* 20 to 30 because the
                               companies 'included now had stopped  processing asbestos after 1985.

-------
                             Table A.4-7.   Adjusted Exposed Populations  (Occupational)

1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
i"
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15,
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
2S.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Product Category — >

Counereial Paper
Rot I board
Killbosrd
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cyl inders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Papers
Vinyl -Asbestos Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
Asbestos- Ceffient Pipe
Flat A-C Sheets
Corrugated A-C Sheets
A-C Shingles
Drum Broke Linings (IHV)
Disc Irake Pads UWV)
Disc Brake Pads (HV)
Srake Slocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Transmission Confsonents
Friction Haterlals
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, Tarn, etc.
Asbestos Sheet Gasket ing
Asbestos Packing
toof Coat trigs and Cements
Kon-Roofins Coatings, etc.
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Hissile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Primary Population
Existing Adjusted
12
35
227
2?
162


2
650
286
12

11
1,115
815
14
232
239
1
187
78
163
3
438
467
138
380
134
207
2
12
35 a/
235
27
206


2 b/
650
236
53

11
1,565
916
15
283
239
11
191
78
167
9 c/
582
553 d/
157
- 380
134
207
2
Secondary Population Installation Population »ep»ir t Disposal
Existing Adjusted Existing Adjusted
448
1,264
20



145




1,937
267
16
48

27
208
878
25


456




448
1 296
30 «/
,396 396


149

921 933
16 49
7 7
236 323
2,719 If
300 f/
19 «/
48 f/

28 f/
208
885
25


529




Existing



263






n
9
164
75,404
39,441
117
3,865
4 Art
tuu
57









Population
Adjusted



263






61
225
06,398 g/
32,568 g/
117 g/
3,935 g/
73 9/
43 V









»/  Revision of calculation ef existing exposed population in the AEA — population should be 35 instead of 27.
b/  Revision of calculation of existing exposed population in the Al* Cresrtsed Product Asbestos Coefficient used) -
    population should be 2 instead of 6.
c/  Exposed population for Asbestos Packings was recalculated entirely -- the existing exposed
    population associated with the output of 1 ton Is 3.
«/  Revision of calculation of existing exposed population in the AEA -- should be 467 instend of 497.
e/  Production declines as some con-panics Here rectassified as producers of Specialty Papers.  Heuever, population
    still increases from 20 to 30 because the conpanies Included now had stopped processing asbestos after 1985.
f/  Population exposed due to secondary manufacturing it calculated by applying the primary copulation correction
    factor to the existing secondary populations,  (See text for explanation.)
§/  Rebuilding is included in repair and disposal for existing and corrected populations.

-------
              table A.4-8.  Adjusted Exposed Populations ant Exposures (Nonoccupational)  a/


1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

Product Category

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Bester-sdd Caskets
High-grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Papers
Vinyl -Asbestos Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
Asbestos- Ceraent Pipe
Flat A-C Sheets
Corrugated A-C Sheets
A-C Sfcingles
Orun Brake Linings (LW)
Btsc Brake Pads |IHV)
Disc Brake Pads (Hv>
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Transmission Components
friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, Tarn, etc.
Asbestos Sheet Gasket ing
Asbestos Packing
8oof Coatings and Ceffients
lion-Roofing Coatings, etc.
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Kfssile liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Are Chutes

Primary Population Secondary Population Installation Exposure Repair * Disposal Exposure
Existing


5,747,875
4,847,937
35,897,272
254,772





19,744,593
3,313,602
4,847,937
891,143
24,605,781
21,421,488
1,596,558
8,034,916
8,761,57!

12,628,656

16,306,866
42,550,071
3,601,492
63,673,717
59,487,018
17,504,019




a/ A! 1 exposures
Adjusted ExNting Adjusted Existing Adjusted Existing


5,74T,875
4,847,937 ;
37,082,888 b/
254,772
0.000018 0.000018 0.0000067




19,744,593
3,313,602 0.0000261 0.0000264
21,232,368 0,00000098 0.00000298 9 0000057
0.0000004J 0.00000043 0.0000025
891,143 0.0000038 0.0000052 0 0000049
34,542,107 o om
24,065,022 0.00767
1,704,883 0.000000587
».».«* 0.0000169
'
12,922,247

16,306,866
43,468,616 b/
7,031,484 b/ c/
84,570,429 1.04 1.04 41
?0,389,388
19,925,386 b/




are Million fibers breathed per year.
Adjusted






0.0000067





0.0000173
0.0000025
0.0000067
0.0123
0.00624
0,009000587
0.0000171














b/ the correction factor used f» for this population Is the sun of the actual 1985 primary and secondary
    quantities divided by the SUB of th* primary and secondary quantities  reported in the AE*.   This  is done
    because the existing primary population includes the existing secondary population.

cf  Exposed population for Asbestos Packings Here recalculated entirely -••  the existing exposed
    population associated with the output of 1  ton is 3,601,492.

d/  8ased on Versar's estimates {Nonoccupational Exposures,  June  17,  1987}.

-------
    The major revisions to get  the adjusted exposure  input numbers are;

    *   Asbgs.tps Diaphragms  (13): • The exposed population in the  ICF
        (1988) study is calculated based on chlorine  production capacity
        (using asbestos diaphragms) of 9,295,000 metric  tons in 1985.
        Since the ARGM uses  actual production volumes, the average
        capacity utilization rate of 77 percent (based on the Use and
        Substitutes Analysis, Appendix F)  is used to  calculate the volume
        of chlorine actually produced in 1985.  However,  the exposed
        population remains unchanged since the discrepancy resulted from
        two different methods for "indexing" the exposures,  not underlying
        differences in exposure itself.

    *   Factors for Revising..Exposure Data:  The ratio of the relevant
        1985 quantity, i.e., domestic production for  primary manufacturing
        and the sum of domestic production and imports for the other
        categories,  was used to adjust the exposure  data except  as noted
        in footnotes to Tables A.4-6 through A.4-8.   Furthermore, since
        the exposed nonoccupational population due to secondary
        manufacturing is included in the exposed nonoccupational
        population due to primary manufacturing, the-  adjustment factor
        used is the ratio of the sum of the 1985 primary and secondary
        quantities to the sum of the primary and secondary quantities used
        in the ICF study.

    *   Adj us tments__ t_o_. JExpo sur e	Data, ( Population, v-& •  Expo sure):  All the
        adjustment factors are applied to the ICF study's populations to
        get the adjusted exposure information.  The exceptions to this are
        the adjustments to nonoccupational exposure data for installation
        and repair & disposal categories.  The exposed populations for
        these two categories are assumed not to change since the  exposures
        are not-site-specific (unlike the other occupational and
        nonoccupational populations).  Instead, the level of exposure,
        i.e., fibers per year,  is assumed to change in relation to the
        change in quantity.  Therefore, for these categories, it  is the
        exposure levels that are adjusted.

    •   Adjustments for:i:i:Jmports:  In most cases, the  adjustment factor for
        exposure for installation and repair/disposal categories  is the
        consumption-production ratio for the product  because the  ICF
        (1988) study did not typically count imports  in  calculating
        exposed populations  or exposure levels in these  categories.
        Instead these calculations were based on domestic production only.
     •^  The factors used for correcting exposure data associated with
secondary manufacturing are based on the sum of domestic and  imported mixtures
processed by secondaTy^-KocessoTS.  The exception to this are "friction
products" (products 18-24), for which the primary manufacturing factor is 'used
to correct the existing exposed populations.  This is done because  the ICF
(1988) study used the ratio of primary processor quantities in 1985 and 1981
to calculate the 1985 populations associated with secondary manufacturing
based on the relevant 1981 populations.  The number of non-respondent
secondary processors in 1985 for these products made it impractical to assess
the exposed population directly.

                                    A.4-17

-------
    Adjustment for Drum__Bra.kejLlnings  and  Disc

    After the appropriate  adjustments  were made  to  the  exposure data,  in order
to ensure consistency  across the  cost  and  benefits  models,  the data for drum
brake linings and disc brake pads for  light motor vehicles  were further
adjusted to distinguish between OEM  and aftermarket use.  The exposure data
was adjusted as follows:

        •  The exposed populations for all exposure settings, except
           occupational repair and disposal, were split between OEM
           and aftermarket use based on the quantity split  in 1985 as
           reported in the Use and Substitutes Analysis (Appendix F)
           -'- 129,042,572  pieces  of  drum brake linings  were split into
           34,713,675  pieces for  OEM use and 94,328,903 pieces for*
           aftermarket use; 65,869,172 pieces of disc brake pads (IH?)
           were split  into 10,077,464  for  OEM use and 55,791,708 for
           aftermarket use.  For  example,  occupational  population
           exposed due to  primary manufacturing  of  drum brake linings
           was estimated to be 1,565 persons and was split  into 421
           (1,565 * 34,713,675 /  129,042,572) for OEM use and 1,144
           (1,565 * 94,328,903' /  129,042,572) for aftermarket use,

        •  The exposure levels were  kept the same for both  OEM and
           aftermarket use for all exposure settings, except
           occupational repair &  disposal, since the populations were
           changed as  described above.

        •  The total exposed occupational  population due to repair &
           disposal of drum brake linings  and disc  brake pads (UMV)
           was attributed  to aftermarket use.

    Tables A.4-9 through A,4-13 show the actual  inputs  to the benefits model
for the five exposure  settings (primary manufacturing,  secondary
manufacturing, installation, use,  and  repair &disposal).  The data for OEM and
aftermarket use of drum brake linings  appears as data for products 18 and 36
respectively, and as products 19  and 37 for the  OEM and aftermarket use of
disc'brake pads (LMV).
                                    A.4-18

-------
Table A.4-9. Exposure Levels (in millions fibers inhaled per year) and Number of Persons
   Exposed  to  Primary Manufacturing Products for Occupational and Non-Occupational Settings
                            Occupational

                   No. of People     Mil. Fib./?r
             Konoocupational

Ho. of Faopla         Mil. Fi
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23,
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
3*.
35.
36.
37.
38.
CouKiercial Papar
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipelina Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugatad Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sh«»t
A/C Corrugated Sheat
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (DIM)
Disc Brake Pads, UW {OEM)
Disc Braka Fads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto, Iransmiss , Comp.
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
How-Hoofing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Hiesile Liners
Sealant Tnpe
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Braise Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (A/M)
Mining and Milling


12
35
235
27

206


2

650
286
53

11
421
140
15
283
239
11
191

78
167
9
582
553
157
380
134
207
2
1,144
776
155


145
134
110
113




111

87
270
478

473
385
390
385
377
406
113
398

457
208
198
273
220
164
220
220


385
390
121


5,747,875
4,847,937
37,082,888
254,772
-





19,744,593
3,313,602
21,232,368

891,143
9,292,154
3,681,659
1,704.883
9,785,424
8,761,571

12,922,247

16,306,866
43,468,616
7,031,484
84,570,429
70,389,388
19,925,386




25,249,953
20,383,263
841,214


0,0232
0.0476
0.0373
0.405






0.00000185
0.167
0.0218

0.00361
0.0575
0.0214
0.000000827
0 . 00388
0.0027

0.00234

0.00214
0.00561
0.0000534
0.00233
0.0000394
0,0018




0.0575
0.0214
0.407

-------
Table A.4-10. Ex|xjsur* Lewis (in millions fibers inhaled per y«ar) and Hundber of Persons
 Exposed to Secondary Manufacturing Products for Occupational and Hen-Occupational Settings
                             Occupational                            Honoccwpational

                    So, of People     Mil. Pib./Tr      80, of People         Mil. Fih./Jr
1.
2,
3,
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
IS.
17.
IB.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Conmerclal Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater- add Caskets
High- grade Elact. Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor tils
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings 
-------
Table A.4-11. Exposure Levels (In millions fibers Inhales! per yoar) and Rutribor of Parsons
      Exposed to Installation of Products for Occupational and Non-Occupational Settings
                             Occupational

                    Ho. of People     Mil. Fib./Yr
             Nonoccupational

Ho, of People         Mil. Fib./Xr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21,
22.
23.
24.
23,
26.
27.
28,
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36,
37.
38.
CoBiaereial Paper
Rollioard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater- add Gaskets
Bigh-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Fait 396
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
Y/A Floor file
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe 933
A/C Flat Sheet 49
A/C Corrugated Sheet 7
A/C Shingles 323
Drum Braka Linings (Offl)
-Disc Brake Pads, UW (091)
0isc Braks Pads, BV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transmisa. Comp,
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Baskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Son-Hoofing Coatings
Ash. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant Tapa
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (A/M)
Mining and Milling






439 171,136,373 0.000018


«



296 171,136,373 0.0000264
723 171,136,373 0.00000298
723 171,136,373 0.00000043
130 171,136,373 O.OOOOQ052











210,250 1.04










-------
             Table A.4-12. Exposure levels (in millions fibers inhaled pet year) and H-unsber of Persons
                       Exposed to Use of Products for Occupational and Ron-Occupational Settings
                                          Occupational                            Bonocoupational

                                 No. of People     Mil, Fib./Yr      Ho, of People         Mil. Fib./fr
 1,  Cownareial Paper
 2.  Rollioard
 3.  Millboard
 4.  Pipeline Wrap
 5. . Beater-add Gaskets
 6.  High-grade Elect. Paper
 7.  Sooting Felt
 8,  Acetylene Cylinders
 9.  Flooring Felt
10.  Corrugated Paper
11.  Specialty Paper
12.  WA Floor file
13.  Diaphragms
14.  A/C Pips
15.  A/C Flat Sheat
16.  A/C Corrugatod Sheet
17.  A/C Shingles
18.  Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
19.  Disc Brake Pads, LM? (OEM)
20.  Disc Brake Pads, HV
21.  Braka Blocks
22.  Clutch Facings
23.  Auto. Transmlss. Comp.
24.  Friction Materials
25.  Protective Clothing
26.  Thread, yarn etc.
27.  Sheet Gaskets
28.  Asbestos Packings
29.  Roof Coatings
30.  Son-Roofing Coatings
31.  Asb. Reinforced Plastics
32.  Missile Liners
33,  Sealant Tape
34.  Battery Separators
35.  Arc Chutes
36,  Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
37.  Disc Brake Pads, IHV (A/M)
38.  Hinlng and Hilling
 60,943,018
 34,659,752

226,546,000
0.00058
0,00064

 0.0061
165,602,982
191,886,248
0.00058
0.00064

-------
Table A.4-13. Exposurd Levels (in millions fibers inhaled per year) and Number of Persons
   Exposed to Repair/Disposal of Products for Occupational -and Non-Occupational Settings
                             Occupational

                    Ho, of Peopla     Mil. Fib.
             Nonocetifiational

No. of People         Mil. Fifo./Yr
1.
2,
3.
4,
5.
6.
7,
8.
9,
10,
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35,
36.
37.
38.
Conmercial Paper
RolUsoard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beator-add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt 263
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor lile
Diaphragms ,
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet 61
A/C Corrugated Sheet 9
A/C Shingles 225
Brunt Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, IHV 
-------
     B.   BENEFITS  MODEL CALCULATIONMETHODOVERVIEW

     To  estimate the  adverse  health effects from exposure to asbestos  in  the
baseline and under the regulatory  alternatives,  the  population at  risk is
divided into ten  homogeneous exposure  categories for each product  and into
nine age cohorts.  The ten exposure categories  are:

     •    Primary manufacturing, both occupational and nonoccupational
     •    Secondary manufacturing, both  occupational and nonoccupational
     •    Installation,  "both occupational  and nonoccupational
     »    Use,  both occupational and nonoccupational
     •    Disposal  or  repair,  both occupational and nonoccupational

The  nine age groups  are ten  year groups  from birth to age 90.   Within each
group,  all persons are assumed to  have an age equal  to the mid-point  of  the
group.

     Next, the health effects  attributable to the first year of product
manufacture  for one  member of each age and exposure  subgroup,  both in the
baseline and with the  regulatory alternative, are estimated using  an
adaptation of the life table  model described in Eddy (1980).   The  method used
is described below and the computer model included as Appendix A-5,

     The  health effects model  is a  non-stationary Markov process containing 5
states  in which an individual might reside during a  given 5-year time period.
These states are:

         1, Alive, with no known excess lung cancer or mesothelioma or
           gastrointestinal cancer;

         2. Dead from excess  lung cancer;

         3. Dead from excess gastrointestinal cancer;

         4. Dead from excess mesothelioma;  and

         5. Dead from all other causes.

     It is assumed that in the first year  of exposure  an individual has a
probability of 1 of being in  State  1 and  at age  90 a  probability of 1 of being
dead, that is, in States 2 through  5.  A  "transition  matrix" for each five
year period is used  to calculate the probabilities that an individual will
enter or  leave each  of the possible  states  between the  first year  of exposure
and  age  90,   The transition matrix  can be  written as:
           Pll         P12         P13         P14         P15

            01000
            00100
            00010
            00           0           0           1
                                    A.4-24

-------
States 2 through 5 are  "trapping states", in the sense that they are terminal
states for an individual.  The transition probabilities in the first row of
the matrix are derived  as follows:
     Pll  -  1 - (DLC + DGC + DM + DOC)
     P12  -  DLC
     PI 3  -  DGC
     P14  -  DM
     PI5  -  DOC

where

     DLC - five-year excess death rate from lung cancer attributable to
           first year of exposure to asbestos

     DGC «• five-year excess death rate from gastrointestinal cancer
           attributable to first year of exposure to asbestos

      DM - five-year excess death rate from raesothelioma attributable to
           first year of exposure to asbestos

     DOC - five-year death rate from all other causes

    Thus, the model calculates the total expected health effects for an
individual from each population age and exposure subgroup due to the first
year of exposure to asbestos products manufactured in the first year of the
analysis by five-year periods, starting at the individual's age at time of
exposure until age 90,  The model specifically performs the following
operations;

        1. Calculates the appropriate transition probabilities;

        2. Multiplies the initial state vector by this matrix of
           probabilities to obtain a new state vector;

        3. Records the probability of an individual's dying from
           asbestos-induced lung cancer, gastrointestinal cancer or
           mesothelioma from changes in the probability of being in
           states 2,  3, and k between the initial and new state
           vectors;

        4. Records the product of the age at death and probability of
           dying during the period for the three asbestos-related
           cancers and all other causes;

        5. Replaces the initial state vector with the new state
           vector.

     A different transition matrix for each tine period for each population
subgroup for each product is needed to determine the health effects of
asbestos exposure.   To compute these transition matrices, the following inputs
are required:

        1. Age-specific five-year death rates for lung cancer
           attributable to asbestos exposure in the given year;

                                   A.4-25

-------
        2. Age-specific  five-year  death  rates  for  gastrointestinal cancer
           attributable  to  asbestos  exposure  in the  given year;

        3. Age-specific  five-year  death  rates  for  mesothelioma
           attributable  to  asbestos  exposure  in the  given year;

        4. Age-specific  five-year  death  rates  due  to'all other causes.

       The assumption  is made  that mesothelioma death rates do not depend on
age, sex, race, or smoking  habits.   However,  excess  lung cancer and
gastrointestinal cancer  death  rates  and  other  mortality rates do vary
according  to these demographic characteristics.   For simplicity, it is
assumed that the  nonoccupational  population  is identical to the U.S.
population in terms of sex,  race, and smoking habits, and age distribution
(see Table A.4-14).  All occupational  categories  are assumed to have the same
demographic characteristics, and these   are estimated from industry data (see
Table A.4-14).  Smoking habits are assumed to   be  the same as in the general
population.

    In this analysis,  the linear,  no-threshold dose-response relationships
proposed by Nicholson  (1983) are used to convert information on asbestos
exposure levels into excess lung cancer  and mesothelioma death rates for each
time period.  As suggested by Nicholson  (1983),  the  excess death rates from
gastrointestinal cancer are assumed  to be equal to 10 percent of those for
lung cancer for each time period.

    For lung cancer, Nicholson postulates a relative risk model that includes
a minimum 10-year latency period between onset of  exposure and increased risk
of death from cancer:
        IL - IE *  Ii + KL-* f * d(t-io)]for t >  10

        IL = IE    for t <- 10

where

          IL - age-specific lung cancer death rate with exposure to asbestos

          IE -= age-specific lung cancer death rate without exposure to
                asbestos

           t - time from onset of exposure until current age (years)

     d,  , _.  = duration of exposure from onset until 10 years (latency
               period) before current age (years)

           f -« intensity of exposure (f/cc)

          KL - dose-response constant

     IL - Ig — absolute excess lung cancer death rates due to asbestos
                exposure.
                                    A.4-26

-------
Table A.4-14,   Sex,  Race,  and Age Distribution of Exposed Populations
     Characteristic

         Year
ProRgrtion of Population (DecimalShare)
    Occupational     Nonoccupational
       1983
1980
         Male
         Female
     Race
         White
         Non-white
       0.79
       0.21
       0.88
       0.12
0.49
0.51
0.88
0.12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
- 9
- 19
- 29
- 39
- 49
- 59
- 69
- 79
- 89
0.0
0.1
0.205
0.210
0.193
0.175
0.117
0.0
0,0
0.146
0.174
0.176
0.139
0.108
0.099
0.083
0.055
0.020
     Sources:   For occupational:   Research Triangle
               Institute 1985 (August).   Regulatory. Impact
               Analysis, of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos
          - •    Products.   Prepared for the Office of Pesticides
               and Toxic Substances,  U.S.  EPA.   Washington,  B.C.
               Appendix B.   For nonoccupational;  UDOC.   1980.
               U.S.  Department of the Census.   Statistical
               Abstract of the United States.   Washington D.C.:
               Bureau of the Census.
                               A.4-27

-------
     For mesothelioma,  Nicholson postulates an absolute risk model;


         IM - % * f *  [(t-10)3 - (t-10-d)33    for t > 10-fd

         IM ™ % * f *  (t-10)3                 for 10 + d >- t > 10-f-d

         % - 0                                     for t <- 10

where

          t -   time since  first exposure (years)

          d -   total duration of exposure (years)

          f -   level of exposure (f/cc)

         KM «*   dose-response  constant

The  dose-response constants,  estimated using data from human studies of
asbestos-related diseases, vary in magnitude considerably as shown  In
Table A.4-15.   The values  for the dose-response constants used in this
analysis are the mean  values  proposed  by the CPSC (1983)  of l.OE-2  (
for  lung cancer and 1.08E-8  (f-yr/cc)"1  for  mesothelioma.

     The unit measure  for  exposure level in  Nicholson's equations is fibers
per  cubic centimeter (f/cc).   His equations  were  developed from studies  that
used disease data from occupationally  exposed workers with a typical exposure
of 8 hours  per  day,  250 days  per year  and a  breathing rate of 1.3 cu a/hour.
For  a worker so exposed, an exposure level of 1 f/cc is equivalent  to 2,600
million fibers  breathed per year (1 x  1,000,000 x 1.3 x 8 x 250).   To use
Nicholson dose-response relationships  for all different exposure categories
where exposure  levels,  breathing rates and hours  exposed per year nay all be
different than  those for a full tine worker,  the  exposure levels derived from
million fibers  breathed per year,  as outlined in  the previous  subsection.  The
million fibers  breathed per year were  then divided by a normalizing factor of
2,600 to  convert  these exposure levels into  Nicholson's full-time-equivalent
worker  exposure  level  measured as f/cc before use  in the  dose-response
relationships presented above.

     In  order to compute the age-specific five-year excess death rates from
lung cancer  attributable to a single year of exposure the following inputs are
used in Nicholson's  lung cancer dose-response equation described above:

         (a)    Asbestos  exposure level in the given year,  normalized to
               Nicholson's occupational  exposure  f/cc units;

         (b)    Age-specific five-year  baseline lung cancer death rates;  and

         (c)    Lung  cancer dose  response constant.

For  all products  and exposure  categories,  the exposure levels  are assumed to
remain  constant at  the  levels  presented  in the exposure data tables  (Tables
A.4-9 through A.4-13).   As indicated,  the  million  fibers  breathed per year
exposure  levels presented in  these  tables  are divided by  the normalizing

                                    A.4-28

-------
       Table A.4-15.   Estimated Values  of Lung Cancer  and Mesothelioma
                            Dose-Response  Constants
         Mortality  Study
  Estimated Value        Estimated Value
Lung Cancer Constant  Mesothelioma Constant
                                        (f-yr/ee)-1
                          (f-yr/cc)-1
Finkelstein et al. 1983

Seidman et al. 1979, pp. 61-89

Dement et al. 1982

Selikoff et al. 1979, pp. 569-585

Peto 1980, pp. 829-836

Henderson and Enterline 1979,
  pp. 117-126

Hughes and Weill- 1980, pp. 627-637

Rubino et al. 1979

Nicholson et al. 1979

McDonald et al. 1980

Berry and Newhouse 1983, pp. 1-7
      4.8 E-2

      6.8 E-2

    2.3-4.4 E-2

      1.0 E-2

      1.0 E-2

    3.3-5.0 E-3


      3.1 E-3

      1.7 E-3

     ' 1.2 E-3

      6,0 E-4

      6.0 E-4
1.2 E-7

5.7 E-8



1.5 E-8

7.0 E-10
Source;  Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Asbestos.  1983 (July).  Report to
         the U-.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Washington D.C. •
          p. 11-129,
                                   A.4-29

-------
factor of  2,600  to  convert  them to  Nicholson's  occupational exposure  f/cc
units.  Age-specific  five-year  baseline  lung cancer  rates  were taken  from  the
Vital Statistics of the United  States  for 1977  (U.S.  Department of Health  and
Human Services,  1981).  A baseline  lung  cancer  rate  for the year 1990 is
projected  using  the 1977 rates  and  inflating them for the  older cohorts as
suggested  in Doll and Peto  (1981).   Increases of 2 percent per year for men
over 50 and 4 percent per year  for  women over 40 are assumed.   These  increases
are projected because of past increases  in smoking.   Since smoking rates have
been declining in recent years,  the projected 1990 lung cancer death  rates are
likely to  overstate the baseline death rates that will be  observed in the
twenty-first century.  Therefore, 1977 lung cancer rates have  been used in
this analysis.   This  assumption understates these rates in the beginning of
the period of analysis, but is  likely  to overstate concentrates later in the
period.  The lung cancer dose response constant that is used in this  analysis
is 1.0 E-2 (f-yr/cc)"i, the mean value of those that are presented in
Table A.4-15 as  computed by the CPSC (1983).

     In order to compute the five-year age-specific  death  rates from
gastrointestinal cancer attributable to  a single year of exposure,  a  ratio of
excess gastrointestinal deaths  to lung cancer deaths of 0.1 is assumed as
suggested  by Nicholson (1983).

     In order to compute the five-year age-specific  death  rates from
mesothelioma attributable to a  single  year of exposure,  the following inputs
are used in Hicholson's mesothelioma dose-response equation described above:

        (a)    Asbestos exposure level in the given  year,  normalized  to
               Nicholson's  occupational  exposure f/cc units;

        (b)    Time since year  of exposure;  and

        (c)    Mesothelioma dose-response constant.

For all products  and  exposure categories,  the exposure levels  are  assumed  to
remain constant  at  the levels presented  in Tables A.4-9 through A.4-13.  As
indicated,  the million fibers breathed per year exposure levels presented  in
these tables are  divided by a normalizing factor of  2,600  to convert  then  to
Nicholson's occupational exposure f/cc units.   For each five-year  period,  the
time since exposure is assumed  .to...be...equal to .the. time from "exposure..-to -the
mid-point  of the period.   The mesothelioma dose-response constant  used is  1.0
E"-Bnff'-yr/ee)-1--,	which is the mean  value of those presented in Table  A.4-15 as
computed by the  CPSC  (1983).

     Five-year death  rates  for  all  causes by sex,  race,  and age are estimated
based on the 1978 U.S. life tables  and are assumed to remain constant in the
future (Cooper et alA 1983).  All persons alive at age 89  are  assumed to die
during their ninetieth year.

     Finally, in  order to estimate  the avoided  cases  of cancer from the
estimates of avoided  cancer deaths,  the  cure  rates for the three asbestos-
related cancers  are estimated from  the equation;

        (Relative survival  rate  at  time  t)   «-  c  + (1-c) (l-b)t
                                    A.4-30

-------
  where:

      c  —   cancer cure rate (the proportion of people with the disease  for
             whom it is no longer life threatening);

      b  -   annual mortality rate for dying patients;  and

      t  —   time since diagnosis (years).

  Estimated values for both "c"  and "b" are obtained  using publicly available
  data on survival-for lung cancer,  gastrointestinal  cancer (Axtell e£ al. 1986)
  and  mesothelioma (Chahinian 1982) .   The  values of  the cure rates estimated
  and used in the analysis are 8 percent for lung cancer,  36 percent  for
  gastrointestinal cancer ,  and 2 percent for mesothelioma.

     The health  effects model tracks  an individual for each age and  exposure
  subgroup starting from a single year of exposure, by  five year periods, until
  age 90,  at  which point the probability of being alive is assumed to zero.  For
  each five-year  period the probability of  dying of asbestos-related  cancers is
I  estimated as  the product of the probability of being  alive in  that  time period
  and the probability  of dying from an asbestos.-related cancer if alive.  The
  probability of  being alive during any five year time  period decreases with
  age.-  The probabilities of dying from asbestos-related cancers if alive are
  estimated using the  Nicholson  dose-response relationships  and  the exposure
  data.   These  probabilities increase  with  time  elapsed since the initiation of
  exposure as follows.

     The  dose-response  relationships  assume a minimus  ten-year  latency period
 between exposure  and excess  cancer risks.   Thus, the  probability of dying from
  an asbestos -related cancer  will be  zero  for the first two five year periods
  after exposure.   After ten years,  the probability of  dying of  an asbestos-
  related cancer  increases with  time since  onset  of exposure.  In the case of
 mesothelioma, the absolute risk model generates  death rates that increase with
  time since  exposure.   In the case of lung cancer (and gastrointestinal cancer
 which is estimated as  10 percent of  the lung cancer rate)  the  excess risks
 remain  constant over time  relative to the baseline lung  cancer death rates.
 However, the baseline  lung cancer death rates increase with age and,
 therefore,   the probability of  excess  lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer
 increases with age or  time since onset of exposure.   Thus,  for each age
 cohort,  the probabilities  of dying from asbestos-related cancers attributable
 to a single year  of exposure increase with time since  the  onset of  exposure
 except at the older ages where  competing  causes of death reduce the
 probability of observing deaths  from  asbestos-related cancers.

     The probabilities  of observing deaths  from asbestos-related cancers in
 each five year tiae period for  an individual from each age-exposure subgroup
 are multiplied by the number of  people in the population subgroup to generate
 estimates of the expected asbestos-related cancers in the  subgroup
 attributable to the single year  of exposure.  These estimates  follow the same
 time distribution relative to exposure as  the individual probabilities --no


        The  36 percent cure rate  for gastrointestinal cancer is  the cure rate
 for colorectal cancer.  Cure rates for other gastrointestinal cancers  may
 differ  from this rate,

                                    A.4-31

-------
cases for ten years followed by an  increasing an  then  decreasing number with
age.

    Estimates of deaths from asbestos-related cancers  are  generated for
exposures both with and without the regulations and the differences in
asbestos-related cancers computed for each five year period.  These
differences, avoided cancers, are the estimate health  benefits  for the
regulation.  When these avoided cancers are aggregated across age-cohorts,
their resultant time distribution ranges fron 10  to 80 years with most cases
occurring 35 to 60 years after exposure.

    The results for each population age-exposure  subgroup  for each product are
added for each five-year time period after the start of the analysis to
determine, for each product, the total avoided cancer  deaths during each time
period attributable to the regulatory alternative.  In doing this aggregation
it is assumed that the avoided cancer deaths are  distributed uniformly
throughout each five-year period.  Furthermore, the aggregation of the avoided
cancer deaths estimated for different exposure categories  has to take into
account the timing of exposures.

    Exposures from releases during product installation are assumed to be
contemporaneous with those from primary and secondary  product manufacturing,
Exposures from repair or disposal are assumed to  occur at  the end of the
average product life.  Exposures during product use are assumed to be evenly
distributed across the time from product manufacture to repair  or disposal.
The estimated avoided cancer deaths for the repair/disposal category are   *
shifted forward in time by a number of years equal to  the  average product life
before being added to the estimates for primary and secondary manufacturing
and installation.  The estimated avoided cancer deaths for one  year of
exposure in the use exposure category are assumed to be replicated for each
year of use of the product, shifted forward in time one year at a time from
the time of manufacture.  Thus estimates are obtained  for  the number of
avoided deaths from lung cancer, gastrointestinal cancer,  and mesothelioma
attributable to the regulation's impact on each product's  manufacture in the
first year of the analysis.

    After the avoided cancer deaths attributable  to asbestos releases from
products manufactured during the first year of the analysis have been
estimated, the avoided cancer deaths for products manufactured  all subsequent
years of the analysis  are estimated by multiplying the first year estimates
by the ratio of the level of production in the subsequent  year  compared to
that in the first year.  The ratio of future to current production varies
according to general trends in the industry baselines  as well as according to
features of the regulatory alternatives.

    The total number of avoided cancer deaths attributable to the regulations
impact on asbestos products manufactured 1987-2000 for each product for each
five-year period after the start of the analysis  are then  calculated by
aggregating the deaths avoided associated with each year of manufacture.  The
timing of the cases is preserved by assuming that the  deaths in any five-year
period are uniformly distributed, and by shifting the  estimated avoided deaths
for any given year of manufacture forward in time by the number of years from
the beginning of the analysis.  Finally, the total numbers of avoided excess
cancer cases for each five year period are estimated by dividing the estimated
numbers of cancer deaths by the death rates for each type  of cancer.

                                    A.4-32

-------
 REFERENCES
 Advisory Committee on Asbestos.  1979a,  Asbestos volume 1: final report of
 the Advisory Committee,  London, UK; British Health and Safety Commission (as
 reported in USEPA 1986).

 Advisory Committee on Asbestos.  1979b.  Asbestos volume 2: final report of
 the Advisory Committee.  London, UK: British Health and Safety Commission (as
 reported in USEPA 1986).

 Axtell, LM, Asire, AJ, Myers, MB.  1976.  Cancer Patient Survival.  Report
 No. 5.  Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

 Berry, G and Newhouse, ML.  1983.  Mortality of Workers Manufacturing Friction
 Materials Using Asbestos,  Br. J. Ind. Med: 40.  pp. 1-7.

 Bertrand, R.,  Pezerat H.  1980.  Fibrous Glass: carcinogenicity and
 dimensional characteristics.  In Biological effects of mineral fibers.  IARC
 2:901-911,

 Chahinian, AP.  1982.  Malignant Mesothelioma.  In: Cancer Medicine, 2nd
 edition, Holland, JE and Frie, E, eds., Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.

 Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel of Asbestos,  1983 (July).  Report to the U.S.
 Consumer Product Safety Commission by the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on
 Asbestos.  Washington B.C.: Consumer Products Safety Commission.

 Cooper, R, Cohen, R,  Amiry, A.  1983.  Is the Period of Rapidly Declining
 Adult Mortality in the U.S. Coming to an End?  Am.  J. Public Health ;73.
 pp. 1091-1093.

 Dement, JM, Harris, RL, Synions, MJ,  et al.  1982.  Estimates of Dose-Response
 for Respiratory Cancer among Chrysotile Asbestos Textile Workers.  In:
 Inhaled Particles V. , Walton, HH, ed., Oxford : Pergamon.

•Dement JM, Harris RL, jr., Symons MJ, Shy CM.  1983.  Exposures and mortality
•among chrysotile asbestos workers.   PArt II: Mortality.  Am J-Ind Med 4:421-
 433.

 Doll,  R and Peto, R.   1981.  The Causes of Cancer:  Quantitative Estimates of
 Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today,  J. Nat.  Cancer
 Inst.:  66. pp. 1191-1308.

 Doll,  R and Peto, R.   1985..  Asbestos: Effects on the health of exposure to
 asbestos.   London,  UK:  Health and Safety Commission.

 Eddy,  DM.   1980.  Screening for Cancer: Theory, Analysis, and Design.
 Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

 Henderson,  VI  and Enterline, PE.   1979.  Asbestos Exposure: Factors Associated
 with Excess Cancer and Respiratory Disease Mortality.  Annals NY:  Academy of
 Sci:  330.   pp.  117-126.
                                    A,4-33

-------
 Hobbs,  MST.,  Woodward,  SD,  Murphy,  B et al.   1980.   The Incidence of
1Pneumoconiosis,  utesothelioma,  and other respiratory cancer in men engaged in
 mining and milling crocidolite'in Western Australia.   Biological Effects  of
 Mineral Fibers;  2.   pp.  615-625,  IMC Scientific Publication No.  30.

 Hughes, J and Weill,  H.   1980.   Lung Cancer  Risk Associated with Manufacture
 of Asbestos-Cement Products. Lyon,  France:  IARC Scientific Publication No. 30,
 pp.  627-635.

 ICF Incorporated.   1988 (March).   Asbestos  Exposure Assessment.   Prepared for
 Dr Kin Wong,  Chemical Engineering Branch,  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
 Substances, U.S.  EPA Draft  Report.

 Jacob,  G and  Anspach,  M.  1964.   Pulmonary Neoplasia among Dresden Amosite
 Workers.   Annals  N.Y.  Academy  of Sci.:  316.   p.  536.

 Jennings 1985.  Versar,  Inc. Methods for assessing  exposure to chemical
 substances.   Volume 7.   Methods  for assessing consumer exposure to chemical
 substances.   Report to EPA  under EPA contract 68-02-3968.

 Jones,  JSP, Smith,  PG,  Pooley, FD e_t al.   1980.   The Consequences of Exposure
 To Asbestos Dust  in a Wartime  Gas Mask  Factory.   Biological Effects of
 Mineral Fibers:  2.   pp.  637-653,  Lyon,  France:  IARC Scientific Publication
 No.  30.

 Langer,  AM.   1986  (April 18).  Letter to Document Control  Officer (&S-793),
 Office  of Toxic Substances, U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency fron Dr.
 Arthur  M.  Langer, Associate Director, Environmental Sciences Laboratory,  Mount
 Sinai Medical Center,  NY.

 McDonald,  JC,  Liddell,  FDK, Gibbs,  GW et al.   1980.   Dust  Exposure and
 Mortality in  Chrysotile  Mining,  1910-1975. Br.  J. Ind.  Med.  :  37,  pp.  11-24.

McDonald AD,  Fry JS, Wooley AJ, Mcdonald JC.   1983.   Dust  exposure and
mortality in  an American chrysotile textile  plant.  . Br  J Ind Med 40:361-367.

National  Research Council.  1984.   Nonoccupational  Risks of Asbestiform
 Fibers, Washington  D.C.:  National Academy Press.

Nicholson, WJ, Selikoff,  IJ, Seidman, H et al.   1979.   Long-Term Mortality
 Experience of Chrysotile  Miners and Millers  in  Thetford Mines,  Quebec. Annals
NY Academy of Sci.  :  330.  pp. 11-21.

Nicholson, WJ.  1983.  Quantitative Risk Assessment for Asbestos-Related
Cancers.   Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Department  of  Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health  Association, Contract J-9-F-2-0074.

Peto, J.   1979.  Dose-Response Relationships  for Asbestos-Related Disease:
 Implications  for Hygiene  Standards,  Part II,  Mortality.  Annals N.Y,   Academy
Sci  :330.  p.  195.

Peto, J.   1980.  Lung Cancer in Relation to Measured  Dust  Levels  in an
Asbestos  Factory.   In: Biological Effects of  Mineral  Fibers.   Wagner,  JC,  ed.
Lyon, France  : IARC Scientific Publication No.  30,  pp.  829-836.


                                    A.4-34

-------
 Peto,  H,  Seidman, H,  and  Selikoff,  IJ,  1982.  Mesothelioma  Incidence  In
 Asbestos  Workers:   Implication for  Models  of  Garcinogenesls and Risk
 Assessment,    Br. J.  Cancer  :45.  pp.  124-135.

 Rubino, GF,   Piolatto, G, Newhouse, ML et  al,   1979.  Mortality of Chrysotile
 Asbestos  Workers at the Balangero Mine, Northern  Italy.   Br.  J.  Ind   Med- 36
 pp.  187-194.

 Seidaan,  H,  Selikoff, IJ  and Hammond,  EC.   1979.  Short-Tem Asbestos Work
 Exposure  and Long-Term Observations.   Annals  of N.Y. Academy Sci.: 330  pp
 61-89.

 Selikoff,  IJ,  Hammond, EC, Seidman, H.  1979.   Mortality  Experience in
 Insulation Workers  in the United States and Canada.  Annals of  N.Y. Academy of
 Sci.:  330.   pp. 91-116.

 Stanton,  MF,  Layard M, Tegeris, A., et al..   1981.  Relation of particle
 dimension to  carcinogenicity in amphibole  asbestos and other fibrous  minerals.
 JNCI 64:965-975.

 U.S. Department of  Health and Human Services.   1981.  Vital Statistics of the
 United States  1977:  Volume II' -- Mortality Part A, Hyattsville, Md:
 National  Center for Health Statistics.

 U.S. Department of  Labor.  1986 (June  11).  Occupational  Safety and Health
 Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis.  Final Regulatory Impact and
 Regulatory Flexibility Analyses of  the Revised  Asbestos Standard.

 USEPA 1986.  Airborne Asbestos Health Assessment  - Update.   Environmental
 Criteria  and Assessment Office, EPA/600/8-84/003F, Research Triangle  Park, 1C
 June.

 USCPSC.   1983.  U.S. Consumer Product  Safety Commission.  Chronic hazard
 advisory  panel on asbestos (CHAP). Washington,  DC: U.S. Consumer Product
 Safety Commission.

 Versar Incorporated.  1988.  Asbestos Modeling  Study..  Prepared for Exposure
 Evaluation Division, Exposure Assessment Branch, Office of  Pesticides and
 Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA Final Report.

 Versar Incorporated.  1987 (September  25).  Konoccupational Asbestos  Exposure.
 Prepared  for Exposure Evaluation Division,  Exposure Assessment  Branch, Office
 of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,  U.S. EPA Final Report.

WHO,  1985.  World Health Organization.  Environmental health criteria
 document on asbestos and other natural minerals.  Draft.
                                   A.4-35

-------

-------
                      A-5  HEALTH EFFECTS COMPUTER MODEL

    This appendix presents the computer model- developed for estiaating the
health effects associated with exposure to asbestos in both the baseline and
under the various regulatory alternatives.
                                   'A.5-1

-------
                       DESCRIPTION OF BENEFITS PROGRAM
MAIN PROGRAM -- IN AMB.FOR

 1. Characterizes variables as real, integer, charter, and common, specifies
    their dimensions, and creates some double precision variables.

 2. Reads in values for dose-response constants by product at default values
    KL - 0.01, KB - 1.0 x 10   for all products.

 3. Sets starting age and age interval for age groups.

 4. Reads in population weights by age, sex, race, for occupational,
    nonoccupational, and school plus occupational groups  (nixed).

 5. Prompts user for name of baseline index file.

 6. Prompts user for name of alternative index file.

 7. Opens baseline and alternative index files.

 8. Prompts user for routing of output to disc file or printer.  If user
    chooses disc file, prompts user for file name and opens output file.
    Cautions user if output file already exists and allows user  to choose
    another name or to overwrite the existing file.

 9. Reads in number of years for analysis (frost 1-20 years) and  identifies
    starting and ending year.

10. Reads in average lifetime for each product rounded to the nearest integer
    (to 1 if average lifetime is less than 1),

11. Prompts user for Exposure Categories to be estimated.

12. Prompts user for Products to be estimated.

13. Prompts user for dose-response constants to be used,

14. Prompts user for year of baseline lung-cancer deaths to be assumed, 1977
    or 1990.

15. Prompts user for proportion of excess lung-cancer death rate assumed for
    Gl cancer.

16. Prompts user for number of discount rates <1-10) and their values,

17. Prompts user to specify exposure data file, including drive  specifier and
    name,

18. Reminds user of name of output file and asks user to wait for program
    terminated message.

19. GALL INTAB - - Subroutine to compose and write to the output  file 4 tables
    containing the values for the inputs used in the analysis,

                                    A.5-2

-------
 20.  Reads  in exposure  levels  in units  of millions  of fibers breathed per year
     and number of people  exposed from  user-specified CBI disc.  '

 21.  Initializes variables that accumulate cases, deaths, and people  exposed,
     by product and in  total,  with and  without  the  new regulations  to zero
     (RRR,  TOT1, PPP).

 22.  Initializes index  variables to zero  (BPROJ,  PROJ).

 23.  START  BAN/HO  BAN Loop (2)  (or New  Regulation/Status  Quo).

 24.  Initializes transition natrix to zero.

 25.  Initializes life-years variable (EXP1).

 26.  CALL DARSAD --  Subroutine to calculate  from  1985 input data, number  of
     people exposed and level  of exposure for the first year of  the analysis
     for each exposure  category for each  product, using new regulation or
     status quo production-level indexes.
                             *

 27.  STARTS PRODUCT  Loop (36 or lower number chosen by  user).

 28.  Initializes,  for each product,  single and multiple-year collecting
     variables,  multiple-year  life-years  variable,  average age variable,  and
     population variable (R, RR,  EX1, TA,-  SSI).

 29.  STARTS GROUP  Loop  for exposure categories  (10  or lower number  chosen by
     user).

 30.  Initializes,  for each exposure category, single  year collecting  variable
     and single year life-years  variable  (T, El).

 31.  If  repair  or  disposal  --  creates time shift variable for onset of
     exposure.

 32,  Skip to  end of  GROUP  Loop  if zero people exposed in  the exposure category,

 33.  CALL INIT  --  Subroutine to  set number of people  exposed, level of exposure
     in  f/cc  duration of exposure (1 year) for the  product and exposure
     category.

 34.  Sets AGEMID to  first Age,  5  years.

 35.  STARTS AGE GROUP Loop  (9).

 36.  Sets appropriate population weight.

 37.  Initializes state vector to  [10000] for each age-group.

 38.  Calculates number of 5-year  periods from age in  1990 to age 90 (N).

 39.  STARTS FIVE YEAR Loop  (N).

40. Calculates age at midpoint -of  each 5  year period.

                                    A.5-3

-------
41, Calculates 5 year age period number (1-18)- for each iteration of 5 Year
    Loop,

42, CALL INC - - Subroutine to calculate baseline lung cancer death rate for
    product, exposure, and 5 year age category -- using the 1977 and 1990
    rates as specified by the user.

43. Calculates asbestos induced excess death rates for lung cancer.

44. Calculates asbestos induced excess death rates for mesothelioma.

45. CALL TRANSI -• Subroutine to calculate excess deaths from lung cancer,
    gastrointestinal cancer, and mesothelioma for each remaining 5 year period
    of lie for product, exposure, and age category for products manufactured
    during the first year of the analysis only.

46/ ENDS FIVE YEAR Loop.  •

47. Sets starting age for next age group.

48. ENDS AGE GROUP Loop.

49. CALL AG -- Subroutine to adjust estimates of excess deaths from lung,
    cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, and mesothelioma for the use exposure
    categories (4 and 9) where a given product may be used for multiple years.

50. ENDS GROUP (Exposure category) Loop.

51. CALL AGG -- Subroutine to convert estimates of excess deaths from lung
    cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, and mesothelioma for all exposure
    categories front first year product estimates to estimates- for multiple
    years of production.

52. CALL PENT -- Subroutine to compute excess cases from excess death
    estimates and to store both estimates for each product in variable ERR.

53.      PRODUCT Loop.

54. CALL TOTAL -- Subroutine to write to output file estimated excess deaths
    and cases by five year period for all products with the new regulation and
    with the status quo.

55. ENDS BAN/NO BAN Loop.

56. CALL BANEFF -- Subroutine to write to output file differences between new
    regulation and status quo situation for each product separately and for
    all together.  Discounted totals are also computed and presented..

57. STOP.

58. END.
                                    A,5-4

-------
Subroutine DAREAD -- in INDATA.FOR

 1. Characterizes variables,

 2. Reads in exposure level and population number data for 1985.

 3, Reads in production projections indexes for 1987-2007 relative to 1985 by
    CALL FILE -- Subroutine to read in and write to output file production
    indexes in baseline regulation and alternative regulation situation.

 4. For each product and exposure category, calculates the number of people
    exposed in first year of analysis by weighting 1985 population estimate by
    first index.  Exposure level is assumed to remain constant at input level
    and duration of exposure is set at 1 year.

Subroutine INIT-- in INDATA.FOR

 1. Characterizes variables.

 2. Defines the three product and exposure category specific parameters:
    number of people, level of exposure, and duration of exposure, derived in
    DAREAD and used in the simulation.

 3. Aggregates number of people exposed across exposure categories for each
    product.

 4. Sets NO;  1 -- occupational; 2 -- nonoccupational; 3 -- school and
    occupational, mixed'.

Subroutine INC — in INDATA.FOR

 1. Characterizes variables.

 2. Calculates weighted average baseline lung cancer death rate for the 5 year
    period and population group (by exposure category and age) of interest
    using either 1977 or 1990 lung cancer death rates as required by the user.
    The race and sex weights vary according to whether the exposure is
    occupational or nonoccupational.

_S4Abrout;ine__TRANSI --in CAL.FOR

 1, Characterizes variables.

 2. CALL LIFE -- Subroutine to calculate 5 year mortality rate for all other
    cases (weighted average by sex and race).

 3. Calculates nonconstant elements of the transition matrix for the year and
    population group of interest.

 4. Calculates new state vector.

 5. CALL ACCUM - - Subroutine to collect cancer deaths for each 5 year period
    since first year of analysis.

 6. Puts value of new state vector into old state vector.

                                    A.5-5

-------
SubroutineACCUM -- in CALC.FOR

 1.  Characterizes variables.

 2,  Accumulates for each 5 year period and for each age deaths from four
    different causes, excess lung cancer, excess gastrointestinal cancer,
    excess mesothelioma, and all others.

 3.  Accumulates remaining life-years for exposed population for banned and
    unbanned products.

Subroutine LIFE -- in INDATA.FOR

 1.  Characterizes variables,

 2.  Calculates weighted average death rate for all other cases using 5-year
    death rates by sex and race.  The race and sex weights vary according to
    whether the exposure is occupational or nonoccupational,

SubroutinePENT -- in TABLES,FOR

 1.  Characterizes variables.

 2.  For each product, computes and stores total cases and average age of death
    from lung cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, and mesothelioma attributable
    to asbestos exposure.

Subroutine TOTAL -- in TABLES.FOR

 1.  Characterizes variables,

 2.  Totals and writes to output file deaths and cases of lung cancer,
    gastrointestinal cancer, and mesothelioma by 5 year period and for all
    periods for all products together for new regulation and status quo.

Subroutine BANEFF -- in TABLES.FOR

 1,  Characterizes variables.

 2.  Initializes difference variables for each product separately.

 3,  Computes differences for total deaths and cases by disease and product, and
    writes them to the output file.

 4.  Initializes difference variables for all products together.

 5.  Computes differences in deaths, by disease and total, and total cases, by
    5-year period with and without the new regulation for all products.

 6.  Calculates the total differences in deaths, by disease and total,  and
    total cases, with and without the new regulation for all products, at 0
    discount rate -and up to ten other discount rates,

 7,  Writes to output file results of regulation effects calculations for all
    products,

                                    A.5-6

-------
Subroutine FILE -- in FILE.FOR

 1. Characterizes variables.

 2. Reads in products projection indexes, 1987-2007, relative to 1985 from
    base and alternative files named by the user,

 3. Writes the index files to the output file.

 4. Creates PROJ.for no ban indexes and BPROJ for either .ban or no. ban indexes
    depending on IB - 1 or 2 respectively, (BAN/NO BAN Loop).

SubroutineAG -- in CALC.FOR

 1. Characterizes variables.

 2. For use exposure categories only (4 and 9} converts total excess cancer
    deaths for 1 year use of product to excess deaths from use of the product
    for the average product lifetime, adjusting timing of excess deaths for
    each year after first year of analysis to reflect time of exposure.

Sub rout i.nemAGi -- in GALC.FOR

 1. Characterizes variables.

 2. For all exposure categories, converts total excess cancer deaths for 1
    year of production to excess deaths from multiple-year production by
    weighting the first year estimates by each subsequent year's production
    level index, and adding the estimates for all the years.  Before adding
    the estimates for each year, the timing of excess deaths for each year
    after first year of analysis is adjusted to reflect time of exposure.

Subroutine INTAB -- in TABLES.FOR

 1. Characterizes variables«

 2. Writes to output file table listing files used in the analysis and tine
    period of analysis.

 3. Writes to output file exposure groups analyzed (CALL GR for Group list).

 4. Writes to output file products analyzed (CALL PR for Product list), and
    their dose-response constants, year for baseline cancer, and GI to lung
    cancer ratios assumed.

 5, Writes to output file table listing discount rates used.

Subroutine GR -- in TABLES.FOR

 1, Characterizes variables,

 2, Lists exposure group categories.
                                    A.5-7

-------
Subroutine_PR -- in TABLES.FOR




 1.  Characterizes variables,




 2.  Lists product categories.
                                    A.5-8

-------
ABM.FOR
                              Tuesday Hay 31, 1988  1Z:00 AH
                                                                         Page 1
    1 C
    2 C
    3 C
    4 C
    5 C
    6 C
    7 C
    8 C
    9 C
   10 SLARGE
   11 SNOFL0ATCALLS
   12 C
 INTERACTIVE BENEFITS MODEL  FOR ASBESTOS RIA
 WRITTEN  BY JO MAUSKOPF  -  RESEARCH  TRIANGLE INSTITUTE,  NORTH
 CAROLINA

 TEL.  C919) 541-6468

 5/16/88
   13 C
   14 C
   15 C
   16
   17
   18
   19
   20
   21
   22
   23
   24
   25
   26
   27
   28
   29
   30
   31
   32
   33
   34
   35
   36
   37
   38
   39
   40
   41
   42
   43
   44
   45
   46
   47
   48
   49
   50
   51
   52
   53
   54 C
   55
   56
   57,
   58
   59
   60
   61
   62
   63 C
   64
   65
   66
   67
   68
   69
   70
   71
   72
   73 C
   74 6661
   75
   76
   77
   78
   79
   80
 COMMON/T/«ANOP,MANOS, IN$0»U$EO,D1SO,MANAP, MANAS, I»SA,USEA,
*DISA,PiWNaP,PMANOS,PINSO,PUSEO,PDISO,PMANAP,P«AHAS,PIKSA,
*PUSEA,PDISA
 REAL MAKOP(38),MAMOS(38), INSO(38),USEO(38) ,D1SO(38) ,
*MANAP(38hMANAS(38} , INSAC38) ,USiA(38),D ISAC38) ,PMANOPC38» ,
*PHAMQS{38),PIN$0<38),PUSEO(38),PDiSQC38>,PMANAP(38>,
*PMANAS(38>,PINSA(38>,PUSEA(38),PDISAC38)
 DIMENSION POP(38,1Q>,P(5,5>,V(5>,TOT1(2,28,4>,
*RMAX(38,10},RLEV(38,10), TAC18,4),PPP{2,38),
* OISC{10),TT1C2,4),8PROJ(38,20},PROJ(38,20),RR*1£38,8,115,
* R(28,4),RR(28,4),RRR2(38»8,11),T£m(38,8,11>,T£M2(38,8,11)
 REAL FKl{38>,F»a{38},0WT{9,3>,OSRim4,3)
 REAL A6i,DT»TT
 INTE6ER LlFE(38),AGEST,AG£iNT,NPNa8),At38),8C10>
 INTEGER AGEMID,YEAR,IYRS
 SEAL*8 PP,P,T,R,WT,V,TOT1,TT1,R>TM,FDTL,DISC,RR,
*EXP1,EX1,E1,TA,RRR1,RRR2,PPP,T£M1,'&£«2
 CHARACTER RES,PCBRK
 CHARACTER*25 F I LE , F I LE2, F I LE3, F I LE4 , F I LE7
 COMMON /A1/T{28,4>
 COMMON /01/ F,MAXOT,PP
  DATA FKL/.01,.Q1,.01,.01,.01,.01,.01,.01,.01,.01,.Ol,
  .01,. 01,. 01,. 01,. 01,. 01,. 01, .01,. 01, .01,. 01, .01,. 01,. 01,
   .01 , .01 , .01 , .01 , .01 , ,01 , .01 , .01 , .01, .01 , .01 , .01 , ,01/
 DATA FKM/. 00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 ,
  .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 .
  .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 ,
  .00000001 , .00000001 , ,00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 ,
  .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001, .00000001 , ,00000001 , .00000001 ,
* . 00000001 , . 00000001 , .00000001 . .00000001 ,
* .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001 , .00000001/
 DATA AGESI/5/
 DATA AGE I NT/ 10/
  DATA OyT/.0,.1,.205,.210,.193,.175,.117,.0,.0,
* .146, .174, . 176, . 139, . 108, .099, ,083, .055, .020,
* .06, .36, .17, , 13, . 1 1 , .10, .07, .0, ,0/
  DATA OSRWT/.695, .095, .185, .025, .431, .059, .449, ,061,
*  .431,. 059,. 449,. 061/

 WRITE 
 WRITE (*,*) 'THIS PS
 WRITE (*,*)
 WRITE (*,*)
 WRITE (*,*) 'TO RUN THIS PROGRAM, FOLLOW THE USER FRIENDLY'
 WRITE (*,*> 'INSTRUCTIONS!'
 WRITE C*,'(8(/»')
 PAUSE 'Press the  or the  key to continue'

 WRITE (*,'{24(/))'>
 WRITE (*,*> 'Please enter name of data file containing BASELINE'
 WRITE {*,*) 'indices.  (Include path if necessary,)'
 READ (*,'CA)') FILE3
 WRITE (*,'')
 WRITE <*,*)'PieBSe enter name  of data file containing ALTERNATIVE'
 WRJTE (*,*)' indices.  (Include path H necessary,)'
 READ (*,'(A>')
 WRITE (*,'(///)')
'THIS PROGRAM MODELS THE BENEFITS Of ASBESTOS'
'PRODUCT REGULATIONS.'
 OPEN<1,IOSTAT=IERR3,FILE=FILE3,STATUS='OLO'>
 IF OERR3 .LE. 0) GO TO 6662
 WRITE (*,'')
 WRITE (*,*) 'FILE ', FILES,'  NOT FOUND ON SPECIFIED PATH'
 WRITI (*,'(//}')
 WRITS (*,*> 'Please enter name of data file containing SASELINE'

-------
ABM.FOR                       Tuesday Hay 31, 1988  12:00 W                        Page  2


   81       WRITE (*,*> 'indices.  Cinclude path if necessary,)'
   82       READ <*,'
   84       GO TO 6661
   85 6662  l£RR4=Q
   86       OPEN {2,IOSTAT=1£RR4,FILE=FILE4,STATUS='OLD')
   87       IF (IERR4 .16. 0) GO TO 146
   88       WRITE <*,'(//)')
   89       WRIT! <*,*} 'FILE ',FILE4,' NOT FOUND ON SPECIFIED PATH'
   90       WRITE (*.'(//>')
   91       WRITE (*,*)'Plea$e enter name of data file containing ALTERNATIVE'
   92       WRITE <*,*> 'indices.  {Include path if necessary,)'
   93       READ ') FILE4
   94       WRITE (*,'{///>'}
   95 C
   96  146  WRITE {*,*> 'Would you like the output to be routed to the'
   97       WRITE {*,*) 'printer or to a file on disk ?  Enter P  or D'
   98       READ '> *ES
   99       WRITE {*,*)
  100       IF ((RES .EQ.  '»>') .OR. {RES .EQ. *p')> THEN
  101         FIL£2»'LPT1'
  102         PGBRKs'T
  103         OPEN (3,FILEsFlLE2>
  104       ELSEIF ({RES .EQ. '0') .OR. (RES .EQ. 'd'» THEN
  105         PGSRK="
  106         WRITE (*,*)  'Please enter desired name of OUTPUT file.'
  107         WRITE (*,*)  '(Include path if necessary.)'
  108         RiAD '> FILE2
  109 1927    IERR2=Q
  110         OPEN (3,FILE=FILE2,IOSTAT=IERR2,STATUS='HEW'>
  111          IF (IERR2 .L£. 0) GO TO 2929
  112         WRITE (*,*)
  113         WRITE (*,*)  'FILE ',FILE2,'  ALREADY EXISTS!'
  114         WRITE (*,*)
  115 1928    WRITE (*,*>  'Should file be  overwritten (Y/N>?'
  116         READ (V(A)'} RES
  117         IF (CRES .E«.  'Y') .OR.  (RES .EQ.  'y'»  THEN
  118           OPEN (3,FlLEsFlLE2,STATUSs'OL»'5
  119           60 TO 2929
  120         fLSEIF CCRES .EQ. 'N'>  .OR.  (RES .EQ. 'n'J> THEN
  121            WRITE {*,*)
  122           WRITE {*,*>  'Enter new name of output  file     --->'
  IS           READ {*,'(A)') FILE2
  124           WRITE {*,*>
  125           GO TO 1927
  126         ELSE
  127           GO TO 1928
  128         ENDIF
  129       ELSE .
  130         WRITE (*,*)
  131          WRITE (*,*>  'INVALID OPTION  -  PLEASE  CHOOSE AGAIN'
  132          WRITE (*,*)  •
  133          GO TO 146
  134        ENDIF
  135  C
  136  2929    PRINT *
  137         WRITE (*,*)  'Please enter desired  name of '//
  138       -              'cost-benefit TABLES"  DATA  file.'
  139          WRITE (*,*)  '{Include path if  necessary.}'
  140          READ (*,'(A)')  FILE7
  141  2927    IERR7=0
  142          OPEN (7,FILE=FIL£7,10STAT=IERR7,STATUSs'NEWrF0RM='UNFORMATTED')
  143          IF (1ERR.7 ,LE.  0) SO TO  1929
  144          WRITE (*,*)
  145          WRITE (*,*)  'FILE '.FILE?,'  ALREADY EXISTS!'
 -146          WRITE <*,*)
  147  2928    WRITE (*,*)  'Should file be  overwritten  {Y/tW
  148          READ C*,'(A}'>  RES
  149          IF {(RES .EQ.  'Y')  .OR.  (RES .EQ.  'y'»  THEN
  150            OPEN (7,F!LE=F!LE7,STATUS='OLD',FOR«='UNFORHATTED'>
  151            GO TO 1929
  152          ELSEIF {{RES .EC.  'N')  .OR.  (RES .EO.  'n')) THEN
  153            WRITE (*,*)
  154            WRITE (*,*>  'Enter new name  of output  file     -•->'
  155            READ (*,'(A)')  FILE?
  156            WRITE {*,*)
  157            GO TO 2927
  158          ELSE
  159            GO TO 2928
  160          ENDIF

-------
ABM.FOR
                              Tuesday Hay 31, 1988  12:00 AM
                                                                                  Page 3
       743
       744
 161  C
 162  1929
 163
 164
 165
 166
 167
 168
 169
 170
 171
 172
 173
 174
 175
 176
 177
 178
 179
 180
 181
 182
 183
 184
 185
 186
 187
 188
 189
 190
 191
 192
 193
 194
 195
 196
 197
 198
 199
 200
 201
 202
 203  123
 204
 205
 206
 207
 208
 209  124
 210
 211
 212
 213
 214
 215  125
 216
 217
 218
 219
 220
 221
 222
 223
 224
 225
 226  126
 227
 228
 229
 230
 231
 232
 233
234
 235
236
237
238
 239
 240
READ(1,743) IYRS,ISY,IEY
REMK1.744} (LIFEC15,1=1,38)
READ(2,743> IYY,ISS,IEE
FORMAT(12,2C5X,I4»
FORMAT(3813)
            WRITE (*,*)
            WRITS <*,*)
            WRITE C*,*>
            WRITE (*,*>
            WRITE <*,*)
            WRITE <*,*)
            WRITE (*,*>
            WRITE (*,*}
            WRITE (*,*)
            WRITE C*,*}
            WRITE (.*,*")
            WRITE <*,*)
            WRITE C*,*)
            WRITE (*,*>
            WRITE (*,*)
YOU WILL NOW SELECT THE POPULATION TO BE ANALYZED'
FOR THE PROJECTED HEALTH BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION,'
THE POPULATION CAN BE COMPOSED OF THE FOLLOWING'
TEH CATEGORIES:'

          0 - PRIMARY MANUFACTURING OCCUPATIONAL'
          1 - SECONDARY MANUFACTURING OCCUPATIONAL'
          2 - INSTALLATION OCCUPATIONAL'
          3 - USE OCCUPATIONAL'
          4 - REPAIR/DISPOSAL OCCUPATIONAL'
          5 - PRIMARY MANUF. AMSIENT NON-OCCUP.'
          6 - SECONDARY MANUF. AMBIENT NON-OCCUP.'
          7 - INSTALLATION NON-OCCUPATIONAL '
          8 - USE NON-OCCUPATIONAL '
          9 - REPAIR/DISPOSAL N0«-OCCUPATIONAL '
            '
WRITE (*,'<6
PAUSE 'Press the  or the  key to continue'
WRITE 
WRITE C*,*) 'YOU HAVE FOUR OPTIONS FOR CHOOSING THE POPULATION'
WRITE (*,*) 'TO BE ANALYZED.  THESE OPTIONS AND THEIR CORRESPOND-'
WRITE (*,*> 'ING REFERENCE NUMBERS ARE THE FOLLOWING:'
WRITE {*,*)
WRITE (*,*) '
WRITE (*,*> '
WRITE (*,*> '
WRITE C*,*) '
WRITE (*,*)
WRITE (*,*)
WRITE (*,*) 'ENTER THE REFERENCE NUMBER OF YOUR CHOICE.'
READ C*,*) IGROUP
WRITE (VC24
IF (IGROUP .EQ. 1} THEN
  NEG=10
  DO 123 1=1, NEG
                                      ALL  CATEGORIES'
                                      ALL  OCCUPATIONAL  CATEGORIES'
                                      ALL  NON -OCCUPATIONAL  CATAGORIES'
                                      USER SELECTED  GROUPS'
              CONTINUE
            END IF
            IF (IGROUP  .EQ.  2}  THEN
              DO 124  1=1, NEG
              CONTINUE
            END IF
            IF (IGROUP  .EQ.  3)  THEN
            NEG=S
              DO 125  1*6,10
                B=!
              CONTINUE
            END IF
            IF (IGROUP  .EQ.  4)  THEN
            WRITE  (*,*)  'HOW MANY  CATEGORIES ARE YOU  INTERESTED  IN?'
            READ (*,*) NEG
            WRITE  (*,*)
            WRITE  <*,*>
            DO 126  1=1, NE6
              WRITE (*,*>  'ENTER CATEGORY  ', !
              READ  {*,*) B(!>
              b< f >*b( i >+1
            CONTINUE
            END IF
            WRITE  
            WRITE  (*,*)  'THIS PROGRAM GIVES YOU THE OPTION OF RUNNING THE'
            WRITE  (*,*}  'MODEL  FOR ALL PRODUCTS, SPECIFIC GROUPS OF PRODUCTS,'
            WRITE  (*,*)  'OR  ANY  INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT.   IF YOU WOULD  LIKE  TO SEE'
            WRITE  (*,*)  'A LIST OF ALL THE PRODUCTS AND THEIR REFERENCE'
            WRITE  <*,*)  'NUMBERS ENTER 1,  IF NOT ENTER 0.'
            READ {*,*)  I
            WRITE  
            IF (I  .EQ.  1) CALL  LIST
            WRITE  (V(24(/))')
            WRITE  <*,*}  'IF  YOU WISH TO RUN THE MODEL FOR ALL THE  PRODUCTS,'
            WRITE  (*,*)  'ENTER  1,  IF ONLY  FOR A SUBSET OF ALL THE  PRODUCTS'
            WRITE  (*,*)  'ENTER 0.'

-------
ABM.FOR                       Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00  AM                        Page 4


  241       READ (*,*) I
  342       WRITE CVC12C/})'}
  243        IF (I  .EQ.  1) THEN
  244         NP=38
  245         DO 127 N=1,NP
  246           A(H>»N
  247 127     CONTINUE
  248        EISE
  249         WRITE £*,*>'HOW MANY PRODUCT CATAGORIES ARE  YOU  INTERESTED  IN?'
  250         READ  <*,*>  NP
  251         yRITE CVC24
  252         00 128 N=1,NP
  253           WRITE (*,*} 'ENTER THE PRODWCT REFERENCE # FOR PRODUCT  ', N
  254           READ (*,*> A(N)
  255       WRITE (V<35(/»'>
  256 128     CONTINUE
  257         ENDIF
  258       WRITE CV(27{/»')
  259         WRITE {*,*> 'THE DEFAULT DOSE RESPONSE CONSTANTS ARE:'
  260         WRITE {*,*}
  261         WRITE <*,.*} '       LUNG CANCER  » 0.01'
  262         WRITE C*,*> '       HESOTHEUOMA = 0.00000001'
  263         WRITE (*,*>
  264         WRITE (*,*)
  265         WRITE (*,*)
  266         WRITE (*,*) 'DO YOU WISH TO CHANGE THESE CONSTANTS FOR AMY'
  267         WRITE (*,*) 'PRODUCT CATEGORIES?'
  268         WRITE (*,*>
  269         WRITE (*,*) 'INTER  1 IF  YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANCES, AND ENTER'
  270         WRITE (*,*) '0  IF YOU DON"T.'
  271         READ  {*,*}  I
  272         WRITE (VC20 'IN HOW MANY PRODUCT CATEGORIES ARE  YOU INTERESTED'
  275         WRITE <*,*) 'IN CHANGING AT LEAST WE OF THE DOSE RESPONSE'
  276         WRITE {*,*> 'CONSTANTS?  '
  277         READ  <*,*>  I
  278         WRITE <*,'<21
  279         WRITE <*,*> 'RISPOMD TO  THE PROMPTS TO ENTER TH6 REFERENCE'
  280         WRITE <*,*) 'NUMBERS OF  THOSE PRODUCTS HAVING DOSE RESPONSE'
  281         WRITE C*,*> 'CONSTANTS THAT YOU  WISH TO MODIFY.'
  282         WRITE 
  283         DO 2112  N=1,I
  284           WRITE  <*,*) 'ENTER PRODUCT NUMBER ',N, '  THAT HAS A DOSE'
  285           WRITE  (*,*> 'RESPONSE  CONSTANT TO BE CHANGED.'
  286           READ  (*,*)  NPN(N>
  287         WRITE  (*,*)
  288         KITE  (*,*)
  289 2112     CONTINUE
  290         WRITE  C*,'(24(/»')
  291          DO 2113  N-1,1
  292         WRITE  (*,*)  'THE LUMG CANCER DOSE RESPONSE CONSTANT FOR  '
  293         WRITE  (*,*)  'PRODUCT »,NPNCN),' = ',FKL{NPN(N»
  294         WRITE  (*,*)
  295           WRITE  (*,*) 'ENTER 1 IF YOU WISH TO CKANSE THIS, ENTER 0'
  296           WRITE  (*,*) 'IF YOU DON"T.'
  297         READ  (*,*) II
  298         WRITE {*,*)
  299         WRITE <*,*}
  300         IF (II  .Ed.  1> THEN
  301            WRITE  <*,*> 'ENTER THE NEW LUNG CANCER DOSE RESPONSE CONSTANT'
  302           WRITE  (*,*} 'FOR  PRODUCT  ',NPNCN>,' .'
  303           READ <*,*5  FKL(NPN(H»
  304            END IF
  305          WRITE CV(4(/))')
-306           WRITE  (*,*) 'THE  MESOTHELIOHA DOSE RESPONSE CONSTANT FOR'
  307         WRITE (*,*)  'PRODUCT ',NPN(N>,' = ',FKH(NPN{N))
  308           WRITE  (*,*)
  309           WRITE  (*,*> 'ENTER 1 IF YOU WISH TO CHANGE THIS, ENTER 0'
  310           WRITE  (*,*> 'IF YOU DON«T.'
  311            READ (*,*)  IE
  312           WRITE {*,*)
  313           WRITE {*,*)
  314            IF (II .EQ. 1)  THEN
  315           WRITE {*,*} 'ENTER  THE NEW MESOTHELIOMA DOSE RESPONSE '
  316           WRITE <*,*} 'CONSTANT  FOR PRODUCT ',NPN(N5
  317           READ (*,*)  FKMCNPN(N))
  318           END1F
  319          WRITE 
-------
ABM.FOR                       Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM                        Page 5


  321         WRITE (*,'«(/»'}
  322         ENDIF
  323         URITE<*,'(13 'RATES AS THEIR DECIMAL EQUIVALENTS.  AS  A« '
  341         WRITE (*,*} 'EXAMPLE, A DISCOUNT RATE OF 10% WOULD BE ENTERED'
  342         WRITE (*,*) 'AS .1'
  343         WRITE (*,'<4C/»'>
  344         DO 130 N=1,NN
  345          WRITE C*,'(A,I2)') ' ENTER DISCOUNT RATE f ',N
  346          READ (*,*) DISC(N)
  347 130     CONTINUE
  348         WRITE (*,'{22(/})')
  349         WRITE {*,*) 'WHAT EXPOSED POPULATION CHARACTERIZATION FILE'
  350         WRITE <*,*> 'DO YOU WANT TO USE?  REMEMBER TO INCLUDE THE'
  351         WRITE (*,*) 'DRIVE SPECIFIER!'
  352         READ (*,'CA)') FILE
  353         OP£N(UNlT*4,FILE*FlLE,FORH='FORMATTED',STATUSs'OLD<)
  354         WRITEC*,'C24C/)}'3
  355         WRITE (*,*) 'THE OUTPUT OF THIS RUN IS STORED IN  THE  FILE'//
  356      -              ' NAMED ',FILE2
  357         WRIT1C*,*}
  358         WRITEC*,*)
  359         WRITEC*,*} 'WAIT FOR THE PROGRAM TERMINATED'//
  360      -             ' MESSAGE BEFORE YOU PROCEED.'
  361         WRITE (*,'{13{/))')
  362         CALL INTAt(FILE3,FILE4,FILE2,FILE,IYRS,ISY,IEY,NE6,S,«P,
  363      *  A,FKL,FKH,IYfSI,KN,DISC,PGBRK)
  364 101     FORMAT C1X}
  365 202     FORMAT C10{4f2Q.8/»
  366         READ C4,101}
  367         READ {4,202} MANOP
  368         READ C4,101)
  369         READ (4,202) MANOS
  370         READ (4,101)
  371         READ (4,202) IMSO
  372         READ (4,101)
  373         READ C4,202> USEO
  374         READ (4,101)
  375         READ (4,2023 DISO
  376         READ (4,101)
  377         READ (4,202} MANAP
  378         READ (4,101)
  379         READ (4,202) MANAS
  380         READ (4,101)
  381         READ (4,202) INSA
  382        .READ (4,101)
  383         READ (4,202) USEA
  384         READ (4,101)
  385         READ (4,202) DISA
  -386         READ {4,101}
  387         READ (4,202) PMANOP
  388         READ (4,101)
  389         READ (4,202} PMANOS
  390         READ (4,101)
  391         READ (4,202) PINSO
  392         READ (4,101)
  393         READ (4,202) PUSEO
  394         READ (4,101)
  395         READ (4,2023 PD1SO
  396         READ (4,101)
  397         READ (4,202) PMAHAP
  398         READ (4,101)
  399         READ (4,202) PMAHAS
  400         READ (4,101)

-------
ABH.FOR                       Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                        Page 6
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413 446
414 445
415 444
416
417
418
419 448
420 447
421
422
423
424
425 37
426 36
427 34
428
429
430
431
432 3342
433 3341
434 C
435 C
436 C
437
438
439
440
441 28
442 27
443
444
445 C
446 C
447 C
448
449
450
451
452
453 47
454 46
455
456
457
458 696
459 695
460
461
462 C
463 C
464 C
465
-466
467
468
469 75
470 77
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478 C
479
480
READ (4,202) PINSA
READ (4,101)
READ (4,202) PUSEA
READ (4,101)
READ (4,2025 PDISA
DO 444 K«1,38
DO 445 1=1,8
DO 446 ,1=1,11
RRR1(JC,I,J)=0.0
RRR2(K,I,J5«0.0
TEH1(K,I,J>=0.0
TiM2(K,I,J>=0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
DO 447 K»1,2
DO 448 !=1,38
PPP(K,I)«0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
BO 34 K«1,2
DO 36 1=1,28
DO 37 J«1,4
TOT1CK,!,J)aQ.O
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
DO 3341 1=1,38
DO 3342 ,1=1,20
BPROJ(I,J}=0.0
PROJ(I,J)=0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE

!B*BASELIN£/AITERNATIV£ INDEX

00 98 11=1,2
DO 27 K-1 ,5
DO 28 KK*1,5
P{K,IOO«0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
£XP1*0.0 .
CALL DAREAD(POP,RMAX,RLEV,Ii,BPROJ,PROJ,IYRS,PGSRK)

1P=PRCOUCT INDEX NP=NQ. OF PROOUCTSC38)

DO 1 !!P=1,NP
IPSA(I1P)
DO 46 1=1,28
DO 47 J=1,4
RR(1,J)*Q.O
R{I,i)=Q.O
CONTINUE
DO 695 1=1,18
DO 696 J=1,4
TA(I,J)=0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
EX1O.O
SS1«0.0

IG=EXPOSURE GROUP INDEX N5=NUHBER OF EXPOSURE 6RQUPSC105

DO 11 IIG«1,NEG
DO 77 1=1,28
DO 78 J=1,4
TO,J>=0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
IG=B(IIG)
11=0.0
ISH*0
IF UG.EO.S.OR.IG.EO.IQJ !SHsLIFE{IP>
IF CPOP(IP,Jfi).E8.0.) GOTO 11
CALL INIT(RLEV,RMAX,IP,IG,NO,POP,SS1)
AGEMIBsAGEST
J=AGi GROUP INDEX NA=NO. OF AGE GROUPS (9>
DO 5 J=1,9
UTsfOWTCJ N05

-------
ABM.FOR                       Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AN                        Page 7
481
482 C
483
484 2
485
486 C
48?
488 C
489

491
492
493
494 C
495 C
496 C
497 C
498 C
499
500
501
502
503 C
504 C
505 C
506 C
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514 10
515 C
516 C
517 C
518
519
520 8
521

523
524 11
525
526
527
528
529 1
530
531 98
532
533
534
535
IF (WT.IO.O.) GOTO 5

DO 2 1*1,5
V(!)=0.
VC1)=1.

Ka(90-AGEMlD)/5
IA*5 YEAR IHOEX NT=MAX NUMBER OF TIME PERIODS IN A L!FE(18)

490 00 8 tA=1,N
A0E=( 1 A- 1 >*5+AGEH I 0+2 . 5
lPER=iA+CAaEMID/5}
CALL l«e)*F*(TT-1Q5**3
iF(TT.LE.10-WW!am SOTO 10
FOTH=FDT«- F»l{ IP)*F*(TT- 10-MAXDT )**«
FDTHs5.*FDTH
YEAR=(IA*5}+1984



CALL TRANS! (FDTI,FDTM»P,V»AGE,1PER,PP»WT,OSRWT, NO,
* 1S«,IP,1G,IB,IA,6I,E1,AOEM!D,TA>
CONTINUE

522 5 AGEKID=AGEMID+AGEIKT
CALL AG(T,R,!G,LIFE,!P,E1,EX1)
CONTINUE
CALL AGG(R,TOT1,I6,1P»IB»BPROJ,PROJ,RR,
* EXP1,EX1,1YRS,TEM1,TEH2,D!SC,NN>
CALL PRNT
CONTINUE
CALL TOTAi{TOT1,IB,TT1,EXP1,PGBRK)
COMT1NOE
CALL BANEFF(OISC,TOT1 ,TT1 , IB.NN.RRR1 ,R8S2,PPP,KP,A,
* PG8RK,TE«1,TEK2)
STOP
END

-------
CALC.FOR                      Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                       Page 1


    1       SUBROUTINE TRANSi{FDTi.,FDTMrP,V,AGE»IPER,PP,WT,0SRWT,NO,
    2      * ISH.tP.IGjIB.SA.GI.EMSEMIDJA)
    3 c
    4       DIMENSION P(5,5},V(S},WC5),OSRWT(4,3},TA<18,4>
    5        INTEGER AGEKID
    6       REAL*8 S,S1,PP,P,T,FMR,AF«R,BFMR,WT,V,W»S2,S3,
    7      * F»TL,FDTM,£1,TA
    8       COMMON /A1/TC28,4>
    9       CALL HFECIPER,FMR,OSRUT,NO>
   10         IF =FDTM
   14        P{1,5)=FMR
   15        J»C1,1>=1.0-(PC1,2>+Pt1f3)+PCl,4>+PC1,5})
   16        IF(P(1»1}.LE.O.ODO) P(1,1)=O.ODO
   17        P(2,2)*1.0
   18        P<3,3)-1.0
   19        P<4,4)=1.0
   20        P(5,5X1.0
   21        GOTO 421
   22   39    P(1,1)=O.ODO
   23        P(1,2>=FDTL
   24        PC1,3)*GI*FDTL
   25        P(1,4)sFDTH
   26        P(1,5)=l.O-CPC1,2>+P(1,3)i-PC1,4)}
   27  421  DO 1 1=1,5
   28       S=0.
   29       S1«0.
   30       DOZJ-1,5
   31       S1-SHP(!,J)
   32 2     SaS+P(J,I}*V(J)
   33       IF(i>ABS(S1-1.0DO).&T..0000001DO) GOTO 99
   34 1     W(I)sS
   35       CALL ACCUK(T,TA,V,W,28,4,2,IPER,FDTL,FOTH,PP,MT,AGE,
   36      * !SH,IPf!G,lB,IA,E1,AGEHID>
   37       DO 3 1=1,5
   38 3     VCI)=W(I>
   39       RETURN
   40 99    yRITE<3»98) 1,{P<1,J>,J=1,5>
   41 98    FORMAT
   42       STOP
   43       END
   44
             45       SUBROUTINE ACCUN(T,TA,V,W,N1,N2,N3,IPER,FBTL,FDTM,F>P,VT,
   46      * AGE,!SH,!P,IG,IB,IA,E1,AGEMID>
   47 C    THIS SUBROUTINE ACCUMULATES DATA.  ALL 6ROUPS  ARE ADDE8  TOGETHER.
   48 c
   49       REAL*8 PP,S1,T,WT,V,W,FDTL,FOTK,E1,TA
   50       DIMENSION T{N1,N25,VC5),W(5),TAC18,4>
   51       IKTE6ER IK<4),AGEH!D
   52       DATA IK/2,3,4,5/
   53        RIA»(IA-1)*5.+2.5
   54        R1SH=ISH
   55        IFT=CRISH/5.+.53
   56        MIPER=IA+IFT
   57        SAGE=ASEMtD
   58        tAGE=(A6E+2.5)/5.
   59       DO 1 K=1,4
   60       S1=(WUKOO)-V(!K
   64  1      CONTINUE
   65       RETURN
   66       END
   67 e
   68 c
   69        SUBROUTINE ASCT,R,IG,LIFE,IP,E1,EX1>
   70 c
   71           DIMENSION T(28,4},R(28,4),
   72      *   LIFIC38)
   73        REAL*8 A3,A2,R1,R2,R,T,E1,EX1
   74          !F(IG.NE.4.AND.!G.NE.9> GOTO 10
   75          «=LIFE(IP)
   76        RN=N
   77          DO 20 H=1,4
   78          DO 30 1=1,28
   79          DO 40 J=1,N
   80          K«(

-------
CALC.FOR                      Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                        Page 2


   81          IF (J.LE.5)               RJ=J
   82          IF (J.GT.S.AND.J.LE.IO)  R4=J-5
   83          IF (J.GT.1Q.AND.J.LE.15) RJ=J-10
   84          IF (J.GT.15.AND.J.LE.203 RJ=J-15
   85          IF (a.GT.2Q.AND.J,LE.25) RJ=J-20
   86          IF (J.GT.25.AND.J.IE.30) RJsJ-25
   8?          IF (J.fiT.3Q.AND.J.LE.35) RJ=J-30
   88          IF (a.GT.35.A».J.L£.40> RJ=J-35
   89          IF tJ.GT.40.AND.J.L£.45} RJ=J-40
   90          IF «R
  133  78     CONTINUE
  134         IF(BPROJC!P,D.EQ,0.0)  GOTO  999
  135          «NN=NM+1
  136         IFUB.EQ.2) GOTO 99
  137         DO 37 J»1,NNN
  138         DO 36 1=1,4
  139         DO 38 K=1,IYRS
  140         IF(J.LT.HNN)  '
  141      *  TEM1{IP,!,J)sTEMlaP,I,J)+«BPROJ{IP,IC>/BPROJ+
  144      *  (CBPROJ(IP,K)/8PROJ{IP,1))*SU)>
  145  38     CONTINUE
 -146  36     CONTINUE
  147        DO 22 1=5,7
  148        11=1-4
  149        TEM1UP,J,J}=TEM1(!P,!l,J)*CRUn
  150  22    CONTINUE
  151        TEM1{IP,8,J>«TEM1(IP,1,J)*CR<1>+TEK1
  152      * +TEM1(IP,3,J}*CRC3)
  153  37    CONTINUE
  154        GOTO 95
  155  99     CONTINUE
  156         DO 57 J=1,NNN
  157         DO 56 1=1,4
  158         DO 58 Ks1,IYRS
  159         IF(J.LT.NNN) TEH2(IP,I,J)=
  160      *  TEM2(IP,1,J>+«BPROJ(IP,IC)/BPROJ(1P,1))

-------
CALC.FQR                      Tuesday May 31,  1988   12:00 AM                        Page 3


  161      *  *S(1)*C1.0DO/(1.0WN-DISC(J»**K5)
  162         IF(J.EQ.NNN)  T£K2(IP,l,J)=TEH2(!P.f,J}+
  163      *  CCBPROa<;tP,IC}/BPR04(!P,1)}*S{I»
  164  58     CONTINUE
  165  56     CONTINUE
  166         DO 52 1=5,7
  167         IIsJ-4
  168         TE«2UP,l,J>~TIM2*CR(tn
  169  52     CONTINUE
  170         TEM2(IPr8,J>=TiM2CtP,1,J)*CRC1H"TEM2aP,2,4>*CR{2)
  171      *  +TEM2(lP,3,J}*CRa>
  172  57     CONTINUE
  173  95     CONTINUE
  174  999    CONTINUE
  175        DO 10  M»1,4
  176        DO 20  1*1,28
  177        DO 30  Js1,K
  178        K="TOT1(!8,I,M)+«A3*R1)+(A2*R2))
  194        RR(I,M5=RR{I,M}+{{A3*R1)+(A2*R2))
  195  30    COMTINUE
  196  20    CONTINUE
  197  10    CONTINUE
  198         DO 50 J=1,M
  199         IF(BPROatIP,1).6T.O.O) EXP1s
  200     *   IXP1+{BPROJ{IP,J)/BPROJCIP,1}*EX1)
  201   50    CONTINUE
  202        RETURN
  203        END

-------
FILE.FOR                      Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM                        Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52

e






396

397
*

797
*


40

434
30


398

399
*



60

50




80
70



100
90

200

BO
220
210


SUBROUTINE FILE(IB,BPROJ,PROJ,IYRS,PSBRK>

DIMENSION 8PROJ<38,20>,S(2,38,20),PROJ(38,ZO)
CHARACTER PGBRK
IF(IB.£Q.2> GOTO 200
WRITE (3,*)
WRITE (3,*)
WRITEC3.396) PGBRK
FORMAT(A,32X,' INPUT DATA 5',//)
WR!TE(3,397)
FORMAT (1 OX, 'iase line Indexes for the 38 Products over 20
'Years')
WRITE(3,797)
FORMATC1X.' ',
' ',//)

R£Af>(1,4Q) (S(1,J,K),J=1,38)
FORMAT C38(F4.2,1X))
WRITE (3,434) (S(1,J,K),J«1.58)
FORMAT(30(F4.2,1X),/,8CF4.2,1X»
CONTINUE
WRiTE{3,797)
WRITE (3,398) PfilRK
FORMAKA.32X,' INPUT DATA 6',//)
WRITE(3,399)
FORMATdOX, 'Regulatory Alternative Indexes for 38 ',
'Products over 20 Years')
WRITE {3,797}
DO 50 K«1,IYRS
READ(2,60) (S(2,J,K},J=1,38)
FORMAT (38(F4.2,1X))
WRITE (3,434) (SC2,J,K),J=1,38)
CONTINUE
WRITE (3,797)
DO 70 1=1,38
DO 80 J=1,IYRS
BPR04(I»J)=S(2fI,J)
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
DO 90 1*1,38
DO 100 J=1,IYRS
PROJ(I,J)=S(1,1,J)
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
GOTO 210
DO 220 K*1,38
DO 230 Ls1,IYRS
BPROJ(K,L)=PROJ(K,L)
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
RETURN
END

-------
INDATA.FOR                    Tuesday May 31, 1988  12:00 AM                        Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
m
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80

c

SUBROUTINE DAREAD(PQP,RMAX,RL£V,lB,BPRQJ,PROJ,lyRS,P68R!O

COMMQN/T7MANQP, HANDS, INSO.USEO.DISO, MANAP, MAMAS, INSA.USEA,
*01SA,PMNOP,PMANOS,PINSO,PUSEO,P0ISQ,PKANAP,PMANA$,PiNSA,"
*PUSEA,PDISA



CHARACTER PGBRK
DIMENSION RPOPC38, 10>,BPR04(38,20) ,REXP(38, 10)
DIMENSION RMAX(38,10),POP{38,10),RLEV<38,10),PROJ<38,20>.
*MANOPC3S>,MANOSC38>,INSO(38>,US£OC38),t>ISCIC38>,MA«AP{38)/
* NANAS(3S), INSA(38),US£A(38},DISA(38),PMANOPC38),PHAIIQS{38>,
* PINSQ(38},PUSEO<38},POISQ<38),PMANAH38)rPKANASC38),
* P!NSA(3S),PUSEA<38),P0ISA<38>













69




67
66


c
c

IQUIVALENCE(REXP{ 1,1) ,MANOP( 1 ))
EQUI VALENCE{RPOP{ 1,1) ,f>MANOP{ 1 ) )
CALL FILE(IB,8PROJ,PRO,I,IYRS,PGBRIO
S1-0.0
DO 66 1=1,38
00 67 ,1=1,10
!F(RPOP(1»J).EC.O.}SOTO 69
POP{I,J)«RPOP(I,J)*iPROJ{I,1)
IF(POP(I,J>.EQ.O.) GOTO 69
S1=S1+POP(I,J)
RMAX(I,J>=1.0
RLEV(I.4)=REXP{I,J)
GOTO 67
CONTINUE
POP(I,J)*O.Q
Rf.EV{I,J)«0.0
RNAXU,J)=0.0
GOTO 67
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
RETURN
END


SUBROUTINE IN!T(RLEV,RMAX,IP,!G,NO,POP,SS1)
C THIS SUBROUTINE DEFINES THE PRODUCT-GROUP SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
C
US6D IN THE SIMULATION.
C FalHTENSITT OF EXPOSURE, 8B=EXPOSU8f AS OF 1985,
C MAXDI=MAX DOSE ASSUMED, V« INITIAL STATE VECTOR,
C













c
c




«
*
*
*
*
#
*
*

it
*
*
*
*
*
*
*



DIMENSION RLEVC38,10),POP(38,10),RKAX<38.10}
REAL*8 PP
INTEGER IOCC(10)
COMMON /01/ F,MAXDT,PP
DATA IOCC/1, 1,1, 1,1,2,2,2,2,27
F«RLEVCIP,IG)/2600.
HAXDTaRHAX(IP,IG}
PP=POF»(IP,16)
SS1=SS1+PP
NO=IOCCC1G)
IF(IP.EQ.12,AND.IS.E0.9) N0=3
RETURN
END


SUBROUTINE INC(OSRWT,FOIE,NO,AGE,IPER,IY)
DIMENSION OSRWT(4,3),FEGC18,4)
REAL FDEG<18,4),FNE6C18,4)
DATA FDEG/
0. ,0. ,0. , .5,1 .0,3.0,9.0,33.5,93,0,247,5,489.5,802.0,
1330.5, 1797.5, 2283.0,26§2.5, 2300. 5, 1700ls,
0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,3.5,3.0,19.5,54.5,198.0,453.0,872.0,
1328.5,1775.5,1857.5,2358.0,2351.0,1618.5,1264.0,
O.,0,,0., 0.5, 0.5, 1.5, 5. 0,18.0,54. 5, 114.0, 191.5, 277.0,
383.5,400.0,410.5,429.5,402.5,394.0,
O.,0.,0., 1.0, 0.5,3. 0,6. 5, 26. 0,82. 0,131. 0,236.5, 290.0,
348. 0,321. 5,402. 0,404.5, 228.5,254.07
DATA FNES/
O.,0.,0.,. 5,1., 3., 9. ,33. 5, 93., 247.5, 518.9,850.1,
1712. 4, 2313.4, 2938. 2,3388,, 2960. 8, 2188. 6,
. 5, .5, .5,. 5,3.5,3. ,19.5, 54.5, 198. ,453., 924.3,
1408.2, 2285., 2390.6, 3034. 8,3025 .8,2083., 1626.8,
O.,0.,0... 5,. 5, 1.5, 5. ,18., 91. 1,190. 6,320. 1,463.,
641., 668. 6, 686. 1,717.8, 672. 7,658. 5,
Q.,0.,0.,1,,.5,3.,6.5,26.,137.,219.,395.3,484.7,
581 .7,537.4,671. 9,676.1, 381.9,424.67
mif, =0.0
DO 190 1*1,4

-------
INDATA.FOR                    Tuesday May 31, 1988  12:00 Ml                        Page 2


   81        IFCIY,EQ,1977)  FESCIPER,!>=FDE6C»>£R,t}
   82        IF(IY.EQ.1990>  FEG(IPER,I)»FMEG(IPER,I)
   83          FD1E=FOJE+FEG(IPER.I)*OSRWTU,KO)
   84   190    CONTINUE
   85          RETURN
   86          END
   87  C
   88  c
   89        SUBROUTINE  UFEUPER,FMR,QSRWT,MO>
   90        REAL*8 FMR
   91        DIMENSION OSRUT<4,3)
   92        REAL GMR{18,4>
   93        DATA GMR/
   94       * 1708.5,192.0,212.5,729.0,950.0,836.5,821.0,1096.5,1698.5,2825,5,
   95       * 4627.0,7200.0,11690.0,17182.0,26169.5,40523.0,57987.5,90208.5,
   96       *3212.8,258.,269.5,725.,1383.,1910.,2075.5,2804.,3965.,5504.,
   97       *8121.,11554.,16800.5,18976.,30980.5,43252.,44930.,56430.5.
   98       *1314.S,128.,125.,276.,296.5,307. ,391.5,578.,958.5 1548.5,2400.5,
   99       *3631.,5720.,8163.5,13173.,23016.5,37474.5,70198.5,
  100       *2652.9,171.5,140.,314.,495.5,658.5,828.,1280.5,2020.5,2998.5,
  101       *4572.5,6537.5,9475.,10880.5,21493.,32254.,31325.,43367,5/
  102        IF(IPER.GT.18>  IPER=18
  103        F«R=0.
  104        DO 1 K=1,4
  105  1     FMRsFHR+GKR(lPER,K)*OSRWTCIC,KO)/1.0E5
  106  C    MAKE CERTAIN FMR ttON ZERO
  107        FHR=DMAX1{FMR,O.ODO)
  108        RETURN
  109        END

-------
TABIES.FQR                    Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM                        Page 1


    1         SUBROUTINE !NTAB
    3 c
    4         REAL FKl<38},FKM(38),OI
    5         REAL*8 DISC<10)
    6         INTEGER IYRS,ISY,I£Y,IGROUP,BaO),MP,AC38),l¥,NN
    7         CHARACTER P6BRK
    8         CHARACTERS  F1LE,FILE2,FILE3,F!1£4,PRO£X38}
    9         CHARACTER*45  GRDUPdO)
   10         yR!TE(3,10) PGBRK
   11  10     FQRMAKA.32X, 'INPUT  DATA 1',//)
   12         WRIT£C3,20)
   13  20     FORKAT(30X, 'Scenario Modelled'}
   14         HRITE{3,30)
   15  30     FORMATC1X,' _ '
   18  40     FORMAT (6X, 'DATA FILES',//}
   19         WRIT£{3,50)  FILE,FILE3,Fai4,FILE2
   20  50     FORMAK9X, 'Exposure Data', 25X,A25,/,9X,
   21      *  'Baseline Product  Indexes', 14X,A25,/,9X,
   22      *  'Product  Indexes with  Regulation', 7X,A25,/,9X,
   23      *  'Output File'f27X,A25,///>
   24         WR!T£{3,60}
   25  60     FORKATC6X/T1ME PERIOD FOR ANALYSIS',//)
   26         HRJTE<3,70}  IYRS,ISY,IEY
   27  70     FORMATC9X, 'Number  of Years ',25X, 14, /,9X,
   28      *  'Start Year',28X,I4,/,9X,'End Year', SOX, I4,//}
   29         WRITE{3,303
   30         WR1TE{3,80)  PfiiRK
   31  80     FORMAT (A, 32X,' INPUT DATA 2',//}
   32         WR1TEC3,90)
   33  90     FORMAT C25X,' Exposure Groups Analyzed'}
   34         WR1TE(3,3Q}
   35         CALL GR(GROUP)
   36         DO  100 1=1, NEC
   37         yR!TE(3,11Q> GROUP
   38  110     FORMAT(15X,A45,/}
   39  100     COKTIHUI
   40         WRITE<3,30>
   41         WRITE(3,120} PBBRK
   42  120     FORHATCA,32X,' INPUT DATA 3'.//>
   43         yRITE<3,130>
   44  130     FORMATC12X, 'Products Analyzed and their Dose-Response',
   45      *  ' Parameters')
   46         WR!TEt3,30)
   47       WRITE<3,140)
   48  140   FORMATC1X, 'PRODUCT', 20X, 'LUNG  CANCER', 4X,'MESOTHEHOMA'
   49      * 3X,'YEAR FOR', 3X, 'RATIO OF')
   50       WR!T£<3,15>
   51  15   FORKAT{27X,'60Si-RESPONSE',2X,'DOSE-RESPONSE',2a<,'8ASELI«E',
   52      * 3X,'G1 CANCER'')
   53       WRIT! (3, 160)
   54  160   FORMATC27X,' CONSTANT ',5X,' CONSTANT ',SX,' LUNG',6X,
   55      * 'TO  LUHG')
   56       WRITEC3.170)
   57  170   FORMAK57X, 'CANCER', 5X^ 'CANCER')
   58       WRITE{3,175)
   59  175   FORMAK68X, 'RATIO')
   60       URITE(3,30)
   61        CALL PR(PROO)
   62       DO 180 1=1, NP
   63  '     WRITE(3,190) PROD(A(I)>,FKL
-------
 TABLES.FOR                     Tuesday «ay 31,  1988  IZsOO AM                        Page 2


   81  e
   82         SUBROUTINE  SRCGROUP)
   83         CHARACTER*45  GRDUPC105
   84         GROUP(1)='PRIMARY MANUFACTURING-OCCUPATIONAL'
   85         GROUP(2)='SECONDARY MANUFACTURING-OCCUPATIONAL'
   86         GIOUP(3>»'INSTALLATION-OCCUPATIONAL'
   87         GRQUP{4>s'USE-Q€CUPATIQNAL'
   88         GRQUP(5}«'REPAIR/DISPOSAL-OCCIIPAT10NAL'
   89         GROUP<6>='PRIMARY HANUFACTURIN6-NON-QCCUPATIONAL'
   90         GROUPC7)='SECONDARY KANUFACTURING-NON-OCCUPAT1QKAL'
   91         GROUP(8>='INSTAILATION-NON-OCCUPAT10NAL'
   92         <3ROUP(9}s"USE-NQIi-OCCUPATIONAL'
   93         SROUP{10}-'«iPAlR/D!$POSAL-NON-OCCUPATIONAL'
   94         RETURN
   95         END
   96  c
   97  c
   98         SUBROUTINE PR(PROD)
   99  c
  100         CHARACTER*25 PROD(38>
  101         PR00<1>='COHHERCIAL PAPER'
  102         PROD<2)»'ROLLiQARB'
  103         PROD{3)*'H!LLSQARD'
  104         PROD{4>*'PIPELINE WRAP'
  105         PROD(5>-'BEATER-A6D GASKETS'
  106         PROD(6}»'HGH-6RD  ELECTRICAL PAPER'
  107         PROD(7)='ROOF!NG  FELT'
  108         PROD(8>='ACETYL£NE CYLINDERS'
  109         PRODC9}»'FLOORING FELT'
  110         PROO(10)='CORRUGATED PAPER'
  111         PRCCK11}»'SPECIALTY PAPER'
  112         Pf?00(12)='V/A FLOOR TILE'
  113         PROD(13>='DIAPHRAGMS'
  114         PRCO(14)«'A/C PIPE'
  115         PROD(15}='A/C FLAT SHEET'
  116         PROO(16)s'A/C CORRUfiATEO SHEET'
  117         PROD<17)»'A/C SHINGLES'
  118         PROD(18>«'DRUM BRAKE LIN. NEy
  119         PROD(19>='DISC BRK PAflS.LV.NEW
  120         PROOC20)"'DISC BRK PADS,HV
  121         PROO(21)='BRAKE BLOCKS'
  122         PROO(22)='CLUTCH FACINGS'
  123         PROD(23)»'AUTO. TRANS. COMP.'
  124         PROO(24)*"FRICTION MATERIALS'
  125         PROD{25)='ASB PROTECT. CLOTH'
  126         PROD(26)B'ASB THRO, YARN ETC'
  127         PRCOC27)«'SHEET GASKETS'
  128         PRCO{28>s'ASBESTOS PACKINGS'
  129         PROD{29}='ROOF COATINGS ETC'
  130         PROD(30)=«'OTHER COAT. & SEAL.'
  131         PROOai}='ASB REINF.  PLAST.'
  132         PROD<32)='KISSSLE LINERS'
  133         PROD<33>='S6ALANT TAPE'
  134         PRODC34>*'BATTERY SEPARATORS'
  135         PROD(35)s'ARC CHUTES'
  136         PROD(36)s'BRH BRK LIN.,OLD'
.  137         PRQD(37}='DiSC BRK PADS,LV,OLD'
  138         PROD(38)='HININQ/MILLING'
  139         RETURN
  140         END
  141 c
  142 c
  143       SUBROUTINE PRNT(R,RR,N1,N2,«,IP,TA,SS1,1Y8S,IB.PPP,DISC,
  144      * NN,RRR1,RRR2)
  145 C     THIS SUBROUTINE AGGREGATES AND PRINTS THE  DATA ASSEMBLED
 -146 C       IN THE ACCUM SUBROUTINE
  147 C
  148       REAL*8 S1,S2,RT,R,RR,RRT,TA,TTA,AVA,CRrCRRT,CRT,TRT,TRRT
  149        RtAL*8 CTRT,CTRRT,PPP,RRR1,RRR2,DISC,SST,SS
  150        DIMENSION CR(4>,CRRT{4),CRT(4),PPP{2,38)
  151        DIMENSION RRR1{38,8,11},RRR2(38,8,11}»DISC(10),SST{113
  152        DIMENSION 85(4,11}
  153       DIMENSION R{28,4},RT(4},RR(28,4},RRT(4>,Tft(18,4),TTA(4),AVA(4)
  154        DATA CR/1.09,1.56,1.02,1.0/
  155         TRTsO.
  156         TRRT=0.
  157         CTRT=0.
  158         CTRRT=0,
  159         00 57 [Bl.11
  160         SST(I)"0.a>0

-------
TABLES.FOR                    Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AH                       Page 3


  161  57     CONTINUE
  162         DO 59 J=1,4
  163         DO 61 J«1,11
  164         SSCI,J)=O.ODO
  165  61     CONTINUE
  166  59     CONTINUE
  167       DO 3 K=1,«2
  168       S2=0.
  169       S3*0.
  170       BO 4 1*1,28
  171        N«1+NN
  172        DO 27 KK-1,H
  173        IF(KK.EO.N) SS=SSCK,KK>-KRRa,IO*a.ODQ7C1.0DO+
  175      *  D!SC{KIO)**sRT(iO*CRCK}
  180  3      CONTINUE
  181         DO 88 K«1,3
  182         TRT>=TRMiiT{K)
  183         CTRTsCTRT+CRTCK)
  184         DO 89 BC«1,N
  185         $ST{KK)«SSTCKK)+$$(K,KK>
  186  89     CONTINUE
  187  88     CONTINUE
  188        DO 6 K*1,4
  189        S4=0.
  190        DO 7 1=1,18
  191  7     S4=S4+TA(I,K)
  192  6     TTA(K)=S4
  193        DO 8 K=1,4
  194        S5*0.
  195         !F(TTA(1O.I.E.0.0001) GOTO 8
  196        DO M 1*1,18
  197  14    S5=S5+TA{I,K}/TTACK)*CI*5-2.55
  198   8    AVA{K>aS5
  199         Pf»P{IB,IP)=SS1
  200         IFaSSC!,d)
  204  49     CONTINUE
  205         RRR1
  222  71      CONTINUE
  223         RRR2{!P,8,J>sss(1,J>*CR{1}+SS{2,J)*CRC2>+SS<3,J>*CRa>
  224  67     CONTINUE
  225   99      CONTINUE
 -226      RETURN
  227      END
  228 c
  229 e
  230       SUBROUTINE TOTAL(TOT1, !S,TT1,EXP1,f»6BRIO

  232 C      THIS SUBROUTINE PRINTS TOTALS FOR ALL PRODUCTS
  233 c
  234         REAL*8  TOT1,TT1,EXP1,TD,TC,CR,TTD,TTC,TNP
  235         CHARACTER  P6BRK
  236         DIMENSION  TOTU2,28,4),TO(28>,TCC28},CR{4),
  237      *  TT1(2,43
  238          DATA CR/1.09,1.56,1.02,1.007
  239          TTD=0.
  240          TTC=0.

-------
TABLES,FOR                    Tuesday May 31,  1988  12;00 AH                        Page 4
241
242
243
244
245 7
246
24?
248 1
249
250
251
252 20
253 10
254
255
256
"257
2S8 43
259 42
260
261
262
263 44
264
265
266 48
267
268
269 95
270
271 62
272
273 46
274 96
275
276 63
277 47
278
279 30
280
281
282 64
283
284
285 65
286
287
288
289 50
290 60
291
292 76
293
294 70
295
296
297
298 c
299 c
300
301
302 c
303
304
305
.306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318 444
319
320
TNF>=0.
DO 7 1=1,28
TO(U=0.
TC(I>*0.
CONTINUE
DO 1 1*1,4
TT1{IB,I)sO.O
CONTINUE
DO 10 K=1,4
DO 20 J*1,28
TT1(IB,K5*TT1(IB K)+TOT1(I8 J K)
CONTINUE ' ' '
CONTINUE
DO 42 J«1,28
00 43 K=1,3
Tft(J}«TDCJ)+TOT1CIB J iO
TC(4>=TC{J>-KTOTlaB,J,K}*CR(K»
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
DO 44 K=1,3
TTDsTTO+TT1CIB,K)
TTC^TTC+CTTIOB I0*CR(K))
CONTINUE
DO 48 K»1,4
TNP=TNP+TT1C!B,IO
CONTINUE
IFUB.EC.1} GOTO 46
WR1TEC3,95) PGBRK
FORHAT(A,32X, 'OUTPUT DATA 2',//>
«RITEC3,62)






























FQRMAK25X,' Totals for All Products- Baseline 'Jin
GOTO 47
yR!TE(3,96) PGBRK
FORMAT (A,32X, 'OUTPUT DATA 1 ',//)
URITE<3,63)
FORHATC25X,' Totals for All Products - Alternative',///}
CONTINUE
WRITE(3,30>
FORMATC1X,' '.
* ' './/)

FORKAT(1X,'TI«E SI«CE',3X,'LUNG CANCER', 5X, 'G.I. CANCER', 5X
* 'MESOTHEL10MA',3X,'ALL EXCESS', 5X, 'ALL EXCESS')
WR!TE(3,65>













FORMAT(1X,'EXP. ONSET', SIX, 'CANCER DEATHS ',2X,' CANCER CASES' 5
DO 50 1=1,28
!1*U«15*5
12-11+5
HRIT£<3,60) • I1,!2,(TOTUIB,I,J>,a«1,3-),TD(l)fTC(t)
FORMAT(l4,'-',I3,3F16.5,2f15.5>
W?ITE{3,76)
FORMATC1X,/)
WITi{3,70) CTT1(IB,J),J»1,5),TTO,TTC
FORMATC TOTALS ',3F16.5,2f 15.5,///)
WR!TE(3,30)
RETURN
END


SUBROUTINE IANEFF,
* TT1{2,4),DIF1(28,4),ODC28),OC{28},CR(4),TfM1{38,8,11},
* DT1{4>,PPPC2,38),DIFP(38,85.TRRR(8),TEM2(38,8,11},
* DIS<10,5),RRR1(38,8,11),RRR2<38,8,11),DIFT<38,8),TRRHC8>
REAL*8 TOT1,TT1,01F1,DD,OC,TDD,TDC,CR,DIFT,TRRK,
* D1S,D1$C,EXP1,RRR1,RRR2,PPP,DIFP,TRRR,TEM1,TEM2
INTEGER A(38>,NP
CHARACTER PGBRK
CHARACTER*25 PRODC38)
DATA CR/1. 09, 1.56, 1.02, 1.00/
N=1+NN
DO 197 K=1,K
DO 444 1=1,8
TRRRU)=Q.0
TRRM(I)=0.0
CONTINUE
DO 200 1=1,38
DO 210 J=1,8



































-------
TABLES. FOR                    Tuesday Hey 31,  1988  12:00 AM                        Page 5


  321         D1FP(I,J)*O.ODO
  322         DIFTU,J>=O.ODQ
  323         DIFT{i,J>=TEM2a,J,fQ-TEM1(l,J,P
  324         DlFPCI,J}=RRR2U,J,iO-RRRla,.l,P
  325  210    CONTINUE
  326  200    CONTINUE
  327         DO 445 1=1.8
  328         00 446 J*1 ,38
  329         TRRR{!>*TRRR{l)-H>IFPCJ,I)
  330         TRR«CI}STRRM{I>+DIFT{J,I}
  331  446    CONTINUE
  332  445    CONTINUE
  333         CALL PR(PROD)
  334         IF*100.
  336         DO 320 JJ*1,4
  33?         IF   PGBRJC
  353  47     FORNAT
  354         WRITE (3 ,471} RR
  355  471    FORHAK3X, 'Cancer  Deaths Avoided by  Product',
  356      *   '  Discounted from  Time  of Exposure at  ',F5.1,'%')
  357         GOTO 340
  358  840    WRITE(3,48>  PGBRK
  359  48     FORMAT(A,32X, 'OUTPUT DATA 4A',//J
  360         WRITi<3,472) RR
  361  472    FORHAT{3X,' Cancer  Cases Avoided by Product',
  362      *   '  Discounted from  Tfroe  of Exposure at  '.F5.1 ,'%')
  363  340    WRITE(3,250)
  364  250    FORMATC1X,' _              •
                                                         -
                _, _                             .
 366         URITE(3,260)                        '
 367  260    FORHATC8X,' PRODUCT NAHE'.SX, 'LUNG CANCER ',2X,'GI CANCER',
 368      *  2X,'HESOTHEUOKA',2X, 'TOTAL CANCER' //)
 369         1FCJJ.E0.1.0R.4J.E8.3) ILOW=t
 370         IF(JJ.Ea.1.0R.JJ.E0.3> !«IGH=4
 371         IF(JJ.E<3.2.0R.JJ.EQ'.4) ILOWS
 372         IF(JJ,Ea.2.0R,JJ.EQ.4) !HIGH»8
 373         JFCJJ.Ea.1) WRITE <7) CDIFPd.IHIGH), 1=1,38), TRRRCIHIGH)
 374         1F WRITE (7) {D!FP{I,lHJGH),Tst,38)JiRR{IHI6H)
 375         1F(JJ.EQ.3) WRITE (7> (DIFT(I,tHIGH),i=1,38),mRH(lHIfi«)
 376         IFCJJ.EQ.4) WRITE (7) CDIFT(I,IWIGH),I=1,38),TRRM(IH1G«>
 377         DO 290 1*1, HP
 378         fpsA(l)
 379         SF{JJ.EQ.1.0R.JJ.E0.25
 380      *  WRITE{3,280} PROD(IP>,{OIFP{IP, J>, J=1LOW,IHIGH>
 381         IF{JJ.EQ.3.0R.JJ.E0.4)
 382      *  WRITE(3,280) PROOCIP),{DIFT(IP,J),J=ILOy,IHIGH)
 383  280    FORMAT(3X,A2S,F10.S,3X,F10.5,1X,F10.5,4X,F10.5>
 384  290    CONTINUE
 385    •     URITEC3,300)
 386  300    FORMAT (3X,//>
 387         IF(JJ.EQ.1.0R.JJ.EQ.2)
 388      *  WRtTE<3,310) {TRR8(I},Is!LOM,IHlGH)
 389         IF(JJ.E0.3.0R.JJ.Ea.4>
 390      *  WRITE{3,310> 

-------
TABLES,FOR                    Tuesday May 31,  1988   12:00 AH                        Page 6


  401  405    TORMATC12X,'PRODUCT', 12X,'NUMBER OF PEOPLE',//)
  402         DO 415 1=1,NP
  403         IP=ACD
  404         WRIT£<3,425) PROO(IP),PPP(2,IP)
  405  425    FORMAT(3X,A25,3X,F10.0)
  406  415     CONTINUE
  407         WR1TE(3,250)
  408         TDD-0,
  409         TDC*0.
  410         00 24 1=1,28
  411         DD<1)=0.
  412         DCU)*Q.
  413  24     CONTINUE
  414         DO 6 1*1,UN
  415         00 5 J=1,5
  416         DISCI,J)*Q.OQ
  417  5      CONTINUE
  418  6      CONTINUE
  419         DO 10 1=1,28
  420         DO 20 J=1,4
  421         DIF1U,J)={TOT1<2,I,J)-TQTlCl,I,a)5
  422  20     CONTINUE
  423  10     CONTINUE
  424         DO 50 J=1,4
  425         OT1CJ)=crm2,J}-rri<1,J»
  426  50     CONTINUE
  427         DO 76 1=1,28
  428         DO 77 K-1,3
  429         DD(l)=DD(I)+DIF1CI,K)
  430         DC{I)sDC(I)+{!>IF1(!,K)*CRCIO)
  431  77     CONTINUE
  432  76     CONTINUE
  433         DO 79 K*1,3
  434         TDD*TDD*DT1CK)
  435         TDC-TDC+{DT1(K)*CR(O)
  436  79     CONTINUE
  437         DO 55 K=1,NN
  438         DO 70 J=1,3
  439         DO 80 1*1,28
  440          DISCK,J}=DIS{K,J)+DIFUI,J5*(1.DO/(1.DO+DISCPCI>*{1.0DO/(1.tJeW)lSC{K»**CI*5-3})
  447          DIS{K,5)=D!SCK,5)+OC(!}*(1.QDO/C1.DQ+D!SCCK»**{ 1*5-3})
  448  83     CONTINUE
  449  56     CONTINUE
  450         WRITEa,437) PSBRK
  451  437    FORMAT(A,32X,'OUTPUT DATA 6',//>
  452         WRITE(3,120>
  453  120    FORMAT{15X,(Cancers Avoided for  Alt Products  fay  Time Period')
  454         WRITK3.250)
  455          yRITE{3,87)
  456  87      FORHATCIX.'TIME SINCE',3X,'LUNG CANCER',3X,'GI  CANCER',
  457.     *  3X,'MESOTHELIOMA',3X,'ALL EXCESS',3X,'ALL  EXCESS')
  458          URITEC3.88)
  459  88      FORMAT<1X,'START OF',46X,'DEATHS',7X,'CASES')
  460          yR!TE{3,489>
  461  489    FORMATC1X,'ANALYSIS',//)
  462         DO 130 1=1,28
  463         !1=*5
  464         I2=11+5
  465  130     WRITE(3,140> I1,l2,
-------
TABLES.FOR
                              Tuesday May 31,  1988   12:00 AM
Page 7
481
482
483
484 c
485 c
486
487 C
488 C
489 C
490 C
491 C
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
HR!TE<3,250)
RETURN
END


SUBROUTINE LIST

THIS SUBROUTINE LISTS TO THE SCREEN THE
ASSOCIATED REFERENCE NUMBERS.


MRITE{*,*> ' List of Products and Their
WRITEC*,*)
WRITEC*,*) ' 1-COM«ERCIAL PAPER
WRITE(*,*) ' 2-80LLBQARD
HRITEC*,*) ' 3-MILLSOARD
WRITEC*,*} ' 4-PIPELINE WAP
WRITEC*,*) ' 5-8EATER-ADD CASKETS
WRITEC*,*} ' 6-HGK-fiRD ELECTRICAL PAPER
WRITEC*,*) ' 7-RQOFING FELT
WRITEC*,*) ' 8-ACETYLENE CYLINDERS
WRITEC*,*) ' 9-FLOORING FELT
WRITEC*,*) '10- CORRUGATED PAPER
WRITEC*,*) '11-SPEC1ALTY PAPER
WRITEC*,*) '12-V/A FLOOR TILE
WRITEC*,*) '13-DIAPHRAGMS
WRITEC*,*) '14-A/C PIPE
WRITEC*,*) '15-A/C FLAT SHEET
yRITEC*,*) '16-A/C CORRU6ATED SHEET
WRITEC*,*) '17-A/C SHINGLES
WRITEC*,*) MS-DRUM BRAKE LININGS, NEW
WRITEC*,*) '
WRITEC*,*) '







PRODUCT NUMBERS AMD TKEIR



Reference Numbers: '

19-D1SC BRK PADS.LV.KEW'
20-DISC BRK PADS,HV
21 -BRAKE BLOCKS'
22-CiUTCH FACINGS'
23-AUTO. TRANS. COUP '
24-FRICTION MATERIALS'
2S-ASB PROTECT. CLOTH'
26-ASB TMRD, YARN, ETC'
27-SHEET 6ASKETS '
28-AS8ESTOS PACKINGS '
29-ROOf COATINGS ETC'
30-OTHER COAT. S SEAL.'
31-ASB.-RIINF. PLAS'
32-MISSILE LINERS'
33-SEAIANT TAPE'
34-BATTERY SEPARATORS'
35-ARC CHUTES'
36-DRM BRK LIN, OLD'
37- DISC BRK PADS, LV, OLD'
38-M1NING/HILL1NG'
PAUSE 'Press the  or the  key to continue'
RETURN
END



-------
A.6  ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL AND NONOCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
      FOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

     In Volumes I and IV of this Regulatory Impact Analysis, costs and benefits
of Regulatory Alternative J are examined using additional exposure assumptions
for exposure settings for which exposures to asbestos are believed to occur but
for which no quantitative information exists.  This appendix reviews the
sources for these additional exposure assumptions for both occupational and
nonoecupational exposure settings.

     A.  Additional OccupationalExposure Assumptions

     For a number of asbestos products, quantitative exposure information was
not available for primary manufacturing, installation, and repair and dispose
concerning occupational exposures to asbestos.  Yet, exposures in these
settings are believed to occur despite the lack of quantitative information.
This omission of exposures that occur from the cost/benefit results presented
in this RIA could cause a substantial underestimate of the actual benefits
likely to be gained by the various regulatory alternatives examined.

     To address this lack of data and potential underestimate of benefits,
where possible, occupational exposures in a number of settings were estimated
based on old studies, secondary sources, and' occupational exposures associated
with analogous products and exposure settings.  In particular, quantitative
exposure information was estimated for the following occupational exposure
settings based on these "analogous products" and related imputation methods:

     •    Acetylene Cylinders: primary manufacturing
     •    Millboard: installation, repair/disposal
     •    Pipeline Wrap: installation, repair/disposal
     •    Beater-add Gaskets: installation, repair/disposal
     ••    High-grade Electrical Paper: installation, repair/disposal
     •    Specialty Paper: installation, repair/disposal
     •    A/C Pipe: repair/disposal
     •    Sheet Gaskets: installation, repair/disposal
     •    Packings; installation, repair/disposal
     •    Non-Roof Coatings: installation
     •    Missile Liner: installation

     Table A.6-1 presents a complete set of occupational exposure information
including the imputed information for these exposure settings.  In the right-
most column of the exhibit and in the footnotes to the exhibit, explanatory
notes describe the rationale for, and the sources of, the additional exposure
information for these exposure settings for these products.  In most cases, the
additional exposure information was based on the set of activities (such as
cuttings and sanding) likely to be performed with the asbestos product in the
particular exposure setting for which data on exposures did not exist.  The•
associated levels of exposure for these settings were then based on products
and exposure-settings which involve similar activities.  Thus, the additional
occupational exposures are, in some sense, "analogous" exposures based on
products and exposure settings for which information concerning occupational
exposures does exist.
                                     A.6-1

-------
     B.  4dditi_gnal Nonoccupational^Exposure Assumptions

     In a  large number of cases, quantitative  information concerning
nonoccupational exposures to asbestos in product use was not available, but
exposures  in  these settings are nevertheless suspected.  If these exposures do
occur, then the benefits of the various regulatory alternatives examined in
this RIA will underestimate the actual benefits likely to be obtained through
the asbestos product controls.  Hence, to examine the impact of these omitted
nonoccupational exposures in 17 of the product categories, assumptions
concerning the rate of release of the asbestos over, time were made.  The 17
products for which such assumptions were made are;

           Millboard
           Pipeline Wrap
           Beater-add Gaskets
           High-grade Electrical Paper
           Asbestos-Cement Pipe
           Flat A-C Sheets
           Corrugated A-C Sheets
           A-C Shingles
           Disc Brake Pads (HV)
           Clutch Facings
           Friction Materials   •                 -      •
           Asbestos Sheet Gasketing
           Asbestos Packing
           Roof Coatings and Cements
           Non-Roofing Coatings, Compounds, and Sealants
           Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
           Sealant Tape

     In all cases, the assumption made regarding releases of asbestos from
these products during use was that  one percent of the asbestos contained in
the product would be released during each year of the useful life of the
product.    The rationale for these releases is that various activities, such as
cutting,  sanding,  friction-related abrasion, and similar actions that may
release asbestos from the products occur throughout the life of the product.
For population exposed, the assumption made was that the exposed population
equals the urban population of the U.S.

     Table A,6-2 presents these assumed nonoccupational exposure data for the
17 product -categories affected, listing both the assumed population exposed and
the exposure concentration in millions of fibers per year.
                                     A.6-2

-------
                                                                    Tabi* 4.6-1.


                                                     Exposure Levels {in million fibers inhaled par year) and
                                       Hoabar of Parsons Exposed  for Occupational  Settings (Use  of Products Hot Included)*
         Product
primary Manufacturing   Secondary Manufacturing
Suraber                   {lumber
  of    Millipn Fibers/    of
People       Year
                                                                                    Installation
                                                                                                            Repair/D isposal
                                                  Hunker
        Million Fibers/    of    Million Fibers/    of    Million Fiber*/
             Year        People       Yea*        People       Year
                                                                                                                                              Kotos
1.
2.
3.

Comserciai Paper
lollboard
Millboard

H/A" H/A* H/Ab S/Ab
»/A» H/Aa H/Ab N/Ab
12 145 448 57

H/Ab
M/Ab
U.K.

H/Ab B/Ab K/Ah
H/Ab H/Ab H/Ab
Similar to U.K. S»» Notes
secondary 5jm
misnufac. taring
57"


Installation may include cutting
to size and sanding, as does
secondary Manufacturing. If
retMsi r invnlvn* I'uf.Hriw
4,   Pipeline Wrap
H/AG
                                      H/AC
                                                                               N.K,    See Votes
                                                                                           52"
                                                  U.K.   See Notes
                                                              <23n
 exposures for repair/disposal may
 b* similar to installation and
 secondary manufacturing.   If the
 material is simply removed and
 disposed, exposures would be
 lower,  as asbestos is
 encapsolated,  unless the  material
 baa begun to disintegrate from
 wear.

 Reported installation eicposurea
 for pra-cut pipeline wrap
 saturated with tar ranga  from
 non-detectable to  0,02 £/cc  at
 three sites (uncertain if these
 are short-term or  long-tern
 exposures),*  Mean exposure  level
 calculated from reported  data  is
 approximately  0.02 f/cc (assuming
 levela reported as non-detectable
 to  be 0,003  f/cc;  the  actual
 detection limit was not
 reported).   Exposure from
 repair/disposal:   reported
 exposures  from pipe stripping teaA
 refurbishing at one site were all
 non-detectable  <<0.003 f/ee~«5.02
 f/cc) for  14 personal samples
 (sampling  time  171-420 minutes).g
Mean exposure level calculated to
be <0.009.

-------
                                                                       Table A.6-1.


                                                     Exposure Levels (In million fibers Inhaled par year) and
                                       Number of Persons Exposed  for Occupational Settings  (Use of  Products  Not  Included)*
                                                                            (Continued)
Primary Manufacturing Secondary Manufacturing Installation
Number Number Huraber
of Million Fibers/ of Million Fibers/ of Million Fibers/
Product People Year People Yaar People Year
5. Beater-Add Gaskets 227 110 1,244 57 H K Similar to
secondary
manufacturing
57m
-6. High-Grade Electrical 27 113 20 57 »,K. Stellar to
P°Per secondary
manufacturing
57m
Repair/Disposal
Number
of Million Fibers/
People Year Notes
H.K, See Notes Paper product installation may
57 include cutting, as does
secondary manufacturing; exposure
unlikely during installation 1£
there is no cutting, a* asbestos
is encapsulated, I£ repair
involves cutting, exposures for
repair/disposal may be similar to
installation and secondary
manufacturing. If the material
is singly removed and disposed,
exposures would be lower, as
asbestos is encapsulated, unless
the mnt.arial has begun to
disintegrate from wear.
U.K. See Notes Paper product. Installation may
U include cutting, as does
secondary ajanufacturing;
exposures unlikely during
7.   Roofing Felt
H/A°
B/A°
                                                                               396
                                                                                            439
                                                                                                        263
                                                                                                                     296
 installation if there is no
 cutting, as asbestos is
 encapsulated  If repair involves
. cutting, exposures for
 repair/disposal may be similar to
 installation and secondary
 manufacturing.   If the material
 ia simply removed and disposed,
 exposures would be lower, as
 asbestos is encapsulated, unless
 th» matorial has begun to
 disintegrate from wear,

 Installation includes application
 of roof coating by mopping.

-------
                                                                           te A.6-1.
                                                      Exposure Levels (in million fibers inhaled per year) and
                                        Number of Persons Exposed for Occupational Settlnga (Use of Products Not Included)*
                                                                            (Continued)
Primary Manufacturing Secondary Manufacturi
Number Number
ng Installation Repair/Disposal
Hiz&bor HuKiber
of Billion Fibers/ of Million Fibers/ of Million Fibers/ of Million Fibers/
Product People vattr People Year
8. Acetylene Cylinders 162-1 Similar to H/AC »/A°
primary manu-
facturing of
coatings
inn01

-------
                                                                        T&sle A.6-1.


                                                      Exposure Levels (in raillion fibers inhaled per ysar) and
                                        Hunber of Persona Exposed for Occupational  Settings (Use  of Products Hot Included)*
                                                                             (Continued)

15.
16.
17.
18.
19,
20.



21.
22.
23.


Pciinary
Number
of «
Product People
A/C Flat Sheet 12
A/C Corrugated Sheet H/Aa
A/C Shingles 11
Drum Brake Linings 1,115
Disc Brake Pads, JJW 815
Disc Brake Pads, HV 14



Brake Blocks 232
Clutch Facings 239
Automatic Transmission 1
Couiponettts


Manufacturing 	 Secondary MamifacturinR ^ 	 Installation Renair/BisDoaal
Hui*»r Jhinber Soaker 	 "
iilliw Fibers/ of Million Fibers/ of Million Fibers/ of Million Fibers/
Year People vsar People ¥„„ People Year Notes
478 S/AC H/AC 16 723 20 2,080
8/A« M/AC B/AC 7 723 9 2,080
473 8/Ac 8/Ac 236 130 164 Z44
3«5 1,937 125 B/Ah H/Ah 75,404 376
390 267 146 H/Ah H/Ah 39,441 386
385 <1 Sinilar to H/Ah H/Ah 117 390 Disc Brake Pads, HV, are very
secondary mmu- similar to Disc Brake Pads, UW,
facturtog of Disc «eept for s|zt s.eondary
Brake Pads, IMV manufacturing processes would be
«s stoilar.
3" 16 J27 »/Ah H/Ah 3,865 388
«« *B 166 »/Ah »/Ah 100 125
113 <1 Similar to H/Af H/A£ Exposure Unlikely Secondary manufacturing similar
secondary tnanu- to Specialty Paper, as both are
factaring of paper products (transmission
Specialty Paper components are 15 percent
                                                                                                                                 asbestos,  specialty paper  is  5-50
                                                                                                                                 percent asbestos);  processes
                                                                                                                                 would  involve  cutting  and
                                                                                                                                 shaping.   Exposure  unlikely in
                                                                                                                                 repair/disposal,  as entire
                                                                                                                                 transmission would be  removed,
                                                                                                                                 and  automotive transmission
                                                                                                                                 components are enclosed and Met.
24..  Friction Materials       187          398          27

25.  Protective Clothing     »/Aa        H/A*         H/Ab
  195
H/AD
H/An
H/A"
H/An
                                                    120
             H/A"
H/AD

-------
                                                                        table ft.6-1.
                                                      Exposure Lsvals (in million fibers Inhaled par year)  and
                                        Dumber of Persons Exposed  for Occupational  Settings (Use  of Products Hot Included)*
                                                                             (Continued)
Jrimary Hanuf actur inn
Number
of Million Fibers/
Product People Year
Secondary Manufacturing
Nuntoer
of Million Fibers/
People Year
Installation
Number
of Million Fibers/
People Year
Repair /Disposal
Number
o£ Million Fibers/
People Year
Notes
26,  Thread,  Yam,  etc.
                                ?8
                                            457
                                                        208
                                                                     408
                                                                              See Notes
                                                                               H/A
See Kotes
 N/A
27.  Sheet Gaskets
                               163
                                            208
                                                        878
                                                                     276
                                                                                M.S.
                                                                                       Similar to
                                                                                       secondary
                                                                                       manufacturing
                                                                                         276™
S«« dotes   See Notes     The primary use of asbestos
 "/A          H/A         thread end yarn is for brake
                          blocks, and clutch facings;
                          installation and repair/disposal
                          of these products would be
                          included under brake blocks and
                          clutch facings.  This product is
                          used to a lesser extent for
                          packings and gaskets; installa-
                          tion and repair/disposal would be
                          included under packings and
                          gaskets,   A small amuont is used
                          for specialty products, for which
                          little information is available.

  B.K,       See Notes     Installation may include cutting
              276         and shaping,  as does secondary
                          manufacturing;  exposure is
                          unlikely  during installation if
                          there  Is  no cutting,  as asbestos
                          is encapsulated.   One data point
                          for installation of gaskets
                          (assumed  to be  sheet gaskets,
                          based  on  processes listed) is
                          available;  the  number given is
                          
-------
                                                                          Table A.6-1.


                                                      Exposure Levels  (in million fibers  inhaled per  year)  and
                                         Hunter  of Persons Exposed for Occupational Settings (Use of Products Mot Inducted)*
                                                                             (Continued)
          Product
 Primary HanufacturInfi
Huo&er
  of    Million Fibers/
People       Tear
                                                      ggcondary Manufacturing
                                                              Million Fibers/
  of
People
Humber
  of
People
                              Installation
Million Fibers/
     Year
    Repair/Disposal
Number
  of
People
Million Fibers/
     Year
 27.   Sheet Gaskets
        (Continued)
28.  Asbestos  Packings
                                            198
                                                         25
                                                                     276
                                                                                H.K.
                                                                                       Similar to
                                                                                       secondary
                                                                                       manufacturing
                                                                                            276"
                                                                            U.K.
29.  Roof Coatings
                              *38
                                           273
                                                                               H-K-
                                                            S»» Hotes
                                                              130n
                                                                                                      See Hotes
                                                                                                        H/A
                                                                                                                                                Hot e a
                                                                           for repair/disposal are 0,09 f/cc
                                                                           for removal and concurrent
                                                                           installation; 0.13 f/cc for
                                                                           removal and hand scraping; and
                                                                           0.11 £/cc for r«noval and wire
                                                                           brushing.   fn«e level* are very
                                                                           similar to that for secondary
                                                                           manufacturing.  Ho details are
                                                                           reported on the operation
                                                                           monitored, the use of the
                                                                           gaskets, and whether th* gaskets
                                                                           were wet or dry.

                                                             See Notes     Installation may include cutting
                                                                 276       and shaping, as do«s secondary
                                                                           manufacturing; exposure during
                                                                           installation is likely to be
                                                                           lower if there is no cutting,
                                                                           although it night be higher than
                                                                           for gaskets because installation
                                                                           of packing night  involva more
                                                                           manipulation of the naterial.   If
                                                                           repair  involves cutting,
                                                                           exposures  for repair/disposal may-
                                                                           be similar to installation and
                                                                           secondary  manufacturing.   If the
                                                                           material is  simply  removed and
                                                                           disposed,  exposures would  be
                                                                           lower,  as  asbestos  is
                                                                           encapsulated,  unless  the material
                                                                           has begun  to  disintegrate  from
                                                                          wear.

                                                            Sae Rotes      Installation of roofing felt
                                                              K/A          includes application of coating
                                                                          by mopping.  Up to 90 percent of
                                                                          roof coatings are applied by
                                                                          trowel or brush.   Application of
                                                                          coating by spray would probably
                                                                          produce higher aaqsostiires, but not
                                                                          very high, because roof coatings

-------
                                                                        TOle A.6-1.
                                                     Exposure Levels  (in  Billion fibers Inhaled per year)  and
                                        Hunfcer of Parsons Exposed for Occupational Settings (lisa of products Hot Included)*
                                                                            (Continued)
         Product
 Primary Manufacturing
Humber
  of    Million Fibers/
People       Year
Secondary Manufacturing
Suabar
  of    Million Fibers/
People       Year
Dumber
  of
People
                                                                                    InatiillaUon
Million Fibers/
     Year
    Repair/Disposal	
Number
  of    Million Fibers/
People       Xear
                                                                                                                                               Notes
29.  Roof Coatings
       (Continued)
                                                                                                    contain only 5-10 percent
                                                                                                    asbestos, and the fibers would be
                                                                                                    wet.  Reported exposures for
                                                                                                    spray-applied aspbaltic roof
                                                                                                    coating range from 0.003 to 0.15
                                                                                                    f/cc (sampling time 342 to 432
                                                                                                    nsinutesj and 0.01 to 0.3 f/cc
                                                                                                    {sampling time not given).   Moan
                                                                                                    exposure level calculated from
                                                                                                    reported data for spray
                                                                                                    application is approximately 0.17
                                                                                                    f/cc.  Ho data are available for
                                                                                                    non-spray application of roof
                                                                                                    coatings;  for painting with rasin
                                                                                                    coating*,  reported exposures are
                                                                                                    0.0-0.06 f/ec (sagpling tin* S-Z3
                                                                                                    Bimitas.)    Mean exposure level
                                                                                                    calculated from reported data for
                                                                                                    painting la approximately 0.04
                                                                                                    f/ee.  Assuming that non-»pray
                                                                                                    application of roof coating would
                                                                                                    produce approximately the sama
                                                                                                    exposure level as painting with
                                                                                                    resin coatings,  and assuming that
                                                                                                    application of roof coatings is
                                                                                                    90 percent  non-spray,  the overall
                                                                                                    mean exposure  level is  calculated
                                                                                                    to be 0.05  f/cc.   Repair/disposal
                                                                                                    of roof coatings  is  included
                                                                                                    under repair/disposal of roofing
                                                                                                    felt.

-------
                                                                         Tsble A.6-1,

                                                      Ejqxssure Levels (in million fibers inhaled per year) and
                                        Runtoer of Persons Exposed for Occupational Settings  (Use at  Products Hot  Included}*
                                                                             {Continued}
         I'roduct
 Primary Manufacturing
Numbsr        ;
  of    Million Fibers/
People       Xear
Secondary Hanufacturinft
Number
  of    Million Fibers/
People       Year
            Number
              of
            People
                                                                                    Installation
Million Fibers/
     Year
                                                                    Number
                                                                      of
                                                                    People
                                                                                                            SeBair/Disposal.
Million Fibers/
     Year
                                                                                                                                               Hotes
32.  Missile Liners
  380J
                                            220
                                      H/AC
                                                                                U.K.
                                                                                          See Notes
                                                                                             57"
                                                                             Exposure  Unlikely
33,  Sealant Tape
  134 J
                                            220
 H/AC
S/AC
                                                                                  Exposure Unlikely
                                                                           Sea Rotes
                                                                           H/A
                                                                                                                     Sea Notes
                                                                                                                     H/A
34,   Battery Separators
Similar to pri-   H/AC
mary manufac-
turing of pipe-
line wrap
                                      8/A°
                          H/A*
                         8/A*
                                                                                                           Exposure Unlikely
                                          Exposures during installation
                                          possible if material i» cut to
                                          size; level likely to b« low as
                                          liner is a rubbery material and
                                          asbestos is encapsulated.  Might
                                          be comparable to secondary
                                          manufacture of paper products, as
                                          the process Involves cutting end
                                          asbestos is encapsulated.
                                          Escposure unlikely from
                                          repair/disposal as missile is
                                          destroyed during use.

                                          Exposures during installation
                                          unlikely because material is a
                                          rubber tape,  with asbestos
                                          encapsulated.   Exposures during
                                          repair/disposal unlikely, as
                                          asbestos is encapsulated, unlosu
                                          material has  begun to
                                          disintegrate from wear.

                                          Product is a  mat-type material
                                          which may be  made by a  process
                                          similar to felts (e.g.,  pipeline
                                          wrap),  with similar exposures,
                                          Exposures unliktly from repair/
                                          disposal as entire product would
                                          be  disposed wit.h asbestos
                                          enclosed and  the separator would
                                          probably be wet.

-------
                                                                         Table A.6-1.

                                                      Exposure Levels 
-------
                                                                        Table A.6-1,


                                                     Exposure Levels  (in Billion fibers inhaled par y«ar) and
                                        Bomber of Parsons Exposed for Occupational  Settings (Uso of Products  Hot Included)*
                                                                            (Continu«d)
 BnployeeB probably not expense!  to  asbestos  full-tima,  based  on nsbsstos  consumption.

 Anderson PH  Grant MA, mime*  HO, Farina HI.   1982.   GCA Corporation.   Analysis of  fiber  release  boo  certain asbestos products.  Draft final report
Washington, 0.C.:  Office of Pesticides  and  Toxic Substances, U.S.  Environmental Protection Ag«ney.  Contract No. 68-01-5960.                         "

 Rose T.  1987,  Telephone conversation  batwesn  Tom Rose,  Rosa  Roofing, Arlington, VA,  and  ICP  Inc., April  1, 1987.  fa cited in Asbestos Exposure ABsMstwnt.

                   estimated baaed on comparison to other  products  or proc«»s»s, not on actual  data, and should be used with caution.  See notes for individual
"Exposure Iwel is estiraated ba.ed on limited data from studies th«t may be old and/or not dascribed in detail.  Various .sstaptions are included in the
                     inf°mati0n that mey "Ot b* "P01*^- Boch •• ablins tim9 and limits of detection.  Estimate should be used with caution.  S«. notas for

-------
TABLE A.6-2. ADDITIONAL HQHOCCUPATIQHAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR USE OF PRODUCTS
                      Occupational




             Ho, of People     Mil. Fib./tr
             Honocctjpational




Ho. of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14,
15.
16.
17.
18.
19,
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25,
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35,
36.
37.
38.
Comnercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor file
Diaphragms
A/C Fipa
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LM? (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transmits. Corop,
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
fhread, yam etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Hon-Hoof ing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant, Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Bisc Brake Pads, LM? (A/M>
Mining and Milling


171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373







171,136,373
171,136,373
171,135,373
171,136,373


171,136,373

171,136,373

171,136,373


171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373

171,136,373







0.0000261*8
0.0000602*7
0.003730921
0.000372







0,000980582
0,000154728
0.000016497
0.000145989


0.000352845

0.000297445

0.004813187


0,001631991
0.0001872
0.004433279
0.000442663
0.001218152

0.000126915






-------
 APPENDIX B;    CAPITAL CONVERTIBILITY AND QUASI-RENTS DETERMINATION

    This appendix presents a detailed analysis of the derivation of quasi-
 rents used in estimating the costs and effects of the various regulatory
 alternatives examined in this study.   The appendix is organized into two major
 sections.   Section 1 (1) presents the theoretical approach for calculating
 quasi-rents, (2) indicates exactly how these estimates of quasi-rents enter
 the regulatory alternative simulation model,  and (3) calculates quasi-rents
 for the various product markets.   The second section of the appendix contains
 a report from PEI Associates on capital convertibility and the costs of exit
 from these various asbestos product markets.   The data contained in the
 memoranda contained in this section are the  input information for the
 calculations performed in first section.

    1.   Calculation of Quasi-Rents for Asbestos Product; Markets

         1.1   Introduction

         The  proposed regulation of asbestos  products calls for bans of certain
 asbestos products,  a phase-down of asbestos  fiber use,  or a combination of the
 two.   In the case of a ban,  this  means that  the affected products can no
 longer be  manufactured,  and in the case of the phase-down,  manufacture of  the
 asbestos-product may be limited and at the end of the phase-down period the
 product will no longer be manufactured.   In  either case,  some of the affected
 industries may  have  to find an alternative use for their existing equipment
 (given that  it  has useful life remaining)  by adapting or converting the
 equipment  to manufacture substitute products.

    If  this conversion is feasible,  there  maybe costs associated with doing
 so.  On the  other hand,  in the event  that such conversion is not feasible, the
 existing equipment may have to be sold to industries using similar equipment,
 sold as scrap,  or disposed as  waste in a  landfill.   In any case (unless
 conversion to the substitute manufacture  is  costless),  the returns to capital
 in  the  asbestos-product  manufacturing  industries  will not be the same under •
 the regulations  as in the baseline.   In more  formal  terms,  this  implies that
 producers of the  asbestos products  enjoy  "quasi-rents"  from the  use  of the
 existing capital  in  the  manufacture of these  products  in the baseline,  and may
 suffer  a loss of  quasi-rents depending on the  final  form of the  proposed
 regulation. ^

   This  memorandum presents the calculation of the quasi-rents per unit output
 per year for  each of  the industry segments potentially  affected  by the
 regulations  and  is organized into three sections:
       The concepts of "quasi-rent" and "rent" have a long history in
economics.  Traditionally, rent refers to the return to a factor of production
that is permanently in fixed supply, such as land.  Quasi-rent refers to the
return to a factor of production that is only temporarily in fixed supply,
such as the physical plant of a firm.  Although this is not the only possible
definition of quasi-rent, it is widely used and is the one employed here.
Thus, quasi-rents are returns to an asset in a particular use which exceed
those available in other uses.

                                   .  B-l

-------
         «     Section  1.2  presents  the  theoretical  approach  for  calculating the
              quasi-rents  per unit  output per  year.   This  approach considers
              transferal)ility of capital to  an- alternative use (where these
              alternative  uses consist  of existing  substitute products),
              conversion costs,  sale  of used equipment, disposal costs, losses
              in production efficiency, and  reformulation  costs.

         «     Section  1.3  presents  the  least cost options^ and the
              relevant data used in the calculation of the quasi-rent
              per unit.output per year  for each industry segment based
          . '   on engineering cost estimates.

         "     Section  1.4  presents  the  results  of applying the
              theoretical  approach  to the data  for  each industry
              segment.  Quasi-rents per unit output per year for each
              industry segment presented in  this section are used as
              inputs for the Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model  (ARCM).

         1-2   Theoretical  Approach	.for.Calculating  Quasi-Rents

         This  section  presents the  approach  used for calculating the streams of
quasi-rents enjoyed by producers of  asbestos-products in  the baseline, i.e,
the quasi-rents per unit  output per  year for the period of the  scenario.  Each
factor included in these  calculations  is discussed in detail below.
Throughout the analysis,  only existing substitute  products and  processes are
included in considering alternative  employment of  the capital equipment
possessed by  producers of asbestos-containing  products.   Thus,  the quasi-rents
calculated here would be  overestimates if new  processes or products were
developed in  which the asbestos-related equipment  could be used.

               1.2.1  Quasi-Rents  in a Dynamic, .Decision-Making  Framework

               The ARCM simulates  prices arid quantities for the various
asbestos product markets  and the asbestos fiber market over the period of the
regulatory scenario.  However,  the individual  firm's decision to convert from
producing the asbestos product  to  producing the substitute product is a
decision based on how it  projects  market conditions  over  tine.  Given rational
behavior, the firm will undertake  the  conversion of the existing equipment
only when the present value cost of  using asbestos  fiber  becomes prohibitive,
i.e., the present value cost of the  asbestos product becomes greater than the
present value of switching.3 The ARCH, on  the other hand, "walks" forward
through  time  and, as  such,  can  only model myopic producer behavior.  That is,
information for future periods  in  the model is not  available until the model
     n
       Engineering cost estimates of various options available to each
industry were prepared for EPA by PEI Associates.  This appendix presents the
least cost option for each industry segment.
     •3
       This is applicable for firms producing asbestos products- under a phase-
down.  In the case of a ban, the conversion will take place in the first year
of the particular product's ban.  Furthermore, in cases where an asbestos
product has more than one substitute, the capacity dedicated to satisfying the
particular substitute segment's demand will be converted as the relevant
"switching" conditions are met for that segment.

                                     B-2

-------
reaches  those periods.  Thus,  dynamic  rational  decision making  cannot be
explicitly modeled  in the ARCM.

   Despite this  limitation,  our approach  to  modelling producer  decisions
regarding capital conversion during  the regulation's  implementation  is
designed to mimic rational forward-looking decisions  as much  as possible.  In
the ARCM, firms  "bid" for fiber each year with  the  quasi-rents  that  accrue to
them in  the manufacture of the asbestos product (quasi-rents  are annualized
over the useful  life of the  existing equipment).  This approach, however,
yields correct conclusions regarding switching  if the useful  life of the
equipment is less than or equal to the time  spanned by the  scenario.  In the
cases where the  existing equipment may last  beyond  the duration of the
scenario,  this  approach will not necessarily generate correct  producer
decision making  on  the timing of switching their  capital to alternative uses.

   To model rational producer behavior in cases where the life  of the
equipment exceeds the length of the  scenario, we  first define the present
value of quasi-rents as the  costs associated with exit (conversion costs,
cleanup  costs, lost capital  value, etc.).  This makes sense because  it is the
costs of transferring the equipment  to alternate  uses (including possible loss
of the entire value of the equipment)  that form the surpluses,  or quasi-rents,
enjoyed  by producers of asbestos products.   Next, the present value  of the
quasi-rents are  treated as perpetuities.5 that is, the costs of transferring
the equipment to alternative uses (or  scrap  as  the  case may be) are  converted
to an infinite stream of yearly quasi-rents.  These are then  used in the ARGK
for simulating firms' bidding .strategies  for fiber.

   Analytically, expressing  quasi-rents as a perpetuity avoids  under- or over-
estimating quasi-rents in the 'ARCM and, at the  same time, mimics rational
forward-looking producer behavior.   Firms will  bid  away the quasi-rent flow
(expressed as a perpetuity)  up to the  p.plnt.,at.j!Jj.i_cb-i-t__ls._iu>....r.lqnger
worthwhile not to convert the equipment.   If the  fiber cost to  producers
exceeds  the perpetuity this  means that, in a present  value  sense, it is
cheaper  to convert  than not  to. ' Put differently, if  the potential loss in a
given year by not converting and continuing  to  purchase fiber exceeds the
potential benefit of delaying conversion  (hence,  the  perpetuity construction),
then it  is better to convert.  Furthermore,  as  long as the  full price of fiber
(i.e., the valuable rights to purchase or use asbestos fiber  under a fiber
phase-down plus the fiber cost) continues to rise over time,  the timing of the
decision to convert as predicted by  the ARCM using  the perpetuity construction
is precisely the same as that which  would result  from a forward-looking
rational expectations model.  This method also  ensures that the present value
of the quasi-rent loss is correctly  measured and  cannot exceed  the original
present value of the quasi-rents for the  relevant equipment.

   To summarize, a  firm will continue  producing the asbestos  product until the
full price of fiber is greater than  the sum  of  the  price of the cheapest
substitute and the  relevant  quasi-rent perpetuity.  At such a point  in the
     ^ PEI reports that this may be true for all industry segments.

     5 The idea behind treating quasi-rents as perpetuities is that the quasi-
rent per unit of output per year will reflect the value of avoiding the
conversion costs per unit of output per year.

                                     B-3

-------
scenario,  the capacity devoted to satisfying the demand for this particular
substitute segment will be converted. *>  At this time, conversion costs will be
incurred and quasi-rent perpetuity losses will cease to accrue in the
following  years.  This process continues until all the capacity has been
converted  and the industry no longer manufactures the asbestos product.

               1.2,2  Selectionof^Conversion Option for Industry Segments

               The memoranda from PEI Associates present various options and
their associated costs for the conversion/disposal of existing equipment
available  to each industry segment.  The least cost option for each industry
segment is selected for use in the calculation of the quasi-rent per unit
output per year.  The logic behind this is that when faced with an asbestos
product ban or phase-down, producers will elect the course of action that
preserves  the greatest portion of their asset values or costs the least to
implement.  Hence, these are referred to as "least cost options."  For
example, in the memorandum on asbestos-cement pipes, four options for
conversion/disposal of existing capital are identified,'  In the case of A-C
pipes, all options are plant closure options since existing equipment cannot
be converted for use in the manufacture of the substitute product currently
being produced.  These options and their costs for an A-C pipe plant with a
capacity of 200 tons per day are.

        •    Disposal of equipment in a hazardous waste landfill
             $600,000

        •    Cleanup of equipment and resale of equipment $670,000

        •    Cleanup of equipment and disposal in a sanitary landfill
             $1,144,000

        •    Cleanup of equipment and sale as scrap $992,000

Therefore, the cost of the least cost option used in the calculation of quasi-
rents in the A-C pipe industry is the sum of the value of the existing capital
and the one-time cost of disposal of all equipment in a hazardous waste
landfill.9
       The assumptions underlying this approach are: (1) capacity is
convertible in amounts equal to segment demands, and (2) the full price of the
fiber remains the same or increases over the period of the scenario.

     ' Section 2 of this appendix.

     ° All costs include cleanup and repair of building where equipment has
been removed.

     * .The inclusion of one-time costs in the calculation of quasi-rents is
discussed below.
                                     B-4

-------
                1.2.3   TransferaMlity_.L_of Capital

                Industries  in which capital  cannot be transferred into  an
 alternative use,  i'.e.'the  manufacture of the substitute product,  the quasi -
 rents perpetuity  per  unit  output is calculated from the cost of the capital
 per unit  output minus any  value recouped through resale of used machinery or
 sale of the machinery as scrap . *-®  For industries in which capital can
 feasibly  be transferred to the manufacture  of the substitute product,  the
 perpetuity of  the quasi -rents per unit output is calculated based on the
 conversion costs  incurred  (per unit output)  to adapt/convert the existing
 machinery for  use in  the manufacture of the  substitute  product.

                1.2.4   Disposal of Capital

                If the capital is not transferable (or wholly transferable) in
 some cases it  may be  sold  as used equipment  or scrap.   In any case, equipment
 in direct contact with asbestos  will need to be cleaned prior to sale  since
 asbestos  is a  hazardous substance.   Furthermore,  in the event that no  resale
 or scrap  markets  exist, the equipment will have to be disposed of in a
 landfill.  This can be achieved in two ways;  1)  disposal of all equipment in a
 sanitary  landfill after all equipment in contact with asbestos has-been
 cleaned,  or 2)  disposal of all equipment in  contact with asbestos in a
 hazardous waste landfill and the remaining equipment in a sanitary landfill.
 The actual choice will depend on the relative costs of  the two options.
 Finally,  the areas where the asbestos product is  manufactured must be  cleaned
 before any alternative production can commence . *••*•

   The costs of cleaning and disposal can be substantial in some cases and are
 included  in the calculation of quasi-rents.   Strictly speaking,  these  are one-
 time costs and do not quite qualify as quasi-rents for  the machinery Eer s.e.
 however,  they  will definitely be part of the producer surplus losses suffered
 by the manufacturers  of asbestos products once the regulation comes into
 effect.   These costs  have  therefore been included in the calculation of quasi-
 rents, since our  goal is to define  producer  surplus losses.

               1.2.5
               In addition to the costs of cleaning and disposing of certain
equipment not transferable to the manufacture of the substitute product,
conversion of capital may entail another economic cost -- the equipment used
in the manufacture of the asbestos product may not perform as efficiently in
the manufacture of the substitute product.  However, this loss in production
efficiency is not a contributing factor in the calculation of quasi-rents
unless the loss is caused by the express use of the equipment designed for use
        The PEI report indicates that in most cases the existing capital can'
last for a long tiae with minimal maintenance.  Therefore, the cost of
equipment used in the calculation of quasi-rents is the cost of a new
installation (non-greenfield) for a relevant industry segment.  This may
overstate the quasi-rents because the machinery is not new, making the results
upper bounds for such losses.

        This is also true for the cases where capital is transferable into an
alternative use.

                                     B-5

-------
with  asbestos  in  the  manufacture  of  the  substitute product.   This means  that
if  alternative equipment  available for the  manufacture  of the substitute
product performs  better than  the  converted  equipment, then this  loss  in
production efficiency is  definitely  a contributing factor.  However,  if  the
same  equipment used in the manufacture of asbestos products is used in the
manufacture of substitute products and the  loss  in production efficiency is
caused by the use of  substitute materials (i.e.,  if a new plant  set up for the
manufacture of the substitute product would face the same production
efficiency loss) , then the loss in production  efficiency  is an outcome of the
current state of  technology and cannot be considered a  contributing factor in
the calculation of the quasi- rents. ^

    If the production  efficiency losses qualify for inclusion  in  the
calculation of the quasi -rents, then the percentage of  capital value  equal to
the percentage drop in production efficiency is  included  in the  stream of
quasi -rents enjoyed by producers  of  the asbestos  products in  the baseline.

               1.2.6   Reformulation.  Costs

               Industries in  which the existing  equipment is  converted for use
in  the manufacture of the substitute product aay incur  some "reformulation"
costs, i.e., costs incurred for research and development  of a suitable
substitute or substitute  mixture  to  replace  asbestos in the formulation  of the
affected product.   Reformulation  costs may be  incurred  for each  product  line
manufactured.  For example, in the coatings  and  sealants  industry, various
types of coatings using asbestos  are produced  and each  of these  coatings will
have  to be reformulated with  an appropriate  substitute  or substitute  mixture.

    Reformulation  costs may be incurred by each individual firm if the
information is proprietary.  Alternatively,  reformulation costs  may be
incurred by the industry  as a whole  if the new formulations are  shared.  The
PEI memos indicate that in all cases where reformulation  costs are incurred,
the information is proprietary and the burden  is  on each  individual
   Since reformulation costs are not a function of existing capacity or
current production, they cannot be included directly  in the calculation, of the
quasi-rent per unit output.  Nevertheless, the prospect of these reformulation
costs certainly affect producer decisions regarding capital conversion.  To
introduce these costs into the M.GM, all costs other  than reformulation costs
are used in the calculation of quasi -rents as reported in this memorandum and
the reformulation costs per year are reported separately as. a separate
     1 *\
        Given the current state of the technology, if the same machinery is
utilized for manufacture of both the asbestos product and the substitute
product, then the value added by the equipment to each product unit on the
margin is the same in both cases.  Given the fact .that different units of the
two products are manufactured (since there is an "efficiency loss™ in one
use), the value added to each unit must be different.  As result, despite the
inequality of technical efficiency, the values of the equipment in the two
uses must be the same.

     13 Multiple plant firms are assumed to share the results of R & D if more
than one plant manufactures the same formulation.
                                     B-6

-------
perpetuity.   ••'•^  Both the non- reformulation related conversion costs and the
reformulation costs are used  in the ARCM  to calculate the actual quasi-rent
per unit output using the baseline output quantity as follows:
                                             RCp
where ;

             — Actual Quasi-Rent per unit output per year  (perpetuity),
        NQR- - Non- reformulation costs Quasi-Rent per unit output per year
               (perpetuity) , ^

        Qk   ~ Baseline Quantity in the year under consideration, and

        RCp  - Reformulation Costs per year (perpetuity) ,

        1.3  Data Used in the^CalcuIat Ion of Quas i - Rents

        PEI Associates have developed equipment conversion costs for twelve
industry segments. ^  Exhibit B-l shows the mapping of various asbestos
products into these industry segments.  Product categories 34 (Battery
Separators) and 35 (Arc Chutes) are not listed in this exhibit because these
products are not included for the ARCM simulations, and therefore, no quasi-
rents are calculated for them.  This section identifies the least cost options
for each industry segment based on the PEI memoranda.

               1.3.1  Asbestos -Cement ...... Pipe

               Existing equipment in this industry segment is not transferable
into alternative use.^<*  The least cost option available to firms in this
industry is to dispose of their existing equipment in a hazardous waste
landfill.  The cost of disposing of all equipment in a hazardous waste
landfill and cleaning the building for reuse amounts to $600,000,  The .
     *•* The reasoning here is the same as for quasi-rents since a firm will be
willing to incur a higher cost of production (within the limits discussed
earlier) in order to avoid reformulation costs.

     " For industry segments where more than one product is manufactured by a
firm, the reformulation costs are assumed to be equally divided among the
various products manufactured by a firm.  In such cases, the quasi-rent per
unit of output per year and the reformulation costs per year are reported for
each product category.

         This is the non-reformulation cost quasi-rent perpetuity per unit of
output calculated in this section,

     ^ Section 2 of this appendix. •

     *-° Section 2 of this appendix.


                                    ' B-7

-------
       Exhibit B-l,   Mapping of Products into Asbestos Industry Segments
Asbestos Industry Segment
            Asbestos Products Included
Asbestos-Cement Pipe

Friction  Products
Papers  and "Felts
Asbestos Roofing Felt

Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile

Asbestos-Cement Sheet
  and Shingles


Textiles and Packing



Sheet Gasketing

Coatings and Sealants
Asb,-Reinforced Plastics

Chlor-Alkali Industry

Acetylene Cylinders
14.  Asbestos-Cement Pipe and Fittings

18.  Drum Brake Linings  (OEM)
19.  Disc Brake Pads, LM? (OEM)
20.  Disc Brake Pads (BV)
21.  Brake Blocks
22.  Clutch Facings
23.  Automatic Transmission Components
24.  Friction Materials
36.  Orum Brake Linings  (Aftermarket)
37.  Disc Brake Pads, LMV (Aftemarket)

 1.  Commercial Paper*
 2.  Rollboard*
 3.  Millboard
 4.  Pipeline Wrap
 5.  Beater-add Gaskets
 6.  High-grade Electrical Paper
 9.  Flooring Felt*
10.  Corrugated Paper*
11,  Specialty Papers

 7.  Roofing Felt*

12.  Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile*

15.  Flat A-C Sheets
16.  Corrugated A-C Sheets
17.  A-C Shingles

25.  Asbestos Protective Clothing
26,  Asbestos,  Thread,  Yarn, and Other Cloth
28.  Asbestos Packing

27.  Asbestos Sheet Gasketing

29.  Roof Coatings and Cements
30.  Non-Roofing Coatings, Compounds, and Sealants
32.  Missile Liner
33.  Sealant Tape

31.  Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics

13,  Diaphragms

 8.  Filler for Acetylene Cylinders
* Product is no longer made in the United States.

                                     B-8

-------
estimated cost of a non-greenfield A-C pipe installation is $9.9 million for a
capacity of 200 tons per day,

             1.3.2  Friction Products

             The existing machinery in the friction products industry can be
used to manufacture non-asbestos friction products. *  The cost of converting
a facility manufacturing 15 million pieces of asbestos friction products per
year is estimated to be $1,095,000.  A 20 percent decline in the production
rate is anticipated when substitute materials are used.  However, this decline
in the production rate is a function of the current technology and not a
function of converting the existing equipment.  Therefore, this decline in
production efficiency is not included in the calculation of the quasi-rents.

    Furthermore,  it is estimated that research and engineering costs will
amount to $600,000 per firm in order to reformulate the current asbestos
mixture(s).  ICF has identified 21 firms currently producing asbestos friction
products.^  Most of these firms manufacture more than one type of friction
product.  Twelve firms manufacture drum brake linings (18 & 36), thirteen
manufacture disc brake pads for light motor vehicles  (19 & 37), one
manufacture disc brake pads for heavy vehicles (20) ,  eight manufacture brake
blocks (21),  two manufacture clutch facings (22), one manufactures automatic
transmission components (23), and four manufacture friction materials (24).
Exhibit B-2 shows the various products made by each individual firnt,^

             1.3.3  .Papers	and .Felts

             The existing machinery in the papers and felts industry can
readily be converted to the manufacture of substitute products.**  However,
the equipment has to be slightly modified and cleaned before it can be adapted
for use in the manufacture of asbestos-substitute products,  fhe cost of the
minor modifications is estimated to be $7,000 and the equipment cleaning costs
for a plant with a capacity of 8,000 tons per year is estimated to be $10,000
to $15,000.

             1.3.4  Asbestos Roofing Felt

             The product in this industry segment is no longer manufactured in
the United States.23
     •*•" Section 2 of this appendix.

     9fl
     zu Appendix F of this report.

     91
     *•*• The firms are given numbers 1 through 21 in Exhibit 2 in order to
protect confidential business information.  Product categories with costs
associated-with them are manufactured by individual firms.  See Section 4 for
further 'details.

     9 o
     " Section 2 of this appendix.•
     e\ -3
     " Appendix F of this report.
                                     B-9

-------
                          EXHIBIT B-2,  PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED B5f EACH FIRM IB THE "FRICIIQH PRODUCTS" IHDUSmi SISMERI

Firm

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
Total
f of Products
Manufactured

5
6
2
2
4
4
2
2
1
5
2
2
4
4
1
6
1
4
1
4
4

Reformulation Distribution of Ra formulation Costs tor Product Category
Cost p«r Product
(thousand dollars)
200
150
600
600
300
300
600
600
600
150
600
600
300
200
600
150
600
150
600
300
300

18

200
150'


300
300

600

150

600
300
200

150



300
300
3,550
19

200
150
600
600
300
300
600



600

300


150



300
300
4,400
20 21 22 23
(thousand dollars)
200
150 150







150 150



200 200

150 150
600
150 150 150
600


350 2,200 450 150
24 36

200
150


300
300

600
600
150 150

600
300
200
600
150

150

300
300
1,500 3,550
37

200
ISO
600
600
300
300
600



600

300


150



300
300
4,400
Sources:  See Tact.

-------
              1,3.5  Vinyl-AsbtstQS_j'lgor_Til.e

     The product in.this industry segment is no longer manufactured in the
 United States.24

              1.3.6  Asbestos,..Felt-backed Vinyl Sheet Flooring

              The product is no longer classified as a separate product since
 it is an application of asbestos felt."

              1.3.7  Asbestos,-Cement Sheet and Shingle

              Existing equipment in this industry segment is not transferable
 into alternative use.26  The least cost option available to firms in this
 industry is to dispose of their existing equipment.  The cost of disposing of
 all equipment and cleaning the building for reuse amounts to $400,000.   The
 estimated cost of a non-greenfield A-C sheet installation is $7,856,000 for a
 capacity of 3,000,000 square yards per year and for an A-C shingle facility is
 the same for an annual capacity of 21,500 tons per year.

              1.3.8  Textiles	and Packing

              The existing equipment can be readily converted to use asbestos-
 substitute materials with minimum cleaning and without significant
 modification.  '   Cleaning costs are expected.to be insignificant.

     One facility contacted by PEI indicated that carding equipment may need to
 be replaced.   However,  this facility is believed to be an exception and in
 general,  no equipment modifications or replacement are deemed to be necessary.

              1.3.9  Sheet Gasketlng

              Existing equipment in this industry segment can be converted  to
 alternative use  with considerable expense,  °  The cost of modifying the
•equipment is anticipated to be $7,2 million for a plant with a capacity of 28
 tons per day.   This  is considered to be the least cost option since the
 estimated cost of a  non-greenfield sheet gasketing installation with the same
 capacity is $59.1 million.  An additional $200,000 expenditure is estimated for
 tearing down and cleaning the equipment.

              1 • 3.10   Coatings- and Sealants

              The existing equipment in this industry segment will require  no
 major equipment  additions or modifications to convert the plant equipment  to
      ^* Appendix  F  of  this  report,
      A C
      *•  Appendix  F  of  this  report.

      9 ft
      *-° Section 2 of this appendix.
      n~t
      *•' Section 2 of this appendix.

      28 Section 2 of this appendix.
                                     B-ll

-------
 the manufacture  of  substitute products. ^  A  20 percent decline  in the
 production rate  is  anticipated when  substitute materials  are used.  However,
 this  decline  in  the production rate  is a function  of  the  current technology
 and not a function  of converting  the existing equipment.  Therefore, this
 decline in production efficiency  is not included in the calculation of the
 quasi -rents.

    Furthermore, it is estimated  that it may  cost  up  to $20,000  per
 formulation in order to replace asbestos by a substitute  or substitute
 mixture.  1CF identified 49 firms currently producing products in the coatings
 and sealants  category with most of these firms manufacturing more than one
 type  of product.-'0  Seventeen firms manufacture roof  coatings and cements
 (29); 30 manufacture non-roof coatings, compounds, and sealants  (30); six
 manufacture -missile liner (32); and four manufacture  sealant tape (33).
 Furthermore,  the industry average was identified as 1.8 formulations per firm,
 but is considered as two formulations per firm for the purpose of calculating
 quasi-rents.  Therefore, reformulation costs  are anticipated to  be $40,000 per
 firm.  However,  if  a particular firm manufactures  more than two  products the
 reformulation costs are calculated as $20,000 per  product.  Exhibit B-3 shows
 the various products made by each individual
             1.3.11  Asbestos-Eeinforced Plastics

             The existing equipment used in the manufacture of asbestos -
reinforced plastics will not require major equipment additions or
modifications to convert the plant to manufacture products containing asbestos
substitutes .

    A 10 percent decline in the production rate is anticipated when substitute
materials are used.  However, this decline in the production rate is a
function of the current technology and not a function of converting the
existing equipment.  Therefore, this decline in production efficiency is not
included in the calculation of the quasi-rents.

    Reformulation costs are anticipated to be $30,000 per firm and ICF has
identified eight manufacturers of asbestos reinforced plastics. ^3

             1-3.12  Chlor -Alkali Industry

             The least cost option for the chlor-alkali industry is to
"retrofit" the existing diaphragm cells to membrane cells at a cost of $50
     90
     *' Section 2 of this appendix.
     Q A
     a  Appendix F of this report.

     31 The firms are given numbers 1 through 49 in Exhibit 3 in order to
protect confidential business information.  Product categories with costs
associated with them are manufactured by individual firms.  See Section 4 for
further details,
     o o
     -^ Section 2 of this appendix.

     *3 Appendix F of this report.

                                    B-12

-------
 EXHIBIT B-3.   PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY EACH FIRM IS THE "COATIRGS & SEALANTS" INDUSTRY SEGMENT
Fins
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3*
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
f of Products
Manufactured
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
. 1 •
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
2
1
1
1
' 1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
Beformlation
Cost per Broduot
(thousand dollars)
40
20
40
40
40
40
40
20
40
40
40
40
40
20
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
20
40
40
40
40
40
40
20
40
40
40
20
40
40
40
40
40
20
40
40
Total
Distribution
29



40
40


20
40




20




40

40

40
40



40

20
40


40


20




40




20

40
580
of Reformulation Co*ts by Product
30 32
C thousand doilars)
40
20 20
40


*0
40
20

40
*0
40
40


40
40
40

*0

40


40
40
40

40
20

40
40

40
40
20
40
40
40
20

40
40
40
40
20
40

1, 120 180
Category
33













20
40

























20





20


100
Sources:  Sae Text.

-------
million for a plant with a capacity of 1000 tons per day,-   However, PEI
reports that "the use of retrofitted- diaphragm cells may  necessitate a major
modification of cell components .,within about 3 to 5 years after completion of
retrofit because of severe operating environment."  Based on this information,
it is assumed that the most viable option for the chlor-alkali industry would
be to "convert" the existing diaphragm cells to membrane  cells at a cost of
$85 million for a plant with a capacity of 1000 tons per  day.  The disposal of
equipment that produces 1000 tons of chlorine per day is  estimated to cost
$3.4 million.

             1.3.13  Acetylene Cylinders

             The existing equipment can be readily converted to use asbestos-
substitute materials with minimum cleaning and without significant
modification.1"  Cleaning costs are expected to be insignificant.

        1.4  Results

        This section presents the results of applying the theoretical approach
discussed in Section 1.2 to the data presented in Section 1.3.  The results
are reported as a quasi-rent perpetuity per unit output and reformulation cost
perpetuity (these calculations use a 7 percent private rate of discount as
used in the A&CM), where applicable.  The refemulation cost perpetuity is
incorporated into the ARCM's quasi-rent calculations based on the baseline
output quantity, as discussed earlier.  We report these perpetuities here
because actual quasi-rent losses depend on the regulation being simulated.
The M.CM simulates the regulation on a year-by-year basis and calculates
losses in quasi-rents based on the market response to the regulation in that
year.

    Results are presented for each industry segment and are applicable to all
products mapping into a particular segment as shown in Exhibit B-l.  Exhibit
B-4 summarizes the results for those industry segments with no reformulation
costs and Exhibit B-5 presents the results for the industry segments with
anticipated reformulation costs.  Exhibit B-6 presents the quasi-rent losses
for all asbestos product markets assuming that use of asbestos fiber was
banned totally in 1987.   Thus, the quasi-rent losses reported here would be
the maximum quasi-rent losses possible.

             1.4.1  Asbestos.-Cement Pipe

             Existing equipment in this industry segment  is not transferable
into alternative use.  The least cost option available to firms in this
industry is to dispose of their existing equipment in a hazardous waste
landfill.   Total conversion costs are estimated to be $10.5 million
($9,900,000 + $600,000)  for a plant with an annual capacity of 3,472,222.22
     3^ Section 2 of this appendix.

     *3 er
        Section 2 of this appendix.
                                     B-14

-------
                           EXHIBIT B-ft.  QUASI-1ENIS FOR IHOUSTS? SEGMEHfS WITH HO BSFORHULA11OH COS1S
Asbestos Industry Segment
Asbestos-Cement Pipe
Papers and Felts
All except Pipeline Wrap
Pipeline Wrap

" Asbestos Roofing Felfcc
Vinyl-Asbestos Floor ftlec
Asbestos-Cement Sheet
Asbestos-Cement Shingle
Textiles and Packing
Sheet Gasketing
Color-alkali industry

Acatylene Cylinders
Transfer-
ability of
Capital
Ho

Yes
_ Yes

n/a
n/a
Ho
Ho
ton
Yes
Yes

TUB
Description of
Least Cost Option
Disposal in a hazardous
waste landfill

Clean and modify equipment
Clean end modify equipment

n/a
»/•
Dispose of all equipment
Dispose of all equipment
Ho significant action
Convert esfuipownt
Conversion to membrane
process
Ho significant action
Conversion
Cost
(dollars)
10,500,000

22,000
22,000

n/a
n/a
8,256,000
8,256,000
none
7,400,000
83,400,000

none
Annual Capacity to
*Aiich cost is
applicable
3,472,222.22 feetb

8,000 tons
1,230.769.23 squares"
*
n/a
n/a
30,000 squares
174,796.75 squares*
n/a
3,333,333,33 sq. yds,b
312.5 pieces'1

n/a
Quasi-Rent*
Perpetuity per
Quit Output
(dollars/unit)
0.21 / ton

0.19 / ton
0.001 / square

B/«
n/a
19.27 / square
3.31 / square
0.00 / ton
0.16 / sq. yd.
19,901.60 / piece

0.00 / piece
  Ihe firm's discount rat* is «ssunje
-------
                               EXHIBIT B-5.  QUASI -RESTS FOR INDUSTRY SEGHENTS WITH KEFQHMULATIOH COSTS
Transfer-
Asbestos Industry Segment/ ability of Description of
Asbestos Product Category Capital Least Cost Option
Conversion
Cost
(dollars)
Annual Capacity to
which cost is
applicable
Quasi -Rent8
Perpetuity per
Unit Output
(dollars/unit)
Reformulation '
Cost Perpatuity
(dollars)
Friction Products
18.
19,
20.
21.
22.
23.

24.
36.
37.
Drum Brake Linings
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads (BV>
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Transmission
. Components
Friction Materials
Brian Brake Linings
Disc Brake Pads, DM? (OEM)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Convert equipment
Convert equipment
Convert equipment
Convert equipment
Convert equipment
Convert equipment

Convert equipment
Convert equipment
Convert equipment
1,095,000
1,095,000
1,095,000
1,095,000
1,095,000
1,095,000

1,095,000
1,095,000
1,095,000
15,000,000 pieces
15,000,000 pieces
15,000,000 pieces
15,000,000 pieces
15,000,000 pieces
15,000,000 pieces

15,000,000 pieces
15,000,000 pieces
15,000,000 pieces
0.005 / piece
0.005 / piece
0.005 / piece
0.005 / piece
0.005 / piece
0.005 / piece

0,005 / piece
0,005 / piece
0.005 / piece
248,500
308,000
24,500
154,000
31,500
10,500

105,000
248,500
308,000
Coatings mid Sealants
29.

30.

32.
33.
Roof Coatings
and Cements
Non-Soof Coatings,
Compounds, and Sealants
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Yes

Yes .

Yes
Yes
Convert equipment

Convert equipment

Convert equipment
Convert equipnent
none

none

none
none
n/a

n/a

n/a
n/a
0,00 / gallon

0.00 / gallon

0.00 / ton
0.00 / foot
40,600

78,400

12,600
7,000
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
   31.  Asbestos-Reinforced
          Plastics
Yes
         Convert equipment
n/a
               0.00 / ton
16,800
    The firm's discount rate is assumed to toe 7 percent.

    The reformulation cost perpetuity is a yearly total for the baseline output and IB not specified per unit output,
    incorporated in the quasi-rents as described in the text.
                                                                                   This  Is
  Sources:  See Text,

-------
        EXHIBIT B-6.  QUASI-RENT LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH AH  BMEDIATE BAH OF ALL ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

1.
2.
3,
4,
5.
6.
7.
8,
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1*.
15,
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30,
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

Product; Category
Conraercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-add Gaskets
High-grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Pelt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
'Specialty Papers
Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
Asbestos-Cement Pips
Flat A-C Sheets
Corrugated A-C Sheets
A-C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads (HVJ
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Transmission Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, Tarn, etc.
Asbestos Sheet Gasketing
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings and Cements
Hon-Roofing Coatings, etc.
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (A/M)

Industry Segment
Classification
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Asbestos Roofing Fait
Acetylene Cylinders
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Papers and Felts
Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile
Chlor-Alkali Industry
Asbestos-CeiBent Pipe
Asbestos-Cement Sheet
Asbestos-Cement Sheet
Asbestos-Cement Shingle
Friction Products
Friction Products
Friction Products
Friction Products
Friction Products
Friction Products
Friction Products
textiles and Packing
Textiles and Packing
Sheet Gaiketing
Textiles and Packing
Coatings and Sealants
Coatings and Sealant*
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Coatings and Sealants
Coatings and Sealants
Textiles and Packing
Arc Chutes
Friction Products
Friction Products

Conversion
Cost
Perpetuity
(S/unit)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.001
0.19
0.19
0,00
0.00
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.00
19,801.60
0.21
19.27
19.27
3.31
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
***
***
0.005
0.005

Reformulation
Cost
Perpetuity
($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2*8,500
308,000
24,500
154,000
31,500
10,500
105,000
0
0
0
0
40,600
78,400
16,800
12,600
7,000
#**
***
248,500
308,000

Dourest ic
Quasi -Rent
Loss
{'000 0>
0.00
0.00
1.58
4.24
44.80
1.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.18
0,00
2,763,737.60
45,188.12
1,421.68
0.00
8,352.69
5,693,81
4,040.04
361.20
2,504.67
910.72
154.11
2,122.82
O.QO
0.00
8,245.50
0.00
580.00
1,120.00
233.01
180.00
100 . 00
***
***
§,023.38
7,170.51
2,861,201.57
World
Quasi-Rent
Los a
('000 $>
0.00
0.00
1.58
10.61
45.70
1,89 -
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.18
0.00
2,763,737.60
45,766,53
1,634,93
1,062.33
11,443,19
6,547,88
4,807,65
361.20
2,529.71
1,028.97
154.11
2,122.82
0.00
0.00
8,822,69
0.00
580.00
1,120.00
240.00
180,00
100.00
**•*
*** -
10,376.89
8,532.91
2,871,210.37
Product is not included in ARCH sisnilationa.

-------
      *•! £
 feet.-30   This  implies a quasi-rent perpetuity of $0,21 per feet ([$10,500,000/
 3,472,222,22]  * 0.07) as shown in Exhibit B-4.37  Finally,  Exhibit  B-6  shows
 the maximum loss of quasi-rents possible in this market (i.e.,  if the product
 were  banned in 1987)  based on the quasi-rents for unit of output and the
 number of units of output in the industry,

             1,4.2  Friction Products

             The existing machinery in the  friction products  industry can be
 used  to manufacture non-asbestos friction products.   Total  conversion costs
 are estimated  $1,095,000 for a facility with an annual capacity of  15 million
 pieces of asbestos friction products.

    In addition to the conversion costs,  reformulation costs  of $600,000 are
 anticipated for each firm.   Since most of the firms  in this industry segment
 manufacture more than one type of friction  product,  the reformulation costs
 have  to be  considered for each product category.   Exhibit B-2 shows the
 product categories of the products manufactured by each of the  21 firms
 currently producing asbestos friction products.   The amount of  $600,000 is
 divided equally -among the products manufactured by a particular firm with the
 exception of firms that manufacture OEM and aftermarket drum  and disc brakes.
 For these firms the reformulation cost is considered to exist independently
 for OEM and aftermarket brakes;  therefore,  $600,000  is first  divided into the
 number of products assuming OEM and aftermarket brakes are  one  "combined
 product"  (i.e. ,  18 & 36 are treated as one  product and 19 & 37  are  treated as
 one product for this  purpose)  and then the  amount attributed  to this "combined
 product"  is doubled.-*"  The reformulation costs for  each product category are
 then  obtained  by summing across firms  in each category.   The  conversion costs
 are assumed to be same for all firms in this industry segment.

    Exhibit B-5 shows the quasi-rent perpetuity per  unit output and the
 reformulation  cost perpetuity for each product category in  this industry
 segment.  Finally,  Exhibit B-6 shows the  maximum loss of quasi-rents possible
 in this market (i.e.,  if the product were banned in  1987) based on  the  quasi-
 rents for unit of output and the number of  units  of  output  in the industry.
        In order to be consistent with the units reported in the asbestos use
and substitutes analysis, the units for A-C pipe are converted from tons to
feet (1 foot - 0.0144 tons).  Furthermore, the daily capacity has been
converted to an annual capacity here and later in the section by using a
factor of 250.  It is assumed that none of the processes considered are
continuous and that plants shut down for two weeks each year for maintenance.
     O "7
        The firm's discount rate is assumed to be four percent for all
industry segments. •
     n p
        This is done because the formulation of a substitute brakes for new
cars (OEM brakes) is assumed to be different from the substitute brakes for
existing cars (the aftermarket brakes).  The costs associated with such
reformulation may also be different, but in the absence of information the
known reformulation costs are counted twice.
                                     B-18

-------
              1,4.3   Papers  and Felts

    The  existing machinery  in the  papers  and felts  industry can readily be
converted  to  the manufacture  of substitute  products.   Total conversion costs
are estimated to be  $22,000 ($7,000 +  $15,000)  for  a  plant with an annual
capacity of 8,000 tons,  i.e.,  a quasi-rent  perpetuity of $0.19  per ton
([$22,000/8,000] * 0.07)  as shown  in Exhibit B-4.   However,  the quasi-rent
perpetuity for pipeline wrap  is shown  as  $0.001 per square since output of
pipeline wrap is measured in  squares.     Finally, Exhibit B-6 shows  the
maximum  loss  of quasi-rents possible in this market (i.e.,  if the product were
banned in  1987) based on  the  quasi-rents  for unit of  output and the  number of
units of output in the industry.

              1.4.4   AsbestosRoofing Felt

              The product  in this industry segment is  no  longer  manufactured in
the United States.

              1.4.5   Vinyl-Asbestos_FIoor  Tile

              The product  in this industry segment is  no  longer  manufactured in
the United States.

              1,4.6   Asbestos	Felt-backed.Vinyl  SheetFlooring

              The product  is no longer  classified as a separate  product since
it is an application of asbestos felt.

              1.4.7   Asbestovs-Cement.Sheet. .and. Shingles

              Existing equipment in this industry segment is not transferable
into alternative use.  The  least cost  option available to firms in this
industry is to dispose of their existing  equipment.   Total conversion costs
are estimated to be  $8,256,000 ($7,856,000  •+> $400,000) for an A-C sheet plant
with an  annual capacity of  30,000  squares and an A-C  shingle plant with an
annual capacity of 174,796.75  squares,^0  The implied quasi-rent-perpetuities
for A-C  sheet and shingles  are $19.27  per square ([$8,256,000/30,000]* 0.07)
and $3.31  per square [$8,256,000/174,796.75]  *  0.07)  respectively as shown in
Exhibit  B-4.   Finally, Exhibit B-6 shows  the maximum  loss of quasi-rents
possible in this market  (i.e.,  if  the  product were  banned in 1987) based on
the quasi-rents for  unit of output and the  number of  units  of output in the
industry.
        In order to be consistent with the units reported  in  the asbestos use
and substitutes analysis, the units for pipeline wrap are  converted from tons
to squares (1 square - ,0065 tons).  Therefore, the quasi-rent perpetuity for
pipeline wrap is $0.007 per square ([$22,000 /(8,000/0.0065)] * 0,04).

     *® In order to be consistent with the units reported  in  the asbestos use
and substitutes analysis, the units for A-C sheet are converted from square
yards to squares (1 square «= 100 square yards) and from tons  to squares
(1 square - 0.123 tons) for A-C shingle.  The factor used  for A-C shingle is a
weighted average of the factors for roofing and siding shingles.

                                   '  B-19

-------
             1.4.8  TextilesandPacking

             The existing equipment can be readily converted to use asbestos-
substitute materials with minimum cleaning and without significant
modification.  Cleaning costs are expected to be insignificant.  Therefore,
there are no quasi-rents to be lost in this industry segment.

             1.4.9  Sheet, Gasket:ing

             Existing equipment in this industry segment can be converted to
alternative use but with considerable expense.  Total conversion costs are
estimated to be $7.4 million ($7,200,000 + $200,000) for a plant with an.
annual capacity of 3,333,333.33 square yards, i.e., a quasi-rent perpetuity of
$0.16 per square yard ([$7,400,000/3,333,333.33] * 0.07) as shown in
Exhibit B-4.^  Finally, Exhibit B-6 shows the maximum loss of quasi-rents
possible in this market (i.e., if the product were banned in 1987) based on
the quasi-rents for unit of output and the number'of units of output in the
industry,

             1,4.10  Coatings and Sealants

             The existing equipment in this industry segment will require no
major equipment additions or modifications to convert the plant equipment to
the manufacture of substitute products.   In addition to the conversion costs,
reformulation costs of are anticipated for each firm.  Since most of the firms
in this industry segment manufacture more than one type of product, the
reformulation costs have to be considered for each product category.  Exhibit
B-3 shows the product categories of the products manufactured by each of the
49 firms currently producing asbestos friction products.  The amount of
$40,000 is divided equally among the products manufactured by a particular
firm except in cases where firms manufacture more than two products in which
case the reformulation cost is assumed to be $20,000 per product.  The
reformulation costs for each product category are then obtained by summing
across firms in each category.  Exhibit B-5 shows the quasi-rent perpetuity
per unit output and the reformulation cost perpetuity for each product
category in this industry segment.  Finally, Exhibit B-6 shows the maximum
loss of quasi-rents possible in this market (i.e.,  if the product were banned
in 1987) based on the quasi-rents for unit of output and the number of units
of output in the industry.

             1-4.11  Asbestos,,.,Reinforced Plastics

             The existing equipment used in the manufacture of asbestos-
reinforced plastics will not require major equipment additions or
modifications to convert the plant to manufacture products containing asbestos
substitutes.  A total reformulation cost of $240,000 (8 * $30,000) is
estimated, i.e., no quasi-rents and a reformulation cost perpetuity of $16,800
($240,000 * 0.07) as shown in Exhibit B-5.  Finally, Exhibit B-6 shows the
maximum loss of quasi-rents possible in this market (i.e., if the product were
banned in 1987) based on the quasi-rents for unit of output and the number of
        In order to be consistent with the units reported in the asbestos use
and substitutes analysis, the units for sheet gasketing are converted from
tons to square yards (1 square yard - 0.0021 tons).

                                    B-20

-------
units of output In the  industry.

             1.4.12  Chlor-Alkali  Industry

             The most viable option for  the ehlor-alkali  industry would be to
"convert" the existing  diaphragm cells to membrane cells.  Total conversion
costs for the chlor-alkali industry are  estimated to be $88.4 million  ($85
million + $3.4 million) for an annual capacity of 250,000 tons.  The use and
substitutes analysis indicates that on an average one diaphragm is used to
produce 800 tons of chlorine.^  since the asbestos fiber is used for
producing diaphragms, the output entity  in this  industry  is considered to be
number of diaphragms.   Therefore,  the conversion costs are applicable  to an
annual capacity of 312.5 diaphragms (250,000/800).  The quasi-rent perpetuity
can now be calculated as $19,801.60 per  diaphragm ([$88,400,000/312.5] * 0.07)
as shown in Exhibit B-4.  Finally, Exhibit B-6 shows the maximum loss  of
quasi-rents possible in this market (i.e., if the product were banned  in 1987)
based on the quasi-rents for unit  of output and  the number of units of output
in the indus try.

             1,4.13  Acetylene Cylinders
                             »

             The existing equipment can be readily converted to use asbestos-
substitute materials with minimum  cleaning and without significant
modification.   Cleaning costs are  expected to be insignificant.  Therefore,
there are no quasi-rents to be lost in this industry segment.
     42
        Appendix F of this report.

                                     B-21

-------
      2.   Capital Comrerti.bili.ty and Prodiict Market Exit  Costs...Memoranda

    A report by PEI Associates  concerning the costs of exiting the asbestos
product industries,
                                     B-22

-------
   COST OF CAPITAL INVOLVED IN CONVERTING
  ASBESTOS-PRODUCT MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT
           TO ASBESTOS SUBSTITUTES
                   by

          PEI Associates, Inc.
           11499 Chester Road
         Cincinnati, Ohio  45246
         Contract No. 68-02-4248
        Work Assignment No. P2-1
               PN 3687-38
  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
                July 1987

-------

-------
                                  CONTENTS

                                                                     gage
Tables                                                               iii
1.   Introduction                                                     1
2.   Conversion Costs—Asbestos  Cement Pipe  Industry                   6
3,   Conversion Costs—Asbestos  Friction Products Industry            18
4.   Conversion Costs—Paper and Felts Industry                       28
5,   Conversion Status—Roofing  Felts Industry                        31
6.   Conversion Status—Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile Industry            32
7.   Conversion Status—Asbestos Felt-Backed Vinyl Sheet
      Flooring Industry                                              33
8.   Conversion Costs—Asbestos  Sheet and Shingle Industry            34
9.   Conversion Costs—Textiles  and Packing Industry                  39
10.  Conversion Costs—Asbestos  Sheet Basketing Industry              43
11.  Conversion Costs—Coatings  and Sealants Industry                 46
12.  Conversion Costs--Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics Industry          51
13.  Conversion Costs—Mining and Hilling Industry                    56
                                                       #'•
14.  Retrofit/Conversion Costs—Asbestos Diaphragm Cells in
      the Chlor-Alkali  Industry                                       59
References                                                           68

-------

-------
                                   TABLES                         '   •

Number          '                                                      page
1-1       Listing of Asbestos-Containing Products by Industry          3
1-2       Summary of Cost Data on New and Used Equipment for the
           Manufacture of Asbestos-Containing Products                 4
2-1       Estimated Cost of New AC Pipe Plant Installation             9
2-2       Estimated Cost of New AC Pipe Machine Installation          10
2-3       AC Pipe Equipment Options                                   12
2-4       Estimated Costs for AC Pipe Plant Closure Options           16
3-1       Asbestos Friction Products Data Summary                     19
3-2       Friction Products Equipment Options                         21
3-3       Estimated Cost of Friction Products Plant Installation      23
3-4       Estimated Cost of Friction Products Manufacturing
           Equipment Installation                                     24
4-1       Estimated Cost of a New Paper Facility With a Capacity
           of 8000 tons/yr                                            29
8-1       Estimated Cost of an AC Sheet Facility With a Capacity of
           3,000,000 square yards/yr                                  37
8-2       Estimated Cost of AC Sheet and Shingle Products
           Equipment Installation                                     38
9-1       Estimated Cost of an Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
           Facility With a Capacity of 4000 tons/yr                   42
10-1      Estimated Cost of -a New Sheet Gasketing Facility With
           a Capacity of 28 tons/day                                  45
11-1      Estimated Cost of a New Coatings and Sealants Facility
           With a Capacity of 700 Gallons/Batch (2100 gallons/day)     49
(continued)
                                   iii

-------
                             TABLES (continued)

Number                                                                Page
12-1      Estimated Cost of an Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
           Facility With a Capacity of 4000 tons/yr                   54
13-1      Estimated Cost of an Asbestos Milling Facility With a
           Capacity of 34,000 tons/yr                                 57
14-1      Membrane Cell Retrofit/Conversion Costs                     65
14-2      Installation Costs of 1000 tons/day Chlorine Plant          66
                                     IV

-------
                                  SECTION 1
                                INTRODUCTION

     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances (formerly the Office of Toxic Substances) has proposed a
regulation to ban the use of asbestos in the commercial sector over a 10-year
period.  This proposed regulation prompted numerous comments, some during the
comment period and others later, during the legislative hearings.
     To address the comments regarding the economic impact of the proposed
regulation, the Agency contracted PEI Associates, Inc., to investigate the
equipment factor in the "following asbestos-related industries (listed in the
order of their priority):
     1)   Asbestos cement pipe
     2)   Asbestos friction materials
     3)   Asbestos papers/felts
     4)   Asbestos roofing felts (saturated)
     5)   Asbestos floor tiles
     6)   Asbestos felt-backed vinyl sheet flooring
     7)   Asbestos cement sheet and shingle
     8)   Textiles and packing
     9)   Sheet gasketing
    10)   Coatings and sealants
    11)   Asbestos-reinforced plastics
    12)   Asbestos mining and milling
    13)   Chlor-alkali
    14)   Acetylene cylinder filler
    15)   Arc chutes
     The specific tasks to be accomplished were 1) to determine the type of
equipment used in each industry segment; 2) to determine the cost of this
equipment; 3) to determine whether the equipment is convertible to asbestos-
substitute materials, and if not, what its scrap value is; and 4) to estimate
the costs of converting a plant to the use of asbestos-substitute products.
     In this report, a section is devoted to each asbestos industry segment
studied.  These sections  include the economic impact of scrapping and dispos-
ing of current equipment  (if applicable), any necessary cleanup prior to

                                      1

-------
Installing new equipment, cleanup and decontamination of equipment that must
be scrapped, resale value of abandoned equipment, scrap value of affected
equipment, and the net loss expected to be incurred by each industry segment
as a result of necessary equipment replacement.  How the costs were derived
is also explained.  The sections on acetylene cylinder filler and arc chutes
contain confidential business information (CBI) and are not included in this
report.
     The estimated costs presented herein have an accuracy of about plus or
minus 30 percent (study estimate).  So that the cost numbers can be easily
reconstructed, however, sums of values of components used to arrive-at equip-
ment option estimates have not been rounded; e.g., the sum of $750,000 and
$345,000 is presented as $1,095,000 instead of $1,100,000 (as would be dictated
by good engineering practices).
     Table 1-1 lists the industry segments covered in the report and the
products involved in each.  Table 1-2 summarizes the equipment cost data
collected, which served as a basis for the costs presented in the individual
sections.

-------
       TABLE  1-1.  LISTING OF ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS BY INDUSTRY
      Capita] conversion memos
      Asbestos products included
AC pipe

Asbestos friction materials
Asbestos papers/felts
Asbestos roofing felts (saturated)

Asbestos floor tile

Asbestos ftit-backed vinyl sheet
 flooring

AC sheet and shingle



Textiles and packing
Sheet gasketing

Coatings and sealants


Asbestos-reinforced plastics

Asbestos mining and milling

Chior-alkali industry

Acetylene cylinder filler

Arc chutes
AC pipe and fittings

Disc brake pads (heavy vehicles)
Disc brake pads (light and medium
 vehicles)
Drum brake linings (light and medium
 vehicles)
Friction materials (industrial and com-
 mercial)
Brake blocks
Clutch facings
Automatic transmission components
Flooring felt
Unsaturated roofing felt
Beater-add gaskets
Commercial paper
Corrugated paper
High-grade electrical paper
Millboard
Pipeline wrap
Roll board
Specialty papers

Saturated roofing felt

Vinyl-asbestos floor tile
Asbestos felt-backed vinyl sheet
 flooring

Corrugated asbestos-cement sheets
Flat asbestos-cement sheets
Asbestos-cement shingles

Asbestos textiles - cloth
Asbestos textiles - thread, yarn, lap,
 etc.
Asbestos packing

Asbestos sheet gasketing

Adhesives and sealants
Paints and surface coatings
Asbestos-reinforced plastics

Asbestos mining and milling
Chior-alkali industry

Acetylene cylinder filler

Arc chutes

-------
TABLE 1-2.   SUMMARY OF"  COST DATA ON NEW AND USED EQUIPMENT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS
Industry
AC pipe
friction














Cylinders
Textile






At sheet

















Equipment type8
P
p
P

«
8
A
A
P
P


P
p
P
H

P
P
P
P
P
A
8
P
P








P








- pipe machine
- mixer
- molding

- lathes, etc.
- boiler
- fabric filter
- scrubber
- mixer
- molding


- cutter
- molding
- oven
- drill, grind

- gas cyl. ntfg.
- blendline
- card
- spinning
~ winding
- fabric filter
- boiler
- wing makeup
- mixer








- sheet ml 11








New
value, $
2,750,000
37,000
3?. 000
20,000
125,000
10,000
10,000
50,000
100,000
250,000
30,000
30,000
214,000
360,000
165.000
20.000
15,000
60,000
81,000
40,000
250,000
40,000
720,000
1,496,000
75,000
1,800,000
75,000
40,000
90,000
110,000
100,000
90,000
90,000
90,000
90,000
110.000
110,000
350,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
250,000
250,000
Resale
value, $
0
4,000
12,000
5,000
20,000
5,000
0
500
10,000
0
0
15,000
109,000
184,000
84,000
10,000
8,000
31 ,000
43,000
20,000
50,000

























Age,
years
7
20
10
40
20
20
20
20
4
20
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
20
40
60
40
18
11
H
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
0
I
30
25
25
25
25
20
20
12
12
Reported
scrap
value, $
(60,000)
50
50
50
200
200

100
0
0
0










320
2,880
2,700
480
1,440
800
480
60
100
80
80
80
80
80
80
60









Scrip Calculated
weight, scrap value,
tb $50/ton basis
60
0.5
1
1.5













4
36
34
6
18
10
6
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
30
22
22
22
22
22
22
40
40
3,000
25
50
75













200
1,800
1,700
300
900
500
300
150
250
200
200
200
200
200
200
150
,500
,100
,100
,100
,100
1,100
1,100
2,000
2,000
Reported
ratio
of scrap
value to
new value
-0.022
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.002
0.020

0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000










0.008
0.004
0.002
0.006
0.001
0.011
0.012
o.oo'i
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0,001
0.001
0,001
0.001









CaleuTit-
ed ratio
of scrap
value to
new value
0.0Z4
0.003
0.005
0.002













0.005
0.003
0,001
0.004
0,001
0,007
0.008
0.002
0.002
0.002
0,002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0,002
0.001
0.004
0.006
0,006
0.006
0.006
O.OOS
0.006
0.008
0.008
Ratio
of resile
value to
new value
0.108
0.324
0.250
0.150
0.500

0.010
0.100


0,500
0.509
0.511
0.509
0.500
0.533
0.517
0.506
0.500
0.200


























-------
TABLE  1-2     (continued)



Industry
Sheet gasket
Coat »ml seal










Plastics


Mine and sfll









P
P
P
P
A
P
A
P


A
P
A
P

t
f
f
f
f
A



Equipment type3
- paper mach.
- mixer
- fluffer
- sixer
- cyclone
- mixer
- fabric filter
- mixer


- fabric filter
- charge hopper
- fabric filter
- mixer

- mine
- crush
- dry
- mill
- tailings
- fabric filter
B - utilities
Buildings
Average




New
value, $
12,000,000
60,000
9,000
80,000
15,000
275,000
70,000
5,000
15,000
20,000
7,000
500
12,500
12.500
20,000
6,000.000
2,000,000
1,200,000
5,600,000
400,000
2,600,000
1,200.000
6,000,000



Resale
value, $
50,000
5,000
0
5,000
0
125,000
15,000

1,500
500
500
0
0

4,000
600,000
80,000
40,000




12,000



Age,
years
70
20
5
15
10
2
6
20
15
30
7
7
11
11
11
8
20
21
27
20
22
27
18


Reported
scrap
value, $





0
0





0



40,500
13,000
74,000
8,500
27,000
20,000
99,000


Scrap
weight,
Ib
100
1
1.2
5
1
60

3
,1,2






1090
6?S
215
1230
135
450 •
100
2500


Calculated
scrap (ralut.
ISO/ton basis
5,000
50
60
250
50
3.000

150
60






54,500
33,750
10,750
61.500
6,750
2Z.500
5,000
125,000

Reported
ratio
of scrap
value to
new value





0,000
0.000





0.000



0,020
0.011
0.013
0.02!
0,010
0,017
0.017
0.005
Ca Iculst™
ed rttio
Of scrap
value to
new value
0.000
0,001
0.007
0.003
0.003
0.011

0,030
0.004






0.009
0.017
0.009
0.011
0.017
0,009
0.004
0.021
0.006
Ratio
of resale
value to
new value
0.004
0,083

0.063

0.455
0.214

0,100
0.025
0.071



O.fOO
0.100
0,040
0.033




0.002
0.254
P *; n**n*"tt«e
        b - boiler or utilities
        A * air pollution control
        N - miscellaneous

-------
                                  SECTION 2
               CONVERSION COSTS—ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE INDUSTRY

     Determination of the economic impact of a potential  ban by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the manufacture of asbestos cement
(AC) pipe requires data on the cost, resale value, and convertibility of  the
manufacturing equipment.  PEI was contacted by the Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances to provide these data to ICF, Incorporated, for use in the
economic model being used to develop the impact analysis,
     The AC pipe industry was investigated with respect to equipment costs
and other factors that might affect conversion.  Currently, AC pipe is
manufactured at only five plants {owned by three different companies);
          J-M Manufacturing Company
               Dem*son, Texas
               Stockton, California
          Certainteed Corporation
               Hillsboro, Texas
               Riverside, California
          CAPCO Pipe Company, Inc.
               Van Buren, Arkansas
PEI contacted these suppliers of AC pipe by telephone and/or letter.  All  of
them responded in some manner.  Site visits were made to J-M's Stockton,
California, plant and Certainteed's Riverside, California, plant.  CAPCO's
response to PEI's request for information was very limited, but further
information on the Van Buren, Arkansas, plant was obtained from the Arkansas
Department of Air Pollution Control and Ecology.
     Most AC pipe is used for water mains (pressure pipe) and sewer lines
(nonpressure pipe).  Several factors have contributed to the increase in  the
number of plants producing AC pipe in recent years to those listed.  Among
these are the potential regulation of asbestos, competition from makers of
substitute pipe [e.g., polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe], and the drop in sewer
construction resulting from EPA grant cutbacks in 1978.

-------
PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT

     Despite the fact that each manufacturer designed its own plant or

plants, the equipment components at all the plants appeared to be similar and
generally can be grouped as follows:

     Raw material receiving and handling

          Bag opener and fluffer
          Ball mill for grinding sand to silica flour
          Mixers for dry materials (silica, cement, asbestos)
          Blenders for slurry (water, silica, cement, asbestos)
          Conveyors (screw and/or flat)
          Scales and auxiliary equipment

     AC j3ipe product 1 on

          Pipe machine
          Mandrels
          Drying ovens for initially formed pipe
          Curing autoclaves
          Pipe moving equipment (fork lifts, "mules," conveyors, etc.)

     Product handVj ng and testing

          Hydrostatic testing
          Pipe cutting line
          Pipe lathes/milling machines
          Conveyors and/or other moving equipment (e»g., overhead cranes)
          Shipping and other miscellaneous equipment

     Support equipment

          Boilers for steam generation
          Fabric filters for air pollution control
          Storage silos
          Spare parts, motors, pumps, etc.

Each component was evaluated to determine its cost as new equipment,  its

convertibility to other uses, its resale value, and its scrap value.   Also

determined was the cost of corresponding new equipment versus the cost of

converting the AC pipe equipment.

-------
REPLACEMENT COST OF EXISTING EQUIPMENT
     New equipment for AC pipe is usually either custom-designed by the
manufacturer or purchased and modified by the manufacturer.  In 1964, a new
200-ton/day greenfield facility* cost $9 million (this cost includes all
land, buildings, and equipment).1  Based on the Chemical Engineering (CE)
Plant Cost Index,2, this plant would have cost $28 million in 1985.  At the
same company, a new pipe machine and associated equipment was installed in a
Texas plant in 1979 for $8 million.  Based on the CE Plant Cost Index, this
facility would have cost $11 million in December of 1985.  Factors from
Peters and Timmerhaus3 have been used to break down these total costs into
subcategories.
     Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show the estimated cost breakdown for installing a
complete 200-ton/day AC pipe plant from the ground up, and for installing a
single AC pipe production line with the necessary ancillary equipment,
respectively.  In the latter case, the cost assumes the infrastructure (i.e.,
the underlying base, building, and basic support systems) already exists.
The manufacturer did not specify what other equipment was added during this
pipe machine addition, but it is likely that equipment such as the bag opener
and fluffer, boilers, mandrels, and pipe testing and cutting equipment were
not needed.  During a visit to a similar plant, PEI found that pieces of
equipment appeared to be capable of supporting multiple pipe machines.

ASBESTOS SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS
     Cement pipe manufacturers indicated that asbestos was the only acceptable
fiber for use in a fiber-cement pipe effort by U.S. AC pipe manufacturers to
find a substitute fiber.  Very little equipment used in the manufacture of AC
pipe can be used to manufacture PVC pipe.  The two products use entirely
different processes and raw materials.  Scales, transfer equipment (such as
conveyors and tow motors), air pollution controls, and storage silos might be
usable in the manufacture of PVC pipe.  Boilers are not needed because steam
is not used in the production of PVC pipe.  The transfer equipment for AC
*
  "Greenfield facility" refers to one built from scratch on previously
  unoccupied land.

-------
   TABLE 2-1.  ESTIMATED COST OF NEW AC PIPE PLANT INSTALLATION
                      (December 1985 dollars)
               Component
 Percent of
total capital
 investment
  Cost of
equipment,
  $1000
Direct costs
  Purchased equipment                           20
  Purchased equipment installation              10
  Instrumentation and controls (installed)        4
  Piping (installed)                             6
  Electrical (installed)                          2
  Buildings (including services)                 6
  Yard improvements                              2
  Service facilities (installed)                10
  Land                                          _l

          Total  direct costs                    61
                  5,600
                  2,800
                  1,120
                  1,680
                    560
                  1,680
                    560
                  2,800
                    280

                 17,080
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total fixed-capital investment
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT

7
7
5
•_5
24
85
15
100

1,960
1,960
1,400
1,400
6,720
23,800
4,200
28,000

-------
TABLE 2-2,  ESTIMATED COST OF NEW AC PIPE MACHINE INSTALLATION
                    (December 1985 dollars)


Component
Direct costs
Purchased equipment
Purchased equipment installation
Instrumentation and controls (installed)
Piping (installed)
Electrical (installed)
Buildings (including services)
Yard improvements
Service facilities (installed)
Land
Total direct costs
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total fixed-capital investment
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Percent of
total capital
investment

25
10
5
10
5
0
0
5
_0
60

10
10
5
_5
30
90
10
100
Cost of
equipment,
$1000

2,750
1,100
550
1,100
550
0
0
550 •
	 0
6,600

1,100
1,100
550
550
3,300
9,900
1,100
11,000
                               10

-------
pipe also has about twice the capacity that is required for PVC pipe; therefore,
it probably would be sold.1*  Also, because silos and air pollution controls
are generally not constructed so as to be moved, if they cannot be used in
place, purchasing new ones generally costs less.

CONVERSION COSTS
     Most of the equipment in place at an AC pipe plant is unique to AC pipe
manufacturing and cannot be used for other purposes.  Also, the extent of
equipment cleanup required before such equipment can be sold is uncertain.
Further, it is not known whether discarded equipment must be treated as a
hazardous waste and sent to a hazardous waste landfill.  Most of the equip-
ment in use represents older technology (i.e., older than 10 years), and
would be difficult to salvage for parts, motors, or auxiliary equipment
because it is less efficient than newer equipment and often nearing the end
of its useful life.  The pipe production equipment [such as the pipe machine
and mandrels, some pipe moving equipment ("mules"), and precuring ovens] and
product testing and handling equipment (such as the hydrostatic testing
equipment, pipe cutting line, pipe lathes, and milling machines) are special-
ized equipment and could only be sold to another AC pipe producer.  Some
equipment (such as conveyors, storage silos, and fabric filters for air
pollution controls) are readily convertible to other industries, but are not
readily salable because new ones can be purchased for less than it would cost
to dismantle and move these relatively fragile pieces of equipment.  Equip-
ment that may have resale value includes ball mills, blenders and mixers,
scales, autoclaves, fork lifts and other mobile equipment, and boilers.  Much
of this equipment also may have minimal (or zero) resale value because the
technology is old, cleanup costs are high, and market demand is limited.
     In summary, the five options available for all the equipment are 1) to
clean it up and sell it for scrap, 2) to leave it in place, 3) to send it to
a hazardous waste landfill, 4) to clean it up and send it to a nonhazardous
waste landfill, and 5) to clean it up and sell it as used equipment.  The
                                      11

-------
leave-in-pi ace option is not considered here because it is assumed that all
equipment will eventually be removed to make room for other processes or in
preparation to sell the building.  Table 2-3 summarizes the options available
for the major equipment at an AC pipe plant.
                    TABLE 2-3.  AC PIPE EQUIPMENT OPTIONS
Convert to
substitute
Process process
Raw material receiving and handling
Bag opener and fluffer
Ball mill for grinding sand to
silica flour
Mixers for dry materials (silica,
cement, asbestos)
Blenders for slurry (water,
silica, cement, asbestos)
Conveyors (screw and/or flat) x
Scales and auxiliary equipment x
AC pipe production
Pipe machine
Mandrels
Drying ovens for initially formed
pipe
Curing autoclaves
Pipe moving equipment (fork lifts.
"mules," conveyors, etc.)
Product handling and testing
Hydrostatic testing
Pipe cutting line
Pipe lathes/milling machines
Conveyors and/or other moving x
equipment (e.g., overhead cranes)
Shipping and other miscellaneous
equipment
Support equipment
Boilers for steam generation
Fabric filters for air pollution x
control
Storage silos x
Spare parts, motors, pumps, etc.
Resell to
nonasbestos
industries


x

x

x

x
x





x
x





x

x


x
x

x
x
Sell
for
scrap

x
x

x

x

x
x

x
X
X

X
X


X
X
X
X

X


X
X

X
X
Send to
landfill

x
X

X

X

X
X

• X
X
X

X
X


X
X
X
X

X


X
X

X
X
                                      12

-------
Most of the major equipment components are not convertible—either to equip-
ment for making substitutes for AC pipe (PVC, cast iron, and steel pipe) or
to equipment for producing products in other industries.  With good mainte-
nance, the useful life of most AC pipe production equipment should be about
25 years.  AC pipe plants are prolonging equipment life by emphasizing main-
tenance instead of buying new equipment, however, because of the potential
ban on AC pipe production.  This will tend to lower resale value and the re-
maining useful life of the equipment when the plants try to convert or resell
the equipment.  Furthermore, all the equipment is likely to enter the market
at the same time, which will further depress the sale price.  Telephone in-
terviews with used equipment dealers indicate that asbestos processing equip-
ment would be very hard to sell for the following reasons:  1) the potential
for asbestos-related liability, and 2) in the period between the announcement
banning asbestos and the mandatory plant closing, the equipment probably
would receive minimum maintenance and thus be marginally operable.
     Neither conversion nor resale of the AC pipe equipment that has been
shut down to date has been significantly successful.  J-M Manufacturing had
four pipe machines in 1966, but now has only one in operation.1*  One of the
other machines has been scrapped, and the remaining two are inoperable and
would be sold if a buyer could be found.  J-M has received a bid of $60,000
to remove and bury a 10-foot machine in their Texas plant.  This amount did
not include cleanup of the removal site.  The Johns-Manville (former owners
of the J-M AC pipe facilities) Long Beach, California, plant was closed and
the equipment was removed in exchange for the scrap value of the steel, but
the dismantler claimed that he lost money on this effort.  The 13-foot pipe
machine at Manville's Greens Cove, Florida, plant was given to an Indonesian
firm (IGB) in exchange for its removal.  Manville, however, reportedly spent
approximately $130,000 to clean and repair the AC pipe manufacturing area.1*
In addition, IGB claimed that they would have been better off by buying new
equipment.  Certainteed has also shut down plants in the past (three) and
have only been able to obtain the salvage value of the scrap metal from these
plants.
*
  Personal communications from Mr, Jim Mercer, J. Little Mercer Company,
  Inc., Rehoboth, MA, September 29, 1986; Mr. Lawler, Lawler Company,
  Metuchen, NJ, September 29, 1986; Mr. Dennis Herndos, Transamerica
  Equipment Company, Inc., Northport, AL, September 29, 1986.

                                      13

-------
     Based on the above reported costs of removing a pipe machine, repairing
and cleaning up the area from which the machine was taken, and using a 0.6
plant scale index for escalating the cost of removing and burying a 10-ft
machine to that required for a 13-foot machine, the cost of removal and
landfill of a 200-ton/day, 13-foot AC pipe machine would be about $200,000
($130,000 plus $70,000).  This cost includes disassembling the equipment,
removing it to a hazardous waste landfill, and cleaning up and repairing the
area from which the equipment was removed.  Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show that the
value of the equipment required for the addition of a pipe machine accounts
for approximately 50 percent of the cost of all the equipment required for an
AC pipe plant.  Assuming that removal, landfilling, and repair and cleanup of
other plant components will involve activities similar to those for removing
the pipe machine, the cost would be about $400,000 (not including general
cleaning of the building so that it can be used for other purposes).  The
cost of vacuuming the building and washing down walls, ceilings, and floors
should be about $0.26 per square foot.5  Based on PEI asbestos cleanup
experience, the cost of these activities is only about 25 percent of the
total cost of the cleanup.  These other costs include preparing and isolating
the cleanup area, handling and transferring the collected asbestos dust,
landfilling the wastes in an approved hazardous waste landfill facility, and
demobilization.  This brings the total cleanup cost to approximately $1.00
per square foot.  Based on an estimated building size for a 200-ton/day pipe
plant of approximately 300 feet by 300 feet with a 20-foot-high ceiling, the
building cleanup would cost $200,000.  Thus, the total cost of landfilling
all plant equipment in a hazardous waste landfill, plus building cleanup,
would be $600,000 ($200,000 plus $400,000).
     The preceding costs are based on sending the scrap equipment to a
hazardous waste landfill without any significant decontamination of the
various pieces.  A contractor who specializes in equipment cleanup compared
cleaning a machine contaminated with asbestos to the physical activity
required to clean corrosion.  The latter requires disassembly of the machine,
removal of the corrosion, and reassembly of the machine.  Although asbestos
is easier to remove than corrosion, having to wear protective clothing
reduces the workers' productivity, so the costs should be similar.  Based on
                                      14

-------
this analogy, cleaning of a machine that has been handling asbestos-containing
materials would cost about 25 percent of the replacement value.  Of course,
only equipment that is to be resold would require reassembly; equipment to be
sent to a sanitary landfill would require only disassembly and cleanup.  When
no reassembly is involved, 10 percent of the replacement value of the equip-
ment is a reasonable estimate.  Based on the equipment costs in Tables 2-1
and 2-2, cleaning the equipment so that it could be sent to a sanitary
landfill or sold as scrap would be $275,000 for a pipe machine alone (10
percent of purchased equipment cost) and $560,000 for all the equipment in
the plant.  Cleaning and reassembling the equipment for resale would be
$690,000 for a pipe machine (25 percent of purchased equipment cost) or
$1,400,000 for the entire plant's equipment.  Another $260,000 (two times
$130,000) should be added for the subsequent cleanup and repair of the
equipment areas and an additional $200,000 for building decontamination so
                              *
that it can be sold or used for other purposes.
     Based on conversations with AC pipe manufacturers,1* there is no U.S.
Market for AC pipe machines.  The best that an AC pipe machine owner can
expect is to trade the pipe machine to a foreign manufacturer for removal,
and this has not proved to be very successful.%  Used equipment dealers
usually pay from 20 to 35 percent of new equipment cost for used equipment
                                 *
and sell it for 30 to 50 percent.   Considering the probable poor condition
of equipment used to produce AC pipe, dealers will probably pay no more than
20 percent for usable equipment that has been decontaminated.  Furthermore,
only equipment such as ball mills, mixers, fork lifts, and autoclaves are
likely to have any resale value (see Table 2-3).  Conveyors, boilers, air
pollution control  equipment, and spare parts have little resale value unless
the equipment is on skids and was designed to be relatively portable.   At
best, other plant equipment can be resold for 20 percent of its value.
Subtracting the AC pipe machine and related equipment cost in Table 2-2 from
*
  Personal communication from Mr. Jim Mercer of J. Littler Mercer Company.,
  Inc., Rehoboth, MA, September 29, 1986.
  Personal communications from Mr. Jim Mercer of J. Little Mercer Company,
  Inc., Rehoboth, MA; Mr. Lawler, Lawler Company, Metuchen, NJ; and Mr.
  Dennis Herndos, Transamerica Equipment Company, Inc., Northport, AL, all on
  September 29, 1986.
                                      15

-------
the total equipment cost in Table 2-1 yields an equipment value  of $2,850,000

if purchased new.  This value can actually be much lower, however,, if the

equipment was not designed to be moved (e.g., storage silos  and  air-pollution-

control equipment).  The maximum market value of this equipment  would be
$570,000.  If cleanup costs for this equipment (25 percent of $2,850,000 or

$710,000) are considered, reselling this portion of AC pipe  plant equipment

would cost the plant a net of $140,000 plus $130,000 for cleanup and repair

of the plant area, for a total of $270,000.  Table 2-4 summarizes these

costs.

        TABLE 2-4.  ESTIMATED COSTS FOR AC PIPE PLANT CLOSURE OPTIONS
                           (December 1985 dollars)
Equipment
AC pipe machine and directly
related equipment
Other plant equipment (mixers,
Hazardous
waste
landfill8
' 200,000
200,000
Cleanup
and
resale
200,000C
270,000
Cleanup and
sanitary .
landfill8*0
462,000
472,000
a
Cleanup
and sale
as scrap
391,000
401,000
 mills, fork lifts, autoclaves,
 etc.)

All plant equipment plus build-
 ing cleanup for reuse
600,000   670,000    1,144,000
992,000
a Includes cost of cleanup and repair of building area where equipment has
  been removed.
b All equipment is sent to a sanitary landfill.  A significant part of the
  landfill cost is for removing heavy equipment from the plant and hauling it
  to the landfill.  Assume that only 20 percent of the $70,000 for removal
  and landfill is hazardous waste landfill costs and sanitary landfill cost
  is approximately 10 percent of hazardous waste landfill cost (e.g., $15 per
  cubic yard compared with $150 per cubic yard).

c Not sellable.  Cost presented includes removal of equipment, sending it to
  a hazardous waste landfill, and cleanup and repair of the equipment area.


EQUIPMENT RESALE VALUE

     The equipment can also be disassembled, cleaned, and sold as scrap, in

which case no reassembly is necessary.  Based on information acquired through

telephone interviews with asbestos users in several industries, the scrap
                                      16

-------
value of equipment is approximately 0.5 percent of the purchase price of the
equipment.  Thus, the scrap value of a pipe machine would be approximately
$14,000 and the scrap value of all of the plant's equipment would be $28,000.
When the required equipment cleanup is considered, the net cost to the plant
would be $261,000 ($275,000 less $14,000 scrap value) for the pipe machine by
itself and $532,000 for all the plant's equipment.  Including repair and
cleanup of the equipment area and overall building cleanup would add an
estimated $460,000 to these costs.
     The time required for the activities discussed can vary widely,
depending on availability of equipment inventory, selection of a firm for
equipment and building cleanup, ability to find a used equipment dealer, and
how long it takes to obtain any permits required by Federal, State, or local
authorities (e.g., onsite landfill permit, if applicable).  The time and
costs of equipment and building cleanup also vary with current housekeeping
practices and conditions.  The actual equipment cleanup and removal from the
building would require an estimated 2 months, and the building cleanup would
require another 2 months.  Planning, obtaining permits, and selecting
contract firms for the cleanup and equipment removal efforts could require
another 2 to 6 months.  Thus, total time requirements could range between
about 6 and 10 months.

GENERAL COMMENTS
     The remaining useful life of the AC pipe equipment at existing plants is
not known.  Most of the equipment in U.S. plants appears to be 20 to 30 years
old,1*1* but with proper maintenance (one 200-ton/day plant spends approxi-
mately $100,000 to $150,000 per year for maintenance), it appears that plant
equipment could last for several more years.  One plant that was shut down in
the late seventies was built in 1928 and had never replaced a pipe machine.
     The difference in the operating rates of AC pipe equipment and PVC pipe
equipment is irrelevant to this study because AC pipe equipment is not con-
vertible to PVC pipe production.
     Labor requirements for the production of AC pipe and PVC pipe differ
greatly.  The forming line for AC pipe requires a seven-man crew, whereas it
takes only one person to operate a PVC line.1*
                                       17

-------
                                  SECTION 3
            CONVERSION COSTS—ASBESTOS FRICTION PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

     Determination of the economic impact of a potential ban by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the manufacture of asbestos friction
products requires data on the cost, resale value, and convertibility of the
manufacturing equipment.  PEI was contracted by the Office of Pesticides  and
Toxic Substances to provide these data to ICF, Incorporated, for use in the
economic model being used to develop the impact analysis.
     Friction products are used in many kinds of industrial and commercial
equipment, including the following:  automobiles; off-road vehicles,
including earth-moving equipment such as tractors, combines, and lawn mowers;
aircraft; railroad cars; mining, drilling, and construction equipment, snow-
mobiles; elevators; washing machines; towraotors; chain saws; and heavy
equipment such as that used in various manufacturing establishments.
     PEI contacted various suppliers of asbestos friction products to obtain
information related to asbestos-substitution problems and associated costs.
In general, the most difficult part of converting to an asbestos substitute
appears to be identifying a substitute material that has the asbestos-like
properties such as high and stable frictions under heat, strength, wear
resistance, and flexibility that are required for various brake and clutch
lining products.  The substitute materials currently being used (e.g., fiber-
glass, mineral wool, and Kevlar) are also considerably more expensive than
asbestos materials.
     Table 3-1 summarizes the information PEI obtained through contacts with
asbestos friction product manufacturers.

PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
     The various manufacturers contacted and visited appeared to use similar
equipment.  Except perhaps for some of the molds, the same plant equipment
                                      18

-------
                             TABLE  3-1.     ASBESTOS FRICTION  PRODUCTS  DATA  SUMMARY
Plant
£


F
G
H
I
J
K
Plant sire.
ft1, or
capacity.
700



1,300
500
Ib/h



Ib/h
Ib/h
Equipment type No.
Clutch face molds 100
Treatment tunnel I
Rest of conversion
Total plant

Total plant 1
Total plant 1

Hew value,
$
250
500
1,500
80,000

35,000
Z.OOO

,000
,000
,000
,000

,000
,000

Reported Scrap
Resale value. Age, scrap weight,
$ years value, $ tons COMMITS
Equipment conversion costs with about 501
Total conversion will be sbout $2,250,000.
10,000,000 30 500,000 12,000,000-part/year capacity.
Existing plant.
20
304,000 15 750 1 year conversion. Slower production. 21
year capacity.
Capacity dropped to WI after conversion.
parts/year.

converted.



,600,000-part/
8,320,000
Saw blades switched to diamond. Operating costs
doubled. 335! slower and raw materials more expensive.
Currently 951 switched to asbestos substitutes.

800

Ib/h

Total plant

2,000

,000
Cannot find substitute. Hill shut down.
350,000 10 Assuming equipment liquidation,6 14.000.0

QQ-part/vear
                                                                                                  capacity.  To convert   11,000,000  to met. and $1,200,000
                                                                                                  to $1,500,000 for met.  and org.

                                                                                                  Ho equipment models  necessary  for  substitute material.c
                                                                                                  14,000,000-part/ye«r capacity  currently 75S or 30,000
                                                                                                  parts/day.

                                                                                                  4 years of developmental  research  time required to make
                                                                                                  the conversion..  Manufacturer  - $200,000 for 3 full-tine
                                                                                                  technicians workinf  4 years; castower - $500,000 for 4
                                                                                                  years of testing transmissions, etc.; and $300,000 for
                                                                                                  engineering control  costs.  Another $30,000 was
                                                                                                  required for cleanup costs; outside contractor vacuumed
                                                                                                  all equipment, storage  rooms,  ductwork, overhead beans,
                                                                                                  etc.  Sow equipment was  washed down with water—took
                                                                                                  1.5 weeks.  No change In  productivity with substitute,
                                                                                                  just higher material costs.
* Equipment  resale only.   Current building expenses are $55,000/year In insurance and taxes.  $100,000  to $600,000 to be spent on buttling before sell
  approval issued.  Row out of business.

  Reportedly a typical plant would  have two smaller units to total this capacity.  Metallic-based substitutes cost three times more  to produce.  Experimenting
  with material ?5 to 80 percent of metallic product.

c Three or four full-tine researchers required 5 years to develop substitute Material.  Cleanup of old  equipment would be $100,000.  Hill be 1001 asbestos-
  free by November 1986.

-------
      TABLE 3-1  (continued)
ro
o
Plant size,
ft*, or
capacity.
Plant Ib/h
A 30 Ib/h









B 30 Ib/h








C 130,000 ft*










0 100,000 ft*











Equipment type
Hfxer

Molding



lathes, etc.
Boiler
Fabric filter
Scrubber
Hixer



SHtter and cutter
Molding
Oven
Drill, grind

Mixer
Holding
SHtter and cutter
Oven
Samlets
Grinders
Punch presses
fabric filters
Treater towers
Solvent recovery
Minders
Mixer
Preform mold
Conip, mold
Slitter and cutter
Arc mole}
Oven
Finishing
Punch presses
Cent. byd. system
Boilers
Oust collectors
tab eijufpnwnt
No.
1
1
3


1000 -
100
I
11
1
3
I
8
1
5
2
1
9
t
13
56
8
25
8
12
10
7
2
I

3
8
35
1
K
14
25
3
1
2
$
7
flew value. Resale value,
$ t
37,000
37,000
60,000
250,000
730,000
500,000
50,000
100,000
210,000
30,000
* 30,000
214,000
360,000
165,000
20,000
15,000
60,000
85,000
40,000
100,000
75,000
135,000
20,000
17? .000

100.000
2,500,000
400,000
850,000
500,000
240,000
141,000
1,500,000
25,000
60,000
350,000
150,000
45,000
150,000
150,000
450,000
500,000
4,000
12,000
5,000
20,000
5,000
0
500
10,000
0
0
15,000
109,000
184,000
84,000
10,000
8,000
31 ,000
43,000
20,000
30,000
0
20,000
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
90,000
25,000
375,000
0
0
90,000
40,000
15,000
50,000
40,000
50,000
90 ,000
ftfe.
years
ZO
10
40
ZO
20
20
20
4
20
25
20
ZO
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
6
30
15
30
10
40
30
13
30


15
12
18
15
IS
15
15
ZO
20
15
15
IS
Reported Scrap
scrap weight.
value, $ tons Cowaents
50
50
50
200
200

100
0
0
0








Corrosion costs are $5.000 to $10,000 per new mold.
12
to 15 molds were changed over the last year, but a new
substitute being developed may not require mold conver-
60
0,5
1
1.5










slon. It takes 1 to 3 weeks to make their o»n mold.

Produces 25 to 30% asbestos products. Used 60 tons
asbestos to produce 120 tons of products in 1985.



Orw liner production dropped from 58 to 23 ft/ntin.
Production cost about $0.20 w/»sbestos and $0.60 to
$0.80 ^/substitute. Mill go out of business if 1001
asbestos required.

Host equipment weighs 1500 to 4000 Ib.



of











Small grinders are approximately $5,000 each and Urge












100
ISO
5,000
ZOO
100
200
250
100
150
300
500
750












6
S
250
1
6
ZO
25
6
15
30
50
75
grinders are approximately $15,000 each.
120 employees at present; has been as Nigh as 400.








.






































-------
can be used to produce both asbestos and nonasbestos brake products.  Several

different formulations are used for producing -asbestos-containing friction

materials.  An article in the Kirk Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology

reports 18 formulations of asbestos-containing organic friction materials.6

     Table 3-2 presents the equipment components found in a friction products

plant and the projected options for each type of equipment.  The same
equipment could be used in a plant producing nonasbestos friction products.

            TABLE 3-2.  FRICTION PRODUCTS EQUIPMENT OPTIONS
Process
Convert to
substitute
process
Resell to
nonasbestos
industries
Likely to
have resale
value
Sell
for
scrap
Send to
landfill
Raw material receiving
 and handling
  Mixers                     x^

Friction materials
 production
  Preform compression        x
   molding machines
  Heated compression         x
   modling machines
  Combination slitter        x
   and cutter
  Curing oven                x
  Finishing equipment        x
   (drills, grinders,
   etc.)

Support equipment
  Boiler                     x
  Air pollution con-         x
   trols {e.g., fabric
   filters)
  Dynamometers               x
             x

             x

             x
x
x
x

x

x

x
X
X


X


X


X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
  Also nonfriction products industry.


REPLACEMENT .COST OF EXISTING EQUIPMENT

     The number of production lines and the size and kind of auxiliary

services required at a friction materials production facility will depend on

the types of friction products produced and the quantity sold.  Auxiliary
                                      21

-------
services include boilers, buildings, raw material storage, warehouses,  and
shipping facilities.  Although production lines can often be shifted from ont
type of friction material to another, these lines are usually dedicated to a
single composition.  The cost estimate development is based on a 100,000-
square-foot building with sufficient equipment available for annual  production
                                                                 it
of approximately IS million pieces of asbestos friction products.
     Tables 3-3 and 3-4 show the estimated cost breakdown for installing a
friction products facility of the size and capacity just described and  for
replacing only that equipment exposed to asbestos or an asbestos mixture.
The infrastructure (i.e., the underlying base, building, and basic support
systems such as the boiler) would already exist, but wiring, piping, and some
service facilities (such as conveyors and storage and shipping facilities)
would have to be added.  Calculations of the cost components were based on
factors from Peters and Timmerhaus.3
     Tables 3-3 and 3-4 also present the estimated costs of a new greenfield
facility ($40 million) and of the installation of friction product manufactur-
ing equipment in a building previously used for another process or one  that
requires a different equipment configuration.  In the latter case, if the
existing equipment is merely removed and replaced with similar equipment and
the existing electrical, piping, etc., are used, the cost of the new equip-
ment and its installation would only be $4.2 million (the first two line
items in Table 3-4).  This estimated cost does not include removal of existing
equipment.

ASBESTOS SUBSTITUTION.OPTIONS
     Two alternatives are considered for asbestos friction product plants:
1) conversion of existing equipment for use with nonasbestos materials, and
2) scrapping or reselling the existing equipment and purchasing new equip-
ment.  Converting the equipment or plant to produce something other than
*
  Personal communications from Mr. Leroy McDonald, Mead Corporation, South
  Lee, MA, October 7, 1986; Ms. Jan Morris, Raymark Corporation,
  Crawfordsville, IN, September 23, 1986; Mr. Steven Simon, Brassbestos Mfg.
  Corporation, Peterson, NJ, September 23, 1986; Mr. George Houser, Raymark
  Corporation, Manheim, PA, October 14, 1986.
  "Greenfield facilities" are entirely new facilities constructed in areas
  where no previous building has been constructed.

                                      22

-------
TABLE 3-3.  ESTIMATED COST OF FRICTION PRODUCTS PLANT INSTALLATION
                      (December 1985 dollars)
               Component
 Percent of
total capital
 investment
  Cost of
equipment,
  $1000
Direct costs
  Purchased equipment                           20           8,000
  Purchased equipment installation              10           4,000
  Instrumentation and controls (installed)       4           1,600
  Piping (installed)                             6           2,400
  Electrical (installed)                         2       -      800
  Buildings (including services)                 6           2,400
  Yard improvements                              2             800
  Service facilities (installed)                10           4,000
  Land                                          J.             400

          Total  direct costs                    61          24,400
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total fixed-capital investment
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT

7
7
5
J5
24
85
15
100

2,800
2,800
2,000
2,000
9,600
34,000
6,000
40,000
                                 23

-------
TABLE 3-4.  ESTIMATED COST OF FRICTION PRODUCTS
     MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION
            (December 1985 dollars)


Component
Direct costs
Purchased equipment
Purchased equipment installation
Instrumentation and controls (installed)
Piping (installed)
Electrical (installed)
Buildings (including services)
Yard improvements
Service facilities (installed)
Land
Total direct costs
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total fixed-capital investment.
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Percent of
total capital
investment

25
10
5
10
5
0
0
5
_0
60

10
10
5
5
30
90
10
100
Cost of
equipment,
$1000

3,000
1,200
600
1,200
600
0
0
600
	 0
7,200

1,200
1,200
600
600
3,600
10,800
1,200
12,000
                       24

-------
 friction  products was not considered because  the equipment and support sys-
 tems  can  be  used to produce  nonasbestos friction products, for which there
 will  be a  continued demand regardless of the  formulations used in the indus-
 try.

 CONVERSION COSTS  .
      Converting existing equipment for use with nonasbestos materials would
 involve cleaning the existing equipment and the plant and changing the molds.
 The costs  presented herein do not include the R&D costs to find a substitute
 material  or  the cost of the  reported decrease in the plant's productivity
 when  asbestos substitutes are used.  The friction products plints contacted
 were  developing their own substitute compositions, which would not be avail-
 able  to other producers.  Finding a substitute material can reportedly in-
 volve as much as 4 or 5 years and the efforts of three or four full-time
 laboratory technicians or researchers.   The  total cost for the time alone is
 estimated  to be $200,000.  This does not include the costs of testing new
 materials  with the appropriate products.  Engineering costs can be another
 $300,000  (e.g., equipment modifications and additional pollution controls).
     Adding another 50 percent to the technician costs to cover supervision,
 other part-time researchers, and miscellaneous supplies would result in an
 estimated  research cost of $300,000 to identify substitutes.  Total costs for
 research and engineering are estimated to be $600,000.
     Reported values for the resulting reduction in process operating rate
when asbestos substitutes are used varied widely.  One plant reported no
 reduction  in production rate,  whereas others reported reductions of up to 40
        **
 percent.    Greater wear on  the process equipment was also reported to result
 with asbestos substitutes.  These higher material costs and reductions in
 production rate doubled operating costs.ft
 *
   Personal communications from Mr. Leroy McDonald, Mead Corporation, South
   Lee, MA, October 7, 1986; Mr. Robert Tami, Motion Control Industries,
   Ridgeway, PA, October 23, 1986.
   Personal communication from Mr, George Houser, Raymark Corporation,
   Crawfordsville, IN, October 14, 1986.
**
   Personal communications from Mr. Delvin Foster, LSI-Certified Brakes,
   Danville, KY, September 23, 1986; Mr. Greg Beckett, Wheeling Brake Block
   Manufacturing, Bridgeport, CT, September 23, 1986.
   Personal communication from Mr, Greg Beckett (above).
                                      25

-------
     Most producers of friction products currently appear to have converted
at least part of their facilities to the use of nonasbestos materials and are •
looking for substitutes for most of their other products.  The cost of con-
verting the equipment for the typical facility described earlier is estimated
to be $1,095,000.  This includes $750,000 for equipment cleanup (25 percent
of the cost of replacement equipment as presented in Table 4), $120,000 for
general plant cleanup, and an estimated $225,000 for mold changes (assuming
50 molds per plant, 30 of which will need to be converted at a cost of $7500
per mold).   Again, the estimated $600,00 cost of the necessary research and
engineering is not included.  The equipment and plant cleanup may be less
than estimated, depending on the regulatory requirements governing these
activities.  The estimates for equipment are based on taking the equipment
apart, cleaning each piece, and then reassembling the equipment for use.*
Plant cleanup costs are based on the reported cleanup costs of $30,000 (iso-
lating the area and other stringent controls for asbestos dust were not re-
       **
quired)   for a 100,000-square-foot facility.  Based on PEI's asbestos cleanup
experience, the cost of vacuuming and washing down walls is only about 25
percent of the total cost of a strictly-controlled cleanup.  Other costs in-
clude preparing and isolating the cleanup area, handling and transfer of the
collected asbestos dust, landfill ing the wastes in an approved hazardous
waste landfill facility, and demobilization.  Including these costs would
increase the plant cleanup costs to $120,000.

EQUIPMENT RESALE VALUE
     The cost for reselling existing equipment and purchasing new all
equipment that is directly involved with producing friction products (not
including plant mobile equipment or other ancillary equipment) is estimated
to be $4,320,000.  This includes the purchase and installation of new
equipment after cleanup ($750,000), resale ($750,000 or 25 percent of the
purchased equipment cost),ft and cleanup of the plant ($120,000).  This
 *
   Personal communication from Mr. Bill Outcalt, Aztec Industries,  North
   Brookfield, MA, September 8, 1986.
   Personal communication from Mr. Jim Smith, Blackmao-Mooring Steamatic
   Castrophe, Inc., Fort Worth, TX.
**
   Personal communication from Mr. George Houser, Raymark Corporation,
   Crawfordsville, IN, October 14, 1986.
   Personal communication from Mr. Jim Mercer, J. Little Mercer Company,
   Inc., Rehoboth, MA, September 29, 1986.
                                    26

-------
estimate assumes that the new equipment goes in the same plant area as the
removed equipment and that minimal wiring, piping, and other support
equipment is required.

GENERAL COMMENTS
     Some plants may be unable to find substitutes for asbestos, particularly
those with no (or minimal) R&D capability.  These plants will be required to
shut down or to sell the plant to another friction product manufacturer.
     The remaining useful life of equipment used for friction product
manufacturing will vary.  The average age of most of the existing equipment
belonging to the manufacturers that were contacted was about 20 years, but
equipment ages of as high as 40 years have been reported.
     The loss in production efficiency due to the use of substitutes is
primarily a result of the nature and use of the asbestos substitutes.
Reasons for this reduction include longer mixing times, handling difficulties
and additional maintenance due to the higher abrasiveness of the
formulations, and longer finishing times.  Based on reported losses in
production efficiencies from 0 to 40 percent, an average loss of 20 percent
is estimated.
                                      27

-------

-------
                                  SECTION 4
                 CONVERSION COSTS—PAPER AND FELTS INDUSTRY

     Asbestos-containing papers and felts are used in a variety of industrial
and consumer products.  Asbestos paper is used in gaskets, filters, insulation
papers, and similar products.  Asbestos felt is used as backing material  in
various applications.  Switching to asbestos-substitute materials in the
papers and felts industry depends on finding suitable substitutes for the
asbestos content in these products.

PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
     The production equipment at a papers and felts facility consists primarily
of several mixing and holding chests, a Jordan, steam-filled dryers, and
winding and calender rolls.  Each facility also needs a boiler to supply  the
steam for the dryers.  The exact equipment at each facility varies with the
products manufactured there.

ASBESTOS SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS
     The conversion to asbestos substitutes in the papers and felts industry
depends primarily on the industry's ability to find substitutes suitable  for
the users of the materials now produced with asbestos products.  No major
problems have been reported in converting the papers and felts equipment  to
asbestos-substitute materials.  Most of it can be readily converted to asbes-
tos-substitute products.  One industry contact indicated, however, that the
equipment would have to be cleaned thoroughly before it is converted for  use
with asbestos-substitute materials.
     The one paper facility (Qui.n-T Corporation, Erie, Pennsylvania) that
responded to PEI's request for information indicated it has two paper-making
machines and produces 16 million pounds of paper annually.  Sixty-five
percent of this output contains asbestos; the remaining portion does not.

       •   •.  .   •                       28

-------
CONVERSION COSTS
     In general, the costs of converting and cleaning this equipment are
expected to be minimal.  The responding facility (Quin-T Corporation, Erie,
Pennsylvania) reported a minor modification expense of $7000 and equipment
cleaning costs of $10,000 to $15,000.  The facility further reported that the
conversion would take 1 to 1.5 months to complete.
     Table 4-1 shows the capital cost breakdown at a facility with a capacity
of 8000 tons of paper per year.  The costs are derived from the equipment
cost data provided by the Quin-T Corporation and on recommended capital  cost
percentages.3
             TABLE 4-1.  ESTIMATED COST OF A NEW PAPER FACILITY
                       WITH A CAPACITY OF 8000 TONS/YR


Component
Direct costs
Purchased equipment
Equipment installation
Instrumentation and controls (installed)
Piping (installed)
Electrical (installed)
Buildings (including services)
Yard improvements
Service facilities (installed)
Land
Total direct costs
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total Fixed-Capital Investment
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Percent of
total capital
investment

18.3
11.0
3.1
1.5
4,2
4.4
1.1
11.0
0.7
55.3

9.5
10.6
3.7
11.0
. 34.7
90.0
10.0
100.0
Cost of
equipment.
$1000

1,500
900
258
120
348
360
90
900
60
4,536

780
870
300
900
2,850
7,386
823
8,209
                                      29

-------
EQUIPMENT RESALE VALUE
     Although the equipment used in the papers and felts industry is similar
to that used in industries that produce roofing felts and felt-backed vinyl
sheet flooring, no active market is currently available for this equipment.
                                      30

-------

-------
                                  SECTION 5
                  CONVERSION STATUS—ROOFING FELTS INDUSTRY

     The U.S. roofing felt industry manufactures saturated and urssaturated
roofing felts.  No information was available from this industry regarding the
current status of asbestos use in the manufacture of roofing felts.
     Most manufacturers of saturated roofing felt have discontinued the use
of asbestos and now produce either organic or fiberglass felts.  Only one
company (Nicolet in Pennsylvania) is suspected of still manufacturing
unsaturated roofing felt.7  This company has confirmed that it sells
unsaturated felt, but it will not reveal whether it produces the unsaturated
felt at company-owned plants or purchases it from another firm.

-------

-------
                                  SECTION 6
            CONVERSION STATUS—VINYL-ASBESTOS FLOOR TILE INDUSTRY

     Two floor tile facilities responded to PEI's request for information
relating to equipment conversion to asbestos-substitute materials.  The
facilities indicated that a complete conversion to asbestos-substitute
materials has been completed and that none of the operations at these
facilities now use asbestos as a raw material.
     It is reported that all of the floor tile facilities in the United
States now manufacture products containing no asbestos.7
*
  Personal communications from American Beltrite, Inc., Lawrenceville, NJ
  (October 9, 1986) and Armstrong World Industries, Inc., Lancaster, PA
  (September 30» 1986).
                                      32

-------

-------
                                  SECTION 7
    CONVERSION STATUS—ASBESTOS FELT-BACKED VINYL SHEET FLOORING INDUSTRY

     No data are available regarding the production of asbestos felt-backed
vinyl sheet flooring in the United States.  Most manufacturers of felt-backed
vinyl sheet flooring have discontinued the use of asbestos and now manufacture
products containing asbestos-substitute materials.7
                                      33

-------

-------
                                  SECTION 8
        CONVERSION COSTS—ASBESTOS-CEMENT SHEET AND SHINGLE INDUSTRY

     Asbestos-cement (A-C) sheets are used primarily in the construction
industry—as wall lining in factories and agricultural buildings, as fire-
resistant walls and curtain walls, and for other similar applications.
Asbestos-cement shingles are used for siding and roofing on both residential
and commercial buildings.  Asbestos is used as a reinforcing material because
of its high tensile strength, flexibility, thermal resistance, and corrosion
resistance.  Conversion to nonasbestos products in the A-C sheet and shingle
industry depends on finding acceptable substitute materials and product
formulations.

PRODUCTION EQUIPHENT
     Formulations for A-C sheeting vary with the manufacturing process;
however, the basic production process and composition are similar for all
such products.  The equipment at a sheeting facility consists primarily of
various mixers and sheeter mills.  In addition to the same equipment found at
a sheet facility, a shingle facility also has a punch press and baking and
finishing equipment, such as autoclaves, brushers, waxers, and paint
machines.

ASBESTOS SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS
                       *                         +
     One sheet facility  and one shingle facility  responded to PEI's request
for information.  Both facilities indicated that specially designed equipment
for asbestos substitute materials has not been developed.  The sheeting
*
  Personal communication from the Victor Products Division of Dana
  Personal communication from Supradur Manufacturing Corporation, Rye, NY,
Corporation, Robinson, IL, September 29, 1986,
Personal communici
October 10, 1986,

                                    34

-------
facility further indicated that extensive research has not yet demonstrated
that the products containing asbestos substitutes can be manufactured with
the existing equipment.
     The shingle facility does not have specific supporting information, but
feels that asbestos substitute products will run much slower with the
existing equipment.  Based on the conversion impact data for other
industries, a reduction in production efficiency of at least 20 percent is
estimated.
     The responding sheeting facility indicated that body mixers would have
to be replaced and sheeter mills would require modification.  This facility
has four body mixers, nine sheeter mills, and an annual production rate of
3,000,000 square yards of sheeting.  This facility further indicated that the
equipment would have to be cleaned thoroughly before a switch is made to
                              *
asbestos-substitute materials.
     Both facilities estimated that conversion would take about 2 years.  The
indicated duration is a rough estimate; the actual duration will depend upon
the extent and nature of equipment modifications.  The conversion duration is
needed to allow time for developing product formulations, test runs, equip-
ment modifications, and startup and commissioning with substitute materials.
The actual downtime for conversion will be significantly lower than the
conversion duration because the facilities will continue to manufacture
asbestos-containing products until the conversion is completed*

CONVERSION COSTS
     The facilities contacted by PEI indicated that conversion to
asbestos-substitute materials would require significant expenditures.
Replacement of body mixers and modifications of the sheeter mills are the two
major cost-intensive items reported by the sheeting facility.  The cost of
replacing the existing four body mixers is estimated to be $720,000, and the
cost of modifying the nine sheeter mills is estimated to be $180,000.  An
additional $50,000 expenditure was estimated for tearing down and cleaning
the equipment.  The total  estimated conversion cost for a sheeting facility
with a capacity of 3,000,000 square yards per year is about $1,000,000.
*
  Personal communication from the Victor Products Division of Dana
  Corporation, Robinson, IL, September 29, 1986.
                                      35

-------
      Table 8-1  shows  a  cost breakdown for an A-C sheet facility with a
 capacity  of  3,000,000 square yards/year.  PEI developed this breakdown from
 purchased equipment cost data provided by a responding facility (Victor
 Products  Division  of  Dana Corporation) and the use of current recommended
 percentages  for cost  components.3
      Table 8-2  shows  the estimated cost breakdown for installing an
 additional 3,000,000  square yards of sheeting per year at an existing plant.
 The  cost  assumes that the infrastructure (i.e., the underlying base,
 building, and basic support systems) is already in position.  The purchased
 equipment cost  is  assumed to be 70 percent of the amount needed to set up a
 greenfield installation.
      The  shingle facility (Supradur Manufacturing Corporation of Rye, New
 York) indicated that  extensive research has not yet demonstrated that the
 existing  equipment can  be used to make products containing asbestos
 substitutes.  According to this facility, the most likely option for
 switching to asbestos-substitute products would be to construct an entirely
 new  facility at a  cost  of about $8 to $10 million.  This facility currently
 makes 21,500 tons  of  siding and roofing products per year.

 EQUIPMENT RESALE VALUE
      No resale  market exists for the equipment used to make A-C sheets and
 shingles  because of the limited number of facilities in the industry.  The
 equiment  can be sold  as scrap, and such, is assumed to have zero net value;
 i.e., the credits  generated from the sale of the scrap are assumed to equal
 the  cost of equipment removal and transportation and the reconditioning of
 the  area  from which it was- removed.
     Waste disposal costs for an A-C sheet and shingle facilty are assumed to
 be similar to those for the A-C pipe industry and are calculated as a
 percentage of the  capital cost of a new plant.  The equipment disposal costs
 for  the A-C pipe industry ranged from 1.4 to 2.8 percent of the capital cost.
 Based on  this range,  the disposal cost of $400,000 is estimated for equipment
with a capacity of 3,000,000 square yards per year.  The costs are based on
 disposing the plant equipment in a hazardous waste landfill.  A significant
 part of the cost is for removing heavy equipment from the plant and hauling
 it to the landfill.

                                      36

-------
TABLE 8-1.  ESTIMATED COST OF AN A-C SHEET FACILITY
   WITH A CAPACITY OF 3,000,000 SQUARE YARDS/YR


Component
Direct costs
Purchased equipment
Equipment installation
Instrumentation and controls (installed)
Piping (installed)
Electrical (installed)
Buildings (including services)
Yard improvements
Service facilities (installed)
Land
Total direct costs
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total Fixed-Capital Investment
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTHENT
Percent of
total capital
investment

18.3
11.0
3.1
1.5
4.2
4.4
1.1
11.0
0.7
55.3

9.5
10.6
3.7
11.0
34.7
90.0
10.0
100.0
Cost of
equipment,
$1000

3,000
1,800
516
240
696
720
180
1,800
120
9,072

1,560
1,740
600
1,800
5,700
14,772
1,650
16,422
                         37

-------
TABLE 8-2.  ESTIMATED COST OF A-C SHEET AND SHINGLE PRODUCTS
                   EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION


Component
Direct costs
Purchased equipment
Equipment installation
Instrumentation and controls (installed)
Piping (installed)
Electrical (installed)
Buildings (including services)
Yard improvements
Service facilities (installed)
Land
Total direct costs
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total Fixed-Capital Investment
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Percent of
total capital
investment

26.7
17.8
3.8
0.8
5.1
0.0
0.0
6.4
0.0
60.6

10.8
12.0
4.2
12.5
39.4
100.0
0.0
100.0
Cost of
equipment.
$1000

2,100
1,400
300
60
400
0
0
500
0
4,760

845
943
329
979
3,096
7,856
0
7,856
                              38

-------
                                  SECTION 9
               CONVERSION COSTS—TEXTILES AND PACKING INDUSTRY

     The textiles and packing industry produces asbestos-containing products
for other industries to use as supplementary material in their products.  A
typical textiles and packing facility makes products in various forms such as
lap, roving, wick, thread, yarn, rope, cord, packing, and cloth.  The equip-
ment at a particular facility depends on the products made there.  The switch
to asbestos-substitute materials in the textiles and packing industry depends
on the ability to find suitable substitutes for these methods.

PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
     Although the production equipment at a textiles and packing facility
depends on the products made at the plant, the front-end equipment, which
performs the preliminary processing, is common to all the facilities.  The
preliminary processing generally includes operations such as fiber blending,
packing and lap formation, carding, and drawing.  The preliminary processing
produces roving that can be, further processed to produce wick by twisting the
yarn or thread by spinning it.  The yarn can be further processed to produce
rope, cord, or packing.  Rope and cord are made from yarn by additional
twisting, whereas packing involves steps such as braiding, extrusion,
molding, or laminating.  Individual processing functions at the facility
generally take place in separate equipment modules.  A textiles and packing
facility also requires a boiler to provide steam for various process opera-
tions.

ASBESTOS SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS
     The conversion to asbestos substitutes in the textiles and packing
industry depends primarily on the ability of ancillary industries to find
substitutes for the materials currently being produced with asbestos-containing

                                      39

-------
products from the textiles and packing industry.  No major problems have been
reported with regard to converting the textiles and packing equipment to use
asbestos-substitute materials.  Most of the equipment can be readily converted
without the need for significant equipment cleaning.
     Two textiles and packing facilities provided PEI with conversion-related
data.  One facility, which produces yarn for friction products, indicated
that the carding'equipment would have to be replaced if the plant were to
convert to asbestos substitute materials.  This facility has 18 cards with an
annual yarn production rate of 3000 tons.  Conversion is estimated to take 4
to 6 weeks per card and to entail an expenditure of $15,000 to $20,000 per
card.  The facility did not refer to any other conversion problems.
     A facility producing 250 tons of packing material reported that it
recently converted its entire product line to asbestos-substitute materials.
The facility is now using the same equipment without any additions or
modifications, and no expenses were incurred in the conversion.

CONVERSION COSTS
     In general, no costs are associated with the conversion of a textiles
and packing facility to nonasbestos-substitute materials.  At some
facilities, the compatibility of plant equipment with the available
substitute materials may need to be studied.  Although PEI is not aware of
the reasons one facility needed to replace its carding equipment, this
facility is believed to be an exception.  The facility estimated the cost of
replacing the carding equipment to be around $90 to $120 per ton-year of
product.  The replacement involved a total of 18 cards producing 3000
tons/year of yarn for friction products.
     Equipment for producing asbestos-based products can be readily switched
to asbestos-substitute materials without significant modifications.  Although
equipment cleaning is generally recommended, the cleaning costs are expected
to be insignificant.  If carding equipment must be replaced, the cost of such
replacement at a 1000-ton/year facility is estimated to be between $90,000
and $120,000.
*
  Personal communication from Raymark Industrial Division, Harshville, NC,
  October 23, 1986.
  Personal communication from Garlock, Inc., Compression Packing Division of
  Colt Industries, Sodus, NY, September 24, 1986.

                                      40

-------
     The capital cost breakdown of a textiles and packing facility with a
capacity of 1000 tons/year is shown in Table 9-1.  The costs are .derived from
equipment cost data provided by the textiles and packing facilities contacted
by PEI and recommended capital cost percentages.3  The equipment cost for
this size facility was extrapolated from the equipment cost at a facility
with a capacity of 250 tons/year and an equipment scale factor of 0*6 (i.e.,
the plant size ratio to the 0.6 power).  The equipment cost data for the
250-ton/yr facility and the 3000-ton/yr facility gave a scale factor of 0.89.
This factor was not used because it does not fall within the generally
accepted scale factor range of 0.5 to 0.75.

EQUIPMENT RESALE VALUE
     The textiles and packing industry equipment generally has no resale
value; however, its scrap value is around $80/ton.  The total weight of the
equipment at a 1000-ton/year facility was calculated from the data for a
3000-ton/year capacity plant by using a 0.6 scale factor and roughly amounts
to 60 tons.  The scrap value of this equipment is estimated to be $4800.
                                      41

-------
       TABLE 9-1.  ESTIMATED COST OF A TEXTILES  AND  PACKINS
             FACILITY WITH A CAPACITY OF 1000 TONS/YR
               Component
 Percent of
fixed capital
 investment
  Cost of
equipment,
  $1000
Direct costs
  Purchased equipment
  Equipment installation
  Instrumentation and controls (installed)
  Piping (installed)
  Electrical (installed)
  Buildings (including services)
  Yard improvements
  Service facilities (installed)
  Land

          total  direct costs
    55.3
   3,230
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total Fixed-Capital Investment
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT

9.5 '
10.6
3.7
11.0
34.7
90.0
10.0
100.0

555
619
214
641
2,029
5,259
586
5,845
                                 42

-------

-------
                                 SECTION 10
             CONVERSION COSTS—ASBESTOS SHEET GASKETING INDUSTRY

     Asbestos is used as gasketing material because it is heat- and pressure-
resistant,  resiliant, strong, and relatively chemically inert.  Gasket
sheeting is produced by mixing the raw materials thoroughly and then com-
pressing the mixture into sheets.  The primary producers supply these com-
pressed sheets to secondary producers/fabricators, who cut the sheets into
gaskets according to customer specifications.  Conversion to nonasbestos
products in the gasketing industry depends on finding acceptable substitute
materials and product formulations.

PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
     The equipment at a compressed sheet facility consists primarily of a
material feed system, mixers, a drop mill, a sheeter/calender, and
autoclaves.  Raw materials, which typically include rubber, asbestos, and
solvents, are fed through the feed system to the mixer for blending.  The
blended material is further processed in the drop mill before it is
transferred to the sheeter machine.  The sheets formed in the sheeter machine
are then cured in an autoclave.  Some facilities that produce gasket sheeting
also have solvent recovery equipment to recover solvents that are liberated
in the autoclaves.

ASBESTOS SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS*
     The one sheet gasketing facility that responded to PEI's request for
information indicated that finding the right substitute materials and
formulations is the key to successful conversion and that no data regarding
*
  Personal communication from Special Paperfaoard Division of Boise Cascade,
  Beaver Falls, NY, October 3, 1986.

                                      43

-------
such substitute materials and product formulations are currently available.
Extensive laboratory experimentation with substitute materials and
formulations is required.
     This facility also indicated that the expenditure for equipment
modification would be significant; however, no specific data are currently
available regarding the kinds of modification required for conversion to
asbestos-substitute materials. .Although the facility that responded to PEI's
request has not conducted an investigation to generate such data, the
spokesman indicated that the lack of successful development of substitute
materials for many product areas precludes arriving at a good definition of
equipment requirements.  The facility further indicated that converting their
equipment to asbestos-substitute materials would take about 3 years,
     Because the facility has not collected specific conversion data, the
indicated duration is a rough estimate.  The conversion duration is needed
for developing product formulations, test runs, equipment modifications, and
startup and commissioning with the substitute materials.  The actual downtime
for conversion will be significantly less than the conversion duration.  The
facility will continue to manufacture asbestos-containing products until the
conversion is completed.

CONVERSION COSTS
     The facility that PE! contacted estimated a conversion cost of about
$7.2 million; however, this'estimate was made without itemizing any of the
equipment modifications.  An additional $200,000 expenditure was estimated
for tearing down and cleaning the equipment.
     Table 10-1 shows a cost breakdown for building a new sheet gasketing
facility with a capacity of 28 tons/day.  The cost breakdown was developed
                                                                          *
from the purchased equipment cost data received from the contacted facility
and recommended percentages for cost components.3
*
  Personal communication from Special Paperboard Division of Boise Cascade.
  Beaver Falls, NY, October 3, 1986.
                                      44

-------
        TABLE 10-1.  ESTIMATED COST OF A NEW SHEET GASKETING FACILITY
                       WITH A CAPACITY OF 28 TONS/DAY


Component
Direct costs
Purchased equipment
Equipment installation
Instrumentation and controls {installed}
Piping (installed)
Electrical (installed)
Buildings (including services)
Yard improvements
Service facilities (installed)
Land
Total direct costs
*
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total Fixed-Capital Investment
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Percent of
total capital
investment

18.3
11.0
3.1
1.5
4,2
4.4
1.1
11.0
0.7
55.3

9.5
10.6
3.7
11.0
34.7
90.0
10.0
100.0
Cost of
equipment,
$1000

12,000
7,200
2,064
960
2,784
2,880
720
7,200
480
36,288

6,240
6,960
2,400
7,200
22,800
59,088
6,600
65,688
EQUIPMENT RESALE VALUE

     The resale market for equipment used to produce sheet gasketing is

limited; the resale value of the equipment at this 28-ton/day facility is
estimated to be $50,000.
                                      45

-------

-------
                                 SECTION 11
              CONVERSION COSTS—COATINGS AND SEALANTS INDUSTRY

     Use of asbestos in the coatings and sealants industry has declined
considerably in the past 5 years.  Telephone conversations with the several
producers of coatings and sealants in the United States indicate that roost of
them have switched to asbestos substitutes or are planning a switch in the
near future.
     PEI contacted various producers of coatings and sealants to obtain
information on problems created by switching to asbestos substitutes and
conversion-related costs.  In general, no serious difficulties have occurred
or are expected.

PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
     Coatings and sealants are batch-produced in kettles or tanks ranging in
size from 50 to 6000 gallons.  The batch time can vary from 4 to 10 hours
depending on the product type.  Common process industry equipment is used in
the coatings and sealants industry and typically consists of the following:
fluffers, conveyors, mixing tanks or kettles, and dispensers or blenders.

ASBESTOS-SUBSTITUTE OPTIONS
     Our survey of the coatings and sealants industry indicated that no major
equipment additions or modifications are needed to convert the plant equip-
ment to asbestos-substitute products; however, finding the right substitute
materials and formulations is a key to a successful conversion.  Various
coating and sealant products are produced by several manufacturers, and the
product formulations are producer-specific and considered trade secrets.
Thus, the manufacturers must develop their own formulations for the new mate-
rials.   To effect a successful conversion requires extensive laboratory ex-
perimentation with asbestos-substitute materials and formulations.   Once the

                                      46

-------
right product formulations have been found, the switch to asbestos-substitute
materials can be completed without incurring major expenditures.  Thorough
cleaning of the equipment is generally recommended before the switch is made
to substitute materials; however, the cleaning costs are not reported to be
significant.
     A switch to asbestos substitutes generally requires the use of more than
one substitute material because the properties offered by asbestos cannot be
obtained from a single substitute material.  The number and types of substitute
materials required depend on the end products being manufactured.  In gener-
al, the switch to asbestos substitutes adversely affects the production effi-
ciency.  Some substitutes require longer blending and mixing times.  This,
plus the need to handle more than one substitute material, results in lower
production efficiency.  Some facilities report that the production rate may
be reduced by as much as 20 percent when substitute materials are used.   The
facilities contacted by PEI did not report production equipment as having any
effect on production efficiency.
     The use of asbestos substitutes in the coatings and sealants industry
can be accomplished without major problems.  The majority of the producers
have already voluntarily switched or are planning to switch to asbestos-
substitute materials in the near future.

CONVERSION COSTS
     The equipment used in the coatings and sealants industry Is very simple
and can generally be purchased off the shelf.  Table 1 presents a cost
breakdown for a coatings and sealants facility with a production capacity of
700.gallons/batch.  This cost breakdown is based'on purchased equipment cost
data provided by one of the facilities PEI contacted  and on recommended
percentages for cost components.3  In general, the same equipment used to
produce products containing asbestos can be used for products made with
asbestos-substitute materials.  Minor equipment variations may be necessary
*
  Personal communication from Mr. Allan Morris, Coopers Creek Chemical
  Corporation, West Conshohockten, PA, September 22, 1986.
  Personal communication from Mr. Donald Davis, American Tar Company,
  Seattle, WA, September 18, 1986.
                                      47

-------
in the material-hand!ing area depending on the type and number of substitute
materials required; however, these differences are not expected to affect the
costs appreciably,
     The 700-gallon batch capacity facility in Table 11-1 can typically
produce 525,000 gallons of products per year.  This output is based on a
batch time of 8 hours and an operating schedule of 24 hours/day, 5 days/week,
and 50 weeks/year.  Batch time, which depends on product type, can vary from
4 to 10 hours.
     Although no significant modifications to equipment is required, thorough
cleaning is generally recommended before a switch is made to nonasbestos
products.  The costs of such cleaning are minimal (generally under $2000) and
                              *
consist mainly of labor costs.
     Most of the conversion costs incurred as a result of switching to
nonasbestos materials result from expenditure required for developing product
formulations and finding suitable substitute materials.  The laboratory
costs, which depend on the product type, may run as high as $20,000 for
complex formulations.   Finding the right formulations and substitute
materials can take a year or longer.

EQUIPMENT RESALE VALUE
     The resale market for most of the equipment used in the coatings and
sealants industry is good because the mixers, conveyors, and other equipment
used in this industry are also used in a wide variety of other industrial
          **
processes.    The facilities that PEI contacted indicate that resale value
can range between 7 to 10 percent of new equipment costs, depending on the
equipment age, condition, and general market conditions.

GENERAL COMMENTS
     The majority of the producers of coatings and sealants have already
voluntarily switched to asbestos substitutes or are planning such a switch in
the near future.  The switch to nonasbestos materials does not present this
 *
   Personal communication from Mr. Donald Davis, American Tar Company,
   Seattle, VIA, September 18, 1986.
   Personal communication from Mr. Bob Baker, Adhesive Engineering Company,
   San Carlos, CA, September 18, 1986.
**
   Personal communication from Mr. Bob Bair, National Varnish Company,
   Detroit, MI, September 23, 1986.
                                      48

-------
TABLE 11-1.  ESTIMATED COST OF A NEW COATINGS AND SEALANTS FACILITY
      WITH A CAPACITY OF 700 GALLONS/BATCH (2100 GALLONS/DAY)


Component
Direct Costs
Purchased equipment
Equipment installation
Instrumentation and controls (installed)
Piping (installed)
Electrical (installed)
Buildings (including services)
Yard improvements
Service facilities (installed)
Land
Total direct costs
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total Fixed-Capital Investment
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Percent of
tota-1 capital
investment

18.3
11.0
3.1
1.5
4.2
4.4
1.1
11.0
0.7
55.3

9.5
10.6
3.7
11.0
34.7
90.0
10.0
100.0
Cost of
equipment,
$1000

30,000
18,000
5,160
2,400
6,960
7,200
1,800
18,000
1.200
90,720

15,600
17,400
6,000
18,000
57,000
147,720
16,500
164,220
                                 49

-------
industry with any major problems.  Depending on the product type, the produc-
tion rate could be reduced by as much as 20 percent when substitute materials
are used.
     The conversion costs consist mainly of the laboratory research
expenditures for finding new formulations that use substitute materials.
     The resale market for the equipment used in this industry is generally
good.
                                      50

-------

-------
                                 SECTION 12
      EQUIPMENT CONVERSION COSTS—ASBESTOS-REINFORCED PLASTICS INDUSTRY

     Asbestos is used as an additive in the plastics industry to impart
stability to the plastics while they are in the thickened or fluid stages.
The plastics containing asbestos can remain stable for up to a year.   Although
asbestos-substitute additives are available, the asbestos-reinforced plastics
industry indicates that switching to these materials will require time and
expenditure for developing product formulations that are compatible with the
substitute materials.

PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
     Asbestos-reinforced plastics facilities use mixers to produce a thick-
ened or liquid product.  The process is a batch one, and batch time varies
with the type of product.  The thickened or liquid plastic product from the
mixers is sent to downstream plant equipment for the production of the final
products.  This downstream equipment depends on the end products made by the
facility; thus, it differs widely from facility to facility.  The downstream
equipment is not included in this analysis, however, because it is not
affected by conversion to asbestos substitutes.
     In addition to the mixer, the production of thickened or liquid plastic
requires auxiliary items such as conveyors, bag-opening stations, and fabric
filters to control emissions from the material-hand!ing operations.  The
production equipment used in the asbestos-reinforced plastics industry is
similar to that used in the coatings, sealants, and paint industries.

ASBESTOS SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS
     PEI's survey of the asbestos-reinforced plastics industry indicated that
no major equipment additions or modifications are needed to convert the plant
equipment to products containing asbestos substitutes; however, finding the

                                      51

-------
 right  substitute materials and formulations is the key to successful conver-
 sion.   Extensive experimentation with substitute materials and formulations
 in  the  laboratory will be required to effect a successful conversion.
     The thickened or  liquid plastics produced at an asbestos-reinforced
 plastics facility are  used by the downstream equipment at a later date;
 therefore,  the shelf life of the thickened or liquid plastics (or their
 ability to  remain stable for an extended period) is critical to the
 operation.   In general, the desired shelf life is 1 year, which is attainable
 by  plastics-containing asbestos.  Industry contacts indicate that currently
 known  likely substitutes for asbestos do not meet the shelf-life criteria.
 These contacts further indicate that when product formulations that meet the
 shelf-life  criteria are found, the switch to asbestos-substitute materials
 can be  made without incurring major expenses.  One industry contact indicated
 a need  for  additional  roll mills for a substitute with characteristics
 comparable  to asbestos; however, this requirement appears to be an
        •  *
 exception.
     A  switch to asbestos-substitute materials generally requires the use of
more than a single substitute material, as asbestos-rein-forced plastics
 facilities make a variety of products and the properties offered by asbestos
 cannot  be obtained from a single substitute material.  The number and types
of substitute materials required depend on the products manufactured,  A
 switch  to asbestos-substitute materials would also adversely affect the
production  rate due to the nature and use of multiple substrates.  Some
 substitutes require a longer blending and mixing duration because of poor
dispersion  properties.  Some product formulations may also require that heat
be added to ensure proper mixing.  The use of multiple substitute materials
and added blending and mixing durations result in a loss of production
efficiency.  Some facilities report that the production rate may decrease by
as much as  10 percent when substitute materials are,used.
*
  Personal communication from Magnolia Plastics, Chamblee, 6A, September 30,
  1986.
  Personal communication from Resinold Plastics Company, Skokie, II,
  September 24, 1986.
                                      52

-------
CONVERSION COSTS
     The equipment used in the asbestos-reinforced plastics industry Is very
simple and can generally be purchased off the shelf.  Table 12-1 presents a
cost breakdown for an asbestos-reinforced plastics facility with a capacity
of 4000 tons/year.  This cost breakdown was developed from purchased
                                                                      *
equipment cost data provided by one of the facilities contacted by PEI  and
recommended percentages for cost components,3  In general, the sawe equipment
can be used whether facilities use asbestos-containing materials or
substitute materials.  Minor variations may be required to the equipment in
the material handling area depending on the type and number of substitute
materials used; however, these differences are not expected to have an
appreciable effect on the costs.

EQUIPMENT RESALE VALUE
     The major costs involved with conversion to asbestos-substitute
materials would be for developing product formulations and finding suitable
substitute materials.  Associated laboratory costs would depend on the type
of product involved.  Finding the right formulations and substitute materials
could take as long as a year and cost as much as $30,000. '*
     Because  a facility can continue to use the existing equipment after
switching to asbestos substitute materials, no disposition of the existing
equipment is involved.  The equipment used in the asbestos-reinforced
plastics industry also has a good resale market because the mixers and other
equipment used in this industry are used in various other industries.  Resale
value, which can range between 8 and 20 percent of the new equipment cost,
depends on the age and condition of the equipment and on general market
                               **
conditions at the time of sale.
 *
   Personal communication from Magnolia Plastics, Chamblee, GA, September 30,
   1986.
   Personal communication from Resinold Plastics Company, Skokie, IL,
   September 24, 1986.
**
   Personal communication from Thermoset Plastics, Inc., Indianapolis,
   September 25, 1986.
                                      53

-------
TABLE 12-1.  ESTIMATED COST OF AN ASBESTOS-REINFORCED PLASTICS
           FACILITY WITH A CAPACITY OF 4000 TONS/YR


Component
Direct costs
Purchased equipment
Equipment installation
Instrumentation and controls (installed)
Piping (installed)
Electrical (installed)
Buildings (including services)
Yard improvements
Service facilities (installed)
Land
Total direct costs
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total Fixed-Capital Investment
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Percent of
total capital
investment

18.3
11.0
3.1
1.5
4.2
4.4
1.1
11.0
0.7
55,3

9.5
10.6
3.7
11.0
34.7
90.0
10.0
100.0
Cost of
equipment,
$1000

85,000
51,800
14,620
6,800
19,720
20,400
5,100
51,000
3,400
257,040

44,200
49,300
17,000
51,000
161,500
418,540
46,750
465,290
                               54

-------
     Although equipment used to produce asbestos-containing products can be
used to make asbestos-substitute products without any significant
modifications, some equipment cleaning may be required before switching to
asbestos-substitute materials.  Such cleaning costs would be minimal
(generally under $4000}  and consist primarily of labor costs.

GENERAL COMMENTS
     Switching to asbestos-substitute materials in the asbestos-reinforced
plastics industry should not present any major problems.  The primary
expenditure would be for laboratory work to find suitable formulations arid
substitute materials.  Also, the production rate could decrease as much as 10
percent with the use of substitute materials.
     A good resale market generally exists for the equipment used in the
industry.
  Personal  communication, from Thermoset Plastics,  Inc.,  Indianapolis,
  September 25,  1986.
                                      55

-------

-------
                                 SECTION 13
                CONVERSION COSTS—MINING AND MILLING INDUSTRY

      In the United States, open-pit mining is the primary technique used for
asbestos.  Milling of the ore takes place close to the mine site, and a dry
process is generally used to separate the fiber from surrounding rock.  Wet-
milling and reprocessing of waste tailings have proven particularly useful in
the production of short fibers, and these techniques generate fewer harmful
dust  emissions.

PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
      In general, the conventional mining equipment used in asbestos mining is
similar to that used in other types of open-pit mining.  This includes drill-
ing equipment, trucks, front-end loaders, portable lighting, and generators.
The milling equipment is unique to asbestos milling and thus not applicable
to any other industry.  This equipment consists primarily of vibrating
screens and negative-air systems.  Additional equipment at the facility
includes crushers, dryers, conveyors, and air pollution control equipment.
Support systems include utility systems and buildings.

ASBESTOS SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS
     One asbestos mining and milling facility provided PEI with equipment and
conversion data.  PEI representatives visited this facility to view the
operations and discuss conversion problems with the facility staff.  The
equipment used at asbestos mines can be used by other mining sectors without
major modifications, the market for this equipment is practically nonexistent
currently because the market for used mining equipment is depressed.
     The equipment used in asbestos milling operations is unique to the
asbestos industry and cannot be used in other industries.  Also, this
equipment must be decontaminated before being disposed of in a sanitary
landfill.
                                      56

-------
CONVERSION COSTS
     No expenditure would be required to convert the equipment used in the
asbestos mines to other mining sectors.  The equipment can be used in other
mining sectors.  The indicated resale value does not account for the cleanup
considerations under RCRA.  The cost of new mining equipment for a mining
capacity of 34,000 tons/yr of asbestos is estimated at $6,000,000.8
     Table 13-1 presents a cost breakdown for an asbestos milling facility
with a capacity of 34,000 tons per year.  This cost breakdown was developed
from the purchased equipment cost data supplied by a responding facility and
based on current recommended percentages for cost components.3
                 TABLE 13-1.  ESTIMATED COST Of AN ASBESTOS
             MILLING FACILITY WITH A CAPACITY OF 34,000 TONS/YR


Component
Direct costs
Purchased equipment
Equipment installation
Instrumentation and controls (installed)
Piping (installed)
Electrical (installed)
Buildings (including services)
Yard improvements
Service facilities (installed)
Land
Total direct costs
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Total Fixed-Capital Investment
Working Capital
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Percent of
total capital
investment

28.3
6,1
1.7
0.8
2,4
24,3
0.6
6.1
0.4
70.7

5.3
5.9
2.0
6.1
19.2
90.0
10.0
100.0
Cost of
equipment,
$1000

7,000
1,500
430
200
580
6,000
150
1,500
100
• 17,460

1,300
1,450
500
1,500
4,750
22,210
2,470
24,680
                                      57

-------
EQUIPMENT RESALE VALUE
     Although asbestos mining equipment can be used in other mining sectors,
this equipment would have minimal salvage value or resale value because the
used mining equipment market is depressed.  This depression applies to the
mining industry in general, including copper and lead mining, which use the
same type of equipment,  A current resale value of about 10 percent is
reported for the mining equipment.  The mining facility contacted by PEI
indicates a resale value of $132,000 and an estimated scrap value of
$282,000.  The facility further indicates, however, that the equipment would
have to be cleaned and decontaminated before its sale as used equipment or
scrap.  Although no cost estimates for cleanup and decontamination are avail-
able, the facility indicates that these costs would exceed the scrap or
resale value by several million dollars.8  Assuming that decontamination
costs are 25 percent of the new equipment cost,  these costs would be
approximately $1,800,000.  This estimate, however, appears low based on the
large size and the age of the equipment involved.

GENERAL COMMENTS
     If an asbestos mine is required to shut down, the equipment probably
would be left in place, as disposal requirements of State and Federal
requlatory agencies with regard to existing asbestos mining equipment are
uncertain as of this writing.
*
  Personal communication from Jim Smith, Blackman-Mooring Steamatic
  Catastrophe, Inc., Fort Worth, TX.
                                      58

-------

-------
                                 SECTION 14
            RETROFIT/CONVERSION COSTS—ASBESTOS DIAPHRAGM CELLS
                        IN THE CHLOR-ALKALI INDUSTRY

     The chlor-alkall industry in the United States mainly uses asbestos
diaphragm based electrolytic cells for the production of chlorine and caustic
soda.  In 1983, the asbestos diaphragm cells accounted for 77.9 percent of
the U.S. elemental chlorine capacity, mercury cells accounted for 16.6
percent, and membrane cells accounted for 0.6 percent.  The remaining 5
percent of the chlorine was produced by various chemical processes, such as
fused salt electrolysis and HC1 oxidation from potassium chloride and nitric
acid.9
     The electrolytic cell is the only equipment at a chlor-alkali plant in
which asbestos material is used.  Asbestos consumption averages about 0.25
Ib/ton of chlorine.  For each unit of chlorine production, 1.1 units of
sodium hydroxide are produced.  The cell design and operation parameters are
plant-specific and are considered proprietary.  Many diaphragm plants have
onsite cogeneration facilities to supply the large quantities of electricity
and steam needed for chlor-alkali production.
     Asbestos diaphragms are prepared on the plant site; they are not available
as premanufactured products.  In the diaphragm-forming process, a slurry of
asbestos in water is drawn through a screen or perforated plate by vacuum
techniques.  Asbestos fibers are deposited on the screen, or plate, where
they form a paper-like mat approximately 1/8 inch thick.  This asbestos-coated
screen is used as the cathode in electrolytic cells.  Currently, the majority
of U.S. diaphragm cells in the United States use modified asbestos (resin
bound) diaphragms and have metal anodes; these cells consume 2300 kWh of
power per ton of chlorine produced.  The surface area of the diaphragm ranges
from approximately 200 to 1000 square feet for a cell with a volume of 64 to
275 ft3.  Each diaphragm may use 60 to 200 pounds of asbestos fibers and have •
a service life of 3 months to more than 1 year.

                                      59

-------
ASBESTOS  SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS
     The  asbestos  substitution options for  the chlor-alkali industry are
based  on  the  use of  an  ion-exchange  (nonasbestos) membrane technology
marketed  by U.S. and Japanese vendors.  Two options are available to
accomplish the switch to a nonasbestos membrane technology:  1} retrofitting
the existing  cells with the nonasbestos membrane, and 2) conversion of the
plant  to  accept new  membrane cells.  Regardless of the substitution option
selected, additions  and modifications are required to the plant's existing
auxiliary systems  to meet the operational requirements of the membrane
technology.   These additions and modifications are needed primarily in the
brine-treatment, anolyte-dechlorination, end salt-evaporation areas.
     In Japan, existing cells have been retrofitted to accept the nonasbestos
membranei  however,  no plants in the United States have attempted retrofitting,
Because of physical  limitations of the existing equipment, the retrofit
option does not allow utilization of the full potential of the membrane
technology.   The chemical environment to which the membrane cell internals
are subjected is much more severe than in the diaphragm cells.  The internals
of diaphragm  cells are generally constructed of carbon steel materials,
whereas the internals of membrane cells require the use of higher-quality
materials such as nickel-based alloys.  Thus, the retrofit option requires
the upgrading of cell internals to withstand the operating environment created
in the membrane cells.  Nickel plating of selected cell internals was mentioned
as an option  to.overcome this problem.  However, the material upgrading
measures cannot match the performance and life of the cells specifically
designed for membrane technology.  It is reported that the use of retrofitted
diaphragm cells may  necessitate a major modification of cell components
within about  3 to 5 years after completion  of retrofit because of the severe
                      *                              '' "
operating environment.
     The conversion  option involves replacement of diaphragm cells with
membrane electrolyzers that are designed to match existing electrical
equipment.  With this approach, the full  potential of the membrane cell
technology can be realized.   Occidental Chemical Corporation has completed a
  Personal communication from Mr. Thomas J. Navin, OxyTech Systems, Chardon,
  OH, November 19, 1986.
                                      60

-------
 partial  conversion of  its Taft, Louisiana,  plant  to membrane cell technology.
 This  represents  the only U.S.  conversion to membrane  cell technology.  The
 total  capacity of the  Taft  plant  is  1650 tons/day; capacity converted to
 membrane  cells is 400  tons/day.   The  plant  has an onsite cogeneration facil-
 ity.   Brine  is brought in from mines  about  40 miles from the plant site.  The
 diaphragm cell equipment that  was converted to membrane cell technology was
 in poor  operating condition, and  the  conversion to membrane cell technology
 provided  energy  savings as  well as other advantages of membrane cell
 technology.  The membrane part of the plant has been  in operation since
 January  1986, and no major  operating  problems have been reported.
     The  retrofit/conversion of a diaphragm cell  plant to a membrane cell
 plant  requires additional auxiliary  systems, and modifications must be made
 to the existing  systems.  System  additions, independent of the substitution
 option selected, are required  in  three plant processes:  1} brine treatment,
 2) anolyte dechlorination,  and 3} salt evaporation.   Plants that are retro-
 fitted/converted to the membrane  cell technology must install a brine treat-
ment facility to reduce brine  hardness from the 2 to  5 parts per million
 allowed for  diaphragm  cells to 25 to 50 parts per billion.  Ion-exchange
 fixed-bed columns can  provide  the required  treatment.  An anolyte dechlorina-
 tion system  is needed  to remove chlorine from the depleted brine stream before
 resaturation.  Salt evaporation is needed to provide  solid salt for anolyte
resaturation.
     The  existing electrical and  process equipment at the diaphragm cell
plant can be reused with minimal modifications by designing membrane
equipment to match existing equipment.
     The membrane technology has  several advantages over the diaphragm
technology, and membrane technology is considered a viable option when
existing  chlor-alkali  plants are  to be retired.  These advantages will also
make membrane technology the preferred choice at new grass-roots plants,
which will not be faced with the  site-specific factors that affect conversion
of existing diaphragm  plants.  The current  chlor-alkali production and
consumption environment in  the United States, however, is such that these
*
  Personal communication from Mr. Tom Johnston of OxyChem Company, Taft, LA,
  November 29, 1986.
                                      61

-------
advantages alone do not provide adequate incentive for the industry to retire
the existing diaphragm equipment and replace it with the membrane equipment.
The following factors enter into the selection/conversion of equipment in the
chlor-alkali industry:
          Availability of cogeneration equipment to generate the larger
          quantities of steam and electricity required by diaphragm
          equipment.
          Cost of conversion.
          Product quality.
          Useful life and condition of the existing equipment.
          Required raw materials.
          Supply/demand environment.
     Significantly less energy is required at membrane plants than at diaphragm
plants; however, energy consumption is currently not a significant factor at
the chlor-alkali plants in the United States.  Numerous chlor-alkali plants
have a cogeneration facility on site that has been specifically designed to
generate the steam and electricity needed for chlor-alkali production.
Furthermore, the plants that have no cogeneration facilities have negotiated
contracts to obtain electricity at low rates.  The current low energy prices
favor the continued operation of the diaphragm plants and offer little cost-
saving incentive for conversion of these plants to the membrane technology.
Should electricity rates rise significantly above these current levels, the
existing diaphragm plants may seriously investigate possible conversion to
membrane technology.  Also, plants with a cogeneration facility could be
faced with the following problems after conversion to membrane technology:
1) finding alternate uses for extra steam capacity, 2) the need to install
additional power generation equipment at a significant cost, 3} inefficient
operation of the boiler at significantly less than capacity, or 4) shirting
down of the cogeneration facility.
     Installing chlor-alkali plants (diaphragm or membrane) entails large
capital expenditures.   In general, the useful life of chlor-alkali plants has
not been defined; historically, they are operated over a long period by
performing both routine and major maintenance, as needed.  Because conversion.
costs are also significant, plants are expected to continue operating on a
marginally cost-effective basis rather than giving consideration to
converting to membrane technology.
                                      62

-------
     The quality of the caustic produced by membrane cells is superior than
that produced by diaphragm plants; however, the use of better-quality caustic
has no advantages in the United States.  The caustic-consuming processes in
the United States are designed for the quality of the caustic produced by
diaphragm plants, and in most cases, improving the quality will have no cost
benefits.  In Japan, on the other hand, industry is geared to the use of
high-quality caustic because the chlor-alkali industry in Japan used mercury
cells, which also produce higher-quality caustic, before converting first to
diaphragm cells and then to membrane cells.  Caustic quality is currently not
a driving force for a change to membrane cells in the United States.
     The most significant factor affecting the selection of membrane
technology is the useful remaining life and condition of the existing
diaphragm equipment.  If the existing plant equipment is old and no longer
cost-effective to operate and the plant must install new chlor-alkali
production equipment, the membrane technology offers a viable option.  The
general trend in the industry, however, is to operate the existing plants as
long as possible by regularly performing major equipment maintenance.  Those
plants that have very old equipment and inefficient diaphragm cells and are
located in an area where electricity cost is high might find it advisable to
convert to membrane technology.
     The membrane technology requires ultrafine purified brine, whereas
diaphragm plants can work with purified brine.  The majority of the
chlor-alkali plants on the Gulf Coast use well brine.  Additional equipment
would have to be installed to process the brine to make it acceptable for
membrane plants.  In addition, diaphragm plants are once-through plants,
whereas membrane plants operate in a recirculating mode.  If a plant is
located some distance from the source of brine, additional costs would be
incurred to transport the depleted brine to the original source.  In the
United States, most of the technical problems connected with the use of
existing raw material sources at chlor-alkali plants having the membrane
technology have already been solved.
     The chlorine demand in the United States is on the decline, a trend that
is expected to continue because of the regulation prohibiting the use of
chlorine-derived products (e.g., chlorofluorocarbon).  For this reason, some
plants may just be retired when the existing equipment can no longer be
operated cost-effectively.
                                      63

-------
      In  summary,  the current chlor-alkali  industry environment does not offer
 adequate incentive  for all plants to convert to the membrane technology.
 Additional  regulatory factors prohibiting  the use of asbestos would be necessary
 to force the conversion.   In the absence of such factors, it is likely that
 diaphragm-based chlor-alkali plants may continue to operate beyond the year
 2000.  Membrane technology is a viable option when existing plants can no
 longer operate cost-effectively and cost of electricity becomes a major factor.

 CONVERSION  COSTS
      No  plants in the United States have attempted to retrofit diaphragm
 cells to accept ion-exchange membranes.  OxyTech, a U.S. supplier of the
 membrane cell technology, indicates a cost basis of $50,000 to $55,000 per
 metric-ton  day of caustic capacity.  This  cost, which is based on OxyTech's
 experience  with international plants, represents the turnkey cost and
 includes  all the necessary modifications of diaphragm cells and auxiliary
 systems  and the additional systems required for membrane technology.
     OxyTech reported the costs of conversion options to be in the range of
 $85,000  to  $90,000  per metric ton day of caustic capacity.  This firm
 converted Occidental Chemical's plant in Taft, Louisiana, and was also
 involved  in the addition of membrane cell capacity at the Vulcan Materials
 Wichita,  Kansas plant.  The reported costs include the costs of all system
 additions and modifications to the existing systems.
     Table  14-1 shows a breakdown of membrane cell retrofit and conversion
 costs.   PEI generated this cost breakdown by using published percentages3 for
 the individual  cost components and cost basis provided by OxyTech.  The
 assumed  percentages for individual  cost components are also shown in the
 table.   Costs shown are based on a per-ton day of chlorine.
     Japanese vendors have indicated retrofit costs of around $35,000/ton-day
 of chlorine; however, this cost does not include the membrane cost, which
Japanese vendors consider to be part of the operating costs.  Because the
membrane cost accounts for a significant part-of the cost of a membrane cell
 plant, PEI believes the initial  membrane cost should be included in the
capital  costs.
                                      64

-------
             TABLE 14-1.  MEMBRANE CELL RETROFIT/CONVERSION COSTS

Direct Costs
Purchased equipment
Equipment installation
Instrumentation and controls
Piping (installed)
Electrical (installed)
Buildings (including services)
Yard improvements
Service facilities (installed)
Land
Subtotal
Indirect Costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Subtotal
Total fixed-capital investment
Working capital
Total capital investment
Percent
of total

16.3
13.0
2.8
7.8
3.8
3.9
1.0
9.8
.7
59.0

8.5
9.4
3.3
9.8
31.0
90.0
10.0
100.0
Cost,
$ x 1000

15,388
12,310
2,647
7,386
3,570
3,694
923
9,232
615
55,765

8,001
8,925
3,077
9,232
29,235
85,000
9,453
94,453
Percent
of total

12.7
22.5
1.9
4.4
1.9
1.3
.3
6.3
0,0
51.3

12.7
11.4
3.2
11.4
38.6
90.0
10.0
100.0
Cost,
$ x 1000

7,042
12,500
1,056
2,465
1,056
704
176
3,521
0
28,520

7,043
6,338
1,761
6,338
21,480
50,000
5,583
55,583
     Capacities of U.S. chlorine plants vary widely; installed capacity is
generally a function of the onsite chlorine needs.  Based on the costs shown
in Table 14-1, retrofit and conversion costs of a 1000-ton/day plant will be
85 and 50 million dollars, respectively.  Table 14-2 summarizes the costs of
a 1000-ton/day chlorine plant.
     Waste disposal costs for discarded diaphragm cell equipment can be
significant.  The dimensions of a 5-ton/day Hooker H-4 diaphragm cell are
10.2 ft wide by 18.5 long by 7 ft high for a volume of 22.5 yd3.10  Based on
disposal costs of $150/yd3 at a hazardous waste landfill and assuming that
                                      65

-------
the disposal cost accounts for only about 20 percent of the total  cost of
landfilling (the other 80 percent being for loading, transporting, and
unloading the equipment), the total cost of diaphragm cell disposal  would be
$3,400/ton per day of chlorine production capacity.   Assuming a linear
relationship between cell production capacity and the volume disposed of,
disposal of equipment that produces 1000 tons/day would be $3.4 million.   The
disposal of only the interal portion of these cells  (for retrofitting to
membrane technology) would cost about one-third of this amount, or $1.1.
million.
        TABLE 14-2.  INSTALLATION COSTS OF 1000 TONS/DAY CHLORINE PLANT
                              (July 1986 dollars)

                                                Installation cost.
          Option                                  million dollars

Diaphragm plant - greenfield installation3             350
Membrane plant - greenfield installation               300
Retrofitting of diaphragm plant to nonasbestos
 membrane plant                                         56
Conversion of diaphragm plant to nonasbestos
 membrane plant                                         94

a An entirely new plant.

EQUIPMENT RESALE VALUE*
     The cost of a new diaphragm plant is reported to be around $35Q,000/ton-
day of chlorine for a greenfield installation.  Chlorine plant equipment is
custom- designed to meet the proprietary design specifications of individual
companies.  Individually, equipment items have no resale value because of
their specialized design.  The cost of converting a diaphragm plant to a
membrane cell plant includes the costs of removing the old cell equipment and
necessary preparations for the new equipment.  Retrofitting diaphragm cells
  Personal communication from Mr. Thomas J. Navin, Oxytech Systems, Chardon,
  OH, December 5, 1986.
                                      66

-------
to membrane cells may require the cleaning of cell internals; however, these
cleaning costs are not reported to be a major cost item.  The conversion
option would involve no asbestos cleanup because the complete cell assembly
would be replaced.
     The reported cost of a greenfield membrane plant ($300»OOQ/ton-day of
chlorine) is slightly lower than the cost of a diaphragm plant,

GENERAL COMMENTS
     For U.S. plants the continued use of asbestos diaphragm cells appears to
be the most practical alternative.  If the use of asbestos diaphragms is
banned, however, the conversion option is preferred over the retrofit option
because this option permits full utilization of the membrane technology and
will result in fewer cell material failures.  Although initial costs of the
retrofit option are lower than the conversion costs, the conversion option is
expected to be cheaper in the long run.
     Retrofitted/converted plants will be able to use the existing brine
sources; however, additional brine treatment will be required.
     The useful life of a diaphragm plant is reported to be in the range of
20 to 25 years.  Membrane technology appears to be a viable option when
existing capacity is to be replaced.  Without external regulatory pressures,
however, the existing chlor-alkali industry environment does not offer
adequate incentives for switching from diaphragm plants to non-asbestos
technologies.  The membrane technology will be the preferred choice at new
grass-roots plants because these plants will have the advantage of not having
to face the site-specific factors that enter into the conversion of existing
diaphragm plants.
                                      67

-------

-------
                                 REFERENCES
1.   PEI Associates, Inc.  Plant Visit to the Certainteed Asbestos Cement
     Pipe Plant.  Site visit memo.  October 23, 1986,

2.   Economic Indicators.  Chemical Engineering.  Vol. 93, No. 20.
     McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York City.  October 27, 1986.

3.   Peters, M. S,, and K, D. Timmerhaus.  Plant Design and Economics for
     Chemical Engineers.  Third Edition.  McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York
     City.  1980.

4.   PEI Associates, Inc.  Plant Visit to J-M Manufacturing Company.  Site
     visit memo.  October 23, 1986.

5.   Peterson, £. N., Jr.  Building Construction Cost Data 1986.  44th Annual
     Edition.  R. S. Means Company, Inc., Kingston, Massachusetts.  1986.

6.   Jacko, M. G., and S. K. Phee.  Brake Linings and Clytch Facings.  In:
     Kirk Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Third Edition.

7.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Regulatory Impact Analysis of
     Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products.  Economics and Technology
     Division, Office of Pesticides and Toxics Substances, Washington, D.C.
     August 1985.

8.   Kemner, W. F., and F. D. Hall.  Trip Report.  Plant Trip to Calaveras
     Asbestos Ltd.  PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. October 23, 1986.

9.   SRI International.  Chemical Economics Handbook.  1984.

10.  Kirk-Othmar.  Alkali and Chlorine Products.  John Wiley and Sons.  New
     York.  1978.
                                      68

-------

-------
APPENDIX C:  ECONOMICIMPACTSANALYSES

   This appendix presents detailed analyses of the economic impacts of the
regulatory options considered in the R1A,  The specific areas of economic
impacts examined are the impacts of the regulatory alternative on small
business and the economic impacts on communities.  Hence, this detailed
analysis is organized into two sections.  Section 1 presents a detailed
analysis of the small business impacts and Section 2 reports a detailed
assessment of the community impacts of the preferred regulatory alternative,
                                     C-l

-------
    1-   Small Business Impact Analysis- for Primary Processors, of Asbestos

         1.1  Introduction

         The impact on small business of the proposed rulemaking on asbestos
 uses  in industrial and commercial applications  must be  analyzed pursuant to
 the Regulatory Flexibility Act,   As stipulated  in that  act,  a Regulatory
 Flexibility Analysis  (RFA),  including a Small Business  Impact (SBI) Analysis,
 is  required.   The  SBI Analysis  is the subject of this appendix.

    In order to assess the proportion of the costs of regulatory action
 associated with the ban and phasedown^ of asbestos products  absorbed by small
 businesses,* it is necessary to  select an index with which to measure these
 impacts.   For this analysis,  the projected producer surplus  loss has been
 selected as an indication of the costs of regulation borne by producers,

         1-2  Methodology for Assessingthe Impact of AsbestosRegulation
              onSmall Business

         The potential impact of  regulation on small primary  processors of
 asbestos can be estimated by examining the proportion of  the producer surplus
 loss  that can be attributed to small firms.   The producer surplus  losses used
 in  this  analysis are  based on domestic production.   These values are used to
 calculate total producer surplus loss and the portion attributable to small
 firms.

    In 1985,  there  were 48 small  primary processors of asbestos (See Appendix
 F), a  decline of 59 percent from the 118 small  processors that were involved
 in  asbestos production in 1981  (RTI 1985).   These 48 small firms.were mostly
 in  product categories 29 and 30,  Roofing Coatings and Cements and  Non-Roofing
 Coatings,  Compounds,  and Sealants.

    In  1981,  there  were 26 product categories^ that contained primary
 processors of asbestos defined as small businesses.   By 1985,  the  number of
 categories potentially impacted  had dropped to  15.   Table C.l-1  identifies the
 categories that had small businesses in 1981, and the number of small
 businesses within  each category  for 1985.
       The ban/phasedown combination used  in this analysis was selected from
six regulatory alternatives presented as models for asbestos regulation.  The
option selected, preferred section-B, is used in the Asbestos Regulatory Cost
Model to generate the producer surplus losses used in this analysis.
     f\
       The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small businesses as
those that have fewer than a designated number of employees.  The .employee
cut-off is established by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code and
for the categories identified in this analysis is 750 employees, except for
the categories 05, 27, 28, 29, and 30 that have a cut-off of 500 employees,
and category 13 that has a. cut-off of 1,000 employees.

     3 RTI identified 27 product categories with small firms potentially
impacted by regulatory action.  Due to realignment and redefinition of some
product categories for the 1985 survey conducted by ICF, the number of
categories and the products included in certain categories have changed.

                                     C-2

-------
Table C.l-1.   Percentage of 1985 Asbestos Production Held by Small Firms
Product
Number
03
04
05
06
07
08
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Product Description
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater -Add Gaskets
High-Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Specialty Paper
Diaphragms
Asbestos Cement Pipe
Asbestos Cement Flat Sheet
Asbestos Ceaent Corrugated Sheet
Asbestos Cement Shingles
Drum Brake Linings .
Disc Brake Pads (LOT)
Disc Brake Pads (H?)
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Transmission Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Thread, Yarn, and Other Cloth
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roofing Coatings and Cements
Non-Roofing Coatings, Compounds and Sealants
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Number of
Small Firms
in 1985
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
3
4
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
9
18
1
0
2
  Source;  ICF 1986a - Appendix F of this RIA,
                                  C-3

-------
    Once the percentage of product output attributable to small firms has been
calculated, the share of the producer surplus losses borne by these small
businesses can be determined.  For this analysis it has been assumed that all
firms, regardless of size, would incur producer surplus loss in proportion to
their market shares.  The producer surplus losses for small businesses are
calculated by multiplying the producer surplus loss by the percentage of
production held by small firms for each product category.

        1.3  Results

        The total domestic non-mining and milling producer surplus losses for
Regulatory Alternative G (immediate bans of all asbestos products) for each
asbestos category assuming a three percent rate of discount and for low,
moderate, and high rates of decline-* for asbestos production are presented in
Table C.I-2.  Table C.I-3 presents the fraction of these total producer
surplus losses that can be attributed to small firms using the same rates of
decline for asbestos production identified above.

    Of the 15 product categories identified as having small companies, only 13
were expected to incur impacts on small businesses as a result of asbestos
regulation.  The total producer surplus losses for all categories is less than
$3 billion, and less than $30 million for the small businesses in product
       It has been assumed that all firms all experience producer surplus
losses in proportion to their market share (ICF 1987),  Although it is
possible that smaller firms are more efficient and therefore likely to incur
proportionately smaller producer surplus losses, this analysis will assume
that all firms have the same efficiency (this is consistent with previous
analyses).

       The rates of decline used in this analysis are based on the following
assumptions:

        •  high --. the rate of decline will be the same as the
           historical rate from 1981 to 1985 (assumes substitution
           will occur at the same rate as experienced between 1981 and
           1985); and

        •  moderate -- the rate of decline will be 50 percent of the
           high level;

        •  low -- the rate of decline is assumed to have leveled off.
           Product output will, therefore, remain at current levels
           (assumes substitution has already occurred);

        •  the rate of decline for product categories 18 and 19,  Drum
           Brake Linings and Disc Brake Pads (LM?), respectively, are
           calculated using the Brake's Model (ICF 1987) for high,
           moderate,  and low rates of decline.

        •  the production for Categories 7 (Roofing Felt), 13
           (Asbestos Diaphragms),  16 (Asbestos Cement Corrugated
           Sheet), 23 (Automatic Transmission Components), and 32
           (Missile Liner) are assumed to be zero for all scenarios.

                                     C-4

-------
categories with small business Impacts (assuming the largest impact scenario:
low rate of decline and 3 percent discount rate).  The majority of the small
business portion of the producer surplus loss is attributable to product
categories 14 and 17, Asbestos Cement Pipe and Asbestos Cement Shingles,
respectively.
                                     C-5

-------
                         Table C.l-2

 Total Producer Surplus Losses3 for Asbestos Product Categories
                                  Producer Surplus
                                   Loss Assuming
                                    (3 Percent
        Scenario                  Discount Rate)
                                  ($1,000,000's)
Low Rate of Decline                 $2,778.41

Moderate Rat© of Decline             2,769,88

High Rate of Decline                 2,762.04


aThe total producer surplus losses for each asbestos product
category are calculated by the Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model
(ARCM).

Source;   Appendix G of this RIA.
                             C-6

-------
                         Table .C.l-3

  Total Producer Surplus Losses Attributable to Small Firms
                                Producer Surplus
                                 Loss Assuming
                                   (3 Percent
        Scenario                 Discount Eate)
                                 ($1,000,OOO's)
Low Rate of Decline                  29.57
                     *

Moderate Rate of Decline             26,70

High Rate of Decline                 24.06



Source:  Appendix G of this RIA.
                             C-7

-------
     2.  Community  Impacts

     The proposed rule  regulating  the use  and  distribution of asbestos and
asbestos products  can  take any one of  three forms: a staged product ban,
phase-down of asbestos fiber use, or a combination of the two.  Any form of
the  rule has, besides  the economic costs  and  benefits associated with it,
implications for communities in which  plants  manufacturing asbestos products
are  located.  The  severity of the impact  depends  on the nature of the final
rule; for instance, a  product ban may  prompt  some firms to either lay off
workers (if they manufacture a substitute product) or shut down the plant
permanently (if they only manufacture  the asbestos product), while a gradual
phase-down or a delayed product ban may provide enough time for firms to
adjust to the changing market realities without undertaking major changes that
may  severely affect the local communities.

     For this analysis,  we have assumed an immediate product ban will adversely
impact a community in  two different ways; direct  income losses will be
suffered by employees  who would lose their jobs because of a plant shut down,
and  indirect income losses suffered by other  members of the community because
of the lost value  of locally produced  good and services no longer purchased by
the  iaid-off employees.  In contrast,  a gradual phase-down of asbestos use or
a rule that Imposes product bans in 1990  or 1995  are not likely to impact a
community adversely because these rules allow enough time for employees to
find new jobs, obtain  new skills, and  permit  employment levels of affected
companies to be reduced through normal attrition.

     Although EPA is evaluating different  product  ban scenarios based on the
products and the timing of the ban, we have examined the community impact for
a scenario in which eight products are banned immediately.  The products that
were proposed for  an immediate ban under  as least one of the options
considered in the  analysis are;

        •  Roofing Felt (Saturated and Unsaturated}*
        •  Flooring Felt (including Felt-backed Vinyl Sheet Flooring)*
        •  Floor Tile*
        •  Asbestos-Cement Pipe
        •  Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet
        •  Asbestos-Cement Corrugated  Sheet*
        •  Asbestos-Cement Shingles
        •  Cloth Used  for Protective Clothing*

Five of these products, marked with an asterisk,  are no longer produced in the
United States.

      This analysis quantifies the income losses  to workers (direct earnings
losses) and to communities (indirect Income losses) affected by immediate
product bans.   Direct earnings losses  are calculated as the wages that would
have been earned by the Iaid-off workers  in the absence of the product bans
minus the sum of the federal and state Income taxes,  and any unemployment
compensation received.   Indirect Income losses are calculated by applying an
economic multiplier to  the before-tax  earnings losses of the affected workers.
       IGF Incorporated, 1986.  "Survey of Primary and Secondary Processors of
Asbestos,"  Washington, B.C.

                                     C-8

-------
 Other losses,  such as  those  attributable  to  a loss  in human capital  and non-
 pecuniary costs' are recognized and the  factors influencing these  are discussed
 qualitatively,  but these  are not  calculated  quantitatively.   The  remainder of
 this  analysis  is organized into two major sections,  followed by two
 appendices:

         •  Section	2,1  identifies the plants affected by  the immediate
            product bans and  discusses the pecuniary and non-pecuniary
            factors contributing to the  direct earnings losses incurred
            by  employees laid off  and presents the calculations for
            these losses.

         «  Section2.2  presents calculations of the  indirect community
            income losses  due to reduced purchases by the  laid-off
            employees.

         "  AttachmentA presents  economic and demographic profiles of
            each community affected by the immediate  product bans.

         *  Attachment B presents  sample calculations of direct
            earnings losses to  employees and  indirect community income
            losses for a community affected by an immediate product
           ban.

         2.1  Direct EarningsJLoss.es of  Employees

         The proposed ban  of  three of the  asbestos-containing products still
produced in the United  States  will impose costs on  the plant employees  laid
off permanently 'as a result  of the plant's reaction  to the ban.   (Hereafter,
these employees will be referred  to as  the plant employees.)   The purpose of
this  section is to  identify  these costs,  to  review  the. factors that  influence
costs incurred,  and to  quantify costs wherever possible.   Exhibit C.2-1
identifies  the  affected plants, their location, and  the product they
manufacture.  A total of  seven plants might  be affected by the product  bans,
as shown in the exhibit.  These seven plants are located  in four  states.

    Costs  incurred by plant  employees as  a result of the  ban (private labor
dislocation costs) include both pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses.
Pecuniary costs  are lost  earnings  and fringe benefits during the  initial
period of unemployment, and  lost  earnings  thereafter attributable to a  loss in
human capital.*•   These costs are  usually measured as the  difference  between
what the  plant  employees would have earned in the absence of the product ban
and what  they will earn if the  product  bans  are imposed.    Lacking employee-
specific  data,  it is possible  to  quantify  only the earnings  loss during the
initial period  of unemployment.   Lost earnings  thereafter attributable  to a
loss in human capital and non-pecuniary costs,  frequently referred to as
psychic costs,  are only qualitatively assessed.
     t\
       Plant employees who will be laid off as a result of the product ban
might be unable to market their full range of skills to new employers and
hence would receive lower wages in subsequent jobs.  The difference in wages
received is attributed to a "loss in human capital" and is discussed later in
greater detail.

                                     C-9

-------
           Exhibit C.2-1.   Plants Affected'by Immediate Product Bans
      Company
    PlantJLocation
 City           State
                    Product Manufactured
 Capco Pipe  Company

 Certain-Teed
   Corporation

 J. M.  Mfg.
   Corporation

 Nicolet,  Inc.

 Supradur  Mfg.
   Corporation

 J. M.  Mfg.
   Corporation

'Certain-Teed
   Corporation
Van Buren

Riverside


Stockton


Ambler

Wind Gap


Denison
Arkansas

California


California
Texas
Hillsboro    Texas
Asbestos-Cement Pipe

Asbestos-Cement Pipe


Asbestos-Cement Pipe
Pennsylvania    Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet

Pennsylvania    Asbestos-Cement Shingles
Asbestos-Cement Pipe
                Asbestos-Cement Pipe
 Source:   IGF  Incorporated,  1986,   "Survey of Primary  and Secondary  Processors
           of  Asbestos."   Washington,  D.C,  Appendix F  of this  RIA.
                                     C-10

-------
              2.1.1   Loss  in Earnings  During Initial Period of Unemployment

              Plant  employees would suffer a loss in disposable income  because
 they would lose  their jobs  following  imposition of the product ban to  the time
 when they would  be  reemployed or withdraw from the labor force (labor  force
 withdrawal is discussed in  detail below) .   This loss consists of wages (net of
 taxes)  over the  period of unemployment minus any transfer benefits received,
 such as union severance benefits,  unemployment compensation,  and welfare.

     Lost gross wages consist of  the wages  the plant employees would have
 continued to receive over the period  of unemployment if they  had not been laid
 off.  Because the wages of  the individual  plant employees are unknown,  average
 weekly  earnings  for asbestos products (SIC 3292) employees are used as a
 proxy.   It is assumed that  the laid-off employees would have  continued to earn
 this  wage in the absence  of the  ban,  i.e,  no adjustments to this wage  are
 incorporated in  the calculations regardless of the unemployment duration.  In
 1985, average weekly earnings of production workers were obtained  from the
 Supplement to Employment  and Earnings and were estimated to be $420. 85. 3
 Supervisory and  non-production worker (hereafter referred to  as supervisory
 workers)  wages in this  SIC  were  not available from the same source, so they
 are estimated by using  1985 wages  reported in the Annual .. Survey of '
 Manufacturers and assuming  that  the ratio  of supervisory to production worker
 wages are the same  as  in  the other source.^' •>  The average weekly  earnings for
 supervisory workers were  estimated to be  $596.57 in 1985. 6

    Average gross weekly  wages that plant  employees would have earned  over the
 initial period of unemployment overstate actual losses;  these earnings must be
 reduced by the amount of  federal and  state income taxes that  would have been


        U.S.  Department  of Labor,  1986.  Supplement to Employment; and Earnings .
 June  1986.   Bureau  of Labor Statistics.  Washington,  D.C.
           Annual Survey of Manufacturers . -1985, published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, B.C., provides data
on production workers and total employees.  The data  for supervisory and non-
production workers are derived froa this  information.  These two categories
are combined and referred to as "supervisory workers"  in this analysis since
average earnings of all non-production workers (including supervisors) is
derived using the information on total and production payrolls; total and
production employees; and hours worked by production  workers in SIC 3292.

       Plants already producing a substitute product  are assumed not to shut
down, but to lay off employees associated with the production of the banned
asbestos product.  Affected plants producing only the  asbestos product are
assumed to shut down and lay off all employees.  In the latter case, the
employees other than those in the production or supervisory categories are
referred to as "non-production" workers and are treated identically to
supervisory workers since an average wage for both is  used.

       Including all non-production workers in the supervisory category is
reasonable because the wages of this group are derived by dividing the total
compensation of all non-production workers by the total amount of such
workers.  Hence,  the wage figure used here is actually the weighted 'average
wage of actual supervisory workers and other non-production workers.

                                    C-ll

-------
paid had  the  plant  employees not been  laid  off.  Presumably,  the plant
employees would continue  to pay local  property  tax and  sales  tax, although
sales  tax would be  at  lower levels.

    1987  Federal tax tables are used to  calculate the federal  income  taxes
plant  employees would  have paid in the absence  of the product  ban.
Exhibit C.2-2 summarizes  the estimated income taxes paid by plant employees.
Assuming  the  plant  employees have unemployed spouses and two dependents, the
average weekly federal tax paid by production workers is estimated to be
$38.90 per week for an annual  income of  $21,884.20.  For supervisory  workers
the figure is estimated to be  $65.25 per week for an annual income of
$31,021.64.   Similar calculations of state  income taxes paid by plant
employees are done  using  1986  state tax  tables  for the  four states involved.

    In addition,  while unemployed, the plant employees would receive
unemployment  compensation and, in some cases, union severance  benefits and
welfare payments.   Weekly unemployment compensation is calculated for each
state  where an affected plant  is located.   Given the level of  the average
annual salary,  these employees would be  eligible to receive maximum weekly
benefits.  Exhibit  C.2-3  summarizes the  relevant unemployment  compensation
data by state.'

    Since no  standard  provisions exist for  union severance benefits across
industries, they are not  incorporated  in the estimate of lost  earnings, nor
are any welfare benefits.  To  the extent that the asbestos employees  would
receive these benefits, this analysis  overstates earnings losses.  "On the
other  hand, this  analysis also does not  quantitatively account for losses in
fringe benefits.  This omission works  in the other direction.  Exhibit C.2-4
provides a summary  of  gross weekly earnings, weekly federal and state income
taxes, and weekly unemployment compensation benefits for each  state in which
affected plants  are located.

    Employee  income losses over the immediate period of unemployment  depend on
the duration  of unemployment as well as  on  the  reduction in disposable income.
Despite the scarcity of data describing  the personal characteristics  of the
plant  employees,  it is possible to draw  general conclusions regarding the
effect of demographic  characteristics  on the duration of unemployment.  In
general, young male employees with transferable skills find new employment
more quickly  than older male or female employees.  Persons in  the latter
category are  more- likely  to drop out of  the labor force after  an initial job
search than persons in the former category.^
       Unemployment compensation, or at least some portion of it, may be
subject to income tax.  However, this depends on the amount of benefits
received and the total income in the tax year. Since the timing of the
unemployment and the wages in the new jobs are not known, it is not feasible
to make the relevant calculations.  Furthermore, given the tax rates, the
amount of tax, if any, is likely to be small,

     °  Jacobson.L. and Thomason, J., 1979.  "Earnings Loss Due to
Displacement."  The Public Research Institute.  Under contract to the U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.  Contract J-9-M-9-0042.
                                     C-12

-------
                 Exhibit C.2-2,  Summary Table for State and  Federal  Income  Tax
States
Arkansas
Cal Ifornla
Pennsylvania
Texas
Class
Production
Supervisory
Product Ion
Supervisory
Production
Supervl sory
Production
Supervisory
Annual8
Wage
(dol tars}
21,884.20
31,021,64
21 ,884,20
31 ,021,64
21 ,884.20
31 ,021.64
21 ,884.20
31 ,021.64
Annual*1
Federal Tax
(dol lars)
2,022.80
3,393.00
2,022.80
3,393.00
2,022.80
3,393.00
2,022.80
3,393.00
Annual c
State Tax
(dol lars}
846 . 04
1 , 454 . 44
279 . 24
708 . 76
481 .52
682.24
n/a
Annua I
State and
Federal Tax
(dol lars}
2,868.84
4,847.44
2 , 302 . 04
4, 101 .78
2,504.32
4,075.24
2.022.80
3,393.00
Weekly
State and
Federal
Tax
(dol lars}
55.17
93.22
44,27
78.88
48.16
78.37
38.90
65.25
a1985 figures.
b Based on tax tables for 1987 and assumed that the plant employee  1s married  and  has  an
  unemployed spouse and two dependent children.  Personal deduction for  each dependent 1s
  $1,900.
c State taxes are based on 1986 state tax tables.
a n/a t not applicable — the State of Texas has no state Income  tax.

Sources  Syppletngnt to Employment andi EarnIngs, June,  1986.

-------
           Exhibit C.2-3.  Summary of Unemployment Compensation

State
Arkansas
California
Pennsylvania
Texas

Worker Class
Production
Supervisory
Production
Supervisory
Production
Supervisory
Production
Supervisory
Plant
Employee
Average
Yearly Wage
(dollars)
21,884.20
31,021.64
21,884.20
' 31,021.64
21,884.20
31,021.64
21,884.20
31,021.64

Average
Weekly
Benefitsa
(dollars)
97.80
111.91
153. 66C
139-.31

Wai tine Number
Period" of Weeks
One Week 26 Weeks
One Week 26 Weeks
One Week 26 Weeks
One Week 26 Weeks
alt is assumed that worker's yearly wage is evenly distributed throughout
the base period.  Also, both production workers and the others are qualified
for maximum weekly benefits based on their yearly wages.  A worker is
assumed to be married and have two children.

 This is the period between the laid-off workers applying for unemployment
benefits and starting to receive them. It is assumed that workers will be
compensated for the "waiting period", even though the benefits are delayed.

cThis amount includes the maximum weekly benefit of $142.66 plus $5
allowance for dependent spouse and $3 for each dependent child.

Sources;  Supplement toEmployment and Earnings. June 1986.  U.S.
          Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
          Transcribed telephone conversation with Lynn Webb on February 5,
          1987.
                                  C-14

-------
              Exhibit C.2-4.  Lost Weekly Earnings and Offsets
                            of Plant Employees by State
                               Weekly Gross
                                 Earnings
                               of SIC 3292
  Applicable
Weekly Federal
   Weekly
Unemployment
State
Arkansas
California
Pennsylvania
Texas
Worker Class
Production
Supervisory
Production
Supervisory
Production
Supervisory
Production
Supervisory
Employees
420.85
596.57
420.85
596.57
420.85
596.57
420.85
596.57
and State Tax
55.17
93.22
44.27
78.88
48.16
78.37
38.90
65.25
Compensation3
97.80
97.80
111.91
111.91
153. 66b
153.66
139.31
139.31
aWeekly unemployment compensation is received for a maximum 26 weeks for
the states listed above, and there is a one-week waiting period before
benefits are received.

"This amount includes the maximum weekly benefit of $142.66 plus $5 allowance
for dependent spouse and $3 for each dependent child.

Sources;.  Supp.lement to Emp 1 oyiaent and Earnings. June 1986.  U.S. Department
of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,  Transcribed telephone
conversation with Lynn Webb on February 5, 1987.
                                    C-15

-------
    The duration of unemployment is a  function of both the demographic
characteristics of the plant employees and regional factors characterizing the
communities in which the plants are located.   However, since data on average
unemployment duration for each community are not available, a percentage
distribution by unemployment duration  of the unemployed labor force, for each
state in which affected plants are located, is used (Exhibit C.2-5),  The
upper bound in each category is assumed to be the unemployment duration for
that percentage of the production and  supervisory workers.^

    The final step in estimating the earnings lost by plant employees during
the initial period of unemployment is  to combine the data discussed to this
point.  Exhibit C.2-6 shows the anticipated number of employees laid off in
each worker category because of an immediate product ban.  The anticipated
action by each plant is assumed to be  "shut down" if they manufacture only the
banned asbestos product, and "lay off" otherwise.  In case of a "shut down",
all employees at the plant are assumed to be laid off. ^  The actual
distribution by unemployment duration  of employees laid-off (based on the
percentage distribution shown in Exhibit C.2-5) is shown in Exhibit C.2-7.
The number of employees in each unemployment duration category is calculated
by applying the relevant percentage to the anticipated lay-offs for each
worker category (Exhibit C.2-6) and rounding off to the nearest whole
number.

    Direct earnings losses by class of employee (supervisory or production) in
each affected community are calculated by multiplying net weekly earnings
(gross earnings minus state and federal taxes, and unemployment compensation
for the appropriate duration) by the appropriate duration of unemployment, and
then by the number of plant employees  laid-off.    Total earnings losses are
shown in Exhibit C.2-8, which indicates that direct earnings losses would
average $331,599.33 per plant and $4,970.44 per employee.
     * Jacobson and Thomason, 1979, op, cit.
     •I A
     J-  The upper bound is used to account for the worst case, consistent with.
our worst case hypothesis.  For the "> 27 weeks" category it is assumed to be
52 weeks.

        The non-production employees, i.e., the total number of employees at
the plant minus the'sum of production and supervisory workers for the asbestos
product, are classified along with supervisory workers since an average wage
for non-production and supervisory workers is used, as discussed in the text above,
     "I f\
     *•*• In cases where this results in a total different from the anticipated
number of lay-offs in either worker category, the adjustment is made by
allocating the difference to the "52 weeks" category (if the rounded-off total
is less than the anticipated actual) or by taking the difference off the "5
weeks" category (if the rounded-off total is greater than the anticipated
actual).

     1 *^
        A sample calculation is shown in Appendix B.
                                     CMS

-------
   Exhibit C.2-5.  Distribution of Unemployment Duration by State
Percentage Distribution of the Unemployed^
Labor Force bv Unenrolovment Duration
State
Arkansas
California
Pennsylvania
Texas
<5 Weeks
47.6
46.2
37.4
51.0
5-14 Weeks
31.0
30.3
30.6
29.5
15-27 Weeks
10.3
11 . 9-
13.0
10.3
>27 Weeks
11.1
11.6
19.0
9.2
aThe upper bound Is used as the unemployment duration for all
categories.  For the "> 27 weeks" category the unemployment
duration is assumed to be 52 weeks.

Source:  U.S.  Department--of Labor, Geographical Profile of
         Employment and Unemployment.  1985.
                            C-17

-------
                                  Exhibit C.2-6.  Summary of  Employee  Lay-Qffs  by Plant
Total
Emp t oyees
Plant Location
Van Buren, AR
Riverside, CA
Stockton, CA
Ambler, PA
Wind Gap, PA
Den 1 son, TX
Hlllsboro, TX
Product at Plant
A-C
A-C
A-C
A-C
A-C
A-C
A~C
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Flat Sheet
Shingles
Pipe
Pipe
74
100
175
40
101
204
60
Total
Production
Workers
at Plant
55
70
95
35
85
164
39
Production
Workers
for Asbestos
Product
SS
70
60
12
85
47
39
Supervisory
Workers
for Asbestos Anticipated
Product
10
10
5
2
16
6
6
Action
Shut Down
Shut Down
b
Lay Off
Lay Off
Shut Down
Lay Off
Shut Down
Production
Workers
La1d~0ff
55
70
60
12
85
47
39
Supervisory8
Workers
La1d~0ff
19
30
5
2
16
6
21
8 Includes non-production workers  laid off when a plant shuts down.
  Plant does not shut down because 1t also manufactures substitute product.

Source;  Transcribed telephone conversations and documented  correspondence with  company  personnel

-------
          Exhibit C.2-7.   Distribution of Employees Laid-Off
                      by Unemployment Duration8
                                  Number of Employees by Duration
                                  	of Unemp 1 o yment
Plant Location  Worker Type   5 Weeks   14 Weeks   27 Weeks   52 Weeks
Van Bur en, AR

Riverside, CA


Stockton, CA

Ambler, PA

Wind Gap, PA

Denison, TX

Hillsboro, TX

Production
Supervisory
Production
Supervisory
*
Production
Supervisory
Production
Supervisory
Production
Supervisory
Production
Supervisory
Production
Supervisory '
26
9
32
14

28
2
4
1
32 •
f>
24
3
20
11
17
6
21
9

18
1
4
1
26
5
14
1
11
6
6
2
8
4

7
1
2
0
11
2
5
I
4
2
6
2
9
3

7
1
2
0
16
3
4
1
4
2
aThe numbers presented in this table are rounded off to the nearest
whole number.  In cases where this results in a. total different from
the anticipated number of lay-offs in either worker category, the
adjustment is made by allocating the difference to the "52 weeks"
category (if the rounded-off total is less than the anticipated
actual) or by taking the difference off the "5 weeks" category (if
the rounded-off total is greater than the anticipated actual).
                                 C-19

-------
             Exhibit C.2-8.  Direct Earnings Losses of Employees


Type of Product
Asbestos -Cement Pipe
Asbestos -Cement Flat Sheet
Asbestos -Cement Shingles
Total

Number
of
Plants
5
1
1
7

Number of
Production
Workers
271
12
85
368

Number of
Supervisory
Workersa
81
2
16
99
Direct
Earnings
Losses
of Employees
(dollars )
1,701,748.75
66,476.92b
552,969.61
2,321,195.28
aThis includes supervisory and non-production workers laid off.




"A sample calculation for this entry is presented in Attachment B.
                                    C-20

-------
              2.1'. 2   Loss  of_Fringe Benefits.

              Although not usually included In employees'  income,  fringe
 benefits  such as  medical,  dental,  and life insurance,  and pension benefits can
 be  significant losses when employees  are  laid off permanently.  The loss of
 fringe  benefits to  plant  employees nay be quantified as  the  difference between
 cost of these benefits to plant employees and the cost of these benefits to
 unemployed  individuals.

     The cost  of insurance to  employees is usually extremely  small because of
 group rates.   Hence,  the  cost of losing insurance coverage equals the
 difference  in premiums paid by the worker when employed  at the plant (usually
 negligible) and premium required to continue  the  same  coverage when
 unemployed.   However,  the costs in terms  of lost  insurance coverage could be
 lower if  the  plant  employees  could be covered at  no  extra cost on their
 spouses'  policies,

     Finally,  plant  employees  laid-off may also suffer  losses  of pension
 benefits.   Older  employees will suffer a  disproportionate loss, especially
 under defined benefit pension plans.   However,  because of wide variations of
 pension plan  provisions and lack of precise data,  these  are not quantified
 here.

              2,1.3   Lossin Human Capital

              Plant  employees  who would be laid-off as  a  result of the product
 ban are also  likely to suffer a loss  in human capital.   Plant employees would
 be  unable to  market their  full range  of skills  to new  employers and hence
 would receive  lower wages  in  subsequent jobs.   Two factors are primarily
 responsible for any loss  in human capital:  low transferability of skills from
 asbestos production to other  occupations  and  loss  of union rent.  Unions
 frequently are  able  to negotiate greater  than competitive wages.  The
 difference between  these wages and competitive  wages is  termed union rent.^
 The  impact of each  of these factors on plant  employees is discussed below.

    While employed  at  asbestos plants,  employees may have acquired skills
valuable  to employers.  The more specific these skills are to the occupation,
 the more  likely these  employees are to earn higher wages.  Following
 imposition of  the ban, plant  employees would  be unable to find similar jobs
because all such production in the U.S. would be prohibited.  Hence, these
workers would not be  able  to  market their full  range of skills and, as a
 result,  would not command  the same  level  of earnings until they were retrained
 in new  occupations.

    Such a loss in human capital is predominantly  a  function  of age, when age
 is a proxy for tenure.  Employee sex  and  race play lesser roles.  Older
workers would  suffer  the largest loss  in  human  capital as, in general,  they
have acquired  the greatest  amount  of  occupation-specific  skills.  In contrast,
young workers with  low tenure  have  less to  lose, and so the difference in
earnings between their asbestos  occupation  and  subsequent jobs is likely to be
        Jacobson and Thomason 1979, op, clt,

                                     C-21

-------
very small.  Transient workers who frequently change from one job to another
would also suffer low losses in human capital as a result of the ban. ^

    This loss in human capital may be particularly severe in the asbestos
industry not only because employees in this industry are older on average, but
also because they have a relatively long tenure.  Male employees in SIC 329
(stone, clay, and glass products) had an average tenure of 5.7 years on their
current job in January 1981.  This contrasts with the average tenure for men
of 3.9 years in all mm-agricultural industries.  Female employees in SIC 329
had a relatively long tenure of 3.5 years in January 1981, compared to a
non-agricultural industry average of 2.5 years for female employees, °

    Loss of union rent is another factor which contributes to loss in human
capital.  According to available estimates, 82 percent of production workers
in SIC 329 are represented by labor organizations.^  However, only 61 percent
of manufacturing employees as a whole are represented by labor
organizations. "  Those plant employees unable to obtain another unionized job
would lose earnings and benefits above the competitive level obtained by
unions.

    Loss of human capital may also lead some employees to withdraw from the
labor force.  As plant employees search for other jobs following imposition of
a product ban, they might find that wages in alternative jobs are lower than
the value of leisure time or time spent otherwise occupied at home.  In this
case employees would be likely to withdraw from the labor force.  This
situation would be most likely to occur for older workers close to retirement -
age and for secondary earners having .the option not to work for compensation.
Although this analysis does not quantify the employees' loss of human capital,
it is important to- note how it should be measured for employees who may
withdraw from the labor force.  These employees would choose not to be
employed in an alternative job because they would place a higher value on
non-work related uses of their time.  Hence, their earnings should not be
measured as zero following imposition of the ban.' lather, their loss in human
capital should be measured as the difference in wages they would have received
in the absence of the product ban.and wages they will receive in alternative
employment. "
     15 Holen, A., Jehn, C., and Trost, R.P., 1981. "Earnings Losses of
Workers Displaced by Plant Closings."  The Public Research Institute.  Under
contract to the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of
Labor, Washington, D.C.  Contract J-9-K-6-0016.

     *-° U.S. Department of Labor, 1983'.  Job Tenure and ^Occupational Change.
1981.  Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Washington, D.C.

     17 Freeman, R.B., and Medoff, J.L., 1979.  "New Estimates of Private
Sector Unionism in the United States."  Industrial and^L^^ox^Rili^Qns^jE^vljiy.
Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 143-174.

     1 R
     xo U.S. Department of Labor, 1981.  Earnings and Other	.-Characteristics of
Organized Workers. May 1980.  Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Washington, D.C.

     •*•' Jacobson-and Thomason 1979, op. cit.

                                     C-22

-------
             2.1.4  Psychic Costs

             Psychic costs Include mental and physical suffering brought about
by involuntary  loss of employment.  Psychic costs range from a dissatisfaction
with having to  leave familiar surroundings to find a new job, to severe mental
and physical health problems.  These costs are particularly severe for
middle-aged men facing family responsibilities.  According to Dr. M. Harvey
Brennen of Johns Hopkins University, a. one percent increase in unemployment
directly accounts for a 4.3 percent increase in men and a 2.3 percent increase
in women entering mental hospitals, a 4.1 percent increase in suicides, a 5.7
percent increase in murders, 4 percent increase in the population of state
prisons, and, over a 6-year period, a 1.9 percent increase in the number of
persons dying from stress-related illnesses such as heart disease and
cirrhosis of the liver.^

        2.2  IndirectCommunity	IncomeLosses

        This section addresses the potential economic effects of the proposed
product ban on  the communities in which the employees of the affected plants
live and work.  As was the case with direct earnings losses, additional losses
due to the fiber cap are not expected to be significant and are not included
in this analysis.  For each affected community, two economic effects are
assessed:  (1)  bans would affect local economies differently based on
differences in  their unemployment rates and industry mixes; and (2) indirect
economic losses would be borne by each community as a result of the proposed
bans (excluding lost earnings of plant employees) because of the lost value of
locally-produced goods and services which employees would not buy after a
product ban.

    The significance to each community of a plant closing to the local
economic base is a unique situation.  A number of standard economic variables
are available for defining a local economic base.  General economic variables
reviewed include geographic location, land area, population, population
density, and local unemployment rates.  Attachment A provides a description of
each community  In which a plant affected by the product bans is located.  The
names and locations of the affected plants are listed In Exhibit C.2-1.

    The second  group of economic effects would be indirect community income
losses.  This study made use of the economic multiplier furnished by the
Department of Commerce to calculate the local indirect economic consequences
of plant closings, ^  These consequences would include reduced sales by local
businesses of locally-produced goods and services to workers and to the plant.
On a national level, for every $1 of income lost to employees in SIC 3292,
employees in other SIC codes lose $0.83 which would have been spent on U.S.
     20 Batt, W.L., 1983.  "Canada's Good Example with Displaced Workers".
Harvard BusinessmiReview. vol. 4, pp. 6-22.

     91
     *•*• Richard B. Miller, Regional Economic Analysis Division, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, B.C. provided the
multiplier, based on the Department's Regional Industrial Multiplier System
(RIMS) input-output model, In a transcribed telephone conversation on March 3,
1987.
                                     C-23

-------
made food, clothing, services, and  other goods,   (Income  losses suffered by
employees  in SIC 3292 are estimated above.)

   Generally, losses would vary  in  proportion to  the self-sufficiency of each
community.  A closed economy which  depends heavily on purchases by local
citizens of locally-produced products would suffer more from a plant closing
than one which imports heavily from other areas,  As a nation, the United
States is  a relatively closed economy.  Communities are significantly less
self-sufficient than the nation because many of the- goods and services they
purchase are produced elsewhere and little value  is added locally.  However,
the national economic multiplier is used here as  an upper bound.  To determine
the income loss in SIC codes other  than 3292, the multiplier is applied to the
before-tax earnings loss of asbestos employees laid-off as a result of the
ban.  (The multiplier incorporates  tax and savings factors.)  These earnings
losses are calculated by multiplying the gross weekly wages minus the relevant
unemployment compensation per employee times the  number of employees laid-off
and then times the number of weeks  each individual is expected to be out of
work.  Indirect community income losses are shown in Exhibit C.2-9.22

   Exhibit C.2-10 shows the total income losses attributable to immediate
product bans,  An estimated $4.6 million will be  lost, in terms of direct and
indirect income losses to the affected workers and communities, due to'the
immediate product bans.
     22
        A sample calculation is shown in Appendix B.

                                     C-24

-------
        Exhibit C.2-9.   Indirect Community Income Losses
Type of Plant
(dollars)
Asbestos-Cement Pipe
Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet
Asbestos -Cement Shingles
Total
Number of
Plants
5
1
1
7
Indirect Community
Income Losses
1,648,225.81
65,765.37a
545,204.42
2,259,195.60
aA sample calculation for this entry is presented in  Attachment
B.
                             C-25

-------
            Exhibit C.2-1G.  Total Income Losses Attributable
                        to Imnediate Product Bans

Direct
Earnings Indirect
Number Losses Community Total
of of Employees Income Losses Income Losses
Product Plants (dollars) (dollars) (dollars)
A-C Pipe 5
A-C Flat Sheet 1
A-C Shingles 1
Total ' 7
1,701,748.75 1,648,225.81 3,349,974.56
66,476.92 65,765.37 132,242.29s
552,969.61 545,204.42 1,098,174.03
2,321,195.28 2,259,195.60 4,580,390.88
aA sample calculation for this entry is presented in Attachment B.
                                  C-26

-------
REFERENCES
IGF Incorporated,  1986a (July-December).   Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic.  Washington, B.C.  Appendix F for
this RIA.

IGF Incorporated.  1987.  Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model and Brakes Model.
Washington, B.C.  Appendix A of this RIA.

ETI.  1985.  Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos.  Prepared for
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No. 20-8510620.
                                    C-27

-------
ATTACHMENT A:  DESCRIPTIONS OF PLANTS AND COMMUNITIES WHICH MAY BE
               AFFECTED BY THE PRODUCT BAN
    This attachment discusses the plants of domestic primary processors which
would be affected by the proposed immediate product bans and the communities
in which they are located.  It does not describe other plants and communities
which could be affected by the fiber cap, such as miners and millers, other
primary processors (i.e., those not banned), secondary processors, and
importers .

    The basic units of analysis for this study are counties.  The Bureau of
the Census, Population Division, Journey- to-Work and Migration Statistics
Branch provided unpublished 1980 census data listing the places of residence
of persons who worked in the counties where the plants are located.  The data
include the total number of workers commuting to each county and the number of
workers traveling there from each county of residence,

    This study assumes that the commuting patterns .of plant workers parallel
those of the "average" worker in the plant county and that the Impact of total
or partial plant shutdowns would thus be felt in the counties from which at
least 68.3 percent of all workers in the plant county traveled (one standard
deviation from a normal distribution).  In most cases, one or two counties
alone accounted for far more than 68,3 percent of a county's workforce.

    Exhibit C.A-1 lists the counties which comprise the communities which
would be affected by the proposed ban.  As Exhibit C.A-1 illustrates, the
affected communities vary widely with respect to geographic location, land
area, and population density.  The following section of this chapter will
provide additional details about these communities which illustrate the
differences among them.

    The following discussion of individual communities is divided into three
groups.  The first group consists of communities in which asbestos -cement pipe
manufacturers are located.  The second consists of communities In which
asbestos -cement flat sheet manufacturers are located.  The third group
consists of communities in which manufacturers of asbestos -cement shingles are
located.

    The following Is a brief description of the data sources for the
discussion of communities.  The statistics on population, land area, SIC
industry breakdowns by community, and local payrolls are provided by the
Bureau of the Census.  Specifically:

        •  1980 List of Workplaces and Residences;  Unpublished Census
           Data.23
        •  Land Area:  l£X7^.SA.£y_sn^
     9 *?
        Transcribed telephone conversation with Gloria Swikowski of Journey-
to -Work and Migration Statistics Branch, Population Division, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, D.C,,. on February 11, 1987.
                                     C-28

-------
                                             Exhibit C.A-1•   Definition of Communities
Company
Asbestos-Cement Pipe Plants
Capco Pipe Company
Van Buren, AL
Certain-Teed Corporation
Riverside, CA
J. M. Manufacturing Corporation
Stockton, CA
J. M. Manufacturing Corporation
Den 1 son, TX
C^rta1n~T0©d Corporation
Hi 1 tsboro, TX
Ajjibestos-Ceme.nt^FljBit Sheet Plants
Nlcolet, Incorporated
Ambler, Pft
Counties In
Plant County Community Area
Crawford, AR Crawford, A8
Riverside, CA Riverside, CA
San Joaquln, CA San Joaquln, CA
Grayson, TX Gray son, TX
Hill, TX Hill, TX

Montgomery, PA Montgomery. PA
Philadelphia, PA
Land Area
(Square Mi !es)
596
7,176
1,412
940
1,010

498
126
Populat Ion
(19B5)
40,500
820,600
418,300
96,700
27,400

663 , 200
1,637,400
Total Community
Populat Ion
40,500
820.600
418,300
96,700
27,400

2,300,600
Asbestos-Cement Sh1n8leSPlants

Suprador Manufacturing Corporation
  Wind Gap, PA
Northampton, PA    Northampton, PA
376
            231,400
231,400

-------
         «   1985 Population:  1985 Estimates  of County Population
            and U.ISI;I^Bureau ofr-Census....  County Division. -

         *   1984 Employees and Establishments by SIC Code:  County
            BusinessPatterns.

    The  number of employees by plant was obtained from ICF's 1986 Survey of
Primary  and Secondary Processors of Asbestos.  Unemployment rates by county
for October 1986 are provided by the Bureau  of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department  of Labor, ^

    1.   Communltieg with Asbestos-.Cement Pipe Plants

    The  following five community descriptions discuss areas where
asbestos-cement pipe plants are located.  One of the plants is located in
Arkansas, two in California, and two in Texas.

         a.  VanBuren.Arkansas

         The Capco Pipe Company plant in Van  Buren, Arkansas is one of 46
manufacturing establishments in Crawford County.  Crawford County is defined
as a self-contained commuting area since about 77 percent of those who work in
the county  also live there.

    Van  Buren is a small town in western Arkansas and not within commuting
distance of any major city.  Crawford  County's population in 1985 was 40,500
with a density of 68 people per square mile.  As Exhibits C.A-2 and C.A-3
show, there were 2,971 manufacturing jobs in the county in 1984 with the
largest manufacturing employees being  the food processing; and stone, clay and
glass industries.  Unemployment in October 1986 was 7.1 percent.

    Crawford .County is a rural county where  job opportunities are limited,
manufacturing plants tend to be very small,  and there are no major
metropolitan areas within commuting distance.  The number of plant employees
laid off in Van Buren following imposition of the ban would be 74 lay-offs
(2,5 percent of local manufacturing jobs).   The total annual payroll of
Crawford County was $81.1 million in 1984 according to U.S. Bureau of Census,
County Business Patterns.

        b.  Riverside.California

        Riverside is a relatively self-contained city and county about 50
miles southwest of Los Angeles.  About 86 percent of the people who work in
Riverside County (population 820,600) also live there.  It is the home of a
Certain-Teed Corporation plant included in this study, one of 746
manufacturing establishments in the county.

    Riverside's population density is  114 people per square mile and the major
employers are the retail trade and service industries,  Within the
manufacturing sector (see Exhibits C.A-4 and C.A-5), about one-third of the
jobs are in the electric/electronic and transportation equipment industries.
   •  ^  Transcribed telephone conversation with "Valerie Laedlein, U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, B.C., on February 1, 1987.

                                     C-30

-------
               Exhibit C.A-2 .  Local Economic Base of Van Buren, Arkansas Commuting Area  (!984)a
                  Sector
Number of
Employees
  Percent of
Total Employees
   Number of
EstabiIshments
Agricultural Services. Forestry, Fisheries
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation and Other Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retal1 Trade
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
Services
Nonclasslflabte Establishments

   TOTAL
   0-19
  20-99
    227
  2,971
    303
    461
  1.1B5
    189
  1,125
    114

  6.630
      b
     0.3-1,
     3.4
    44,8
     4,6
     7.0
    17.9
     2.9
    17.0
     1.7
      3
      8
     53
     46
     37
     36
    150
     25
    128
     61

    547
a Percent In the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this community.  These
  totals do not reflect 100 percent of Industry employees 1n the community because of reporting methods.
  The figures and totals In the first and third columns were provided by the Census Bureau.  These figures
  do not add up to the totals, nor do the Individual percentage figures add up to 100 percent.

b Less than 1 percent of total.
Sources  County Business Patterns, U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
                     Exhibit C.A-3.  The Manufacturing Sector of Van Buren, Arkansas Commuting Area  (1984)8
SIC
                             Industry
                                                  Number of
                                                  Employees
                    Percent of Total
                 Manufacturing Employees
                         Number of
                       EstablIshments
20
23
24
25
27
32
33
34
Food and Kindred Products
Apparel and Other Textiles Products
Lumber and Wood Products
Furniture and Fixtures
Printing and Publishing
Stone, Clay and Gtass Products
Primary Metal Industries
Fabricated Metal Products

   TOTAL
  1,508
  20-99
100-249
    242
  20-99
250-499
100-249
100-249

  2,97)
50.8
0.7-3.3
3.4-8.4
8.1
0.7-3.3
8.4-16.8
3.4-8.4
3.4-8.4
10
 1
 6
 6
 4
 2
 I
 2

46
  Percent In the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this community.  These totals do not reflect
  100 percent of Industry employees In the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and totals 1n the first and
  third columns were provided by the Census Bureau.  These figures do not add up to the totals, nor do the Individual percentage
  figures add up to 100 percent.
Sources  County Bus 1 ness Pat terns. U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
           Exhibit C.A-4 -  Local Economic Basa of Siverslde, California Commuting Area (19S4}a
Sector
Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fisheries
Mining
Contract Construction
Manuf acturlng
Transportation and Othar PubHc Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, insurance, and Real Estate
Services
None 1 ass 1 f 1 abl a Establishments
TOT At
Number of
Employees
4,030
254
16,381
27,550
9,124
9,031
50,277
10,281
44 , 964
3,418
178,310
Percent of
Total Employees
2.3
b
i,3
15.7
5.2
5.2
28.7
5,9
25.6
1.9
1.9
Number of
Estab! Ishments
355
22
1,702
746
52B
711
4,212
< ,299
4,617
1 ,307
15,499











a Percent 1n the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this community.  These totals do
  not reflect 100 percent of Industry employees 1n the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and
  totals In the first and third columns were provided by the Census Bureau.  These figures do not add up to the
  totals, nor do the Individual percentage figures add up to 100 percent,

b Less than 1 percent of total.
Source:  County Bus1ness Patterns. U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
                  Exhibit C.A-S .  The Manufacturing Sector of Riverside, California Commuting Area  (1984)1
SIC
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Industry
Food and Kindred Products
Apparel and Other Textiles Products
Lumber and Wood Products
Furniture and Fixtures
Paper and Allied Products
Printing and Publishing
Chemicals and At Had Products
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products
Leather and Leather Products
Stone. Clay and Glass Products
Primary Metal Industries
Fabricated Metal Products
Machinery, Except Electrical
Electric and Electronic Equipment
Transportation Equipment
Instruments and Related Products
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
Number of
Empl oyees
1.128
697
2,106
934
500-999
2,498
383
2,293
100-249
2, T08
1,279
2,019
1,425
4,123
4,674
118
309
Percent of Total
Manufacturing Employees
4.1
2.5
7.7
3.4
1.8-3.6
9. 1
1,4
8.3
b
7.6
4.6
7.3
5.2
15.0
(7.0
b
1 . 1
Number of
Establ -tshroents
30
30
60
30
5
119
16
44
4
60
18
77
113
34
48
17
26

















                TOTAL                                           27,550                                             746



* Percent 1n the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this community.  These totals do not reflect
  100 percent of Industry employees fn the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and totals  1n the first and
  third columns were provided by the Census Bureau.  These figures do not add up to the totals, nor do the  Individual
  percentage figures add up to 100 percent.

** Less than 1 percent of total .


Source:  County Business Patterns, U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
     Riverside's  unemployment rate in October 1986 was 7.8  percent.  The
 community contains  a range of manufacturing establishments from highly
 technical producers of instruments to chemical plants and  lumber and wood
 product manufacturers.   The number of plant employees laid off in Riverside
 following imposition of the ban would be  100 (0.4 percent  of local
 manufacturing jobs).   The  1984 annual payroll for the county was $2.7 billion,

         c-   Stocfeon.. ......... California

         Stockton is the largest city in San Joaquin County,  in the heart of
 one  of the nation's most important agricultural areas.   The biggest non-farm
 sector in San Joaquin County is the service sector (see Exhibits C.A-6 and
 C.A-7).   Manufacturing provides about 20,000 jobs,  one-third of which are in
 the  food and kindred products industry.   Almost 93 percent of the people who
 work in San Joaquin County also live there.

     Unemployment in San Joaquin County was  10.2 percent in October 1986.  The
 population of the county was 418,300 in 1985 with a density of 296 people per
 square mile.

     The  relatively  high unemployment rate and the . dominance of the food
 processing industry mean that employees of  the J.  ML  Manufacturing Corporation
.plant in Stockton could have a difficult  time finding new  jobs in their home
 community.   The  ban would  cost 65 jobs (0.3 percent of local manufacturing
 jobs).   The 1984 annual payroll for San Joaquin County was $1.7 billion.

         d.   Peni s oiy^Jl^sag

         Denison  , Texas is a small community in the rural  county of Grayson,
 just south of the Oklahoma border.   Grayson County's  population in 1985 was
 96,700,  with a density  of  103 people per  square mile.   About 90 percent of the
 people who work  in  Grayson County also live there.

     The  manufacturing  sector provided about 11,000 jobs in Grayson County in'
 1984 (see  Exhibits  C.A-8 and C.A-9),  and  was thus by  far the largest employer.
 Nearly half of .these jobs  were in four electric and electronic equipment
 establishments.   Unemployment in Grayson  County was 8.2 percent in October
 1986.  After the ban, Grayson County would  lose 53  jobs (0.5 percent of local
 manufacturing jobs).  The  annual payroll  for Grayson  County in 1984 was $498
 million,

         e.
        Hillsboro is a small community about 45 miles  south of Fort Worth, in
Hill County.  The county is a sparsely-populated  1,010 square miles (27 people
per square mile) and about 90 percent of the people who work there also reside
in the county.

    Unemployment in Hill County was  7.7 percent in October 1986, out of a
total labor force of about 5,000.  In 1984, there were 1,387 manufacturing
jobs in the community in a total of  34 establishments  (see Exhibits C.A-10 and
C.A-11).  The largest industry was the stone, clay, and glass products
industry employing 339 workers.  The Certain-Teed plant closing could have a
noticeable impact on the local unemployment rate, raising it by 1.2 percent
from plant lay-offs alone.  Additional jobs could be lost in the community

                                   •  C-35

-------
                       Exhibit C.A-6 •  Local economic Base of Stockton, California Commuting Area (liB4)a
                             Sector
 Number of
 Employees
  Percent of
Total Employees
                                                                                                              Number of
                                                                                                           Estab 11shments
           Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fisheries
           Mining
           Contract Construction
           Manufacturing
           Transportation and Other Public Utilities
           Wholesale Trade
           Retail Trade
           Finance, insurance, and Real Estate
           Services
           None Iasslflab Ie Establishments

              TOTAL
   862
   133
 7,425
19,033
 6,150
 7,74»
22,233
 8,427
23,402
 1,315

96,721
      b
      b
      7.7
     !t.7
      6.4
      8.0
     23.0
      8.7
     24.2
      1.4
  189
   18
  791
  447
  454
  551
2, 171
  747
2,631
  574

8,573
8 Percent 1n the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this community.  These totals do not
  reflect 100 percent of Industry employees in the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and totals 1n the
  first and third columns were provided by the Census Bureau,  These figures do not add up to the totals, nor do the
  Individual percentage figures add up to 100 percent.

  Less than 1 percent of total.
Source:  Coun t y Bus1ness Pat terns, U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
                   Exhibit C.A-7 .  The Manufacturing Sector of Stockton, California Commuting Area  (19B4)a
SIC
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
39

Industry
Food and Kindred Products
Apparel and Other Textiles Products
Lumber and Wood Products
Furniture and Fixtures
Paper and AH led Products
Printing and Publishing
Chemicals and Allied Products
Rubber and Mlscel laneous Plastics Products
Stone, Clay and Glass Products
Primary Metal Industries
Fabricated Metal Products
Machinery, Except Electrical
Electric and Electronic Equipment
Transportation Equipment
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
TOTAL
Number of
Employees
6,479
285
2,137
460
768
821
542
6JO
1,292
280
1 ,911
755
1,773
339
299
19,033
Percent of Total
Manufacturing Employees
34,0
1.5
11.2
2.4
4.0
4.3
2.8
3.2
6,8
1,5
10.0
4.0
9.3
1.8
1.6

Number of
Establ Ishments
77
10
38
15
8
56
14
20
26
9
44
59
16
15
17
447
a Percent 1n the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this community.  These totals do not reflect
  100 percent of Industry employees 1n the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and totals  In the first and
  third columns were provided by the Census Bureau.  These figures do not add up to the totals, nor do the  Individual
  percentage figures add up to 100 percent.


Source:  County Bus1ness Pat terns, U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
               Exhibit C.A-8 .  Local Economic Base of Denfson, Texas Commuting Area  (1984)*
                  ' Sector
Number of
Employees
  Percent of
Tata! Employees
   Number of
EstoblIshments
Agricultural Services, Forestry,
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation and Other Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
RetalI Trade
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
Services
Nonclasslflable Establishments

   TOTAL
  20-99
100-249
  1,533
 10.974
  1,405
  1,312
  7,010
  1,321
  5,886
    439

 30,135
      b
      to
      S, 1
     36,4
      4.7
      4.4
     23.3
      4.4
     19.5
      1 .5
       22
       28
      198
      128
       89
      164
      640
      180
      686
      194

    2.329
  Percent In the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this communlty.  These totals do
  not reflect 100 percent of Industry employees 1n the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and
  totals 1n the first and third columns were provided by the Census Bureau.  These figures do not add up to the
  totals, nor do the Individual percentage figures add up to 100 percent.

  Less than 1 percent of total.
Source*  County Bus Ijiess Patternf. U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
                       Inhibit C.A-9-  Th« Manufacturing Sector of Denlson, Texas Commuting Area (1984)*
                                                               Number of           Percent of Total              Number of
SIC                          Industry                          Employees        Manufacturing Employees        Establishments


20           Food and Kindred Products                           1,841                16.8                          14
22           Textile Ml! 1 Products                             50O-999                 4.6-9.1                       2
23           Apparel and Other Textiles Products                   622                 5.7                           6
24           Lumber and Wood Products                              307                 2.B                           9
25           Furniture and Fixtures                                107                 b                             4
26           Paper and AM1«d Products                             209                 1.9                           4
27           Printing and Publishing                               281                 2.6                          15
31           Leather and Leather Products                           65                 b                             4
32           Stone, Clay and Glass Products                    500-999                 4.6-9.1                       4
33           Primary Metal Industries                              872                 ?.9                           5
34           Fabricated Metal Products                             735                 6.7                          19
35           Machinery, Except Electrical                          443                 4.0                          20
36           Electric and Electronic Equipment             2,500-4,999                22.8-45.6                      4
37           Transportation Equipment                              258                 2.4                           7
38           Instruments and Related Products                  500-999                 4.6-9,1                       1
39           Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries                 66                 b                             6

                TOTAL                                           10,974                                             128



8 Percent 1n the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this community.  These totals do not reflect
  100 percent of Industry employees 1n the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and totals In the first and
  third columns were provided by the Census Bureau.  These figures do not add up to the total*, nor do the Individual
  percentage figures add up to 100 percent.

b Less than 1 percent of total.


Source:  County Business Patterns. U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
             Exhibit, C.A-10 .  Local Economic Base of H1ll*baro, Texas Commuting Area  (1984)a
                  Sector
Number of
Employees
  Percent of
Total Employees
   Number of
EstablIshments
Agricultural Services. Forestry, Fisheries
Mini rig
Contract Construction
Manufactur1n0
Transportation and Other Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retal! Trade
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
Services
None 1 assiflable Establishments

   TOTAt
  20-99
   0-19
    379
  t ,387
    491
    137
  1,229
    2S3
    873
    130

  5,012
      0.4-2,0
      b
      7.6
     27.7
      9.8
      2.7
     24.5
      5.0
     19.4
      2.6
       !0
        2
       38
       34
       33
       32
      197
       51
      139
       60

      596
  Percent 1n the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this community.  These totals do
  not reflect 100 percent of Industry employees 1n the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and
  totals In the first arid third columns were provided by the Census Bureau.  These figures do not add up to the
  totals, nor do the Individual percentage figures add up to 100 percent.

  Less than 1 percent of total.
Source;  Count y Bus1nes s Pat terns. U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
                    Exhibit C.A-11.  The Manufacturing Sector of Hlllsboro, Texas Commuting Area  {1984)a

SIC
23
24
•25
32
33
35
36

Industry
Apparel and Other Textiles Products
Lumber and Wood Products
Furniture and Fixtures
Stone, Cloy and Glass Products
Primary Metal Industries
Machinery, Except Electrical
Electric and Electronic Equipment
Number of
Employees
23S
10O-249
100-249
339
100-249
S3
100-249
Percent of Total
Manufacturing Employees
te.9
7,2-18.0
T. 2-18.0
24.4
7.2-18.0
4.5
7.2-18.0
Number of
Establ Ishments
A
^
2
6
1
6
1
              TOTAL
                                                               t ,387
                                                                                                                     34
Percent In the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this community.  These totals do not  reflect
1OO percent of Industry employees In the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and totals  1n the first and
third columns were provided by the Census Bureau.  These figures do not add up to the totals, nor do the  Individual
percentage figures add up to 100 percent.
Source:  County
                       Patterns, U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
 through secondary effects  of a reduced overall  payroll  and goods or services
 currently provided to the  plant,

     Hillsboro  would lose 4.3 percent of all  manufacturing jobs  (60 jobs) If
 the product ban is imposed.   Hill County's annual  payroll in 1984 was $63.5
 million.

     2.   Coianunitleswith Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet  Plants

     In  1985, there was  only  one plant in the United  States producing
 asbestos-cement flat sheet.   This plant is located in Pennsylvania.

         a.   Anjbler.Pennsylvania

         The plant in Ambler  is owned by Nicolet, Incorporated.  Ambler is in
 Montgomery County,  Pennsylvania,  a largely suburban  county located northwest
 of  Philadelphia.   Ambler's "community"  is defined  as not  only including
 Montgomery County (1985 population 663,200), but also Philadelphia County
 (1985 population 1,637,400),  thus the total  community population in 1985 was
 2,300,600  (with a density  of 3,699 people per square mile).   The unemployment
 rate of the two counties was 5.1  percent in  October  1986.   This area has a
 relatively low unemployment  rate  and a  substantial manufacturing base of about
 3,500 establishments, which  employed about 210,000 workers in 1984 (see
 Exhibits C.A-12 and C.A-13).   Given these conditions the  layoff of 14 asbestos
 product workers (< 0.1  percent of manufacturing jobs) at  the  Nicolet plant
 would have  a very minor impact on the community.

    3-  Communitieswith Asbestos-Cement Shingle Plants

    In  1985 there was only one plant  in the United States  producing
 asbestos-cement shingles.  This plant is located in  Pennsylvania.

        a.  Wind Gap. Pennsylvania

        The plant in Wind Gap  is  owned by Supradur Manufacturing Corporation.
 Wind Gap is located  in  Northampton County about 15 miles northeast of
 Allentown-Bethlehem,  the closest  urban  center.

    Northampton County's 1985  population was 231,400 with  a density of 615 per
 square  mile.  Unemployment in  October 1986 was a relatively low 5.5 percent.
 In 1984, manufacturing provided about 29,000 jobs  in Northampton County (as
 shown in Exhibits  C.A-14 and C.A-15)  and was the most important sector of the
 local economy.   Considering  the low unemployment and size  of  the manufacturing
 sector  and  the  proximity of an urban  center,  the 101 layoffs  (0.35 percent of
manufacturing jobs) expected as a  result of the ban would not have a severe
 impact  on the community.
                                     C-42

-------
            Exhibit c.A-12.  Local Economic Base of Ambler, Pennsylvania Commuting Area (1984)*
                  Sector
Number of
Employees
  Percent of
Total Employees
                                                                                                   Number of
                                                                                                Establishments
Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fisheries
M1n1ng
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation and Other Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
Services
Nonclasslflable Establishments

   TOTAL
  2.286
    858
 38,3)4
210,082
 49,659
 64,827
153,685
 95,723
325,704
  6,567

947,70S
      b
      b
      4.0
     22.2
      5.2
      6.8
     16.2
     10,1
     35.4
      b
   390
    33
 2,871
 3,536
 1,423
 4,218
12,841
 4,546
16,923
 3,367

SO,148
  Percent 1n the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this community.  These totals do
  not reflect 100 percent of Industry employees In the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and
  totals In the first and third columns ware provided by the Census Bureau.  These figures do not add up to the
  totals, nor do the Individual percentage figure* add up to 100 percent.

  Less than 1 percent of total.
Sources  County. BusloessPat terns, U.S. Bureau of Census.  19B4,

-------
                    Exhibit C.A-13.  The Manufacturing Sector- of Ambler, Pennsylvania Commuting Area (19843*



                                                               Number of           Percent of Total              Number of
SIC                          Industry                          Employees        Manufacturing Employess        Establishments


20           Food and Kindred Products                          19,107                 9.1                         207
21           Tobacco Manufacturers                               20-99    '   .•         b                             1
22           Textile MH1 Products                               1,409                 b                            41
23           Apparel and Other Textiles Products         20,618-23,117                 S.8-11.0                    321
24           Lumber and Wood Products                              728                 b                            70
25           Furniture and Fixtures                              5.439                 2.6                         121
26           Paper and AlHed Products                           7,029                 3.3                         106
27           Printing and Publishing                            21,298                10.1                         569
28           Chemicals and Allied Products                      13,400                 6.4                         133
30           Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products          1,841                 b           '                 24
31           Leather and Leather Products                        4,635                 2.2                         116
32           Stone, Clay and Glass Products                        626                 b                            25
33           Primary Metal Industries                            4,582                 2.2                          69
34           Fabricated Metal Products                          19,636                 9.3                         436
35           Machinery, Except Electrical                       17,483                 8.3                         425
36           Electric and Electronic equipment                  18,010                 8.6                         197
37           Transportation Equipment                           10,710                 5.1                          44
38           Instruments and Related Products                   10,329                 4.9                         128
39           Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries              2,986                 1.4                         185

                TOTAL                                          210,082                                           3,536



a Percent 1n the second column are calculated from U.S. C0nsus Bureau totals for this community.  These totals do not reflect
  100 percent of industry employees in the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and totals in the first and
  third columns were provided by the Census Bureau.  These figures do not add up to the totals, nor do the individual
  percentage figures add up to 100 percent.

  Less than 1 percent of total.


Source:  County IBusJnegs Patterns, U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
           Exhibit C.A-14 -  Local economic Base of Wind Gap, Pennsylvania Commuting Area  O984)1
Sector
Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fisheries
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation and Other Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Ratal 1 Trade
Finance, insurance, and R««l Estate
Service*
Nonet asslf 1able Establishments
Number of
Emp 1 oy aes
136
98
1,797
2i,971
3,198
2,560
1 1 , 048
3,366
16,302
618
Percent of
Total Employees
b
b
2.6
42. 1
4.6
3.7
17.2
4.9
23,7
b
Number of
Estab! 1 shment s
44
8
419
387
148
233
1,128
309
1 ,476
336










   TOTAL
                                                     68,892
                       4,488
8 Percent In the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for this community.  These totals do
  not reflect 100 percent of Industry employees in the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and
  total* in the first and third columns were provided by the Census Bureau.
  totals, nor do the Individual percentage figures add up to 100 percent.

  Less than 1 percent of total.
These figures do not add up to the
Sources  County BusinesaPatterns, U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984,

-------
                   Exhibit C.A-15.  The Manufacturlno Sector  of Wind Gap,  Pennsylvania  .Commuting Area (!9B4)B
SIC
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
32
33
34
35
36
38
39
Industry
Food and Kindred Products
Textile Mill Products
Apparel and Other Textiles Products
Lumber and Wood Products
Furniture and Fixtures
Paper and Allied Products
Printing and Publishing
Chemicals and Allied Products
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic* Products
Stone, Ctay and Glass Products
Primary Metal Industries
Fabricated Metal Products
Machinery, Except Electrical
Electric and Electronic Equipment
Instruments and Related Products
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
Number of
Employees
1,063
865
10,330
201
110
270
1,869
517
689
1,391
5,000-9.999
1,094
1,462
595
51
500-999
Percent of Total
Manufacturing Employees
3.7
3.0
35.7
b
b
b
6,5
1.8
2.4
4.8
17.3-34.5
3.8
5.0
2.1
b
1.7-3.4
Number of
Establ Ishments
18
16
134
1 1
7
6
35
1 1
10
25
S
33
32
7
7
10
















                TOTAL                                           28,97!                                              387
                                                                             «


° Percent 1n the second column are calculated from U.S. Census Bureau totals for  this community.  These  totals  do  not reflect
  100 percent of Industry employees 1n the community because of reporting methods.  The figures and  totals  1n the  first  and
  third columns were provided by the Census Bureau,  These f1(jures do not add up  to the totals, nor  do the  Individual
  percentage figures add up to 100 percent,

  tess than 1 percent of total.


Source:  County Business Patterns. U.S. Bureau of Census.  1984.

-------
ATTACHMENT B:   SAMPLE  CALCULATION OF DIRECT BARKINGS AND INDIRECT INCOME
                LOSSES  CAUSED BY AN  IMMEDIATE  PRODUCT BAN   -

    This appendix presents a sample calculation  of direct  earnings and
indirect income losses caused by an immediate product ban  (as shown in
Exhibits C.2-8  and C.2-9).  The sample calculation is based on an immediate
ban of asbestos-cement flatsheet.

    1.  RelevantData  for Sample Calculation

    As shown in Exhibit C.2-1, only one plant manufactures asbestos-cement
flat sheet.  This plant is located  in Ambler, Pennsylvania, and employs a
total of 40 employees  of which 35 are production workers as shown in
Exhibit 6.  However, only 12 of these production workers are involved in the
manufacture of  asbestos-cement flat sheet.  Therefore, this plant will not
shut down, instead, will lay off the 12 production workers and the 2
supervisory workers associated with the production of asbestos-cement flat
sheet (as shown in Exhibit G.2-6),

    The text lists the sources from where data on employee earnings was
obtained.  Earnings for production  workers were  estimated  as $420.85 per week
or $21,884.20 annually.  Earnings for supervisory workers were estimated as
$596,57 per week or $31,021.64 annually.  It  is  assumed that each worker has
an unemployed spouse and two dependent children.

    2.  Calculation of Offsets to Loss in Earnings

    Federal Income Tax: Based on 1987 Federal tax tables,  the income tax paid
annually by production and supervisory workers (Exhibit C.2-2) is calculated
Federal income tax paid
 by a production worker   - $3,000.00 * 0.11 + $11,284.20 * 0.15 - $2,022.80

Federal Income Tax paid
  by a supervisory worker - $3,000.00 * 0-. 11 + $20,421.64 * 0.15 - $3,393.00

    State_Income Tax: Pennsylvania had a flat income tax rate of 2.2 percent
for the 1986 tax year.  Therefore, the state taxes paid annually by the
workers (Exhibit C.2-2) are:

State Income Tax paid
 by a production worker  - $21,884.20 * 0.022 - $481.52

State Income tax paid
 by a supervisory worker - $31,021.64 * 0.022 - $682.24

Therefore, weekly taxes (Exhibit C.2-2) paid by each:

Production worker  - ($2,022.80 + $481.52)/52 - $48,16

Supervisory worker - ($3,393.00 + $682.24)/52 - $78.37
                                     C-47

-------
    Unemployment  Compensation: The  average  weekly benefits  for unemployment
compensation provided  to each worker by  the Pennsylvania  is $153.66 per week
for a maximum of  26 weeks  (as shown in Exhibit  C.2-3).

    Unemployment  Duration:  Exhibit C.2-5 shows the percentage distribution of
the unemployed labor force by unemployment  duration.  This  distribution is
used to calculate the  numbers presented  in  Exhibit C.2-7.   The relevant sample
calculation is shown below and the  numbers  are  rounded off  to the nearest
whole number.

Number of production workers
 unemployed for 5 weeks     -  12 * 0.374 - 4.49 - 4

Number of production workers
 unemployed for 14 weeks     -  12*0.306  - 3.67 - 4

Number of production workers
 unemployed for 27 weeks     -  12  * 0.130  - 1.56 - 2

Number of production workers
 unemployed for 52 weeks     -  12  * 0.190  - 2.28 - 2

Number of supervisory workers
 unemployed for 5 weeks     -   2 * 0.374 - 0,75 ~ 1

Number of supervisory workers
 unemployed for 14 weeks     —   2  * 0.306  - 0.61 - 1

Number of supervisory workers
 unemployed for 27 weeks     -   2  * 0.130  - 0.26 - 0

Number of supervisory workers
 unemployed for 52 weeks     -   2  * 0.190  - 0.38 - 0

    3.   Ca^lculation of Direct Earnings Losses of Employees

    Given the weekly earnings and offsets,  and  the duration of unemployment,
the direct earnings losses of employees can be  calculated as:

After-tax earnings loss per week of unemployment for each:

    Production worker  - $420.85 -'$48.16 - $372,69
    Supervisory worker - $596.57 -  $78.37 - $518.20  '

Direct earnings losses (including unemployment  compensation as shown in
Exhibit C.2-3) for all:

    Production workers  -  (($372.69 - $153.66)  * (4 * 5 + 4 * 14 4- 4 * 26))
                        4- ($372.69  * (2 * (27 -  26) + 2 * (52 - 26))

                        - $59,550.66
                                     C-48

-------
    Supervisory workers =   (($518.20  - $153.66) *  (1*5+1*  14+0* 26))
                        +  ($518.20 *  (0 *  (27  - 26) + 0 *  (52 -  26))

                       - $6,926.26

    All employees      - $59,550.66 + $6,926.26 -  §66,476.92 (as shown in
                                     Exhibit C.2-8)

    4.  Calculation ofIndirectCommunity  Income Losses

    Given the weekly earnings, the unemployment compensation, the duration of
unemployment, and the economic multiplier  (which is 0,83 and incorporates tax
and saving factors) the indirect community income  losses can be  calculated as;

Indirect community income losses attributable  to direct earnings losses by
all:

    Production workers  -   ((($420.85 - $153.66) * (4 * 5 + 4 *  14 + 4 * 26))
                        + ($420.85 * (2 *  (27  - 26) + 2 *  (52 -  26))) * 0.83

                        - $58,780.68

    Supervisory workers -   ((($596.57 - $153.66) * (1*5+1*  14+0* 26))
                        + ($596.57 * (0 *  (27  - 26) + 0 *  (52 - 26))) * 0.83

                        - $6,984.69

    All employees       - $58,780.68 + $6,984.69 - $65,765,37 (as shown in
                                     Exhibit C.2-9)

    5,  Calculationof TotalIncome Losses

    The total income losses attributable to immediate product bans is
calculated as:

    Total income loss = $66,476.92 + $65,765.37 - §132,242.29 (as shown in .
                                     Exhibit C.2-10)
                                    C-49

-------

-------
APPENDIX D  - - COST  FOR EKGINEERING CONTROLS FOR BRAKE MAINTENANCE/REPAIR

    This appendix contains information concerning the methods and data used to
calculate the costs of engineering controls for reducing asbestos exposures
during brake repair/replacement.  Fist is a brief overview of the calculations
performed to obtain these cost estimates.  This is followed by a report by PEI
Associates prepared for EPA concerning the costs of different engineering
controls designed to reduce asbestos exposure in brake maintenance and repair,
The information developed in this report provides the basic input data for the
analysis of the costs of brake engineering controls relative to the costs of
banning these products presented in the Sensitivity Results in Volume TV of
this Regulatory Impact Analysis.

    !•  Calculation of Per Unit Control Costs

    Four engineering control options were considered based on feasible
engineering control systems identified by PEI: the Enclosure/HEPA Vacuum
Filtered System, the HEPA Vacuum Filtered System, and the Wet Brush/Recycling
Liquid System.  These systems.were used to define the following engineering
control options:

    1.  Require use of Enclosure/HEPA Vacuum Filtered Systems.

    2.  Require use of either the Enclosure/HEPA or HEPA Filtered Vacuum
        Systems.

    3.  Require the use of Wet Brush/Recycling Liquid Systems.

    4,  Require the use of an Engineering Control System, Enclosure/HEPA, HEPA
        Vacuum Filtered Systems or Wet Brush/Recycling Liquid Systems.

    The methodology used to evaluate the costs associated with requiring the
use of engineering control systems consists of the following steps:

    1.  Using the number of asbestos brake jobs performed in shops,  and the
        percentage of shops not using a particular system,  the number of
        potential jobs to be performed with the system under consideration is
        determined.   This number represents the number of jobs that would be
        performed if that particular system were required by regulation.

    2.  The number of potential shops that could use a particular system is
        multiplied by the total annualized acquisition cost (includes taxes,
        freight,  management-and supervision cost associated with the
        acquisition of equipment;  a 7 percent discount rate and 10-year
        capitalization period were used to derive this number) to determine a
        stream of annual acquisition costs for the whole industry.   Each shop
        is  assumed to buy one piece of equipment every ten years.

    3.  Total annual variable costs are obtained by multiplying the  number of
        asbestos brake jobs determined in step 1 by the sum of maintenance
        costs (filter replacement,  detergent replacement and waste  disposal)
        and loss of productivity costs (disc and drum)  per  brake job.

    4.  Total costs for the 20 year period are obtained by  adding annual
        acquisition, maintenance,  and loss of productivity  costs.

                                     D-l

-------
    5.  The net present value associated with requiring the use of each of
        engineering control systems is obtained using a 7 percent discount
        rate to discount the stream of cash flows.

    The assumptions and data used to develop these costs for Regulatory
Alternative A are presented below for the HEPA Vacuum control system -- the
type of system considered in one of the sensitivity analyses presented in
Appendix G.

                             HEPA Vacuum System
                              Item                            Amount


         Acquisition Cost                                     $891.00

         Taxes, Freight, Mgt, and Support                  '     80.00

         Total Acquisition Cost                                971.00

         Annualized Acquisition Cost                           138.00

         Operation and Filter Replacement (per brake job)        1.39

         Per Brake Job Waste Disposal                            0.56

         Productivity Loss Per Brake Job                         0.83
                                     D-2

-------
      COST OF ENGINEERING CONTROLS
      FOR BRAKE MAINTENANCE/REPAIR
                   by

          PEI Associates, Inc.
           11499 Chester Road
             P.O. Box 46100
      Cincinnati, Ohio  45246-0100
         Contract No. 68-02-4248
        Work Assignment No.  P2-22
               PN 3687-45
              Prepared for

Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           401 M Street, S.W.
         Washington, D.C.  20460
             August 31, 1987

-------

-------
                                  CONTENTS


                                                                     Page

1.   Introduction                                                    1-1

          1.1  Background                                            1-1
          1.2  Approach                                             . 1-2
          1.3  Organization and contents                             1-2

2.   Description of Systems Studied                                  2-1

          2.1  Enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum system                 2-1
          2.2  HEPA-filtered vacuum                                  2-3
          2.3  Wet brush/recirculating liquid system                 2-5

3.   INDUSTRY BASELINE                                               3-1

          3.1  Number and type of brake shops                        3-1
          3.2  Number of control devices in use                      3-3
          3.3  Number of do-it-yourself brake jobs                   3-4
          3.4  Impact of OSHA guidelines                             3-4

4.   Estimated Cost of Control Systems                               4-1

          4.1  Capital costs                                         4-1
          4.2  Operation and maintenance costs      •                 4-5
          4.3  Sensitivity analysis                                  4-10

5.   Conclusions                                                     5-1

References                                                           R-l

Appendix A     Vendor Literature                                     A-l
                                      n

-------

-------
                                   TABLES

Number                                                                Page
 3-1      Number of Brake Repair Facilities           '                 3-2
 3-2      Number of Control  Systems in Use                            3-3
 4-1      Annual Cost of Enclosure/HEPA-Filtered Vacuum Control
            Systems                                                   4-2
 4-2      Annual Cost of HEPA-Filtered Vacuum Control Systems         4-3
 4-3      Annual Cost of Wet Brush/Recirculating Liquid
            Control Systems                                            4-4
 4-4      NIOSH Data on Brake Cleaning Times                          4-7
 4-5      Cost Sensitivity Analysis                                   4-11

-------

-------
                                  SECTION 1
                                INTRODUCTION

1.1  BACKGROUND
     In the past, asbestos has been widely used in motor vehicle brake mate-
rials.  Recognition of the hazardous properties of asbestps has resulted in
substitution of less toxic fibers for some brake materials in recent years.
Because of the large number of vehicles still having brakes containing asbes-
tos, however, there is still considerable potential for exposure, especially
during the repair or replacement of such brake systems.  The U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) has been examining alternative approaches to
controlling exposures from certain asbestos-containing products» including
brake materials, since proposing the "Asbestos Ban/Phasedown Rule" on January
29, 1986.  In June, 1986 EPA issued, "Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease
Among Auto Mechanics" to assist mechanics in lowering exposure.
     On June 20, 1986, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) issued guidance to employers regarding exposures to asbestos in all
industries covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (51 FR 22733).
Appendix F to the guidance described nonmandatory work practices and engineer-
ing controls that can be used to reduce asbestos exposures during automotive
brake and clutch repair to levels below the present OSHA standard's action
level of 0.1 f/cc, 8-hour, time-weighted average (the OSHA Permissible
Exposure Limit (PEL) is 0.2f/cc 8-h TWA).  To loosen asbestos-containing
residue from brakes, the guidance recommends the use of either an enclosed
cylinder/high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)-filtered vacuum  system, a
compressed air/solvent system, or aerosol spray cans of solvent  cleaner.
     In a previous work assignment for the Office of Toxic Substances' Chem-
ical Engineering Branch, PEI Associates (PEI) prepared a report  entitled
                                      1-1

-------
"Asbestos Dust Control in Brake Maintenance" (September 1985).   This  report
identified techniques and engineering controls that are available to  reduce
worker exposure to asbestos during brake repair.  The purposes  of the present
work assignment were (1) to develop a new control  technology baseline that
will characterize current practices in brake repair shops,  taking into account
the recent OSHA guidelines; and (2) to update the  information in the  previous
PEI report on enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum systems, HEPA-filtered vacuum
systems, and wet brush/recirculating liquid systems,

1.2  APPROACH
     The primary sources of information for this study were direct contact
with vendors of control equipment, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), literature supplied by the vendors, and the open literature.   Other
sources included trade associations such as the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association and trade publications such as After Market Business, Brake and
Front Jnd, Tire Review, and Jobber and Warehouse Executive.

1.3  ORGANIZATION AND CONTENTS
     Section 2 presents descriptions of the enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum
system, the HEPA-filtered vacuum system, and the wet fantsh/recirculating
liquid system.  Section 3 describes the four parameters that ire used to
define the industry baseline:  (1) the number of brake facilities, (2) the
number of control devices in use,  (3) the number of do-it-yourself brake
jobs, and (4) the impact of the OSHA guidelines.  Section  4 presents the cost
of the systems described in Section 2.  Both capital cost  and operation and
maintenance costs are presented.   Section 5 presents the conclusions of the
study.  Appendix A presents vendor literature on several of the  control
systems.
                                      1-2

-------
                                  SECTION 2
                       DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS STUDIED

     This project concentrated on three systems used to control  exposure to
asbestos dust during brake repair:  (1) enclosure/HEPA-filtered  vacuum  systems,
(2) HEPA-filtered vacuum systems, and (3) wet brush/recirculating liquid
systems.  This section first presents the general  characteristics of a  system
type and then presents the specifications of models that are presently  on  the
market.  Vendor literature for many models are presented in the  Appendix.

2,1  ENCLOSURE/HEPA-FILTERED VACUUM SYSTEM
     An enclosur'e/HEPA-filtered vacuum system consists of an enclosure  which
is put around the hub assembly of the wheel prior to cleaning.  The enclosure
is fitted with a compressed air adapter which allows the mechanic to blow  the
brake area clean of accumulated dirt and brake dust.  The resultant air and
dust are drawn off through a vacuum which contains a HEPA filter.  The  recom-
mended procedure for using these systems is to 1} turn the vacuum on and
position the enclosure around the brake assembly, 2) remove the drum, 3)
clean the brake area, and 4) remove the enclosure and proceed with the  brake
repair.1  PEI identified five manufacturers of this type of system;  Clayton
Associates, Control Resource Systems, Hako, Nilfisk of America, and Pullman/
holt,
Clayton Associates, Inc.—
     Clayton sells four enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum models:  BCE-10QG,
BCE-1500, BCE-2000, and BCE-25QQ.  Models BCE-1000, BCE-1500, and BCE-2QQO
                               •  .                         .             2
are similar systems, each having a HEPA filter surface area of  7753 in. , two
single-speed flow-through motors pulling 220  cfm, and a see-through shatter-
proof Lexan enclosure with neoprene gloves.   The difference in  the units  is
                                      2-1

-------
that the enclosures of the BCE-1500 and BCE-20QQ are 2 inches  and  4  inches
higher respectively than that of the BCE-1QQQ,   The larger  units are for
shops that repair vehicles with larger wheels.   The fourth  model sold by
Clayton is the BCF-25QQ which differs from the  other three  models  in that  it
has a smaller HEPA filter area (2080 in.2), and a single flow-through motor
pulling 110 cfm.  All units are designed so that the filters  are changed
while the vacuum is in operation, thus drawing  dust away from the  worker
during the operation.  All units are equipped with a manometer.  The mano-
meter measures the pressure differential above  and below the  main  filter.  A
drop in airflow indicates that dust must be shaken from the filters  or that
the vacuum must be emptied. NIOSH noted that mechanics using  the Clayton
system positioned the enclosure around the hub  before removing the drum,  as
                          2
recommended by the vendor.
Control Resource Systems, Inc. (CRS!)--
     CRSI sells one enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum model, the 6008.   The unit
is constructed of 16-gauge sheet metal with a 1/8 inch-thick Plexiglas window
on the front.  The enclosure is vented to a 30Q-to-60Q cfm HEPA filter.  Hand
access is from the sides through arm sleeves, but gloves are not  included in
the system.  The enclosure is 21 inches high, 15 inches wide, and 15  inches
deep.  The enclosure can be adjusted to a working height ranging  from 2 feet
to 6 feet.
Hako—
     Hako sells two  basic enclosure/HEPA  filtered vacuum models.  The C80106-
07 is used for cars  and  light trucks, while the  C80106-09  is  used for larger
trucks and buses.  The model C80106-07  consists  of  a  vinyl brake  drum hood
for 7- to 12-inch  diameter drums which  is vented to a 6-gallon vacuum tank
fitted with a 95-cfm fan and a  2226-in.2  HEPA  filter.  The model  C80106-09 is
the same except that the enclosure is  larger to allow it to  be used on drums
with  12- to  19-inch  diameters.   The stand for  either  unit  adjusts to a work-
ing height from  1  to 5  feet.  A larger  15-gallon vacuum tank  is available
                                     f\
with  a HEPA  filter area  of 4,120 in.  .   A manometer and gloves  are  also
optional.  Hako offers  other models but they are essentially only minor
variations of these  two models.
                                      2-2

-------
Nilfisk of America—
     Nilfisk sells three enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum models:   Asbesto-
Clene 400, Asbesto-Clene 500, and Asbesto-Clene 600.   The only difference
between Systems 400 and 500 is that the 500 model  includes a  high lift  stand
for use when working on vehicles on hydraulic lifts.   Both systems are  used
with brake drums from 7- to 12-inch diameters.  The model 600 enclosure has a
12- to 19-inch diameter range and is used on larger commercial vehicles.
Mechanic access to the brakes with Nilfisk systems is through a cotton  sleeve.
Visibility is through viewing windows.  The enclosures can be vented to five
vacuum systems:  GSSOi, GS81, GS82, and GS83, and G8733.  The GS80i has a
2i-gallon capacity with an 87-cfm fan and a 1620-1n.   HEPA filter; the  GS81
has a 4-gallon capacity with an 87-cfm fan and a 1744-in.  HEPA filter; the
GS82 has a 12-gallon capacity with a 191-cfm fan and  a 3895-in.  HEPA filter;
the GS83 has an IB-gallon capacity with a 208-cfm fan and a 4703 in.  HEPA
filter; and the GB733 has an IB-gallon capacity with  a 180-cfm fan and a
4077-in.  HEPA filter.  A manometer is optional on Models GS82, GS83, and
GB733.  The GS-83 vacuum system provides for enclosed mechanical agitation
(cleaning) of the main filter and for negative pressure during collection bag
change.  NIOSH noted that mechanics using a Nilfisk system typically removed
the brake drum before positioning the enclosure, contrary to  recommended
           2
procedures.
Pullman/Holt—
     Pullman/Holt sells four enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum models:  E2-86,
E2-105, E3-86, and E3-102.  These four models  are  combinations of two  enclo-
sures and two vacuums.  The E2  enclosure is for cars and light duty  trucks
with 6- to 14-inch drum diameters.  The enclosure  is clear with  a latex rear
panel and latex gloves.  The  E3 enclosure  is  similar except  it  is for  use
with heavy duty trucks and buses with  8- to 22-inch drum diameters.  The A86
vacuum has a 5-gallon  tank and  a 2-stage bypass motor  with a  96-cfm fan.  The
A102 vacuum is similar but uses a  larger motor with a  110-cfm fan.   A  manom-
eter is standard  on  all models.
                                      2-3

-------
2.2  HEPA-FILTERED VACUUM SYSTEM
     The HEPA-filtered vacuum system consists of a vacuum and HEPA filter
without enclosure.  With this system, brake dust containing asbestos is
simply vacuumed away from the brake area by the mechanic at the start of the
brake repair job.  The asbestos in the collected brake dust is captured  by
the HEPA filter.  There are approximately 10 to 15 vendors of HEPA-fiHered
                3 4
vacuum cleaners.  '   A wide variety of HEPA-filtered vacuums are sold to
collect toxic substances such as asbestos, beryllium, cotton dust, lead,
mercury, or silica.  PEI could not identify any that were presently being
marketed to collect asbestos from brake maintenance without the use of an
enclosure.  The vendors of enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum systems, who could
sell their systems either way, do not recommend use of such systems without
              *2 C £! "7
the enclosure. *  * '   However, a brake repair facility contacted by PEI
during the previous study for EPA was using the vacuum system without the
                                %
enclosure and claimed that this approach was not only less cumbersome for the
mechanic, but also lessened contamination due to buildups inside the enclo-
sure.  Although many companies manufacture HEPA-filtered vacuums, four com-
panies that actively sell to both the asbestos and the brake mechanic markets
were chosen as representative of the market:  Hako, NFE International, Nil-
fisk of America, and Pullman/Holt.
Hako—
     Hako has two basic HEPA-filtered vacuum models.  The X-1000-6  is a
                                                            o
6-gaUon vacuum tank filter with a 95-cfm fan and a 2226-in,  HEPA  filter.
The C80315-03 is a 15-gallon vacuum tank fitted with a 95-cfm fan and a
4120-in.2 HEPA filter.
NFE International —
     The NFE SAFE-T-VAC backpack is a 2.1-gallon vacuum with a  IQQ-cfm  fan.
The vacuum straps onto the operator's back using a special carrying frame.
Because the unit  is carried by the worker, the unit requires only a short
host, thus providing greater suction at the nozzle for the same size vacuum.
The unit has an automatic shutoff when the bag is full.
                                     2-4

-------
Nilfisk of America--
     While any of Nilfisk's vacuum units could be used,  because  air  blowing
of the dust is not necessary the smallest unit is most likely to be  chosen
for brake repair {Model GSSOi).  It has a 2i-gallon capacity with an 87-cfm
fan and a 1620-in.2 HEPA filter.
Pullman/Holt--
     While either of two Pullman/Holt vacuum units could be used, because air
blowing of the dust is not necessary the smallest unit is most likely to be
chosen for brake repair (Model A86).  This unit has a 5-gallon tank  with a
2-stage bypass motor and a 96-cfro fan.

2.3  WET BRUSH/RECIRCULATING LIQUID SYSTEM
     In a wet brush/recirculating liquid system, amended water (i.e., water
containing a surfactant) or organic solvent is washed over the brake parts  to
remove both the asbestos-containing dust and accumulated grease and  dirt.
The liquid is applied gently to the brake area through the bristles  of a
brush or as a light mist with a spray gun.  The liquid is collected  beneath
the hub assembly and recirculated until it becomes too dirty for reuse.  For
a system to have a positive effect on asbestos exposure over time, the liquid
must be collected and disposed of properly.  Also, when the liquid is sprayed
on the brakes, it should be applied with as little force as possible to
minimize the possibility of the asbestos dust becoming airborne prior to
wetting.  Three vendors of this type of system were identified:  Aranco,
Kleer-Flo, and U.S. Sales.
Ammco—
     The Ammco brake assembly washer Model 1250 consists of two pans mounted
vertically and connected to a standard mechanic's compressed air gun.  The
top pan is perforated to allow fluid to flow through to the bottom pan, which
acts as a sump.  Liquid is siphoned from the lower pan into the air  line at
standard air gun line pressure.  This lowers the pressure to 6 to 8  psi,
emitting a light spray.  The liquid runs off the part into the upper, perfo-
rated pan which catches parts and large debris.  The liquid drains  into the
                                     2-5

-------
lower pan for recycle.   Ammco recommends  the use  of amended water  (i.e. water
containing a surfactant) in the system and sells  packets  of surfactant concen-
trate for this purpose.  Gasoline or flammable solvents are not  recommended,
but nonflammable solvents such as chlorinated degreasing  solvents  may be
utilized.  If nonflammable solvents are used in the system, they may or may
not be reclaimed.  The amended water is typically disposed of down a sanitary
sewer.
Kleer-Flo—
     The Kleer-Flo LW22-brake washer consists of an upper tray,  a  bottom  tank
with lid, and a flow-through brush for cleaning.   The unit has a 6-gallon
capacity and the liquid is recirculated by pump.   The manufacturer recommends
the use of Kleer-Flo Greasoff No. 19 cleaning compound in the system.   The
cleaning compound is sold in one-gallon containers and is mixed  with 5  parts
water to one part surfactant concentrate for use.
U.S. Sales—
     The U.S. Sales "Bird Bath" brake washer consists of a pump circulated
system ftd through a flow-through brush.  The cleaning solution 1s collected
below the brake assembly for recirculation.  Before rtcirculation, however,
it passes through a paper filter which captures asbestos entrained in the
solution.  The vendor did not  recommend a specific cleaning  solution but said
the type of cleaning solution  used  is up  to the discretion of the customer.
At this  time, U.S. Sales is developing a  water-based cleaning solution to
offer their customers.  They do  not recommend  use  of a solvent-cleaning
solution.
                                      2-6

-------
                                  SECTION 3
                              INDUSTRY BASELINE

     PEI estimated several parameters which EPA can use  to  define  a  baseline
from which various control scenarios can be judged.  These  parameters  are  (1)
the number of brake repair shops by type, (2)  the number of control  devices
presently in use, (3) the number of do-it-yourself (DIY) brake jobs, and (4)
the impact of the new OSHA guidelines.

3.1  NUMBER AND TYPE OF BRAKE SHOPS
     An annual estimate of the number of brake facilities by type  is contained
in a Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association publication, MotorVehicle Facts
and Figures, which references 1984 Service Job Analysis, published by  Hunter
Publishing Company.  Table 3-1 presents this data for service stations,
independent repair shops, new car/truck dealerships, and self-service  fleet
shops.  Mr. Bruce Blackwelder of the Automotive Parts and Accessories  Asso-
ciation indicated that the Service Job Analysis is the best source of  infor-
                             o
mation for this type of data.
     Mr. Darrell Wallace of Ammco stated that the vast majority of all four
types of shops do brake work.9  Some  independent repair shops that exclusively
perform engine overhauls, transmission, air conditioning, or radiator  service
would not do brake jobs.9  Nilfisk estimates that there are 285,000 auto
repair shops in the U.S. and 1,000,000 mechanics who are exposed to brake
dust each year.5  U.S. Sales estimates that there are between 150,000 and
200,000 service stations, fleet shops, and auto dealerships that do brake
work in the United States.
     Table 3-1 also includes information on the number  of axle sets of drum
brake shoes and disc brake pads installed  by type of shop in  1984,  Because
brake shoe or pad replacement is the  most  common repair performed on  brakes,
                                     3-1

-------
TABLE 3-1.  NUMBER OF BRAKE REPAIR FACILITIES
Type of shop
Service station
Independent repair shop
New car/truck dealership
Self service fleet shops
Total
Automotive repair
outlets, 1984 10
Number Percent
115,000 35.0
110,000 45.6
25,000 7.6
39,000 11.9
329,000 100.0
Brake
drum shoes installed
in 1984 (axle sets}7
Number (1000's) Percent
10,797 36.0
13,766 45.9
3,809 12.7
1,620 5.4
29,992 100.0
Disc brake pads
installed in 1984
(axle sets)11
Numbers
(1000's) Percent
13,021 36.5
16,460 46.1
5,314 14,9
889 2.5
35,684 100.0

-------
The numbers represent a baseline estimate of the number of times mechanics
are exposed to asbestos during routine brake maintenance.  The fact that not
all brake pads contain asbestos reduces actual exposures but exposures can
also result when brakes are checked and not changed.  Other operations that
may be performed include drum turning, rotor resurfacing, or cylinder replace-
ment.  Because cost of parts is relatively small in the total cost of a brake
job,  brake shoes or disc brake pads are usually replaced when other brake
work is done.

3.2  NUMBER OF CONTROL DEVICES IN USE
     To estimate the number of control devices presently in use» PEI contacted
vendors of the equipment.  Table 3-2 presents the results of this survey.
None of the vendors was able to give a breakdown of the number of units by
type of shop.  The vendors indicated that most shops had only one system, but
it was not common to see two or three at larger facilities.




Vendor
Control Resource Systems
Nilfisk
Clayton Associates
Hako
Pullman Holt
((leer-Flo
U.S. Sales
Ammco
Total



Incl osure
HEPA-filterd
vacuum
50
6,000-7,000
450
2,000



Wet Brush/
recirculating
liquid
0
0
0
0
0
c
3,000-4,000
<10,000a
<20,000d

   a PEI estimate based on conversations with other vendors.
   b Sold to automotive service shops.
   c Would not divulge information.
   d PEI estimate.
                                     3-3

-------
3.3  NUMBER OF 00-IT-YOURSELF BRAKE JOBS
     After Market Business (formerly HomeandAuto Magaz1ne).estimates that
     m-nm«tt-nr--r      ->-  J  -   •'-	u-i. uu
there are 65 million DIY's in the United States,    The same  source estimates
that there are 20 million brake jobs (drum and disc axle sets) performed by
DIY's annually,16
     A Simmons Market Research Bureau survey in 1981 found that 42 percent of
consumer brake jobs (i.e., excludes fleet and commercial vehicles) were
performed by DIY's.15  The same source estimates that there are approximately
43 million brake jobs (drum and disc axle sets) performed on  consumer vehi-
cles.15  This yields an estimated 18 million brake jobs performed by DIY's
annually.
     Both estimates are consistent.  Because PE1 obtained survey questions
and breakdowns of replys for the Simmons Market Research Bureau survey,  PEI
believes the 18 million estimate to be the more accurate.  Of total DIY's in
1985, 71 percent have done drum brake.jobs and 69 percent have done disc
brake overhauls.

3.4  IMPACT OF OSHA 6UIDLINES
     It is assumed that each shop performing brake maintenance complies with
OSHA "Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Automotive  Brake Repair
Operations - Nonnandatory" guidelines (29 CFR Section 1910.1001 - Asbestos,
Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Acitinolite, Appendix  F)  by using solvent spray
from an aerosol can.  Aerosol brake cleaners typically  contain from  15 to 20
percent 1,1,1-trichloroethane and from 50-75 percent perchloroethylene.   In
discussions with OSHA personnel  involved with the cost  impact analysis performed
before their regulations and guidelines were promulgated,  PEI learned that
their basis for minimum control was a spray can filled  with a solvent cleaner.
They assumed one spray can would be used for each brake job (axle  set).  The
cost impact to the industry was  calculated by multiplying  the number of brake
jobs in a year times the cost of a  solvent spray can.    During NIOSH's study
of asbestos controls for brake maintenance, they noted  the use of a  product
containing, 1,1,1-trichloroethane.  An aerosol  can  of  solvent spray  costs
about Sl.75.19  Because the OSHA regulations and guidelines are  in place, a
                                      3-4

-------
proper starting point (or baseline) from which to measure the impact of new
regulations in this area is to assume that all shops which do not have one of
the three control systems under consideration are currently using the solvent
spray can method for control,
                                     3-5

-------

-------
                                  SECTION 4
                      ESTIMATED COST OF CONTROL SYSTEHS

     This section presents the estimated costs of the purchase  and  use of
each of the three asbestos control systems for brake maintenance.   These
costs were primarily developed from information provided by vendors.  Where
data gaps still existed, they were estimated using information  from EPA  re-
ports, OSHA regulations, and PEI engineering judgment.  Capital  and operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs were used to estimate the total annual  cost  of
using each system.  Tables 4-1 through 4-3 summarize the results.
     Cost estimates are based on using one control unit in a shop  performing
91 drum brake jobs (axle sets) and 109 disc brake jobs (axle sets)  each  year.
This basis was arrived at by dividing the total number of each  job performed
by the total number of repair facilities in the U.S. given in Table 3-1.

4.1  CAPITAL COSTS
     Total capital cost consists of direct purchase cost and indirect pur-
chase costs such as taxes, freight, and management and supervision.  This
cost is then annualized by estimating the life of the equipment and the
annual cost of capital.
4.4.1  Direct Costs
     Direct costs for the control systems were obtained from vendors and
their product literature.  The costs are for standard equipment (no options)
as offered by the manufacturer.  All costs are in 1987 dollars.
     For the enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum systems,  direct costs for all
models offered by Clayton, Control Resource Systems,  Inc., and Pullman-Holt
were included.  Nilfisk and Hako offer a variety of  interchangeable enclo-
sures and vacuums.  For those vendors, two systems which encompassed their
                                     4-1

-------
                                                      TAI'LE 4-1: ANNUAL COST OF ENCLOSURBHEPA-FITERED VACUUM CONTROL SYSTEMS ja|
Vendor
CLAYTON ASSOC., INC.



CONTROL RESOURCES
SYSTEMS, INC,
HAKO.WC.

NILFISKOFAMERICAJNC.

PULLMAN-HOLT
a


MxM
BCi-1000
(one sbt Is all)
eCE-1500
(ona size Is all)
BCE-2000
(orw size Ms alt)
BCE-2500
(cam and IgM trucks |
BRAKEMASTER 6006
(care and Kght trucks)
C8010S-07
(cars and light trucks)
C80106-09
(larger trucks and buses)
GS80i w/400 Ofi 500 ENCLOSURE
(cars and hghl tracks)
GS82W/8QO ENCLOSURE
(larger trucks and buses)
£286
(cars and light trucks)
£2-102
(cars ant IgM trucks)
C3-66
(larger trucks ami buses)
£3-102
{larger trucks and buses)
Direct
Cost
$3,465
$3,575
$3,630
$2,500
$1,995
$1,195
$1,321
$1,500
$2,500
$1,040
$1,466
$1,270
$1,690
Tam and
Freight (b)
$140
$143
$145
$100
$80
$48
$53
$60
$100
$42
$59
$51
$68
MSfKJgfifRGfK
and
Supervision («}
$175
$179
$182
$125
$100
$60
$66
$75
$125
$$2
$73
$64
$85
Total
CapHal
Cost
$3,810
$3,897
$3,957
$2,725
$2,175
$1,303
$1,440
$1,635
$2,725
$1,134
$1,596
$1,384
$1,842
Expected
LHt,
Years (d)
10
10
10
10
to
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Amuafeed
Capital
Cosl(e)
$620
$634
$644
$443
$354
$2)2
$234
$266
$443
$184
$260
$225
POO
OiMCosl:
Filler
Replacement (t)
$158
$158
$158
$158
$156
$120
$60
$194
$156
$213
$194
$213
$194
04 M Cost:
Wast*
Disposal (j)
$63
$63
$63
$63
$63
$63
$63
$63
$63
$63
$63
$63
$63
6A to Co si:
lost
Product iviry(h
$311
$311
$311
$31)
$311
$311
$311
$311
$311
$311
$311
$311
$311
total
Anruri
Costs
$1,152
$1,166
$1,176
$975
$884
$706
$668
$834
$973
$77)
$828
$812
$868
(a) Costs art tor one system per shop performing 91 drum and 109 disc brake jobs (one axle) par year.
{b) Taxes - 3% and freight • 1% of direct cost.
(c) Management and supervision » 5% of direct cost.
(d) PEI estimate based on conversations with vendors.
(e) Assumes 10% Merest over th« expected lite of the unit.
(It Based on vacuum ffter costs and changing frequency (provided by the vendors) lor 91 drum and 109 disc brafte jobs per year.
(g) Costs are based on proper disposal as recommended in 'Asbestos Wasle Management Guidance", £PAffi30-SW-85^X)7, May 10K,
(h) Based on data bom NiOSH on (he extra time needed lo ctean Jha brake area ol one wheel with this control system wWive to the lima necessary with a solvent spray can and
   assuming « burdened labor rate ot $25.00 pet hour at a shop performing 9t drum and 109 disc brake jobs per year.

-------
                                                          TABLE 4-2:  ANNUAL COST OF M£f>A-FllT£RED VACUUM CONTROL SYSTEMS (a)
Vendor
HAKO.INC.

NFE
NHflSKOfAMEWCAJNC.
PULtMANHOLT
Modal (b}
X-! 000-8
C8031503
SAFE-T-VAC
•BACKPACK"
GSBOi
A 86
Direct
Cos!
$999
$1,245
$595
$850
$784
Tnasand
Freight (c)
$40
$50
$24
$34
$31
Management
ant
Supervision (d)
$50
$62
$30
$43
$38
Total
Capital
Coal
$1,089
$<,357
$640
$927
$833
Expected
LH»,
Years (*)
10
10
10
10
10
Afflu&d
Capital
Cost (f)
$177
$221
$106
$151
$136
6AM 
-------
                                                     TABLE 4-3: ANNUAL COST Of . £T SUWSWREC.'SCULATSJSG UQU» CONTROL SYSTEMS |»)
t/MIwil**
YPflQQf
AMMCO
KLEER FLO
U.S SALES
tixM
1250
INS
'8WDBAW
Direct
Cost
1275
$879
$425
Twnttnd
FitlsMW
$1«
$35
$17
Management
•nd
SMpenrfskmfe)
$14
$44
$21
Tool
Capital
Cost
$300
$958
$463
tifwded
lite,
Years (d)
10
10
10
AflnuriHT
Capit»t
Cosl(e)
$49
$!S6
$75
MUM;""
Filter
RepbtCCffltfll (f|
$0
$0
$12
G4MC05t:
Detergent
	 ffl
$118
$118
$118
OiUCosI:
Waste
fflsposjil(h)
$e
$0
$0
OttlCost:
Los)
Productivity (9
$0
$0
$0
TcUl
tanuri
Costs
$16?
$274
$205
(a) Cosls am (w on« system per shop performing 91 dmm and 109 disc torate jobs (one ate) per yew.
}b) Taaes » 3% and freighl» 1% o) efted cosl.
(c) Management and supervision • S% ol diracl cost
|d| PEt estimate based on convemalmns with vendors
(e) Assumes 10% interest over the expected We ol the uraL
mOnfeirw "Bin! Bath" system uses a liter. TWs **» is tesed on the cost of a reptaeemeni filter, the frwpieney II would Iwdiai^.andaiAuinaritf 109 rJisc brake pbsjoneaxlel pec year.
(g) Based on the ass) o! the verafof s deteiprt, flw awronmate number ot brake jobs 1W could oe perlwrned w»h a «* ol ctetergerS, and 91 drum and M» disc hrate pbs (one »*) per year.
(h) Cos» are based on proper disposal as recommended in 'Asbestos Waste Management GuWanoB", iPA««>-SW-«5-007, May S985,              ....._         c  lh_ K^.   . ^^mte m «ri« th*. fc io™i>«»<
        on daia tarn NiOW withe e«ra time needed » dean the «>fate area of one *heel with this eontol spitm rtlative to the linw neeessary ««lh a solvenl spray can. For these types of controls, no ertra time is mwlvwJ.

-------
respective costs ranges were used.   For the HEPA-filtered  vacuum  systems,
smaller sized vacuum equipment (approximately 100 cfm)  were  included.  Acces-
sory attachment tools were added to the basic vacuum cost.   For the wet
brush/recirculating liquid systems, each vendor offers  only  one model.
4.1.2  Indirect Costs
     Indirect costs were calculated using factors from  "Capital and Operating
                                                20
Cost of Selected Air Pollution Control Systems."    Freight  and local  sales
taxes were estimated to be 1 percent and 3 percent, respectively, of  the
direct capital cost.  Management and supervision (encompassing items  such  as
system selection, purchasing, and training) were estimated as 5 percent  of
the direct capital cost.  Total ca-pital cost is the sum of the direct and
indirect capital costs.
4.1,3  Expected, Life and Total Annualized Cost
      Vendor estimates for life expectancy ranged from 7 to 20 years  for the
enclosed/HEPA-filtered vacuum systems, 10 to 20 years for the HEPA-filtered
vacuum systems, and 10 to 50 years for the wet brush/recirculating liquid
systems.  While some vendors tended to give long life expectancies, PEI feels
a shorter life is more realistic for mechanical equipment.  Because vendor
estimates can tend to over estimate real useful life of a product, PEI
adopted the conservative vendor estimates and assumed a 10 year useful life
expectancy for the equipment. The annualized capital cost reflects the costs
with capital recovery over the depreciable life of the equipment.  A 10
percent rate was chosen to calculate the annualized capital cost as this  is
the discount rate presently recommended for use by the Office  Management  and
Budget (OMB) in circular No. A-94 Revised.  Using the  10-year  life expectancy
and assuming a  10 percent interest rate, annualized capital cost equals the
total capital costs multipled  by 0.16275.

4.2  OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
     O&M costs are those associated with the day-to-day use of the control
systems.  These  items  include  (1)  lost productivity, (2)  filter  replacement
for the HEPA systems,  (3) detergent  or solvent  for wet brush/recirculating
liquid systems, and  (4) asbestos waste disposal.   To develop  costs for  these
                                      4-5

-------
items, it was assumed that the control devices would be used per the  vendors'
instructions and in accordance with all EPA and OSHA regulations and  guide-
lines.
4.2.1  Lost Productivity
     Lost productivity costs are those associated with the extra time it
takes to set-up and perform brake maintenance operations using the control
systems.  For the purposes of this study, the baseline from which to  measure
this extra time is the time it takes to perform brake cleaning using  the
"solvent spray can" asbestos control method, the least costly of the  methods
recommended by OSHA.
     In the recent NIOSH field study of asbestos control systems for  brake
maintenance, operations performed by mechanics were timed.  Data were gener-
ated for the three control systems plus the solvent spray can method.  Lost
productivity relative to the solvent spray can method was estimated by calcu-
lating the difference in these times.  Table 4-4 presents this  data .from the
NIOSH study along with the estimated lost productivity per wheel and per axle
set.
     NIOSH personnel who conducted the asbestos control study indicated to
PEI that the usage time for the Nilfisk enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum system
did not include the time involved in removing  the brake drum from the wheel,
as per recommended procedures.  As such, when  calculating lost  productivity
cost for all of the enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum  systems, the lost time for
the Clayton unit was used  (7 minutes).
     Lost productivity costs were calculated  by multiplying the lost time per
axle by the number of brake jobs  (axle sets including  drum  and  disc) per-
formed in a year and a burdened labor  cost  of $25.00  per  hour.  This is a
rounded estimate based on  the  latest  Bureau of Labor  Statistics wage rate for
a Motor Vehicle Mechanic of $12,55  and administration and overhead costs  of
approximately  100  percent.  When  using the  enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum
systems, it  is not necessary  to use the  enclosure  for disc  brake  work.   It is
recommended that a crevice tool be  attached to the  vacuum hose  of these
systems and used as with the  HEPA-filtered  vacuum  system.   As  such,  the  lost
productivity time  for the  enclosure/  HEPA-filtered vacuum system was set
equal to 1 minute  per axle for disc  brakes.
                                      4-6

-------
                                  TABLE 4-4.  NIOSH DATA ON BRAKE CLEANING TIMES
                                                                       ig           Lost         Lost
                                                    Time to clean brake         productivity  productivity
               Control                                   ( I wheel)               per wheel     per axle


Enclosure/HEPA Vacuum System:   (Nilfisk)         1-5 rain {typical3 = 3 min)        1.5            3
                                (Clayton)         3-9 min (avg. = 5 min)            3.5            7

HEPA Vacuum System:             (Nilfisfc)         1.5-3 min (typical = 2 min)       0.5            1

Wet Brush/Recirculating Liquid
 System:                        (Kleer-Flow)      1-2 min (typical * 1.5 min)        0             0

Solvent Spray Can Method                        1-2 minutes (typical = 1.5 min)

a The typical time was provided by NIOSH as a good estimate of the time required to clean the wheel using
  the various systems.  Where only a range of times was available from NIOSH an arithmetic average of the
  range was used.

-------
4.2.2  IF liter Re pi a c.emen t
     For systems utilizing a HEPA filter, filters must be changed periodi-
cally as brake dust accumulates in the units.  Typically, these vacuums
contain a disposable vacuum collection bag, 1 to 3 prefilters, and a HEPA
filter.  Unit costs for replacement bags and filters were applied to their
changing frequencies to estimate yearly replacement costs.  For the HEPA
filters and any prefilters, the changing frequency for a given vacuum model
was provided by the vendor.  Vendors provided an extremely wide range of
estimates on the changing frequency of disposable collection bags, ranging on
an equalized scale from 17 to 200 brake jobs per ft3 of vacuum capacity.
Based on 91 drum and 109 disc brake jobs per year and vendor estimates of
changing frequency, PEI used a changing frequency of four tiroes per year for
vacuum units with under 1-ft3 foot capacity and twice per year for systems
with greater than 1-ft3 capacity.
     When changing any of the filters on an asbestos vacuum, the mechanic
should wear a dual-cartridge, HEPA-filtered respirator and protective
clothing at a minimum.  The waste from the vacuum must be placed in a 6-mil
polyethylene bag printed with the standard asbestos OSHA warning label.  The
bag should then be placed in a labeled, locked, 55-gallon drum.  Costs for
replacement filters, replacement respirator cartridges, Tyvek suit, gloves,
and the labor time necessary for the filter replacement were included in the
filter replacement costs.
4.2.3  Detergent
     The wet brush/recirculating liquid control systems utilize a cleaning
solution to expedite the brake cleaning process.  Two of the vendors offer a
detergent which the operator adds to water to form a cleaning solution.  The
third vendor {U.S. Sales) is developing a detergent for use with their system
and now recommends that customers choose their own detergent.  The average
annual  cost for detergent was calculated using the unit cost and vendor
estimates of the number of brakes which could be cleaned with a batch of the
detergent solution.  The detergent cost for each vendor system was set equal
to the average cost all vendors.

                                     4-8

-------
4.2.4  Asbestos Waste Disposal
     Disposal of asbestos waste generated by the three control  devices  would
generally not be regulated.  National Emission Standards for Hazardous  Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) applicable to asbestos (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M)
specifically exclude "Operations That Primarily Install Asbestos Friction
Materials on Motor Vehicles" from emission and solid waste disposal  standards
which have been set for manufacturing, building abatement projects,  demoli-
tion, and some other asbestos applications.  Asbestos wastes are not listed
as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and
thus are not subject to the expensive manifesting, transportation and dis-
posal cost associated with these wastes.  Some states do regulate asbestos
wastes as hazardous wastes; however, it is doubtful that any garage would
generate a sufficient quantity of waste in a month to qualify as a generator.
Under RCRA, facilities which generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste  per
month are termed "conditionally exempt small quantity generators" and can
manage their waste as ordinary solid waste (i.e., disposal in a sanitary
landfill is permitted).  It is also doubtful that any garage would be subject
to CERCLA requirements by releasing more than 1 pound of asbestos in a 24-hour
period.
     Although regulations may not apply to the disposal of asbestos waste
from routine brake maintenance operations, the cost of disposing this waste
in a responsible manner is included.  Cost factors for disposal of asbestos
waste from building abatement projects were used to estimate these costs.
     For asbestos waste from vacuums, the amount of brake dust  generated was
estimated using the disposable collection bag changing frequency and capac-
ity.  Using these figures, the "average" shop would produce one 55-gallon
drum of brake dust every 4 years.   Including disposal  of the prefilters and
the HEPA filter would increase this  figure to one  55-gallon drum generated
every 2 years.  Cost for disposal of  this volume of waste included  transpor-
tation (mileage and labor) and disposal at a  landfill  approved  for  asbestos
waste disposal  (which can  be a sanitary landfill).  Approval is contingent on
special operating procedures with asbestos waste.
                                      4-9

-------
      No  cost  is  included  for  the disposal of the spent cleaning solutions
 from  the wet  brush/recirculating liquid system.  Although at large asbestos
 abatement  projects,  it  is considered good practice to filter the asbestos
 from  wastewater  before  discharging, it would not be practical to use any of
 these units to filter the small quantities of water generated from brake
 maintenance.  The U.S.  Sales  "Bird-Bath" has a paper filter to screen asbes-
 tos from the  recirculating cleaning solution.  No .data was found on the
 effectiveness of the filter in capturing the asbestos fibers,

 4.3   SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
      Annual costs were  calculated based on a facility with one control
 performing 91 drum brake jobs and 109 disc brake jobs per year.  Table
4-5 presents  a sensitivity analysis showing how annual costs change as
 the number of brake jobs and  number of control systems change.  Q&M
 costs account for the majority of the total annual cost of all three
types of control systems.  The proportional cost differences between the
 three types remain relatively constant with increases in either number
of brake jobs or the number of control systems 1n use.  Total annual
costs can be as  high as $8.16 per job for a shop with one HEPA-filtered
vacuum system performing 50 brake jobs per year to as low as $0.69 per job
for a shop with  three wet brush/recirculating liquid systems performing 5,000
brake jobs per year.
                                     4-10

-------
          TABLE 4-5:  COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
ENCLQSURE/HEPA-FILTERED VACUUM SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
{Total Annual Cost, dollars per year for the Nilfisk GS80I w/400 or 500 enclosure)

# of units
1
2
3
Brake Jobs per year (axle sets)
50 250 500 1250 2500 5000
$408
$976
$1,685
$3,814
$4,080
$7,628
$7,891
$15,001
          HEPA- FILTERED VACUUM SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
          {Toatat Annualized Cost, dollars per year)

f of units
1
2
3
Brake jobs per year (axle sets)
50 250 500 1250 2500 5000
$236
$576
$1,001
$2,277
$2,428
$4,554
$4,703
$8,963
WET BRUSH/ RECIRCULATING LIQUID SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
(Total  Annual Cost, dollars per year for the U.S. Sales "Bird-Bath")

# of units
1
2
3
Brake jobs per year (axle sets)
50 250 500 1250 2500 5000
$108
$238
$400
$887
$962
$1,773
$1,848
$3,474
                                4-11

-------

-------
                                  SECTION 5

                                 CONCLUSIONS


     The following information was gathered through contact with vendors,
NIQSH, OSHA, and trade associations:

    . °    There are an estimated 329,000 brake repair facilities in, the  U.S.
          Only 2.6 percent of these currently use the enclosure/HEPA-filtered
          vacuum system, and less than 1 percent of the shops use a HEPA-fil-
          tered vacuum system.  Approximately 6 percent of the shops use a
          brush/recirculating liquid system.

     °    Based on discussions with vendors and NIOSH, PEI estimates that
          while enclosures are always used during dust removal, often they
          are not put on the hub until after the brake drum has been removed.
          Brake shoes are normally repaired after the enclosure has been
          removed.

     0    An estimated 18 million brakes (disc and drum axle sets) are re-
          placed by do-it-yourselfers annually.

     0    Based on the cost of use and discussions with OSHA, all the repair
          facilities that do not currently have a HEPA or wet collector
          method are assumed to use the aerosol spray method to comply with
          the new OSHA guidelines.  This roughly represents approximately  90
          percent of the brake repair facilities (about 300,000 shops).

     0    The direct cost of enclosure/HEPA-filtered vacuum systems ranges
          from $1,040 to $3,630, with $1,500 per unit as a reasonable esti-
          mate of the cost of a typical unit sold.  The O&M costs for these
          units, which include filter replacement, waste disposal, and loss
          of productivity costs, are approximately $500 per year.  A reason-
          able estimate of total annual cost for a "typical" shop performing
          91 drum and 109 disc brake jobs per year is $800,

     *    The capital cost of HEPA-filtered vacuum systems range from $595  to
          $1,245, with a reasonable estimate of the cost of a typical unit of
          $850.  Vendors estimated that the number of facilities using just
          the HEPA vacuum without enclosure is small.  The OiM costs of these
          units, which include filter replacement, waste disposal, and loss
          of productivity costs, are approximately $300 per year,  A reason-
          able estimate of total annual cost for a "typical" shop performing
          91 drum and 109 disc brake jobs per year is $450.
                                     5-1

-------
The capital cost of wet brush/recirculating liquid system ranges
from $275 to $879 with $425 per unit as a reasonable estimate of
the cost of a typical unit sold.  The O&M costs of these units,
which include filter replacment, detergent, and waste disposal, are
approximately $120 per year.  A reasonable estimate of total  annual
cost for a "typical" shop performing 91 drum and 109 disc brake
jobs per year is $200.

O&M costs account for the majority of the total annual cost of all
three types of control systems.  The proportional cost differences
between the three types remain relatively constant with increases
in either the number of brake jobs or number of control systems in
use.  Total annual costs can be as high as $8.16 per job for a shop
with one HEPA-filtered vacuum system performing 50 brake jobs per
year to as low as $0.69 per job for a shop with three wet brush/
recirculating liquid systems performing 5,000 brake jobs per year.

The average life of all systems is 10 years.

NIOSH estimates of loss of productivity from use of these systems
to be seven minutes per axle for the enclosure/HEPA system, one
minute per axle for the HEPA system, and no loss in productivity
for the wet brush/recirculating system.  For the average shop
performing 91 drum brake jobs and 109 disc brake jobs per year,
this translates to an annual cost of $311 for the enclosure/HEPA
system and $83 for the HEPA filter system.
                           5-2

-------
                                 REFERENCES

 1.   OTS,  Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics, U.S.
     Environmental Protection  Agency.   June  1986,
 2,   Conversation between Tom  Cooper and  John  Sheeny of NIOSH and Dan Perrin
     (PEI).   uune 4,  1987.
 3.   Hako, Inc.,  telephone conversation between  Greg Rau and Dan Perrin
     {PEI).   June 4,  1987.
 4.   NFE International Ltd., telephone  conversation between Angel Rivera and
     Dan Perrin (PEI).  June 3,  1987.
 5.   Nilfisk of American, telephone conversations  between  George Erml, Kay
     Robbuci, Donald  McCarthy, and Dan  Perrin  (PEI).   June 1 and 11,  1987.
 6.   Clayton Associates, Inc., telephone  conversation  between James Clayton
     and Dan Perrin (PEI).   June 1, 1987.
 7.   Control Resource Systems, Inc., telephone conversation between Sue
     Brakenridge and  Dan Perrin  {PEI).  May  29,  1987.
 8.   Automotive Parts and Accessories Association,  telpehone conversation
     between Bruce Blackwelder and Dan  Perrin  {PEI).   June 23,  1987.
 9.   Ammco Tools, Inc., telephone conversation between Darrell  Wallace  and
     Dan Perrin (PEI).  June 5,  1987.
10,   1984 Service Job Analysis,  Hunter  Publishing  Co., Chicago, Illinois.   As
     presented in Reference No.  11.
11.   Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States.  MVMA
     Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures,  1986.
12.   White-Pullman-Holt, telephone conversation between Walt  Grau  and Dan
     Perrin (PEI).  June 11, 1987.
13.   Kleer-Flo, Inc., telephone conversation between Kally Hilgren and Dan
     Perrin (PEI).  June 4, 1987.
14.   U.S. Sales.  Telephone conversation  with Sandy Jay and Dan Perrin (PEI).
     June 5, 1987.

-------
                           REFERENCES (continued)

15.  Simmons Market Research Bureau.   Simmons Media and Market Report,  New
     York, N.Y.  Simmons Market Research Bureau, Inc.  1982.   As provided  by
     Clay Carpenter of Versar, Inc.,  June 22, 1987.

16.  After Market Business (formerly Home and Auto Magazine)., telephone
     conversation between Richard Weinberg and Dan Perrin (PEI).   June  22,
     1987.

17.  Johnsen, Monfort A.  Aerosol Chlorinated Solvent Market Survey,   prepared
     for ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C., July, 1987.

18.  Telephone conversation between Mario Distasio of OSHA and Dan Perrin
     (PEI).  June 3, 1987.

19.  Super Service Station Magazine,   Safety Agency Stiffens Standard of
     Allowable Asbestos Exposure.  August, 1985.

20.  Neveril, R. 6., Capital and Operating Cost of Selected Air Pollution
     Control Systems.  Prepared,for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Office of Air and Waste Management, EPA 450/5-80-002.  1973.

-------
   APPENDIX A



VENDOR LITERATURE
     A-l

-------
 AMMCO
A-2

-------
AMMCO Model  1250 Brake Assembly Washer
                                               Meets Newest
                                               Federal OSHA
                                               Asbestos Standard
                                               1910.1001

                                               Washing brake assemblies
                                               before starting a brake job lets
                                               you work cleaner, easier, and
                                               safer. Model 1250 Washer and
                                               AMMCO 1256 Concentrate not
                                               only remove dirt, grease, and oil,
                                               but the liquid traps dangerous
                                               asbestos fibers before they
                                               become airborne, thus main-
                                               taining air cleanliness within
                                               OSHA Standards. Just roll the
                                               washer to the job, connect an
                                               air line and you're ready to wash
                                               and disassemble at the same
                                               time. Parts drop  into pan.
                                               Specially designed Gun  and
                                               Nozzle directs property atomiz-
                                               ed stream of cleaning solution
                                               where you want it. Cleaning
                                               solution drains into the Sump
                                               through perforations in top pan
                                               for reuse. Parts Pan and Sump
                                               can be  lifted from  Portable
                                               Stand (left) and used wherever
                                               required (see reverse side). Unit
                                               does double duty as a mobile
                                               parts washer.
                                                More Information on Back
                                                           ammco

-------
        Combines  Ease and  Versatility
                       Simply add concentrate.
Pour 1 gallon (3.78L) of water
into the pan and dissolve a 1
oz. (28.3 g) packet of Ho, 1256
Braf
-------
            BRAKE ASSEMBLY WASHER   MODEL 1250
CABLE: AMMCO BKP/ TELEX: 254795
                      With
                       Pins Pan
                       Sea-
                       Sump Pin
    j c™ an •« line to me »«
    MeiMinn »' tnetura ISO Kl.

-------
                                                          SUN ASSiMBLT 20630 -

                                                          A * 20733 Neizh
                                                          I * 20624 Gur.       .
                                                             S122 Hose Connector
                                                        N8
Oty
1
2
3
4
5
6
- 7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20634
20S31
20635
20619
20644
20623
11 OSS 	 	
20629
20620
20636
20633
2061 8
11213
5999
20749
20622
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
8
S
8
1
fans Pan
Seat
Symp Pan
Tub*
Host Cfimp
Hose. 2"
Shttt Metal Sertws
leg
Caster
Tool! ray
Ring Weisment
Snap Bushing
. Nut
lock Washer
Round Mfl. Screw
Hose 36"
                                              AMMCO NO. 1256 saff washing solution is recom-
                                              mended  for  use frn  the  Model  1250 Brake
                                              Assembiy Washer. A carton of 20 • 1 oz. packets of
                                              Concentrate makes 20 gallons of washing solu-
                                              tion.
                                              DIRECTIONS;  Pour one gallon of water into top
                                              Parts  Pan of  Brake Washer  (it will drain  into
                                              Surnp), Add contents of one packet of  No. 1256
                                              Concentrate to top Parts Pan. Dissolve Concen-
                                              trate by operating Gun and saturating the Concen-
                                              trate with water from the Symp,
                                                           CAUTION
                                                       00 NOT USE GASOLINE
                                                          M RAMMABLf
                                                             SOLVENTS
     si AMMCO'i eonmni program of trnprwctnent.
art *uD|td tc cltinge wtnou! nonce

-------
CLAYTON ASSOCIATES, INC,
         A-3

-------
CLAYTON
FARMINQDAIE,NJ 07727-0589
                         PART i!


    A Presentation of CLAYTON'S Brake Cleaning Equipment
While  other companies may offer vacuum enclosure equipment, none
compare to CLAYTON'S for safety or ease of use. Brake Cleaning Equipment
is our reason for being, not just an afterthought to self a few more vacuum
cleaners.

Our machines were born of a dedicated commitment to provide technicians
and mechanics with a truly usable device to protect occupational health.
Today that commitment continues as we introduce our new Pro-Line™ series
Brake Cleaning Equipment and the nation's first Clutch Cleaning Enclosures
and Tools,

Asbestos-caused diseases are a serious problem for mechanics and their
families. Please take the time to understand the nature of this problem and
carefully compare equipment before purchasing. Why spend over $1,000 on
an ill-conceived device to be cast aside, when effective, easy-to-use Brake
Cleaning Equipment is available at an affordable price.
                               James E. Clayton, President

-------
                                                           EQUIPMENT
          mechanic to safely contain and collect deadly asbestos-ridden dust from vehicle

brakes and clutches,

DESIGN                           .    t
Self-contained compact machines consisting of:
1. An enclosure surrounding the brake assembly so the mechanic can safely blow dust from
  the brake shoes and backing plate.
2 A high performance, vacuum powered, filtration system designed to permit safe collection
  and disposal of hazardous asbestos dust removed from the enclosure.

                                             AUTOMATIC LATCHING MECHANISM prevents
                                             opening filter compartment unless motors are running
                                             SHATTERPROOF LEXAN enclosure is transparent
                                             providing light and excellent visibility for the
                                             operator,
                                             NEOPRENE GLOVES protect the mechanic from
                                             any hand or arm contact with dust,
                                             REMOVE CAR & TRUCK DRUMS (up to 11A ton
                                             capacity) within the enclosure.
                                             SINGLE COMPACT UNIT for easy handling &
                                             storage.
                                             MANOMETER signals time for HEPA filter change.
                                             ONE SIZE FITS ALL vehicles, compact cars to
                                             heavy duty trucks up to 20" backing plate.
                                             UNIQUE ELASTIC PANEL automatically seals
                                             behind backing plate, about the axle, preventing
                                             dust from being blown out of the enclosure.
                                             VACUUM RELIEF VALVE maintains minimum
                                             vacuum pressure to assure positive seal.
         w
         ON LIFTS

  Readily adjusts to vehicles on lifts or safety
  stands; no attachments are required to
  achieve this versatility.
ON SAFETY STANDS

-------
    Unique Auto-SeaJ™ panel automatically seals
    behind backing plate, about the axle,
    preventing dust from being blown out of the
    enclosure.
    Vacuum relief valve maintains minimum
    vacuum pressure to assure positive seal.
        HEAVY-DUTY SERIES

BCE-1000   Recommended for brake work which is generally performed on cars and
           light trucks serviced on lifts (suitable for occasional use on heavy duty trucks)

BCE-1500   Same as BCE-2000 except for having a 2" shorter enclosure.
           Ideal for frequent service of cars and light trucks on lifts or safety stands.
           Also suitable for occasional servicing of heavy duty trucks.

BCE-2000   Slightly larger enclosure providing more room for heavy duty brakes and
           recommended for work which is generally performed on safety stands
 OPENED
  LID
               SAFE-FILTER-CHANGE™
 SAFE-FiLTER-CHANGE™, a Clayton Associates' design exclusive, eliminates
                              the substantial risk of exposure to hazardous
                220 CFM          dust and debris during routine filter change
              Clean Air ROW             common to all other vacuum cleaners.
                                    SAFE-FILTER-CHANGE™ permits operator to
                                    change the bag and pre-filter with vacuum
                                    motors running.

                                    220 C.F.M. air flow into the filter compartment
                                    sweeps loose dust into HERA filter preventing
                                    exposure to operator or to the environment.
                                    WORLD'S MOST EFFICIENT HEPA FILTER;
                                    99.999% on particles 0.12 MICRON or larger.
                                    EACH FINISHED MACHINE IS TESTED and
                                    certified to be 100% LEAK-FREE.
                                    AUTOMATIC LATCHING MECHANISM
                                    prevents opening filter compartment
                                    unless motors are operating,

S^FE-FILTER-CHANGE™ IS A SAFETY FEATURE OF ALL & BCE SERIES MACHINES
                 CONTAMINATED
                  DISPOSABLE
                   RLTER
                    BAG
                   S»GE1
WCUUM
MOTORS
OPERATING
                              VHCUUM
                               NOSE
              Refers to USEPA recommended features found on page 5.

-------
    CLAYTON
                                                   201-938*6700
                                              FAKMINGDALE.NJ 07727-0538
BCE-1000
BCE-1500
BCE-2000
                iRAKE CLEANING EQUIPMENT, HEAVY DUTY SERIES

                     Recommended for cars and light trucks (up to 1% ton capacity)
                     serviced on Sifts. May be used occasionally to service vehicles on safetystands,
                     for frequent service of light vehicles on safety stands model BCE-1500 is
                     preferred. BCE-1000 is suitable for occasional service of heavy duty vehicles as
                     well; for frequent service use model BCE-2000.

                     Same as BCE-2000 except for having a 2* shorter enclosure. Ideal for frequent
                     service of cars and light trucks on lifts or safety stands. Also suitable for
                     occasional servicing of heavy duty trucks.

                     Desioned for frequent service of light or heavy duty vehicles on lifts or safety
                     stands Enclosure is 4* higher than model BCE-1000, 2" higher than model
                     BCE-1500 for greater ease in handling large brake assemblies.
                                SPECIFICATIONS

                                                   BCE'1000

ACCOMODATES VEHICLES ON SAFETY STANDS OR LIFTS . ......... . Standard
 AFE-FILTER-CHANGE™  ...... ..................................
 iANOMETER ...................•••••.••••••• ...... • ........
14 GAUGE STEEL CONSTRUCTION ..... ..... ......... • • ............
'N-SERVICE TRAINING ............... • .......................
 UTOMATIC LATCHING MECHANISM ........... ..............
. IEPA FILTER EFFICIENCY: . . . .99.999% @ 0.12 micron ... .......... .
HEPA FILTER SURFACE AREA (SO. IN.). ........... ........ .... .....
- 1OTORS, SINGLE-SPEED, FLOW-THROUGH . ...... ... ............. •
 'OLTS .......... . . ....... • • - • ........... • • • ......... ..........
*MPS (2 MOTORS RUNNING) ............ ............ • ...... ••••••
C.F.M. (AT INTAKE, 2 MOTORS RUNNING) ....... .............. • • • - •
 JORD AND LENGTH (FT.) ...... ....... ........ ....... ............
 •'ILTERS          .......... • ..... • ........... ............«••«
CAPACITY, DISPOSABLE PAPER FILTER (CU. FT.) ... ......... . .......
LENGTH (IN.) ....... ..... . • • • ...... .......... ...................
 VIDTH (IN.) ...... ....... . ....... .........: ....... . ........ • > • • •
 VEIGHT{LBS.) .... ........ • ........ '••••• ........................
CASTER SIZE (IN.) ...... .  .......... '• • • ......... • ............. ' .....
ATTACHED IMPERMEABLE GLOVES, SEE ;...... . . . . ..... . ............
 CAPACITY, MAXIMUM BACKING PLATE DIAMETER (IN.) ...... . ..... . - - • •
                                                           BCE-1500
                                                           Standard
                                                       f
                                                       3
                                                      .82
                                                      28
                                                      23
                                                      112
                                                       4
                                                    10- %
                                                      20
 7753.
    2.
  115.
   15.
  220.
12/3,50
    3
   .82
   28
   23
   120
   4
  11-Vz
   20
                          ACCESSORIES INCLUDED
                   - BLOW GUN
                   — 5" ROUND DUSTING BRUSH
                   — 1 % " DIAMETER VACUUM HOSE, 24 * LONG
                   — 2" DIAMETER VACUUM HOSE 10' LONG
                   - PREFILTERS, PACK OF 3   „„__,,.
                   - DISPOSABLE PAPER BAGS, PACK OF 10   _
                   - 6 MIL OSHA-STANDARD PLASTIC BAGS, PACK OF 10

                              OPTIONAL ITEMS
                   — SIZE 11 Vz GLOVES
                   - STEEL CREVICE TOOL
                   •- CLUTCH TOOLS, SEE SEPARATE LITERATURE
                   —  FLOOR AND GENERAL PURPOSE TOOLS,
                      SEE SEPARATE LITERATURE
        BCE-2000
        Standard
 7753
    2
  115
   15
  220
12/3,50
    3
   .82
   28
   23
   120
   4
  11-Vs
   20

-------
                                    CLAYTON HEAVY DUTY SERIES
        SPECIFICATIONS FOR AUTOMOTIVE BRAKE  AND CLUTCH CLEANING EQUIPMENT
     Brake cleaning equipment must meet or exceed specifications 1-11 as a minimum requirement.

  1,  Brake Cleaning  Equipment shall be of modular design and construction consisting of a single unit comprising
     both the Vacuum Collection System and the Brake Drum Enclosure, The unit shall be on wheels and portable
  2.  Two (2) single-speed thru-flow motors creating 220 CFM air flow at the Vacuum Intake providing maximum
     dust removal. Motors shall be situated downstream from the H.E.P.A. filter, thereby preventing the motors from
     becoming contaminated.
  3.  The vacuum collection device shall contain a manometer to monitor the condition of the H.EPA filter so as to
     signal time for H.E.P.A. filter replacement.

  4.  The Vacuum Collection System shall be designed so as to permit a single operator to remove the disposable
     filters and/or collected dust and debris  while negative pressure from the vacuum motors draws or sweeps
     IOOM dust or particles away from the operator Into the H.EPA. fitter. Mr sampling of operator's breathing zone
     must affirm zero asbestos exposure using transmission electron microscopy (T.EM.) analysis.
  5.  The Vacuum Collection System shall have a lockable filter compartment and shall have an automatic locking
     mechanism (latch) to prevent access to disposable filters and/or collected dust and debris unless vacuum
     motorts) is (are) operating.
 6,  Purchasers may, at their option, exchange any vacuum equipment purchased (excluding enclosure, hoses, and
     hand tools) for a like model or Its' equivalent (new or remanufactursd at the sellers option) containing a new
     H.E.PA filter, new motor brushes, covered by a full new equipment warranty, for a cost not more than $100
     plus the cost of  the H.EPA filters) alone. This option may be exercised at any time within seven (7) years of
     original purchase.
 7.  Filter system consisting of at least three (SHitters, including one <1> H.EPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air)
     filter having a minimum efficiency of 99.999% on particles 0.12 micron or greater in size.
 8.  H.EPA filter shall be tested by its manufacturer who will list the test results on each filter; furthermore, each
     finished vacuum collection device shall be certified to be 100% leak-free according to a standard D.O.P. test
     protocol: furthermore, each finished vacuum collection device must be designed to permit the end user to
     readily test filtration system using the same D.O.P. test protocol.
 9.  A single enclosure shall be suitable for  backing plates up to 20* In diameter. Tht enclosure design shall
     permit me operator to remove ear and light truck brake drums within the confines of the enclosure. Enclosure
     •hail be large enough and designed so as to enable the operator to use a hammer or other toots to loosen and
     remove drums from vehicle.
10.  The face of the enclosure through which the axle Is Inserted shall be covered by overlapping Impermeable
     panels which effectively seal about the  axle preventing dust-laden air from •scaping the enclosure during the
     cleaning process. These panels shall fully dose the opening side when not in use to prevent release of dust
     Into the atmosphere.
11,  The enclosure shall contain a vacuum relief valve to automatically control the amount of vacuum pressure
     within the enclosure and assure proper  seal about the axle (re: Item 10).
12,  System design shall permit vehicles to be serviced on safety stands or lifts.
13.  The Vacuum Collection System shall be constructed of 14 guage steel to withstand shop abuse and rough
     handling,

14.  The H.EPA filter must  be recess  mounted within the filter compartment to prevent accidental damage.
     H.EPA filter shall be positioned with sealing face gasket downstream of the air flow; It shall be rigidly held In
     place by solid brackets so as to prevent air from by-passing the filter.
15,  The enclosure shall be equipped with attached Impermeable gloves which will prevent operator exposure to
     hazardous substances within the enclosure.
16.  Brake enclosure  shall be made of Lexan or comparable shatterproof, fully transparent material, on the top and
     three (3) sides, thereby, providing excellent visability for the operator.
17.  In-service training shall be provided via V.C.R. video tape or live presentation upon installation of the
     equipment.
18.  The equipment will be warranteed  against defects for one (1) year following  purchase. Parts and labor will be
     included under warranty. Labor to be provided  at purchaser's site for the first 90 days at no charge. For the
     balance of  the warranty period, labor will be free of charge on equipment returned to the vendor's factory.
19,  The equipment shall be  painted O.S.H.A. safety yellow to enhance visibility and  promote safety consciousness,
20.  The Brake Cleaning Equipment shall include the following, in addition to meeting or exceeding the
     aforementioned criteria:  A blow-gun, a 5" round dusting brush, a 1V» * vacuum hose assembly - 24" long, a 2"
     vacuum hose assembly • 10' long,  3 prefilters, 10 disposable filter bags, 10 six (6) mil, plastic bags,
21.  Equipment shall  be manufactured  in the U.S.A.

-------
PRO-LINE
BCE-2500
for the
BRAKE
SPECIALIST
      CLAYTON'S PROVEN QUALITY & SAFETY
         AT AN AFFORDABLE PRICE.

-------
     PffO-L/ME™ BRAKE CLEANING EQUIPMENT- BCE-2SQQ
Recommended for cars and light trucks (up to 1 Vi  ton capacity) serviced on lifts.
    Suitable for occasional service of heavy duty vehicles if serviced on lifts,
    Optional "Free-Wheeler" dolly assembly (P.N. 625-330) needed to service
                       vehicles on safety stands or lifts.
                              SPECIFICATIONS
   -'••- .  SAFE-FILTER-CHANGE™ "~""l ~    '    •.•;•'-^       "	      Standard
         MANOMETER {TO MEASURE HEPA FILTER AND PREFILTER)
         AUTOMATIC LATCHING MECHANISM
         LOCKABLE FILTER COMPARTMENT
         MODULAR SINGLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION
         TESTED 100% LEAK FREE
         VACUUM RELIEF VALVE
         MOTOR DOWN STREAM FROM HEPA FILTER
         AUTOSEALTM OVERLAPPING CLOSURE PANELS
         SHATTERPROOF TRANSPARENT ENCLOSURE
         PRINTED O.S.H.A. SAFETY YELLOW
         HEPA FILTER EFFICIENCY 99.999% @ 0.12 MICRON
         HEPA FILTER SURFACE AREA (SO, IN)                             2080
         MOTOR, SINGLE SPEED THRU-FLOW                              1
         VOLTS                                                   115
         AMPS                                                    7V4
         C.F.M. (AT INTAKE)                                          110
         CORD LENGTH (IN.)                                           18
         FILTERS                                                  3
         CAPACITY, DISPOSABLE PAPER FiLTER (CU. FT.)                      .82
         WEIGHT (LBS.)                                              153
         CASTER SIZE (IN.)                                            4
         ATTACHED IMPERMEABLE GLOVES, SIZE                          10%
         CAPACITY, MAXIMUM BACKING PLATE DIAMETER {IN.)                  20
         1% * DIAMETER HOSE, 24" LONG                                 1
         1 % * DIAMETER HOSE, 36" LONG                                 1
              P.O. BOX 589 • 30 SOUTHARD AVENUE * FARMINGDALE, N J. 07727-0589
                                  (2QDS38-670Q

-------
  SAFE-FlLTER-CHANGE™a CLAYTON exclusive
  Hems How It  Works: •—•»•••«»•••»—»•—•»••»••••——
I.Turn on motor.

2. Open filter
  compartment

3. Incoming clean air
  prevents dust from
  exiting the
  compartment.

4. Wear gloves, remove
  filter bag from fill
  tube.

5. Pour approximately
  1 pint of water into
  bag to wet contents.
6. Filter bag is now
  ready for safe
  removal.

7, Turn a 6 mil poly
  bag inside out over
  hands and arms.

8. Reaching through
  the plastic bag,
  grasp the fitter bag.

9. Fold the plastic bag
  around the filter bag
  and secure It for
  storage or disposal.
         During each step of SAFE-FILTER-CHANGE™ clean air flowing into the
      compartment protects the workers and the environment from exposure
                    to dust contained in the fliter compartment
    STATE-OF-THE-ART AIR FILTRATION
Tha world's most efficient HEPA (High Efficiency
Paniculate Air) filter, certified 99.999% efficient on
particles 0.12 micron or greater, captures even the
smallest of particles,
Unique filter locking fixture securely holds HEPA in
place preventing any bypass of contaminated air
around the filter, HEPA filter is situated upstream from
the motor assuring that only PURE AIR passes through
the motor - never a worry to the mechanic who may
have to service the motor or switch.
               MANOMETER
  Measures the condition of the HEPA filter so there's no
  guessing whether or not it should be changed.
  With good preventive maintenance customers can
  expect 3-5 years of service between HEPA filter
  changes.
                                               EQUIPMENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
                                           When its time to change the HEPA you may purchase a
                                           new one and replace it yourself or Clayton wilt send a
                                           new or reconditioned cabinet with a new HEPA filter
                                           installed, tested and certified 100% leak free. A!! for just
                                           a few dollars more than the cost of the HEPA filter.

-------
^ft^ ASSOCIATES, INC.
                            BRAKE

                                CLEANING

                                  EQUIPMENT
AUTOMATIC LATCHiNG MECHANISM
» Prevents filter compartment door from opening unless
  vacuum motor Is running.

LOCKABLE OUTER CABINET LATCH

• Prevents unauthorized access to filter compartment.

FINISHED EQUIPMENT TESTED & CERTIFIED

100% LEAK FREE

« What good is a HEPA filter vacuum if you can't be sure
  it's really capturing the small particles of hazardous
  dust?
* Each of Clayton's finished vacuum systems is tested by
  an Independent contractor and certified to be
                100% LEAK FREE
AUTOSEAL*" PANEL
* Automatically seats around the axle to prevent dust from
  being blown out of the enclosure,
« Panel remains closed when not In use.
SHATTERPROOF, TRANSPARENT ENCLOSURE
» Excellent visibility for working.
* Polycarbonate is unaffected by brake fluids, grease, etc.

ONE SIZE FITS ALL VEHICLES
• Backing plates up to 20* diameter fit within this large
  enclosure. Any yet it works equally well on the smallest
  of cars too,

ATTACHED IMPERMEABLE GLOVES
• Prevent hand or arm exposure to dust.
* Two gloves make it  easy for technician to use tools to
  loosen stubborn drums.

PULL DRUMS WITHIN THE ENCLOSURE
» Drums on vehicles up to 1 % ton capacity are readily
  removed within the enclosure.
* Even large drums will fit inside the enclosure, however,
  they are generally too heavy for an Individual to remove
  in this manner.
                               f
VACUUM RELIEF VALVE
* Maintains a uniform vacuum pressure within the enclosure to assure a tight seal around the axle,
* Opens on demand to allow incoming air to sweep dust and debris through the enclosure and into the vacuum
  collection system below.

-------
                                        PRO-LINE™ BCE-2500
      SPECIFICATIONS FOR AUTOMOTIVE BRAKE AND CLUTCH CLEANING EQUIPMENT
          Brake Cleaning Equipment .must meet or exceed specifications 1-11 as a minimum requirement

  1,  Brake Cleaning Equipment shall be of modular design and construction consisting of a single unit comprising
     both the Vacuum Collection System and the Brake Drum Enclosure. The unit shall be on wheels and portable
  2.  One (1) single-speed thru-flow motor creating  110 CFM air flow at the Vaeuum Intake providing maximum dust
     removal. Motors shall be situated downstream from the H.E.PA filter, thereby preventing the motors from
     becoming contaminated.
  3.  The vacuum collection device shall contain a manometer to monitor the condition of the H.EPA filter so as to
     signal time for H.EPA filter replacement
  4.  The Vacuum Collection System shall be designed so as to permit a single operator to remove the disposable
     filters and/or collected dust and debris while negative pressure from the vacuum motors draws or sweeps
     loose dust or particles away from the operator Into the H.EPA filter. Air sampling of operator's breathing zom
     must affirm zero asbestos exposure using transmission electron microscopy iac* by solid brackets so as to prevent air from by-passing the filter.
14.  The enclosure shall be equipped with attached Impermeable gloves which will prevent operator exposure to
     hazardous substances within the enclosure.
15.  Brake enclosure shall be made of Lexan or comparable shatterproof, fully transparent material, on the top  and
     three (3) sides, thereby providing excellent vlsabillty for the operator.
16,  In-service training shall be provided via V.C.R. video tape or live presentation upon Installation of the
     equipment.
17.  The equipment will be warranteed against defects for one  (1) year following purchase. Parts and  labor will  be
     Included under warranty. Labor to be provided at purchaser's site for the first 90 days at no charge. For the
     balance of the warranty period, labor wilt be free of charge on equipment returned to the vendor's factory.
18.  The equipment shall be painted O.S.H.A. safety yellow to enhance visibility and promote safety consciousness,
19.  The Brake Cleaning Equipment shall include  the following, In addition  to meeting or exceeding the
     aforementioned criteria: A blow-gun, a 5" round dusting brush, a 1 Va" vacuum hose assembly • 24" long, a
     1 Vt" vacuum hose assembly 3' long, 1 prefliter, 1  disposable  filter bag.  *
20.  Equipment shall be manufactured in the U.S.A.

-------
          Safe   Filter   Change
                    PATENT PENDING
                  1M
                                 CLEAN AIR
   OPENED
     LID
CONTAMINATED
   DISPOSABLE
   FILTER
    BAG
                      PREFILTER
                       STAGE
VACUUM
HOTORS
OPERATING
            H,E,P,A,
            FILTER
            STAGE
VACUUM
 HOSE
                       Clayton Associates, Inc.
           P.O. Box 589 * 30 Soulhard Avtnu*. Firmlngdale, N.J. 0772? » (201) 838-6700
       COLLECTION & DISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR ASBESTOS AND OTHER HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

-------
CONTROL RESOURCE SYSTEMS, INC,
            A-4

-------
A REVOLUTION IN
ASBESTOS BRAKE
 PAD REMOVAL
           100% SAFE ASBESTOS BRAKE PAD
           REMOVAL WITH HEPA FILTRATION
           « Both hands free to work
           « Variable height adjustment
           * Unobstructed visibility
                             *'1964 Control Resource Systems, inc.

-------
   Environmental Systems
That Help You Breathe! Easy,
By the Architects of Clean Air
                                    CRSI BOOBv
                                 BRAKE PAD REMOVAL SYSTEM
                                Brakemaster
                                Specifications
                                » Dimensions: (Cabinet)
                                  Height 21" Width 15" Depth 15"
                                * Weight: 50 Ibs.
                                * Construction: 16 GA Sheet Metal
                                  Cabinet
                                  14 GA Structural Tubing Stand
                                • 1/»" Thick  Plexiglass Window
                                » Height Adjustment:
                                  2'0" to 6'0".
                    BRAKEMASTER
                    UNIT INCLUDES:
* 1 Unit with adjustable base on 4 heavy
 duty casters. (Filtration unit sold
 separately).
• Standard air hose connection
                                 * Air gun with hose
                                 » 2 hand sleeves
                                 » 1 axle sleeve
                                 « 25 feet-4" dla. flex hose
                       Manufactured & Distributed by:

              Control  Resource Systems,  Inc.
                  670 Mariner Drive. Michigan City. Indiana 46360
           "Toll Free" 1 -800-272-3786 • (219} S72-5591 * Telax No 7S30Q7
CRS

-------

-------
 HAKO
A-5

-------
    ako
Minuteman
Asbestos Brake Drum Vacuum System
Featuring Hako's exclusive Clear-View * Heavy Duty Vinyl Hood
The Safest and Most Effective Way to Control and
Remove Asbestos Dust from Brake Drums

-------
   Take a look at
Hake
Minutemar
The Effective Way to Protect

your Employees, Customers

and Business from the

Hazards of Asbestos.


Asbestos—a recognized

public health hazard

Reseachers have only begun to uncover the serious health hazard
represented by asbestos. Any time a product made with asbestos
is disturbed, asbestos fibers are released into the air.- Once inhaled
or swallowed, these fibers can cause disease and disability.
Asbestos exposure can be costly, both in human and business
terms. It can result in employee absenteeism, increased healthcare
costs and decreased productivity. OSHA and the National Institute
of Occupational Safety Hazards (NiOSH) have issued strict standards
to limit worker exposure to asbestos. These standards require you
to take certain steps to protect your employees from the dangers
of asbestos exposure.


Asbestos exposure during

brake drum repair

Every time a mechanic works on a brake drum assembly, asbestos
fibers are released into the air. Anyone in or near the work area-
including the general public—can ingest these hazardous fibers.
Recognizing the critical need for a safer, more effective way to mini-
mize asbestos exposure. Hako Minuteman has developed the
Asbestos Brake Drum Vacuum System. This system controls,
isolates and contains hazardous asbestos in the safest, most efficient
way possible. It safeguards the health ot your employees...increases
productivity...and helps reduce the costs of operating your business.
                       DCCI II TC CUAUU
                                    MlWlfTFMANre; ASBESTOS BRAKE DRUM VAC U

-------
     Asbestos  Brake Drum Vacuum System
                                                               How Hako gives you

                                                               three levels of

                                                               protection:


                                                            1. Controls

                                                               Hako's exclusive Clear-View heavy duty
                                                               vinyi brake drum hood covers the entire
                                                               brake drum assembly to trap and contain
                                                               loose asbestos. Provides total visibility
                                                               during cleaning operations tor increased
                                                               safety and control. Buttt-tn air blowing
                                                               nozzle dislodges loose  asbestos fibers
                                                               from deep inside brake  shoe lining quickly
                                                               and efficiently. Protects mechanic from
                                                               asbestos exposure—prevents fibers from
                                                               spreading to other areas


                                                            2. Isolates

                                                               Once asbestos fibers are trapped within
                                                               the hood, they are safely vacuumed
                                                               through the exclusive Hako 5-stage, high
                                                               efficiency filtration medium. This filtration
                                                               system, designed specifically for the
                                                               handling of asbestos, isolates the fibers
                                                               lor added safety and protection. A key
                                                               component in the isolation of asbestos
                                                               is a DOR (smoke) tested and registered
                                                               H.E.P.A. (high efficiency paniculate air)
                                                               filter with 3 minimum efficiency of 99 97°.-o
                                                               on particles of 0.3 micrometers. Both the
                                                               operator and the motor assembly are
                                                               protected since ail air going through the
                                                               vacuum is H.E.P.A. filtered before being
                                                               exhausted into the environment
                                                            3. Contains
                                                               Hako provides an extra measure of
                                                               operator protection in the handling and
                                                               disposal of hazardous asbestos. Asbestos
                                                               fibers are collected in a disposable filter
                                                               bag which is surrounded oy a heavy dt-iy
                                                               plastic tank liner. This liner is marked
                                                               "Contains Asbestos Fibers!' complying
                                                               with Federal regulations. The operator
                                                               simply closes the top of the plastic liner
                                                               and lifts it—with the filter bag salely
                                                               inside—out of the tank for safe and
                                                               easy disposal.
'STEM WILL EXCEED ALL OSHA AND EPA STANDARDS FOR CONTROLLING & ELIMINATING ASBESTOS DUST

-------
A versatile, portable system that's easy to operate
                                                        Also available with 2 non-permeable gloves
       15 gallon—Standard

Product Features;

Asbestos Vscuum
• -. ^,- c" •„' :e c' 6 cr '.5 ga^o^
  asoestos vacuum,
* Ah asbestos-laden air is H.E.P.A.'
  filtered before release into the
  environment
» Hako Minuternan critical filter
  vacuums are easily adapted for
  wet .'ecovery.
3 A fuli range of toots and attach-
  ments available.
Exclusive Clear-View
Heavy Duty Vinyl Hood
» Allows total operator visibility
  dunng cleaning operation.
• Covers entire brake assembly to
  contain asbestos
• Built-m air blowing nozzle firmly
  secured to hood to prevent acci-
  dental removal
* Mounts to Doiiy Stand  for total
  mouiiuy and easy access to differ-
  ent working heights and vehicles.
* Available in two standard sizes for
  car? /adjustable from 7" to 12" in
  diameter), trucks, buses (adjust-
  able from 12" to 19" in diameter)
   .,  even aircra*1,.
 * Videotape operating instructions
  available (VHS format).
           15 gallon with gloves
     Dotty Stand
     » Mounts so Brake Drum Hood to
      form a complete, portable
      cleaning unit.
     * Constructed of rugged structural
      steel for long-term durability.
     » Fitted with casters for total
      mobility.
     • Allows adjustment of Hako Brake
      Drum Hood to working heights of
      up to 5 feet.

     If you repair brakes, you
     need the Hako Asbestos
     irake Drum Vacuum System
     Ideal for:
     « Auto Dealers
     » National Chain Automotive
      Service Centers.
     * Independent Repair Shops.
     « Truck Fleet Operators.
     • Public and Schoof Bus Systems.
     • Car and Truck Rental Companies.
     • Municipal and industrial Fleets.
     • Aircraft Repair Operations.

     * Independent laboratory test
      results show Hako Mmuteman's
      Asbestos Brake Drum Vacuum
      System will exceed alt OSHA and
      EPA standards for controlling
      and eliminating asbestos dust.
                            S gallon with glove*

                     Specifications
i A*t*ttOI : AitWttOI
Sia'.iC uti imcn« w»se'
Air Row (C.F.M )
Powf (WIUSI
Cord S Lengtn
Wt t CtpiCrty (jaliorts}
86 88
95 95
93C 937
i6-3'5e -e-3 s:
' N * Oet-cie'
Dry C*P»etty (eu - 
-------
 halm
 Minuteman
 Series 800 Asbestos Vacuum Systems
 For On-Going Removal of
 Asbestos and Other Toxic Dusts
 Operation

 A dry vacuum, each Asbestos Vac
 utilizes five filters to capture sub-micron
 particles,.,a disposable paper fitter pro-
 tector, primary paper clotfi filter, impac-
 tion pre-fitter and a H.E.PA. final filter. A
 disposable paper collector bag is in-
 cluded on the 6 and 15 gallon models- A
 heavy gauge plastic drum liner may be
 used on the 30 and 55 gallon sizes for
 safe removal of large volume pick-yps.


 Application

 For use in schools, offices, industrial
 and shipboard cleaning operations.
 With an efficiency rating of 98.97% on
 particles of ,3 micrometers, the Asbes-
 tos Vac is particularly useful for clean-
 ing up after insulation operations on
 pipes, in removing asbestos-covered
 ceiling dust to prevent "snowing" and
 for vehicle maintenance procedures tn-
' voivmg asbestos coated material such
 as brakes.
 This vacuum is highly effective in filtering
 airborne pollutants such as:
 • Aluminum
 • Arsenic
 * Arsenite
 • Barium
 » Beniomite
 » Beryllium
 » Cement
 » Cerium
 » Chromium
 • Coai
 « Diatonite
 • Fertilizer
 • Foundry Ousts
 » Fullers Earth
 * Fumigants
 • Fungicides
 » Graphite
 • Hematite
 » Herbicides
 • insecticides
* Kaolin
• Kim
• Lead Arsenate
• Lime
• Mica
• Nickel
• Nicotine
• Pesticides
• Pyretrwum
• Rodenticides
• Rotenone
• Silica
» Sitlimanile
• Talc
• Tin
• Titanium
• Tripoli
• Tungsten Carbide
» Vinyl Chloride
• Wood
              Each unit features a 2 stage by-pass
              electric motor.
              1. H.E.PA. Filter (99,97% efficient a!
               .3 micrometers)
              2. Impact Filter
              3, Cloth Filler
              4. Filter Protector
              5. Disposable Bag
              6. Intake
              7. Exhaust
 > Iron
 Easily Meets Federal Asbestos
 Pick-Up and Removal Requirements. Mii-c-24593tSH)

-------
Selection
Hako-Minuteman Asbestos Vacuums are
available m a variety of models and sizes
from 6 to 55 gallon capacities They can
be easily modified for wet pick-up appli-
cations when equipped with a water
shut-off moduie and a 1:1 tank/ltd
adapter. Most Asbestos Vacs are avail-
able with painted or stainless steel
drums.
Model C-80106
Available in painted or stainless steei.
115/220V equipped with easily disposed
oi paper collection bag, A convenient
easy-io-carry size (6 gallon). A wheel
bracket is optional. Weight: 24% IDS.
 Options
Hako-Minuteman Asbestos Vacuums can
accommodate various options such as
water shut-off  modules and tank/lid


Specifications
The following Series 800 Asbestos Vac-
uum specifications provide the practical
information to allow specific comparisons
between sizes ranging from 6 to 55 gal-
lons.
Please note that  these  vacuums are
shown as dry only Wei/dry capability can
be added by obtaining the  optional
equipment indicated above.
H.E.RA. (High Efficiency Paniculate Air)
Filters are 93.97% effective at ,3
microns.
HE PA. fiite' meets or exceeds the
following military and government
specifications.
MM-F-51079A
Mif-F-510680
U L Class i listed
U L Stcf 586 listed
A.E.G.— Regulatory Guide #1.51
       s $u&j»c! to change without notice
Model C-80315
Available m painted or stainless steel 15
gallon drums with 115V or 220V AC/DC
motors,Each unit includes front casters,
B" rear, wheels and a carriage handle.
Weight: Si IPs.
adapters for wet pick-up applications. The
optional starter tool kit at right is recom-
mended tor each new unit. (C-80559-00)
Model C-80330. C-WJ3S5
Available with 30 or 55 gallon pamtee
dryms with 11SV Of 220V AC/DC motors.
Each unit is equipped with a doily cart and
handle tor easy maneuverability. Weight:
30 Gallon  size —121 I6s., 55 gallon
size—138 tbs.

Sianc Lift {inches water)
A« Flow (C.F.M \
Power (watts)
CQfd & length
Wet Capacny tga!
Dry Capacity lew .ft.)
Filter Area
Total Square Inches
Overall Heigm
Wtfltfi
>.-,,,, Standard
Optional
Wheels
Wh~. c,,. P'onl
flear
Wet/Dry
Dry Only
Weight (poundsl
ABbnto*
•«
86
35
930
16-3'SG
NA
.21
2226
25"
M"
115
220
Opt
3'
6"
—
Ves
24 Vs
Atbwtoi
•IS
88
95
930
16-3/50'
Opt
.82
4120
se-
ar
115
220
Yes
I 3"
8*
Opt.
Yes
51
AfttWItOt
•30
88
96
930
16-3/50'
Opt I
4.36
4120
48"
25"
its
220
Yes
5"
5"
Opt
Yes
12T
AstMltOf
•SS
ee
95
930
16-3/50'
Op:
715
4120
54"
25"
115
220
Yes
5"
5"
Dpi
Yes
138
                                               We offer a complete
                                               l!n*of •ttachments.
                                               ipcctct tools and
                                               icc««tones for all
                                               Hako-Minuteman
                                               Atbtttos Vacs,
                                               See tools, parts and
                                               accessories catalog.
 Halm
 Minuteman
 THE FULL LINE OF • (ndustnal/Commerciai'lrtsiitutionat and
 Critical Fitter Vacs * Sweepers • Scrubbers « Floor/Carpet Machines.
                                                111 South Route 53. Addison, Illinois 60101 • Phone (312) 627-6900

-------
 Halm
 Minuteman
 Series 800 Critical Filter Vacuum Systems

 For Efficient Pick-Up of Hazardous Wastes
Wet/Dry or Dry 0nIy~H.E.P.A. Filter Systems

-------
Operation
 All Hako-Minuieman  X-iOO. X-1000 and
 MX-i 000 vacuums feature quiet operating
 lid assembNes' and are equipped with an
 exclusive  3 stage by-pass motor. Motor
 Cooling Air Recircutation  device  standard
 on X-100.  X-1000. and MX-1000 vacuums
 This device assures thai  ail air going
 through the vacuum has been H.E.P.A. fil-
 tered before it is exhausted back into the
 environment.  All motor cooling air is
 exhausted without turbulence. The X-1700
 and X-700 models are compressed air op-
 erated  critical litter vacyums. The use ot
 transfer lids allows for quick tank changes
 during emergency cleaning. Details on the
 operation of air vacs is contained in the
 Hako-Minuteman Series TOO literature.
 When used lor dry pick-up, four tilteis,
 H.E.RA. filter, impact filter, cloth bag and
 filter protector  bag,  trap any  contam-
 inated material that enters the  tank
 and fitters alf air that flows through the
 vacuum.
 On-X-100  models  ihe extetna! (liter box
 allows  quick ana easy changing of the
 impactionpre-filterandH.E.PA. fitter,
 1. H.E.RA. Filter
 2, impact Filter
 3. Cloth Filter
 4. Filter Protector
 5. Disposable Bag
 6, intake
 7. Exhaust
 8. Motor Cooling Air Recirculation
 9. X-100 and MX-iOOO.Waier Shut-Off
   MX-1000 Dry Only Plastic Bag
   X-1000-30 '55-Dry Only Plastic Bag
10.1:1 Adapter
11. Plug
   Water Shut-Off Module
                                                                   f
MX-1000-Wel
                                       MX-1000-Dr>
 X-1000-15
                                        X-lDQO-30,'55
                            X-100CM
                           : X-1000-6   i
                                                                                              •Eg--'.
               X-1000-4/6
 X-100-15

-------
Application

American Cleaning Equipment Corpora-
lion offers many sites and configurations
of me Hako-Minuteman Critical Filter Vac-
uums for safely trapping artel containing
nuciear, mercury, ehemicai, asbestos and
other hazardous materials.  Mmjteman
Critical  Filters Vacuum Systems are the
safest and most refiabie way to collect con-
taminates, because each model contains
a high oen$it> • impacf" type filler win 90
10 95'»  efficiency as measured by trie
"DO.P  test  and  a  H.E.P.A. {High  Effi-
ciency Paniculate Airj filter 99,S7% effec-
tive a! 0.3 microns minimum effectiveness
The Critical Fitter Vacuums are approved
for use in hospitals, "while rooms", elec-
tronic assembly areas, testing labs and
nuciear  plants — or  wherever there is a
need 10 remove hazardous
prevent its escape into the a
-------
Selection
Hako-Minyteman critical filter vacs otter
a selection of rnodefs and Si2es to fit
any  specific hazardous waste cleaning
application.
Series 800 vacuums  are  available in
wet dry an
-------
          Options
I
                                                                  Powerhead electric
                                                                  or air
                                                                  30 gallon
                                                                  drum
                                                                  adapter
                                                                  55 gallon
                                                                  drum
                                                                  adapter
                                                                  drum
                           dump valve
dotty
                        Series 800 Critical Filter  Vacs can ac-
                        commodate numerous options to furthe*
                        expand the capabilities of each machine
                        Drum adapters are available  to enable
                        the use of t5 gallon lids on both 30 and 55
                        gallon drums. When using a lid adapter,
                        the position of the vacuum ir,;a«,e •? ^ the
                        adapter rather than on the side of trie tank
                        as it is on some models- This allows use
                        of a  disposable plastic liner bag which
                        can be easily and guiefciy removed lo'
                        disposal of picked up materials
                        Also, a disposable paper fillet protector
                        can be used on the 16 gallon lid. With this
                        tid and  appropriate  adapters, both the
                        plastic  bag-and filter protector can
                        simplify waste disposal and extend filter
                        life. When the cleaning job is finished the
                        filter protector is dropped into the piast:C
                        bag to be discarded with waste material
                        The absolute filter is adaptable to any of
                        thase configurations for  the  exhaust of
                        pure air.
                        Also, please note the partial list of apr' •
                        cations and materials  which can  be
                        picked  up by Series 800 Critical  Filter
                        Vacuums.
Applications:
* Nuclear Plants
• Hot Cells
* Hospital Critical Cleaning
* Biological Research tabs
* Pharmaceutical Research Labs
•White, Clean Rooms
* Industrial Lab White Rooms
* Convalescent Homes
* instrument Manufacturing
* Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
» Battery Manufactunng
» Onboard Nudear.Powered Ships

-------
specifications
These Hako-Minuleman 800 Series
specifications provide the practical in-
formation to allow specific comparisons
between models and sizes ranging from 4
to 55 gallons.
Please note on air vac specs trial C.F.M.
represents cubic feet per minute and
P.S.I, represents pounds per square inch.

Sp»ci hen ions JUOHKI to cn«ng« wunout nohc*
                             These figures are average only.
                             Maximum allowable, pressure is 150
                             P.S.I.
                             Please note atso that more detailed in*
                             formation on air vacuums is contained in
                             Series 700 air vac literature.
                             H.E.P.A. (High Efficiency Paniculate Air)
                             filters are 99,S?% effective at .3 microns.
H.E.P.A, filter me«ts or exceeds the
following military and government
specifications,
MM-F-51079A
Mii-F-510680
UOL Class 1 listed
UOL SW. 586 listed
A.E.G.—Regulatory Guide #1,51

Siaue I* (inches wtten
Ay (Cu ft I
Filter Area
Total Sqyare Incties
Overall H»grtl
Width
Volts Stand*rfl
""'" Optional
w-ee.i
fieai
YVei. Dry
Dry Only
Weight ! pounds i
Aif Pressure — P.S.I.
COWOTSed Air FiOW
-SC.FM
X-100
-15
88
I_t28_
1180
16-3/50'
12
18?
5332
35"
21"
115
220
Ye&
y
8"
Yes
_
67W
_
_
X-100
•30
88
128
1180
16-3/50'
25
4.36
5332
48*
24"
115
220
Vej
r
5"
Ves
—
12?
_
	
X-1700
-4
218
166
-
_
—
21
2226
t9"
14"


Nc
-
_
Yes
23
90
42
X.1700
-6
218
166
_
_
—
1-56
2300
24"
14'


No
-
—
Yes
24
90
42
X-703
•15
2IB
166
_
_
—
82
4120
33*
21"


*i< .
3"
8".
_
Yes
51
90
42
X.703
.JO
2'8
166
_
—
_
<3€
4120
45"
25"


ves
5"
5"
_
Yes
96
90
42 mJ
X-703
•ss
218
i66__
—
—
• _
7-15
4120
51"
25'


Yes
5*
5"
-
Yes
113
90
42
X-1000
.4
SS
95
930
16-3/50'
_
.21
1769

14"
115
220
NC
_
_
Yes
zav.
_
_
X-1000
-6
88
95
930
16-3/50'
-
.62
222«
25"
14*
115
220
He
-
_
Yes
Z4V*
_
—
X-1000
-15
88
128
1180
16-3/SO'
-
187
20582
35'
21"
H5
220
YtS
3"
S"
-
ves
6S
_
-
X-1000
•30
§8
528
1180
16-3/50'
_
4.36
20582
47"
25'
115
220
Yes
5"
5"
-
Yes
107
-
-
x-iooo
-55
88
128
1180
16-3-50'
_
7.85
20582
53'
25"
115
220
>res
ZL
5"
~
• Yes
122
_
_
MX -1000
Wet'Ory-
88
128
US'
)6-3'50'
12
207
2058;
S3"
21"
i»5
22C
>it<
3-
6"
ves
_
86
-
-
MX-1Q0C
Dry
88
126 -
«ec-
16-3 50
_
207
20582
93"
21"
US
fc^1-

3
8"
Of
Ye*
83
-
-
We offer a complete line of attachments, special tools and accessories for
Hako-Mtnuteman vacuums. See tools, parts and accessories catalog.
                                                           all
 Haka
 Minuteman
 111 South Route 53, Addison, Illinois 60101 « Phone (312) 627-6900
 THE FULL LINE OF « indystrial/Commercial/institutiona! and Critical Filter Vacs • Sweepers « Scrubbers « Fioor/Cirpe!
                                                                     Punted m U.S.A

-------
   Minuteman
                                        Effective. 5/VS4
           See Vacuum Tools and Attachments for accessories.
  Series 800 Critical Filter Vacyums
                                    Asbestos Vac 15
  Ord*>
                                                                     •wee
  CSQ315-01     Minuf«m»n Asbestos Vac - H.E.P.A. RJttr Veeuum
                •"" 'aO1' S:s:.i:css Sleel. n»v Only)
                irir'iicji'H
                750219—Ud Assembly (11SV)
                w/H,E,P,A7F5lter
                •0SQ1S—Clotn Filter
                750221—Tank Assembly Stainless Steel
                       IS «*l.
                3S004WUT—Bag fnm«
                t10121PKQ—Impitt filter* (12)
               tOSOMPKO—Fitter Protector* (12)
                T8QSMPKQ—Disposable Bags (10)
               TI1042PKG—Pfastle -Bags (SO)
               110010—H.E.P.A. (Replacement)
  C«315-02    Minul«m»n Asbestos Vac — H.E.P.A. FilMr Vieuum
               i220V 15 Ga!. Slainitss $!•«{. Dry Only}
               Stm« u (O80030-01) •xc*pt
               75018fl lid assembly (220V)
 C8C31M33     Minuteman AstM*IOS Vac — H.E.P.A. Filttr Vteuum
               •115V 15 Gai. Pimt«d. Dry Omy)
               Includes
               750219-Ud AM«mbly (115V)
                      W/M.E.P.A. flltar
               «501S—Ooth Miter
               750220—Tank Assembly PstnttCJ,
               3*0049PLT-fl*g Prime
               110121PKQ—Impact fitter (12)
               80S038PKG—Rltar Proteeton (12)
               7e059aPKQ—Dlaposabla B*fll (10)
               7i1W2PKO—««s«e Baas (50)
               ffQBl0-H.£.P,A. (Replacement)
 C8031S-04    Minotaman Asbestos Vac - H.E.P.A. Filter Vacuum
              (220V. IS Gel.. Painted, Dry Only)
              Same u (0*0030-01) axeapt
              7801M lid waembly (220V)
 ASBESTOS VACUUMS
 Because >t meeis or exceeds OSHA raqwremenis (or eieantng the air of
 .isOestos and Other tote and rvomxis dusts, ttiu dry-onty vacuum can M
 used >n ott»c«s  scfxxjis and industrial areas wnere dwiy or weekly re*
 moval o< suo-mcron particies « necessary. Each Mmuteman Asoesios
 vacuum contains S different  Mters: disposaMe paper oa§ coarse fitter
 (Standard m 15 gat. models) lor tne BUM oi Me particiet. impact Wier.
 M £ P A biter, primary Ctotti filter and paper (irter protector. Heavy-flaoge
 piasnc drum-line' sags may be used «vme 30 and 51 g*uon modefs to
 sa'eiy remove targe-volume ptcfc-ups While specihcaily designed for as-
 o«stos oartcles this vacuum is also eftecttve M filtenng otner atrbome
 (X)«utanis »ocr as cement, foundry and feme Mn dusts, insecticides, fer-
 t;er dusts, coal dust limestone ousts and many others. With an sfh-
 •ertty rating of 99 999S on  panicles of 5 micrometers, tne Asbestos
 I'ACuum is particularly useful lor Cleaning up after msuKtiOfi operations
 >n pipe* m removing asbestos-covered ceding dust lo prevent *snowmg
 tnc lor vetMci* mainienance procedures involving brakes, clutches and
. th»r iiOestos-ksaoed matenai. Each unit features a 2 stage by*p«ss
 ictor  front casters 8" tear wheels and a carnage h«ndie. An optional
:; j ler tool M  a  recommended lor each unit
®  H.E.P.A. Filter
§    impact Ftrter
    Cloth F)lt*r
    Fltt*r Protector
®  Disposable S*g
d)  intalc*
CD  Exhaust
    • •. ,««d »peciff«ations subject to Chang* without notice.
                                                                                 Pnces PO.i Aootson. IU
                                                                                                                  tn U S A

-------
 Minuteman
                                                                                               ifftctiv* 5/1/84
                                                                    See Veeuurtt Tools and Anseftmertti tor accessories,
 Series 800 Critical Filter Vacuums
                                                                                    Asbestos Vac 6/30/55
 OMtrNe.
   Vacuum Accessories
                                 Use for liquid p»ck-up
             110902—Adapter (Painted)
             110801—Adapter (Stainless Steel)
             110406—Watet Shut-Off
                                                              Me*
C80330-01
            Mbuiteflwt Asbestea V«s—H.E.P-A. Wiec Vi
            (115V, 30 Gti. Painted, Dry Only)
            Includes:
            7i02lft-Ud Assembly (115V)
                   W/H.E.P.A. Filter
            105047—Cloth Fl««r
            080601-70—Adapter Ring (30 gat.)
            C00007-40—Tank Asatmbly Painted, 30 g*l
            •OCKHt—Dotty Car
            110121WCO—Impact W«er (12)
            805038PKQ—FIMer Protectsrt {12}
            JOS037PKQ—Plaatlc Drum Hnerp (1gJ
             110010—H.E.P.A. llttw (Reptacemem)
COCMO-02    Minutemen Asbestos V»c — M.E.P.A. Fitter Vecuum
             (220V. 30 G»i. Peinted. Dry Only)
             Same as 
-------
Minuteman
                                                                           Effectives/1-84
                                                      S*a Vacuum Tools and Attachment* (or accessories
Series 800 Critical Filter Vacuums (Dry Only)

0ra*r*te
C801Q4-01
CS01 04-02
C80 104-03
caoi 04-04

Gtmai Owen**"
{X'lOQO-4> — (1 15V. Stainiaas Sleet. 4 Gal.
Dry Only)
(X-1000-4)- (220V. stainitaa Start, 4 Gal.,
Dry Only)
(X-1000-4)- (1 1 5V Painted. 4 Ga!.. Dry Only:
(X-1000-4) — (220V Painted, 4 Gal.. Dry Only]
. Include*: • „, • . . -•,
387000— Ud Assembly (11SV)
with H.E.P.A. fitter
3S7220— Ud Atatmbly {220V}
wtth H,i,P.A. Filter
nOOtO— H.E.P.A. Filter
1 1 0121 PKQ— Impact Fitter {Pkg, 1 2)
B08001— Tank Aaatmbly— Stalnltaa Stati,
4G»i.
908002— Tank Aaaambiy — Painted, 4 Gai.
805044— ClOttl Filter
701 1T7PKG— Filter Protectori (Pico,. 12)
3S4009PLT— Sag frame
$04000— Hotel V«"x 10'
•04005— Crevice Tool
004006— 3" Round Doatlno Brush
804015—5- Upholttery Tool
804006— Plastic Toot Adapter
750003— Whwl Bnck«t
Wet



















STAINLESS
TANK
118V




Y*S
«•
aov





Yes
(Repiec
Yes
Yas
-
Yes
Yes
Yas
Yas
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Opt
Yes
Yes
_
Yes
Yes
Yts
Yas
Yes
Yts
Yts
Yes
Opt
WUNTIO
ttSV


,

YtS
*••
em»i
Yes
_
Yes
Yes
Yas
Yts
Yt*
Yes
Y«S
YtS
YtS
Opt
220V



.

YtS
V)
YtS
_
Yes
Yes
Yes
YtS
Yes
Yes
Yts
Yes
Yts
Opt
Yes = Startdard, Opt. = Opttonat
wooci x-rotXM
To recover small quantities in tight places, this 4 gai. Critical filter vacuum
is ligrttwtioht. portable. Contains H.E.P.A. IHter. ctotn «Her bag and
heavy-doty by-pass motof . Fits 1 '«" and 1 Vj" toots. Handle and 50 ft. 16-3
eaWt are standard,
(!) H.E.P.A. FMt«r
® Impact Filter

-------
Minuteman
                                       Effective 5/1/8*
             See Vacuum Too!* and Attachment* for accessories.
Series 800 Critical Filter Vacuums (Dry Only)
            lightweight portable vacuum with 6 gallon tank and many of the same
            futures as X-1000-4, Additional equipment includes S" taller Size
            and disposable paper bag inside which traps material for testing or
            safe disposal.
                                                  ©
                                                  d>
                                                  CD
H.E.P.A. Filter
Impact Filter
Cloth Fitter
Filter Protector
Disposable Sag
Intake
Exltaust
                                            X-1000-6

Otattno
C801 06-01
CS0 106-02
CS01 06-03
C801 08-04

6»n«*»i Q«cnptopfi
(X-1000-6) — '(115V, St«lnlt*< Steei. 6 Gal.,
Dry Only, w/paper Dags,1
(X-1000-6)- (220V. Stain IMS $— (115V, Painted, 6 Gal.,
Dry Only, w/paper bags)
(X-1000-6) (220V Painted, 6 Gal.,
Dry Only, w/paper bags)
Include*:
38700Q~""Uio Assernoty (nsvj
with M.i.RA. Filter
387220— Lid Assembly (220V)
with H.E.P.A, Fitter
110010— H.E.P.A, Filter
11 01 21 PKG— Impact Filter (Pkg. 12)
907003— TtnN A»»mbiy— Stafnlew Steel
6 Gal.
807004— Tank Assembly—Painted, 6 Gal.
105041— Cloth Filter
761 mPK(3— Filter Protectors (Pkg. 12)
384003PKQ— Disposable Bag (Pkg. 10}
38004§PIT— Bag frame
804000— Hose 1V." x 10'
804005— Crevice Tool
804006—3" Round Cutting Brusn
804015—5" Upholstery Toot
•04008— Plastic Tool Adapter
750003— Wheel Bracket
Pnc*




















X- 1000-6
STAINLESS
TANK
11 sv
j



Yes
_
220V
X-1000-6
WUNTtO
TANK
11SV
220V

J


.
Yes



Yes
—


^
mn-
Yes
(Replacemtnt}
Yes
Yes
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Opt
Yes
Yes
_
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Opt
Yes
_
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Opt
Yes
—
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Up
Yes « Standard. Opt. * Optional
MODEL X-1000-6










r 	 '"\
/T\
  Printed in U.S.A
                   Prices FOB AdCtiSOn II
                                                               Priee* and »p*c«te*tion* sub|eet to c*ano« without notice

-------
 fllfilif
Minuteman
Series 800 Critical Filter Vacuums {Air Operated)
                                                                                              Effactivt 5/1/8*
                                                                   S*e Vacuum T«x>l» »nd AttectiRMRttt for accessories
                                                                                           X-703-15/30/55
087016-01
            (X-703-15) Alf-V»e- H.E.P.A. Filter Vacuum
            (Air Powered. 15 Gal-. Stainless Steel. Dry Onty)
            inciuaes
            750300— Ud Assembly
            806047— Cloth Filt«r
            750382— Tink Ai»mWy SUilnrtM Stttl.
                   H.E.P.A.
            t10001—H.E.P.A.
                     —Pr»-ftlt«r
C«7015-02    (X-7Q3-1S) AJr-Vac - H.E.P.A. FIIW Vteuum
            (Air Powered. IS Gai . Painttd. Dry Only}
            Sam* «(C«7015^1) «xe»pt
            750381 tank «Mwntbly P«>nl*d
CS7030-01    (X.703-30) Alr-Vae - H. E.RA. F«t«r V«cuyn»
            (Air Powered. 30 Gat., Painted. Dry Only)
            includes.
            750300—Lid Atwmbiy
            M5CK7—Cloth FilWf
            750604—H.E.P.A. Filter AwamWy
            C»060i-70—Adtpt«rBing (30gif.)
            CSOOOr-$0—Ttnk (30 g»\.)
            aooo*a—Doiiv Can
            110001 —H,E. P.A. (HtpHCOTi»fltl
            703007PKQ—f»f«-fitt*r (R»p»te»m«nt Pkfl.
            {X-703-5S) Air-V»c~ H.E.P.A.
            (Air Powered, 55 Gal.. Pain-led. Dry Only)
            Includes
            750300—Lid Atsembiy
            B05047—CtOth Fitter
            750604—H.E. P.A. Wtt«r Aswmbly
            C80e01-S0—A
-------
Mimiteman
                                                                                           Effective 5/i>S4
                                                                 S«* Vacuum Tool* and Attachments for accessories
Series 800 Critical Filter Vacuums (Air Operated)
                                                                                       X-701/X-702/55
OflK No
Ca?iS5-Oi
                      ir-VK (Modti X-7Cn;
            (55 Gat.. PiirtttHt Dry Only)
            Irvcludes
            701100— Ud AMMibly with Slltne«r/H.&P.A.
            80S024—Fii»f
            90001 5PTO— Tank ($5 GH.)
            BWQ4<-PQ!ly Gift
            110001—H.E.P.A. (r«p)*c«m«nt}
C«725$~C1    Mtnut»m«n-Air-V«c (Moot'. X-7C2
            (55 Ga:. Painttd, Dry Only/
            lnduo«s
            702112—Lid A*i»mb!y with
                  fiitf
            •OS024~Pltt«r
            900015PTD-T«nk (55 Oil,)
            800O4«—Dolly C«rt
            110001—H.I.P.A. {r«piic«m»ntj
                                                                                                            €
Printed ,n U S A
                 Prices rO 8
                                                             Pnct* »n<* io*cific»tion« tubiect So eHinoe witnout

-------
                                                T
                                                                           CLEANER
 Makes hazardous cleanup

 faster, safer, and less costly

 than ordinary HEPA-filtered

 vacuum cleaners.
   Msu won't find another hazardous material vacuum cleaner
 like the SAFE-T-VAC,7" Anywhere. At any price.
   A vacuum with an automatic fitter cleaning system that
 keeps it operating at near 100% efficiency. One that con-
 veys all material directly into a plastic disposal bag so
 workers can't be exposed to stray toxic dust A vacuum
 that sucks excess air out of the bag before it's sealed so
 you can haul away more bags in fewer trips.
   Checkthe SAFE-T-VAG's™ long list of exclusive features.
 Then check the competition. You'll find the SAFE-T-VACTW is
 more flexible, provides a greater margin of safety, and costs
 less to operate.

 Modular design for extra convenience
   The SAFE-T-VAC"" is a powerful, twin-motor vacuum
 with 80" H2O suction and 200 cfm air flow. It rolls easily to
 the cleanup site and plugs into any 110V outlet.
   The SAFE-T-VAC *v also mates with a companion back
 pack vacuum (see back page) that's perfect for close-up
 cleaning in hard to reach areas where long hose runs would
 cause excessive suction loss.
   Each unit can be purchased separately, or combined for
 a total cleaning system. Both are available with or without
 HEPA filtration for use with hazardous materials.

 Sealed system for maximum safety
   Other vacuum cleaners, even high-priced HEPA units,
 potentially expose the worker to harmful dust when they're
emptied. But the SAFE-T-VAC"" is a completely closed
 system. Once materiai is sucked into the hose, it's never seen
                     .. J-4
again. Everything is collected in a thick, non-porous poly-
ethylene bag. When it's ready for removal, excess air is
sucked out of the bag and the operator seals the neck
shut. The bag slides off the filler tube without exposing the
worker to any hazardous materials.
   Even the back pack unit empties safely and conveniently.
When full, it plugs into a special inlet on the SAFE-T-VAC"
and it's vacuumed clean. No bags to remove. No chance
for dust to escape.

Patented "puiser" keeps filters clean and
reduces downtime
   Very fine dust quickly clogs ordinary vacuum cleaner
filters. It reduces their suction and requires frequent shut-
downs for filter cleaning or reptacement
   But the SAFE-T-VAC ™ uses a patented "puiser" system
that blasts reverse air back through the primary filter,
knocking trapped particles into the collection bag.The
process is completely automatic. And it lets the SAFE-T-VAC'
run at near 100% efficiency and maintain its high air flow
for longer periods of time.

Ail collected material, including dust from the Mers. co"ec:s - =
6 mil poiyeinylene Dag During removal, excess air >s sucxeo Out c'
the 0ag while it's being tied off at the neck Only then is n s/'ooea c"
the filler tube, eliminating the chance of fne operator co^ng -.
confacf with any hazardous oust Of material.

-------
NILFISK OF AMERICA, INC,
         A-8

-------
                                                          Easy disposal of asbestos dust
Asbesto-Clene System 400. Recommended with vacuum
Mooe! GS81 wherever volume passenger car/iigh? truck brake
lining work is done. Comes wttn stand for use wiin tow ja
1. External shaking handle
releases ail ctebris from filter.
Dust collects in enclosed
container.
                                                          2. Lower the container which
                                                          holds erthe' polytmers or
                                                          disposable bags
Asbesto-Ctene System 600. Recommended with vacuur-.
Model GS 83 w^e'ever volume brake lining worn is done on
large ccr~~erc-.ai vehicles  Comes with stand for use wish
3. Seai poiyNner or bag for sale
                                                                                       Optional Manometer ;-
                                                                                       Models GS 82 s-.d GS 83i
                                                                                       alerts mechanic when due'
                                                                                       needs to be shaken
                                                                                       the ititer reguiariy
                                                                                       high  suction and filtration
                                                                                       efficiency and extends filter
                                                                                        Cuttomlzed encaptulilors,
                                                                                        for oversize o^ c^-t^e-'cas
                                                                                        vehicles, are available oy
                                                                                        specoi order.

-------
ASi£STQ-CUINE?
COMPONENTS
Model GS 80i Vacuum,
2': gal capacity
Mode! GS 81 Vacuum.
4 gal. capacity
Mode! GS 82 Vacuum,
12 gal, capacity
Model GS 83 Vacuum,
18 gal. capacity
No. 400 Encapsulttor
No. 600 Encapsulates
tow Stand
Heavy Duty Systems
Syiltn
400







High Lift Stand
Mtcrofilters

Sytlim
500

Sytttn
500










Ught Duty System
Syttim
400|80i]



1










Syitim
50Q(80i|





'



Sytlitn
800182)









                                                              Other Nilfisk Asbesto-Clene
                                                              Systems for Light Duty
                                                                                     Asbesto-Clent System
                                                                                     600(82). Recomrnec,^;
                                                                                     for garages where e"!>,
                                                               Asbesto-Clene System
                                                               400(800- Recommended
                                                               with vacuum Mode! GS
                                                               80i for use in garages
                                                               where only occasional
                                                               brake lining work is done.
                                                               Comes v.""" stand for use
                                                               Witt! lOv'
                      work is done or. !ar
                      commercial ve^c e
                      bra^e cru™"s -r ',"•'
                      to 19  c-emete' •=-
                      doubie wheel asse"
                      bdes Co^es v>"!~ s;
                      for use A-':n IG\V jac
HEPA or Super-HEPA Filters
10' Hose, 1V ID
10' Hose, £" tO
Disposable Filter Bags
Scalable Poiyiiners
Manometer (Optional)





















	














HEPA or Super-HEPA Filtration.
Nilfisk offers a choice of HEPA fitters. Our standard HEPA filter re-
tains 99.97% of ai! particles down to and including 0.3 microns in
size. Our Super-HEPA, the ultimate in filtration efficiency, retains
99.9995% of all particles 0.12 microns or larger. Both filters meet
and exceed the new OSHA standard for the control of asbestos
dust m brake repair and maintenance operations (29 CFR
1910.1001 Appendix F),

National Representatives.
Nitfisk has a nationwide network of representatives, all thoroughly
familiar with government codes and regulations dealing with the
safe cleanup of asbestos dust. For more information or to contact
your nearest Nilfisk representative for specific recommendations,
call or write1 Nilfisk c* America, Inc.. 300 Technology Drive.
Maivern, PA 19355. (215) 647-6420.
Asbesto-Ciene System
500(801). Same as sys-
tem 400 (80i) except
encapsuiator stand is *or
vehicles up OR hydraulic
Sifts,
                 f  f  r

                \   I  fc:

-------
Nilfisk simplifies
the safe collection
and disposal of
toxic, hazardous, and
nuisance waste
materials.
system n-.ee-- •
OSHA safeu sic- : .-
asoesios
hea'*''-
          r •'

-------
Nilfisk Filtering System traps
toxic and hazardous dust with up to 99.9995% retention
efficiency down  to 0.12 microns.
 NiKisk portable dust collectors / industrial vacuums deliver this
 absolute filtration with minimal loss of suction and without
 the risk of motor burn-out. They trap even ultra-fine dusts and
 ft turn "absolutely" clean air to the work environment. Here's
 how the absolute filtering system works:
 1. Flrtt Stag* S*ptr«tlon — The centrifugal or "cyclonic"
 airflow pattern of the cleaner aerodynamicaily separates
 heavier dust from collected fines,
 2. Main Filter — Powerful suction coupled with extra-large
 filtering surfaces ensures a steady, even airflow which prolongs
 filter life and eliminates premature clogging. Optional
 manometer on larger models detects build-up of dust and alerts
 the operator to shake the mam, filter Exclusive external
 handle allows th* operator to purge the filter without the
 danger of secondary exposure to  collected dust since the
 cleaner  remains sealed.
3. Mlerefltt*r — Final pre-fiitering protection for the motor
is provided by a micro-filter with a retention efficiency of
99.5% at 2 microns-
4. "Absolut** Exhaust Filters—Nilfisk High Efficiency
Paniculate Air (HEPA*) or Super HEPA (ULPA-Ultra Lo*
Penetration Air) fitters further increase retention efficiencies to
absolute standards of up to 99.9995%o at O.t 2 microns. The
dust ts collected m seaiable bags for safe disposal
  Nilfisk portable dust collectors have design advantages
that make them ideal for the safe collection .and disposal of
toxic, hazardous, and nuisance waste materials in any work
environment — from laboratories and clean rooms to
manufacturing  and processing facilities. These design
advantages include:
  • clog resistance      • powerful suction
  » absolute filtering     * large recovery capacity
  • dust-free disposal    * low noise
    "Retention etitc>ency 99 97S« a' D 3 
-------
 Handy fcm»IMIz*d unit with t»»i-pow«r ci«anup. The GS 80
 goes anywhere for fast, safe cleanup. Ideal for use at
 individual work stations. Has a disposable bag capacity of
 2'4 gallons dry-bulk.
 Greater capacity with greater tfuraWlity. The GS 81 is a
 larger, heavy-duty unit that is easily maneuvered even
 where space is restricted. Has a disposable bag capacity of
 4 gallons dry-bulk.
Ri»8S«dne§i tm< v«r»,tjitty in a medium-tired unit. The
GS 82 has (he suction capacity to handle a wide range of
!ouu/: cleanup assignments. Delivers a capacity of 12 gallons
dry-bu^k
H«avy-duty, ptrformanc*. The GB 733 has t*e pc.ve- 3r
capacity to handle any cleanup assignment. Three-phase
induction motor permits continuous recovery of dusts m
either built-in or mobile applications. Disposable bag
capacity of 18  gallons dry-bufk

-------
 NILFISK
 GS83
                                                                                         Wttrnal pure-
                                                                                   handle allows operator
                                                                                         without
                                                                                         secondary
                                                                                       ts collected dust,
                                                                                    iorai micro-filter
                                                                                          and acts as
                                                                                            1
                                                                                                nup
                                                                                        of particulates
                                                                                    to and including 0.12
                                                     Easy,  dust-free
                                                     disposal of debris
Big performance and capacity with ease of handling. The
GS 83 brings big performance and capacity to toxtc waste
cleanup. Practical design ensures ease of handling. Powerful
centr 
-------
Nilfisk
Mercury  Vacuum  Cleaner
Nilfisk has developed a completely portable mercury recovery
system to eliminate the fiazards of mercury spills m laboratories
and manufacturing facilities
  The system handles both liquid mercury and mercury
compounds. Powerful  suction  capacity and well engineered
cleaning tools ensure  quick cleanup of spills even in
hard-to-reach places, The centrifugal droplet separator has
been designed to collect liquid mercury in an unbreak-
Complete line of accessories

Niifisk portable dust collectors can be fitted with a complete
line of accessories to handle practically any kind of cleaning
situation, Special accessories include attachments for
floors, machinery, equipment, overhead pipes, walls, shelving,
and just about anything or anyplace where dust collects.
  All Niifisk nozzles are engineered to deliver optimum suction
power at tne pickup point. An  nose-ends  have swivehng
ball-joint couplings to permit full freedom of movement
The couplings also help to prolong hose life by reducing
knots and kinks that  can develop during heavy use
                                                        able piastic bottle for future re-use or disposal. An airtight
                                                        cover for sealing a filled recovery bottle is also supplied Smooth
                                                        neoprene hose-lining reduces drcc'ef pes'i^e in P& "os-:
                                                          Large five-gallon stainless steei container with cfisoesaoie
                                                        bag provides additional recovery capacity for ig'ge sc s
                                                        dust and debris, A thirty-pound charge of speedily activates
                                                        carbon effectively eliminates harmful mercury vapop from t^e
                                                        vacuum exhaust Generally, a carbon cartridge cha*ce
                                                        wii! last for two years before needing replacement
                                                          The Niifisk mercury recovery system meets o- e>;;?•€•::=
                                                        OSHA standards tor inorganic mercury. Optional hign
                                                        paniculate air (HEPA) filters ensure "absolute" reter
                                                        of mercury compound dusts and other contaminants
                                                        particulate and vapor filters are easily replaced.
                                                         1.  Hose with smooth
                                                            neoprene fining
                                                            and end-cap
                                                         2.  Centrifugal droplet
                                                            collector
                                                            Disposable Sag
                                                            Activated carbon
                                                            adsorbent filler
                                                            Main filter
                                                            Micro'ilter {99,5%
                                                            efficient as
                                                            2 microns)

-------
Nilfisk Asbestos

Removal  Systems

Niifisk asbestos removal systems meet or exceed OSHA
safety standards tor the collection of asbestos dust.
  Our littering system ensures up to 99.9995% retention
efficiency at 0.12 microns It traps uttrafine dust and returns
"absolutely" clean air to trie work environment, Nilfisk nas
applied this filtering system to a number of specific asbestos
cleanup problems as indicated below.
Removing ipr«yed-on aibeitoi  Insulation. Nilfisk has
developed a complete system for  the quick, safe removal of
sprayed-on  asbestos insolation. Oversize main filters elimi-
nate premature clogging. HEPA FILTERS meet OSHA 29 CFR
                                    1910.1001. Separ-
                                    ator top fits stan-
                                    dard 30- or 55-gation
                                    drums lined with
                                    heavy-gauge poiy-
                                    liners to trap the
                                    bulk of the loos-
                                    ened asbestos
                                    insulation m seal-
                                    able bags. Unique
                                    scraping nozzle
                                    loosens wetted
                                    asbestos in'most
                                    cases and sucks
                                    it directly into the
                                    enclosed system.
                                    This reduces the
                                    amount of
asbestos that falls to the floor. Lightweight extension wands
can eliminate the  need for scaffolding, allow the operator to get
to hard-to-reach areas. Fixed fioor nozzle permits fas;
cleanup of large open spaces.
 Controlling i«b*«1o« duit. Nilfisk offers shielded hand tool
 and sander systems to control toxic or nuisance dust created
 m the fabrication of materials All systems consistently meet
or exceed OSHA standards for control of toxic dusts
system consists of a HEPA or Super HEPA-fittered vacuum '
cleaner and a safely enclosed hand toot—such as a saber
saw, drill and oscillating saw—or dust control sance*s Stave
pressure anc airflow have been sk.i;fu!ly comcmeo ;c
overcome the unusually high escape velocity of asbestos
fibers and other toxic dusts Niittsk vacuum cleaners nave
been in regular use for years in manufacturing facilities

Collecting automotive brafc* lining dust. Ntlfisk
Asbesto-CIene* Systems nave been totally engineered to
contain and collect asbestos  dust which is liberated wnen  .
automotive brake linings are replaced. Each system consists
of a HEPA-filtered dust collector and a brake encapsulation
cylinder. When the cylinder is in  position, the entire
                                    brake assembly ts
                                    enclosed by a
                                    segmented dia-
                                    phragm which forms
                                    a dust seat. Clear
                                    shatterproof win-
                                    dows permit con-
                                    tinuous viewing of
                                    me cleaning
                                    process. Com-
                                    pressed air direc-
                                    ted by the mechanic
                                    dislodges even
                                    inaccessible as-
                                    bestos dust from
                                    the exposed brake
                                    mechanism The
loosened'dust within the cylinder is sucked directly into the
Nilfisk collector and trapped in disposable bags During the
entire operation, the mechanic ts safe from asbestos dust
exposure. The systems require little maintenance, Al! steel
construction resists abuse. Available in three models: Syste*^
4QO for vehicles with  drum brakes in the 7" 10 12" dta
-------
NILFISK SPECIFICATIONS AT-A-GLANCE


Capacity
Tank Gallons Dry Bulk
Disposable Bag* Gallons Dry Bulk
Droplet Bottle** Liters (Quarts)
Waterlift Inches
Air Flow Cubic Feet/Minute
Energy Use
Voltage Volts
Current Draw Amps
Watts Consumed Watts
Filter Area Square Inches ft
Dimensions
Height, Alone Inches
Width Inches
Length Inches
Weight, Alone Pounds
Sound Level*** dB(A)
Motor Type, 115V (Number of Motors)
Motor Type, 220V (Number of Motors)
Cooling
External Filter Agitator
Option Availability
HEPA Filter
ULPA Filter
Manometer
Sound Suppressor
Blower Adapter
Disposable Bags
GS80
GS80I

3,25
2.25
—
75
87

115/220
7.8/3.9
700
1620

16
12
_.
13.2
67
GSD(1)
GSJ (1)
Primary
N/A

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

CSS 81

5,25
4
—
75
87

115/220
7.8/3.9
700
1744

19
12.5
18.3
23
67
GSD (t)
GSJ (1)
Primary
N/A

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sp*ci»l Notet:
Powet (And Lengm Models 8O 8t: 23 Feet Standard. 33 Feel Optional Modets GS 82, 83. antf
733 33 Feet Standard. Mercury Vacuum 33 Feel Standard
t iii«i 1»i*s Cotton Standard. Actd-restslan! Draton Optional. Gore -Tux» Optional
At-cei&«i*s Morethsn 100 specialized tmses. wands and nozzles we avattaofe Ptease ^ ^
ask for our special !!*•> tmty

GS82

12
12
—
75
191

115/220
12/12
1400
3895

30.5
18.5
27.5
65
70
GSD (2)
GSJ (2)
Primary
Standard

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (220V Only)
Yes

GS83

18
18
„
59/75
208

115/220
14/12
1500/2100
4703

43.2
28.4
31.1
123
72
GSE (3)
GSJ (3)
Primary
Standard

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
YeS (220V Only!
Yes

GB733

18
18
—
59
180

220or440f
8.6
1900
4077

49.4
28.8
31.6
163
79
-_
30(1)
Secondary
Standard

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Mercury
Vacuum

5.25
4
1 (1.057)
75
87

115/220
7.8/3,9
700
326

45
19.5
30
87
67
GSJF(1)
GSJF(1)
Primary
N/A

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
wnere firsts. ihie bag is used inside lank
Pertains only U> Nttfisk Mercury Vacuums
SnctiM]«s ma

titiMiH nMfM»hll«f

HIPA MndMGIt- ' O mawtes w


n****',!*******.
.Hiitiltei HI I'A


M» »|i«cilM:»ttoRHiwisr change wii



..OU.MMK.


         DEMONSTR ABLY ^ETTP=R

-------
NILFISK   FEATURES
GS-Series Motors
Exclusively Nilfisk: Long-lasting, powerful motors are standard. Built
entirely by Nilfisk, these are the most refined industrial vacuum cleaner
motors in the world. They are superior to anything else now available.
For instance, Nilfisk carbon brushes outlast those in most ordinary
industrial vacuums almost two to one. And every Nilfisk motor is dynam-
ically balanced, extending its service life by preventing premature
wear. Vibration-free performance, even at 19,000 rpm, keeps operating
noise levels in the low 70 dB(A) range.
  A patented thermo-valve prevents overheating caused by neglecting
filters or by an accidental blockage in a nozzle or hose. It "whistles,"
telling the operator there's a potential problem somewhere.
  AH Nilfisk motors have the power to generate a cyclone within the
vacuum cleaner. This centrifugal airflow forces collected debris directly
down into the container or, in some models, a scalable plastic bag.
This prevents the main filter from clogging quickly and assures that
Nilfisk vacuums maintain maximum efficiency until almost full.
  Exclusive Nilfisk thermistors diminish the amperage surge at start-up.
Carbon brush life is extended and circuit breaker overloading is reduced.
Built-in condensers eliminate static interference with sensitive elec-
tronic equipment.
  Planned to the last detail, Nilfisk motors are supplied either grounded
or double-insulated. On top of all this, Nilfisk stocks motor replacement
parts for 20 years to assure quick repairs if necessary.

Manometer
The Nilfisk manometer, another exclusive: The optional manometer
measures the pressure differential above and below the main filter and
telts the operator at a glance whether the Nilfisk cleaner is operating
at peak efficiency. It indicates when the vacuum cleaner is creating
maximum airflow, when dust must be shaken from filters, and when
the vacuum must be emptied. All this without opening the container
and exposing the operator to collected dust or debris.
  Along with assuring better vacuuming results, the Nilfisk manometer
increases filter and motor life and keeps downtime to a minimum.
  N*!f isk manometers are available for models GS 82, GS 83, and GB 733.

 External Fitter Agitator Handle
 Another Nilfisk plus: the filter agitator. Shaking this external handle
 keeps the main filter inside the vacuum cleaner free of clogging dust.
It maintains the vacuum's maximum suction and filtration efficiency,
protects motors against superfine dust, prolongs filter life, and thus
saves employees from exposure to collected toxic or hazardous dust.
  Nilfisk filter agitators are standardon modelsGS 82, GS 83and GB 733.

HEPA and ULPA Filters
Nilfisk HEPA filters (optional): Of all the fiberglass HEPA filter cartridges
available, this is the easiest to remove intact, and change, without
particuiates escaping into the air—or getting on hands and clothes.
  This critical filter in Nilfisk's graduated filtration system assures that
99.97% of all ultrafine particuiates, toxic and nuisance, are captured.
Down to and including 0,3 microns.
  Nilfisk ULPA filters (optional): The laser tested ULPA filters have
a retention efficiency of 99.9995% at 0.12 microns.
  All Nilfisk HEPA and ULPA filters are individually OOP-tested and
certified. They meet ANSI Z9.2-1971.
  Nilfisk HEPA and ULPA filters available to fit most Nilfisk vacuum
cleaners.

Blower Attachment
More Nilfisk versatility: blower attachments (optional). Special blower
adapter replaces a motor's exhaust dif fuser and converts the powerful
vacuum motor into an equally powerful blower.
  Blower adapters are available for Nilfisk models GS 80, GS 801, GS 81,
GS82andGS83.

Sound Suppressor
Nilfisk sound suppressors (optional): When exceptionally low noise
levels are critical, Nilfisk sound suppressors quiet motors an additional
10 dB(A) to the even more silent low 60's range.
  Most Nilfisk models can be equipped with sound suppressors.
              NILFISK
               Dust Collection Specialists Since 1910.
  N1UISK OF AMERICA, INC 300 Technology D»iv«. Maivero, PA S9355, (2!S) 64? 6420

                                       *ONSTRABLV BETTER

-------

-------
PULLMAN/HOLT
   A-9

-------
I

-------
                                                        Glove Poi s
                                             Non-p«nneable
                                             Latex Glares
                               • Air Bos* Assembly
                               with Gun
                                 • 1 HI By-;
The "Brake Bubble
ft
The "Brake Bubble" was designed and developed In the Nuclear Industry with state of the
art material to meet the changing OSHA and EPA requirements in today's brake industry.
Pullman/Holt now offers a vacuum system for safe, efficient and complete removal of
asbestos dust during brake drum repair. Protect your business, employees,
and customers from the dangers of asbestos.
                         for Safe Remove J

-------
    Brake Bubble Features:
    Lightweight—Complete unit weighs less than 10 Ibs.
    Visibility—The brake dram is clearly visible from
    any angle.
    ffcpered Design—Allows easy access to glove ports
    with operator efficiency in mind.
    Non-P&rmeable Latex Sieves—Attached to "Brake
    Bubble," providing operator with total protection
    from exposure to asbestos dust.
    Air-BIow»r and Vacuum Connector—Permanently
    built into the unit and sealed lor sale hook-up of air-
    compressor and HEPA Vacuum.
    InstaUaticm—Brake drum slides through a button
    hole type opening in rear panel enclosing it in the
    "Brake Bubble."
    Magnetic Holder* with Velcro Straps—Attaches to
    vehicle's fenders holding the "Brake Bubble" in place
    and straps adjust unit to proper height for operator
    comfort.
    Latex Rear Panel—Enables operator to hammer
    from the rear ol the unit to remove brake drum.
    Optional Telescoping Stand—Use to support the
    "Brake Bubble" when working on vehicles with non-
    metaUic surfaces.
    'Patent Pending



    Asbestos Brake Vacuum

    Pullman/Holt's asbestos vacuum exceeds all IPA and OSHA filtration standards
    to prevent recontamination of oil in the work place. This unit connects to the "Brake Bubble'
    providing total protection necessary lor containing andiemoval of asbestos dust.


                                          Asbestos Vacuum Features

                                          fSHwr System—includes primary Nuclear Srade HEPA
                                          niter, fiberglass prenlter and paper niter bag tor triple
                                          filtration.
                                          Onif Comes With—6 prenlters, 3 paper collector filter
                                          bags, and 3 poly bags imprinted with asbestos warn-
                                          ing for proper disposal.
                                          5 Gallon Tank—iJaked enamel painted magenta tor
                                          high visibility.
                                          Egaipped With—4 casters and 15 ft. crushprool hose.

                                          Powerful Motoifcead—2 stage, 1 HP By-pass motor, de
                                          livers 85" waterlirt.96 CFM for superior efficiency.
                                          Manometer—a testing gauge to determine the
                                          efficiency level of the HEPA fillet
                                          HEPA R«»r - Rated efficiency is 99.99% at .3 microns;
                                          D.OP. method.
if  Asbestos Dust

-------
Comes with 12 Broke Bubble Enclosure (B526487)

and A86 Asbestos Vacuum (BS26488).
The complete system necessary loi removal of asbestos

dust. (B52M85)
Model El Brake Bubble

Enclosure Only

Comes equipped with magnetic holder, harness assembly,
velcro straps, 1 pair non-permeable latex gloves, 2 paSi
absorbtex glove Mners, air hose assembly with gun, and
connector for telescoping stand. (B526487)
Model A86

Asbestos Vacuum

Comes with Nuclear Grade HEPA filter with prefilter, 15 ft.
crush proof hose, manometer. 3 paper and 3 poly bags.
(B526488)
Telescoping Stand

The metal adjustable stand attaches at the bottom of the
"Brake Bubble." It is used to support the unit when working
on the vehicles with non-metallic surfaces, (B526486)
             PULLMAN^HOLT

                EO. Box 16647 • 10702 46th Street .* Tampa. Florida 33687
                    (813) 971-2223 'Telex 052-821 • (800) 237-75S2

-------

-------
       U.S.  SALES
(NO INFORMATION PROVIDED)
         A-10

-------

-------
APPENDIX E  -- WELFARE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS REGULATION
              UNDER MOKCOMPETITIVE FIBER SUPPLY

    1,. Introduction

    The Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model  (ARCM) estimates the costs of a variety
of regulatory alternatives for banning  and/or phasing down asbestos use over
time.  Underlying this model is a framework in which all relevant economic
actors are  assumed to participate in competitive markets for both their
products and the factors of production  they require.  Such a framework is
legitimate  for modeling the impacts of  regulations on most industries because
most are sufficiently competitive to make the predictions of models based on
competition reasonably accurate,

    The asbestos mining industry, however, might not be competitive, so it is
worth investigating the extent to which the predictions of the-ARCM are
sensitive to the assumption that the asbestos fiber industry is competitive.
In particular, the ARCM predicts that during a phase-down of fiber usage, both
foreign and domestic miners and millers of asbestos fiber will be made worse
off (because the net price they receive from selling fiber falls) and that the
value of permits to mine and to import  fiber and asbestos products will be
positive (so that distributing them or  selling them produces gains to either
the government or to the parties who receive the permits).  These conclusions
may not be  correct,  however, if the foreign asbestos fiber producers do not
constitute  a competitive industry.

    This brief paper qualitatively analyzes the implications for the welfare
predictions of the ARCM of assuming that miners and millers are not a
competitive industry.  Quantitative predictions of the precise welfare effects
that result from these regulatory alternatives under the assumption that the
asbestos fiber industry is not competitive are not possible without detailed
empirical and modeling efforts (modeling.a cartel's supply behavior would
require different techniques and data than currently employed in the ARCM),
Nevertheless, the qualitative results offered here can be combined with the
existing predictions of the ARCM (which assume a competitive fiber industry)
to obtain some indication of whether and how changes in welfare caused by the
regulatory  alternatives would differ depending on the underlying industry
structure assumed.

    The remainder of this paper is organized as follows:

        •   Section 2 presents a graphical analysis' of th-3 welfare
           effects of product bans under alternative assumptions
           concerning the competitiveness of the fiber industry;

        *   Section 3 presents a graphical analysis of the welfare
           effects of & fiber phase-down under alternative assumptions
           concerning'the competitiveness of the fiber industry;

        *   Section 4 performs the same welfare analysis for policies
            that combine a fiber phase down and product bans;  and

        •  Section 5 summarizes the major conclusions.

-------
      2.   Product Bans....Jfelfare Effects^^and^Ip^u^try Structure

      One of the regulatory alternatives considered for controlling asbestos
  calls for "staged bans" of asbestos-using products.  Certain groups of
  products would be banned at several points in time.  The welfare effects that
  result from banning these products are fairly intuitive and can be estimated
  using the ARGM.  Briefly, product bans cause domestic consumer and producer
  welfare to decline among those parties that use or manufacture the banned
  products.  These welfare effects are easy to understand -- consumers may be
  made worse off because substituting alternative products for the banned ones
  involves costs (consisting, in general,  of both direct monetary costs
  associated with using substitutes, and less tangible, but no less real,
  reductions in welfare due to the potentially reduced utility or productivity
  achievable with these substitutes).  Producers of these products, on the other
  hand, also could be made worse off if the capital they use to produce the
  products declines in value after the bans (because 'the capital is less
  valuable in other uses or cannot be economically transferred to other uses).

      In addition to declines in the welfare of domestic producers and consumers
  of banned products, other ramifications on the world market for asbestos could
  flow from banning domestic manufacture or sale of these asbestos products.  In
  particular, if the quantity of asbestos embodied in the banned products is
  substantial relative to the rest of the world's consumption of asbestos, then
  it is possible that the world price of asbestos fiber will fall after the
  product bans.   This effect mirrors the standard conclusion that if the demand
  for a good falls significantly, and the supply of the good is not perfectly
  elastic (i.e., the supply function slopes upward), then a price reduction for
  the good will occur.  Two consequences result.  First, the world's suppliers
  of asbestos fiber will be made worse off because the price at which they sell
  fiber falls.-'-  Second, demanders of fiber in the rest of the world are made
  better off, again because of the lower asbestos fiber price.

      The ARCM calculates these welfare effects under the assumption that the
  asbestos fiber industry is competitive.   Output tables are produced by the
  model listing the declines in the welfare of domestic producers and consumers
  of asbestos products and the net change in the welfare of foreign entities
  (including both foreign miners and millers of asbestos, foreign producers of
  products that use asbestos'fiber, and foreign consumers of asbestos products).
  However, the model does not explicitly separate the gross changes in the
  welfare of foreign miners and millers of fiber and foreign consumers of
  asbestos products.  Because the subject of this paper is the impact of
  altering an assumption about the market behavior of one of these groups (the
  foreign miners and millers of asbestos fiber), it is worth examining somewhat
  more closely how the ARCH is able to measure the effects of the product bans
  on foreign market participants.
     ^  These include both domestic and foreign suppliers of asbestos, but for
ease of exposition, the remainder of this paper assumes that only foreigners
supply asbestos fiber --an approximation that is very.close to reality.
                                       E-2

-------
          2.1  Measuring WelfareEffects on Foreign  Entities

          The ARCM can measure  the net welfare  impact  on  foreign miners and
  millers of asbestos fiber and foreign consumers of asbestos products because
  of the economic construction  of the supply of asbestos  fiber to the U.S.  In
  Exhibit 1, the top panel shows an equilibrium in the U.S. asbestos fiber
  market (with no controls or other distortions).  The ARCM models various
  combinations of bans and phase-downs and calculates  foreign welfare losses as
  declines in the areas bounded below by the supply  function and above by the
  price of fiber.  As drawn, the diagram assumes that  all asbestos products in
  the U.S. are banned (so that  the demand for fiber  from  domestic producers of
  asbestos goods falls to zero), so that the entire  area  above the supply
  function and below the baseline price (P ) is shaded indicating the loss of.
  foreign welfare (again, in this paper, all fiber mining and milling is assumed
  to be undertaken by foreigners),

      The bottom panel of Exhibit E-l shows the world  market conditions that
  correspond to the initial equilibrium and the ban  scenario described.in the
  top panel for the U.S. market.  Note that the baseline  demand for asbestos
  fiber in the world includes the demand for fiber by  U.S. producers and that
  the price of fiber in the world and in the U.S. are  equal in the baseline.
  After the total U.S. product  ban, the world demand" for  fiber falls, as
  indicated in the exhibit, and the price of fiber falls  to P , which also
  corresponds to the vertical-axis intercept of the  supply of fiber to the U.S.
                                *
      Exhibit E-l makes clear why the area of "producer surplus" associated with
  the supply of asbestos fiber  to the U.S. market is,  in  reality, the net of
  world miner and miller welfare losses and foreign  producer and consumer
  welfare gains.   In the bottom panel, as the  price of asbestos fiber falls,
  foreign consumers of fiber are made better off while the producers of fiber
  are made worse off.  Indeed,  as the diagram is drawn, the majority of the
  losses of foreign fiber producers is offset by the gains in welfare of foreign
  consumers of fiber.  It is the difference between  the losses of foreign
  producers and the gains of foreign consumers  that  appears as the area of
  producer surplus loss associated with the supply of  fiber to the U.S. market
  (i.e., the shaded areas in the two panels of  the exhibit are equal).

          2 .2  Welfare. Effects,  under Compe_ti_ti.v.e..__.F.iber. Supply

          Given this understanding of the analytical mechanism by which foreign
  welfare changes (at least on  net) can be measured  in the framework of the
  ARCM, it is possible to investigate the qualitative  differences between the •
  welfare effects on all parties due to product bans in the U.S. under
  alternative assumptions concerning the competitiveness  of foreign asbestos
  fiber supply.

      Exhibit E-2 (top panel) graphically shows how  the ARCM identifies and
  measures the welfare effects  of banning asbestos products.  The diagram
                              "
       Strictly speaking, entities "downstream" from the asbestos fiber market
include all producers, associated factors of production, and consumers.
However,  for ease of exposition, these entities will be referred to as foreign
"consumers" of asbestos fiber from this point forward.
                                       E-3

-------
                  Exhibit E-l
FOEEIGN WELFARE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS REGULATIONS
             MEASURED BY THE ARCH
         U) dV

-------
                      liAJ.lJ.UJ-U
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN WELFARE EFFECTS OF PRODUCT BANS
           UNDER COMPETITIVE FIBER SUPPLY

-------
  assumes that all asbestos products have been banned, so that the demand for
  asbestos fiber for the U.S. is zero after the bans.  Area A In the-diagram
  represents the loss of U.S. consumer and producer welfare in all of the banned
  markets.  Area B, on the other hand, represents the net loss of foreign
  producer and consumer surplus (assuming that all fiber is imported to the
  U.S.).  Thus, under competition, areas associated with the supply and demand
  for asbestos fiber, as represented in the U.S. market, measure changes in
  domestic and foreign welfare.

      The bottom panel of Exhibit E-2 shows how these same welfare effects could
  be measured in a diagram depicting the supply and demand for asbestos fiber in
  the world.  This diagram reproduces the bottom panel of Exhibit E-l, except
  that some shading has been- added to facilitate the discussion.  As explained
  before,  the inward shift of the demand function for fiber in the. world market
  represents the effect of U.S. bans of asbestos products, - An equivalent
  measure of the welfare losses of U.S. producers and consumers is Area A in the
  bottom panel which is the shaded area between the two demand functions down to
  the original-price, P .   Thus, Area A in the bottom panel corresponds to Area
  A as measured in the top panel.   Similarly, as discussed above, Area B in the
  top panel equals Area B in the bottom panel.  Finally, Area C in the bottom
  panel measures the transfer-from foreign producers of fiber to foreign
  consumers of asbestos fiber.   Hence, Area B plus Area C equals the gross loss
  of foreign fiber producer welfare, of which Area C is transferred to foreign.
  consumers, which measures their gain from the U.S. regulation,

          2-3  Welfare Effects- Under A Fiber Cartel

          Two alternative assumptions concerning the structure of the asbestos
  fiber industry are worth considering.  First, one could assume that prior to
  the promulgation of U.S. bans on asbestos products, the fiber producers were
  (and continue to be after the bans) a cartel, operating "as if it were &
  monopolist.  The alternative is to assume that, for some reason or another,
  the promulgation of the U.S.  regulations concerning asbestos encourages the
  establishment of a cartel among the miners and millers of asbestos.  Although
  these two situations are indistinguishable after the promulgation of the U.S.
  regulations, they nevertheless result in slightly different conclusions
  concerning welfare changes, relative to the initial unregulated situation.

      Consider first the welfare effects,  both domestic and foreign, associated
  with banning all U.S. sale and consumption of asbestos products under the
  assumption that the mining and milling of asbestos in the world is a cartel
  prior to and after the regulations are imposed.  In the top panel of Exhibit
  E-3, the derived demand for fiber in the U.S. is shown with the baseline price
  of P°, which is observed in the world.    The loss in domestic producer and
  consumer surplus associated with the product bans is simply the shaded area
  under the demand function and above the baseline price.  Note, however,  that
  the supply of fiber to the domestic market is not drawn in this top panel.
  This is  because,  strictly speaking, monopolists do'not have supply functions.
        The change of assumptions regarding the underlying structure of the
asbestos fiber market, of course, does not change the observed price of fiber,
only the welfare interpretation of the baseline conditions.
                                       E-6

-------
 DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN WELFARE EFFECTS  OF PRODUCT  BANS
     UNDER A PREEXISTING CARTEL --  PRICE DECREASE
P

-------
  They make  supply decisions based on demand and cost conditions, but in a
  behaviorally quite different way than do competitive suppliers of goods,

      To understand the international welfare ramifications of the U.S. product
  bans, one  must  examine  the effects of the'bans on the world market for
  asbestos fiber.  In the bottom panel of Exhibit E-3, the world market for
  asbestos fiber  is shown assuming that the market is monopolized both before
  and after  the U.S. product bans.  The world demand for fiber in the absence of
  the U.S. product bans is shown as D^, and the Monopolist supplies Q^ to the
  market at  a price of P° (which matches the price of P° in the top panel),
  based on the intersection of the initial marginal revenue function and the
  long run marginal cost of production (shown in the diagram to be coincident
  with the original supply function).  After the product bans, the world demand
  for fiber  falls as indicated in the diagram, producing a new marginal revenue
  function relative to which the monopolist again considers production costs to
  determine  the price and quantity in the market aftdr the bans.

      As the diagram is drawn, the world price of fiber falls after the product
  bans and,  of course, the quantity sold falls as well.  As a result of this,
  foreign asbestos fiber suppliers lose the shaded area in the bottom panel of
  the exhibit relative to the pre-ban situation.  On the other hand, foreign
  consumers  of fiber are made better off as a result of the fall in the price of
  asbestos fiber.  However,  as the price of fiber falls, foreign consumers of
  asbestos are made better off only to the degree that they receive transfers
  form foreign miners and millers of fiber.  Thus, foreign entities taken as a
  whole must be made worse off due to the product bans in the U.S.

      It is  conceivable that the price of fiber could rise after the product
  bans if the remaining world demand for fiber is sufficiently inelastic.
  Although the welfare implications of the product bans for U.S. entities are
  the same irrespective -of the post-ban fiber price, the implications for the
  welfare of foreign entities are slightly different if the price of fiber rises
  after the  product bans.  Exhibit E-4 shows this case.  The top panel shows the
  U.S. fiber market as in Exhibit E-3.  The bottom panel shows the world fiber
  market and is drawn so that the post-ban fiber price exceeds the pre-ban
  price.  In this event, foreign consumers of asbestos fiber are made worse off,
  rather than better off, by the U.S. policy.  This same price rise serves to
  mitigate the profit reduction of the cartel, but not enough to make the cartel
  better off under the ban than otherwise.  This conclusion is clear since it is
  always better for a monopolist to face a larger demand than a smaller one.^
  Hence, when the demand for fiber falls due to the U.S. product market bans,
  the cartel will be made worse off relative to the pre-ban situation.

      Although the implications for the price of fiber are unclear and depend
  ultimately on empirical issues, most of the basic conclusions derived in the
  competitive case for welfare changes in the rest of the world remain true in
  this case.   First of all,  domestic consumers and producers are made worse off
  due to the bans, just as before.  Second,  foreign entities taken as a whole
  are made worse off due the product bans regardless of the impact on the price
     ^  The monopolist could always have set the quantity of fiber at Q^ prior
to the U.S. regulation and.would have received at least P^  Thus, the
monopolist must clearly be worse off under the U.S. policy.

-------
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN WELFARE EFFECTS OF PRODUCT BEANS
    UHDES A PREEXISTING CARTEL --  PRICE INCREASE

-------
of  fiber, although- the  conclusion  from  the  competitive model  of  fiber  supply
that  foreign  consumers  of  asbestos  fiber will be  made  better  off is not
necessarily true  in this case.  The price of fiber  could either  rise or  fall
after the product bans, so the welfare  of these foreign consumers  depends upon
the movement  of the fiber  price.  Nevertheless, although the  welfare
implications  for  foreign consumers  j>er  se are ambiguous,  foreigners taken as a
whole clearly must be worse off after the bans than before because the only "
way for foreign consumers  to be better  off  is to  gain  from a  possible  transfer
from  foreign  fiber suppliers.  Thus, most of the  competitive  model's
qualitative conclusions hold for the case of a preexisting monopoly in the
asbestos fiber market.

    Now consider  the situation in which it  is the promulgation of  the  U.S.  -
product bans  that causes the world  asbestos industry to form  a cartel  and to
begin operating as a monopolist.  Again, the top  panel of Exhibit  E-5  shows
the domestic  market for fiber with  the  pre-ban price of P®, the  demand for
fiber, and the supply function for  fiber to -the U.S. market.  In this  case, it
is  perfectly  legitimate to draw the pre-ban supply  of  fiber to the U.S.  market
because it is only after the imposition of the bans that the  cartel forms and
it  becomes impossible to define a meaningful supply function  for the industry.

    Clearly,  the  loss of U.S. producer  and consumer surplus equals the area
under the U.S. demand function down to  the baseline price of  P®.   To examine
the welfare effects of the product  bans on foreign  fiber suppliers and
demanders, it is'  again necessary to diagram the world  market  for fiber,  as
shown in the bottom panel  of Exhibit E-5.  The diagram shows  the pre-ban
equilibrium in the world fiber market at P°,  Thus, in the pre-ban situation,
producer surplus  equal to  the area  above the world  fiber supply  function and
below the baseline price of P" is enjoyed by the  fiber suppliers.  However,
after the bans are promulgated, two opposite forces act on the welfare of
fiber suppliers.   First, the inward shift the demand for fiber tends to  make
them  worse off (because less fiber  can be sold at all  prices).   On the other
hand,  at the  same  time that the demand  for fiber  declines, the industry  is
assumed to form a  cartel and to act as a monopolist would.  This operates in
the other direction.  Whether the cartel is better  off after both  the  decrease
in  demand and the  cartelization depends on first, whether the price of fiber
rises  after the cartelization, and  second, if the price does  increase, whether
the price increases by enough to'offset the'reduction  in quantity  associated
with  the decline  in demand.

    Graphically,  these two  influences on the profits of the world's asbestos
fiber  suppliers can be seen in Exhibit E-5 as (1) the  loss of producer surplus
due to the demand  reduction - - the  triangular shaded area above  the supply
function bounded by the baseline price,  the supply  function, and the new
quantity supplied, and^ (2)  the gain from a price  rise  --  the shaded box  above
the baseline price.  If the  latter exceeds the former,  then the  world's  fiber
suppliers will be  better off after  the bans than  before.  If, on the other
hand,  the price of fiber does not rise by enough, then the fiber producers
will  be worse off  than before the bans  (although  they  will be better off as a
cartel than as a competitive industry given the regulation).

    The price of fiber could fall,  however,  after both the imposition of the
product bans and the cartelization, as shown in Exhibit  E-6.  The U.S.. market
drawn  in the top panel is  the same as in Exhibit  E-5,   but the world market
shown  in the bottom panel  is not.   In this case,   the price of fiber falls

                                    E-10

-------
      DOMESTIC AND FOREIGH WELFARE EFFECTS OF PRODUCT BAMS
          UNDER A CONCOMITANT CARTEL -- PRICE IMCREASE

Prft«-
                                                           
-------
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN WELFARE EFFECTS OF PRODUCT BANS
     UNDER CONCOMITANT CARTEL -- PRICE DECREASE

-------
 after the product bans,  making foreign asbestos purchasers better off and
 clearly reducing the welfare of foreign asbestos suppliers.  Thus,  In this
 case the welfare conclusions for all affected entities are qualitatively
 identical to those derived in the competitive case.

     This discussion makes clear that the welfare of foreign consumers of
 asbestos fiber may either rise or fall depending on whether the fiber price
 falls or rises after the bans.  Either case is a possibility,  so no a priori
 prediction is possible.   As a consequence,  if the world asbestos industry
 becomes.a cartel at the  same time that the  U.S.  product bans are promulgated,
 the  welfare changes induced could differ from those that would result if the
 industry is competitive  after the bans.   Although U.S.  producers and consumers
 are  still worse off by precisely the same amount as predicted by the ARCM  -
 under competitive assumptions, the welfare  of foreign producers of  asbestos
 fiber could either rise  or fall depending on empirical issues.   Similarly, the
 welfare of foreign consumers could rise  or  fall.   However,  if foreign
 consumers are made better off, then foreign fiber producers must be worse off,
 again because the welfare of foreign consumers can only be improved through
 transfers from foreign fiber producers and  because the -foreigners taken  as a
 whole must be worse off  after the bans regardless of the cartelization of the
 industry.   In other words,  no matter what happens to the price of fiber  under
 the  product bans,  foreign entities taken as a whole  must be worse off,
 Certain groups could experience welfare  gains, but this can only occur because
 of transfers from other  groups of foreign market participants.   The
 cartelization serves to  make foreign market participants collectively even
 worse off,  but redistributes some of the surplus  associated with asbestos
 fiber.

     To summarize  the conclusions of the  analysis.of  product bans and
 alternative fiber market competitive assumptions,  the  findings  of the ARCM are
 robust to changes in such assumptions in terms of the  predictions it yields
 for  the welfare  changes  of U.S.  market participants  and for the net impact on
 the  welfare of foreign market participants.   However,  the decomposition  of
 welfare  changes  for these foreign producers and  consumers can  differ
 dramatically depending on both the assumptions made  concerning  the  competitive
 conditions  of fiber supply before and after the bans and a  variety  of
 empirical magnitudes.  If the foreign demand for  fiber  is very  inelastic, then-
 the  fiber price  is  likely to rise under  the product bans.   If,  on the  other
 hand,  the  foreign demand is very elastic, then the price  is likely  to  fall,
 producing the  same  qualitative conclusions  generated by the ARCM,

     3.  Fiber  Phase-Down. Welfare Effects.,  and Industry Structure

     This  section  analyzes  the  welfare  effects  on  the various parties modeled
 in the ARCM due to  the other form of asbestos  regulation, a fiber phase-down.
Again, the  focus  is  on how  these  welfare  effects might  be different  if
 alternative  assumptions  are  made  concerning  the competitiveness  of  the foreign
 asbestos  fiber market.  As  in  the  previous  section, three alternative
 assumptions  are analyzed: a  competitive  industry  (as currently modeled in the
ARCM), a preexisting cartel  that  operates as a monopolist,  and a  similar
 cartel that  comes  into existence  at  the  time that the phase-down regulation is
promulgated.
                                     E-13

-------
        - 3,1   WelfareTmEffeets Under Competitive Fiber Supply

         Consider first the welfare effects predicted by the ARCM under the
 assumption that the foreign fiber market is competitive.  Following the
 convention established in the previous section, the top panel of Exhibit E-7
 shows what happens in the U.S. asbestos fiber market when the phase-down is
 promulgated.   This diagram shows one of the years during which the fiber
 phase-down occurs, so that the cap on fiber usage is still positive, but less
 than the amount of fiber that would have been sold in the U.S. in the absence
 of the phase-down regulation.  'Graphically, the 'top panel shows that the
 baseline fiber sold in the U.S. would have been Q^ and the price P^ in the
 absence of the phase-down (the intersection of the U.S. demand for fiber and
 the supply of fiber to the U.S. from the rest of the world).

     Assuming competition in the foreign fiber market, the welfare effects in
 this year of the phase-down can be seen as follows.'  First, downstream
 producer and consumer surplus is lost because the price of fiber to U.S.
 customers rises to ?•*-, reflecting both the cost of fiber and the value of
 permits to purchase fiber that must be held in' order to purchase the fiber
 (the permits,  of course,  are the mechanism that allocates the limited supply
 of fiber to competing customers).   This lost downstream producer and consumer
 surplus is equal to the vertically-shaded area above the original price, f®,
 up to the new higher "full" fiber price,  P^-, and over to the cap amount, Q^-,
^plus the triangular area to the right of the cap amount out to the demand
 function.   Foreign market participants -- miners and millers of asbestos fiber
 and consumers  of asbestos products --on net lose the horizontally-shaded area
 above the supply function from the new, lower price received by fiber
 producers,  P2,  up to the original price and out to the cap amount,  plus the
 triangular area to the right of this rectangle out to the supply function and
 below the original price.  Finally, permit owners (those to whom the permits
 were allocated or to whom they were sold) gain the two shaded areas in the
 diagram precisely because the permits are valuable.

     The domestic-foreign welfare impacts  are, perhaps,  more interesting in the
 case of a fiber phase-down because, at least in the competitive nodel of fiber
 supply,  part  of the value of permits arises because some of the lost foreign
 welfare is transferred to U.S. market participants in the form of permit
 allocations (the bottom of "the permit value rectangle is this transfer).  This
 occurs because  of the drop in the  international price of asbestos fiber, which
 is produced in  very much the same  way that it occurs in the competitive model
 with product bans analyzed in the previous section.  The bottom panel of the
 exhibit shows  ths world market for asbestos fiber.'  Again,  the supply function
 can be drawn because the world market for asbestos fiber is assumed to be
 competitive,

     World demand for fiber in the  absence of the phase-down cap is  shown as
 D  .   With the phase-down cap,  the  demand  becomes the kinked demand function,
 D  .   The kink  occurs because at the point of the kink,  the fiber demand from
 U.S.  customers  falls vertically,  rather than continuing in the classical
 downward-sloping fashion.  Combining this with a standard downward-sloping
 demand function from non-U.S.  purchasers  of asbestos results in the kink.   The
 U.S.  fiber demand effective in the world  market is shown to the left in the
 diagram as a  demand function that  starts  out from the vertical axis and then
 becomes  vertical at the price P^,  which corresponds to the price' of asbestos
 fiber at which  the phase-down cap  just becomes binding.   In the absence of the

                                     E-14

-------
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGM WELFARE EFFECTS OF PHASE DOWN
          UNDER COMPETITIVE FIBER SUPPLY

-------
   phase-down cap,  the demand function would have continued in the classical
   downward-sloping fashion,  as indicated by the dashed continuation of the
   downward-sloping portion of the U.S. demand function with the phase-down cap.5

       Given  this kinked demand function for fiber in the world market,  the new
   competitive price for fiber is established after the phase-down cap is  imposed
   at  P2,  corresponding to the* fiber price P2 shown in the top panel of the
   exhibit.   As in  the case of product bans, the net loss of foreign welfare
   shown in the top panel can be identified in the diagram In the bottom panel.
   The producers of fiber lose the entire area between the new and baseline
   prices  of  fiber  out to the supply function.   Foreign consumers,  on the  other
   hand,  gain the area to the left of their demand function between the two
   prices  of  fiber  over to the vertical segment of the U.S.  demand function.  The
   shaded  area between the two fiber prices and the vertical segment of the U.S.
   demand, of course,  is identical to the horizontally-shaded area in the  top
   panel.  Hence, the  net loss to foreign market participants equals the two
   shaded  areas in  the diagram.   In this case,  a price drop  that makes foreign
   producers  of- fiber  worse off and foreign consumers of fiber better off  is
   unambiguous,  hence  the changes in welfare for these entities are also
   unambiguous.

          3.2  Hel£_aremjgffects Under a Fiber  Cartel

          As  in the previous section,  two assumptions are made concerning the
   cartelization of the world asbestos fiber industry,  i.e.,  that the industry  is
   a preexisting cartel and,  alternatively,  that the industry becomes a cartel  at
   the  time that the phase-down regulation is promulgated.   In this subsection,
   the  welfare effects under  each of these assumptions are addressed in turn.

       Consider first  the situation of a preexisting cartel  in the  fiber
   industry.   The top  panel of Exhibit E-8 shows  the U.S.  fiber market in  a given
  year of the phase-down with and without the  phase-down cap on fiber purchases.
  This diagram shows  the U.S.  demand for fiber,  but does not present a  supply
   function for asbestos  fiber,  again -because cartels do  not  have conventional
   supply curves.   The baseline  price of fiber  is P°,  the "full"  price of  fiber
   (including  the value of the permits  required to  trade  the  fiber)  under  the
  phase-down  is P  , and the  price of fiber  received by producers-under  the
  phase-down  is shown as P2.

      According to  this  diagram,  the world  price of fiber falls, just as  in the
  competitive  case.   If  the  fiber price does fall,  the welfare  results  for a
  fiber cartel under  the phase-down regulation are  qualitatively identical  to
   those derived assuming competitive supply of fiber.  However,  the  world fiber
  price need not necessarily fall under the  phase-down caps,  so  whether or not
  the welfare  effects  under  the  phase-down  regulation and a  fiber  cartel mirror
  those of the competitive case  hinges  on the  factors that determine  the
  direction of movement  of the  fiber price.  Exhibit E-8  shows  the  situation in
        Constructing the U.S. demand under the phase-down cap as this vertical
demand at PI should accord with intuition:  if the price of asbestos fiber were
to rise to anything above PI, less than the cap amount would be demanded.  On
the other hand, if the price of fiber is less than PI, only the phase-down
quantity of fiber can be purchased by U.S. entities regardless of how low the
price becomes.

-------
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN WELFARE EFFECTS OF PHASE DOWN
   UNDER A PREEXISTING CARTEL -- PRICE DECREASE

-------
 which the price of fiber falls after the imposition of the phase-down cap.
 The  alternative outcome is examined in Exhibit E-9.

     The bottom panel of Exhibit E-8 contains two diagrams,  the left-hand
•depicting the world fiber market in the baseline,  i.e.,  with no fiber cap but
 with the cartel,  and the right-hand showing the same market,  but with the
 phase-down cap.  These diagrams are drawn in such a way that the fiber price
 falls under the phase-down' cap.   These are fairly complicated diagrams,  so
 some detailed explanation is  required.   First of all,  the  total world demand
 for  fiber in the  absence of the phase-down cap is  derived  in the left-hand
 diagram by horizontally summing the U.S.  fiber demand (the  without-phase down
 baseline demand function)  and the rest-of-the-world demand  for fiber.   This
 yields the outward-kinked demand function for the  world, as shown in the
 left-hand diagram.   The marginal revenue function for this  baseline  world
 demand relative to  which the  cartel maximizes its  profit is shown in the
 diagram as the line starting  in the vertical axis  at the intersection of the
 world demand for  fiber and the vertical axis which falls until the point of
 the'kink in the world demand,  and then discontinuously jumps  up at that point
 to continue its descent as shown.

     The discontinuity in the  marginal revenue function occurs- because  of the
 kink in the demand  function and is  not  central to  the  argument advanced here.
 However,  because  kinks in  the demand functions inevitably will materialize
 under the phase-down cap,  it  seems  worthwhile to introduce  kinks and
 discontinuities at  the outset.

     In the absence  of the  phase-down cap,  the cartel would  have produced Q®
 and  charged a price  of P°,  as  shown in  the diagram.  With the phase-down cap,
however,  matters  are  quite different.   To  see what happens, first construct
 the  new world demand  function in the  right-hand diagram  as  the horizontal
 summation of the  U.S.  demand  for fiber  under the phase-down cap (the mostly
vertical demand function near  the vertical axis in the diagram),  and the
unchanged foreign demand for  fiber.   This  produces the quite  peculiar
 initially downward  sloping, then vertical,  then downward-sloping demand
 function as  labeled  in the right-hand diagram.   Next,  the marginal schedule
for  this  new demand  function  can be derived as consisting at  first of  the
small  segment of  the  original marginal  revenue schedule  near  the top of  the
vertical  axis.  The marginal  revenue  schedule then drops vertically  until it
finally becomes downward-sloping as  indicated.   The  vertical  segment of  the
marginal  revenue  schedule  reflects  the  fact  that the price  of fiber  must drop
substantially before  any units in excess of  the phase-down  cap  can be  sold to
foreign  consumers.  Of course, the  shape and position of the  marginal  revenue
schedule  under  the phase-down depends critically on  the'assumptions  made
concerning  the  shapes  and  positions of  the  demand  functions,  but the task at
this point  is  simply  to  indicate that a fall  in the  price of  fiber is
possible.

    The  right-hand diagram  shows the new profit-maximizing price  and quantity
for  the  cartel  as P2  and Q1.  Note that P^  in  the  right-hand  diagram (which
corresponds with  P2 in the  top panel) is less  than P* in the  left-hand
diagram.  Clearly, the quantity  sold  in the market declines relative to  the
baseline, but the price  does as well.  Qualitatively speaking,  these
conclusions are perfectly consistent with  those  that result assuming
competitive supply of  fiber -- the price falls,  output of fiber  declines,


                                     E-18

-------
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN WELFARE EFFECTS OF PHASE DOWN
    UNDER. PREEXISTING CARTEL -- PRICE INCREASE

-------
 foreign fiber producers  are  made worse off,  and foreign consumers are made
 better off.

     Although Exhibit  E-8 concludes  that a price decline for fiber may occur
 due  to the phase-down cap, it is also  possible  for the price of fiber to1rise.
 Exhibit E-9  examines  this case.   In the top  panel,  once again,  the U.S.  market
 for  fiber is shown, but  with a price rise for fiber under the phase-down cap.
 In this case,  if  the  price of fiber rises, not  only do foreign fiber producers
 not  contribute to the value  of permits,  they actually acquire some of the
 value  of the permits  relative to the competitive situation.   That is,  the
 value  of permits  is given by the rectangle bounded by the new "full" price of
 fiber,  P1, by the new higher producer-price  of  fiber,  P2,  and the phase-down
 cap.   Because P2  in this case is higher than P°,  permits clearly are worth -
 less than under the competitive  scenario.

     To see how a  price rise  might occur,  consider the bottom panel of Exhibit
 E-9.   Here,  the relative sizes of the  non-U.S.  and the U.S.  demands in the
 absence of the phase-down cap have  been reversed, but otherwise the
 construction of the world fiber  demand and the  associated marginal revenue
'schedules  are the same as in the previous example.   Following the reasoning in
 the previous example,  the equilibrium  price  and quantity in the fiber market
 in the absence of the  phase-down cap are  found  as  P° and Q°  in the left-hand
 diagram.   The  fiber phase-down cap  again  makes  the  bulk of the  U.S.  demand
 function for fiber (expressed as an effective demand in the  world market)
vertical,  as shown in the right-hand diagram.   Once again,  the  new world fiber
 demand can be  constructed by summing the  two relevant demand functions -
horizontally to yield the new world demand shown as D^ in the right-hand
 diagram.   Finally, the associated marginal revenue  schedule  for this new
 demand function can be derived in the  same fashion  as  in the previous  example.

    The bottom-panel  diagrams  show  that by drawing  the demand and cost
 functions  appropriately,  the  new equilibrium price  of  fiber  can be higher  than
before,  although  the  quantity supplied to  the market,  of course,  still falls.
 In the  event that the  price  of fiber does  rise,   almost all of the welfare
conclusions  of the competitive case  must be  qualified.   It remains true  that
U.S.  producers  and- consumers  are  worse off and  that foreign  entities as  a
whole  are  also worse off,, but  the welfare of foreign consumers  declines  in
this case  as well.  Because  the price  of  fiber  rises,  no benefits are
conferred  on any  foreign  parties, contrary to the conclusion reached in  the
competitive  case.   Furthermore,  the  value of permits is  reduced by the
increased price of fiber, rather  than  augmented by  a decline in that price.
Indeed,  the  larger the price  increase  for fiber, the smaller the  perait
values,  so that if the U.S.  were  the only market for asbestos fiber, the
entire value of permits measured  in  the competitive model for fiber  supply
would accrue to the foreign cartel.

    This last  conclusion  is worth examining somewhat more closely.   Exhibit
E-10 shows the world fiber market under the assumption that  the U.S. is the
only market  for asbestos  fiber.   Consequently,  the world and U.S.  demands are
coincident in both the baseline and phase-down situations.   For  the  baseline
situation, the marginal revenue and cost schedules yield the  indicated values
for the equilibrium price and quantity, P° and Q°.  Under the phase-down, the
marginal revenue  schedule never resumes its downward slope after  becoming
vertical at  the fiber cap.  This makes sense because., by hypothesis, at no
price will any additional demand  for fiber materialize due to the phase-down

                                     E-20

-------
                      Exhibit I-10




POSSIBLE EXTRACTION OF PERMIT VALUES UNDER A PHASE DOWN
Dtp

-------
 cap.  Therefore,  marginal  revenue in this case equals marginal cost at
 precisely  the  amount of the phase-down cap,  which implies that the price  of
 fiber rises under the phase-down cap to exactly P1.   In this event,  all of the
 permit values  are appropriated by the cartel since what has to this time  been
 called P2  now  equals P1, the "full"  price of fiber.   Thus,  in this extreme
 case, permits  will have no value at  all.

    Even in this  scenario,  however,  some  of  the conclusions of the competitive
 model remain true in a qualitative sense.  U.S.  consumers and producers are
 worse off  (although more so because  of the zero value of permits),  and foreign
 fiber producers are worse  off as well because even though they appropriate all
 of the permit  values,  the  level of their  profits must fall  relative to the
 baseline because  the cartel could have set output at the phase-down cap,  but
 elected not to.   Clearly,  profits must be lower at the constrained level.

    Finally, there is yet  another case in which the  cartel  could appropriate
 the entire permit value under the phase-down cap.  This is  if the  cartel  can
 segregate  the  foreign and  U.S.  markets for fiber,  charging  different prices to
 each.  In  this case,  the cartel separately sets  marginal revenue in each
 market equal to marginal cost,  thereby producing (in general)  unequal  prices
 for each market.   In this  case,  under the  phase-down,  the U.S.  marginal
 revenue schedule  displays  the vertical segment down  to the  horizontal  axis,
 indicating again  that the  price in the U.S.  market should rise to  the  point at
 which the  phase-down cap is on the margin of being binding,  i.e.,  set  the U.S.
 submarket  fiber price equal to P1.   Thus,  in this  case as well,  the  foreign
 fiber cartel could appropriate all of the  permits' value,  thus leading to
 qualitatively  different conclusions  under  the cartel than under,competition in
 the fiber  industry.

    The second alternative  assumption concerning the competitiveness of the
 fiber industry is  that the  industry  becomes  a cartel at the time that  the
 phase-down regulation is promulgated.   In  this case,  as was shown  in the  case
 of product bans,  changes in welfare  occur  for two  reasons --  the phase-down
 cap on U.S. fiber  purchases and the  shift  from competitive  pricing  of  fiber to
 monopoly pricing.

    Intuitively,  one might  expect the  price  of fiber to rise  after  the cartel
 is formed,  but, as- in  the case  of a  preexisting  cartel,  whether  the  price of
 fiber rises or falls  after  the  cartelization of  the  industry  and the
 promulgation of the phase-down regulation  depends  on empirical  issues  and is
 therefore  ambiguous.   Exhibit  E-ll shows the case  in which  the price of fiber
 rises under the phase-down  regulation.  The  top  panel  shows the  now- familiar
 U.S. market for asbestos fiber, with the baseline  supply of fiber  (which
 exists because the  industry is  not yet  cartelized) and the  U.S.  demand for .
 fiber-  Under  the phase-down,  the  fiber price rises  to  P^ in  this diagram,
 resulting  in reduced permit values relative  to the competitive situation.

    The bottom panel of the exhibit  shows  the conditions  in the world  market
 corresponding  to those  in the  top panel.   World  demand  in the  absence  of the
 phase-down is  shown as  D" which,  together  with the competitive supply  of
 fiber, yields  the baseline  price  and quantity of fiber  as shown.  Under the
phase-down regulation,  the U.S. demand  for fiber again  takes on  the  vertical
properties  outlined above,   producing a  discontinuous marginal  revenue.
 schedule.   The now-cartelized  industry  maximizes its profits given the cost
 function (which was previously  the supply  schedule)  and the marginal revenue

                                     E-22

-------
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN ¥EUARE EFFECTS OF PHASE DOWN
    UNDER CONCOHITABT CARTEL -- PRICE INCREASE

-------
schedule, producing a reduced quantity and charging  the higher price
indicated.

    In this case, as the diagram  shows,  the price  rises under the phase-down
regulation relative to  the baseline.  As a consequence, some of the welfare
conclusions reached by  the ARCM assuming a competitive supply of fiber are not
consistent with this scenario.  Although U.S. producers and consumers are
still made worse off by the regulation,  they are even worse off if the fiber
suppliers become a cartel at the  same time.  Second, foreign consumers of
asbestos are worse off, rather  than better off, because the fiber price rises
rather than falls.  Finally, the  welfare of foreign  fiber producers need not
necessarily fall due to the phase-down regulation.   As was the case under the
product bans, it is possible for  the price of fiber  to rise by enough to more
than compensate for the lost fiber producer surplus  due to reduced production
levels.  In the diagram, the rectangular shaded area between the baseline and
phase-down prices, P° and P2, must be larger than  the triangular shaded area
above the cost (supply) function  for foreign fiber producers to be made better
off.  Clearly, this is  a possibility, but whether  it would be a reality is an
empirical issue. -

    The possibility that the price of- fiber could  fall after both the
imposition of the phase-down regulation  and the cartelization of the fiber
industry is shown in Exhibit E-12.  The  top panel  shows the U.S. market for
asbestos fiber assuming that the  fiber price falls,  showing the permit values
as the difference between the full fiber price, P^-,  and the" phase-down fiber
price, P', just as in the competitive fiber supply case.  Thus, in this case,
the welfare conclusions reached are qualitatively  similar to those of the
competitive case:  part of the  value of  permits is contributed by transfers
from foreign fiber suppliers (through the drop in  the price of fiber),
domestic producers and  consumers  are worse off, foreign consumers are better
off, and foreign fiber  suppliers  are worse off.

    The corresponding world market conditions are  shown in the bottom panel of
Exhibit E-12.  The baseline price and quantity are produced by the
intersection of the competitive supply function and  the baseline world demand.
Under the phase-down, the U.S.  demand again becomes  vertical at the phase-down
cap, which alters the world demand function as shown.  The new marginal
revenue schedule shown  in the exhibit and the cost function (which was the
supply function in the  baseline situation) determine the new price, which in
this case is- lower than the baseline price.  Thus, a price reduction in these
circumstances is possible even  though the cartel forms only upon the
promulgation of the regulation.   If this were to occur, then the welfare
conclusions would be qualitatively the same as those reached by the &RCM
assuming competitive supply of  fiber.

    Ultimately,  whether the welfare effects under  a  cartelized fiber industry'
and the fiber phase-down are qualitatively the same  as under a competitive
fiber industry depends  on two empirical  issues.  The first is whether a
foreign fiber cartel can segregate the fiber market  into the U.S.  submarket
and the foreign submarket.  If  so, then  the welfare  conclusions would be quite
different from those generated by the ARCM.  Indeed, all of the value of
permits for fiber would disappear and accrue instead to the overseas cartel.
On the other hand, if the foreign cartel cannot segregate the market into the
two submarkets,  then whether the welfare effects under the fiber phase-down
qualitatively match those generated by the ARCM depends on what happens to the

-------
DOMESTIC AND FOREICH WELFARE EFFECTS OF PHASE
    UNDER CONCQMITASr CARTEL -- PRICE DECREASE
           «^1">/
                 A
                                                       r       /


-------
world price of  fiber after the imposition of  the regulation.  If  the price
rises (because  foreign demand is inelastic relative to the combined U.S. and
non-U.S. demand), then the welfare conclusions would be different in that the
price rise would decrease the value of permits.  If the price falls (because
foreign demand  is large and elastic relative  to U.S. demand), then the welfare
effects would be qualitatively the same as those generated by the ARCM,

    4.  Combination Regulations., Welfare Effects^iTand_LI.ndustry Structure

    The proposed regulations on asbestos call for both staged bans (bans on
different products that occur at different points in time) and a  genera:! phase
down of fiber consumption over time.  Thus, the actual welfare effects
simulated by the ARCM under competitive conditions in the fiber market reflect
both forms of regulation.  Hence, it is worth completing the analysis of this
paper by examining the'qualitative similarities and differences between the
welfare effects of these combination regulations under alternative assumptions
concerning the  structure of the world asbestos fiber market.

        4.1  Welfare Effects:Under...Competitive Fiber Supply

        First,  consider the welfare effects of both a phase down  and product
bans calculated by the ARCM assuming that the fiber market is competitive.
Exhibit E-13 shows the U.S. and world fiber markets for one year  in which some
(but not all) products that use asbestos are banned in the U.S. and in which a
binding fiber cap exists.  The top panel shows the U.S. producer  and consumer
surplus losses  associated with the product bans as the area between the pre-
and post-ban derived demand curves for fiber down to the baseline price, P®.
The top panel also shows the price of fiber dropping from P° to P1.  This drop
in the price of fiber makes sense since in a competitive market with an
upward-sloping  supply of fiber, reduced demand results in a lower price.

    The bottom panel of the exhibit shows the situation in the world market
for fiber before and after the bans and phase-down cap are imposed.  The
inward shift of the demand function for fiber reflects both the product bans
and the phase-down cap in the U.S.,  producing an inward-shifted and kinked
demand for fiber, labeled D .  This drop in demand causes the price of fiber
to fall from P^ to P^, consistent with the top panel of the exhibit.

    Under competitive conditions,  the welfare effects of combination
regulations are fairly intuitive.   Clearly, the drop in the price of fiber
makes foreign suppliers of fiber worse off while, at the same time, making
foreign purchasers of fiber better off,  In the U.S., producers and consumers
of banned products are clearly worse off as are the producers and consumers of
products that have not been banned (due to the higher "full" price of fiber).
However, owners of permits gain the area between the full price of fiber, P ,
and the lower price of fiber on the world market, P^,  Thus, some of the value
of permits is contributed by foreign suppliers of fiber through the price
reduction.

        4,2  Welfare Effects under a Fiber__Cartgl

        One alternative assumption concerning the structure of the world fiber
market is that  it is a cartel acting as a monopolist.  Under these conditions,
the welfare effects domestically and internationally .of the phase down and
bans could be qualitatively different in several ways.

                                    E-26

-------
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN WELFARE EFFECTS OF BANS AND PHASE DOWN
              UNDER COMPETITIVE FIBER SUPPLY
                                                        0

-------
    Exhibit E-14 shows the U.S. fiber market and the world fiber market in a
year in which some products have been banned and in which a binding fiber cap
exists.  In the top panel, the inward shift of the derived demand for fiber in
the U.S. market reflects the product bans, as before.  Just as in the
competitive case, the decreased welfare of U.S. producers and consumer of
banned products can be measured by the area between the pre- and post-ban
demands.  Finally, in this diagram, the world price of fiber is assumed to
fall, making the welfare conclusions in this case qualitatively similar to
those derived assuming a competitive world fiber supply.

    The bottom panels of the exhibit show the corresponding world fiber market
conditions.  The left diagram shows the baseline situation that would have
existed had the bans and phase-down cap not been imposed.  In this diagram,-
the world demand for fiber is shown as D^, and the corresponding marginal
revenue function is drawn as MR .  Combined with the marginal cost function,
the baseline price for fiber is P®.

  •  The right-hand diagram shows the situation after imposing the bans and
phase-down cap.  Again, the world demand shifts inward duetto the bans and has
a kink and vertical segment due to the phase-down cap.  The -corresponding
marginal revenue function is labeled as MR-^ and has a discontinuity due to the
kinked nature of the demand function.  Given the way that these functions are
drawn, the price of fiber falls after imposing the phase-down cap and the
product bans.  In this event, the welfare of foreign fiber suppliers falls and
that of foreign consumers of fiber rises, both as a consequence of the decline
in the price of fiber.  Qualitatively, these welfare'effects match those that
result from the same regulations assuming competitive fiber supply.

    The price of fiber, however, does not necessarily fall relative the
baseline price after imposing the phase-down cap and product bans.  Exhibit  '
E-15 shows the case in which the' price of fiber rises after the imposition of
these U.S. regulations.  Again,  the top panel'shows the U.S. market for fiber
with the pre- and post-ban derived demands for fiber as before.  However, in
this case, the price of fiber rises from P^ to P^,                      -

    The bottom panel of the exhibit shows the world market conditions that
correspond to the conditions shown in the top panel.  Again, the left-hand
diagram shows the baseline situation in which the cartel maximizes profits by
setting marginal cost equal to marginal revenue,  as indicated,  producing a
baseline price of P°.  The right-hand diagram shows the post-regulatory
situation in which the demand for fiber has shifted inward and has a kink
associated with the phase-down cap.  In this case,  the price of fiber rises
relative the baseline so that foreign purchasers of fiber are made worse off,
rather than better off, by the U.S. regulations.   However, as outlined in
previous sections, the rise in the price of fiber cannot fully offset the
reduced profits from smaller sales of the cartel.   If the price rise was large
enough,  the cartel would have produced the new equilibrium quantity in the
first place and gained even more profit.  Thus, the rise in-the price of fiber
cannot fully restore the profit position of the cartel,  so foreign producers
of asbestos fiber must be worse off under the regulations.  Nevertheless, if
the price of fiber rises, the value of permits  to mine or import asbestos to
the U.S.  will be worth less than otherwise,  so  there are differences in the
domestic welfare implications of the regulations  if the fiber market is not
competitive.
                                     E-28

-------
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN WELFARE EFFECTS OF BANS ATO PHASE DOWN
        UNDER  PREEXISTING CARTEL --  PRICE DECREASE
  tie.

-------
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN WELFARE EFFECTS OF BANS AND PHASE DOWN
        UNDER  PREEXISTING  CARTEL --  PRICE  INCREASE

-------
    Most of the qualitative conclusions reached assuming that the world fiber
market is competitive are still true even if the world fiber market currently
is a profit-maximizing cartel.  U.S. producers and consumers of banned and
non-banned products are still worse off due to the bans and the higher "full"
price of asbestos fiber, and foreign fiber suppliers are worse off.  The only
difference from a qualitative perspective is whether the price of fiber rises
or falls.  In the former case, foreign purchasers of asbestos fiber are made
better off by the regulations and permit values in the U.S. decline relative
to the competitive case.

    An alternative assumption concerning the structure of the world asbestos
fiber market is that the industry is a competitive one until the U.S.
regulations cause'firms to collude, resulting in monopolistic pricing. 'In  •
this case, the qualitative predictions of the welfare consequences associated
with imposing both product bans and a fiber phase-down cap at the same time
can be somewhat different from those reached assuming competition.  Once
again, the issue hinges on whether the post-regulation price of fiber rises or
falls relative the baseline

    Exhibit E-16 shows the case in which the price of fiber falls relative the
baseline. The top panel shows the U.S. fiber market and the fall in the price
of fiber.  The pre- and post-ban derived demand functions for fiber have the
same interpretation as above as do the areas reflecting downstream producer
and consumer surplus losses and the value of fiber permits.  The bottom panel
of the exhibit shows the world fiber market.  The pre-regulation demand curve
for fiber and the supply function determine the baseline price of fiber,  P^.
After the regulations are imposed, the demand function shifts inward and
develops kinks and vertical segments due to the product bans and the phase-
down cap.

    In this case,  the resulting marginal revenue function and the marginal
cost schedule indicate that the price of fiber falls relative the baseline.
In this event, the qualitative welfare conclusions reached assuming
competitive fiber supply hold here as well.  Domestic producers and consumers
of asbestos products are worse off, part of the value of permits reflects
transfers from foreign fiber suppliers (the drop in the price of fiber from P
to P ), foreign consumers of asbestos fiber are better off, and foreign
producers of fiber are worse off.

    However, the price of fiber could rise after the product bans and phase-
down cap are imposed.  Exhibit E-17 shows this case.  Again, the top panel
shows the U.S. fiber market, all of which is the same as in the previous
diagram except that the price of fiber is higher, rather than lower, relative
to the baseline.  Thus, if the price of fiber rises, then the value of permits
is reduced (and could conceivably be entirely eliminated in extreme
circumstances).   The bottom panel shows the corresponding world market
conditions.  As these functions are drawn, the inward shift of the demand for
fiber due to the product bans and the kinks and vertical segment caused by the
phase-down cap result in a higher price for fiber.

    If the price of fiber rises relative to the baseline, then the welfare
effects of the regulations may be qualitatively different than under a
competitive structure of the fiber industry.  Indeed, it is possible that by
cartelizing the industry, the foreign producers of fiber could be better off
after the imposition of the regulations than before (-although it is the

                                     E-31

-------
DOHESTIC AND FOREIGN WELFARE EFFECTS OF BANS AND PHASE DOWN
        UHDER CONCOMITANT CARTEL --  PRICE DECREASE

-------
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN WELFARE EFFECTS OF BANS AND PHASE DOWN
        UMBER  CONCOMITANT CARTEL  -- PRICE  INCREASE

-------
 cartelization that drives this,  not the regulations ger s.e).   Furthermore,
 foreign consumers of fiber will be worse off,  rather than better off,  if the
 price of fiber rises and the value of permits  to mine or import fiber will  be
 lower than otherwise.

     In stun,  if the fiber industry is not competitive,  the welfare effects of
 combining a fiber-phase down and product bans  could be qualitatively different
 from those predicted under the assumption that the world fiber industry is
 competitive.   However,  from a qualitative perspective,  any differences between
 the  welfare predictions of the competitive model and the cartel models are
 driven by the direction of change of the price of asbestos fiber.   If the
 price falls,  then the  qualitative predictions  of all model are similar.   If
 the  price rises,  then the predictions for foreign consumers of fiber will be
 reversed,  the prediction for foreign producers of fiber might be reversed,  and
 the  value of permits to mine or  import fiber will be reduced  relative to the
 competitive case.

     5.   Conclusions

     A summary of- the welfare predictions developed in this paper concerning
 the  effects  of the proposed regulations on asbestos under alternative
 assumptions  about  the  structure  of the world asbestos  fiber market appears  in
 Exhibit E-18.   The top  of the exhibit lists the economic entities  which may be
 affected by  the regulations.   Down the left-hand side  of the  exhibit appear
 alternative  sets of  assumptions  concerning the structure of'the world fiber
 market  and the type  of  regulation under consideration.   The entries in the
 exhibit are  either "+",  "-",  or  "?"  indicating the predicted  direction of
 welfare changes for  each affected set of economic entities.   The entries for
 "Permit Holders" Indicate whether foreign entities contribute to or detract
 from the value of permits,  as described above.

     This summary table  shows  that many of the  conclusions reached assuming  a
 competitive  supply of asbestos fiber are robust to alternative assumptions
 concerning the structure of the  world fiber market.  Others,  however,  are not.
 The  analysis  suggests that  there is  some ambiguity concerning even the
 qualitative  conclusions  one can  draw concerning some of the welfare effects of
 the  regulations, although some of the conclusions are unambiguous.   For
 example, U.S.  producers  and consumers are always  worse  off in their roles as
 producers  and consumers  under the  product bans  or phase-down  alternatives.
 Furthermore,  the quantity of  fiber sold world-wide always  falls  regardless  of
 whether  the  fiber market is competitive or cartelized.

     Other  conclusions from  the competitive framework are  not  as  robust to the
 assumption one  makes concerning  the  competitiveness  of  fiber  supply.   For
 example, the  price of fiber in the world may either  rise  or fall if the  supply
 of fiber is not competitive under  either regulation or  a  combination of
 regulations.   This contrasts  with  the  findings  of the competitive model  in
 which the  fiber price always  falls under either the  product bans or  the
 phase-down cap.  Because of this ambiguity concerning the  direction  of
 movement of the asbestos fiber price  under the cartel rather  than a
 competitive industry, the welfare  conclusions for  foreign  entities  as well as
 the value  of  the permits under the phase-down are  ambiguous.    If the fiber
price falls in  the cartel situations,  then matters  qualitatively resemble the
 conclusions reached by the ARCM  assuming  competitive supply of fiber.  On the
 other hand, if  the fiber price rises under  the product bans,   the phase-down

                                     E-34

-------
               Exhibit E-18.  Summary of Welfare  Effects Under
                    Alternative  Fiber Industry  Structures
    Regulation/ •
 Industry Structure
                                            Economic. Entity
                                                          Foreign
                             Domestic          Permit      Fiber      Foreign
                        Producers/Consumers   Holders*   Producers   Consumers
BansOnly:

  Competitive

  Preexisting Cartel
    Price Decrease
    Price Increase

  Concomitant Cartel
    Price Decrease
    Price Increase

Phase Down:

  Competitive

  Preexisting Cartel
    Price Decrease
    Price Increase

  Concomitant Cartel
    Price Decrease
    Price Increase

Bans and Phase Down:

  Competitive

  Preexisting Cartel
    Price Decrease
    Price Increase

  Concomitant Cartel
    Price Decrease
    Price Increase
                                                 N/A
                                                 N/A
                                                 N/A
                                                 N/A
                                                 N/A
                                                 N/A
                                                 N/A
N/A - Not Applicable.

*Entries for Permit Holders refer to whether foreign entities contribute or
detract from permit values as the policy is implemented relative to the
competitive case.
                                     E-35

-------
caps, or under both policies, then the value of permits will be reduced (in
the phase-down cases) and the welfare of foreign consumers will fall.
Moreover, the welfare of foreign fiber producers could even rise if they
organized their cartel at the same time that the regulations are promulgated.
                                    E-36

-------
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS  OF CONTROLS ON
      ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
                  FINAL REPORT
                    VOLUME HI
                    APPENDIX  F
                     Prepared for:
                 Christine Augustyniak
               Office of Toxic Substances
           U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
                     Prepared by:
                   ICF Incorporated
               Fairfax Virginia 22031-1207
                   January 19, 1989

-------
                               TABLE QF CONTENTS
     I.  Commercial Paper
    II.  Rollboard
   III.  Millboard
    IV,  Asbestos Pipeline Wrap
     V.  Beater-Add Gaskets
    VI.  High-Grade Electrical Paper
   VII.  Roofing Felt
  VIII.  Filler for Acetylene Cylinders
    IX.  Flooring Felt
     X.  Corrugated Paper
    XI.  Specialty Paper
   XII.  Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile
  XIII.  Asbestos Diaphragms
   XIV.  Asbestos-Cement Pipe and Fittings
    XV.  Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet
   XVI.  Corrugated Asbestos-Cement Sheet
  XVII.  Asbestos-Cement Shingles
 XVIII.  Drum Brake Linings
   XIX.  Disc Brake Pads (Light/Medium Vehicles)
    XX.  Disc Brake Pads (Heavy Vehicles)
   XXI.  Brake Blocks
  XXII.  Clutch Facings
 XXIII.  Automatic Transmission Friction Components
  XXIV.  Friction Materials
   XXV.  Asbestos Protective Clothing
  XXVI.  Asbestos Textiles
 XXVII.  Sheet Gaskets
XXVIII.  Asbestos Packings
  XXIX.  Roof Coatings and Cements
   XXX.  Non-Roofing Adhesives, Sealants, and Coatings
  XXXI.  Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
 XXXII.  Missile Liner
XXXIII.  Extruded Sealant Tape
 XXXIV.  Asbestos Separators in Fuel Cells and Batteries
  XXXV.  Asbestos Arc Chutes

-------
I.  COMMERCIAL PAPER




     A.  Product Description




     Asbestos commercial paper can be classified into two categories --




general insulation paper and muffler paper.   Commercial papers are used to




provide insulation against fire, heat, and corrosion at a minimum thickness,




These papers are used in a variety of specialized applications and are,




therefore,  produced in many different weights and thicknesses.   They usually




consist of approximately 95 to 98 percent asbestos fiber by weight; the




balance 2 to 5 percent is typically starch binder (Krusell and Cogley 1982),




     Commercial papers are produced on conventional papermaking machines.  The




ingredients are combined with water to produce a mixture that is fed through a




series of rollers.  These rollers apply pressure and heat to produce a paper




of uniform and desired thickness.  The paper is then allowed to cool before it




is cut, rolled, and packaged.




     Muffler paper is used by the automotive industry for exhaust emission




control systems.  The paper is applied between the inner and outer skins of




the muffler or converter to maintain the high temperature necessary for




pollution control within the catalytic converter reaction chamber and to




protect the outer layer from the heat (Krusell and Cogley 1982).




     General asbestos insulation paper is used in a variety of industries,




The steel and aluminum industries use it as insulation in furnaces, in trough




linings, in the smelting process, and against hot metal and drippings of




molten metal,  Asbestos paper is also used in the glass and ceramic industry




for kiln insulation, in foundries as mold liners, and in the electrical parts




and appliance industry for electrical insulation.




     B.  Producers and Importers of Asbestos Commercial JPaper




     There were two primary processors of asbestos commercial paper in 1981:




Johns-ManviHe Corporation (now Manville Sales Corporation) and Celotex




                                      - 1 -

-------
Corporation (TSCA 1982a).   There were also three secondary processors of




asbestos commercial paper in 1981:  Metallic Gasket Division,  Sepco




Corporation (now Fluorocarbon Metallic Gasket Division),  Parker Hannifan




Corporation, and Laaons Metal Gasket Company (TSCA 1982b).   All of these




companies have stopped processing asbestos commercial paper, and there are




currently no primary or secondary processors of this product (ICF 1986).




However, a representative of Quin-T Corporation's Eriie, PA plant stated that




it is selling small amounts of commercial paper out of inventory.  The




official could not quantify the amount sold in 1985, but did state that




production had been discontinued (ICF 1986).  Because none of the other




respondents to our survey indicated that they had begun the production of




asbestos commercial paper in the period since the previous survey, or that




they were aware of any other distributors or importer of this product, we have




concluded that there are currently no domestic producers of asbestos




commercial paper.  In addition, a 1984 survey of importers failed to identify




any importers of asbestos commercial paper (ICF 1984).




     C.  Trends




     1981 production of asbestos commercial paper was 936 tons (TSCA 1982a),




As described above, there was no production of this product in 1985.




     D.  Substitutes




     Asbestos fiber has been used in commercial paper because of its corrosion




resistance, fire resistance, chemical resistance, strength, and durability,




Information on the advantages and disadvantages of asbestos commercial paper




and its substitutes is summarized in Table 1.




     The major substitute for asbestos commercial paper is ceramic paper (ICF




1985).   Ceramic paper is manufactured by Carborundum Corporation, Cotronics




Corporation, Babcock & Wilcox, and Lydall Corporation.   This product shares




many of the advantages of asbestos commercial paper such as corrosion, fire,




                                      - 2 -

-------
                                                   Table 1,  Subufcit-ufcaB £or Asbestos Camnarcial.
         Product
                                    Manufacturer
                                                                    Advantages
                                                                                                        References
Asfres-tos Connie re i«l Paper     None
                             Fire, heat, rot, and corrosion    Environmental and occupational   Krusell and Coglsy (1982)
                             reBiatant,                        h»alth problBDS.                 ICF (1986)
                             Low cost.
                             Long service life.
Ceramic Paper
Carborundum Corp,, BY
CofcronicB Corp., NY
Babcock & Hllcoi, GA
Lydall Corp., HH
Heat, corrosion, and chemical
resistant.
Bigh tetnparature use limit
(2300T).
Hot »s strong or resilient
as asbestos.
Mora expanaiva.
Carborundum (1986)
Cotronles (1986)
Babcock & Htlcox (1986)
Cellulose Paper
BolllngsHorth & Vase, MA
Good electrics! properties.
Inexpensive
Hot heat resistant.
Low temperature use Unit.
Hoilingsworth & Vose (1983)
Fiberglass Peper
Lydall Corp., HH
Boat resistant.
Temperature USB limit at
1100'F.
Hob se strong or dinensionally   Lydall (1983)
stable as asbestos.

-------
and chemical resistance.  However, at extremely high temperatures the binders




in the paper begin to burn and all that is left is the fiber.  The strength




differential becomes more important as the binder burns away because ceramic




fibers are not as strong as asbestos fibers.   In addition, ceramic paper is




more expensive than commercial paper.




     Despite these drawbacks, ceramic papers  can substitute for asbestos




commercial papers in any of the following applications:  insulation for the




aluminum and steel industries, foundry insulation, glass making, fire




protecting barriers, mufflers, catalytic converters,  kiln and furnace




construction, and other high temperature uses.




     Hollingsworth & Vose Company produces a  cellulose electrical insulation




paper.  This product is a good substitute for asbestos commercial paper in the




electrical parts and appliance industry.  It  is less expensive than the other




substitutes,  but it cannot be used in high temperature applications




(Hollingsworth & Vose 1983).




     Lydall Corporation also manufactures fiberglass commercial paper.  This




product is considered an inferior substitute  because it can only operate at




temperatures up to 1100°F and is not as strong or dimensionally stable as




asbestos commercial paper (Lydall 1983).




     E.  Summary




     Domestic production of asbestos commercial paper did not take place in




1985.  A small amount was sold out of inventory, but there is currently no




more consumption of this product.  As a result, complete substitution of




asbestos in commercial paper has taken place.  The substitutes are more




expensive than the asbestos product, but they have generally been able to




match its performance along the critical dimensions.
                                      - 4 -

-------
REFERENCES

Babcock & Wilcox Co.  T. Viverito.  1986 (October 14).  Augusta, GA,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, IGF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Carborundum Corp.  C. Demske.  1986 (October 14).  Niagara Falls, NY.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Cotronics Corp.  Representative.  1986 (October 14).  Brooklyn, NY.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Hollingsworth & Vose.  Stowte Ellsworth.  1983.  East Walpole, MA.
Transcribed telephone conversation with E.  Malitz, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1984,  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Doc.  Control No.  20-8600681,

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix K:   Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos products.  Washington, D.C.:   Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Commercial Paper.  Washington, D.C.

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract Number
68-02-3168.

Lydall Corporation.  Mr. Devoe.  1983.  Rochester, NH.  Transcribed telephone
conversation with E. Malitz, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission,  1982a,   Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No,
20-8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982b.   Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.
20-8670644.
                                      - 5 -

-------

-------
II.  ROLLBOARD




  A.  Product Description




  Rollboard is a paper product that is used to protect against fire, heat,




corrosion, and moisture.  It is a thin and flexible material composed




basically of two sheets of paper laminated together with sodium silicate.




Rollboard can be cut, folded, wrapped, and rolled.  In addition, it can be




molded around sharp corners (Krusell and Cogley 1982).




  The primary constituent of asbestos rollboard is asbestos fiber.  The




balance consists of binders and fillers.  The asbestos content can range from




60 to 95 percent by weight, but 70 to 80 percent is considered typical.




Frequently used binders include starches, elastomers, silicates, and cement;




common fillers are mineral wool, clay, and lime (Krusell and Cogley 1982).




  Rollboard is manufactured in a process similar to that used for millboard




production, but it is produced in a continuous sheet.  The ingredients are




mixed together and combined with water.  This mixture is then fed into a




conventional cylinder paper machine where heat and heavy rollers are applied




to produce a uniform board.  The material is then dried.  The final steps are




to laminate two of these sheets together, allow them to set, and to package




the finished rollboard product.




  Rollboard can be used in many industrial applications -- it can be used as




a gasket and as a fire-proofing agent for security boxes, safes, and files.




Its commercial uses include office partitioning and garage paneling, while its




residential USE include linings for stoves and electric switch boxes,




  B.  P.noducers.jand Importers of Asbestos Rollboard




  There were no domestic primary or secondary processors of asbestos




rollboard in 1981, although a Johns-Manville Corp. (now Manville Sales Corp.)




plant in Waukegan, IL was still selling the product out of inventory (TSCA




1982a, TSCA 1982b).  In addition, a 1984 survey of importers failed to




                                      - 1 -

-------
identify any importers of asbestos rollboard (ICF 1984).  The Waukegan, IL




plant no longer produces or sells asbestos rollboard (ICF 1986),  Because none




of the other respondents to our survey indicated either that they had begun




the production of asbestos rollboard in the period since the previous survey,




or that they were aware of any other distributors or importers of this




product, we have concluded that there are currently no domestic producers or




consumers of asbestos rollboard,




  C,  Trends




  There was no production of asbestos rollboard in 1981 and there was still




no production of asbestos rollboard in 1985.  Small amounts of asbestos




rollboard were being sold out of inventory in 1981, but this had ceased by




1985.




  D.  Substitutes




  Most non-asbestos rollboards in the market today are made of ceramic




fibers.  Information on asbestos rollboard and its substitutes is summarized




in Table 1.




  Cotronics Corporation manufactures ceramic paper which is the primary




substitute for asbestos rollboard (ICF 1985).   It is made from high purity




asbestos-free refractory fibers.  Even though the product is sold in paper




rolls, it can be made into free standing shapes such as rollboards.  The




continuous service temperature is 2300"F and applications include insulation




materials and high temperature gaskets for furnaces,  electrical wire




insulation, kiln construction, and cushioning in furnace construction,




Ceramic paper has low specific heat, low thermal conductivity, and has




resistance to thermal shock and corrosion (Cotronics 1986).




  Carborundum Corporation manufactures two asbestos rollboard substitutes.




The first is Fiberfrax 550(R).  It Is a paper product made of alumina-silicate




(ceramic) fiber and contains approximately 8 percent organic binder.  It is




                                      - 2 -

-------
                                                       Table 1. Substitutes fat Asbestos Sollioard
         Product
                                    M«mt£actwr»r
                                                                    Advantages
                                                                      Disadvantages
                                                                                                        References
Asbestos
                              Bone
                                                           Fira, heat, rot, and corrosion    Environmental and occupational   Xrttsell and Cogley (1982)
                                                           resistant.                        health probimns,                 1CF {1986)
                                                           Long servlca life,
                                                           Low coat.
Fibarfrax 550(R)
Carborundum Corp.
Niagara Falls, HY
                                                           High tenperature use limit
                                                           <230tTF>.
                                                           Resistant to chemical attack.
                                                           Good handling stiength.
                                  Poor resistance to acids andl
                                  alkalies.
Carborundum (1986)
Fiberfrai 970
-------
resistant to most chemical attacks with the exception of acids and alkalies.

It also possesses good handling strength and has a continuous use temperature

of 2300*F,*  Fiberfrax 550{R) is .designed specifically for applications where

high temperature protection is more critical than heat retention.  Typical

applications of Fiberfrax 550(R) are industrial gasketing, liquid metal back-

up insulation, brazing furnace insulation, and as an investment casting

parting agent (Carborundum 1986).

  The second asbestos rollboard substitute produced by Carborundum

Corporation is Fiberfrax 970(R).  It is also a ceramic paper product, and it

contains approximately 6 percent organic binder.  Fiberfrax 970(R) is noted

for its exceptionally low thermal conductivity and good handling properties.

Fiberfrax 970(R) is less suitable as an asbestos rollboard substitute because

it lacks strength and rigidity; however, it does possess some of the favorable

characteristics found in Fiberfrax 550(R) such as high temperature stability,

resiliency, and excellent corrosion resistance.  Typical applications of

Fiberfrax 970(R) include high temperature gaskets, combustion chamber linings,

thermal and electrical insulation, and glass furnace blow pipe insulation

(Carborundum 1986),

      Babcock & Wilcox produces non-asbestos ceramic rollboard made of

Kaowool(R) which consists either of Kaolin, a natural occurring alumina-silica

fireclay, or a blend of high purity alumina and silica.  Kaowool(R) rollboard

has a maximum temperature use limit of 2300"F, and it possesses good chemical

stability with resistance to most chemicals.  Kaowool. rollboard is designed to

replace asbestos rollboard in many non-furnace applications such as laundry

and trough linings,  gasketing between trough sections, glass conveyer rolls,
       JL
         The continuous use temperature of asbestos rollboard could not be
  determined because the product is no longer produced.  However, it is likely
  to have been approximately 10QQ°F, the continuous use temperature of standard
  asbestos millboard, a product with a very similar composition.

                                      - 4 -

-------
boiler jacket insulation, electrical appliance insulation, and radiator covers




(Babcock & Wilcox 1986).




  The use of asbestos rollboard was very limited and the substitutes are




generally able to match or exceed the performance of the asbestos product.




The price of asbestos rollboard in 1981 was approximately $1.00/lb. (IGF




1985).   The current prices for the various substitutes are presented in




Table 2.   It is clear that the complete substitution away from asbestos




rollboard has resulted in a higher price.




  E.  Summary




  Domestic production or consunption of asbestos rollboard did not take




place in 1985.   This has resulted in complete substitution of asbestos




rollboard with other substitute products.  The substitute products are more




expensive, but they have generally been able to match or exceed the




performance of asbestos rollboard.
                                      - 5 -

-------
           Table  2.   Prices of Asbestos Rollboard and Its Substitutes
                                   (in $/lb.)
     Product
Manufacturer
Price
Reference
Asbestos Rollboard    None
                       N/A
             1CF (1986)
  Ceramic Paper
Cotronics Corp.    $8.27-$12.4Q  Cotronics (1986)
Brooklyn, NY
  Fiberfrax 550(R)
Carborundum Corp.
Niagara Falls, NY
   $5.92     Carborundum (1986)
Fiberfrax 970(R)
Carborundum Corp,     $10.24     Carborundum (1986)
Niagara Falls, NY
  Kaowool(R)
Babcock & Wilcox
Augus ta»  GA
   $5.70     Babcock & Wilcox (1986)
N/A:  Not Applicable.
                                     - 6 -

-------
REFERENCES
Babcock & Wilcox Co.  T. Viverito.  1986 (October 14).  Augusta, GA.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos,  IGF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C,

Carborundum Corp.  C. Demske,  1986 (October 14),  Niagara Falls, NY,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos,  ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Cotronics Corp.  Representative.  1986 (October 14).  Brooklyn, NY.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos,  ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.;  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Doc,  Control No.  20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:   Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis  of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos products.  Washington, D.C.:   Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).   Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Rollboard.  Washington, D.C.

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.   GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,   Contract Number
68-02-3168.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982a.   Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.
20-8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982b.   Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.
20-8670644.

-------
III.  MILLBOARD


  A.  Product Description


  Asbestos millboard is essentially a heavy cardboard product that can be


used for gasketing, insulation, fireproofing,  and resistance against corrosion


and rot.  The primary constituent of this product is asbestos fiber, with the


balance consisting of binders and fillers.  The asbestos content ranges from


60 to 95 percent, but 70 to 80 percent is considered typical.  Frequently used


binders are starches, elastomers, silicates, and cement; common fillers


include mineral wool, clay, and lime (Krusell and Cogley 1982).


  Millboard is manufactured in essentially the same way as paper.  The


ingredients are mixed together and combined with water.  This mixture is then
                                *

fed into a conventional cylinder paper machine where heat and heavy rollers


are applied to produce a uniform board.  The material is cut lengthwise and


then removed for final drying.  Standard size millboards are.42 x 48 inches


and 1/4 to 3/4 inches thick.  The most popular millboards are 1/4 and 1/2 inch


thick.  Asbestos millboards are very similar to asbestos commercial paper and


are differentiated primarily by their thickness and lower fiber composition


than commercial paper.


  Millboard is also sold in different grades.   Differences between millboard


grades reflect their ability to withstand elevated temperatures.  Standard


asbestos millboard is able to withstand temperatures of 1000"F, while premium


millboard can withstand temperatures well above 2000T  (Quin-T 1986a),


  The uses of asbestos millboard are numerous.  Specific industrial


applications include linings in boilers, kilns, and foundries; insulation in


glass tank crowns, melters, refiners, and sidewalls in the glass industry;


linings for troughs and covers in the aluminum, marine, and aircraft


industries; and thermal protection in circuit breakers in the electrical


industry.  In addition, thin millboard is inserted between metal to produce


                                      - 1 -

-------
gaskets.  Commercial applications for millboard include fireproof linings for




safes, dry-cleaning machines, and incinerators.  Asbestos millboard had been




used in residential applications, but this application has ceased (Quin-T




1986b).




  B.  Producers and Importers of Millboard




  There were five primary processors of asbestos millboard in 1981:  Celotex




Corporation, GAP Corporation, Johns-Manville Corporation, Nicolet, Inc., and




Quin-T Corporation (TSCA 1982a),  Celotex Corporation, Johns-Manville




Corporation (now Manville Sales Corporation), and Nicolet, Inc. have since




stopped producing asbestos millboard.  However, Nicolet, Inc. continues to




sell the product out of inventory. GAF Corporation sold their plant in Erie,




PA to Quin-T Corporation, and that plant is still producing asbestos




millboard.  The other Quin-T Corporation plant in Tilton, NH still produces an




asbestos product, but they have decided to reclassify it as electrical paper.




Therefore, there is currently only one domestic primary processor of asbestos




millboard.  That plant consumed 436 tons of asbestos fiber in producing 581




tons of asbestos millboard in 1985 (ICF 1986).




  There were eight secondary processors of asbestos millboard in 1981 (TSCA




1982b).  Since that time, four companies have stopped processing asbestos




millboard.  The four companies which still process asbestos millboard are;




Capital Rubber & Specialty Company, Fluorocarbon Metallic Gasket Division of




Sepco Company, Lamons Metal Gasket Company, and Parker Hannafin Corporation.




All four companies process millboard for producing gaskets.  Capital Rubber




and Specialty Company imported millboard in 1985; no other importers of




asbestos millboard were identified (ICF 1984; ICF 1986).  The other three




companies purchased approximately 120 tons of asbestos millboard (ICF 1986).
                                      - 2 -

-------
  C,  Trends




  Total annual production of asbestos millboard has declined dramatically




from 2,767 tons in 1981 to 581 tons in 1985.  This decline may be somewhat




overstated because Quin-T Corporation's plant in Tilton, NH believes that




their 1981 millboard production should have been classified as electrical




paper.  Nonetheless, this decline is expected to continue, and Quin-T




Corporation's plant in Erie, PA plans to stop producing asbestos millboard in




1988 (Quin-T 1986a).




  D,  Substitutes




  The major advantages of asbestos millboard are its resistance to heat,




fire, rot, and corrosion; its tensile strength, and its low price.  In




general, the substitutes can match or exceed the heat and fire resistance of




asbestos millboard, but they do not offer as much rot or corrosion resistance




or as much tensile strength.  In addition, all the substitutes are more




expensive.  Despite these drawbacks, the substitutes are expected to perform




adequately enough to replace asbestos millboard in all its current uses.




  For the purposes of this analysis, the substitutes have been grouped into




two categories -- standard boards and premium boards.  This has been done




because the performance  characteristics of the boards within each category




are similar, even though their exact chemical compositions are different.  The




performance characteristics across categories are, however, different.  The




advantages, disadvantages, and prices of asbestos millboard and its




substitutes are presented in Table 1,




  The major substitutes for asbestos millboard fall into the standard board




category.  The Quin-T Corporation produces a standard board known as mineral




board which can replace asbestos aillboard.  This product is composed of a




proprietary combination of inorganic fillers.  It can withstand temperatures




up to 1000°F and can replace millboard in many of its applications, even




                                      - 3 -

-------
                                                       Table 1. Substitutes for Asbestos Millboard
         Product
                                    Manufacturer
                                                                    Advantages
                                                                                                                                      Raferenees
Asbestos Millboard
                              Quin-T Corp,
                              Erie, PA
Fire, heat, and rot resistant.
Corrosion resistant,
Low coat.
Potential anvltamneRtaJ. and
occupational health problems.
Krusell and Cogley <198Z)
Standard Board
                              Quin-T Corp.
                              Erie, PA;
                              Hicolet, Inc.
                              /Wbler, PA
Temperature use limit of 850-
1000*F.
Hot combustible.
Low tensile strength.
High cost.
Quin-T U986a)
Hicolot (n.d.)
Pteniiuni BOB ret
                              Babeock & Hi Icon Co,
                              Augusta, GA;
                              Carborundum Corp,
                              St«gar« Falls, NY;
                              CotrcmicB Corp.
                              Brooklyn, HI;
                              Janos Corp.
                              MoonacM*, HJ;
                              Rieolat, 1H.
                              Anbi«r, PA
Temperature use limit of 1500-    Low tensile strength.
2300'F.                           fliib cost.
Not combustible.
Heat resistant.
                                 Babcack S Wilcox {1986)
                                 Carborundum (1986)
                                 Cotronies (n,d.)
                                 J»nos (1966)
                                 Mcolet (n.d.

-------
though it has a lower tensile strength.  It costs over §1.23/lb. (Quln-T




1986a).




  Nicolet, Inc. produces a non-asbestos standard board known as Nampro




901(R),  This product is a cement-bound millboard and can be used in gaskets,




electric ovens, strong-box liners, and welding pads.  It has a temperature use




limit of 850°F (1200°F if strength loss is not detrimental) (Nicolet n.d.).




It costs $1.33/lb. (Hicolet 1986),  It has been estimated that these two




standard boards will combine to take 80 percent of the asbestos millboard




market if asbestos is banned (Quin-T 1986a).




  The remaining substitutes for asbestos millboard fall into the premium




board category.  They are more expensive, but they have much higher




temperature resistance.  Janos Industrial Insulation Corporation purchases a




premium board called Nuboard 1800(R) from a British manufacturer and




distributes it in the U.S.  This board consists primarily of mineral fibers




and silica.  Nuboard 1800{R) can withstand temperatures up to 1800°F.  This




product can replace asbestos in many of its premium uses,  even though it has a




lower tensile strength.  It costs $2.92/lb. (Janos 1986).




  Nicolet, Inc. produces a premium non-asbestos board known as Nampro




911(R).  This product is an inorganic-bound millboard and can be used in kiln




liners, incinerator liners, induction-furnace liners, and ingot-mold liners.




It has a temperature use limit of 1500'F (2100'F if strength loss is not




detrimental (Nicolet n.d.).  It costs $2.46/lb. (Nicolet 1986).




  Babcock & Wilcox Company produces a premium non-asbestos board made of




Kaowool(R).  Kaowool(R) consists either of Kaolin, a naturally occurring




alumina-silica fireclay or a blend of high purity alumina and silica,  Kaowool




board has a maximum temperature use limit of 2300*F and possesses good




chemical stability with resistance to most chemicals.  Kaowool can replace
                                      - 5 -

-------
asbestos millboard in almost all its premium applications, and it costs




$4.7Q/lb. (Babcock & Wilcox 1986).




  Cotronics Corporation produces a premium non-asbestos board called Ceramic




Board 360(R),  This product is made from high purity refractory fibers which




are interlaced and bonded with an inorganic binder.  It is resistant to




oxidizing and reducing atmospheres, molten non-ferrous jnetals,  steam, and most




chemicals and solvents.  It also has a continuous use' temperature of 23QO*F.




it can be used in rigid high temperature gaskets, heat shields, chemical




reactor insulation, and brazing fixture supports; it costs $1.88/lb.




(Cotronics n.d.).




  Carborundum Corporation produces a premium non-asbestos board called CH




Board made of Fiberfrax(R).   Fiberfrax(R) consists mainly of ceramic fibers




and has a temperature use limit of 23QO°F,  In addition, Fiberfrax(R) will




work well in electrical insulating applications because it has a low




dielectric constant and does not conduct electricity.  GH board can substitute




for asbestos in all applications where tensile strength is not important, and




it costs $5.05/lb. (Carborundum 1986).  The premium boards are estimated to




take the remaining 20 percent of the asbestos millboard market if asbestos is




banned (Quin-T 1986a).  All the inputs for the Regulatory Cost Model are




presented in Table 2.




  E.  Summary




  Asbestos millboard is essentially a heavy cardboard product which can be




used for gasketing, insulation, fireproofing, and resistance against corrosion




and rot.  It is typically used in gasketing applications and as a liner in




industrial boilers, furnaces, and kilns.




  The only processor of asbestos millboard in 1985 was Quin-T Corporation's




Erie, PA plant.  This plant consumed 435 tons of asbestos and produced 581
                                      - 6 -

-------
                                                 Table 2.   Data Inputs for Asbestos Regulatory Cost Mod*!
                                      Product            Consumption/                                                    Market
     Product          Output    Asbestos Coefficient   Production Ratio     Price       Useful li£«   Equivalent Pile*   Sh«r«           Reference



Asbestos Millboard   581 tons      SO.75 tons/ton           1.005         Sl,760/ton     25 y«ar»        81,740/toti       N/A     Quiti-T (W86a)


Standard Board         H/A              H/A                  H/A          S2,560/tonb    2$ ynars        S2,5«0/ton       BOIb    Quin-T (1986a)
                                                                                                                                  Blcolet  (1986) '


PrmLum Board          H/A              K/A                  H/A          $6,80a/tonb    25 years        S6,800/ton       201*"    Babcock  & HiLeoit  (1986)
                                                                                                                                  Carborundum {1986)
                                                                                                                                  Cotronics Cn.d.)
                                                                                                                                  Janoa (19B6)
                                                                                                                                  Hicolst  U966)


N/A;  Hot, Applicable,

 Prices in the text are given pat pound, but they have been converted to prices pel ton Cor ui» In the ARCM,

 See Attachment for explanations,

-------
tons of millboard.  Quin-T Corporation plans to stop processing asbestos in




1988.




  The major substitutes for asbestos millboard are mineral boards.   If




asbestos were banned, it is estimated that standard mineral boards  would




capture 80 percent of the market and that premium mineral boards would capture




the remaining 20 percent.  The price of asbestos millboard is $0.88/lb.  The




average price of standard mineral board is $1.28/lb. and the average price of




premium mineral board is $3.40/lb.

-------
                                   ATTACHMENT








  The projected market shares for standard board and for premium board were




estimated by Ray Heidt, Sales Manager, Quin-T Corporation (the only domestic




producer of asbestos millboard).




  The price of standard board was computed by averaging the prices of the




two standard board products.   The average of Quin-T Corporation's mineral




board ($1.23/lb.) and Nicolet, Ine.'s Nampro 901(R) ($1.33/lb.) is $1.28/lb.




  The price of premium board was  computed by averaging the prices of the




five premium board products.   The average of Janos Corporation's Nuboard




1800(R) ($2.92/lb.)t Nicolet Ine.'s Nampro 911(R) ($2.46/lb.), Cotronics




Corporation's Ceramic Board 360(R) ($1.88/lb.),  Babcock & Wilcox Company's




Kaowool(R) board ($4.70/lb.), and Carborundum Corporation's GH Board(R)




($5.05/lb.) is $3.40/lb.
                                      -  9 -

-------
REFERENCES


Babcock & Wilcox Go.  T. Viverito.  1986 (October 14),   Augusta,  GA.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, B.C.

Carborundum Corp.  Applications Engineer.  1986 (November 10).  Niagara Falls,
NY.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos,  ICF Incorporated,
Washington, B.C.

Cotronics Corp.  (n.d.)  Product Literature.  Ceramic Board.   Brooklyn, NY,

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, B.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Doc.  Control No.   20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Millboard.  Washington, B.C.

Janos Industrial Insulation Corp.  Sales Representatives.  1986 (November 10
and Becember 5).  Moonachie, NJ.  Transcribed telephone conversations with
Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Krussel N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corporation.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington, DC:  Office, of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract 68-02-3168.

Nicolet, Inc.  (n.d.)  Product Literature.   Asbestos-Free Millboard.   Ambler,
PA  19002.

Nicolet, Inc.  Sales Representative.  1986 (Becember 4).  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated, Washington,  D.C.

Quin-T Corp.  R. Heidt.  1986a (July-November).  Erie,  PA.   Transcribed
telephone conversations with Peter Tzanetos and Eric Crabtree, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Quin-T Corp,  E. Kovykio.  1986b (November 11).  Erie,  PA.   Transcribed
telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated, Washington,  D.C,

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982a.  Production Bata for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, B.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.
20-8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982b,  Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No,
20-8670644.
                                      -  10  -

-------
IV.  AS B E STOS PIFELINE WRAP

  A.  Product Description

  Pipeline wrap is an asbestos felt product. '. It is composed of at least 85

percent asbestos with the balance being cellulose fibers and binders such as

starch and latex.  It is manufactured on conventional papermaking machines in a

process similar to that of asbestos roofing felt.  The ingredients are combined

and mixed with water.  This mixture is then fed through a series of machines

that apply heat and heavy rollers to produce a felt of uniform thickness,  The

felt is then coated by pulling it through a bath of hot asphalt or coal tar

until it is thoroughly saturated.  The paper then passes over another series of

rollers which set the coal tar or asphalt onto the felt.  Next, it passes over

a series of cooling rollers that reduce the temperature and provide a smooth

surface finish.  The felt is finally air-dried, rolled, and packaged for

marketing (Krusell and Cogley 1982).

      Pipeline wrap is primarily used by the oil and gas industry for coating

its pipelines.   There is also some use by the chemical industry for

underground hot water and steam piping.  Pipeline wrap is occasionally used in

above-ground applications, such as for special piping in cooling towers.

  Pipeline wrap itself is only one product used in the coal tar enamel method

of coating pipes.  The coal tar enamel process involves five steps.  First, a

primer is applied directly onto the pipe.  Second, when the primer dries,

heated coal tar is applied to the pipe as it is rotated.  Third, a glass mat is

applied over the coal tar.  Fourth, the asbestos felt is wrapped onto the pipe

by high-speed wrapping machines.   Finally, the pipe is coated
            Department of Transportation has mandated that all oil and gas
  pipelines be coated,

                                      - 1 -

-------
with kraft paper   (Power 1986a).  The asbestos felt helps protect the pipe from




moisture, corrosion, rot, and abrasion.




  B.  Producers and Importers of Asbestos.. Pise.line Wrap




  There were three primary processors and one secondary processor of asbestos




pipeline wrap in 1981.  The primary processors were:  Celotex Corporation,




Johns-Manville Corporation (now Manville Sales Corporation), and Nicolet,




Incorporated (TSCA 1982a).  The secondary processor was Aeroquip Corporation




(TSCA 1982b),  There are currently no domestic processors of asbestos pipeline




wrap (ICF 1986).  However, Nicolet, Inc. is selling the product out of




inventory and may restart production if demand warrants it  (Nicolet 1986a),  In




addition. Power Marketing Group distributes asbestos pipeline wrap which it




imports from Manville Sales Corp. (formerly Johns-Manville Corp.) plants in




Canada.  No other importers of asbestos pipeline wrap were identified, and




neither firm is aware of any other producers or distributors of this product in




the U.S. (ICF 1984; ICF 1986).




  C.  Trends




  In 1981,  2,150,615 squares of asbestos pipeline wrap were produced (TSCA




1982b).  Nicolet,  Inc. has refused to divulge information on 1985 fiber




consumption or pipeline wrap output.  Power Marketing Group has provided




information from which one can estimate output and fiber consumption for both




companies.   Total fiber consumption and pipeline wrap production are presented




in Table 1.   Finally, it should be noted that 1986 output may be much lower




because  Nicolet,  Inc. has stopped producing the product and is only selling it




out of inventory.
              paper consists of wood and cellulose fibers,




                                      - 2 -

-------
               Table 1.  1985 Asbestos Fiber Consumption and
                    Asbestos  Pipeline Wrap Production3
                           Fiber Consumption   Pipeline Wrap Production
                            (in short tons)          (in squares)13
     Total                        3,333.3             742,383


Computations underlying these estimates are in the Attachment.

"•*! square - 100 square feet   »
                                    - 3 -

-------
  D.  Substitutes




  The use of asbestos in pipeline wrap is desirable because of its resistance




to chemicals, rotting, and decay; its dimensional stability; and its heat




resistance (Rood 1986).  It is also unaffected by corrosive environments,




cannot be attacked by vermin, and performs in the most severe salt water




conditions (Power 1986a),  These qualities are important for underground




pipeline wrap that is used to prevent the deterioration of pipeline buried in




earth or under water.




  Power Marketing Group and Nicolet, Inc. both sell a non-asbestos mineral felt




which can be used instead of asbestos pipeline wrap.  Power Marketing Group




sells its mineral felt for $5.80/100 square feet, the same price as its




asbestos felt.  This product appears to have the same advantages as the




asbestos product -- resistance to chemicals, rotting, and decay; dimensional




stability; and heat resistance (Power 1986b).   However, it does not have the




proven track record of asbestos felt because it is a new product.  There are




instances of asbestos pipeline wrap being in the ground for over fifty years, a




track record which makes companies reluctant to replace this successful and




proven product.




  Nicolet, Inc. refers to its mineral felt as Safelt(R).  Safelt(R) is a




combination of minerals, fibers, and binders.   It contains a minimum of 75




percent non-biodegradable components.  Safelt(R) is available in two types --




960 and 966.  Safelt 966 is more dense and is therefore sold in a thinner layer




(Nicolet n.d.).  They are both priced $6.20/100 square feet (Nicolet 1986k),




but product literature states that application costs are lower than asbestos




wrap because of their superior wrapping characteristics (Nicolet n,d.).  This




characteristic is not modeled because Nicolet officials would not quantify this




advantage and coaters could neither confirm or deny its existence.




  Power Marketing Group also sells a fiberglass felt called Duraglass(R).  It




                                      - 4 -

-------
is priced $5,80/100 square feet.  They have had problems, however, in using it




in the coal tar enamel method because it does not seem to bond well.   Power




Manufacturing is currently in the process of reformulating the product in order




to rectify this problem (Power 1986b).   A summary of the characteristics of the




asbestos substitutes is presented in Table 2.




  The All American crude oil pipeline,  a major cross-country pipeline, is being




coated with a new coal tar system which does not use any asbestos or mineral




felt.  A 20 mil thickness of coal tar enhanced urethane is applied first.  It




is followed by a 1.5 inch urethane foam layer.  The final step is to apply a




covering of Polykin tape (Pipeline Digest 1986).  Since this method has no




history, we do not know its advantages and disadvantages.




  These are the only direct substitutes for asbestos pipeline wrap in the coal




tar enamel method of coating pipes.  However, there are seven other methods of




coating pipes:  asphalt enamel, thin-film powder, bonded polyethylene, tape,




extruded polyethylene, sintered polyethylene, and insulation (Pipeline Digest




1986).  The 1985 market shares and output levels for these processes are




presented in Table 3.




  The coal tar enamel method is the only method of coating pipes that presently




uses asbestos pipeline wrap.  In 1985 it accounted for 14.39 percent of the




pipeline coating market (Pipeline Digest 1986).   In the event of an asbestos




ban, pipeline coaters and oil industry representatives believe that asbestos




felt used in the coal tar enamel method will be replaced by mineral and




fiberglass felts, both of which are good substitutes (Arco 1986, Energy




Coatings 1986).  They do not expect the market share (14.39 percent)  held by




the coal tar enamel method to be taken over by any one or all of the other




seven methods just because asbestos felt will be unavailable.  Thus,  it has
                                      - 5 -

-------
                                                     Table 2, Substitutes for Asbestos Pipeline Wrap
         Product;
                                    Manufacturer
                                                                    Advantages
                                                                      Disad^aotn§es
                                                                           Rsfsrtncss
Asbestos Felt
                              Nicolet, Inc.
                              Anbler,  PA;
                              Power Marketing Group
                              Houston, TX
                             Historical performance.
                             Chemical resistance,
                             Dimensional stability.
                             Heat and rot resistance.
                             Rnni.nt.nnt, to »alt w«t«r and
                             vermin attack.
                                  Potential environmental and
                                               haalth hazards.
                                 Krusall and Copley (19BZJ
                                 Pow«t (1986b)
Mineral Pelt
                              Hlcolet, Inc.
                              Anbler, PA;
                              Power Marketing Group
                              Houston, TX
                             Lcnr application cost.
                             Chemical resistance.
                             Dimensional stability
                             Heat and rot resistance.
                                  Onproven In the marketplace.      Power (1986s)
Fiberglass Felt
Power Marketing Group
Houston, TX
Chemical resistance.
Dimensional stability.
Beat and rot resistance.
Does not bond well.
tlapcoven in the nmcketplae*.
Power (l?86a)

-------
                 Table  3.   1985 Market  Shares  and  Output  of
                         Pipeline  Coating Processes
Process
Asphalt Enamel
Coal Tar Enamel
Thin-Film Powder
Bonded Polyethylene
Tape 8,251,037
Extruded Polyethylene
Sintered Polyethylene
Insulation 15,602,441
Output Market Share
(square feet) (percent)
200,000
88,439,891
263,807,418
28,293,723
1.34
196,255,978
13,704,375
2.54
0.03
14.39
42.39
4.60

31.93
2.23

Source:  Pipeline Digest (1986).
                                    - 7 -

-------
been assumed that substitution will be entirely for asbestos felt rather than

for the coal tar enamel method.

  The inputs for the Regulatory Cost Model ar"e presented in Table 4.  It has

been assumed that Power Marketing Group or some other company will formulate a

more successful fiberglass felt which will take 20 percent of the market (Areo

1986).   The remaining 80 percent of the market will be taken by mineral felt.

Because this is a new product, there is no data on projected market shares.  As

a result, it is assumed that the current market shares of the producers of the

asbestos product will apply to the substitutes as well,^  This will result in m

48 percent (0.80 x 0.60) projected market share for Power Marketing Group's

mineral felt and a 32 percent (0.80 x 0,40) projected market share for

Safelt(R) (Nicolet's mineral felt),

  E,  Summary

  Asbestos pipeline wrap is a felt product used in the coal tar enamel method

of. coating pipes.  This product is not being produced in the U.S., although one

company was selling it out of inventory and another company was importing it

from Canada and distributing it.  Total domestic production of this product is

estimated to have been 296,949 squares in 1985,

  It has been assumed that adequate substitutes exist for asbestos felt, and,

therefore,  pipeline coaters will not switch to alternate methods of coating

pipes in the case of a complete asbestos ban.  It is estimated that 20 percent

of the market will be taken by fiberglass felt that costs $5.8Q/square,  The

remaining 80 percent will be taken by mineral felts.   Because the two

distributors of asbestos felt are also the major distributors of mineral felt,

it is assumed that they will both retain their current market shares.  Hence

Power Marketing's mineral felt will capture 48 percent of the
        We cannot look at the trends in market shares because 1981 data for
  Power Marketing Group are not available.

                                      - 8 -

-------
                                              Table A.  Data Inputs for Asbestos  Eegylitory Coat ffedol
Product Asbestos Consumption/ Equivalent
Product Output Coefficient Production Ratio Price tfeefol 14 £• Fric» M«tk*t Shars Reference
Asbestos Felt 296,949 squar«s 0.004*900 tons/Bquaro 2,5

Mineral Felt »/A H/A H/A
SaCalt(R) »/A »/A H/A
DuraglaasCR) H/A H/A H/A
S3,8Q/square 25 years S5.80/Bquar« H/A Pcswer (1986b)
Power (19B7)
S5 . eO/squara^ 25 years 95.80/square 48J Power (1987)
S6,20/si|uar9 25 yaars $6,20/squars 32X Kicolet (1986)
$5.80/sqijacfl 25 years 95.80/aquars 20% Fowar (1987)
H/A:  Hot Applicable.




 See Attachment for explanation.

-------
market at a price of $5.80/square, and Nicolet's Safelt(R)  will capture  32




percent of the market at a price of $6.20/square.
                                     - 10 -

-------
                                  ATTACHMENT








  The asbestos fiber consumption and asbestos pipeline wrap output for Power




Marketing Group and Nicolet, Inc. were computed using the following




methodology.  Power Marketing Croup estimated that 100 square feet of saturated




pipeline felt weigh 13 Ibs,  Because the saturated felt is 23 percent asphalt




or tar coating, the unsaturated felt weighs 10.57 Ibs. (13/1.23).  Because the




unsaturated felt is approximately 85 percent asbestos, 100 square feet of




pipeline wrap contain 8.98 Ibs. of asbestos (10.57 * ,85).  Therefore, the




asbestos product coefficient is 0.00449 (8.98 Ibs./square / 2,000 Ibs,/ton)




tons square.
                                      -  11  -

-------
REFERENCES
Arco Oil & Gas Company.  J. Murray.  1986 (November 24).   Transcribed telephone
conversation with Peter Tzanetos, IGF Incorporated, Washington,  D.C.

Energy Coating Company,  W. Heinenan.  1986 (November 3).   Transcribed
telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated,  Washington,  D.C.

1CF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Doc. Control No. 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Pipeline Wrap.  Washington, D.C.

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Contract Number
68-02-3168.

Nicolet, Inc.  Sales Representative.  1986a (November 11).  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated,  Washington,  D.C.

Nicolet, Inc.  R. Hittinger.  1986b (November 5).  Transcribed telephone
conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated, Washington,  D.C.

Nicolet, Inc.  (n.d.).  Product Literature.  Safelt.  Ambler,  PA  19002.

Pipeline Digest.   1986 (April 7).  Pipe Coating Survey.  Houston, TX,

Power Marketing Group.  1986a.  Public comment brief on asbestos pipeline wrap
submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Power Marketing Group.  J. Toerner.  1986b (October 24 and October 31).
Houston, TX.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Peter Tzanetos, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Power Marketing Group.  G. Pytko.  1987 (January 30).  Denver, CO  80231,
Letter to Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.  20006.

Rood K.  1986 (October 31).  Independent consultant (former employee  of Johns-
Manville Corporation).  Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982a.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington DC:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8601012,

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982b.  Production Data for Secondary  Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington DC:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8670644.
                                      -  12  -

-------
V.  BEATER-ADD GASKETS

  A,  Product Description

  Gaskets can be described as materials used to seal one compartment of a

device from another in non-dynamic applications such as engine and exhaust

manifolds.  Asbestos gaskets, used mainly to seal connections and prevent

leakage of fluids between solid surfaces, can be classified into two

categories: beater-add and compressed sheet.  Compressed sheet gaskets are

discussed in Section XXVII.

  Asbestos beater-add gaskets, are less dense, use shorter asbestos fibers,

and have lower tensile strength than compressed asbestos sheet gaskets.

Consequently, beater-add gaskets are used in less severe applications and at

temperatures ranging up to 750*F.  At temperatures between 250-750T asbestos

beater-add gasketing can withstand pressure ranging between vacuum and 1,000

psi (Union Carbide 1987).   Beater-add gasketing comes in a continuous roll

form (reducing waste during die cutting), is more dimensionally uniform, and

is less expensive than sheet gasketing (ICF 1986).

  Asbestos beater-add gasketing is manufactured^ by a technique employing a

paper making process, using fourdrinier or cylindrical paper machines to make

paper from a viscous slurry of asbestos and liquid binders.  The asbestos

fibers are incorporated within various elastomeric binders and other fillers

to forte the beater-add paper.  These products are used extensively for

internal combustion applications and for the sealing component of spiral wound

gaskets (Union Carbide 1987).  Beater-add gaskets generally contain 60 to 80

percent asbestos in combination with 20 to 40 percent binders and are used

primarily in the transportation and chemical industries as:
            binder is added during the beater process,  hence the name
  "beater-add".

                                      - 1 -

-------
        *    head, carburetor, exhaust manifold, and transmission
             gaskets to prevent leakage of oil, fuel, water, gas, or low
             pressure steam in automobiles, trains, airplanes, and
             ships;  and,

        •    flange, spiral wound, and general service industrial
             gaskets to prevent leakage and potential reactions of
             chemicals in reactors, compressors, heat exchangers,
             distillation columns, and similar apparatus (1CF 1986).

  The particular binder used in a beater-add paper determines the material's

suitability for use in water, oil, fuel, or chemical environments.  Since the

proportion of fiber to binder determines the intended temperature range,

different grades of asbestos beater-add gaskets are available for different

temperature use limits.  Latex is the most popular binder, but styrene~

butadiene, acrylic,  acrylonitrile, neoprene, fluoroelastomeric polymers,

rubber, polytetrafluoroethylene (FIFE), and silicone polymers are also used

(Krusell and Cogley 1982).

  Gasketing paper is usually produced in a sheet or sheet roll that varies

in thickness from approximately 1/64 inch to 3/16 inch.  Gaskets are

fabricated to customer-specified sizes and dimensions from these sheet rolls.

They may be used in this  form with no further fabrication required, or they

may be processed further by reinforcing them with wire insertions or by

jacketing the paper with various metal, foils, plastics, or cloth (1CF 1986).

  B.  Producersand Importers of Asbestos Beater-Add Gasketing

  In 1985, four companies,  at five locations, Armstrong World Industries

(Fulton, NY), Hollingsworth & Vose (East Walpole, MA), Lydall Corp. (Hoosick

Falls, NY and Covington,  TN), and Quin-T Corporation (Erie, PA) produced

asbestos beater-add gasketing.  A fifth company, Boise Cascade Corporation

(Beaver Falls, NY) produced beater-add gaskets in 1981, but did not supply

information for the ICF survey.  In order to account for the estimated

production of this company, a methodology was developed to allocate the

industry averaged trend to the non-respending companies (Appendix A).   The

                                      - 2 -

-------
consumption in this category for 1985 Is estimated, therefore, to be 12,436,4

tons of fibers used to produce 16,505 tons of beater-add gasketing.  Table 1

lists the total production of beater-add gaskets.  The beater-add gmsketlng

market was estimated to be worth $24.8 million in 1985, based on an average

price of $0.75 per pound (ICF 1986).

  Beater-add gasketing is not imported to the United States.  Beater-add

gaskets^ were, however, imported by foreign automobile manufacturers,

Kawasaki, Toyota, and Suzuki have in total reported imports of 361.35 tons.

Other auto makers also imported beater-add gaskets, but the actual import

volume for 1985 was not available (ICF 1986).

  C.  Trends
                                *
  Between 1981 and 1985,  Rogers Corp. (Rogers, CT), Nicolet, Inc.

(Norristown, PA), and Celotex (Lockland, OH), three manufacturers that

formerly produced asbestos beater-add gasketing, either substituted for

asbestos with other materials or discontinued their operations.  During those

four years one company, Lydall Corp. (Hoosick Falls, NY), initiated
           ^
production.    Total production of asbestos beater-add gasketing paper declined

by 37 percent between 1981 and 1985 resulting in a reduction from 26,039 tons

to 16,505 tons (ICF 1986, ICF 1985).

  All six manufacturers are currently producing substitutes for their

products.  The substitutes currently hold about a 50 percent share of the

gasket market (ICF 1986), but as concern about asbestos grows and substitutes

gain wider acceptance, the production of beater-add asbestos gaskets is likely

to decline further (ICF 1986).
       ^Gaskets, as opposed to gasketing, are custom made by secondary
  processors for their customers.
       •3
       •'Lydall Corp.  purchased the beater-add gasketing business of Rogers Corp,
  in 1984, and subsequently moved the operation to their Hoosick Falls, NY
  location.

                                      - 3 -

-------
     Table 1.  Production of Asbestos Beater-Add Gasketing and
                    Asbestos Fiber  Consumption
                         1985
                   Fiber Consumption   1985 Production
                     (short tons)       (short tons)     Reference
Total                    12,436.4            16,505       ICF (1986)
                               -  4 -

-------
  D,  Substitutes

  Asbestos is a chemically inert, nearly indestructible substance that can

be processed into fibers.  Asbestos fibers partially adsorb the binder with

which they are mixed during processing, and subsequently intertwine within it

and become the strengthening matrix of the product.  Gaskets made using

asbestos contain as much as 80 percent asbestos fiber, some of which has been

employed as a filler.  The balance of the product is the binder which holds

the asbestos in the matrix.  Industry leaders indicate that they have been

unable to find a single substitute for asbestos that can reproduce all of its

^qualities and have been forced to replace asbestos fiber with a combination of

substitute materials, including cellulose, aramid, glass, PTFE, graphite, and

ceramic fibers.  Asbestos used as a filler has been replaced by other fillers

(e.g., clay, mica).

  Formulations of substitute products most often include a combination of

substitute fibers and fillers in order to reproduce the properties of asbestos

necessary for a particular application.  Formulation of substitute products is

done so as to meet the performance requirements on an application-by-

application basis (IGF 1986).  For the purposes of this analysis, the

substitute products have been grouped into six major categories according to

the type of asbestos substitute used:

        •    cellulose fiber,
        •    aramid,
        •    fibrous glass,
        •    polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE),
        •    graphite, and,
        •    ceramic fiber mixtures (ICF 1986; Palmetto Packing 1986).

Table 2 presents the characteristics of the substitute materials.

  The estimated current market shares for the different substitute

formulations are presented in Table 3,  For all beater-add applications,

asbestos-based producers still occupy 50 percent of the market.  It is evident


                                      - 5 -

-------
                                               Table 2.  Substitutes  Tor Asbestos  Beater-Add Basketing Paper
Product AtJvantages
Cellulose Inexpensive.
Cood carrier web.
Disadvantages
Not heat resistant.
Useful to 350"F,
Sen neks
Useful for low temperature
applications only.
Reference
ICF 1986:
ICF 1985;
                                                      Not chemically resistant.
                                                                                                             Mach, DBS., July 10, 1986.
Aramid
                  Very strong.
                  Tear resistant.
                  High tensile strength.
                                    Bard to cut.
                                    Wears out cutting dyes quickly.
                                    800"F temperatura limit.
                                                                         ICF 1986;
                                                                         ICF 1985;
                                                                         Maeh. DBS., July 10,  1986.
GlaBH Fibera
                  Good tensile properties.
                  Chemical renistant.
                                    Mare expensive than asbestos.
                                    Often used in the auto industry.
                                     ICF 1986;
                                     ICF 1985;
                                     Mach.  DOB., July 10, 1986,
PTFE
                  Low friction.
                  Chemical resistant,
                  FDA approved to contact food and
                  medical equipment.
                                    Hot as resilient as asbestos.
                                    Deforms under heavy loads.
                                    Used primarily in the chemical
                                    industry.
                                     ICF 1986;
                                              Packing 1986a.
Graphite
Heat resistant to 5000"F.
Chemical resistant.
Light weight.
Hare expensive.
Brittle.
Frays.
Fastest growing substitute in th«    ICF 1986;
•uto Mtkat in high ttmpwrature      ICF 1585;
•••!•,                               H«ch.  D««.t July 10, 1986;
                                     Union Carbide 1967,
Co ramie Paper
High heat resistance.
Chemical ranintont.
Strong.
Not oil rnBlstant.
Hot resilient,
Mora expensive than asbestos.
                                     ICF 19i6;
                                     ICF 1985;
                                     M«ch, D«s,, July 10, 1986.

-------
           Table  3.   Estimated Market  Share  for Asbestos  Substitute
                        Fibers in Beater-Add Gasketing
             Fiber
             Estimated
            Market Share
             (percent)
               References
Cellulose    25
Aramid


Glass


PTFE


Graphite

Ceramic
30


20


10


10

 5
ICF 1986
Palmetto Packing 1986

ICF 1986
Palmetto Packing 1986

ICF 1986
Palmetto Packing 1986

ICF 1986
Palmetto Packing 1986

Union Carbide 1987

ICF 1986
                                    - 1 -

-------
from the survey of asbestos processors, however, that the market share of




asbestos-free beater-add gaskets is increasing rapidly as companies replace




asbestos in some applications.  One obstacle to complete replacement of




asbestos gaskets by substitute products is military contract specifications




that require asbestos gaskets.




      1.  Cellulose Fiber Mixtures




      Cellulose fibers are generally milled from newsprint or other waste




forms of cellulose (e.g., vegetable matter) in the presence of additives which




ease grinding and prevent fires during processing.  Cellulose fiber gaskets




usually contain between 20 and 25 percent cellulose fiber and 50 to 55 percent




fillers and thickeners.   The remaining 25 percent is usually an elastomeric




binder (ICF 1986).




    Traditionally,  cellulose fibers do not resist pressure well and crush




easily.  However, proprietary methods have been found to reinforce fibers,




This results in excellent crush resistance, excellent dimensional stability,




and good sealability below 350°F.  Cellulose gaskets can substitute for




asbestos beater-add gaskets in low temperature applications (below 350°F) such




as with oil, gas, organic solvents, fuels, and low pressure steam.




  Three producers of asbestos beater-add gaskets also produce cellulose




based gaskets.  They are Armstrong World Industries, Hollingsworth & Vose, and




Lydall Corporation (ICF 1986).




  Armstrong World Industries of Fulton, NY, the largest producer of asbestos




containing beater-add gaskets, produces a line of asbestos-free, cellulose




based gaskets, Syntheseal(R).  Armstrong indicated that the asbestos-free




formulation costs more to produce and yields a product comparable in quality




to the asbestos product for applications with an operating temperature under




350"F (Armstrong 1985).
                                        8

-------
  Hollingsworth & Vose also produces a line of cellulose based, asbestos -



free gaskets.  The formulation includes mineral fillers and an elastomerie


binder.  The company cited no quality problems with their asbestos-free gasket



line that costs more to produce (IGF 1986a).



  The Lydall Corporation also produces cellulose based gaskets that cost


more than the asbestos formulation.  Company officials indicated that these



cellulose based products can only be used in temperatures below 350"F (ICF


1986).



  Reinforced cellulose based gaskets have increased in popularity in the


past few years.  These gaskets can duplicate all asbestos performance


parameters, except high temperature resistance.  Although they can be used at
                                *

a maximum continuous operating temperature of 350°F, their life is



substantially shortened in temperatures over 95°F and they cannot be used in



even mild pressure applications (Union Carbide 1987),  But in the right


operating environment, manufacturers indicate that the service life of these


asbestos-free gaskets is the same as that of asbestos gaskets (ICF 1986).



  In the event of an asbestos ban, cellulose fiber formulations in


combination with clay and mineral thickeners are estimated to capture 25



percent of the gasketing market (fable 3).  Prices would be expected to rise



20 percent to $0.90 per pound due to increased material and production costs


(ICF 1986, Palmetto Packing 1986).



      2,  Aramid Mixture



      Aramid fibers are used in asbestos-free gaskets because they are



highly heat resistant and strong (ten times stronger than steel, by weight).



Aramids are at least seven times more expensive than asbestos, by weight, but


as they are less dense and stronger, less is needed for reinforcement



purposes.  At high temperatures (above 800"F), the fiber physically degrades,
                                      - 9 -

-------
and it can only be used in applications where pressure service is below

1,000 psi (Union Carbide 1987).

  Aramid gaskets are usually 20 percent aramid fiber, by weight, and 60 to

65 percent filler.  The remaining 20 to 25 percent is binder that keeps the

fibers in a matrix.  Typical applications include gasketing for internal

combustion engines in off-highway equipment, diesel engines, and compressors.

These applications require a very strong gasketing material that will

withstand moderate temperatures (1CF 1986).

  Thermo-Tork (R) is a trade name for the line of aramid-containing gaskets

that Armstrong ¥orld Industries markets for operating temperatures over 350BF

(Armstrong 1987).  The content is a proprietary mixture of aramid fibers and

other fibers and fillers that changes according to intended operating

parameters.   Many types of Thermo-Tork (R) gaskets are available, each with

different combinations of suitable operating temperature and pressure ranges

(Armstrong 1987),  The various types of gasket were designed for specific

applications,  such as:

             • small engines and motors,
             •      sealing fuels, fluids, and hot oils,
             •      sealing gases, water, and low pressure steam,
                    and
             •      compressors and transmissions (Armstrong 1985).

  Suitable temperatures can range up to 800°F, and pressures can range up to

1500 pounds per square inch.  Armstrong indicated no diminished quality with

the non-asbestos gaskets.  In fact, greater scalability is often found with

the Thermo-Tork (R) gaskets,

  Hollingsworth & Vose identified strength and high temperature resistance

as the reasons for selecting aramids for asbestos beater-add replacement,

Their formulation includes mineral fillers and elastomeric binders.  The

estimated cost of the aramid product was 1.5 to 3 times as much as the

asbestos product resulting in gaskets that cost $1.69 per pound 
-------
  Although aramid products are expensive, their high temperature and.




pressure limits make them very attractive for gasket applications.  Thus,  the




estimated market share for aramid products would be about 30 percent of the




total asbestos market in the event of an asbestos ban (ICF 1986).




      3.  Fibrous Glass Mixtures




      Fibrous glass is generally coated with a binder such as neoprene,




tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), or graphite in the manufacturing process to make




gaskets.  The glass fibers are relatively easy to manufacture into this




material.




  Fibrous glass gaskets can be divided into two groups, "E" glass gaskets,




and "S" glass gaskets, depending upon the type of glass fiber used in the




formulation,  "E" glass  is one of the more common glass fibers, and it is




occasionally manufactured into a gasketing which is used as a jacket around a




plastic core of carbon or aramid fibers and other material (OGJ 1986).




  "E" glass gaskets are suitable for applications where the operating




temperature is below 1000'F.  Above this temperature, the gasketing loses 50




percent of its tensile strength.  The material can be used with most fluids




except strong caustics.




  The second type of fiber, MS" glass, was developed by NASA and is




recognized as the superior glass fiber in use today (OGJ 1986).  This material




is occasionally used as a jacket around a core of graphite and other fibers,




This beater-add gasketing is caustic resistant and can be used in applications




with operating temperatures that reach 1500°F (OGJ 1986).




  It is estimated that glass gaskets will capture 20 percent of the total




asbestos beater-add gasketing market and will cost twice as much as the




asbestos material.  Thus, the price will be §1.50 per pound (Palmetto Packing




1986, ICF 1986).
                                      -  11 -

-------
      4.  Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)

      Fibers of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) are used as substitutes

for asbestos in gaskets because of their chemical resistance to all but the

most powerful oxidizing agents, acids, and alkalies in temperatures ranging

from -450*F to 500'F (Chem. Eng. News 1986).  PTFE also has good dielectric

strength and impact resistance.

  PTFE can be used in specialized applications because it has been approved

by the FDA for contact with food and in medical equipment.  In addition, it

does not stain the fluid with which it has contact (Krussel and Cogley 1982),

  The finished product is 3.5 times as expensive as the asbestos product

resulting in gasketing material costs of $2.62 per pound.  PTFE gaskets will

capture an estimated 10 percent of the total asbestos market in the case of an

asbestos ban (Palmetto Packing; IGF 1986).

      5.  Graphite

      Flexible graphite  is made from natural flake graphite,  expanded

several hundred times into a light, fluffy material by mixing with nitric or

sulfuric acid.   It is then calendered into a sheet (without additives or

binders) (Chem. Eng.  News 1986).  It is extremely heat resistant and

inherently fire-safe (because it does not contain binders).  Graphite gaskets

are suitable for applications where the operating temperatures reach 5000°F in

non-oxidizing atmospheres.  In the presence of oxygen, the material is limited

to use below SOO'F (Chem. Eng. News 1986).  The gaskets have excellent
       ^Other forms of graphite with similar properties are also available
  (e.g., carbonized viscose rayon), but are grouped in the category for
  convenience.

                                        12

-------
chemical resistance with the exception of strong mineral acids and can be used

up to 1,500 psi5 (Union Carbide 1987).

  Graphite material is often used in oil refineries and oil field

applications because of its high temperature resistance.  A wire can be added

to increase strength in high temperature, high pressure applications. (OGJ

1986).

  Graphite is an expensive material, but the addition of various fillers

helps keep the cost competitive with other substitute materials.  Graphite

gaskets are estimated to cost twice as much as asbestos beater-add gaskets,

resulting in a cost of $1.50 per pound.  This substitute's market share is

estimated to be 10 percent of the total asbestos gasketing market, but this

value is likely to rise to 50 percent for internal combustion engines, and to

20 percent for all applications (Union Carbide 1987).

      6.   Ceramic Mixtures

      Ceramic mixtures are made from high purity silica/alumina fibers

that are thoroughly interlaced in the production process and bonded with

either an elastomeric or inorganic binder.  The elastonteric binder can be used

when operating temperatures do not rise above 800*F, while inorganic binders

can be used for all operating temperatures.  Ceramic fiber products are heat

resistant, chemical resistant, and very strong; this enables them to be used

under stressful operating conditions.

  Three maj or companies that produce ceramic paper used for gasketing

purposes are: Cotronics Corporation, Carborundum Corporation, and Quin-T

Corporation.  Only Quin-T is also an asbestos beater-add gasketing producer.

Quin-T indicated that their formulation for asbestos free gaskets was
       ^Unlike other gasketing materials that exhibit a temperature/pressure
  dependence, flexible graphite is able to withstand high pressures independent
  of temperatures.

                                      -  13  -

-------
proprietary, but did state that the ceramic mixture products could capture 5




percent of the asbestos gasketing market.




  The manufacturer stated that the ceramic mixture is not as resilient as




asbestos and not as resistant to oil, but claimed that this was not




detrimental to the function of gaskets in most applications,




  The price of ceramic gaskets is estimated to be three times that of the




asbestos products they replace, resulting in a cost of $2.25 per pound.  The




service life of the substitute product is 5 years,  as is that of the asbestos




gasket (ICF 1986).




  E.  Summary




  It appears that substitutes for asbestos containing gaskets currently




exist.  These products cost more to produce, however, and may not perform as




well in all applications.  Because no single substitute fiber exists,




manufacturers have been forced to replace asbestos with a combination of




substitute materials, including cellulose, aramid,  glass, graphite, PTFI and




ceramic fibers.  The substitute materials are a combination of fibers and




fillers designed on an application-by-application basis.




  The estimation of market shares and prices of the substitute formulations




in the event of an asbestos ban relies to a large extent upon educated




judgments of industry experts.  Table 4 summarises the findings of this




analysis, and presents the data inputs for the Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model,
                                      -  14  -

-------
                                               Table  4.  Data Inputs  foe Asbestos R*gulalnry Cost Modal
                                                            (005) Be«t«r-Add G«*k«tltig fmpmt
     Product
                       Output
                                   Product Asbestos
                                     Coefficient
  Consumption/
Production Ratio
                                                                           Pries
              Equivalent   Market
tteeful Lit*     Prle»      Sha»
                                                                                                                                  Refwence
Asbestos Gaskebing   16,505 tons    0.75349 tons/ton
Cellulose
                         N/A
                                         H/A
                                                            1.02
                                                            H/A
Aramid
Fibrous Glass
PTFE
Graphite
Ceramic
»/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
N/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
N/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
                   51,500/ton    5 years     Sl,500/ton    B/A     ICF 1986.


                   $1.800/ton    5 years     81,800/ton    25%     ICF 1986.

                                  *
                                 S yeas*     S3, 380 /tern    30 %     ICF 1986.
                                                                         $3,000/ton    5 years     M.ODQ/ton     201      ICF  1986;  Palmstto  Packing.
                                                                         $5,240/ton    5 years     $5,ZWton     101     ICF  1986;  Palmetto  Packing.
                                                                         $9,7Wton    5 years     $3,000/ton     101      ICF  1986;  Union Carbido  19B7.
                                                                         S4,500/ton    5 y»ar»     4*,500/t«B      5»     ICF 1986,

-------
REFERENCES
Armstrong World Industries.  1985.  Product literature on Thermo-tork(R)
gasketing material.

Armstong World Industries.  L. Creech.  1987 (July 1),  Fulton, NY,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Chemical Engineering News, October 27, 1986.  Asbestos Users Step Up Search
for Substitutes.  McGraw-Hill.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington DC;  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).   Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Beater-Add Gasketing.  Washington, DC,

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington DC:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Contract 68-02-3168.

Oil and Gas Journal.  May 26, 1986.  Refining Technology: Substitute Materials
to Replace Asbestos in Refinery-Service Gaskets and Packings.  PennWell
Publication.  Tulsa, OK.  Pp.47-51.

Machine Design.  1986 (July 10).  Better Gaskets Without Asbestos.  Volume 58,
pp. 67-71.

Palmetto Packing,  S. Matt.  1986 (January 8 and 19).  North Wales, PA.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Linda Carlson, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Union Carbide Corporation.  P. Petrunich.  1987 (March 4).  Cleveland, OH.
Letter with enclosures addressed to Tony Bansal, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.
                                      -  16  -

-------
VI,  HIGH-GRADE ELECTRICAL PAPER




     A.  Product Description




     Classification of asbestos paper products into specific categories is




difficult.  Similar products nay be classified differently by two




manufacturers due to their differing end applications.  Also, manufacturers




may place all of their products into the category for which most of the




material is used, or they may divide the products into each end application.




Our division of paper products into different categories is based on the




information obtained from both the manufacturers and users of these products.




     Asbestos is used in electrical paper insulation because of its high




thermal and electrical resistance that permit the paper to act effectively as




an insulator and to protect the conductor from fire at the same time.




Asbestos electrical insulation is composed of 80 to 85 percent asbestos fiber




encapsulated in high temperature organic binders.  It is formed on




conventional papermaking machines and may be obtained in rolls, sheets, and




semi-rigid boards (ICF 1986).




     The major use of asbestos electrical paper is insulation for high




temperature, low voltage applications such as in motors, generators,




transformers,  switch gears, and other heavy electrical apparatuses.




Typically, operating temperatures are 250"F to 45CTF (ICF 1986).




     B.  Producers of Hieh-Grade Electrical Paper




     At present, asbestos paper for electrical insulation is manufactured by




only one firm, the Quin-T Corporation in Tilton, New Hampshire.  A previous




survey failed to identify any 1981 importers of asbestos electrical insulating




paper, and the asbestos processor surveyed in 1986 was not aware of any such




imports (ICF 1984, ICF 1986).




     C.  Trends




     The production volumes and fiber consumption for electrical paper for




                                      - 1 -

-------
1985 are presented in Table 1.  Production decreased by 20 percent between

1981 and 1985, from 841 short tons to 698 short tons (3CF 1986) (TSCA 1982s).

Domestic fiber consumption declined between 1981 and 1985 by 11.5 percent,

from 841 short tons to 744 short tons1 (IGF 1986).

     The only two secondary processors of high-grade electrical paper for

insulation purposes have ceased manufacturing asbestos containing materials.

In 1981, the Square D company, having plants in Clearwater, Florida and

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, stopped processing.  In 1985, Power Magnetics ceased all

production of asbestos containing products (IGF 1986),

     The sole manufacturer of asbestos electrical insulation estimates that

asbestos products hold 10 percent of the total market.  Their share of the

market in high temperature applications may be as high as 75 to 80 percent

(ICF 1986).  The use of asbestos electrical paper in typical applications

appears to be declining, as asbestos is being phased out in various

applications.  One manufacturer of transformers believes that the use of

asbestos has been completely eliminated for this product (Square D 1986).

     D.  Substitutes

     Asbestos is unique among raw minerals because it is a chemically inert

and nearly indestructible mineral that can be processed into fiber.  Asbestos
       •'•Although the consumption value for electrical paper from the ICF 1986
  survey indicates that the finished product is more than 100 percent asbestos,
  it is likely that some of the fiber consumption was in fact, inventory.  The
  submitter could not be reached, however, for corroboration.

                                        2

-------
             Table 1.  Production of High-Grade Electrical Paper
                        and Asbestos  Fiber Consumption
                              1985
                        Fiber Consumption   1985 Production
                          (short tons)       (short tons)      Reference
Total                          744                698         ICF (1986a)
                                    - 3 -

-------
fibers partially adsorb the binder with which they are mixed during




processing; they are then intertwined, and become the strengthening matrix of




the product.  By formulating the product with 85 percent asbestos fibers,




manufacturers are also employing it as a filler.  The remaining 15 percent of




the product is the binder which holds the asbestos in the matrix.  Industry




leaders indicate that they have been unable to find a single substitute for




asbestos that can reproduce the numerous qualities of the mineral.  Hence,




manufacturers have been forced to replace the asbestos fiber with a




combination of substitute materials, including aramid and ceramic.  The




formulations of the substitute products most often include a combination of




more than one type of substitute fiber and more than one filler in order to




reproduce the properties of asbestos necessary for that application.




Formulation of substitute products is done on an application-by-application




basis by each manufacturer (ICF 1986).




  The substitute products can be grouped into two major categories according




to the type of asbestos substitute fiber used:  aramid or ceramic (ICF 1986).




  Table 2 shows a comparison of these substitutes.  The current market share




of the different substitute formulations is presently unknown and our attempt




to project the market shares in the event of an asbestos ban relies more on




the informed judgement of industry rather than on specific data.  It is




evident from the survey that the market share of asbestos free electrical




paper is increasing rapidly, as more companies replace asbestos (ICF 1986).




      1.  Aramid Paper




      A typical aramid-based paper product, Nomex (R), the tradenaae for a




substitute paper manufactured by Dupont, is made with an aromatic polyamide.




It is thermally stable to 400°P and flame resistant.  Quin-T Corporation in




Tilton, NH, cites this substitute as performing better than asbestos paper in
                                        4 -

-------
                                        Table 2. Substitutes for Asbestos Ilgb-Grada Electrical Papec
Product       Manufacturer
                                            Advantages
     Disadvantages
                                                                                                                     Remarks
                                                                                                                                             Reference
Aramid         Dupont.
                                  Performance ia better.
                                  Thermal stability.
                                  Flame resistant..
fnitxn price.
 temper at n re range,
                                                                                                           Aromatic  polyamide  paptr.        ICF <1986a)
                                                                                                                                            ICF (1984a)
Cernmic        Carboruridtira Corp.     Good dielectric properties         Stiff.
                                     temperature resistance up to       Expensive.
                                     200CTF.
                                     Easily handled.
                                     Easily cut.
                                                                                                        Ceramic paper.
                                                                ICF  U986a)
                                                                ICF

-------
some situations.  It is very expensive, however, and has a price of §10.48 per




pound (five times that of the asbestos product).  Quin-T indicated that this




material would capture 80 percent of the asbestos market in the event of an




asbestos ban (ICF 1986).  The disadvantages of Nomex (R) are that it does not




have the high temperature limits of asbestos and may not have the same range




of applicability that asbestos has (DuPont 1980).




      2.  Ceramic Paper




      Fiberfrax (R) is the name of a ceramic paper made by the Carborundum




Corporation and is representative of other ceramic papers available.  It has




good dielectric properties as well as a temperature resistance up to 2000T.




Two advantages of this paper relative to asbestos are that it is easier to




handle and easier to cut.  Quin-T Corporation has indicated that this material




will take 20 percent of the asbestos electrical paper market in the event of a




ban of asbestos.  The product is three times as expensive as the asbestos




paper, and costs $7.04 per pound (ICF 1986).




  Some of the drawbacks of ceramic paper products include the loss of




tensile strength after exposure over extended periods, stiffness during use,




and slightly more permeability than asbestos at low temperatures (Carborundum




1986).




  E.  Summary




  It appears that substitutes for asbestos electrical paper currently exist.




However, these products cost more to produce and may not perform as




well.  Asbestos is unique among known raw minerals because of its combination




of strength, heat resistance, and low price.  Since no across the board




substitute fiber exists for the mineral, the manufacturer has been forced to




replace asbestos with a combination of substitute materials, including aramid-




and ceramic-based papers.  The substitute materials are a combination of




fibers and fillers designed with proprietary formulations.




                                      - 6 -

-------
  The estimation of market shares and prices of the substitute formulations




in the event of an asbestos ban relies to a large extent upon educated



judgments of industry experts.  Table 3 summarizes the findings of this




analysis, and presents the data inputs for the Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model,

-------
                                                Table  3,  Data Inputs for Asbestos Regulatory Cost Hodel
                                                            (006) High-Grada  Electrical Paper
                                          Produc t
                                         Asbestos        Consumption                                Equivalent
        Product              Output     Coefficient    Production Ratio     Price     Useful I4£e     Price      Market Share         Reference



Asbestos Electrical Paper   698 tons   1.07 tons/ton           1           SZ.53/lb.      3 years      $2.53/Ib.       H/A       ICF t!986a)


Aranid ELactricBl Paper       H/A           N/A              H/A          $10.48/lb.      3 years     510.48/lb.       80«       1CP (1986«). ICF (1984a)


Caramic Elnctrieal Paper      H/A           H/A              H/A           57.04/lb.      3 years      $7.04/lb.       20J       ICF (1986a), ICF (1984a)


H/A:  Hot Applicable.

-------
REFERENCES


Carborundum.  1980.  Product Literature on Fiberfrax(R) Heat-Resistant Papers.

DuPont.  1980.  Product Literature on Kevlar(R) Heat-Resistant Textiles.

IGF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington DC:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No. 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Electrical Paper.  Washington, D.C.

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington DC:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract 68-02-3168.

Quin-T Company.  N. Hughes.  1986 (July-December).  Erie, PA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Linda Carlson, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC,

Square D Company.  R. Burke.  1986 (July-December).  Clearwater, FL,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Jeremy Obaditch, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC,

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982a  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, DC:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8601012,

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982b  Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, DC:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.  20-8670644.
                                      - 9 -

-------
VII.  ROOFING FELT


  A,  Product Description


  Asbestos roofing felt is made in two separate stages.  In the first stage,



asbestos fiber, cellulose fiber, and various fillers are combined to produce



unsaturated roofing felt.  The second stage involves saturating this felt by


coating it with either coal tar or asphalt to produce the final product --


saturated roofing felt.



  Unsaturated roofing felt is a paper product composed of 85 to 87 percent



asbestos fiber (usually grades 6 or 7 chrysotile fiber),  8 to 12 percent


cellulosic fibers, 3.5 percent starch fibers, and small amounts of fillers


such as wet and dry strength polymers, kraft fibers,  fibrous glass, and
                                *

mineral wool.  The product is manufactured on conventional paper machines.



The ingredients are combined and mixed with water and then fed through a


series of machines that apply heat and rollers to produce a felt with uniform


thickness.  The felt can be either single- or multi-layered grade.  For the



multi-layered grade fiberglass filaments or wire strands may be embedded



between the paper layers-for reinforcement (Krusell and Cogley 1982).



  These steps comprise the primary processing stage of production; the



product is now considered an unsaturated felt and is ready to be coated.  It



can be coated at either the main plant, or it can be coated at geographical



locations nearer to demand if lower transportation costs justify it.^  The


felt is coated by pulling it through a bath of hot asphalt or coal tar until



it is thoroughly saturated.  The paper then passes over a series of hot



rollers so that the asphalt or coal tar is properly set.   It may be coated


with extra surface layers of asphalt or coal tar depending on the intended
       •'•Kraft fibers consist of a blend of cellulose and wood pulp fibers,

       f\
       •'It is less expensive to ship unsaturated felt because it weighs much
  less.


                                        1

-------
application.  After saturation and coating, the roofing felt passes over a




series of cooling rollers that reduce its temperature and provide a smooth




surface finish.  The felt is then air-dried, rolled, and packaged for




marketing as saturated roofing felt (Krusell and Cogley 1982).




  Asbestos roofing felt is used for built-up roofing.  There are two types




of built-up roofing systems -- hot roof systems and cold roof systems.  The




hot roof system is the more common; it involves the application of several




plys or layers of roofing felt alternating with hot asphalt or tar, often with




a top layer of gravel imbedded in the asphalt.  The layers used may be




fiberglass felts, organic felts, or asbestos felts.




  The other system is a cold roof system.  It does not require the




application of hot tar or asphalt, instead, adhesive tars or roof coatings are




used to bond the layers together.  The layers used may be single-ply membrane,




fiberglass felts, organic felts, or asbestos felts.




  Asbestos is used in roofing felts because of its dimensional stability and




resistance to rot, fire, and heat.  Dimensional stability, which refers to the




product's ability to expand and contract with changes in temperature, is




important because roofs are exposed to wide temperature fluctuations that may




cause the roof to actually crack, allowing water to penetrate and settle.




Because this water may remain trapped for long periods of time, rot resistance




becomes crucial.  In addition, rot resistance is important because flat roofs




(on which built-up roofing is typically used) tend to have poor drainage and




do not allow water to run off (ICF 1985).




  B,  Producers and Importers of Asbestos RoofinE Felt




  There were three primary processors and three secondary processors of




asbestos roofing felt in 1981.  The primary processors were Nicolet, Inc.,
                                      - 2 -

-------
Celotex Corporation, and Johns-Manville Corporation^ (TSCA 1982a).   However,

no primary processors produced any asbestos felt in 1985 and none are

currently producing asbestos roofing felt (IGF 1986).

  The secondary processors in 1981 were B.F. Goodrich Corporation,  Mineral

Fiber Manufacturing Corporation, and Southern Roofing & Metal Company (TSCA

1982b).   Southern Roofing & Metal Company stopped processing asbestos roofing

felt in 1982,  B.F. Goodrich Corporation processed imported asbestos roofing

felt in part of 1985, but has now stopped.  Mineral Fiber Manufacturing

Corporation is the only domestic company which still processes asbestos

roofing felt (ICF 1986).

  Mineral Fiber Manufacturing Corporation does not purchase  asbestos

roofing felt.  They simply receive unsaturated roofing felt, coat and saturate

it with asphalt, and return the saturated roofing felt to their supplier, a

Canadian firm called Cascades, Inc.  Cascades, Inc. then sells this product in

the U.S. through Power Marketing Group, a distributor that does not process

any asbestos itself.  Power Marketing Group believes they are the only company

selling this product in the U.S., and no other processors or importers of

asbestos roofing felt were identified (Power 1987b, ICF 1984, ICF 1986),

  C,  Trends

  The three primary processors produced approximately 3,107,538 squares of

asbestos roofing felt in 1981 (1SCA 1982a), and they had ail ceased production

of this product in 1985.  Information on imports by Power Marketing Groups and

other companies in 1981 is not available, but Power Marketing Group believes

it is the only importer of this product in 1985.   Thus,  we see that both
             -Manville Corporation has changed its name to Manville Sales
  Corporation.
            company insists that it does not purchase or process any roofing
  felt.  They provide the service of coating the felt and charge a fee for their
  service.

                                      - 3 -

-------
production and consumption pf asbestos roofing felt have declined




significantly in the U.S.




  D.  Substitutes




  There are currently four products which have served or may serve as




substitutes for asbestos roofing felt -- fiberglass felt, organic felt,




modified bitumen, and single-ply membrane.  A discussion of each one^ will be




presented separately.




      1.  Organic Felt




      Organic felt is the oldest roofing felt, and it had dominated the




market until recently because it was very economical.  It is composed




primarily of wood pulp or cellulosic fiber, and this makes it susceptible to




rotting.  Although asbestos felt could not compete with organic felt on price,




it was able to outperform it because of its heat, fire, and rot resistance.




These resistance properties were particularly important because they allowed




commercial users to save on their insurance premiums (Manville 1986).  The




recent substitution away from asbestos roofing felt has resulted in some




increased market share for organic felt, but the primary beneficiary has been




fiberglass felt.  The current producers of organic felt include:  Manville




Sales, Celotex, Koppers, and Certainteed (Washington Roofing 1986).




      2.  Fiberglass Jy'elt




      Fiberglass roofing felt is made of glass or refractory silicate mixed




with a binder.  The exact composition is not available.  Owens-Corning




Corporation invented the continuous filament manufacturing process in 1964.




The introduction of fiberglass felt drastically changed the market because it




took virtually the entire market share of asbestos roofing felt and now has a




major share of the roofing felt market.  Fiberglass felt was able to do this




because it possesses the same heat, fire, and rot resistant qualities of




asbestos felt, but it is much less expensive and may require fewer layers.




                                      - 4 -

-------
Most of the recent substitution away from asbestos roofing felt was achieved

through the use of fiberglass felt.   The current producers of fiberglass felt

include:  Owens-Coming, Manville Sales, Tamco,  and GAF (Washington Roofing

1986),

      3.  Modified Bitumen

      Power Marketing Group states that the asbestos felt they sell is used

almost exclusively in flashing applications,   This refers to the process of

waterproofing roof valleys or the area around any object which protrudes from

the roof.  Asbestos felt is used in these applications because fiberglass felt

has a tendency to pull away when it is applied vertically as is often the case

in flashing applications (Power 1986).  Organic felt is not suitable for such

applications because it is susceptible to rotting,'  Power Marketing Group

believes the only effective substitute is modified bitumen.  However, it costs

10-15 percent more than asbestos roofing felt, and it also presents a fire

risk because it must be applied with a torch (Power 1986).

      4.  Single-Plv Membrane

      Single-ply membrane is a cold roof system.  The product itself is a

laminate (roll of bonded or impregnated layers)  of modified bitumen and

polymeric materials.  For example, Koppers KMM(R) system is a 160 mil, 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.
            view expressed by Power Marketing Group concerning the usefulness of
  asbestos are not shared by members of the industry.  The National Roofing
  Contractors Association does not recommend the use of asbestos felt, and most
  roof suppliers do not carry the product (National Roofing Contractors 1986;
  Washington Roofing 1986),   One roofing contractor claimed that using
  fiberglass felt for virtually an entire job and then using asbestos felt for
  only the flashing applications would not be practical because it would cause
  unnecessary delay and confusion while conferring limited benefits (Johnny B,
  Quick 1986).

                                      - 5 -

-------
  A single-ply membrane is typically loosely laid (i.e. without layers of




tar) with a covering of loose gravel.  If more than one sheet of membrane is




required to cover an area, the edges of the sheets are sealed together by




ironing them together or through the application of a coal adhesive (Krusell




and Cogley 1982).




  The fact that single-ply membrane roofing can be applied cold to the roof




deck is an important advantage when city ordinances or other considerations




prohibit hot tar because of the dangers associated with tar kettles.  At




temperatures ranging between 650°F and 750"F, the tar or asphalt mixture will




burn and has, in some instances, exploded and caused damage to property and




pedestrians.  As a result, some communities do not allow the use of hot tar or




asphalt (Krusell and Cogley 1982),  Manufacturers of single-ply membrane




roofing systems include:  Carlisle Syntex, Plymouth Rubber, Gates Engineering,




and Koppers (Washington Roofing 1986).




  Table 1 presents the advantages and the disadvantages of asbestos roofing




felt and its substitutes, and Table 2 presents the inputs for the Regulatory




Cost Model.  Because asbestos felt is now used primarily in flashing




applications, the projected market shares of the substitutes are based on




their ability to substitute for asbestos felt in this particular application.




  E.  Summary




  Asbestos roofing felt is no longer produced in the U.S.  It is only




distributed by Power Marketing Group, a company that imports the asbestos




product from Canada.  Total U.S. consumption of this product was 283,200




squares in 1985.




  There appears to be some disagreement between representatives of Power




Marketing Group and other industry sources on the likely substitutes of




asbestos roofing felt in the case of an asbestos ban.  Our estimated market




shares are an attempt to reconcile these two views.   Modified bitumen is




                                        D *

-------
                                              Table  1. Substitutes  for Asbestos Bigh-Gradt  Electrical  P«p»r
      Product;
                             Manufacturer
                                      Advantages
                                                 D i » astyan tag e s
Asbestos Felt
                        Cascades, Inc.
                        Kingslef Falls, Quebec
                           Dimensional stability.                Potential,  environmental  and oeeupa-
                           Rot, fixe, and heat resistance.       tional health problema.
                           Effective in  flashing applications.
                                                                             ICF  {1986)
                                                                             Krusell  and CojLoy  (1982)
Organic Felt
Manvllle Sales Corp.
Cslotex Corp,
Kujijints Co,
Certaintcod Corp.
                                                   Low cost.
                                      Low durability.
                                      ttm strtingth.
                                      I.OH tot resistance.
                                                                                                                                 ICF (1986)
Fiberglass F»lt
              Corp.
SAF Corp.
Tamco, Inc.
Manvilla Sales Corp.
Rot, fitn, and heat reaistuno.
Dimensional atability
Requires less asphalt saturation.
Less effective In flashing
applications.
                                                                                                                                 ICF C1986)
Modified Bitunen
                        Hany
                           Effective  in  flashing applications.   Can only ba  applied with a torch.       Po»»r (1986S
Sing 1«-Fly Han4>riin«
Carli*!* Syntax, Inc.
Plymouth Rubber Corp.
Koppsrs Co,
Gates Englnearing Co.
Fir«ston« Corp.
Goody*aK, Inc.
Kanville Sal*a Corp.
Can be applied cold.
Rot, fire, and heat resistant..
Dimensional stability.
Effective In flashing applications.
High coat.
                                                                                                                                 ICF (1986)

-------
                                                 Tub In 2.   Data Inputs  for Asbflstoi Eflgulatory Coat Hodsl
Product
Asbestos Felt
Product
Imports Asbestos Coefficient;
283,200 squares 0,0045 tons/square
Consumption/
Production
Ratio Prico
N/A S6 , 65/square
Useful Equlvulent
Life Price
18 years $S,S5/s
-------
projected to capture 50 percent of the market at a price of §7,48/square,




fiberglass felt is projected to capture 40 percent of the market at a price  of




$3.85/square, and single-ply membrane is projected to capture 10 percent of




the market at $29.26/square (see Attachment).

-------
REFERENCES
ICF Incorporated,  1984.  Importers of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No. 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated,  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington, D.C. :  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).   Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Roofing Felt.  Washington, D.C.

Johnny B. Quick Co.  S. Feldman,  1986 (November 6).  Washington, D.C,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp,  Asbestos Substitute Performance  •
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

National Roofing Contractors Association.  J. Lowinski.  1986 (October 6).
Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D,C.

Power Marketing Group.  1986.  Public comment brief on asbestos roofing felt
submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Power Marketing Group.  G. Pytko.  1987a (January 30).  Denver, CO, 80231.
Letter to Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.  20006.

Power Marketing Group.  G. Pytko.  1987b (January).  Denver, CO, 80231.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982a,  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, DC:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982b.  Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, DC:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.  20-8670644.

Washington Roofing Products Co.  Sales Representatives.  1986 (October 15 and
November 7).  Transcribed telephone conversations with Peter Tzanetos, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.
                                      -  10  -

-------
                                    ATTACHMENT




  Because the information about substitutes obtained from various sources is




somewhat contradictory, the projected market shares are based on a synthesis




of the various opinions expressed.  Thus, they are not attributable to any




specific source, but they are the results of conversations with various




industry members.  It has been assumed that organic felt cannot be used in




flashing applications due to its susceptibility to rotting.




  Power Marketing Group believes that modified bitumen is the only effective




substitute for asbestos felt and that its share should be 100 percent.




Several industry sources (Washington Roofing 1986, Johnny B. Quick 1986) and




the National Roofing Contractors Association (National Roofing Contractors




Association 1986) believe that asbestos felt would be replaced with more




conventional roofing materials.  They estimate that fiberglass felt will take




80 percent of the market and single-ply membrane will take the remaining 20




percent.  We have computed our market shares by weighting both of these




opinions equally.  Therefore, we estimate the following market shares:




modified bitumen -- 50 percent, fiberglass felt --40 percent, and single-ply




membrane --10 percent.
                                      -  11  -

-------
VIII.  FILLER FOR AGETYLESE CYLINDERS




  A.  Product Description




  Asbestos is used to produce a sponge-like filler that is placed in acetylene




cylinders.  The filler holds the liquified acetylene gas (acetone) in




suspension in the steel cylinder and pulls the acetone up through the tank as




the gas is released through the oxyacetylene torch.  The torch is used to weld




or cut metal and is sometimes used as an illuminant gas.  The filler also acts




as an insulator that offers fire protection in case the oxidation of the




acetylene becomes uncontrollable.  The desirable properties of asbestos in this




function include its porosity, heat resistance, anti-corrosiveness and its




strength as a binding agent (ICF 1986).




  B.  Producers .andImporters of Filler for Acetylene Cylinders




  Currently, there are three primary processors of asbestos filler for




acetylene cylinders in the United States.  The amount of fiber consumed and the




number of cylinders produced in 1985 are listed in Table 1.  There were no




secondary processors of the filler in 1985 (ICF 1986).  There were no acetylene




cylinders imported to the U.S. in 1985. (NI Industries 1986).




  C.  Trends




  Since 1981, domestic production of acetylene cylinders has decreased.  The




decrease is attributed to the severity of the last recession that contributed




to the closing of the Los Angeles plant of NI Industries (NI Industries 1986).




Recently, the market for acetylene cylinders has been stable and is expected to




remain so for the foreseeable future (ICF 1986).  Table 2 lists the fiber




consumed and the cylinders produced in 1981 and 1985.
                                      - 1 -

-------
Table 1,   Fiber Use and Production of Asbestos Filler -- 1985
                 Asbestos Fiber   Asbestos-Containing
                    Consumed      Acetylene Cylinders
                  (short tons)         Produced          Reference
 Total                 584.1              392,121         IGF (1986)

-------
       Table 2.  Acetylene Cylinder Market 1981-1985
       Asbestos Fiber   Asbestos-Containing
          Consumed      Acetylene Cylinders
Year    (short tons)         Produced          Reference
  1981
863.0
528,432
ICF (1986)
  1985
584,1
392,121
ICF (1986)
                            - 3 -

-------
  D.  Substitutes




  'Currently, only one of the filler processors is producing a substitute




filler.  Nl Industries processes a filler that contains glass fiber and the




company reports that the glass filler performs as well as the asbestos filler.




The only disadvantage that NI Industries cites is that the non-asbestos




cylinder costs about 3 percent more than the asbestos cylinder.  NI Industries




also reports that it is attempting to gain the right to use a Union Carbide




developed graphite filler.  In addition, NI Industries plans to stop processing




asbestos within the next year (NI Industries 1986).  The other processors gave




no indication about their plans for substituting  asbestos in the manufacture




of acetylene cylinder filler (ICF 1986),  Table 3 summarizes the findings of




this analysis,  and presents the data inputs for the Asbestos Regulatory Cost




Model.




  E,  Summary




  Asbestos is used to produce a sponge-like filler that is placed in acetylene




cylinders.  Currently, there are three primary processors or importers.  The




market for acetylene cylinders is relatively stable and is expected to remain




so for the foreseeable future.  One of the processors, NI Industries, is




producing a substitute glass filler that performs as well as the asbestos




filler and costs about 3 percent sore that the asbestos filler.
                                      - 4 -

-------
                                                Table 3.   Data Input* for Asbestos Ragulatoiry Cost Mod*l
                                                                (008) Acetylene Cylinder*
        Product
                             Output
                                                Product
                                                Asbestos
                                               Coefficient
                                         Cons impt ion
                                         Production
                                            Rotio
                                                                                    Prica      Useful Life
                                                            Equivalent
                                                              Prle»
Haricot
Share
Acetylene Cylinder*
 w/ BsbentoB filler
392,121 places    0,0014896 tons/pieco       1,0       $90,00/pieea     I tiaa       890.00/piec«      B/A     ICF (1986)
Acetylene Cylinders
 «/ glass f).ll»r
     H/A
H/A
                                                                                                                               100%     ICF
H/A:  Hot Applicable.
                                      - 5 -

-------
REFERENCES
Coyne Cylinder Co.  Mr. Jim Kirseh.  1986 (July-December).  Huntsville,  AL
35803.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Rick Hollander and Eric
Crabtree, 1CF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

1CF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).   Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic.  Washington, D.C.

NI Industries Incorporated.  A.J. Mankos and Don Hedges.  1986 (July-
December).  Indianapolis, IN 46224.  Transcribed telephone conversations with
Jeremy Obaditch and Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Cylinders Division of Werco.  Michael Rabren.  1986 (July-December).
Citronelle, AL 36522.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch
and Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.
                                      - 6 -

-------
IX.  FLOORING FELT

  A.  Product Description

  Asbestos flooring felt is a paper product which is used as a backing for

vinyl sheet floor products.  It consists of approximately 85 percent asbestos

and 15 percent latex binder by weight.  Short fiber chrysotile asbestos

(usually grades 5 through 7} is used and is generally obtained from Canada

(Krusell and Cogley 1982).  The latex binder is usually a styrene-butadiene

type, although acrylic latexes can be used,

  Asbestos flooring felt is manufactured on conventional papermaking

machines.   The ingredients are mixed together and combined with water,  This

mixture is then placed on a belt and forced through a series of machines which

remove some of the water by applying heat and by suction.  The next step is to

force the mixture through rollers in order to produce a flat and uniform paper

product.  The felt is then allowed to cool before being rolled and wrapped.

  These felt rolls are then used in producing vinyl sheet flooring.  They

are fed into coating machines where they are coated with vinyl and possibly

decorated through various printing techniques.  At this point, the product is

considered a vinyl plastisol, and it may be colored by various additives or

techniques.  This printed sheet then goes through a fusion step where it is

coated with a final layer of material called the "wear layer."  The wear layer

is a homogeneous polymer application that provides an impervious surface for

the finished floor product.

  Asbestos flooring felt has a number of desirable qualities.  These include

dimensional stability as well as high moisture, rot, and heat resistance,^-

The flooring is able to withstand these conditions without cracking, warping,

or otherwise deteriorating.  Asbestos flooring felt is also particularly
       •'•Dimensional stability refers to the product's ability to stretch and
  contract with temperature changes and "settling" of the floor deck.
                                      - 1 -

-------
useful in prolonging floor life when moisture from below the surface is a



problem (Krusell and Cogley 1982).



  B,  Producers and Importers of Asbestos Flooring Felt



  There were four domestic primary processors of this product in 1981:



Armstrong World Industries, Congoleum Corporation, Nicolet, Inc.,  and Tarkett,



Inc. (TSCA 1982a).   There were no secondary processors of asbestos flooring



felt in 1981 (TSCA 19S2b),  In addition, two importers of asbestos flooring



felt were identified in 1981 -- Biscayne Decorative Products Division of



National Gypsum Company and Armstrong World Industries (ICF 1984).  Since that



time, all four primary processors have ceased production of asbestos flooring



felt, and both importers have stopped importing asbestos flooring felt (ICF
                                *


1986).  Because none of the other respondents to our survey indicated that



they had begun production of asbestos flooring since the 1981 survey or were



aware of any other producers or importers of asbestos flooring felt, we have



concluded that there are currently no domestic producers or consumers of this



product (ICF 1986).



  C.  Trends



  1981 production of asbestos flooring felt was 127,403 tons (TSCA 1982a).



Because all four producers have since stopped processing asbestos, production



declined to 0 tons in 1985.  There is no information on 1981 or 1985 imports



of asbestos flooring felt.



  D.  Substitutes



  As previously discussed, the key advantages of asbestos flooring felt were



its dimensional stability and high heat, moisture, and rot resistance.



Substitutes fall into two categories -- raw materials which can be used to



produce a non-asbestos flooring felt and products which replace flooring felt



itself.  The substitutes for asbestos in the production of flooring felt



include fiberglass, Pulpex(R), ceramic fiber, clay, and Bontex 148(R).   The



                                      - 2 -

-------
substitutes for flooring felt include foam cushioned backings and backless




sheet vinyl.  Tables 1 and 2 list the various substitutes and their advantages




and disadvantages.




  All of the substitutes are purchased as raw materials to be used in the




production of flooring felt which is then used to produce vinyl sheet




flooring.  As a result, there is no observable flooring felt market.




Furthermore, flooring felt producers would not reveal how much of the




substitute is required or what other ingredients are required to produce their




particular non-asbestos felt.  Fortunately, cost estimates are not needed




since asbestos flooring felt is no longer produced or sold in the U.S. and is




therefore not being modeled,




  Fiberglass flooring felt is a product which shares all of the advantages




of asbestos flooring felt.  It possesses dimensional stability, and is




resistant to heat,  rot, and moisture.  Furthermore, it we look at roofing




felt, a very similar product, we see that the fiberglass felt is much less




expensive than the asbestos felt.  Although the roofing application is




somewhat different, the result in the flooring felt market is probably




analogous.




  Hercules, Inc. has developed the product Pulpex(R) to replace asbestos in




flooring felt.  Pulpex(R) is a fibrillated polyolefin pulp and comes in two




forms -- Pulpex E  (composed of polyethylene) and Pulpex P (composed of




polypropylene).  Pulpex(R) is sold to four North American producers of




flooring felt and  to six flooring felt producers worldwide.  It has been




commercially available since 1981,  Pulpex(R) shares many of the advantages of




asbestos, but it has a lower tensile strength and is less heat resistent




(Hercules 1986).




  Tarkett,  Inc. produces a flooring felt in-house which uses a clay product




to substitute for  asbestos.  The company claims that there are no advantages




                                      - 3 -

-------
                                                    Tabl» 1. Substitutes £o* Asbtstoi in Flooring Fait
      Product
                             Manufacturer
                                                              Advantages
                                                                            Di aadvantages
                                                                                                                                        References
Asbestos Felt
                        Sons
                                                   Dimensional stability.                Potential eiwironniefltal and oeeupa-    KjrtJsslX  and Copley
                                                   Moisture, xot^ and heat resistance.   tional health hazartfs,                 ICF
Fiberglass
Many
Dimensional stability.                None,
Moisture, rot, and heat resistance.
                                       Krusell and Coglay (1982)
Pulpex(R)
H«reul«s Corp.
Wilmington, DE
Dlmtmsional n Lability.
Moisture and rot resistance.
Lotr tensile strength.
                                                                                                                                Hercules  U986>
Bontex IdB(R)
                        Georgia Bonded
                        Fibers, Ino.
                        Jtaw«rk, HJ
                                                   Heat resistance.
                                                                 High  cost.
                                                                             Georgia Bonded Fibers
                                                                             (1986)
Cloy
Many
Dimensional stability.                Hone.
Moisture, rot, and hast resistance.
                                                                                                        Tarkstb  (1986)

-------
                                                     Table 2, Substitutes tax Asbestos Flooring Fait
      Product
                             Manufacturer
                                                              Advantages
                                                                   Disadvantages
                                                                                                                                        Raferences
Foam-Cushioned Backing
Hatty
Dimensional stability.
Moisture resistance*
High cost.
Krusall and Cogley (1982)
"Backless" Vinyl
Many
Easy to install.
Excellent elastic properties.
Moisture resistance.
High cost.
Krusell and Cogley (1902)

-------
or disadvantages relative to asbestos in making this change (Tarkett 1986).




it is not known if any other producers are using clay to substitute for




asbestos in flooring felt.




  Georgia Bonded Fibers has developed the product Bontex 148(R) which can be




used in producing a flooring underlay.  Bontex 148(R) is composed of synthetic




fibers and cellulose.  Product samples have been sent to all major producers




of flooring felt, but its use is still limited to experimental applications in




this country.  It has been used in flooring felt in Europe, but the major




drawback in the U.S. appears to be price.  The main advantage of this




substitute is that it has high heat resistance (Georgia Bonded Fibers 1986).




  In addition to substitutes for asbestos in flooring felt, it is also




possible to substitute other products directly for the flooring felt.




"Backless" sheet vinyl is a sheet flooring material with a special vinyl




backing.  This backing has excellent elastic properties which allow the




flooring to stretch and contract under the most severe applications.  In




addition, this backless vinyl is easier and faster to install than asbestos




felt-backed vinyl.  It requires a minimum of adhesive deck bonding, usually




only around the edges, and can be stapled into place (Krusell and Cogley




1982).




  Another substitute for flooring felt is foam-cushioned backing,  Foan-




cushioned backing is formed by attaching a cellulesic foam layer to vinyl




sheet.  This product has very good dimensional stability and moisture




resistance.  Backless vinyl and foam-cushioned backings appear to be good,




commercially available alternatives to felt-backed vinyl flooring (Krusell and




Cogley 1982).




  The durability of felt backing is not a factor in the service life of the




vinyl sheet product.  The service life is primarily a function of wear layer




thickness, traffic, and maintenance.  In addition, the cost of the felt




                                      - 6 -

-------
backing is a very small percentage of the total cost of the vinyl sheet




product.  Because the costs of most substitute backings were likely to have




been comparable to the cost of asbestos felt backing, user cost was probably




not a significant obstacle to eliminating asbestos in flooring felt.




  E.  Summary




  In 1981 there were four primary processors of asbestos flooring felt in




the U.S.  By 1985 they had all stopped using asbestos in the production of




flooring felt.  There are a number of different substitutes for asbestos in




flooring felts such as fiberglass, Pulpex(R), ceramic fiber, clay, and Bontex




148(R).   Because the cost of the felt backing is only a small portion of the




total cost of the vinyl floor product, the removal of asbestos has had very




little impact on this industry.
                                      - 7 -

-------
REFERENCES
Georgia Bonded Fibers, Inc.  S. Grubin.  1986 (October 20).  Newark, NJ.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Hercules Corp,  B. Rufe,  1986 (October 15).  Wilmington, DE.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No. 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December),  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic.  Washington, D.C.

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract Number
68-02-3168.

Tarkett, Inc.  R. Depree.   1986 (July-August).  Whitehall, PA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Jereny Obaditch, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982a.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors.  1981.  Washington, D.C,:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,  EPA Document Control No. 20-8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982b.  Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors.  1981.  Washington, B.C.;  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8670644.

-------
X.  CORRUGATED PAPER




  A,  Product Description




  Corrugated paper is a type of commercial paper that is corrugated and




cemented to a flat paper backing and is sometimes laminated with aluminum




foil.  It is manufactured with a high asbestos content (95 to 98 percent by




weight) and a starch binder (2 to 5 percent) (Krusell and Cogley 1982).




  The manufacturing of corrugated paper uses conventional paper making




equipment in addition to a corrugation machine that produces the corrugated




molding on the surface of the paper.




  Corrugated asbestos paper is used as thermal insulation for pipe coverings




and as block insulation.  The paper can be used as an insulator in appliance,




hot-water and low-pressure steam pipes, and process lines.




  B.  Producers of Corrugated Paper




  At present, asbestos corrugated paper is no longer manufactured in the




United States (ICF 1986a).   In 1981 there were three producers of asbestos




corrugated paper: Celotex Corporation, Johns-Manville Corporation, and Hicolet




Industries (TSCA 1982).  All three companies had ceased production by 1982




(ICF 1986a).




  C.  Trends




  Production of asbestos corrugated paper fell from 46 tons in 1981 to 0




tons in 1985 (ICF 1985, ICF 1986a).  A recent survey failed to identify any




1981 importers of asbestos corrugated paper (ICF 1984).   In addition, none of




the firms surveyed in 1986 are aware of any importers of asbestos corrugated




paper (ICF 1986a).




  D.  Substitutes




  Asbestos was used in corrugated paper primarily because it had heat and




corrosion resistance, high tensile strength, and durability.  It has been




replaced by non-corrugated, asbestos-free commercial paper.  The three main




                                      - 1 -

-------
types of paper currently used for pipe and block insulation are ceramic fiber




paper, calcium silicate, and fiberglass paper (IGF 1985).




  Table 1 presents a summary of substitutes for asbestos corrugated paper.




Ceramic fiber paper is used for both pipe and block insulation.  It is heat




resistant, resilient,  has high tensile strength,  low thermal conductivity,  and




low heat storage.  Babeoek & ¥ilcox produces a ceramic fiber pipe insulation




blanket and a block insulation material.  The raw material used is kaolin,  a




high purity alumina-silica fireclay.  It has a melting point of 3200°F and a




normal use limit of 2300T, but it can be used at higher temperatures in




specific applications.




  Certain-Teed, Owens-Corning, and Knauf Corporation produce a fiberglass




product that can be used up to 850°F.  Fiberglass pipe insulation is also used




at very low temperatures, (it can operate at temperatures as low as -50*F).




  Calcium silicate pipe covering is produced by Owens-Corning under two




brand names Kaylo(R),  and Papco(R).  These products are heat resistant and can




be used in temperature applications from 1200°F to ISOO'T.  Calcium silicate




is less efficient at low temperatures than fiberglass.  Asbestos fiber




previously was used in calcium silicate pipe covering for its strength, but it




has been replaced with organic fiber.




  No comparison of costs has been made between the asbestos and non-asbestos




products because the asbestos product is no longer produced domestically and




will not be a separate category in the cost model (ICF 1985).




  E.   Summary




  Asbestos corrugated paper is no longer produced in the United States.  In




1981, there had been a small amount left in inventory, but it has since been




sold.  Asbestos had been used in corrugated paper because of its high




temperature resistance and its durability.  Substitutes include ceramic




fibers, fibrous glass, and calcium silicate fibers in conjunction with various




                                      - 2 -

-------
                                              Table 1.  Substitutes  for Asbestos Corrugated  Paper
                  Product;
                                                 Manufacturer
Ceramic Block and Pipe Insulation Material     Babcock & Wilcox
                     Heat reaiatant, can operate up
                     to 2300*F,
                     High tanslla strength,
                     Lots thermal conduetivity.
                                                                                                         Hot «s strong as asbtitos.
Calcium Silicate Pipe Insulation Material
Owens-Corning        Heat resistant, can operate up
  (Kaylo)            to 1500"F.
                     Easy application.
                     Low thermal conductivity.
                                     Expensive.
Fiberglass Block and Pipe Insulation Paper
Owens-Corning
Certain-Teed
Used for both hot and cold
temperatures.
High insulating.
Easy application.
Not as heat resistant as other
substitutes.
Hot as strong as asbestos.

-------
fillers.   The entire market has already been substituted therefore market




shares and price comparisons are not available.
                                      -  4 -

-------
REFERENCES
ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Corrugated Paper.  Washington, DC.

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington DC:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract 68-02-3168.

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington DC:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No. 20-8T600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington DC:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,


TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, DC:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8601012,
                                      - 5 -

-------
XI.  SPECIALTY PAPERS




  Asbestos Is used in papers primarily due to its chemical and heat resistant




properties.  Two types of asbestos specialty papers that are covered in this




section include beverage and pharmaceutical filters and cooling tower fill.




However, since the asbestos fill product is no longer processed in the United




States, cooling tower fill is only briefly discussed below.  Asbestos




diaphragms for electrolytic cells, which were previously treated as specialty




papers, are presented separately in Section XIII.




  A.  Cooling Tower Fill




  Cooling towers are used to air-cool liquids from industrial processes or air




conditioning systems.  The hot liquid is passed over sheets of material (the




cooling tower fill) in order to provide maximum exposure to air.  Sheets of




asbestos paper impregnated with melamine and neoprene may be used as fill for




applications requiring high temperatures or where a fire hazard may exist.




Cooling tower sheets are manufactured in various sizes, with typical sheets




being 18 inches by 6 feet and 0.015 to 0.020 inches thick (ICF 1985).  The




composition of cooling tower fill includes a blend of two grades of chrysotile




asbestos bound with neoprene latex.  The asbestos content is 90 to 91 percent,




the remaining 9 to 10 percent consisting of a binder material (Krusell and




Cogley 1982).




  The major use of asbestos fill has been cooling tower applications where high




heat resistance was necessary.  Due to the availability of good and inexpensive




substitute products, however, asbestos fill has been forced out of the market,




As a result, the 1981 producers of asbestos fill, Marley Cooling Tower Co, and




Hunters Corp.,  are no longer manufacturing asbestos fill in the United States




(Krusell and Cogley 1982, Marley Cooling Tower 1986).




  A wide variety of substitute materials are currently available for cooling




tower fill including polyvinyl chloride (PVC),  wood, stainless steel mesh, and




                                      - 1 -

-------
polypropylene.  Each of these substitutes is manufactured by Hunters




Corporation (ICF 1986).  The PVC plastic is the primary asbestos fill




substitute because it is, by far, the most cost-effective product, with high




durability and modest cost.  One industry source stated that PVC has actually




increased the market for cooling tower fill (Hunters 1986).  Other products




available as asbestos fill substitutes have limited application due to specific




disadvantages.  For example, it is not economically feasible to manufacture




wood into the forms (e.g., sheet materials) required for cooling tower fill;




and stainless steel, although more durable than PVC, is too expensive for




extensive use (Marley Cooling Tower 1986).  Portland cement reinforced with




such fibers as mineral and cellulose is presently under development as a




substitute for asbestos fill.  Although not presently marketed, this




substitute's use is restricted due to its availability only in limited shapes




and at a high cost (Harley Cooling Tower 1986) .




  B.   Beverage and JPharmaceutieal Filters




      1.  Product Description




      Asbestos has been used in filters for the purification and clarification




of liquids because it offers an exceptionally large surface area per unit of




weight and has a natural positive electrical charge which is very useful for




removing negatively charged particles found in beverages (Krusell and Cogley




1982) .   Asbestos filter paper is made on a conventional cylinder or Fourdrinler




papermaking machine but, due to the very low demand for the asbestos filters,




these machines are primarily used to produce more popular paper products, such




as the non-asbestos filter substitutes (i.e.,  diatomaceous earth and cellulose




fiber product and loose cellulose fiber products) (Krusell and Cogley 1982),




  Asbestos filters may contain, in addition to asbestos, cellulose fibers,




various types of latex resins, and occasionally, diatomaceous earth (Krusell




and Cogley 1982).  The asbestos content of beverage filters ranges from 5




                                      - 2 -

-------
percent, for rough filtering applications, to 50 percent, for very fine

filtering.  In general, as the asbestos content of the filter increases, the

filtering qualities improve (Krusell and Cogley 1982).

  Applications of asbestos filter paper are found primarily in the beer, wine,

and liquor distilling industries where they are used to remove yeast cells and

other microorganisms from liquids.  Asbestos filters are also used for

filtration of some fruit juices (e.g., apple juice) and for special

applications in the cosmetics and Pharmaceuticals industries (Krusell and

Cogley 1982).

      2.  Producers of Beverage and_Pharmaceutical Filter_s

      In 1981 there were four companies  manufacturing asbestos filters:

      •   Alsop Engineering, NY;
      •   Beaver Industries, NY;
      •   Cellulo Company, CA; and
      •   Ertel Engineering, NY.

  In 1985, two companies, Cellulo and Ertel, discontinued the use of asbestos

in the production of filters (Ertel Engineering 1986).  The primary substitute

materials used consisted of either diatonaceous earth and cellulose fibers, or

loose cellulose fibers (ICF 1986),  The other two companies, Alsop Engineering

and Beaver Industries, refused to respond to the ICF survey.  As a result,

production estimates for these companies were estimated based on the

methodology presented in Appendix A.

      3.  Trends

      For many years the use of asbestos in filters has been declining.  Nearly

1000 short tons of asbestos fiber were consumed per year for the production of

filters in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  In 1985, however, only about 300

short tons of asbestos fiber were used for the production of asbestos filters

(ICF 1986).

      4.  Substitutes


                                      - 3 -

-------
      The primary reason for the use of asbestos filters is their ability to




remove haze from liquids.  Asbestos filters absorb less liquid than non-




asbestos filters due to the low porosity of asbestos fiber.  Filters containing




asbestos are also more compressible than non-asbestos filters, making it easier




to fit them into filter equipment thereby reducing the chances of developing




leaks (Krusell and Cogley 1982).




  Filter papers manufactured with cellulose fibers and diatomaceous earth and




those made with loose cellulose fibers are available as substitutes for




asbestos beverage filters.  Both substitute products are comparable in




performance to the asbestos product, although they are more difficult to handle




and more expensive (Cellulo 1986).  In addition, the all cellulose filter




product cannot be made in grades high enough for very fine filtration and,




therefore, "filter aids", consisting of chemically treated cellulose fibers or




diatomaceous earth, may be added to all cellulose filters to improve their




performance.   Table 1 presents the advantages and disadvantages of each




substitutes compared to the asbestos filter product, while Table 2 presents the




data inputs for the Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model.  Non-asbestos substitute




filters can be used almost interchangeably with asbestos filters in most




applications because, like asbestos filters, they have high wet strength and




can clarify,  polish, and sterilize a wide variety of liquids (e.g., acids,




alkalis, antiseptics, beer, wine, fruit juices) (Krusell and Cogley 1982).  The




non-asbestos substitutes were reported to have comparable service life when




used in similar applications.  These two substitutes are expected to each take




over about half of the filter market.




      5.  Summary




      Asbestos filter papers are used for the purification and clarification of




liquids in the beer, wine and liquor distilling industries.  The trends
                                      - 4 -

-------
                              Table 1.  Advantages/Disadvantages of Bon-Asbestos Filter Substitute froduets
Substitute Products for Asbestos
  Beverage and Pharmaceutical         Price
            Filters                  (5/Ib.)
                     Advantages
Disadvantages
                                                                                                                           References
Diatcmaceous Earth and Cellulose
Fiber
2,00       Efene rally sane performance as
           asbestos product
More difficult to handl* for
end-user vs. asbestos product..

Mare costly than asbestos
product.
                           Cellulo Co. C1986)


                           Cellulo Co. (1986)
Loose Cellulose Fiber
                                      1,00       Generally seme performancs as
                                                 asbestos product.
                                              Bute diffieult to handle for
                                              end-user.

                                              More costly than asbestos
                                              product.

                                              Hot made with grades high
                                              enough for vet? fine filtering.

                                              Many n««d "filter aiiJ"-
                                              chmically treated cellulose
                                              fibex for s poiitiv* chaise —
                                              to iiqao'Sft perfonnanCB.
                           Cellulo Co, (1986)


                           Csllulo Co. (1986)


                           ICF (1964>


                           IGF (1W45

-------
                                                 Table 2,   Cata Inputs  for Asbestos S«gwl«tory Coft Mod»l
Product Asbestos Consumption ,
Product Output Coefficient Production Ratio Price0 Usafiil Lif» Equivalent Price
Asbestos Filter Paper 43* ttmm 0,212 1.0 S$,300/tonB 1 use $*,30Q/ton
*
Diatomaeeous Earth and R/A 8/A H/A $4,000/ton 1 use §4,000/ton
Cellulose Filter Paper
Loose Cellulose Fiber H/A H/A H/A 32,000/ton 1 us» $2,00Q/ton
Filter Paper
Market Shate Reference
H/A tSCA (19B2a>,
ICF (198*a),
Ceilulo (1986)
SOX C*lluLo (1996)
SOX Cellulo (19 86}
  Tha two producers of this asbestos product both refused to respond to our survey.  We h«¥9 ossuned that their W85 output is equal to their 1381
output,

  the two producers of this product both refused to respond to our survey,  W» hsv« assunrnd the product aabostoa cosfflcient ia the aana as the value
used by RTI in th« Regulatory Inpact Analysis tRTI 1985).

  Frices in the text «r» glv«n on * p»r pound basis, they have been converted into prices pit ton tor mm In th* ARCH.

  The product's useful llf* is typically 1 use,  hut some filters may h«v* a longer life,

  The two producers of this product both refused to respond to our survay,  WB have amBunad that tn« ratio lbetw««n tlia  ption of a«b»Btoa filter paper and
diatomaceous earth and cellulose filter paper is still the Bone as that reported In 1961 (ICF 1985),

-------
show a definite decline in the use of asbestos fiber in filter production.  Of




the four companies producing asbestos filters in 1981, two (Alsop Engineering




and Beaver Industries) have been assumed to still be producing in 1985 because




they refused to respond to the ICF survey.  The 1985 asbestos filter production




was assumed to be 434 tons; 92 tons of asbestos fiber were consumed in this




production.  One reason for this decline is that the non-asbestos substitute




products, which include diatomaeecms earth and loose cellulose fibers, have




been found to be comparable in performance to the asbestos product for most




applications.  These non-asbestos products are, however, more expensive.
                                      - 7 -

-------
REFERENCES
Cellulo Co.  D. Eskes.  1986 (July-December).  Fresno, CA, 93721.  Transcribed
telephone conversations with Eick Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C,

Ertel Engineering.  W. Kearney.  1986 (November 1).  Kingston, NY, 12401.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Meg Winuner, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their Substitutes,
in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products.
Washington, B.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Beverages and Pharmaceuticals Filters.  Washington, D.C,

Krusell N, and Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticidas and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Contract No.
68-02-3168.

Marley Cooling Tower Co.  J. Nelson.  1986 (October 28).  Louisville, KY,
40214,  Transcribed telephone conversation with Meg Winaner.  ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Munters Corp.  R. Miller.  1986 (July-December).  Fort Meyers, FL. 33901.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Mike Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

RTI.   1985.  CBI Addendum to Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos
and Asbestos Products.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document
Control No. 208510620.
                                      - 8 -

-------
XII,  VINYL-ASBESTOS FLOOR TILE




  A.  Product Description




  Vinyl-asbestos floor tiles are manufactured from polyvinyl chloride




polymers or copolymers and are usually produced in squares 12 inches by 12




inches.  They are commonly sold in thicknesses of 1/16, 3/32, and 1/8 of an




inch.




  The exact composition of vinyl-asbestos floor tile varies by manufacturer.




Typical ranges for the percentage of each constituent are:




        •    asbestos   :    5-25 percent,




        •    binder     :   15-20 percent,




        •    limestone  :   53-73 percent,




        •    plasticizer:       5 percent,




        •    stabilizer :     1-2 percent, and




        •    pigment    :   0.5-5 percent.




  Although each company has its own specific process for manufacturing




vinyl-asbestos floor tile, the basic steps are very similar.  Raw asbestos




fiber, pigment, and filler are mixed dry to form a cohesive mass to which




liquid constituents are added if required.  Although the mixture is exothermic




(it generates heat during mixing), it may need to be heated further in order




to reach a temperature of at least 300°F at which point it is fed into a two-




roll mil where it is pressed into a slab or desired thickness,   The slab is




then passed through calenders, machines with rollers, where it acquires &




uniform finished thickness (Krusell and Cogley 1982).  Embossing, pigmenting,




and other surface decoration is done while the material is still soft.  The




tile is then cooled using one of three processes:  immersion in water,




spraying with water, or placing in a refrigeration unit.  In order to ainimize




shrinkage after cutting, the tile is allowed to air cool before it is cut into




squares and waxed (Krusell and Cogley 1982).




                                      - 1 -

-------
  Vinyl-asbestos floor tile can be used in commercial, residential, and




institutional buildings.  It is often used in heavy traffic areas such as




supermarkets, department stores, commercial plants, kitchens, and "pivot




points" -- entry ways and areas around elevators.  The tile is also suitable




for radiant-heated floors as long as temperatures do not exceed 100'F.  The




tile may be installed on concrete, prepared wood floors, or old tile floors




(Floor Covering Weekly 1980).




  B.  Producers and Importers of Vlnvl-Asbestos Floor Tile




  There were six primary processors of this asbestos product in 1981:




AMtico Division of American Biltrite, Armstrong World Industries, Azroek




Industries, Congoleum Corp., Kentile Floors, Inc., and Tarkett, Inc. (TSGA




1982a).  There were no secondary processors of vinyl-asbestos floor tile, and




a survey of importers failed to identify any importers of vinyl-asbestos floor




tile (TSCA 1982b,  ICF 1984).  All six primary processors have stopped -using




asbestos since that time,  farkett, Inc. and Azrock Industries were the first




companies to eliminate the use of asbestos in vinyl floor tiles.   Armstrong




World Industries had eliminated asbestos by the end of 1983, and Congoleum




Corp. had eliminated it in 1984.  Amtico Division of American Biltrite phased




out asbestos in 1985, and Kentile Floors, Inc. phased out the use of asbestos




in 1986.   Because none of the other respondents to our survey indicated that




they had begun production of vinyl-asbestos floor tile or were aware of any




other producers or importers of vinyl-asbestos floor tile, we have concluded




that there are currently no domestic producers or consumers of this product




(ICF 1986).




  C.  Trends




  1981 production of vinyl-asbestos floor tile was 58,352,864 square yards.




In 1985,  only one company was still processing asbestos in order to make floor




tile and its production was 18,300,000 square yards.  This represents a




                                      - 2 -

-------
decline of almost 70 percent.  In addition, Kentile Floors phased out asbestos




use in 1986 and current production of vinyl-asbestos floor tiles is 0,




  D.  Substitutes




  The use of asbestos in the production of vinyl composition floor tile




conferred a number of advantages to consumers in its end use as well as to




producers in its manufacturing process.  Asbestos fiber imparted the following




properties in its use in floor tile:  abrasion and indentation resistance,




dimensional stability, durability, flexibility, and resistance to moisture,




heat, oil, grease, acids, and alkalis.  The heat resistance and dimensional




stability of asbestos are important in the manufacturing process.  The ability




to withstand high temperature prevents possible cracking.  Dimensional




stability prevents shrinkage or expansion during production and helps




manufacturers meet their tolerance limits.




  The major substitute for vinyl-asbestos floor tile is asbestos-free vinyl




composition tile.  Manufacturers have reformulated their mixtures using a




combination of synthetic fibers, fillers, binders, resins, and glass.  The




binders and fillers include limestone, clay, and talc.  The fiber substitutes




include fiberglass, polyester, Fulpex(R), Santoweb WB(R), and Microfibers(R).




The substitutes for asbestos in vinyl floor tiles and their characteristics




are summarized in Table 1.




  Fiberglass floor tile is produced by many manufacturers and has many of




the same properties as asbestos fiber.  It is used in floor tile primarily for




its dimensional stability under wet conditions.  Since fiberglass does not




absorb moisture, the tile is prevented from shrinking.  In addition,




fiberglass is heat resistant and can withstand temperatures as high as 800*F




without softening (Krusell and Cogley 1982),




  Polyester fiber is produced by many manufacturers.  When it is used in




combination with other binders and fillers, it is able to achieve many of the




                                      - 3 -

-------
                                                  Table  1,   Substitutas  tor Asbestos  in "Vinyl floor Tll«
            Product
                                       Manufacturer
                                                                    AdvantagBB
                                                                Dlaadvazitagas
                                                                                                                                       References
Asbestos
                                     Rone
                                                           Heat resistance doting
                                                           manufacture.
                                                           Indentation resistance.
                                                           Flexibility.
                                                           Abrasion resistance.
                                                           Moisture resistance.
                                                           Chemical resistance.
                                                           Fungal resistance.
                                                           Dimensional stability.
                                                        Environmental and occupational
                                                        health problems.
                                                                     Krnsell and Cogley (1982)
                                                                     ICF (1986)
Pulpex(R)
(Polyolefin Pulp)
Bercules, Inc.
Hilmtngton, DE
Dimensional stability.
Moisture resistance.
Rot resistance.
Low tensile strength.
Low heat resistance.
                                                                                                                                Hercules (1996)
Santoweb WB(R)
(Hardwood Fiber)
Monsanto Corp.
St., touts, m
Impact resistance.
Beat resistance.
Absorbs »at«t when large
amounts are used.
Monsanto (1986)
MicrotibersdO                       Mtcrofibers, Inc.
(Polyester and Cellulose Fito»r«)     fawtucket, H
                      Dimensional stability.
                      Thickening properties,
                                                                     Hicrofibers £1986)
Fiberglass
Many
Dimensional stability
Moisture resistance.
Rob resistance.
Lawet
Hbr« brittle.
Krti8«ll and Cogley (19B2)
Polyester
Many
            stability.
Moisture rssiBtance.
Less flexible.
Subject, to bnct.orial attack.
Iruaoll and Cogley (19B2)

-------
characteristics of asbestos.  The najor drawbacks are that the tiles are less




flexible and that the tiles are subject to bacterial attack (Krusell and




Cogley 1982).




  Pulpex(R) is a fibrillated polyolefin pulp made by Hercules, Inc.  It also




has many of the same characteristics as asbestos when used in combination with




other fillers and binders,  but it cannot be used at extremely high




temperatures.  Pulpex(R) has been commercially available in the U.S. since




1981.  Although its primary use in the U.S. has been in flooring felt, it has




been used in vinyl tile as  an asbestos substitute in Europe (Hercules 1986).




  Santoweb WB(R) is a hardwood fiber and has been on the market for 10




years.  It is produced by Monsanto Corporation.  Its major strengths are its




high impact resistance and its high heat resistance.  It can withstand




temperatures of at least 300°F during calendaring.  In addition, it is less




brittle than fiberglass and more cost-effective than chopped polyester.  The




Santoweb UB(R) composition of floor tile is ideally 1.5 percent and the upper




limit is 2.5 percent beyond which the floor tile will absorb too much water




(Monsanto 1986).




  Microfibers(R) are reinforcing fibers which consist of a combination of




polyester, cotton, nylon, and cellulose fibers.  Microfibers(R) are made by




the Microfibers Corporation,  Their primary advantages are their dimensional




stability as well as their  ability to serve as a thickener (Microfibers 1986).




  Several non-asbestos blends use larger amounts of resins, binders, and




fillers in place of asbestos.  One producer of asbestos-free vinyl composition




tile uses increased amounts of limestone and resin.  These new vinyl




composition tiles appear to share many of the qualities of vinyl-asbestos




floor tile, but they have three drawbacks.  They do not wear as well, they




have reduced dimensional stability, and they are more expensive to produce




(ICF 1986),




                                      - 5 -

-------
  In addition to the new vinyl composition tiles being produced, substitutes




for vinyl-asbestos floor tile include solid vinyl tile, rubber tile, ceramic




tile, linoleum, wood, and carpet.  However, these floor coverings lack many of




the qualities of vinyl-asbestos floor tile.  For example, solid vinyl is not




as abrasion resistant as vinyl-asbestos tile and has a low resistance to




solvent-based cleaning materials.  Rubber tile is also susceptible to




deterioration from certain cleaning compounds, is not grease resistant, and is




more difficult to maintain.  Carpet is less durable in most uses, and it is




more difficult to keep clean.  In addition to these drawbacks, all these




substitutes are more expensive than vinyl-asbestos floor tile.




  On the whole, vinyl composition tiles are the best substitute for vinyl-




asbestos tiles in terms of prices and performance.  Distributors clain that




consumers of vinyl composition tile are almost never concerned about whether




or not asbestos fibers are used.  They believe that the most important




considerations in choosing vinyl tile are color, style, and price and that




there have been no difficulties in switching from vinyl-asbestos floor tile to




vinyl composition tile (John Ligon, Inc. 1986, H&M Tile & Linoleum Co. 1986).




  E.   Summary




  Asbestos fiber was used in the production of vinyl floor tiles because it




imparted the following characteristics to the tile:   abrasion and indentation




resistance, dimensional stability, flexibility, and resistance to moisture,




heat, oil, grease, acids, and alkalis.  However, producers have been able to




generate these characteristics by reformulating their mixtures using a




combination of synthetic fibers, fillers, binders, resin, and glass.  (A more




complete description is not possible because floor tile producers consider




these formulations to be proprietary.)  This reformulation appears to have




been successful because there are currently no domestic processors of vinyl-




asbestos floor tile.




                                      - 6 -

-------
REFERENCES
Floor Covering Weekly.  1980.  Handbook of Contract Floor Covering.  New York,
NY:  Bart.

Hercules Corp.  B. Rufe.  1986 (October 22).  Wilmington, DE.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D,C.

H&M Tile & Linoleum Co., Inc.  Sales Representative.  1986 (September 23).
Washington, D.C.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C,

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.  EPA Document Control Number 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1985 (July-December),  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile,  Washington, D.C.

John Ligon, Inc.  Sales Representative.  1986 (September 23).  Bethesda, MD,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Krusell N, and Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.   Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract No.
68-02-3168.

Microfibers, Inc.  A. Leach.  1986 (October 22).  Pawtucket,  RI.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Monsanto Corp.  J. Renshaw.  1986 (October 22).  St. Louis, MO.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982a.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.;  -Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,   EPA Document Control No. 20-8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982b.  Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981,  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.   EPA Document Control No. 20-8670644.
                                      - 7 -

-------
XIII.  ASBESTOS DIAPHRAGMS




  Asbestos Diaphragms are employed in the chlor-alkali industry for the




production of chlorine and other primary products such as caustic soda.  There




are presently three types of electrolytic cells in commercial use;  asbestos




diaphragm cells, mercury cells, and membrane cells (Kirk-Othmer 1985).  All




electrolytic cells operate on the same principle - - an electric current




decomposes a solution of brine into (1) chlorine, liberated at the anode




(positive electrode) and (2) caustic soda and hydrogen, liberated at the




cathode (negative electrode).  The ratio of chlorine to caustic soda produced




during the process is 1:1.1 by weight (Chemical Week 1982).  Most of the




chlorine produced in the United States is made using electrolytic cells




(Kirk-Othmer 1985).




  Asbestos diaphragm and mercury cells account for over 90 percent of domestic




chlorine production; electrolytic cells using asbestos diaphragms accounted for




76.7 percent of the chlorine production capacity as of January 1, 1986, while




mercury cell technology accounted for 16.5 percent (Chlorine Institute 1986b).




In the past few years, a new technology, known as membrane cell technology, has




been developed to replace diaphragm cells in the chlorine production process.




As reported by the Chlorine Institute, membrane cell technology accounted for




2,4 percent of the total chlorine production capacity as of January 1, 1986




(Chlorine Institute 1986b).




  In Sections A, B, and C of this paper, each of the cell technologies is




discussed individually; Section D compares some salient characteristics of the




three technologies, while Section E discusses market trends for the chorine




production industry.




  A.  Asbestos Diaphragm Technology




  In this chlor-alkali production process, an asbestos diaphragm is used to






                                      - 1 -

-------
physically separate chlorine produced at the anode from caustic soda and

hydrogen produced at the cathode; the diaphragm thus, acts as a mechanical

barrier between the two chambers (Kirk-Othmer 1985).

  Diaphragm cells are especially appropriate where salt (the raw Material for

chlorine production) is present at the plant site in underground formation.

The salt can be solution-mined^- with water, treated, and sent to the chlorine

cells for decomposition into chlorine and caustic soda (Chlorine Institute

1986a).  The diaphragm material is critical to the proper operation of a

diaphragm cell and some of the properties that are necessary for proper cell

operation are as follows (Chlorine Institute 1986a):

      •   sufficient mechanical strength;

      •   high chemical resistance to acids and alkalies;

      •   optimum electrical energy efficiency;

      •   easy to deposit on the cathode with uniform thickness and
          without voids;

      •   appropriate physical structure to permit percolation of
          depleted brine with minimum back-migration; and

      •   acceptable service life,

Asbestos is uniquely qualified as a diaphragm material,  exhibiting the most

favorable combination of these properties (Chlorine Institute 1986a),  fhis has

resulted in widespread use of asbestos made diaphragms throughout the chlorine

production industry.

  Asbestos diaphragms are prepared at the chlorine plant site itself and are

not available as pre-manufactured products ready for use.  In the diaphragm

forming process, a slurry of asbestos in water is drawn through a screen or

perforated plate by vacuum techniques.  Asbestos fibers are deposited on the

screen, or plate, forming a paper-like mat approximately an eighth of an inch
       •*• Water is pumped into the salt mine, a salt solution is then pumped out,

                                      - 2 -

-------
thick (Coats 1983).  This asbestos-coated screen is used as the cathode in

electrolytic cells.  In the past twenty years, many advances have been ma.de in

the design of asbestos diaphragms and in the design of the cell itself.  These

have included the introduction of dimensionally stable metal anodes* as a

replacement for graphite anodes and the development of the modified asbestos

(resin bound) diaphragms which consist of chrysotile and polymeric powders of

fibers stabilized at high temperatures before use (Chlorine Institute 1986a).

Today, the majority of U.S. diaphragm cells utilize modified asbestos

diaphragms and have metal anodes; they consume 2,300 KWH of power per ton of

chlorine produced (Chlorine Institute 1986a, Chemical Week 1982).

  The surface area of the diaphragm is quite large,  ranging from approximately

200 to 1,000 square feet for a cell with a volume of 64 to 275 cu ft (Coats

1983).  Each diaphragm may use 60 to 200 pounds of asbestos fiber and have a

service life of three months to over one year (three months for plants where

graphite anodes are still in use; 6 to 15 months for plants using resin bound

asbestos diaphragms) (Chlorine Institute 1986b).  Using modified asbestos

diaphragm technology, production of 1000 tons of chlorine and co-products

requires about 250 pounds or 0.125 ton of asbestos (Chlorine Institute 1986b),

The only major disadvantage of using asbestos diaphragm cells is the weak

concentration of the caustic soda produced by the cell (usually about 10

percent by weight) because of the permeability of the cell to both brine and

water (Chemical Week 1981).  This necessitates further processing for

concentrating the caustic to the industry standard,  typically 50 percent, using

multiple-effect evaporators and large amounts of steam.  Removing the excess

salt involves crystallization and, possibly, ammonia extraction, both of which

add to the cost of production (Chemical Week 1982) .
       *• Dimensionally stable anodes consist of a coating of ruthenium dioxide
  and titanium applied to an expanded titanium metal base (Klrk-Othmer 1983).

                                      - 3 -

-------
      1,   Producers of Asbestos Diaphragms




      Asbestos diaphragms are not marketed; the chlorine producers purchase




asbestos fiber and manufacture and install the diaphragm themselves,  table 1




provides a list of chlorine manufacturers (SRI 1984, Verbanic 1985).  In 1985,




28 manufacturers were operating 57 chlorine plants in 26 states throughout the




U.S. with an estimated total annual capacity of 13.2 million tons (Chlorine




Institute 1986b) , a reduction from previous years when annual capacity had




reached almost 15 million tons (Verbanic 1985).   The largest of these chlorine




producers was Dow Chemical, with a combined annual capacity of 3,750,000 tons,




approximately 28.5 percent of the total U.S. chlor-alkali capacity followed by




PPG Industries and Diamond Shamrock, each accounting for about 10 percent of




the chlorine production capacity {Verbanic 1985),  Chlorine production and




asbestos fiber consumption information for the period 1983-1985 is presented in




Table 2.   Based on this information, about 975 metric tons of asbestos fibers




were estimated to have been consumed by the chlorine industry in the production




of approximately 10 million tons of chlorine during 1985.   According to a




separate estimate given by the Chlorine Institute, 900 metric tons of asbestos




had been consumed during this period.




      2.   Substitutes for Asbestos Diaphragms




      No other substance has been found to be suitable for replacing asbestos




diaphragms in electrolytic cells.  This has resulted in the development of




alternative cell technologies that require either the building of new chlorine




plants or the retrofitting of existing plants.  Among the new technologies, the




most significant one that is steadily gaining acceptance in the U.S. is the




membrane cell technology (Chemical Business 1985).
                                        4 -

-------
                                                      Tablo 1.  Producers of Chlorln*
                    Company
                                                             Plant
                                                                                                         Remarks
AMAX Inc.
  AMAX Specialty Metals Corp, Subsidiary
  Magnesim Division

Brunt*! ck Pulp and Paper Con^iajty
  Brunswick Chemical Company, Division

Champion International Corporation
  Wood Chemicals and Associated Products Division

Diamond Shamrock Corporation
  Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company
  Chlor-AlJkali Division
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
£,I, duPont de Ncmouri & Co., Inc.
  Chemicals and Pigment Department

  Petrochemicals Department
  Freon Products Diviaion

FM3 Corp.,  Industrial. Chemical Group
  Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.
  Fort Howard Paper Ctrnpany
Genaral Electric Conpaliy
  PlasticB Business Operations

Georgia-Pacific Ccmpany
  ChemicBl Division

Georgia-Gulf Corporation
Rowley, Utah


Brunswick, GA


Caston, RC
Battleground, TX
Deer Park, TX
Delawars City, DE
La Forte, TX
Mobile, AL
Muscla Shoals, AL
                                                      Oyster Creek, TX
                                                      Pittaburg, CA
                                                      Plaqueraine, LA
                                                      Freeport, IX
Niagara Fells, NY
Corpus Christi, IX
South Charleston, WV
Baton Rouge, LA
Gr«on Bay, HI
Mtiiskogao, QK

Moont Varuoti, M
BallinghOD, HA


Plaqumina, LA
146,000 tons/annun mereury-cell plant switching to rnerobrana
cells of the company's o*n design.

Contotn«d capacity ia 4,100,000.  2,000 tons/day on standby.
                         456,250 tona/amui of chlorine cip»city h»» been shutdown --
                         about 101 of Don's chlorine capacity on the Suit Coast.
                         To olfli* *aA of W83.
                                                                               M^mhrana call technology.

-------
                                                         Table 1 (Contitra«d)
                    Company
                                                             Plant
The B.F. Goodrich Company
  Convent Chemical Corporation, Subsidiary

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation
  Kalner Industrial Chemicals Division

LCP Chemicals and Plastics, Inc.
  LCP Chemicals Divisions
Mobay Chemical Corporation
  Inorganic Chemicals Division

Monsanto Company
  Monsanto Industrial Chsmlcals Company

Niacor
Occid«nt«l Fetrol*un Corporation
  Occidental Chwnical Corporation,  Subsidiary
  Hooker Industrial and Specialty Chemicals
Olln Corporation
  01 ins Chmicali Group
OiBgon Hstallurgicnl Corporation

Femnwalt Corporsticn
Chraticale Group
  Inorganic Chemical! Division
PPS Induntries
                                                      CInvert City,  KY
                                                      Convent, LA

                                                      Graroercy,  LA
Acme, HC
Ashtabula, OH
Brunswick, SA
Linden, NJ
Syracuse, RY
Orrington, ME
Moundsville, WV

Baytown, Texas
Sauget, IL


Niagara Falls, HY
Niagara Falls, RY
TaCt, LA
Tacoma, HA

August, GA
Charleston, TK
Riagam Falls, HY

Albany, OR
Portland, OR
Taccms, HA
Hyandott*, MI

Lake Charles, LA
      D, WV
                         Plant tot sale.
                                                                               Du» to begin production in 1987.  50/50 joint venture between
                                                                               Qltn and DuPont; will u«a tneitbrana cell technology.
                                                                               Mnferana  cell unit of  144,000 tons an «br««n in 19B6,
                                                                               Includea  nembrsne cell units,
                                                                                        o*ll tpshnology.

-------
                                                         Table 1 (Continued)
                    Company
       Plant
RMI Company

Stauffer Chemical Company
  Chlor-AUcali Products Division
Titanium Metals Corporation of America
  TIMET Division

Vertac Chemical Corporation

Vulcan Materials Company
  Vulcan Chemicals, Division
Heyerhasuser
Ashtabula, OH
                                                      Henderson, HV
                                                      L0 Moyne, AL
                                                      St. Gabriel, LA
Henderson, NV

Vicksbuxg, MS
Port Edward, HI
Geisroar, LA
Wichita, XS
Denver City, tX

Longview, HA
                                                                               Approximately 751 of caustic/chlorine is produced via the
                                                                               asbestos diaphragm cell process.

                                                                               Includes 73,000 tons of men*ran?  technology.
Sources:

" SSI 196*.
           C. 1985.

   Chemical Engineering 1976.  Cell employs modified Ration perfluorosulfonic-aeid nven* ranee which separate the  anodo Hid cathode halves in
the BOBS manner •» conventional asbestos diaphragms.

  Vulcan dionicala 1986 ,

" Chemical Wee* 1986c.

-------
                        Table  2,   Chlorine Production/Asbestos  Fibtc  Consumption
(1)

Year
(2)

Annual Capacity
(millions of tona)
(3)

Utilization
Rate
(on average)
(4)

Production ,
{millions of tons)
(2 x 3}
(5)
f ecc*ntag* of
.. Production
(Icing AiCuCos
A Diaphragms
(6)

Consioptifln
(tons)


fell
1981
                 14. B
                                      721
                                                            10.7
                                                                                75.0
                                                                                                   1,004
1985
                 13.2
                                      77Z
                                                            10.2
                                                                                76.7
                                                                                                     977
Sources;




B Chlorine Institute 1986b.




b Chanlcal W»«k 1985 (February 1).




c Coats V.  1963.

-------
  B.  Membrane Cells




  Although diaphragms and membranes each serve a similar function of physically




separating the two electrodes in an electrolytic cell, the mechanisms by which




they operate are entirely different.  In the diaphragm cell, brine flows




through the asbestos diaphragm at a carefully controlled rate such that no back




flow of hydroxyl ions occurs.  In the membrane cell, a cation exchange membrane




is used instead of a diaphragm, utilizing solid salt as opposed to brine.  The




cation exchange membrane permits the passage of sodium ions into the cathode




compartment, but rejects the passage of chloride ions.  Chlorine is formed on




the anode side; hydrogen and caustic soda are formed on the cathode side.




Because the membrane is very thin, some chloride or hydroxyl ion transfer




occurs; however, pure water may be added to the cathode compartment to maintain




a constant sodium hydroxide concentration (Kirk-Othmer 1985).   As a result,




membrane cells can produce caustic soda of high concentration (30-35 percent)




with a low salt content (0,02-0.2 percent).




  The most prominent advantages offered by the membrane cell technology are the




reduced energy consumption, improved product quality, less frequent cell




maintenance, and increased flexibility in plant operation (Chemical Marketing




Reporter 1983).  Worldwide, there are 70 plants that have opted for membrane




technology, more than half of them being in Japan (Chemical Week 1986a).




Outside Japan, the membrane process has been installed in 5 plants in the




United States, 7 in Europe, 4 in Latin America, and 20 in other parts of the




world (Chemical Week 1986a).   Membrane cell technology is offered by firms such




as Diamond Shamrock and Hooker Chemical, Japan's Asahi Chemical, AsahI Glass,




and Tokuyama Soda, and Italy's Oronzio de Nora (Chemical Week 1981).  Dow




Chemical may now be added to this list.  In July, 1986, Dow joined Italy's




Oronzio de Nora in a new 50-50 joint venture to license technology and




equipment.  They will operate globally under the name, Oronzio de Nora




                                      - 9 -

-------
Technologies (Chemical Week 1986a}.




  The first large-scale membrane cell installation in the U.S. came on stream




in late 1983 at a 73,000 ton/year facility of Vulcan Chemicals Division at




Wichita, Kansas (Verbanic 1985).  Other membrane facilities are presently being




created either through retrofits of existing asbestos diaphragm cells to accept




an ion-exchange membrane or through conversions (cell replacement)  which




require replacement of the diaphragm cells with membrane electrolyzers.  Both




retrofits and conversions require additions and modifications to existing




ancillary equipment.  Conversions have been occurring in the U.S. for several




years but no commercial retrofits have been attempted in the U.S. to date.




  It has been found that retrofits are not only costly but do not achieve the




energy savings that total cell replacement (conversion) provides.  Moreover, in




some cases retrofitting is not even an option due to either the incompatibility




of the available salt source and the available membrane materials, or the




complexity of the diaphragm cell geometry.  The cost of conversion varies




widely,  depending on cell size and type.  An April 1986 Chlorine Institute




survey of diaphragm cell producer members projected the membrane replacement




cost of the current total chlorine production capacity of the industry to be




$2,1 billion (1986 dollars) -- or about $75,600 per daily ton (Chlorine




Institute 1986b).




  Table 3 provides a list of manufacturers employing the membrane cell




technology.  Those facilities presently on stream have chlorine production




capability from 12 to 400 tons/day each, for a combined capacity of less than




900 tons/day or approximately 328,000 tons per annum -- less than 2.5 percent




of the total industry capacity (Chlorine Institute 1986b).  By 1987 another




366,000 tons are expected to be added (i.e. Occidental, Niacor), creating a
                                      -  10 -

-------
          Table 3.  Chlorine Producers Using Membrane Cell Technology
            Company
Plant Location
   Annual
  Capacity
(metric tons/  Year Due
    year)      on Stream
Fort Howard Paper Company

P&G Paper Products Co.3

Vulcan Chemicals Division
                    3
Pennwalt Corporation

Occidental Chemical Corp.

Niacor
 Muskogee, OK             N/A         N/A

 Green Bay, VI            N/A         N/A

 Wichita, KS             73,000       1983

 Tacoma, WA              91,000       1985

 Taft, LA               146,000       1986

 Niagara Falls,  NY      220,000       1987
Source: ,  Chemical Week 1986a.
          Verbanic 1985.
        C N.A. -- Not Available,
                                      - 11  -

-------
projected total annual capacity of approximately 542,000 tons/year employing




membrane technology.




  The cost of the high performance membrane materials which are being used in




the newer cell installations are estimated to be in the order of 60 to 75




dollars per square foot of surface area (Coats 1983).  Some cells may use




membranes with an area of less than 10 square feet, while others may use




membranes of over 50 square feet.  Associated costs, such as installation and




regasketing, are not well known due to the limited number of plants presently




operating with the membrane cell technology (Chlorine Institute 1986b),




However, the labor required to make a membrane for retrofit purposes is




substantially greater than that required to prepare an asbestos diaphragm.  In




addition, the cost of making shaped membranes, necessary for optimal power




efficiency for retrofit purposes, adds significantly to the cost (PPG




Industries 1986).




  Although the service life of a membrane cell is generally estimated at about




2 years (Chlorine Institute 1986b), it is possible to routinely achieve a




three-year membrane life (Chemical Week 1986a),   At typical operating




conditions, about 85 tons of chlorine would be produced per square meter of




membrane during a 2 year membrane life (Chlorine Institute 1986b),




  C.  Mercury Cells




  Mercury cell technology involves a chemical process to separate the chlorine




from the caustic soda and hydrogen as opposed to the physical processes of the




diaphragm and membrane cells.  The mercury cell process involves two subcells:




(1) the brine (electrolyzer) subcell, and (2) the denuder or soda (decompose!:)




subcell.




  The cathode in the mercury cell is a thin layer of mercury which is in




contact with the brine.  Closely spaced above the cathode is the anode.  The




anode is a suspended, horizontal assembly of blocks of graphite or




                                      -  12  -

-------
dimensionally stable (titanium-base) anodes (Kirk-Gthmer 1983).  Purified,




saturated brine containing approxinately 25.5 percent by weight sodium chloride




is decomposed as it passes between the cathode and anode in the primary brine




cell.  Chlorine gas is liberated at the anode and is then discharged to the




purification process while sodium metal is liberated at the cathode,  A low




concentration amalgam, containing 0.25-0.5 percent by weight of sodium, is




formed in the mercury cell (Kirk-Othnser 1985) .




  A second reaction is carried out in a separate device, the denuder subcell,




where the dilute amalgam is fed and then reacted with water.  The dilute




amalgam is converted directly into 50 or 73 percent caustic that contains very




little salt.  A significant amount of electricity is involved in this reaction




(Kirk-Othmer 1985).




  Mercury cells must operate with solid salt in order to maintain a water




balance.  Unique to the operation of mercury cells is the total salt




resaturation which occurs after the brine has passed through the primary brine




subcell.  At this point, a portion (or in some cases, all) of the depleted




brine is dechlorinated, resaturated with solid salt, and returned to the




cell-brine feed (Kirk-Othner 1983).




  Many of the mercury cells presently in operation have been in service for at




least 20 years.  During that period, some cell modifications have been made




including the substitution of metal anodes for graphite anodes.  Due to the




wide difference in cell design, chlorine produced per mercury cell could vary




from 1 ton/day to 7 or 8 tons/day.  In addition, energy consumption varies.




Total energy consumption using the mercury cell process could be less than that




for using the diaphragm cell production process; while, in many cases, the




disparity between technologies could be little or none  (Chlorine Institute




1986b).




  Mercury cells once accounted for a major part of the world's chlor-alkali




                                      -  13  -

-------
capacity.  However, in recent years, this technology has been steadily replaced.



by the asbestos diaphragm cell due primarily to the environmental and



industrial hygiene concerns associated with mercury.  The first major



industrialized country to complete the process switchover was Japan, having



eliminated the use of mercury cells in chlor- alkali production in 1986



(Chemical Week 1986b) .   In the United States, only 16.5 percent of chlorine is



produced using mercury cell technology.  No new mercury cell construction has



occurred in the United States since 1970, and none is likely to in the future



(Chlorine Institute 1986b) ,



  D.  Comparison of the Three Cells' Characteristics



  The three cell technologies (asbestos diaphragm, membrane and mercury) each
                                «


have distinct price ,  performance ,  and market characteristics as indicated in



Table 4.



      1.  Cost,, of Cell
      Diaphragm cell technology is the most used technology for chlorine



production in the United States, accounting for 76.7 percent of U.S. ins tailed



chlorine production capacity (Chlorine Institute 1986b) .   There are many



different sizes and designs of asbestos diaphragm cells presently used in the



industry.  Hence, the costs of an asbestos diaphragm varies considerably,



ranging from $250 to $2,000,  Actual asbestos cost may represent only 10 to 20



percent of the total diaphragm replacement cost (Chlorine Institute 1986b) ,



Other costs associated with the diaphragm include the cost of resin binders and



the labor involved for removal and reinstallation of the cell (Chlorine



Institute 1986b) .



  The membrane cell, which accounts for 2.4 percent of the present U.S.



chlorine capacity, have estimated costs in the area of $60 to $75 per square



foot (Chlorine Institute 1986b) .  Cells may use membranes with an area of less



than 10 square feet, while others may use membranes of over 50 square feet.



                                      -  14  -

-------
                                       Table ft.   Comparison  Of  Electrolytic Cell Technologies
                                                      Asbestos Diaphragm
                                                                                                Call
                                                                                                                            Cell
Price
  o  Purchase Cost
PerfQrmanc e

  o  Service Life

  o  Energy comtnption  ).  The surface area of the diaphragm ranges  from approximately 200 to 1,000 sq ft
for a call with a volume o£ 64 to 275 cu ft (Coats 1983).

  Some cells use nenbrmei with an area of less than 10 square faet, while others use nenfcranes of over 50  square feet.

  20-30 percent lass energy than mercury call or asbeatoa diaphragm technology,

  During this 20 year period sons cell mod ideations have been made (i.e., substitution of metal  anodes for gcuphit* anodes).

" HM - Hot Available.

f MEZO 1983 (Auguit).

B Choraicnl Haak 1981 (Hay 27).

h OiBDical Hevfc 1982 (Novmtmr 17).

1 Chemical Week 198* (February 1).

J Chlorine Institute I986b.
  Verbanic 1965.

-------
Hence, the purchase cost of naterials for membrane cells may range fron $600 to




$3,750.  Since only a few U.S. plants are operating with membrane cells, the




associated costs of installation, regasketing, etc. are not well known




(Chlorine Institute 1986b).   However, the labor costs involved in making &




membrane for retrofitting purposes is significantly more expensive than that




required for preparing an asbestos diaphragm.




  The mercury cell accounts for 16.5 percent of the U.S. chlorine production




capacity; however, it is steadily being replaced by both the membrane cell and




the asbestos diaphragm cell technologies.  Price information for the mercury




cell is not available.




      2.   Useful ServiceLife




      The life of a membrane cell is about two years, while an asbestos




diaphragm is expected to




 last from three to 15 months.  The modified (resin bound) asbestos diaphragm,




which is most often employed in chlorine plants, lasts 6 to 15 months (Chlorine




Institute 1986b).




  Most of the mercury cells in operation today have been in service for 20




years or more, although during this period some cell modifications have been




made such as the replacement of metal anodes for graphite anodes (Chlorine




Institute 1986b).




      3.   Energy Consumption




      In comparing the three cell technologies in terms of energy consumption,




the membrane cell is generally the lowest consumer at 2,100 to 2,300 KWH per




metric ton of chlorine produced (Verbanic 1985).  In some instances total




energy consumption via the mercury cell route may be less than that for the




diaphragm cell, but typically, the disparity is marginal.  On average, both




technologies consume 2,800 to 3,000 KWH per metric ton of chlorine (Verbanic




1985).




                                      -  16  -

-------
      4,  Purity of Product




      Lastly, a primary advantage the membrane cell has over the asbestos




diaphragm is the quality of caustic soda produced.  Membrane cells produce a




stronger caustic solution, 30 to 35 percent, compared to the diaphragm's 10 to




15 percent (Chemical Week 1981).  The caustic soda product produced via the




mercury cell is more pure than that produced via the asbestos diaphragm cell.




  E. Market Trends for the Chlorine Industry




  Slow growth and overcapacity have characterized the industry since the early




1970s (Verbanic 1985).   During these years of increasing environmental




awareness,  chlorine growth slowed to only 2 to 3 percent per year (Verbanic




1985).   With the imposition of new regulations on several end-use markets




(e.g.,  chlorinated pesticides and solvents, chlorofluoroearbons as aerosol




propellants, etc.), demand for chlorine was reduced by several million tons




by mid-1970 (Verbanic 1985).  However, this drastic reduction in demand was not




immediately recognized by producers, and installation of additional capacity




continued throughout the 1970s.  Consequently, operating rates in the




chlor-alkali industry have been low since 1974, remaining below the 80 percent




level except for 1979,  when the high of 84 percent was achieved (Verbanic




1985).   Operating rates have been improving for the industry as the economy has




recovered from the 1982 recession (Verbanic 1985).  Estimates for 1985 capacity




utilization rates have been as high as 84 percent, while most estimates have




remained in the area of 75-80 percent (Verbanic 1985).  One source forecasts




the 1986 average operating rate to be 87 percent, a definite gain over the 1985




average (Chemical Week 1985).  The recent improvement stems from both a




reduction in annual production capacity of more than 1 million tons and the




departure by several well-known producers from the chlor-alkali industry




(Verbanic 1985).  Since 1980, some 23 chlor-alkali production facilities have




been completely or partially closed, involving about 2,740,000 tons of annual




                                      -  17  -

-------
production capacity  (Chlorine Institute 1986a).




  The chlor-alkali business is now a slow-growing, mature business with a




long-term growth trend of 1.5 percent (Verbanic 1985).  However, general gains




may be expected in the 1986 chlor-alkali market,  stemming from a 2 to 3 percent




boost in industrial and chemical demand and a relative 8 percent decline in the




trade-weighted value of the dollar, increasing the demand for chlorine products




overseas (Chemical Week 1985),




  As a result of slow-growth in demand, few, if any, new chlor-alkali plants




are expected to open in the U.S.  Rather than building new plants, existing




firms are switching over from asbestos diaphragm and mercury cells to membrane




cell technology because of the many advantages the membrane technology




offers.  The future of membrane cell technology in the chlor-alkali industry




seems certain; it's not a question of whether U.S. producers will switch to




membranes,  but when and where (Chemical Week 1984).
                                      -  18  -

-------
REFERENCES


American Metal Market.  1983 (September 19),  Vulcan opens plant in Wichita.
p. 17.

Chemical Engineering.  1976 (March 29).  New signs point to wider use of
synthetic- membrane chlor-alkali cells,  p. 61.

Chemical Marketing Reporter.  1983 (August 15).  Vulcan chemicals starts
running chloralkali plant,  p. 15.

Chemical Week.  1981 (May 27).  Polymeric membranes for chlor-alkali cells,
pp. 13-14.

Chemical Week.  1982 (November 17).  A revolution in chlor-alkali membranes,
pp. 35-36.

Chemical Week.  1984 (February 1).  Chlor-alkali:  squeezing earnings from a
low-growth business,  pp. 26-29,

Chemical Week.  1985 (November 6).  Better tines for chlor-alkali in 1986.
p. 28.

Chemical Week.  1986a (August 13).  New entries vie in chlorine technology.
pp. 22-23.

Chemical Week.  1986b (July 23).  Japan abandons mercury cells,  p. 10.

Chemical Week.  1986c (July 23).  Dow shuts some chlorine capacity,  p. 24.

Chlorine Institute,  1986a (June 30).  Comments of the Chlorine Institute, Inc.
The Chlorine Institute,  Inc.  70 West 40th Street, New York, N.Y.

Chlorine Institute.  1986b.  Questionnaire to the Chlorine Institute.  The
Chlorine Institute, Inc., 70 West 40th Street, New York, NY.  Docket OPS 62036,

Coats V.  1983 (July 1),  Vulcan Materials.  Conversation with Maravene
Edelstein, ICF Incorporated.

Kirk-Othmer.  1983.  Alkali mud chlorine products.  Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology, Third edition: 799-865.

Kirk-Othmer.  1985.  Alkali and chlorine products.  Concise Encyclopedia of
Chemical Technology: 59-63.

PPG Industries. 1986.  Comments of PPG Industries, Inc.  PPG Industries, Inc.
One PPG Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Docket Control No. OPTS-62Q36,

SRI International.  1984.  Chlorine.  In:  1984 Directory of Chemical
Producers, United States: 490-491,

Rizzo P.  1986 (January).  Chloralkali industry nears end of painful
realignment period.  Chemical Marketing Reporter:  27, 35.


                                      - 19  -

-------
Verbanic C.  1985 (September).  Chlorine/caustic:  anatomy of & struggle.
Chemical Business:  50, 52, 57-59.

Vulcan Chemicals,  1986.  Comments of the Vulcan Materials Company.  ¥ulean
Chemicals, P.O. Box 7609, Birmingham, AL  35253.
                                       20  -

-------
XIV,  ASBESTOS-CEMENT PIPE AND FITTINGS




  A.  Product Description




  This 1988 report on asbestos-cement pipe has been updated from the 1986




report to account for the increased acceptance of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe




over the past two years,  Sussex Plastics Engineering was hired to conduct a




survey of the present status of standards for plastic pipe products suitable to




replacing asbestos-cement pipe in potable water and sewer applications.  This




survey was intended to update the information of the Malcolm Pirnie (1983)




report because plastic pipe standards have been extended to larger diameters




and new products have been developed since 1986 (Sussex Plastics Engineering




1988a>.




  Asbestos-cement pipe is made of a mixture of Portland cement (42 to 53




percent by weight), asbestos fibers (15 to 25 percent by weight), and silica




(34 to 40 percent by weight).  These materials are combined with water and




processed into a pliable mass that is wound around a steel cylinder and then




compressed and cut into 10 or 13-foot lengths.  The product then goes through a




curing process, known as autoclaving, that involves immersion in water or




pressurized steam-to enhance corrosion resistance to high sulfate soils and




waters.  Cured pipes then undergo a finishing process that includes machining




the ends and, optionally, lining the pipe with gilsonite coatings,




asphalt-based coatings, or other coatings to protect the pipe from acidic or




corrosive fluids (ICF 1985).




  According to the Bureau of Mines, approximately 18 percent of the total




asbestos fiber consumed in the U.S., or 30,871, tons was used in the production




of asbestos-cement pipe in 1985 (Bureau of Mines 1986a, Bureau of Mines 1986b).




Applications for asbestos-cement pipe may be divided into pressure pipe (water




mains) and non-pressure pipe (sewer line) applications.  The pressure pipe




applications include conveyance of potable water,  force main sewers, industrial




                                      - 1 -

-------
process lines, and industrial fire protection systems (Association of Asbestos

Cement Pipe Producers 1986b).  Non-pressure pipe applications include use in

storm drain pipes and sewer pipes, although these uses constitute only a small

portion of present asbestos-cement pipe production.  Asbestos-cement pipe is

especially widespread throughout the Southeast, Mountain, and Pacific regions

(Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers 1986b).

  Approximately 22 million linear feet, or 4,167 miles, of asbestos-cement pipe

are installed annually in the U.S. (Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe

Producers 1986a).   As of 1986 it is roughly estimated that 400,000 miles of

asbestos-cement pipe have been installed in the U.S., over 325,000 miles of

which is asbestos-cement water pipe (Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe

Producers 1986b; American Waterworks Association 1986),  A small but unknown

amount of asbestos-cement pipe is also used as conduits for electrical and

telephone cables and for laterals from street mains to consumers (Krusell and

Cogley 1982).

  Asbestos-cement pipe comes in a variety of diameters, formulations, and

weights designed for different applications.  In the past, diameters ranged

from 4 inches through 42 inches, however, current production of asbestos-

cement pipe larger than 24 inches in diameter was not reported by any domestic

manufacturer (Certain-Teed 1986c, JM Manufacturing 1986a, Capco 1986a, Capco

1986b).   Standard lengths are 10 and 13 feet.  Among the many factors that are

important in selecting pipe for pressure (water mains) and non-pressure

applications (sewer mains) the major ones are:

      •   Fluid conveyed;
      •   Flow capacity;
      •   Depth of cover/external loads;
      •   Soil characteristics;
      •   Flexibility;
      •   Bedding requirements; and
      •   Connections.

-------
Other factors used in selecting pipe include cost, availability, useful life,

and the experience of the engineer, contractor, or utility director (Malcolm

Pirnie 1983).X

  For the purpose of this discussion, the enormously complex asbestos-cement

pipe market has been divided into 10 submarkets which are shown in Table 1,

(These asbestos-cement submarkets were originally derived by Malcolm Pirnie

(1983).  Table 1 also shows, in addition to the 10 submarkets, the 1981

relative market share of each asbestos-cement pipe submarket by linear foot of

asbestos-cement pipe (see Attachment, Item 1).

  In 1981, according to Table 1, by linear feet, approximately 83 percent of

the asbestos-cement pipe produced was used in pressure applications and 17

percent was used in non-pressure applications.  The relative market shares by

weight of pressure and non-pressure asbestos-cement pipe shipments from 1980 to

1985 are presented in Table 2.  Pressure pipe has taken a larger share of the

asbestos-cement pipe shipments since 1980, comprising 89 percent of all

asbestos-cement pipe shipments by 1985.

  B.  Producers and Importers of Asbestos-Cement Pipe

  The number of plants producing asbestos-cement pipe was reduced from 9 to 5

between 1981 and 1983.  All of those five are still operating today (ICF 1985,

ICF 1986) ,  Plants were closed or dismantled in response to several
       •*• For a more detailed description of the significance of each factor and
  how asbestos-cement pipe's performance relates to it, refer to Malcolm Pirnie
  (1983).
       A
       * 1981 data is used because this is the most recent year for which
  production of asbestos-cement pipe in each of the 10 submarkets chosen by
  Malcolm Pirnie (1983) are available.  Note that in 1981 there were 5
  additional submarkets of pipe >24" in diameter, one for each of the two
  operating pressure classes and one for each of the three depth of cover
  classes.  Since asbestos-cement pipe is no longer produced over 24" in
  diameter these 5 suboarkets have been deleted.  Thus, the markets shares shown
  in Table 1 are derived only for asbestos-cement pipe 24" in diameter based
  upon 1981 production in each of the 10 submarkets (see Attachment, Item 1 and
  Malcolm Pimie 1983).

                                      - 3 -

-------
       Table  1.   Asbestos-Cement Pipe  Subraarkets  in the United States
     Asbe s to s-Cement
     Pipe Application
    Specifications
    Share of
Asb es to s-Cement
  Pipe Market
(by linear feet)
Consumed in 1981
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Flow
Flow
Flow
Flow
Water
Water
Water
Water
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Total Pressure
0-150
>150
0-150
>150
82,96
psi,
psi,
psi,
psi,

4"
4"
12
12

.12"
-12"
"-24"
"-24"

diameter
diameter
diameter
diameter

59
5
16
].

.52
.33
.39
,72

Non-Pressure Gravity Sewers
Non-Pressure Gravity Sewers
Non-Pressure Gravity Sewers
Non-Pressure Gravity Sewers
Non-Pressure Gravity Sewers
Non-Pressure Gravity Sewers
0'-8' deep, 4"-12" diameter
0'-8' deep, 12"-24" diameter
8'-16' deep, 4"-12" diameter
8'-16' deep, 12"-24" diameter
       deep, 4"-12" diameter
       deep, 12"-24" diameter
         7.04
         6.86
         1.35
         1.47
         0.15
         0.17
            Total Non-Pressure   17,04
  Total Pressure and Non-Pressure
                                   100.00
See Attachment, Item 1 for sources and calculations.
                                    - 4 -

-------
             Table  2.  Market  Share  of Domestic Asbestos-Cement
                            Shipments by Weight
                Year
Pressure Flow
 Water Pipe
  (percent)
Non-Presfeure Flow
 Gravity Sewers
    (percent)
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
73
76
85
86
89
89
27
24
15
14
11
11
Source: Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe
        Producers 1986a.
                                    -  5 -

-------
factors.  Among these were competition from substitute pipe (especially


polyvinyl chloride),  the drop in sewer system construction since EPA grant


cutbacks in 1978, and the drop in housing starts in prior years (U.S.


Industrial Outlook 1983).  Table 3 lists these remaining domestic producers of


asbestos-cement pipe.  The locations of the remaining producers confirm the


fact that the asbestos-cement pipe market is primarily in the southwestern part


of the nation.


  All companies which produce asbestos-cement pipe also produce PVG pipe


(Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers 1986a).   There appears to be a


greater demand for pressure pipe as is shown by Certain-Teed's Riverside, CA


plant which produces only pressure pipe and is currently operating at 95
                                *

percent of capacity,  while Certain-Teed's Hillsboro, TX plant, which produces


both pressure and non-pressure asbestos-cement pipe, is operating at only 60


percent of capacity (Industrial Minerals 1986),  No importers of


asbestos-cement pipe were identified, although according to the U.S. Bureau of


the Census a very small amount (relative to domestic production) of pipe was


imported in 1985 (see Trends) (U.S. Dep, Com. 1986).


  C.  Trends


  Domestic asbestos-cement pipe shipments from 1980 through 1985 are presented


in Table 4.  As Table 4 indicates domestic asbestos-cement pipe shipments have


decreased by about 42 percent since 1980, with a 78 percent decline in


non-pressure pipe shipments and a smaller decline (28 percent) in pressure pipe


shipments (see Attachment, Item 2).  Table 5 presents 1985 production of


asbestos-cement pipe and asbestos consumption.  There were 216,903 tons


(15,062,708 feet) of asbestos-cement pipe, valued at about $110 million,


produced in 1985 (ICP 1986, Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers


1986b, see Attachment, Item 10).
                                        6 -

-------
Table 3.  Producers of Asbestos-Cement Pipe


Company
Capco Inc .
Certain-Teed Corp,

JM Manufacturing Corp.



Plant
Van Buren, AR
Riverside, CA
Hillsboro, TX
Stockton, CA
Denis on, TX
Product
Asbestos -
Cement
X
X

X
X
Lines

PVC
X
X

X
X
                    - 7 -

-------
             Table 4.   Domestic  asbestos-cement  Pipe  Shipments
1980




1981




1982




1983




1984




1985
Total
Year
417,816
346,678
286,555
288,671
296,450
243,873
1,880,043
Shipments
(tons)
302,928
265,147
242,453
248,863
262,527
218,191
1 , 540 , 109
Pressure Pipe Non- Pressure Pipe
Shipments Shipments
(tons) (tons)
114,888
81,531
44,102
39,808
33,923
25,682
339,934
 Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers 1986a.
                                    -  8 -

-------
Table 5.  1985 Production of Asbestos-Cement Pipe
                  Tons of          Production
             Asbestos Consumed       (tons)
  Totala           32,690.8           216,903
  aOne company refused to provide production
  and fiber consumption data for their
  asbestos-cement pipe plant (ICF 1986).
  Their production and fiber  consumption
  have been estimated using a method described
  in Appendix A of this RIA.

  Source: ICF 1986.
                       - 9 -

-------
  Imports of asbestos-cement pipe are insignificant.  In 1984 they were about




4,191 tons, or equal to 1.4 percent, by weight, of domestic shipments and In




1985 they dropped to about 2,790 tons, or 1.1 percent, by weight, of domestic




shipments (U.S. Dep. Conn, 1986).




  The growth of the pipe industry, including asbestos-cement pipe, will be




largely determined by trends in the sewer and waterworks construction industry.




The value of sewer system construction, which accounts for 11 percent of the




asbestos-cement pipe market in 1985, increased by about 5 percent in 1985 and




is expected to increase further in 1986. In the longer term, sewer system




construction may decline slightly due to less federal spending and the




projected eventual leveling of housing starts at a relatively high level (U.S.




Industrial Outlook 1986).  Waterworks construction, accounting for about 89




percent of asbestos-cement pipe use, increased sharply in 1984 and 1985,




recovering from a slump in the early 1980's.  The increased level of housing




starts and the record amounts of municipal bonds issued for waterworks systems




were two important factors responsible for this change (U.S. Industrial Outlook




1986).  For the longer tern outlook, waterworks construction is predicted to be




one of the fastest growing segments of public construction.  Growth will come




from two sources: the high level of housing starts, and the need to replace old




waterworks in cities (engineers recommend that this should be done every 50




years) (U.S. Industrial Outlook 1986).  The new demand in asbestos-cement




pipe's largest market could have a positive impact on the demand for




asbestos-cement pipe, although detailed forecasts are not available.




  Potential growth in asbestos-cement pipe demand will be limited by the




availability of satisfactory substitutes (discussed below).  In some instances,




notably PVC pipe, costs are approaching those of asbestos-cement pipe,




especially large diameter pipes (ICF 1985).
                                      -  10  -

-------
  D,  Substitutes

  As Table 1 indicates, there are many submarkets within the asbestos-cement

pipe market.  In reality, this exhibit provides only a broad aggregate of pipe

submarkets because every site has unique characteristics in which price and

performance tradeoffs among different types of pipe must be made.

  For all 10 submarkets of asbestos-cement pipe, Malcolm Pirnie (1983) found

two main substitutes:  polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and ductile iron pipe.  The

major factors Malcolm Pirnie (1983) considered in determining substitutes in

the non-pressure submarkets were pipe diameter, depth of cover, and soil

characteristics and for pressure submarkets the major factors were pipe

diameter, operating pressure, fluid characteristics and soil characteristics

(Malcolm Pirnie 1983).  (For a more in-depth discussion of how these

substitutes were determined see Malcolm Pirnie 1983.)

  The following paragraphs describe the two substitutes and discuss two other

products that have already replaced asbestos-cement in the over 24 inch

diameter submarkets.  It should be noted that the substitutes discussed here

are the ones most likely to replace asbestos-cement pipe because of their price

and performance characteristics, but are not the only ones available (Malcom

Pirnie 1983).

      1.  Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC)

      PVC pipe is produced by more than 13 U.S. companies including the three

producers of asbestos-cement pipe (ICF 1985).  The advantages of PVC pipe

include the following:

      •   Lightweight;
      •   Long laying lengths; and
      •   Ease of installation (Malcolm Pirnie 1983).

Industry representatives report that PVC can be joined'to existing

asbestos-cement pipe when repairs in water or sewer mains are required (ICF

1985).  Disadvantages of PVC include:

                                      -  11

-------
      •   Subject to attack by certain organic chemicals.

      •   Subject to excessive deflection when improperly installed,

      •   Limited range of diameters are available.

      •   Subject to surface changes caused by long tern ultra-violet
          exposure (Malcolm Pirnie 1983).

In addition it cannot withstand high temperatures as well as asbestos-cement

pipe or some other substitutes (ICF 1985).

  PVC is the most important substitute for asbestos-cement pipe because it

could fill much of the asbestos-cement pipe market if asbestos were banned

(American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association 1986, Industrial Minerals 1986),
                                                               n
especially in the following applications (Malcolm Pirnie 1983):J

      •   pressure pipe, 0-150 psi, 4"-12" diameter
      •   pressure pipe, 0-150 psi, 12"-24" diameter
      •   non-pressure, 0'-16' deep, 4"-24" diameter

Thus PVC is the most probable substitute for the "small" end of the

asbestos-cement pressure pipe market (small diameter pipe under low pressure),

and for all diameter pipes (at relative shallow depths) in the non-pressure

market.  PVC has largely taken over the sewer market (Industrial Minerals 1986,

Sussex Plastics Engineering 1988a and b, JM Manufacturing 1988).

      2,  Ductile Iron  fDI) Pine

      Ductile iron pipe is manufactured by at least six companies, including

the Jim Walter Corporation (the parent company of U.S.  Pipe and Foundry),

American Cast Iron Pipe Company, McWane Cast Iron Pipe Company, Pacific Cast
       ^ In the 1986 report, ductile iron was the pipe chosen to replace
  asbestos-cement in the pressure pipe, 0-150 psi, 12"-24" diameter category.
  Based on the updated Sussex Plastics Engineering (1988) survey of PVC pipe
  standards and availability, PVC is the most likely substitute for asbestos is
  this submarket (Sussex Plastics Engineering 1988a and b and ICF estimate).
         In 1988, PVC has also taken over the 4"-12" non-pressure
  (sewer/gravity) pipe market and might therefore also take away the >16' deep,
  4"-12" diameter market from the other major substitute, ductile iron (JM
  Manufacturing 1988).  However, because this submarket represents only 0.15
  percent of the entire asbestos-cement pipe market, it was considered
  insignificant and has been left as a ductile iron submarket in this analysis.

                                      - 12  -

-------
Iron Company, the Clow Company, and Atlantic States Cast Iron Company.  Clow,

Atlantic States, and Pacific States are all owned by McWane Cast Iron Pipe

Company.  U.S. Pipe and Foundry and American Cast Iron Pipe Company are the

largest producers (Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association 1986b).

  Ductile iron is produced by adding magnesium to molten iron and then casting

the materials centrifugally to control pipe thickness.  The pipe is lined with

cement mortar and often encased in plastic to prevent internal and external

corrosion.  The pipe is usually cut into 18 or 20 foot lengths,

  The major advantages of ductile iron pipe include:

      •   Long laying lengths;
      •   Not brittle;
      •   High internal pressure and load bearing capacity; and
      •   High beam and impact strength (Malcolm Pirnie 1983).

Ductile iron is very strong, can handle stress from water hammer and highway

traffic, and is more flexible and less brittle than cement-based pipes.  Major

disadvantages of ductile iron are:

      •   Subject to corrosion where acids are present;
      •   Subject to chemical attack in corrosive soils; and
      •   High weight (Malcolm Pirnie 1983).

However, DI is usually lined and sometimes encased to prevent corrosion and

rusting.

  Ductile iron pipe is a direct competitor with asbestos-cement pipe in several

submarkets, most importantly in parts of the pressure pipe (water main)

submarket.  In this study, DI has been chosen as the probable substitute for

asbestos-cement pipe in the following submarkets (Malcolm Pirnie 1983):

      •   pressure pipe, >150 psi,  4"-24" diameter
      •   non-pressure pipe, >16' deep, 4"-24" diameter
                                      - 13  -

-------
  Table 6 shows the costs of asbestos-cement pipe and its two major

substitutes, PVC and ductile iron.   F.O.B. plant prices are based on weighted

averages of several companies' prices (see Attachment, Items 4-7).

Installation costs were derived from Means Guide to Building Construction Costs

(1986) (see Attachment, Item 8).  In 1986, industry representatives reported

that the price of PVC had come down as the market for it had grown and possibly

because of falling oil and natural gas prices (Industrial Minerals 1986).

Since 1986, the price of PVC pipe has increased approximately 50 percent due to

a temporary shortage of resin, which is one of the primary ingredients in the

manufacture of PVC pipe.  When the supply of resin increases, the price of PVC

pipe should decline (see Attachment, Items 5a-b) (JM Manufacturing 1988, Sussex

Plastics Engineering 1988a).  DI is overall the most expensive substitute.

  The following concrete substitutes have already replaced asbestos-cement pipe

in the over 24 inch diameter submarkets; asbestos-cement pipe is no longer wade

in diameters greater than 24 inches.

          a.  Prestressed Concrete _Pipe.. (PCPJ

          Prestressed concrete pipe is the most probable substitute for

asbestos-cement pipe in large water mains (greater than 24" diameter). PCP is

all pressure pipe.  It ranges from 16 to 252 inches in diameter.  It is less

expensive, less brittle, and comes in longer lengths, 20 feet or longer, than

asbestos-cement pipe (American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association 1986).
       * There is some uncertainty about the comparative installation costs of
  asbestos-cement and DI pipes.  Estimates given by industry representatives
  indicated that ductile iron Is sometimes more expensive to install than
  asbestos-cement pipe because its flexibility demands some compacting of the
  soil around the pipe.  Yet engineers also say that DI is easier to install
  because it is less brittle and comes in longer lengths, normally 18 feet
  sections as opposed to asbestos-cement which is 10 and 13 feet (Ductile Iron
  Pipe Research Association 1986a).

                                      -  14 -

-------
             Table  6.   Cost  of Asbestos-Cement  Pipe  and  Substitutes
                     Asbestos-
                      Cement
                       Pipe
        PVC    Ductile Iron
        Pipe       Pipe
                          References
FOB Plant Costa
(S/foot)
1986b,
 6.74      6.84     10.01       Certain-Teed 1986,
                                JM Manufacturing

                    McWane 1986, U.S. Pipe
                    1986, Atlantic Cast
                    Iron Pipe 1986.
Installation Cost'
($/foot)
 2.20
 4.24
 5.86
Means 1985.
Total Cost ($/foot)
 8.94     11.08     15.87
Operating Lifec
(years)
50
50
50
ICF 1985.
Present Valued
($/foot)
 8.94     11.08     15.87
aSee Attachment, Items 4-7 for calculations.

^Derived from Means 1985.   See Attachment, Item 8 for calculations.

C0perating life estimates  for pipe vary from 35 to 1,000,000 years.  Operating
life depends on many factors, including the appropriateness of the pipe for a
specific site and application.  The 50 years estimated here is a reasonable
estimate for the useful life of pipe (ICF 1985).

^Present values equal total cost because operating life is the same for
asbestos-cement pipe and its substitutes.
                                      - 15  -

-------
  PGP is made of sand, gravel, and cement cast into various thicknesses and




lengths.  Steel wire under tension is wound around the outside of the pipe core




before a mortar coating is applied.  The wire adds to the pipe's ability to




withstand the forces of water flowing through it under pressure.  Another type




of concrete pipe which is very similar to PCP is pretensioned concrete pipe.




It is wade the same way as PCP except that a rod, as opposed to a wire, is




wrapped around the pipe before the last mortar coat.  This rod enables one to




use less steel for the interior cylinder than for PCP (U.S. Concrete Pipe




1986).  PCP and other types of concrete pipe are produced by many manufacturers




who can use readily-available local materials and produce customized shapes and




lengths to meet local specifications.




          b.  Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)




          Reinforced concrete pipe and other pipes have already substituted for




asbestos-cement pipe in storm drains and sewer lines which require diameters




greater than 24 inches.




  RCP is made of sand, gravel, and cement reinforced with steel bars and/or




welded wire mesh (ICF 1985).  It differs from PCP and pretensioned concrete




pipe in that RCP has steel bars or a wire cage for a core instead of a steel




cylinder and it does not have a wire or rod wrapped around it before the final




mortar coat.  The lack of & steel cylinder core makes it more permeable than




the previously mentioned concrete pipes.  Therefore it is used for nuisance




runoff, sewer and storm drain pipe (U.S. Concrete Pipe 1986).  At large




diameters, it was less expensive than asbestos-cement pipe.  The price factor




explains why over 60 percent of U.S. sewer lines of greater than 24" diameter




are made of reinforced concrete.  The second most important material used in




this submarket (greater than 24" diameter) is vitrified clay pipe, which




accounts for 15 percent of the in-place pipe. In 1981, asbestos-cement pipe
                                      -  16  -

-------
occupied fifth place in this market, accounting for 0.5 percent of it (Krusell




and Cogley 1982).




  Reinforced concrete pipe is produced by many manufacturers in the United




States, in contrast to asbestos-cement pipe, which is produced at only a few




plants.  The disappearance of asbestos-cement pipe from the market has had no




noticeable impact on the submarkets in which reinforced concrete pipe already




dominated.




  If asbestos-cement pipe were not available, based on the 1981 subraarket




shares, it is estimated that by weight of asbestos-cement pipe, 91,16 percent




would shift to PVC and 8.84 percent to ductile iron (see Attachment, Item 9).




By linear foot, 92.63 of the previous purchasers of asbestos-cement pipe would




purchase PVC and 7.37 percent would use ductile iron (see Attachment, Iten 1).




Table 7 presents the data for the asbestos regulatory cost model and summarizes




the findings of this analysis.  Data inputs for the Asbestos Regulatory Cost




Model are presented in units of linear feet because prices of asbestos-cement




pipe and its substitutes are only available in cost per linear foot.




  E.  Summary




  There are two types of asbestos-cement pipe; pressure pipe which comprises 89




percent of the asbestos-cement pipe market and non-pressure pipe which




comprises about 11 percent of the market (Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe




Producers 1986a),  Pressure pipe applications include conveyance of potable




water, force main sewers, industrial process lines, and industrial




fire-protection systems.  Non-pressure pipe applications include use in stem




drains and sewers (Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers 1986b),




  Three companies, with a total of five plants, are still producing




asbestos-cement pipe.  In 1981, there had been nine plants operating (ICF 1985,




ICF 1986).  From 1980 through 1985 domestic pipe shipments have declined
                                      -  17  -

-------
                                             Table 7,  Data Inputs for Asb*ato* Regulatory Cost Wo«St»i
                         Output     Product Asbestos     Consumption       Price                  Equivalent Price
      Product            (ft.)        Coefficient      Production Ratio   (S/ft.)   Useful Ufa       ($/ft.)        Market Share      Reference
Asbestos-Cement Pipe   15,062,708        0.0022
                                                            1.01Z8
                                                  8,94     50 years
                                                                                                        8.94
                                                                                               H/A
                                                                                                                                     See Attachment
PTC Pipe
H/A
                                   N/A
                                                 11.08     50 years
                                                                             11.08
                                                                                              92,831       See Attachment
Ductile Iron Pip«
H/A
M/A
                                                             H/A
                                                 15.87     50 years
                                                                                                       15.87
                                                                                                                         7.371       See Attachment
N/A:  Not Applicable.
 See Attachment, Items 1, 3-8, and 10-12 far explanation.

-------
42 percent, with a 78 percent decline in non-pressure pipe shipments and & 28




percent decline in pressure pipe shipments (Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe




Producers 1986a).   Imports in 1985, about 1 percent of domestic shipments, were




insignificant (U.S. Dep, Com. 1986).  The two major substitutes are PVC and




ductile iron pipe.  If asbestos were no longer available it is estimated (by




linear foot) that PVC would take 92.63 and ductile iron 7.37 of the




asbestos-cement pipe market.  PVC costs slightly more.than asbestos-cement pipe




and ductile iron costs almost twice as much as asbestos-cement pipe.
                                      -  19  -

-------
                                  ATTACHMENT
(1) Calculations	to derive each supmarket's share, by linear feet, of the
    entire asbestos-cement pipe market.

    In order to determine the market share by linear feet of each of the ten
asbestos-cement pipe submarkets shown in Table 1, it is necessary to convert
the amount of tons of asbestos-cement pipe produced in each submarket into
linear feet of asbestos-cement pipe.  First the average weight per foot of
asbestos-cement pipe is calculated for each submarket.  This weight per foot
for each submarket is then multiplied by the tons of asbestos-cement pipe
produced in 1981 in each submarket, giving linear feet produced in each
submarket (As stated in the text, 1981 production data is the most recent
available that is broken down into the ten submarkets).  The calculations are
shown in the following subsections a and b.

    (a) Calculation of the weight per foot of asbestos-cement pipe In each
        fj ubmarke t.

    For the 0-150 pressure pipe submarkets an average was taken of Class 100
and 150 pipe.  For the 0-8 feet depth non-pressure pipe submarkets Class 2400
pipe was used.  For the 8-16 feet depth an average of Class 2400 and 3300 were
used.   For the >150 psi pressure pipe submarkets, an average was taken of
Class 150 and 200 pipe and for >16 feet depth suboarkets Class 3300 was used,

    Submarkets taken by PVC as determined by Malcolm Pirnie (1983), Sussex
Plastics Engineering (1988a), and IGF estimate.
    4"
    6"
    8"
   10"
   12"
           Class 100
            fib/ft)
    ,2
    .6
 7,
10,
16,0
23.5
30.6
                          0-150 psi. 4"-12"  diameter
Class 150
_Qb/ftJ

  7.9
  11.9
  18.3
  30.0
  39.1
                        Average for this submarket is 19.SI Ib/ft,
   12"
   14"
   16"
   18"
   20"
   24"
              0-150 psi. 12"-24" diameter

Class 100     Class 150
 fib/ft)       (Ib/ft)

   30.6          39.1
   36.3          51.8
   46.6          65.9
   63.8          91.3   Average for this submarket is 73.53 Ib/ft.
   77.0         111.0
  109.0         160.0
                                    -  20  -

-------
                       0-8'  deep.  4"-12" diameter

4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
Class 2400
fib/ft)
5.3
9.1
12.8
17.5
23.3
                   Average for this submarket is 13.61 Ib/ft.
                      0-8' deep. 12"-24" diameter

12"
14"
15"
16"
18"
20"
21"
24"
Class 2400
fib /ft)
23.3
27.1
30.0
33.2
43.2
48.9
54.1
66.1
                   Average for this submarket is 40.74 Ib/ft.
                      8-16' deep. 4"-12" diameter
 4"
 6"
 8"
10"
12"
Class 2400
 fib/ft)

   5.3
   9.1
  12.8
  17.5
  23.3
Class 3300
 fib/ft)

   6.6
  10.7
  14.9
  20.2
  27.1
Average for this submarket is 14.75 Ib/ft.
                      8-16'  deec.  12"-24"  diameter
        Class 2400
         fib/ft)
12"
14"
15"
16"
18"
20"
21"
24"
23.3
27.1
30.0
33.2
43.2
48.9
54.1
66.1
              Class 3300
              	fib/ft)	

                27.1
                31.2
                34.8
                37.7
                48.2
                54.9
                62.3
                73.9
                                 Average for this submarket is 43,50 Ib/ft.
                                 -  21  -

-------
    Submarkets taken by Ductile Iron (DI) as determined by Malcolm Pirnie
(1983), Sussex Plastics Engineering (1988a) and IGF estimate.
    4"
    6"
    8"
   10"
   12"
Class 100
 fib/ft)

   7.9
  11.9
  18.3
  30.0
  39.1
                          >150 psi ... 4" -12" diameter
                         Class 150
       9.2
      15.6
      23.1
      35.4
      48.9
Average for this submarket is 23.94 Ib/ft.
                              >150 psi. 12"-24"
   12"
   14"
   16"
   18"
   20"
   24"
Class 150
 flb/ff)

   39.1
   51.8
   65.9
   91.3
  111.0
  160.0
    Class 200
     fIb/ft)

      48.9
      61.8
      79.9
              Average for this submarket is 78.86
                          >16'  deep.  4"-12"  diameter
    4"
    6"
    8"
   10"
   12"
Class 3300
 (Ib/ft)

   6.6
  10.7
  14.9
  20.2
  27.1
Average for this submarket is 15.90 Ib/ft.
     •* Weights were not found for all sizes, so this is an average of only the
weights shown.  The reader may note that later, for calculating ductile iron
prices, averages were taken across rows for pipe of the sane  class, however,
because the pipes in the above case are of different classes  we did not feel
this method was appropriate.
                                    -  22 -

-------
                         >16'  deep. 11"-24"  diameter.


12"
14"
15"
16"
18"
20"
21"
24"
Class 3300
rib/ft)
27,1
31.2
34.8
37.7
48.2
54.9
62.3
73.9
                      Average for this submarket is 46.26 Ib/ft.
Source: Certain-Teed 1986c.

    (b) Calculations to convert ton production for each submarket into each
        submarket's share by linear feet of the .entire asbestos-cement pipe
        market.

              Tons
            Produced
            in 1981                                    Linear Feet
            for 24"     Multiplication Factors to        of Pipe      Subaarket
            Diameter      Convert to Linear Fe_et      Per Submarket     Share

                                 PVC  Submarkets

0-150 psi,
4"-12"a     108,843   x 2,000 Ib/ton x 1 ft/19.51 -   11,157,662.737    59.52%

0-150 psi,
12"-24"a    112,957   x 2,000 Ib/ton x 1 ft/73.53 -    3,072,405.821    16.39%

0-8' deep,
4"-12n        8,977   x 2,000 Ib/ton x 1 ft/13.61 -    1,319,177.076     7.04%

0-8' deep,
12-24"       26,182   x 2,000 Ib/ton x 1 ft/40.74 -    1,285,321.551     6.86%

8-16' deep,
4"-12"        1,870   x 2,000 Ib/ton x 1 ft/14.75 -      253,559.322     1.35%

8-16' deep,
12".24"       5,984   x 2,000 Ib/ton x 1 ft/43.50 -      275,126.437   	1.47%

                                                                        92.63i
                                    -  23  -

-------
              Tons
            Produced
            in 1981                                    Linear Feet
            for 24"     Multiplication Factors to        of Pipe      Submarket
            Diameter    	Convert to Linear Feet      Per Submarket     Share

                                 PI Submarkets

>150 psi,
4"-12'ta      11,969   x 2,000 Ib/ton x 1 ft/23.94 -      999,916.458     5.33%

>150 psi,
12"-24"a     12,717   x 2,000 Ib/ton x 1 ft/78.86 -      322,520.923     1.72%

>16' deep,
4»-12«          224   x 2,000 Ib/ton x 1 ft/15.90 -       28,176.101     0.15%

>16' deep,
12-24"          748   x 2,000 Ib/ton x 1 ft/46.26 -       32,338.954     0.17%

                                                                         7.37%

                                            Total     18,746,205.379   100.00%
Total market shares held by pressure and non-pressure pipe,

            Pressure Pipe    :   82.96%
            Non-Pressure Pipe:   17.04%

Total market shares of the asbestos-cement replacement market that will be
taken by PVC and Ductile Iron Pipe.

            PVC Pipe         :   92.63'%
            Ductile Iron Pipe:    7.37%

aThese are pressure pipe submarkets.

The source for the 1981 tonnage is ICF 1985.  The weight per ton came from
Attachment, Item la.
(2) Calculation of the decline of asbestos-cement shipments, intons, since
    1980. based on Table 4.

    All Pipe

        <1980-1985)/1980  x 100 - (417,816-243,873)/417,816 x 100 - 42%

    Pressure Pipe

        (1980-1985)/1980  x 100 - (302,928-218,191)/302,928 x 100 - 28%
                                    -  24 -

-------
    Non-pressure Pipe

        (1980-1985)/1980  x 100 - (114,888-25,682)/114,888 x 100 - 78%

    Source:  Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers 1986s.

(3) Prices for asbestos-cement pressure and non-pressure pipe in each submarket

    For the 0*150 pressure pipe submarkets an average was taken of Class 100
and 150 pipe.

    For the 0-8 feet depth non-pressure pipe submarkets Class 2400 pipe was
used.

    For the 8-16 feet depth non-pressure pipe submarkets an average of Class
2400 and 3300 were used.

    For the >150 psi pressure pipe submarkets an average was taken of Class 150
and 200 pipe (when prices for Class 200 are not available on average of Class
150 is taken),  and for >16 feet depth submarkets Class 3300 was used.

    Suboarkets  taken by PVC as determined by Malcolm Pirnie (1983), Sussex
Plastics Engineering (1988a) and 1CF estimate,

                           0-150 PS 1.4"-12"diameter


kn
6"
8"
10"
12"
Class 100
(S/ft>
2.05
2.66
3.95
4.96
6.53
Class 150
(S/ft)
2,16
3.01
4,46
6.51
8.30
                                   Average for this submarket is $4.46/ft.
                          0-150 psi.  12"-24" diameter


12"
14"
16"
18"
20"
24"
Class 100
($/ft)
6.53
7.92
10.14
15.31
17.53
25.15
Class 150
fS/ft)
8.30
10.11
12.49
18.31
22.27
31.05
                            18.31  Average for this submarket is $15.43/ft.
                                    - 25  -

-------
                        0-8'  deeu.  4"-12"  diameter
 4"
 6"
 8"
10"
12"
Class 2400
  (S/ft)

   1.15
   1.65
   2.40    Average for this submarket is $2.87/ft.
   4.00
   5.15
                       0-8' deeo  12"-24" diameter
Class 2400
fS/ff>
12"
14"
15"
16"
18"
20"
21"
24"
5
6
8
8
11
14
14
20
.15
.21
.40
.83
.38
.11
.36
.67
                   Average for this submarket is §11.14/ft.
 4"
 6"
 8"
10"
12"
Class 2400
  f$/ft>

   1.15
   1.65
   2.40
   4.00
   5.15
                       8-16' deep. 4"-12" diameter

                      Class 3300
                        iS/ft)
1.31
1.88
2.57
4.39
5.73
Average for this submarket is $3.02/ft.
                       8-16'  deep.  12"-24"  diameter


12"
14"
15"
16"
18"
20"
21"
24"
Class 2400
(S/ft)
5.15
6.21
8.40
8.83
11.38
14.11
14.36
20.67
Class 3300
(S/ft)
5.73
7.85
9.07
9.61
12.38
15.39
15.80
20.96
                                 Average for this submarket is $ll,62/ft.
                                 -  26  -

-------
    Subtnarkets taken by Ductile Iron (DI) as determined by Malcolm Finale
(1983),  Sussex Plastics Engineering (1988a) and ICF estimate.
    4"
    6"
    8"
   10"
   12"
           Class 150
2.16
3.01
4.46
6.51
8.30
             >150 psi. 4"-12" diameter

           Class 200
             (S/ft)
       2.36
       3.41
       4.78
       7.50
       9.77
Average for this submarket is $5,23/ft,
                          >150 us!, 12"-24tt diameter
Class 150
(S/ft)
12"
14"
16"
18"
20"
24"
8
10
12
18
22
31
.30
.11
.49
.31 ,
.27
.05
                    Average for this subnarket is §17.09/ft
    4"
    6"
    8"
   10"
   12"
           Class  3300
1.31
1.88
2.57
4.39
5.73
                          >16' dee-p. 4"-12" diameter
Average for this submarket is $3.18/ft.
                                   - 27 -

-------
                          XL6' dcet>. 12 "-24" diameter.


12"
14"
15"
16"
18"
20"
21"
24"
Class 3300
(S/ft)
5.73
7.85
9.07
9.61
12.38
15.39
15.80
20.96
                       Average for this submarket  is  $12,10/ft.
Source: Certain-Teed 1986e.

(4)  WeJEhted average calculation of P.O.B. plant price  for A/C pipe

                               Submarket's Share
                                of Overall PVC                    Submarket's
                                    Market                         Weighted
          Submarke_t	   (bv Linear Foot)_ x Price/Foot — Price  Per  Foot
0-150 psi, 4" -12" diameter
0-150 psi, 12" -24" diameter
0-8' deep, 4" -12" diameter
0-8' deep, 12" -24" diameter
8-16' deep, 4" -12" diameter
8-16' deep, 12 "-24" diameter
>-50 psi, 4" -12" diameter
>-150 psi, 12" -14" diameter
X-16' deep, 4" -12" diameter
>+16' deep, 12" -14" diameter

0.5952
0.1639
0.0704
0.0686
0.0135
0.0147
0.0533
0.0172
0.0015
0.0017
Total
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
§ 4.46
$15.43
$ 2.87
$11.14 -
$ 3.02
$11.62
$ 5.23
$17.09 -
$ 3.18 -
§12.10
Weighted Price
$2.65
$2.53
$0.20
$0.76
$0.04
$0.17
$0.28
$0.29
$0.00
SO. 02
$6.94
However, according to Certain-Teed (1986), these prices are 3 percent above
plant F.O.B. cost.

Therefore, the actual price is:  $6.94/1.03 - $6.74

Source:  Certain-Teed 1986, ICF 1985.
                                    -  28 -

-------
(5a)   Calculations of PVCPipe nrices_._f_or__gVC Submarkets
      (Source;   JM Manufacturing 1986b)

                          0-150 Dsi. 4"-12"  diameter

4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
Class 150
fS/ft)
1.20
2.20
3.80
5.75
8.00
                     Average for this submarket is S4.19/ft.
                          0-150 psi. 4"-12"  diameter

   See Items 5b and c.   Average for this submarket is $17.19,
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
Sewer Pipe
(S/ft)
0.45
1.00
1.85
2.90
4.10
                      Average for this submarket is $2,06/ft.
                          0-8'  deep.  12"-24" diameter

           Sewer Pipe
             (S/ft)

   12"         4.10
   15"         5.90
   18"         9.85    Average for this submarket is $10.29/ft.
   21"        13.72
   24"        17.87
    4"
    6"
    8"
   10"
   12"
               8 -16'_ deep. 4 " -12 " diame te r

Sewer Pipe
  fS/ft)

   0.45
   1.00
   1.85    Average for this submarket is $2.06/ft.
   2.90
   4.10
                                    - 29  -

-------
                          8-16'  deep. JL2"^24"...diameter
   12"
   15"
   18"
   21"
   24"
     Sewer Pipe
       f S./f t)

        4.10
        5.90
        9.85
       13.72
       17.87
 Average for this submarket is $10.29/ft.
(5b)
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
Calculation of 1988 PVC Pipe Prices for Updated PVC  Subrnarkets

         0-150  nsi.  4"-12"  diameter.  Water or Pressure Pine
Extrusion
(DR 18)
$ 1.85
$ 3.50
$ 5.90
$ 8.90
§12.60
JM Manufacturing
CDR 18)
$ 2.00
$ 3.60
$ 6.20
$ 9.20
$13.00

Row Average
$ 1.93
$ 3,55 Average price
$ 6 . 05 submarket is ;
$ 9.05
$12.80
                                                              $6.68
12"
14"
16"
18"
20"
24"
              0-150 psi. 12"-24>< diameter.. Water,.or  Pressure  PJjpe
             (New PVC  subnarke_t.  formerlv_a_. Duet.il_e. .I_ron _submarke_t.)
 Extras ion*
 (PR 18.  25)

   $12.60
   $12.50
   $16.00
   $22.10
   $27.50
   $39.50
JM Manufacturing*
  (PR 18. 25)

     $13.00
     $12.50
     $15.80
     §19.80
     $24.40
     $33.75
Row Average

  $12.80"
  $12.50
  $15.90
  $20.95
  $25.95
  $36.63
Average price for this
submarket is:  $26.04
     * In diameters of 14n-24", DR 25 is the type  of  pressure pipe usually
used.  DR 18, which is more expensive and stronger than DR 25,  is the type of
PVC pipe usually used for diameters of <12"  (JM Manufacturing 1988).
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
               0-8* deep. 4"-12'1 diameter.  Sewer  or  Gravity Pipe

     Extrusion  JM Manufactures  Certain-Teed  Row  Average
$ 0,75
$ 1.60
$ 2.80
$ 4.50
$ 6.20
$ 0.75
$ 1.60
$ 2.90
$ 4.50
$ 6,40
                               $ 0.75
                               $1.50
                               $ 2.75
                               $4.30
                               $6.05
                             $ 0.75
                             $1.57
                             $2,82
                             $ 4.43
                             $6.22
                     Average price  for
                     this submarket
                     is:  $3.16
                                    - 30

-------
12"
15"
18"
21"
24"
               0-8'  dee.ii, .12"-24JLdiameter.  Sewer or Gravity Floe

     Extrusion  JM Manufacturing  Certain-Teed  Row Average
$6.20
$9,20
$14.50
$21.00
$27.00
$ 6.40
? 9.50
$15.10
$21.00
$27.45
$ 6.05
$ 9.25
$14.50
$19.75
$25.50
$6.22
$9.32
$14.70
$20.58
$26,65
Average price for
this submarket
is:  $15,01
         8-16'  dee.  4"-12
                                            Sewer o  Gravity Pie
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
     Extrusion  JM Manufacturing  Certain-Teed  Row Average
$ 0.75
$ 1.60
$2.80
$ 4.50
$6.20
$ 0,75
$1.60
$2.90
$4,50
$ 6.40
$ 0.75
$1.50
$ 2,75
$4,30
$ 6.05
$ 0.75
$ 1.57
$2.82
$ 4.43
$ 6.22
Average price for
this submarket
is:  $3,16
12"
15"
18"
21"
24"
              8-16' deep. 12"-24* .diameter.... Sewer or Gravity Pjlpe

     Extrusion  JM Manufacturing  Certain-Teed  Row Average
$6.20
$9.20
$14.50
$21.00
$27.00
$ 6.40
$9.50
$15.10
$21.00
$27.45
$ 6,05
$ 9.25
$14.50
$19.75
$25.50
$ 6.22
$9.32
$14.70
$20.58
$26.65
Average price for
this submarket
is:  $15.01
(Sources:  Extrusion 1988, JM Manufacturing 1988, and Certain-Teed 1988.)


(5c)  Calculation of 1986 price__pf the newlPVC submarket CO-lSOjpsl. 12"-24")

    The 1988 price of PVC is approximately 51 percent higher than the 1986
price due to a temporary nationwide shortage of resin, one of the primary
ingredients in the manufacture of PVC pipe.  Because of this temporary increase
in price, the 1986 prices of FVC probably are more reflective of the long range
price of PVC than are the 1988 prices.  In order to determine what the 1986
price of the new PVC submarket (0-150 psi, 12"-24" diameter) would be, an
average percent increase in price for all the 1986 submarkets of PVC pipe was
calculated and this percent was then subtracted from the 1988 price of the new
PVC submarket.  These calculations are shown below.
                                    -  31 -

-------
                      Increase  from 1986 PVC Prices_.to_..198JL Erjces
                           Taken from 5a and 5b Above

                                            1988     Percent
                              1986 Price   Price     Increase

0-150 psi, 4"-12" diameter      $ 4.19     $ 6.68     59.31
0-8' deep, 4"-12" diameter      $ 2.06     $ 3.16     53,24
0-8' deep, 12"-24" diameter     §10.29     $15.01     45.87
8-16' deep, 4"-12« diameter     $ 2.06     $ 3.16     53.24
8-16' deep, 12"-24" diameter    $10.29     $15.01     45.87

Average Percent Price Increase                        51.50


    The price for the new PTC category is a 1988 price and thus reflects the
temporary increase due to the resin shortage in the  U.S.  Deducting this
percent increase of 51.50 percent from the 1988 price, we can derive a 1986
price for this new category.

                             $26.04/1.5150 - $17.19
                              *

(6) Calculations of Ductile Iron Pipe Prices (.S/£tl_ f_or_Ductile Iron Submarkets

    All prices are for Class 50 pipe, except for the last Ductile  Iron
submarket.  Each average subniarket price is derived  from the average price for
each diameter within the submarket.

                          >- 150 psi. 4"-12" diameter

                                  Class 50
     McWane  U.S. Pipe  Atlantic  Average

4"     -         -        4,33      4.33
6"     -         -        4.78      4.78     Average for this submarket is
8"    6.03      6.28      6.58      6.30     $6.98/ft.
10"    -         -        8.70      8.70
12"  10.70     10.61     11.13     10.81
                          >~150 psi. 12"-24" diameter

12"  10.70     10.61     11.13     10.81
14"    -         -       14.45     14.45
16"  15.68     16.28     16.93     16.30     Average for this submarket is
18"    -         -       19.58     19.58     $18.44/ft.
20"    -         -       22.39     22.39
24"  26.06     27.06     28.25     27.12
                                      32 -

-------
                             16!___deeB.  4"-12"_diameter
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
-
-
6.03
-
10,70
-
-
6.28
-
10,61
4.33
4.78
6.58
8.70
11.13
4.33
4.78
6.30
8.70
10.81
                                             Average for this submarket is
                                             S6.98/ft.
12"
14"
16"
18"
20"
24"
Class

 50
 52
 52
 54
 54
 54
U.S. Pice
10.61
-
18.70
-
-
34.21
Atlantic
11.13
16.67
19.46
25,19
28.56
35.62
Class 50
Averaee
10,87
16.67
19.08
25.19
28.56
34.92
Average for this submarket is
$22.55/ft.
Sources:  McWane 1986; U.S. Pipe 1986; Atlantic Cast Iron Pipe 1986.
(7) Determination of average, prices _fp.r J°VC and Ductile Iron

    Since PVC is 92,63 percent of the substitute market, we must determine a
weighted market price.

                                      PVC

                                                                   Submarket's
                               Submarket' s Share of                 Weighted
                                Overall PVC Market                    Price
                                 _(bY_linear footy   x P_rice/Foot -   CS/ft.)
    Submarket
0-150 psi, 4"-12" diameter
0-150 psi, 12"-24" diameter
0-8' deep, 4"-12" diameter
0-8' deep, 12"-24" diameter
8'-16' deep, 4"-12" diameter
8'-16' deep, 12"-24" diameter
59.52/92.63
16,39/92,63
7.04/92.63
6.86/92.63
1.35/92.63
. 1.47/92.63
X
X
X
X
X
X
$ 4.19
$17.19
$ 2.06
$10.29
$ 2.06
$10.29
                                                                 $2.69
                                                                 $3.04
                                                                 $0.16
                                                                 $0.76
                                                                 $0.03
                                                                 SO. 16
                                         Total Weighted PVC Price:    $6.84
    Since Ductile Iron is 7.37 percent of the substitute market, we must
determine a weighted market price.
                                    -  33  -

-------
Ductile Iron. .(PI)


Submarket
>-150 psi, 4" -12" diameter
>-150 psi, 12" -24" diameter
>-16' deep, 4" -12" diameter
>-16' deep, 12 "-24" diameter

Submarket 's Share of
Overall DI Market


Subnarket's
Weighted
Price
(by linear foot) x Price/Foot - fS/ft."*
5.33/7.37 x
1.72/7.37 x
0.15/7.37 x
0.17/7.37 x
Total Weighted
(8) Calculations for Installation Costs iS/foot)
$6.98 -
$18.44 -
$ 6.98 -
$22.55 -
DI Price:
$ 5.05
$ 4.30
$ 0.14
S 0.52
$10.01
    Costs are derived using an average of Means 1985 prices for 4" -12" diameter
water distribution pipe.  Piping excavation and backfill are excluded.

          A/C Pressure      PVC Pressure              DI , Class 250
           (150 psi)     (Class 150, SDR 18)            Water Pipe


4"
6"
8"
10"
12"






$1
$1
$2
$2
$2






.68
.74
.34
.51
.71






n
n
$4
$4
$6






.52
.80
.24
.85
,80




Mechanical Joint
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"

Tyson Joint
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
§3
$4
$6
$7
$9


$3
$3
$5
$6
$8
.50
,00
.30
.55
.40


.19
.65
.75
.80
.50
    Average                                   Average Total for
    Total:   $2.20              $4.24         Tyson and Mechanical; $5.86

Source:  Means 1985.
                                    -  34  -

-------
(9) Determination of Submarket Share by Weight Based on 1981 Production8

                                      PVC

                                                       1981 Market Share
                                  1981 Tons Produced       by Weight
     	Submarket	     <-24" Diameter..    _ .   ..(percent)

     0-150 psi, 4"-12" diameter        108,843               37.47
     0-150 psi, 12--24" diameter       112,957               38.89
     0-8' deep, 4n-12" diameter          8,977                3.09
     0-8' deep, 12"-24n diameter        26,182                9.01
     8-16' deep, 4"-12" diameter         1,870                0.64
     8-16' deep, 12"-24" diameter        5.894                2.06
                                       264,813               91.16


                               Ductile Iron (PI)

     >-150 psi, 4"-12" diameter         11,969
     >-150 psi, 12"-24" diameter        12,717
     >-16' deep, 4"-12" diameter           224
     3—16' deep, 12"-24" diameter          748
                                        25,658

     Total 1981 Production             290,471              100.00

aSee text for explanation of why 1981 production data is used.

Source:  ICF 1985.
(10) Calculations for conversion of 1985 asbestos-cement pipe production from
     tons to feet.

     216,903 tons of asbestos-cement pipe were produced in 1985 (ICF 1986).
According to the Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers (I986a),
approximately 16,899,000 feet, or 243,873 tons, of asbestos-cement pressure
pipe were shipped in the U.S. in 1985.  Dividing tons by feet gives 0,0144
tons/feet of asbestos-cement pressure pipe.

          216,903 tons/(0.0144 tons/feet) - 15,062,708 feet of
          asbestos-cement pipe produced in 1985.
     " Even though this ratio is derived for pressure pipe,  because pressure
pipe is about 90 percent of all asbestos-cement pipe shipments, we apply it to
our ton figure above, which includes both pressure and non-pressure
asbestos-cement pipe.  Comparable figures of the length of non-pressure pipe
tonnage were not available.

                                    -  35  -

-------
(11) Calculations for..product asbestos coefficient for asbestos regulatory cost
     model.

     In 1985, 32,690.7 tons of asbestos were consumed in the production of
asbestos-cement pipe (IGF 1986)..

          32,690.7 tons of asbestos/15,062,708 feet of asbestos-cement pipe
          - 0.0022 tons/feet.


(12) Calculations for consumption production ratio for asbestos regulatory cost
     model.

     In 1985, 2790,4065 tons of asbestos-cement pipe were imported into the
U.S. (U.S. Dep. Comrn 1986).  This ton figure is converted to linear feet using
the 0.0144 tons/linear foot figure derived previously.

          2790.4065  tons/(0,0144 tons/feet)
          - 193,778 feet of asbestos-cement pipe were imported in 1985.

     The consumption production ratio is:

          (domestic production + imports)/(domestic production)
          - (15,062,708 + 193,778)/15,062,708
          - 1.0129.
                                    -  36  -

-------
REFERENCES
American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association.   J. Willet,  1986 (October 15).
Vienna, VA.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, IGF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

American Water Works Association.  J. Sullivan.  1986 (July 15).  Comments of
Jack Sullivan, Deputy Director of AWWA at the Environmental Protection Agency
legislative hearing on its asbestos ban and phaseout proposal,

Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers.  1986a (June 29).  Written
statement of Joseph Jackson, President,  In Opening- Written Comments of the
Asbestos Information Agency/North America and Asbestos Institute. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  OPTS 62036.

Association of Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers.  1986b (July 15),  Testimony of
Joseph Jackson, President.  Environmental Protection Agency Legislative hearing
on its asbestos ban and phaseout proposal,

Atlantic Cast Iron Pipe.  F. Tone,  1986 (December 24),  Phillipsburg, NJ.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Bureau of Mines.  1986a.  Washington, DC.  U.S. Department of the Interior.
Mineral Commodity Summaries 1986.

Bureau of Mines.  1986b.  Washington, DC.  U.S. Department of the Interior.
Asbestos, In: 1985 Minerals Yearbook.  Volume 1 by Robert Virta,  U.S.
Government Printing Office.  Washington, D.C.

Capco Inc.  H. Gunin. 1986a (November 5).  Birmingham, AL.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

Capco Inc.  Perrell,  1986b (December 23).  Birmingham, AL.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC,

Certain-Teed.  A. Baruer.  1986 (December 22).  Houston, TX.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

Certain-Teed.  J. Junta.  1988 (May 19).  Valley Forge, PA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.

Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association.  M. Wooten.  1986a (October 15).
Birmingham, Al.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association.  M. Tucker.  '1986b (October 20),
California, Regional Engineer.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael
Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC,
                                    -  37  -

-------
Extrusion Technologies.  J. Edoondson.  1988 (May 19).  tfarrentown, VA.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Fairfax, VA.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H.  Asbestos Products and Their Substitutes,
in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products,
Washington, DC: Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated,  1986 (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos-Cement Pipe.  Washington, DC.

Industrial Minerals.  1986 (April).  Certain-Teed in profile: Tackling the
asbestos cement dilemma.  G, Clarke, editor.  London,  pp. 68-74.

JM Manufacturing Corporation.  A. Gorski,  1986a (December 22). Stockton, CA.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

JM Manufacturing Corporation.  Sales Representative.  1986b (November 21).
Stockton, CA.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC. »

JM Manufacturing Corporation.  F. Merchant.  1988 (May 19).  Virginia.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Fairfax, Va.

Krusell N.,Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis. Revised Final Report.  Washington, DC:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract 68-02-3168.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.  1983 (September).  Investigation of asbestos-cement pipe
in the water and wastewater industry.  Paramus, New Jersey:  Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc.

McWane Pipe Company.  S. Simoneaux,  1986 (November 21).  Birmingham, AL.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Means.  1985.  Means Building Construction Cost Data 1986.  R.S. Means and
Company.  Kingston, MA.  1985.

Sussex Plastics Engineering, Inc.  1988a (May 13).   Survey of Plastic Pipe
Products Suitable for Replacement of Asbestos Cement, Pipe.  Andover, NJ.
Prepared for;  ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, Va.  22031.

Sussex Plastics Engineering/ Inc.  L, Sansone.  1988b (May 19).  Andover, NJ.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Fairfax, VA.

U.S.  Concrete Pipe.  K. Tarpinian.  1986 (November 24).  Baldwin Park, CA,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.
                                    -  38  -

-------
U.S. Dep.  Coinm.  1986.  U.S. Department of Commerce.  Consumption of Imports FY
246/1985 Annual.  Suitland, MD.  Bureau of the Census.  U.S.  Department of
Commerce.
U.S. Industrial Outlook.  1983 (January)
Department of Commerce.  Washington, DC.

U.S. Industrial Outlook,  1986 (January)
Department of Commerce.  Washington, DC.
Chapter 2,  Construction.   U.S.


Chapter 1,  Construction.   U.S.
U.S. Pipe and Foundry.  C. Kieselhorst.  1986 (November 21).  Birmingham, AL.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.
                                    -  39  -

-------
U.S. Dep.  Coinm.  1986.  U.S. Department of Commerce.  Consumption of Imports FY
246/1985 Annual.  Suitland, MD.  Bureau of the Census.  U.S.  Department of
Commerce.
U.S. Industrial Outlook.  1983 (January)
Department of Commerce.  Washington, DC.

U.S. Industrial Outlook,  1986 (January)
Department of Commerce.  Washington, DC.
Chapter 2,  Construction.   U.S.


Chapter 1,  Construction.   U.S.
U.S. Pipe and Foundry.  C. Kieselhorst.  1986 (November 21).  Birmingham, AL.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.
                                    -  39  -

-------
XV.  Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet




  A.  Product Description




  Asbestos is used as a reinforcing material because of its high tensile




strength, flexibility, thermal resistance, chemical inertness, and large




aspect ratio (ratio of length to diameter).




  Flat asbestos-cement sheet is made from a mixture of Portland cement,




asbestos fiber, and silica.  Sometimes, an additional fraction of finely




ground inert filler and pigment may be included.  Asbestos fiber is used to




improve the strength, stiffness, and toughness of the material, resulting in a




product that is rigid, durable, noneombustible, and resistant to heat,




weather, and corrosive chemicals (Krusell and Cogley 1982).  In the past,




sheets usually contained between 15 and 40 percent asbestos fiber with




Portland cement and silica accounting for the rest (ICF 1985).  However,




Nicolet, the only remaining U.S. producer of asbestos-cement flat sheet has a




formulation containing 45.6 percent asbestos (ICF 1986).  A significant




feature of the asbestos-cement sheet is its wet strength, which enables it to




be molded into complex shapes at the end of the production process (Krusell




and Cogley 1982).




  Asbestos-cement sheets, both flat and corrugated, are manufactured by




using a dry, a wet, or a wet-mechanical process.  In the dry process,




asbestos, cement, and filler are mixed together; the mixture is placed on a




flat conveyor belt, sprayed with water, and compressed by steel rolls; the




sheet is then cut and autoclaved.  The wet process is similar, except water is




added to the mixture in the initial stages, forming a slurry.  The slurry is




then placed on a flat conveyor belt and the excess water is squeezed out by a




press.  The wet-mechanical process is similar in principal to some papermaking




processes:  a thin layer of slurry is pumped onto a fine screen from which




water is removed; this layer is then transferred onto a conveyor, from which




                                      - 1 -

-------
more water is removed by vacuum; oore layers are then added, their water

removed, and the process continues until the desired thickness is achieved

(Krusell and Cogley 1982).

  Flat asbestos-cement sheet is used where fire and moisture resistance are

required.  It is used primarily in the construction industry as wall lining in

factories and agricultural buildings, fire-resistant walls, curtain walls,

partitions, soffit material (covering the underside of structural components),

and decorative paneling in both exterior and interior applications.  It is

also used in utility applications, such as electrical barrier boards, bus bar

run separators, reactance coil partitions, and as a component of vaults,

ovens, safes, heaters, and boilers.  A second type of flat asbestos-cement

sheet being produced domestically is used for laboratory work surfaces, such

as table tops and fume hoods liners (Nicolet 1986a and b, Krusell and Cogley

1982).  In 1985, approximately 20 percent of flat asbestos-cement sheet

production was for laboratory surfaces and 80 percent for construction/utility

applications1 (Nicolet 1986b),

  B.  Producers and Importers of Flat Asbestos-Cement Sheet

  In 1981 there were four producers of flat asbestos-cement sheet:

International Building Products, Johns-Manville, Nicolet, and National Gypsum

(TSCA 1982).   Manville Sales Corporation (formerly Johns-Manville) stopped

flat asbestos-cement sheet production in 1985.  In 1986, Nicolet is the only

remaining U.S. producer although they have temporarily stopped flat

asbestos-cement sheet production due to a shortage of orders (IGF 1986),
       1 Asbestos-cement flat sheet for construction/utility applications can be
  broken down into two categories:  ebonized, or asphalt-impregnated flat
  asbestos-cement sheet (no longer being produced in the U.S.), once used as a
  mounting/insulating board for low to medium temperature, high voltage
  electrical apparatus; and non-ebonized (construction/utility) asbestos-cement
  sheet, used for low voltage applications with no moisture (Tailored Industries
  1986).

                                      - 2 -

-------
  There is only one known importer of flat asbestos-cement sheet into the

U.S., Atlas International Building Products (AIBP) located in Montreal,

Quebec, Canada (Atlas 1986a, b, and c).  In 1981, there were four U.S.

importers of flat asbestos-cement sheet:  R.E. Hebert & Co., Rochester, NY;

Gil Corporation (now Eternit, Inc.), Reading, PA; Roofing Wholesale Co,,

Phoenix, AZ; and Tara Wholesale Co., Seattle, WA  (ICF 1984),  None of these

companies currently import flat asbestos-cement sheet (R.E. Hebert & Co. 1986,

Eternit 1986b, Roofing Wholesale Co. 1986).

  C.  Trends

  Flat asbestos-cement sheet production volume for 1985 was converted to a

1/2" basis.  Manville ceased flat asbestos-cement production in 1985.

However, a decline in flat asbestos-cement sheet manufacture during the past

five years is very obvious from the figures for fiber consumption during this

time.  In 1981, 10,766 tons of asbestos fiber were consumed in the production.

of flat asbestos-cement sheet.  This declined to 2,579 tons by 1985, a

reduction of 76 percent (ICF 1985, ICF 1986).  Even though the raw material

mix may have changed a little, it is reasonable to conclude that production of

output has decreased in a similar fashion.  Nicolet claims that the market for

flat asbestos-cement sheet is rapidly declining (Nicolet 1986b).

  It is not known how much flat asbestos-cement sheet is imported into the

U.S.  According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, imports of asbestos-cement

products other than pipe, tubes, and fittings declined by 278 percent £ron

39,407.3630 tons in 1981 to 10,416.3785 tons in 1985.  In 1985, 8,489 tons of

this category, or 81.5 percent, came from Canada (U.S. Dep. Comm. 1986a and

b).   This number most likely includes flat and corrugated asbestos-cement
       * 1981 production is not directly comparable with 1985 data because a
  majority of 1981 data was reported in 100 square feet and the remainder
  (Nicolet's) in tons.  In addition, the thickness used as a base for the square
  footage data was not given in 1981.

-------
sheet and asbestos-cement shingles (Atlas 1986a, Atlas 1986c, Eternit 1986b).

It is not known precisely what part is asbestos-cement sheet, however it is

believed to be very small (Eternit 1986b).  A.IBP, which is the only known

importer of asbestos-cement flat and corrugated sheet and asbestos-cement

shingles into the U.S.,  estimated that roughly 10 percent of their shipments

to the U.S. are flat asbestos-cement sheet (Atlas 1986a),   Ten percent of

their shipments, or 848.9 tons, converts to about 3,396 squares  of 1/2" thick

flat asbestos-cement sheet imported into the U.S. in 1985 (see Attachment,

Item 2).  This estimate is probably low because it does not include some flat

asbestos-cement sheet from countries other than Canada, although that quantity

is expected to be very small.
                                *
  D.  Substitutes

  The following section presents separate discussions of substitutes for

flat asbestos-cement construction/utility sheets and laboratory work surface

sheets.  Table 1 summarizes the product substitutes for flat asbestos-cement

construction/utility sheet.

      1.  Construction/Utility Substitutes

          a.  Calcium Silicates

          Manville Sales Corporation,  once the largest producer of flat

asbestos-cement sheet, makes a variety of calcium silicate substitutes for

flat asbestos-cement sheet.  These include:  Transite(R) II, Marinite(R),

Flexboard(R) II, Colorlith(E) II,  Ebony(R) II, and six architectural panels;

Stonehenge(R) II, Agean(R) II, Splitwood(R) II, Sandstone(R) II,
         Square - 100 square feet.

                                      - 4 -

-------
                            Table 1.   Product Substitutes for Flat Asbestos-Cement Sheet In Construction/Utility Applications
    Product/Substitute
                                  Manufacturer
                                   Advantages
                                                                  Availability
                                                                                                                                             Source
Flat aebostoB-cement sheet   Nicolst
                             Ai*l«r. PA
                         Can be molded.
                         High thermal resistance.
                         Weather resistance,
                         Chtmlcal resistance.
                         Flexibility.
                                 May creek ox tend wb*n
                                 impacted.
                                                                                                                        National
                                                ICF 198«a,
                                                ICF 1986
Calcium Silicate Product
      tut.ns.
TrenaitefR) II
(calcium silicate)
Manville Sales
Denver, CO
Flejcboard(R) II
Ccalciim silicate)
ManviUa Sales
Denver, CO
MarinitB(R)
         silicate)
Efkex(R) and Eterboard(R)
(calcium silicate)
Kaiwilla Sales
Denver, CO
Eternit, Inc.
Reading, FA
Latricretedl) KP
(•poxy primed cmmnt
board — calcium oilie«t«)
Letlcr»t» Int*
Bethany, CT
Colorfaitness.
Intagrsl color.
Freeze/thaw renlst,nncn,
Ac ceptfi paint.
Fir» retardanfc.
Rust, rot, and corrosion
resistant.

Color£astneBs,
Integral color,
Freeze/thaw resistant.
Water resistant
Resists dents/scratches.
Greater heat resistance
than A/C ahests, 1200-150fl*F,
Honcombustible.
Watar resistant.
Higher impact resistance
than A/C sheet.
High strength/weight ratio,
Insect and rot resistant.
Ho painting required for
exterior for use,

Fire, m«Ui*t, and infiect
resistant,
Low nolstui* nbnorptloTi.
L«58 str»ngth than A/C sh«et.    National
HaKinnzu operating tfinpsratufa,
450'F. is I«BB than A/C sheets.
Vary brittle.
Much less strength than A/C      national
sheet,
Maximun operating temperature,
250"F,  much less than A/C
sheeta,
Difficult to drill without
breakage,
Brittle,

Ilshar moisture abnorbanea.      National
Less dent* thm A/C sheet,
Lowex strength.

SOO'f continuous maximum         National
tanrpsrature Imnw than
A/C sheets.
Bat tbldtw ttan 1/4",
Lass Hater resistant thin        National
A/C sheet.
Lena strungth than A/C sheet.
Manville 1986c and
1985«, Coastal
GFRC 1986,  Western
Slate 1986
Kamrille 1986a, o;
Western Slate 1986
Monville 1987,
Zircar
Et«rt:it 1986a.
Et«mit 19B6b,
                                                                                                                                       Lafciccet* 1986,

-------
                                                                   Table  1  (Continued)
    Product/Substitute
                                  Manufacturer
                                   Advantages
                                          Dl•advantages
                                 Availability
                                                                                                                                             Source
Hon-Calc ium Silicate
Product Substitutes

Ultra~Board(TM>
(cement, mica and
fibrous glass)
Mlnerit(H)
(corient, cellulose end
Durock(R) Tila Backer
Board (cement und
fiberglass mesh)
Wonderboard(R)
(cement and fiberglass
mesh)
Glass-Reinforced Cement
(GRC) Sheet or Sterling
Board
Heyerhaeuser
Toconia, W*
(U.S. distributor)
TAC Construction
Materials, UK
(manufacturer, owned
by Etemlt)

Oy Partek Ab
Soandanvia
(manufacturer )
Sanspray
Santa Clara, CA
(distributor)
USG Corp.
Chicago, IL
Beneleic(R)
(lminat»d wood
Modulsrn, Inc,
Hamilton, OH
Tailored Industries
Pittsburgh, FA and
3-* other 0.8.
distributors.
funnel Building
Products
Harwich, England
(mamif aqtuc»r )

Haaonita Corp.
Laurel, MS
NoncoaibuatlblG ,
Frost resistant,
Insect/vermin re
                                                      Durable .
Leas brittle than A/C sheet.
Moisture, rot and corrosion
resistant noncaaibustifale.
Ha tor resistant.
Fir* resistant,
Hater resistant.
Fir* resistant.
Superior overall utrmgth.
Rigliar infpaet reaistanct,
Hlghnr etrength/trolght xatlo.
Hater imperraBnbl.e.
Rot proof.
Accepts paint.
Lightweight.
Strong,
Abrasion resistant surface.
Less strength than A/C slieot.    Rational
Eflaz, or IterboBrf.
Continuous naiElniiini toinpftrsture,
generally 500"F, Imrar than
A/C sheatn.
Leas strength than A/C ahaet.    National
Less tire resistant than A/C
sheet,
Loses strength in prolonged
soaking.
300'F maximm continuous
temperature, lower A/C
sheet's.

Conductive rather than           National
innulalive.
Less fir* resistant than
A/C sheet.
Interior use only.
3'a$> not standard 4'x8'
A/C cheat ilu,

Le»i fire mlatent th«n         Hatlon*!
A/C BliaetB.
3'x3' not itandard I'rt"
A/C sheet size.

I«p«Bilv«.                       Rational
Loner ••nice teoiperatura
than A/C iheet.
If cut, edges may chip.
Cwn«nt may break down In high
cortonion environment.
Lent maximum service              National
temperatur«, 195"F.
Low wsathor resistance.
Weysrhaeusar 1985,
Eturnit 1906a, b
Sanspray 1986a, b
U.S.6. Corporation
19S6, Latiorete
1986
U.S.G. Corporation
1986, Latlciete
1986
TunnBt Building
Products 1986,
Can-Fll Corpora-
tion 1986, Krusell
and Cogley 198Z
Mnsonite 1986a, b,
and n,d.

-------
                                                                   Tablu 1 {Continued}
    Produc t/Subst it« fca
                                  Manufacturer
                                                                Advantages
                                                                                           Availability
                                                                                                                                             Source
Glass Folyaster «JEQ)
Sheet
Clastic Co.
Cleveland, OB
Haxite Co.
Eric, PA; and
several others
Low moisture absorbanee.
Better electrical insulator..
Less brittle.
ContitiuouK apBtating
tetnpetatuto, 350-550'F,
higher than the old
ebonlied A/C's^
Very
                                                                                                                        national
                                                                                                                                       Clastic  1986
Zlrcar(R) Kafractory
Sheet (7SX alumina,
161 silica, 9X othsr
metal oxidas)
HonoluxCR)
Zircar Products
Florida, M
                             Cape Boards and
                             panels
                             DK (producer)
                             m Arnold & Co.
                             West Cald»all, HJ
                             (U.S. distributor)
Over twice maximum service
temperature of A/C.
Greater flexural strength.
Shock resistant.
Low moidture absorbance.
Hot brittlo.
Moldable or rigid form,

Honconibustlble,
Rigid and insrt.
Chemical resistant.
Hater resistant.
Greater heat resistance
than A/C,
Very expensive.
Shnota are only Z'jt*'
size,
                                                                                       Hat Known,
National       Zircar 1986a, b, c
                                                                                in
                                                                                                                        National        ICF  1986a

-------
Klefstone(R)II, and Rentone(R) II (Manville 1985a and b, Manville 1986a and

c),^  Transite(R) II primarily is used in high temperature areas, such as

ovens,  kilns,  induction heaters,  and furnaces,  insulators,  electronic

high-temperature resistant plates, as well as in the metallurgy, glassfoming

and thermosetting industries (Manville 1986c).   Other uses include fume hoods,

benches,  and counter tops (Manville 1985a).

  Marinite(R)  I, D, C, Metal Mover(R), and Metalform(R) are Manville's

higher temperature calcium silicate sheets.  They have various architectural

uses including fireproofing and structural support protection, as well as uses

in press  platen insulation applications and metal processing industries

(Zircar 1986b and 1986c).  Their maximum temperature use ranges from 1200 to

1500°F.  They are not used for electrical applications primarily because of

their high moisture absorption.  Marinite(R) sheets are also not used as a

structural support replacements for asbestos-cement sheet because they do not

have the  strength of either asbestos-cement or Transite(R) II sheets (Zircar

1986b and 1986c).

  Flexboard(R) II is used primarily as a building and utility board for

exterior and interior walls, partitions, ceilings, and soffits in homes,

warehouses, schools and commercial buildings (Manville 1986a).  Colorlith(R)

II is used in laboratories for table tops, fume hood bases and liners,

shelves,  and window sills (Manville 1985b and 1986c).  Ebony(R) II is

recommended for base and mounting panels for electrical equipment (Manville

1985a),

  For most of the Manville products mentioned above there have been serious

problems.  All of Manville's new products, except Marinite(R), have much lower

heat resistance than asbestos-cement.  While asbestos-cement sheet is rated at
       ^ The II refers to a non-asbestos product, replacing Manville's old
  asbestos products.

                                      - 8 -

-------
600°F, it has been used successfully temperatures close to 1000°F.  Transits




II was initially rated at 600°F, but this was reduced to 450"F after customer




complaints,  Flexboard(R) II can not be used over 250°F (Manville 1986c,




Tailored Industries 1986).  The second major disadvantage of these Manville




products is their brittleness.  Transite(R) II and Flexboard(R) II often break




during shipping (Western Slate 1986, Tailored Industries 1986).




  Eflex(R) and Eterboard(R), made by Eternit, Inc., are, respectively, high




and medium-high density, calcium silicate cement boards with several interior




and exterior applications.  They are used in construction as soffits, fire




resistant paneling, ceilings, walls, partitions, and substrates for tile and




stone.  In industry and laboratories, they are used for fumigation chambers,




welding booths,  electrical arc barriers,  wet areas such as cooling towers, and




occasionally for laboratory table tops and fume hoods.  They have also been




used in agriculture as walls, partitions, and feed bins (Eternit 1986a and




1986b).




  Laticrete(R) EP Cement Board is an interior/exterior calcium silicate




epoxy primed cement and mineral fiber board which, like the previous two




products, is used primarily for tile backing (Laticrete 1986).  It is also




used for partitions, soffits, balconies,  decks, hearth and stove guards, and




in agricultural buildings, pens and animal feeders.  Though fire, impact, and




weather resistant, it does not match asbestos-cement sheet's performance,




          b.   Non-Calcium Silicates




          Ultra-Board(TM) is another direct competitor with Eflex(R) and




Eterboard(R)  and has similar uses.  It comes in four varieties, each  with




different densities and fire resistances.  In construction it is used for




interior and exterior partitions,  curtain walls, soffits,  fascias, tile backer




board, laminated paneling, doors and ventilation ducts.   Other uses include




laboratory furniture, fume hoods,  oven linings, welding booths, foundry and




                                     . - 9 -

-------
molten metal applications,  electrical bus bar barriers and swimming pool



panels.  One variety, Ultra-Board(TM) VC, is a special fire resistant board



with a high maximum operating temperature of 1,650'F and is used for lining



steel,  concrete,  and timber beams and columns (Weyerhaueser 1985,  Eternit



1986b).



  Minerit(R), made from Portland cement, cellulose fibers and marble



fillers, was designed as a replacement for flat asbestos-cement sheet and is a



competitor with products such as Eflex(R), Eterboard(R),  and Ultra-Board(lM).



It is used for architectural panels, decorative panels, waste plants,



partitions, soffits, fume hood liners, and in agricultural areas for its rot



warp and corrosion resistance (Sanspray 1986a and b).
                                *


  Durock(R) Tile Backer Board and Wonderboard(R) are the primary substitute



tile backer boards for use in moist areas such as in bathrooms and kitchens.



Both boards are made from cement and vinyl coated fiberglass mesh, while



Uonderboard also contains ceramic aggregate.  In addition to moisture



resistance, both boards have good fire resistance and can be used as stove and



oven guards.  They do not,  however, have the fire or heat resistance of



asbestos-cement sheet.  Wonderboard(R) can be used for interior or exterior



applications, while Duroek(R) Tile Backer Board is for interior use only.  A.



new product for exterior use, Durock(R) Exterior Cement Board, was released in



October 1986 (U.S.G. Corporation 1986).



  While Sterling Board(R) or glass-reinforced cement (GRC) sheet,  imported



from England, is a substitute that has many properties which are most similar



to those of flat asbestos-ceaent sheet it has not taken the share of the



market that was predicted when the board was introduced in the U.S. in the



late 1970's (Cem-Fil 1986).  Its primary uses are for soffit and fascia



panels, fireproof partitions, storage sheds, garages,  wall panels, permanent



form boards, drywall finishing for steel, masonry and concrete, and even as



                                      -  10  -

-------
road signs (ICF 1985).  While flat GRC sheet has a very small market in the




U.S. due to so many competing products, in Europe, Australia, and Scandanavia




flat GRC sheet is very popular (Cem-Fil 1986).  For flat GRC sheet to nmteh




asbestos-cement's properties requires very expensive alkalai-resistant glass;




this cost in addition to large shipping costs (overseas from England) make the




product 30 to 40 percent more expensive than flat asbestos-cement sheet




(Chem-Fil 1986) .   Sterling Board currently has a very small share of the flat




asbestos-cement sheet replacement market {Cem-Fil 1986, Tunnel Building




Products 1986, National Tile Roofing Manufacturers' Association 1986).




  Benelex(R),  a 100 percent wood composite, is readily available and is used




in a range of electrical apparatus,including bus bar barrier boards, switching




plates, as well as in non-electrical applications, such as locomotive floors,




high performance industrial conveyers, and laboratory surfaces.  Approximately




70 percent of its uses are electrical (Masonite 1986a).  It competes with GPO




and flat asbestos-cement sheet,  and has substituted for ebonized




asbestos-cement sheet in less critical electrical applications -- those with




low voltage, heat, and moisture (Hasonite 1986a, Clastic 1986).




  Glass polyester (GPO) sheet is used primarily in electrical applications




such as switchgear mounting panels and boxes.  GPO has already taken most of




the replacement market in applications where ebonized asbestos was once used




-- critical areas with high voltage and/or low moisture,  GPO still competes




with non-ebonized asbestos-cement sheet and other substitutes in non-critical




areas with lower voltage and without moisture.  GPO also replaces flat




asbestos-cement sheet and Transite(R) II in press platen applications which




require insulators to reduce heat loss from the thennosetting resin mold.




According to one manufacturer, GPO is replacing Manville's Transite(E) II and




Ebony(R) II because these products are too brittle.  One significant
                                      -  11  -

-------
disadvantage of GPO is that it is two to three times as costly as other




substitutes with similar uses (Clastic 1986).




  Zircar(R) Refractory Sheet 100, a ceramic alumina sheet, is abrasion




resistant and exceeds asbestos-cement sheet's resistance'to heat.  It is used




in high temperature applications to replace asbestos-cement sheet in oven




construction and shelving, induction heating and coil fixtures, electrical




terminal blocks, fireproof structural insulation, and molten metal transport.




Zircar(R) Refractory sheets are very expensive (Zircar 1986a and b),




  Monolux(R) is a noneombustible industrial insulating board used in small




ovens and dryers, high temperature ducts, and as insulation in furnaces and




kilns (ICF 1985).  It is rigid, durable, inert, and resistant to attack by




insects and vermin.  The board is unaffected by dilute acids and alkalis,




brine, chlorine, or volatile solvents.  It will not disintegrate, warp, or




swell under prolonged immersion in water.  Monolux(R) is more resistant to




heat than asbestos-cement sheet (Krusell and Cogley 1982).




  Other materials such as brick, masonry, wood, stucco, galvanized steel,




and aluminum sheet can be used in exterior architectural/building




applications.  However, they are not major substitutes for flat




asbestos-cement sheet (ICF 1985).




  In discussions with substitute producers, it appears that there is one




flat asbestos-cement construction/utility sheet application for which




satisfactory substitutes are not available when one considers cost and/or




performance; this application is pizza oven hearths.   Some substitute




producers claim that the best potential substitutes,  Transite(R) II and.




Zircar(R) Refractory Sheet, are not adequate; Transite(R)  II is too brittle




and does not have the high temperature capability of asbestos-cement (Western




Slate 1986, Tailored Industries 1986), while Zircar(R) Refractory Sheet is




very expensive (see Attachment, Item 4).  In addition, one substitute sheet




                                      -  12  -

-------
manufacturer claims that its largest size, 24 by 48 inches, is too small for




an oven hearth (Tailored Industries 1986). According to Zircar(R) Products,




however, three pizza oven manufacturers are using Zircar(R) Refractory Sheets




in pizza, ovens (Zircar 1986b) .




             i.  Cost and Market Shares for Construction/Utility Sheets




             The cost for 1/2" thick flat asbestos-cement construction/




utility sheet is $1.81/square foot (see Attachment, Item 3).  The average




price for substitute flat calcium silicate construction/utility sheet is




$1.82/square foot and for flat non-calcium silicate construction/utility sheet




is $4.17/square foot (see Attachment, Item 4),




  No substitute producers were able to estimate how the current flat




asbestos-cement construction/utility sheet market is broken down among its end




uses:  construction, high temperature, and electrical applications.  However,




one industry contact estimated that 95 percent of the flat asbestos-cement




construction/utility market would be taken over by calcium silicate sheets,




with non-calcium silicate sheets taking over the remaining 5 percent (Eternit




1986b>.




      2.  Laboratory Work Surface Substitutes




      Substitutes for asbestos-censent laboratory work surfaces, which as




previously mentioned represent 20 percent of the flat asbestos-cement sheet




market (Nicolet 1986b),  are compared in Table 2.




  Epoxy resin is the best material for making laboratory table tops.  Its




market has grown partially because five companies currently produce it whereas




in the past there had been only one producer (General Equipment Manufacturers




1986b).  Epoxy impregnated sandstone's properties (e.g., chemical resistance




and strength) make for a excellent laboratory top, however it is very heavy




and must be handled carefully during installation (S. Blickman Inc. 1986).




Epoxy impregnated sandstone is made by two companies, Waller Brothers Stone




                                      -  13 -

-------
                              Table 2.  Characteristics at Laboratory Work foys M«d» from
                                     Asbestos-Cement Sh»et and Substitute Products
Property Asbestos-Cement Sheet Epoxy Resin
CHaraiciil Resistance Very Good Excellent
Beat Resistance Excellent Excellent
Stain Resistance Good Excellent
Moisture Resistance Good Excellent
Epoxy Eesin
Impregnated Ssndstcma Colacllth(R) II
Very Good Excellent
Very Good Pair
Very Good Excellent
V»ry Good Good
Laminated Plastic
(Foralca)
Fair
Fait
Good
Very Good
Sourcen;  MsnvilLa 19B5b, Manvilie 198$c, ICF

-------
Company and Taylor Stone Company, both in Ohio (Waller Brothers 1986),

Fabrication of Colorlith(R) II, a Manville product, into a table top requires

much more time and more difficult processing than is required to make flat

asbestos-cement sheet into table tops (Western Slate 1986).  For example,

because of its moisture absorption, one must either bake Colorlith(R) II for a

very long time to remove moisture and prevent the later paint coats from

blistering, or if one does not bake before painting, It is necessary to resand

and repaint if blistering of initial paint coats occurs.  In addition,

Colorlith(R) II is very brittle and may crack during shipping (Western Slate

1986, General Equipment Manufacturers 1986a),   Other laboratory surface

products, such as industrial grade formica, plastic laminates, Dupont's

Corian(R), and Celotex's Fibertop(R) can substitute for asbestos-cement sheet

in biology and general science laboratories, but not in chemistry or

industrial laboratories.  Furthermore, these products last half as long as

other asbestos-cement laboratory table top substitutes (Waller Brothers 1986,

General Equipment Manufacturers 1986a and b).

          a.  Co.st.-Snd Market Shares for Laboratory Work Surface, Sheet

          Fabricated asbestos-cement laboratory work surface sheets are

approximately $10.50/square foot.  Fabricated epoxy resin sheets are the most

expensive substitute at $13.50/square foot.  Epoxy impregnated sandstone and

Colorlith(R) II are both $12.00/square foot.  Plastic laminates are about hmlf

the price of sandstone, or $6.0Q/square foot;  however,  as previously

mentioned, plastic laminates cannot be used in corrosive environments and do

not last as long as the other substitutes.
       -" Because the prices for laboratory work tops are for fabricated tops and
  include the extra costs necessary to turn a bare laboratory work sheet into a
  laboratory table top, they are generally much higher than those for
  asbestos-cement and substitute construction/utility sheets which require no
  additional fabrication.  For the asbestos regulatory cost model it is
  necessary to derive a price for laboratory worksheets that is comparable to

                                      -  15  -

-------
  Asbestos-cement flat sheet, which held about half of the laboratory work

surface market a few years ago (S. Blickman Inc. 1986), now holds about 10

percent of this market.  The remainder of this market is currently divided

among epoxy resin, 50 percent; sandstone, 25 percent and Colorlith(R) II, 15

percent.  It is projected that if asbestos were banned the laboratory work

surface market would be broken down as follows:  epoxy resin, 60 percent;

sandstone, 25 percent (or more); Colorlith(R) II, 10 percent; and plastic

laminates and others, 5 percent (or less)*" (see Attachment, Item 5).

  Table 3 presents the data for the asbestos regulatory cost model and

summarizes the findings of this analysis (see Attachment, Items 6-8 for

calculations).

  E.   Summary

  There are two types of asbestos-cement flat sheet produced domestically;

the first type, comprising 80 percent of the market, ts used for construction/

utility applications and the second type, used for laboratory work surfaces,

accounts for the remaining 20 percent of flat asbestos-cement sheet (Nicolet

1986a, b).  Currently, Nicolet is the only remaining domestic producer of flat

asbestos-cement sheet and they temporarily stopped production in 1986 due to a

shortage of orders (ICF 1985, Nicolet 1986b).  Nicolet claims that market is

rapidly declining for this product (Nicolet 1986b).   Atlas International

Building products of Montreal, Quebec, Canada is the only company known to

import flat asbestos-cement sheet into the U.S.  (Atlas 1986a, b, c).
  the price of asbestos-cement and substitute construction/utility sheets.  This
  weighted average price for all substitute laboratory work sheets is
  §2.17/square foot (see Attachment, Items 5-6),

       ° The previous breakdown of the substitute market into 95 percent calcium
  silicates and 5 percent non-calcium silicates for construction/utility sheet
  applies only to the construction/utility sheet market and not to the
  laboratory table top market.


                                      -  16  -

-------
                                                Tnbls 3.  Data Inputs for Asbestos Regulatory Cost Modal
                          Output
                                        Product Asbestos
                                          Coefficient
                                       CofiBurnpt ion
                             Equivalent Price  Mark it
      Product
(100 sq,  ft.)   (tons/100 so;.' ft.)   Production Ratio   (8/100 sq.  ft.)   Useful Life    (8/100  aq.  ft.)   Share      Reference
Asbestos-Cement Flat
Sheet
   22,621
                                             0.114
                                                                  1.15
                                                                                   $161.00
                25 years
$181.00
K/A     See Attachment
Calcium Silicate
Construction/Utility
Flat Sheet
     N/A
                                              K/A
                                                                  K/A
                                                                                   $182.00
                25 years
                                                                                             $182.00
                                                                                                                                   761     Se» Attachment
Non-Calcium Silicate
Construction/Utility
Flat Sheet
     H/A
                                              N/A
                                                                  N/A
                                                                                   $417.00
                25 years
                                                                                                                    8*17,00
                                                                                                                                    4Z     See Attachment
Substitute Laboratory
Hoik Sheet
     H/A
                       H/A
                                           H/A
$217.00
                                                                            25 years
8217.00
                                                                                                                                   201     See Attachment
H/A;  Hob Applicable.

 See Attachment, Items 1-9 Cor sources and calculations.

 ICF 1985.  The useful life of substitutes varies depending on the application, but foe the same application flub **b*it.os-emerit, shast. «nd its
substitutes Mill have approximately the same useful life.

-------
  Although there is no single substitute that can replace flat




asbestos-cement sheet in all of its applications, there are substitutes




available for each specific application.  One industry contact estimated that




the flat asbestos-cement construction/utility market would be"95 percent




calcium silicates costing just slightly more than the asbestos product and 5




percent non-calcium silicates which are more than twice the price of flat




asbestos-cement sheets.  The three major substitutes for laboratory work




surface flat asbestos-cement sheet -- epoxy resin, sandstone, and




Colorlith(R) II -- are 15-30 percent more expensive than the asbestos product.
                                      -.18  -

-------
                                   ATTACHMENT
(1)   Methodology _for determinlng_.N.icolet>s andjfenvij.le' s production of flat
      asbestos-cement sheet and converting it to a 1/2" basis.

  This calculation is based on confidential business information.

(2)   Calculation of imports of flat asbestos-cement sheet.

  10,416.3785 tons of asbestos-cement flat and corrugated sheet and
asbestos-cement shingles were imported into the U.S. in 1985.  81.5 percent,
or 8,489 tons, of this figure is from Canada.  Atlas International Building
Products (AIBP),  the only importer of these products from Canada estimates
that 10 percent of their imports is asbestos-cement flat sheet (Atlas 1986a).
Ten percent equals 848.93 tons of 1,697,869.70 Ib. of flat asbestos-cement
sheet.

  Using Nicolet's weight for 1/2" thick sheet of 5 Ib./square foot:

      1,697,869.70 Ib. of flat asbestos-cement sheet/(170 lb./34,03
      square feet or 5 Ib./square foot) — 339,573.94 square feet or
      3,395.74 squares of asbestos-cement flat sheet imported into
      the U.S. in 1985.

  This estimate may be low because it does not include the 18.5 percent of
asbestos-cement products other than pipe, tubes, and fittings imported from
countries other than Canada.  Imports from these other countries may possibly
include some flat asbestos-cement sheet (U.S. Dep. Comn. 1986a and b),

(3)  Calculation of cost oJL asbestos -cement cons_truction/utility sheet.

  This calculation is based on confidential business information.
                                      -  19  -

-------
(4)   Calculation, of cost of substitutes for flat asbestos-cement
      construetipa/utility. sheet.
Flat Sheet Product
Thickness
 F.O.B.
 Plant
 Price/
Thickness
Comments
Source
Asbestos-Cement Sheet      1/2"      $1,81

Calcium Silicates

  Transite(R) II           1/2"      $2.08




  Flexboard(R) II          1/2"      $2,08




  Marinite(R) I            1/2"      $3.00

  Eflex(R)                 1/4"      $1.25

  Eterboard(R)             1/4"      $0.90

  Laticrete(R) EP          1/2"      $1.60
                                          Nicolet 1986a
                        15% more expen-   Manville 1986c
                        sive than
                        asbestos-cement
                        sheet

                        15% more expen-   Manville 1986c
                        s ive than
                        asbestos-cement
                        sheet

                                          Manville 1987

                        Thickest is 1/4"  Eternit 1986e

                        Thickest is 1/4"  Eternit 1986c

                                          Laticrete 1986
                                      - 20  -

-------
F.O.B.
Plant
Price/
Flat Sheet Product Thickness Thickness Comments Source
Non- Calcium Silicates
Ul tra- board (TM) 1/2"
Miniret(R) 1/2"
Durock(R) 1/2"
Wonderboard(R) 1/2"
GRC 1/2"
Benelex(R) 1/2"
GPO (fiberglass 1/2"
reinforced polyester)
Zircar(R) Refractory 1/2"
$0.90 ' Eternit 1986b,
Weyerhaeuser
1986
$1.65 Wiley-Baley 1986
$0,65 U.S.G. Crop.
1986
$0.65 Modulars 1986
$2,44 35% more expen- Cem-Fil 1986
sive than
asbestos -cement
sheet
$1.65 Masonite 1986b
$5.43 3 times more R.E, Hebert
expensive than & Co. 1986
asbestos -cement
sheet
$20,00 Zircar 1986a
     It is estimated that 95 percent of the flat asbestos-cement construction/
utility market would be taken over by calcium silicates and the remaining 5
percent by non-calcium silicates (Eternit 1986).   The average price for
calcium silicates is $1.82/square foot while the average price for non-calcium
silicates is $4.17/square foot.
                                      -  21  -

-------
(5)      Sources used to determine market shares and prices for laboratory work
         surfaces.
                                 Share
                         Sources
Asbes tos- Cement

Epoxy Resin




Sandstone


Colorlith(R) II

Plastic
                              Current Market Shares
10%

50%
25%
15%
Waller Brothers 1986

General Equipment Manufacturers
1986b, Waller Brothers 1986, S.
Blickman Inc. 1986, Laboratory
Services 1986

General Equipment Manufacturers
1986b, Waller Brothers 1986

Waller Brothers 1986
                             Projected Market..Shares
Epoxy Resin




Sandstone

Colorlith(R) II


Plastic laminates and others
60%
S. Blickman Inc. 1986, General
Equipment Manufacturers 1986b,
Waller Brothers 1986, Laboratory
Services 1986
25% or more   Waller Brothers
10%
General Equipment Manufacturers
1986b, Waller Brothers 1986
51 or less    Waller Brothers 1986, Laboratory
              Services 1986

-------
       Prices for fabricated laboratory tops are based on the following sources;
                                 Price
                               
-------
construction/utility asbestos -cement substitute sheets, and can thus be used
in the asbestos regulatory cost model.

      1.2 x (cost of flat asbestos -cement construction/utility sheet)
      - 1.2 x $1.81/square foot - $2.17/square foot
      or $217 square.

(7)   Calculations for consumption-production ratio for asbestos regulators cost
      model .

  Domestic production of flat asbestos -cement sheet - 22,621 squares
  Imports of flat asbestos -cement sheet             -  3,396 squares

  As stated in the text and Attachment, Item 2, this import amount is
probably low.

      (Domestic production + imports)/domestic production
      - 26,017 squares/22,621 squares
      - 1.15.
( 0 }
      sheet .

  Tons of asbestos used/squares of flat asbestos -cement sheet produced.

      - 2,578.8 tons/22,621 squares
      •" 0.114 tons /square.
                                      -  24 -

-------
REFERENCES
Atlas International Building Products.  R. Cadieux.  1986a (October 2 and
December 17).  Montreal, Quebec, Canada.  Transcribed telephone conversations
with Michael Geschwind, 1CF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Atlas International Building Products.  T. Eames.  1986b (November 6).  Port
Newark, NJ.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC,

Atlas International Building Products.  J, Payac,  1986c (November 25).
Montreal, Quebec, Canada,  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael
Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Cem-Fil Corporation.  R. Cook.  1986 (November 3 and 6).  Atlanta, GA,
Division of Pilkington Corporation.  Transcribed telephone conversation with
Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Coastal GFRC, Inc.  B. Horsley.  1986 (November 3).  Hooksett, NH.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Eternlt, Inc.  1986a (September).  Reading, PA. Product literature on Eflex(R)
and Eterboard(R) fiber reinforced cement panels.

Eternit, Inc.  B. Morrissey.  1986b (October 27 and November 4).  Reading, PA.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

General Equipment Manufacturers.  D. Klein.  1986a (November 18).  Crystal
Springs, MT.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC,

General Equipment Manufacturers.  B. Errington.  1986b (November 18).  Crystal
Springs, MT.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC,

Clastic Company.  P. Leslie.  1986 (November 20).  Cleveland, OH.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, DC:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No. 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1985,  Appendix H: Asbestos products and their substitutes,
in Regulatory Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products.
Washington, DC; Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet.  Washington, DC.
                                      -  25  -

-------
Krusell N., Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos substitute performance
analysis: revised final report.  Washington, DC: Office of Pesticides and
Toxic substances.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract 68-02-3168,

Laboratories Service, Inc.  M. Kloosterman.  1986 (November 17) Plymouth, MI,
Division of Durcon.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael
Geschwind, 1CP Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Laticrete International, Inc.  T. McKeon.  1986 (November 6)  Bethany, Cf.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Manville Sales Corporation.  1985a (May).  Denver, CO.  Product literature on
Transite(R) II non-asbestos industrial board, Ebony(R) II non-asbestos
electrical panel board.

Manville Sales Corporation.  1985b (August).  Denver, CO.  Product literature
on Colorlith(R) II laboratory work tops.

Manville Sales Corporation.  1986a (January and May).  Denver, CO.  Product
literature on Flexboard(R) II non-asbestos fiber cement board and non-asbestos
architectural boards.

Manville Sales Corporation.  K. Hart.  1986b (October 28).  Denver, CO.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC,

Manville Sales Corporation.  T. Kroll.  1986c (October 28).  Denver, CO.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Manville Sales Corporation.  D. Filarowicz.  1987 (January 5).  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind,  ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

Masonite Corporation.  D. Pelligrini.  1986a (November 3).  Chicago, IL.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC,

Masonite Corporation. F. Pickering.  1986b (December 2).  Laurel, MS.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Masonite Corporation,  (n.d.).  Chicago, IL.  Product literature on Benelex(R)
402 Industrial Laminate Electrical Insulation.

Modulars, Inc.  P. Dinkle.  1986 (November 24).  Hamilton, OH.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind,  ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

National Tile Roofing Manufacturer's Association.  W, Pruter.  1986 (November
13).  Los Angeles, CA. 90039.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael
Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

-------
Nicolet, Inc.  1986a (April).  Product literature MM30-1 and MM33-1 and Price
Lists on  Monobestos(R) Board and Kolonuate(R).   Nicolet, Inc.  Ambler, PA,

Nicolet, Inc.  B, McNamara.  1986b (November 26).  Ambler,  PA,  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC,

R.E. Hebert & Co.  D. Popeil.  1986 (November 6).  Rochester, NY.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

Roofing Wholesale Co., Inc.  J. Pierzchalski.  1986 (October 24).  Phoenix,
AZ.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Sanspray Corporation.  1986a,  Santa Clara, CA.   Product literature on
Minerit(R): asbestos-free non-combustible cement board,

Sanspray Corporation.  B. McClenahan.   1986b (November 6).   Santa Clara, CA.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind,  ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

S. Blickman, Inc.  B. Stanton.  1986 (November 17).  Butler, NJ.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

Tailored Industries.  H. Morse.  1986 (November 20).  Pittsburgh, PA.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind,  ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

TSCA Section 8 (a) submission.  1982,  Primary Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, DC: Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No, 20-8601012.

Tunnel Building Products.  G. Bridge.   1986 (November 6).  Norwich, Cheshire,
U.K.  Division of Pilkington.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael
Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

U.S. Dep. Comm.  1986a.  U.S. Department of Commerce.  Consumption of Imports
FY 246/1985 Annual,  Suitland, MB.  Bureau of the Census.  U.S. Department of
Commerce,

U.S. Dep, Comm,  P, Confer.  1986b.  Suitland, MD.  U.S. Department of
Commerce,  Division of Minerals and Metals.  Bureau of the Census,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind,  ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC,

U.S.G. Corporation.  D. Sardelli.  1986 (November 20).  Stamford, CT.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind,  ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC,

Waller Brothers Stone Company.  F. Waller.  1986 (November 19).  McDermoth,
OH,  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.


                                      -  27 -

-------
Western Slate Company,  B. Astrene.  1986 (September 22 and November 4),
Elmhurst, IL,  Transcribed telephone conversations with Michael Gesehwind, IGF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Weyerhaeuser.  1985 (August).  Taeoma, WA.  Product literature No. UB-A185 on
Ultraboard(TM).

Wiley-Baley, Inc.  D. Duff.  1986 (November 24).  Seattle, WA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, IGF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

Zircar Products, Inc.  1986a (April).  Florida,  NY.  Price list and product
literature on high temperature thermal insulation refractory sheets and
Refractory Sheet Competitive Product Comparison literature.

Zircar Products, Inc.  J. Ritter.  1986b (November 3).  Florida, NY.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Zircar Products, Inc.  D. Hamling.  1986c (December 2).  Florida, NY.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF'Incorporated,
Washington, DC.
                                      - 28  -

-------
XVI.  CORRUGATED ASBESTOS-CEMENT SHEET




  A.  Product Description




  Asbestos-cement corrugated sheet is made from a mixture of Portland cement




and asbestos fiber.  An additional fraction of finely ground inert filler and




pigments is sometimes included (Krusell and Cogley 1982).  In general, sheets




contain between 15 and 40 percent asbestos fiber, although, for curing in short




time periods, a general formulation of 12 to 25 percent asbestos, 45 to 54




percent cement, and 30 to 40 percent silica is used (Cogley 1980).




  Asbestos-cement corrugated sheet is manufactured by using a dry, wet, or




wet-mechanical process.  In the dry process, asbestos, cement, and filler are




mixed together.  This mixture is placed on a flat conveyer, sprayed with water,




and compressed by steel rolls.  The sheet is then cut and autoclaved.  The wet




process is similar, except water is added to the mixture in the initial stages




forming a slurry.  The slurry is then placed on a flat conveyer and the excess




water is squeezed out by a press.  The wet-mechanical process is similar in




principal to some papermaking processes.  This process begins similarly to the




wet process, however, a thin layer of slurry is pumped onto a fine screen from




which water is removed.  This layer is then transferred onto a conveyor, from




which more water is removed by vacuum.  More layers are then added, water




removed, and the process continues until the desired thickness is achieved




(Krusell and Cogley 1982).




  Asbestos is used as a reinforcing material in cement sheet products because




of its high tensile strength, flexibility, thermal resistance, chemical




inertness,  and large aspect ratio (ratio of length to diameter).   Cement sheet




becomes strong, stiff, and tough when asbestos fiber is added, resulting in a




product that is stable, rigid, durable, noncombustible, and resistant to heat,




weather, and corrosive chemicals (Krusell and Cogley 1982).
                                      - 1 -

-------
  Corrugated asbestos-cement sheet has been used historically In industrial and




agricultural applications, serving as siding and roofing in factories,




warehouses, and agricultural buildings (Krusell and Cogley 1982; Atlas 1986a),




It has also been used as a lining for waterways, such as water slides in




amusement parks and bulkheads in canals or to keep water away from coastal




homes, and for special applications in cooling towers (Krusell and Cogley 1982;




Atlas International Building Products 1986 a and b). The present applications




of corrugated asbestos-cement sheet are limited to the replacement market In




the U.S., primarily because of the availability of good substitutes.




Approximately 85 percent of the replacement market is for general construction




in chemical, potash, paper, ammunition,  and other industries; about 10 percent




is used for replacement in waterways, and 5 percent for replacement in cooling




towers (Atlas 1986a and b).




  B.  Producers andImporters of Corrugated Asbestos-Cement Sheet




  Corrugated asbestos-cement sheet is no longer being produced in the U.S.  The




last company to produce corrugated asbestos-cement sheet, International




Building Products, Inc. in New Orleans,  Louisiana, closed in March 1986 (IGF




1985 and 1986; Atlas 1986a).




  Currently, the only company known to import corrugated asbestos-cement sheet




into the U.S.  is Atlas International Building Products,  Inc. (AIBP) of




Montreal, Canada (Coastal GFRC 1986).  Atlas of Canada bought International




Building Products' equipment when they went out of business and created Atlas




International Building Products, the U.S. sales division of Atlas.




International Building Products had been one of Atlas' main competitors.  AIBP




has no plants in the U.S. and ships directly to its U.S. customers (Atlas 1986a




and b).   Their only U.S.  sales representative is in Port Newark, NJ and is




believed to be affiliated with the Port Newark Refrigerated Warehouse (Eternit




1986, Atlas 1986b).  It is not known precisely when International Buildings




                                      -  2 -

-------
Products stopped production of corrugated asbestos-cement sheet or if any was




produced In 1985.




  C,  Trends




  It is not known how much corrugated A/C sheet was imported into the U.S. in




1985.  According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census 10,416.3785 tons of A/C




products other than pipe, tubes, and fittings were imported in 1985, of which




8,489 tons, or 81.5 percent came from Canada (U.S. Dep. Comm. 1986a, 1986b).




This number most likely includes flat and corrugated asbestos-cement sheet and




asbestos-cement shingles (Atlas 1986a, 1986c, Eternit 1986).  AIBP, which is




the only known importer of A/C flat and corrugated sheet and A/C shingles into




the U.S.,  estimated that roughly 10 percent of their shipments to the U.S. are




corrugated asbestos-cement sheet (Atlas 1986a).  Ten percent of their




shipments,  848.9 tons, converts to about 38,59^ squares of 3/8" thick




corrugated asbestos-cement sheet imported Into the U.S. in 1985 (see




Attachment, Item 1).  This estimate is probably low because it does not include




some flat asbestos-cement sheet from other countries, although that quantity is




expected to be very small.




  D.  Substitutes




  Table 1 presents a list of product substitutes for corrugated asbestos-




cement sheet, as well as their advantages and disadvantages.  Fiberglass




reinforced plastic (FRF) corrugated sheet is a lightweight, corrosion




resistant,  and strong product which comes in four basic varieties;  fire




resistant translucent, non-fire resistant translucent, fire resistant opaque,




and non-fire resistant opaque.  The fire resistant varieties are the best FRP




substitutes for asbestos-cement corrugated sheet (Resolite 1986a and b,




Sequentia 1986).  FRP corrugated panels are used primarily for industrial and
         Square - 100 square feet.




                                      - 3 -

-------
                                            Table 1.   Product Substitutes £ox Corrugated Asbestos-Cement Sbsat
 Product Substitute
                                                             Advantages
                                                                   Dl •advantages
                                                            Availability
                                                                                                                                        Refsrenc 0s
Corrugated A/C Sheet   Imported from Atlas
                       International Building
                       Products
                       Montreal, Canada
SJubatitutes.
                              Can be molded.
                              High thermal resistance
                              Weather resistance.
                              Chemical resistance,
                              Flexibility,
                              Brittle.
                              Cracks or bonds tihesi
                              impacted*
                              Heavy.
                              Expansive to install.
                                Rational     KruBvll and Cogley 1982.
                                             ICF 1984,
                                             ESf Munufneturing 1986a
FRF Corrugated Sheet   Resolite
                       Zallonople, PA
                       Sequent!a
                       Cleveland, CH
                       Lasco, Inc.
                       Anahiem, CA
                       Filoii Division
                       Hawthorne, CA »nd many
                       others
FVC Corrugated Sheet   E&F HsnuCacturing
                       F«B»t*rvill», PA and
                       many others
Aliminum
Sheet
Stoel Corrugated
Panel
CorruB«t«d Hatnls, Inc.
Jersey City, HJ
Reynolds
Eastman, GA and Sflvaml
others

Corrugotad Metals. Inc.
Jersey City, HJ
Reynolds
Eaatman, C3A and atnraral
others
Corrosion «nd chemical
resistance,
Not as noisy as aluminum.
Llghtwelgbt.
Can be colored easily.
Irenelucent or opaque.
Many colors.
Durable.
High strength/shatterproof.
Easy to Install.
Can be cut easily.

Hot brittle.
More impact resistant.
Doesn't absorb moisture,
Water repellant and weather
resistant.
Easier to handle.
Lighter.
Broad chemical resistance.
Corrosion resistance.
Available in longer lengths
than A/C sheet.
Several colors available,
Ron-combustible.

Lighter than A/C »he«t.
Available in large sh«8t».
Doesn't crack.
Leia expensive tbnn other
substitutes,

Can stand more force,
Available in «ide rang* of
thlckn«s««s,
Lighter than A/C, but
heavier than other
substitutes.
                                                            Hot as temperature reals
                                                            tant, as A/C sheet.
                                                            Combustible «t TOO-900"F.
                                                            Hot rescxiineitded for con-
                                                            tinuous use above ZOO'F.
                                                            More flexible than A/C
                                                            sheet and thus needs more
                                                            supjwrt.
                                                            More expansive than other
                                                            substitute*.
                                                            Thermoplastic — loses
                                                            strength at 165*1-,
                                Rational     Maaolite 19B6a, b;
                                             Sacpentia 1984, 1986;
                                             ICF 198*
                                National     H&F Manufacturing 1986a,
                                             b
W«»k In
environmont.
Can b* noisy,
         •leatrlelty.
May
Very week in corrosive
environment.
Conduct* »l«ctricit,y.
Rational     CoKMigatsd ttota.li, Jtic ,
             198Car ICF 198*1
Hnticnnl.     Cottujatnd Metals, Inc.
             19Mt, ICF 198*

-------
wastewater purposes.  They are used in factories, chemical plants, mining




operations, cooling towers, or in any area where strong corrosion resistance




and/or light transmission is desired (Resolite 1986a and b, Sequentia 1986).




About 95 percent of all cooling towers were once clad with corrugated




asbestos-cement sheet, however, today nearly 100 percent are clad with




corrugated FRP sheet.   Corrugated FRP sheet is not generally used for waterways




(Resolite 1986b).   The Resolite division of H.H. Robertson makes a high




strength FRP product called Tred-Safe(R),  which is strong and rigid enough to




walk on (Resolite 1986a).




  A second substitute for asbestos-cement corrugated sheet is corrugated




polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sheet for roofing and siding.  Corrugated FVC panels




are used in chemical plants, pulp and paper manufacturing plants, oil




refineries, steel mills, horticulture and industrial process buildings,




warehouses, enclosures, compressor houses, as cooling tower siding and louvers,




and in other areas (H&F Manufacturing 1986a and b).   Both PVC and FRP are




available in the same 4.2" pitch corrugation as asbestos-cement corrugated




sheet.




  Aluminum siding and roofing is a third substitute for corrugated




asbestos-cement sheet, with a relatively wide range of applications.  Aluminum




corrugated sheet is used in pulp and paper mills, but not in environments with




sulfuric acid or phosphates (Reynolds 1986),  Aluminum and other metal-based




products, such as steel paneling, are not appropriate in most highly corrosive




environments.  However, both steel and aluminum are used for waterways and




bulkheads (Alpha Marine 1986; Reynolds 1986).




  Corrugated Sterling Board(R) (corrugated glass-reinforced cement (GRC) sheet,




made in England) is one of the substitutes with properties most similar to




those of corrugated asbestos-cement sheet, but it has not taken the share of




the market that was once predicted when it was introduced in the U.S. in the




                                      - 5 -

-------
early 1980's.  The major reason for this lack of popularity is its high cost




(about 30-40 percent higher than other corrugated products).  It continues to




be popular in Europe and Seandanavia,  primarily because of less competition




(Cem-Fil 1986).




  Table 2 compares the costs of various corrugated asbestos-cement sheet




substitutes.  Aluminum and galvanized steel are the least expensive substitutes




and are about two-thirds the cost of PVC corrugated sheet.  The service life




for FRP and PVC is a minimum of 20 years.  They may last longer, however, they




only have been on the market for about 20 years (H&F Manufacturing 1986b),




Galvanized steel sheet can last from 10 to 20 years, depending on the




environment in which it is used ,(H&F Manufacturing 1986b, Corrugated Metals,




Inc. 1986b).  Maintenance costs are essentially zero for all products.  FRP may




not be appropriate for certain heavy duty uses because it is more flexible than




other substitutes and may require extra support (Resolite 1986b).  Aluminum




siding is the least expensive of any substitute.  Steel paneling, while less




expensive than PVC or FRP corrugated sheet siding, is much heavier and less




corrosion resistant and therefore has restricted applications.




  As previously mentioned, corrugated asbestos-cement sheet is now primarily




being used in the small replacement market.  Estimating the possible market




share for the substitutes if corrugated asbestos-cement sheet were unavailable




is difficult because each substitute has many applications.  In general, these




products could substitute for corrugated asbestos-cement sheet in its three




major kinds of applications; (1) roofing and siding on industrial and




commercial structures; (2) specialty applications in cooling towers; and (3)




waterway liners and bulkheads.   In general construction, the replacement market




for corrugated asbestos-cement sheet will be 45 percent FRP, 35 percent




aluminum, 10 percent PVC, and 10 percent galvanized steel (Reynolds 1986;
                                      - 6 -

-------
           Table  2.   Costs  for  Corrugated  Sheet  Siding8
                   Asbestos-                            Galvanized
                    Cement     FRP    PVC    Aluminum     Steel


F.O.B. Cost            170b      173C   230d   105e           75e
($/100 sq. ft.)

Installation Costf     107        73     71     83            82
($/100 sq. ft.)

Total Cost             277       246    301    188           157
($/100 sq. ft.)

Operating Life          30s       20s    20g    20h           15h
(years)

Present Value          277       303    371    232           233
(S/100 sq. ft.)
 See Attachment, Items 2-6 for calculations.

 Atlas 1986a.

CSequentia 1984; Resolite 1986a.

     Manufacturing 1986a.

eCorrugated Metals, Inc. 1986a; Reynolds 1986.

 Means 1986.  Installation costs are for siding on a steel frame,

SICF 1984.

 Corrugated Metals, Inc. 1986a.

-------
Interstate Contractors 1986).  About 95 percent of new cooling tower cladding

is corrugated FRP sheet, with the remaining 5 percent of this market being

taken by PVC (Sequentia 1986; H&F Manufacturing 1986b).   The waterways and

bulkhead market will probably be evenly divided between aluminum and coated

steel (Alpha Marine 1986; Reynolds 1986).  Because the asbestos-cement

corrugated sheet market is 85 percent general construction, 10 percent cooling

tower exteriors and 5 percent waterways and bulkheads (Atlas 1986a),  the

overall replacement market will probably breakdown as follows (see Attachment,

Item 8):
              Substitute Product     Projected Market Share
                                           (Percent)
                     FRP                        48
                     Aluminum                   3 2
                     Steel                      11
                     PVC                         9
Table 3 presents the data for the asbestos regulatory cost model and summarizes

the findings of this analysis (see Attachment, Items 7-10).

  E.   Summary

  Currently, the applications of asbestos-cement corrugated sheet in the U.S.

are limited to the replacement market, primarily due to the availability of

adequate substitutes,   This replacement market is approximately 85 percent

general construction,  10 percent waterways and 5 percent in cooling towers.

Asbestos-cement corrugated sheet is no longer produced in the U.S.  The only

known importer is Atlas International Building Products in Montreal, Quebec,

Canada (Atlas 1986a, Atlas 1986c).

  The four substitutes and their projected market shares are Fiberglass -

reinforced plastic, 48 percent,  aluminum, 32 percent; steel, 11 percent; and


                                      - 8 -

-------
                                                 Table 3.   Data Inputs  for Asbestos Regulatory Cost
Product
Aabest os -Cement Corrugated
Sheet
FRF
Alanimro
Steel
FVC
Imports
(3/8" thick, Product Asbestos
100 »q. ft, } Caettlcisnt
3,859* O.OflS5b
»/A H/A
H/A H/A
R/A H/A
R/A H/A
Consumption
Production Ratio
Infinity5
H/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
Price
(S/100 aq. ft.)
277,00
24*. 00
188,00
157.00
301,00
Useful Price Market
tit* {$/H00 aq. ft.) Share Referenca
30 years 277,00 H/A Sae Attachment
20 years 288,15 4BX Sea Attachment
20 rears 220.21 32% See Attachment
15 years 213.90 112 Baa Attachment
20 years 352.57 9J See Attachment
N/A:  Not Applicable.




 Sea Attachment, Iten 1.
b,
 See Attachment, Item 9.
 SOB Attachment, Item 10.

-------
polyvinyl chloride, 9 percent.  Aluminum and steel are 19 percent less




expensive than imported asbestos-cenent corrugated sheet, while FRP is 9




percent and PVC is 34 percent more expensive than imported asbestos-cement




corrugated sheet.
                                      -  10  -

-------
                                   ATTACHMENT
 (1)   Calculation of corrugated asbestos-cement sheet  imported  into  the U.S.

      10,416.7785 tons of flat and corrugated asbestos-cement sheet  and
 asbestos-cement shingles were imported into the U.S. in 1985.   Of  this amount,
 8,489 tons, or 81.5 percent, came from Canada.  AIBP,  the  only  importer of
 these products from Canada roughly estimated that 10 percent of their imports
 were corrugated sheet (Atlas 1986a).  This equals 848.9 tons, or 1,697,800  Ibs,
 of corrugated asbestos-cement sheet.  AIBP's 3/8 inch  thick sheet  weighs 440
 Ibs./square (1,697,800 lbs.)/(440 Ibs./square) - 3,858.65  - 3,859  squares of
 imported corrugated asbestos-cement sheet.

 (2)   Calculations for F.O.B. plant price of aluminum  corrugated sheet.

      The price is an average for two major producers  for  4.0 ribbed, 0,32"
 thick when purchased in less than 10,000 square feet quantities.

             §1.20/square foot (Corrugated Metals 1986a)
             SO.90/square foot (Reynolds 1986)
             Average price is §1.05 square foot

 (4)   Calculations for F,._0_.B.,_plant of RFP sheet.

      Resolite's prices for translucent and opaque fire resistant  FRP
 corrugated sheet with 4.2" pitch corrugation are:

             Translucent §1.44/square foot (Resolite 1986a)
             Opaque    _...§!• .).-^7/fffluft_'ES- fp.°t (Resolite 1986a)
             Average cost is §1.455 or $1.46/square foot

      Sequentia's prices for translucent and opaque fire resistant FRP
 corrugated sheet with 4.2" pitch corrugation are:

             Translucent $l,80/square foot (Sequentia  1986a)
             Opaque	S2.19/square foot (Sequentia  1986a)
             Average cost is $1.995 or $2.00/square foot

      The average of these two prices is $1.73/square  foot.

 (4)   Calculations for F.O.B. plant price of corrugated FVC sheet.

      The price is derived by averaging H&F Manufacturing's prices for
 different purchase amounts of 1/8" thick corrugated FVC sheet.

         When over 5,000 square feet purchased   §2.16/square foot
         When over 2,500 square feet purchased   $2,27/square foot
         When up to 2,500 square feet purchased  ft ^ _„ 4 fi/g mi a .re f o e\ t-

      This gives an average price of $2.30/square foot for PVC  (H&F
Manufacturing 1986a).
                                      -  11  -

-------
(5)   Calculations for F.O.B. plant price of steel corrugated sheet.

      The price is an average for two niajor producers for 4.0 ribbed sheet when
purchased in less than 10,000 square feet quantities.

      Corrugated Metals prices for steel corrugated steel are:

             22 gauge thick §Q.86/square foot (Corrugated Metals 1986b)
             24 gauge thick S0.71/sauare foot (Corrugated Metals 1986b)
             Average price is $0,79/square foot

      22 and 24 gauge are used because they are the most popular thicknesses.

      Reynolds estimated that the average cost for 4.0 ribbed steel sheet is
approximately $0.70/square foot (Reynolds 1986).

      Thus,  the average cost for these is:

             $Q.79/square foot
             $0.70/souare foot
             Average price is $0.745 or $0,75/square foot for steel sheet.
                                *
(6)   Calculations for installation costs.

      Installation costs are all taken from Means 1986.

      Asbestos-cement corrugated sheet.

      Mineral fiber cement panels, corrugated, 3/8" thick as siding on a one
story steel  frame cost S1.07/square foot to install.

      Steel  Corrugated Sheet.

         Steel Siding.

             24 gauge $0.82 square foot
             22 gauge SO.82/square foot
             Average cost is $0.82/square foot to install.

         PVC Corrugated Sheet.  Corrugated vinyl sheets used as siding, 0,120"
thick, cost  $Q.71/square foot to install.

         Aluminum Corrugated Sheet.  Aluminum industrial corrugated sheet used
as siding, 0.024" thick, mounted on a steel frame costs S0.83/square foot to
install.

         Corrugated FEP Sheet/  Corrugated fiberglass siding, all weights,
costs $0.73/square foot to install.

(7)   Present ...value calculations (discount rate is ..5	percent.).

         PV  - TC x (a/b) x (b-l)/(a-l)
                                      -  12  -

-------
      where;

          a - (1.05)**Ns
          b - (1.05)**Na
         Ns - Life of substitute product
         Na - Life of asbestos product
         TC - Total cost of substitute product

      Na                            - 30 years,
      Ns for FRP, PVC, and aluminum - 20 years
      Ns for steel                  - 15 years

      Thus, b                           - (1.05)**30 - 4.3219
      and for FRP, PVC, and aluminum a  - (1.05)**20 - 2.6533
      and for steel a                   - (1.05)**15 - 2.0789

      FRP

         FV - $246 x (2.6533/4,3219) x (4,3219-l)/(2.6533-1) - $303

      PVC

         PV - $301 x (2.6533/4.3219) x (4.3219-l)/(2,6533-1) - §371.29 - $371

      Aluminum

         PV - $188 x (2.6533/4.3219) x (4.3219-l)/(2.6533-1) - $232

      Steel

         PV - $157 x (2.0789/4,3219) x (4.3219-l)/(2.0789-1) - $233

(8) Calculation of market shares,.in the_replacement market.

      Because 85 percent of corrugated asbestos-cement sheet's uses in the
replacement market are in general construction, 10 percent are for cooling
towers,  and 5 percent are for waterways overall (Atlas 1986a),  substitute
products market shares are derived as follows:

      General construction replacement (85%)

         FRP      45% x 0.85 - 38.25%
         Aluminum 35% x 0.85 - 29.75%
         PVC      10% x 0.85 -  8.50%
         Steel    10% x 0.85 -  8.50%

      Cooling tower replacement (10%)

         FRP      95% x 0.10 -  9,50%
         PVC       5% x 0.10 -  0.50%

      Waterways and bulkhead replacement (5%)

         Aluminum 50% x 0.05 -  2.50%
         Steel    50% x 0.05 -  2.50%

                                      - 13  -

-------
      Thus the total market share for each product is:

         FRP      - 38.25% + 9.50% - 47.75% - 48%
         Aluminum - 29.75% + 2.50% - 32.25% - 32%
         Steel    -  8.50% + 2.50% - 11.00% - 11%
         PVC      -  8.50% + 0.50% -  9.00% -  9%

(9)   Calculation of product asbestos coefficient for asbestos-cement sheet for
      asbestos regulatory cost model.

      Because this product is not produced domestically and only imported
information on the amount of asbestos used was not available and thus it was
assumed to have the same product asbestos coefficient as flat asbestos-cement
sheet -- 0.114 tons/square.  However, this is for 1/2"  thick flat sheet whereas
imported corrugated sheet is 3/8" thick.  Therefore,  to find the coefficient
for corrugated sheet:  (0.114 tons/square)/(1/2 inches) — (X)/(3/8 inches).

      Solving for X,

         X - 0.75 (0.114 tons/square) - 0.0855 tons/square

(10) Calculation for consumption/production ratio for asbestos regulatory
       cost model.

      Domestic production of corrugated asbestos-cement sheet — 0
      Imports of corrugated asbestos-cenent sheet             - 3,859 squares

      (Domestic production + imports)/(domestic production)

      - (0 + 3,859)/0 - infinity.
                                     - 14 -

-------
REFERENCES
Alpha Marine, Inc.  L, West.  1986 (December 17).  Ft, Lauderdale, FL.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Atlas International Building Products, Inc.  R. Cadieux.  1986a (October 2 and
December 17).  Montreal, Quebec, Canada.  Transcribed telephone conversations
with Michael Geschwind,  ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Atlas International Building Products, Inc.  T. Eames.  1986b (November 6).
Port Newark, NJ.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC,

Atlas International Building Products, Inc.  J. Payac.  1986c (December 16).
Port Newark, NJ.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Cem-Fil Corporation.  R. Cook,  1986  (November 4).  Lawrenceville, GA.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Coastal GFRC, Inc.  B. Horsley.  1986 (November 3).  Hooksett, NH.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

Cogley D.  1980.  GCA Corp.  Other substitutes for asbestos-cement sheet.  In;
Proceedings of the National Workshop on Substitutes for Asbestos, July 14-16,
1980.  Levin A. and Pillsbury H., eds.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances  EPA-560/3-80-001.

Corrugated Metals, Inc.   J. Webberly.  1986a (November 7).  Jersey City, NJ.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Corrugated Metals, Inc.   R. Huskey.  1986b (December 18).  Chicago, IL,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Eternit, Inc.  B. Morrissey.  1986 (November 4).  Reading, PA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

H&F Manufacturing Corp.   1986s  (January 6).  Feasterville, PA.  Product
literature and price list on phase 2 PVC panels.

H&F Manufacturing Corp.   J. Huscher  1986b (November 3 and 6).  Feasterville,
PA.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.
                                      -  15  -

-------
ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H: Asbestos products and their substitutes,
in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products,
Washington, DC: Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986.  (July - December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos-Cement Corrugated Sheet.  Washington, DC.

Interstate Contractors,  G.  Burdette.  1986 (December 18).  Mulberry, FL.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Krusell N., Cogley D,  1982.  GCA Corp,  Asbestos substitute performance
analysis. Revised final report. Washington, DC:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract 68-02-3168.

Means 1986.  Means Building Construction Costs.  Roofing and Siding.  R.S.
Means and Company.  Kingston, MA.  1985. pp. 140-147.

Resolite.  1986a.  Resolite Division of H.H. Robertson Company.  Zelienople,
PA.  1986 Sweets Catalog (8/85); CR Catalog (11/84); Wastewater Treatment
Facilities (8/85); Tred-Safe (R) Brochure (5/84); Resolite R42 Brochure;
Fiberglass Reinforced Panel Council: Plastic Panel Systems.

Resolite.  B. Reckard.  1986b (November 3).  Resolite Division of H.H.
Robertson Company.  Zelienople, PA.  Transcribed telephone conversation with
Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Reynolds Aluminum.  J. Green.  1986 (December 18).  Construction Products
Division.  Eastman, GA.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael
Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Sequentia.  1984 (November 1).  Cleveland, OH.  Reinforced Fiberglass Division,
Product literature and price list on alsynite/structoglass fiberglass
reinforced plastic sheet.

Sequentia.  D. Schmidt,  1986 (November 3).  Cleveland, OH.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.              ,

U.S. Dep. Comm.  1986a.  U.S. Department of Commerce,  Consumption of Imports
FY246/1985 Annual.  Suitland, MD.  Bureau of the Census.  U.S. Department of
Commerce.

U.S. Dep. Comm.  P. Confer.   1986b (October 3).  Suitland, MD.  U.S. Department
of Commerce,   Division of Minerals and Metals.  Bureau of the Census.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.
                                      -  16

-------
XVII.  ASBESTOS-CEMENT SHINGLES




  A.  Product Description




  All asbestos-cement siding and roofing shingles are made from the same




materials;  a mixture of Portland cement, asbestos fiber, ground silica,  and




sometimes an additional fraction of finely ground inert filler and pigment




(Supradur 1986a and b, Krusell and Cogley 1982).   Domestically produced




shingles now contain 18 percent asbestos, while imported shingles have 13




percent asbestos by weight (PEI 1986,  ICF 1986, Atlas 1986c, see Attachment,




Item 1).




  In manufacturing asbestos-cement shingles, the raw materials are mixed either




in a dry or wet state.  The mixture is then placed on a moving conveyor belt,




adding water if the mixture is dry.  The mixture proceeds through a series of




press rolls and is then textured with a high pressure grain roll.  The shingles




are then cured, cut to size, punched,  or otherwise molded.  Further processing




may include autoclaving, coating, shaping or further compression (AIA/NA and AI




1986, Supradur 1986c).




  Asbestos-cement siding shingles usually resemble shakes or machine-grooved




shingles, and asbestos-cement roofing shingles generally resemble either shakes




or slate (Supradur 1985),  The slate style is the most popular asbestos-cement




roofing shingle.  Most of the siding products are thinner than asbestos-cement




roofing shingles and have m painted finish (Supradur 1986b).  It is estimated




that 77 percent of the asbestos shingle market is siding shingles and 23




percent is roofing shingles (PII 1986, see Attachment, Item 1),




  Asbestos-cement roofing and siding shingles have been used primarily on




residential properties, although some applications have also been found in




schools,  churches, and historical restoration projects  (Supradur 1986a,  Raleigh




1986).  In rural areas they are often found in agricultural buildings and farm




houses and are used to prevent fire or water damage because of their resistance




                                      - 1 -

-------
to both (National Tile Roofing Manufacturer's Association 1986, Raleigh 1986),




Currently, asbestos-cement roofing shingles have relatively no use in new




construction (Atlas 1986b) and are principally being used for replacement and




maintenance in luxury homes, schools, churches, and historical restorations




(Atlas 1986b, Supradur 1986a).  For historical restoration they could be used




either to preserve the historical integrity of a landmark that originally had




asbestos-cement shingles, or to replace real slate with a variety of




asbestos-cement shingles that resemble slate (Atlas 1986b; National Roofing




Contractor's Association 1986).  Asbestos-cement shingles are used mostly in




the Northeast and the Midwest and are generally not found in the West or South




(National Tile Roofing Manufacturer's Association 1986).
                                *



  B.  Eroducers_and Importers of _Asbe_sj:os^Cejiient Shingles




  In 1981, there were three producers of asbestos-cement shingles:




International Building Products, National Gypsum, and Supradur Manufacturing.




National Gypsum stopped production prior to 1982 (TSCA 1982,  IGF 1984).




International Building Products closed their asbestos operations completely in




March 1986, however it is not known when they last produced asbestos-cement




shingles (Atlas 1986a),   Table 1 presents production data for the only




remaining domestic producer of asbestos-cement roofing and siding shingles.




  The only known importer of asbestos-cement shingles is Atlas Internationa.!




Building Products (AIBP) in Montreal, Quebec, Canada (Atlas 1986a and 1986b,




Eternit 1986),




  C.  Trends




  Domestic production of asbestos-ceaent shingles for 1981 and 1985 are




presented in Table 2.  While total domestic production of asbestos-cement
                                      - 2

-------
               Table  X.  Production  of Asbestos-Cement  Shingles
                                                        1985
                                                      Asbestos-
                                     1985              Cement
                                   Asbestos           Shingle
                                 Consumption         Production
                                    (tons)           (squares)
   Total                             3,893              176,643
Source:   1CF 1986.
                                      - 3 -

-------
Table 2.  Production of Asbestos-Cement Shingles
                Number of      Output
       Year     Producers      (squares)
         1981         3          266,670

         1985         1          176,643


         Sources:  ICF 1986, TSCA 1982,

-------
shingles has declined 34 percent since 1981, Supradur's production has




increased 15 percent during this period (see Attachment, Item 3).




  It is not know how many asbestos-cement shingles are imported in the U.S.




According to the Bureau of the Census, 10,416.3785 tons of asbestos-cement




products other than pipe, tubes, and fittings were imported in 1985, of which




8,489 tons, or 81.5 percent came from Canada (U.S. Dept. Comm, 1986a, 1986b),




This number most likely includes flat and corrugated asbestos-cement sheet and




asbestos-cement shingles.  AIBP, the only importer of these products,from




Canada roughly estimated that 80 percent of their U.S. shipments are




asbestos-cement shingles (Atlas 1986a, Atlas 1987).  Eighty percent of Canadian




shipments, or 6,791 tons, converts to 64,654 squares of asbestos-cement




shingles imported in 1985.




  D.  Substitutes




  Table 3 summarizes the primary substitutes for asbestos-cement siding and




roofing shingles.  There are no substitutes for asbestos-cement shingles in the




maintenance and repair market because there are no substitute products that




resemble the asbestos-cement product closely enough to be able to replace it in




parts (National Roofing Contractor's Association 1986, Supradur 1986b).  Slate




is the only shingle that would be close in appearance to some asbestos-cement




shingles, but it is much thicker and far more expensive (Supradur 1986b),   For




our study, we will consider substitutes that can be used instead of




asbestos-cement shingles for complete remodeling or new construction.  The




following section presents separate discussions of substitutes for




asbestos-cement siding shingles and asbestos-cement roofing shingles.




      1,  Asbestos-Cement Siding Shingle Substitutes




      The three primary substitutes for asbestos-cement siding shingles are




wood, aluminum, and vinyl siding.  Wood siding includes hardboard siding and
                                      - 5 -

-------
                                                Table 3.  Product. Substitutes tot Asb*sto«-C«n*nt
   Product Substitute
      Manufacturer
        Advantages
                              Avallability
                                                                                                                                         References
Sid ing_Sob»titat e«

Red Cedar Shingles and
Handspllt Shakes
Hnrdboard Elding
Vinyl Siding
Almlnun Siding
Over 450 In U.S.
Canada.
                 and
U.S. Plywood,
Stamford, CT;
Wey erh au ea e r,
Taetsna, WA; and mala
than 10 others
Certain-Teed,
Valley Forge, PA;
Vipco, Columbus, OH;
and several others
Alcan Aluminum,
Warren, OB;
Alcoa Building Products.
Sidney, OB; and several
others
Relatively high »fcr«ngth/
weight ratio.
Effective insulator,
Bigld.
Wind resistant.
Attractive.

More insulatlve than vinyl
and aluninnii.
Doesn't dent easily as
aluminum.
Hot as noisy as alunintw,
Doesn't expand and con-
tract like vinyl.
Doesn't have knots like
cedar mod.

Easy to cut and handle,
Won't peel, flake, blister
or corrode.
Inexpensive,
Ho maintenance required.
                            Several coiore .
                                                        Corrosion resistant.
                                                        Holds color well.
                                                        Ho maintenance required.
                                                        Stiffer than vinyl,
Hern fire™r@sistsnt,              national
Usually re<|ulr*9 otein ox
PT otectiivn coat Ing.
Abaorba moisture,               Rational
He«]uires protective paint.
Doesn't havn longevity af
vinyl and altminum,
Mora axpensive to install.
Can b« dented, but not »«       national
easily as alunlnun.
Can't b« painted.
Color isay fade ov«r tiros.
Ixpandi and contracts Kith
temperature change.
Can be brittli In cold
weather.
Available only in liiht
colors,
Flexlbl*.

Can be dented,                  National
Cannot b* painted.
Hoi* tsipenilvi than vinyl.
Eed Cedar Shingles and
Bandaplit Shake Bureau
19B6b, Chsmco 198610
HeyBrhaeuser 19B6,
American Rome
Improvement 19G6
Certain-Teed 1986,
CoBinonwealth Aluminum
1986, Alcoa 1986a, b
                                                                           Alcoa 1986a, b,
                                                                           Ccnmonwealth Aluminm
                                                                           1986

-------
                                                                   Table 3  (Contimnd)
   Product Substitute
                                  Manufacturer
                                                                Advantages
                                                                 D ts advant ag e
                                                            Availability
                                                                                                                                         Referencen
Roofinn Substitutes

Asphalt Fibers I etas sncl
Organic
Cedar. Wood Shingles
and Shakes
Tire, Concrete and
Clay
Manviil» Salon.
Denver,CO;
O*enBmCoCTiing,
Toledo, OB;
SAT, BY. HY;
Georgia Pacific,
Atlanta, 5A; and
silvers! others

Aaerlcan Hood Tcaating,
Mission, B.C., Canada
and over *5D other mllla
in B.C., WA, OS and ID
Monisr, Grunge, CA;
Ludowici -Celadon,
Hew Lexington, OB;
U.S. tile, Corona, CA;
and several others
Fire resistant.
Weather radizitfint
Wind resistant,
Low cost.
Easy npplication.
Lightweight
Relatively high strength/
weight ratio.
Effective Insulator,
Rigid.
Hind resistant.
Attractive.

Durable.
Hind and weather resistant.
Incombustible.
Insulative.
Fiberglass siting IBB.            Rational
May be brittle.
Shorter lltm,
Tendency to conform.
Hot as Eire resistant as        National.
cither products.
Heavy.                          Nations!
IxpensivB to install.
Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturer's ABSO-
ciatlon 1981, National
Roofing Contractor's
Association 1986,
ICF 1984
Red Cedar Shingle atid
Bandaplit Shake Bureau
1985
National Tile Roofing
Manufacturer's Asso-
ciation {n,d.},
Means 1986

-------
red cedar shakes and shingles'*' with a small amount of redwood or cedar

paneling.  Hardboard is the most common wood siding product,  comprising 69

percent of the wood siding category (American Hardboard Association 1986a, led

Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau 1986b, see Attachment, Item 4).

Hardboard is made by mixing wood fiber (90 percent) with phenolic resin (10

percent) and compressing them under high pressure.  Usually a wood grain is

embossed onto the board to make it resemble redwood or cedar; it can also have

a stucco or shake appearance.  Hardboard comes in two main sizes:  lap panels

which are 1 foot by 16 feet and boards which are 4 by 8 feet.  Both come in

thicknesses varying from 7/16 to 1/4 inch.  Hardboard has a national market,

although in the South and the Southwest brick and stucco, respectively, are
                                *
preferred (Weyerhaeuser 1986),  There are about 10 major manufacturers of

hardboard siding including U.S. Plywood, Stamford, CT; Weyerhaueser, Kalamath

Falls, OR; Masonite, Laurel, MS; and Georgia-Pacific, Atlanta, GA (Weyerhaueser

1986).

  Red cedar siding shakes and shingles comprise the remaining 31 percent of the

wood siding category (American Hardboard Association 1986a, Red Cedar Shingle &

Handsplit Shake Bureau 1986b, see Attachment, Item 4).  Over 90 percent of

cedar siding is used in the Northeast, particularly New England.  Red cedar is

an effective insulator because its cellular structure retards the passage of

heat and cold through the wood (Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau

1986b).   Cedar siding is usually stained by users although the stains are

usually flammable and make the product much less flame resistant.

  Vinyl siding has been one of the largest growing siding products and can

especially substitute for asbestos-cement shingles in residential areas.  It
         Shingles are sawed on both surfaces, whereas shakes have at least one
  split surface and thus present a rugged, irregular texture (Red Cedar Shingle
  and Handsplit Shake Bureau 1986a).

                                      - 8 -  -

-------
competes mostly with aluminum siding.  Vinyl has taken a larger share of the




siding market in the past few years, thereby reducing aluminum's share.  Both




aluminum and vinyl siding often have a simulated wood-grain finish and are




available in several colors.  One major problem with vinyl is its tendency to




expand and contract with changes in temperature.  In hot weather vinyl siding




may expand and come loose from the exterior wall,   In order to minimize this




expansion problem, vinyl siding is only available in light colors that do not




absorb as much heat (Alcoa 1986b, Commonwealth Aluminum 1986),  Major producers




of vinyl siding include Certain-Teed, Valley Forge, PA; Vipco Inc., Columbus,




OH; Mastic Corp., South Bend, IN; Wolverine, Lincoln Park, MI; Bird Inc.,




Bardstown, KY; Alcoa Building Products, Sidney, OH; and Alside, a division of




USX Corporation (Certain-Teed 1986).




  Aluminum is a proven product and has been available for over 30 years, longer




than vinyl siding.  While aluminum is more temperature resistant than vinyl, it




dents much more easily than other siding products (Commonwealth Aluminum 1986,




Certain-Teed 1986).  Though metal, aluminum siding resists rusting by forming a




protective oxide coating (Commonwealth Aluminum 1986).  Three major producers




of aluminum siding are Alcan Aluminum in Warren, OH, Alcoa Building Products in




Sidney, OH, and Reynolds in Richmond, VA.  Both Reynolds and Alcoa also produce




vinyl siding.




  Painted steel, stucco, masonry, brick, and concrete blocks may also be used




as siding, but they will not be significant substitutes for asbestos-cement




siding shingles (Commonwealth Aluminum 1986, Krusell and Cogley 1982, American




Hardboard Association 1986b).




      2.  Asbestos-Cement Roofing Shingle Substitutes




      The primary substitutes for asbestos-cement roofing shingles are asphalt




shingles (fiberglass or organic), cedar wood shingles, and tile (concrete or




clay).   Asphalt shingles are the most competitive asbestos-cement roofing




                                        9

-------
shingles substitute, even though they have a shorter service life than other




substitutes (National Roofing Contractor's Association 1986).  Before I960,




most asphalt shingles had an organic or wood-pulp base.  Today, however, 83




percent of standard strip asphalt shingles have a fiberglass base.  All asphalt




shingles are fire resistant (fiberglass-asphalt shingles have a Class A fire




rating, the highest fire rating available; organic-asphalt shingles have a




Class C fire rating, which is a lower rating than Class A, but still somewhat




fire resistant).  Fiberglass-asphalt have slightly less bulk and are lighter




weight than the organic-asphalt shingles (Asphalt Roofing Manufacturer's




Association 1984),  Some contractor's prefer the organic- asphalt because they




have a longer proven track record than fiberglass-asphalt shingles and some of




the very light weight and cheaper fiberglass-based shingles are very brittle;




however, many feel that this problem has been resolved by the manufacturers




(Qualified Remodeler Magazine 1986, RSI 1986a).  There are over 20 domestic




manufacturers of asphalt shingles including Owens-Corning Fiberglas, GAP,




Georgia Pacific, and Lunday-Thagard (Owens-Corning Fiberglas 1986, Asphalt




Roofing Manufacturer's Association 1981).




  Although not as fire resistant, red cedar wood shingles and shakes are




popular roofing substitutes.  Cedar shingles are made in the Northwest and in




British Columbia, Canada by over 450 mills; however, some of these are




virtually one man operations (Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau 1985),




Ninety-five percent of Canadian production is shipped to the U.S, and accounts




for 70 percent of U.S. domestic consumption (Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit'




Shake Bureau 1986a).  Red cedar shingles and shakes are distributed across the




U.S., the highest concentration being in California, Washington, Oregon, and




Texas (Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau 1986b).  Only 15 to 30




percent of cedar roofing shingles and shakes are fire resistant, with a fire




rating of either Class B or Class C.  Because of the fire hazard posed by




                                      -  10 -

-------
non-fire resistant cedar roofing shingles, some California towns have outlawed




their use (RSI 1986b, American Wood Treating 1986, Chemco 1986a and b) .




Approximately 72,000,000 squares of asphalt fiberglass and organic strip




shingles were produced in 1985 (Asphalt Roofing Manufacturer's Association




1986, see Attachment, Item 6).




  The tile roofing market is about the same size as the cedar roofing market,




each of which are less than one-tenth the size of the asphalt roofing shingle




market (National Tile Roofing Manufacturers Association 1986, Red Cedar Shingle




and Handsplit Shake bureau 1986a, Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association




1986).  Concrete comprises 90 percent of the tile market and clay holds the




remaining 10 percent (National Tile Roofing Manufacturer's Association 1986).




Tile is used primarily in the Sunbelt -- Florida, California, and the South




(Raleigh 1986, National file Roofing Manufacturer's Association 1986).  It is




very insulative because the air space between the tile and the underlayment




creates a heat flow barrier (National Tile Roofing Manufacturer's Association




(n.d,)).   Tile is available in three main styles:  s-tile, mission, and flat




(shakes or slate-like).  There are more than 13 U.S. concrete tile




manufacturers; the largest in the U.S. and the world is Monier Roof Tile in




Orange, CA (Monier 1986a, National Tile Roofing Manufacturer's Association




(n.d.)).   The four clay roof tile manufacturer's, all located near clay




deposits, are Ludowici-Celadon, New Lexington, OH,; U.S. Tile, San Valle, and




MCA in Corona, CA (National Tile Roofing Manufacturer's Association 1986),




Slate is very expensive and has a very small share of the roofing market.  It




is primarily used in the Vermont and New York area, the two states where it Is




quarried.




  The cost of asbestos-cement shingles and substitute roofing and siding




products are compared in Table 4.
                                      -  11 -

-------
                                       Table 4,  Cost of A/C Shlngl«* and Substitutes
                                                                                   A>ph*.lfc                        Wood Siding
                               A/C Shingles   Vinyl Siding   Aluminum Siding   Rooting Shingles   Tit« Roofing   and Soofing *C



FOB Plant Cost (3/squaro)           65             50               65                19               43              53


Installation Cost (S/stpiare)        48             63               63                30              110             109


Total Cost {^/square}              113            113              12B                49              173             162


Operating Life (yaaru)              40             50               50                 20              50              30


Present Valua (S/*quar«)           113            106              120                67              163             161


 see Attachment, Iteow 8-13 for wjuations used to determine cost*.

 Hood elding includes h«r
-------
  Siding.  Wood siding is the most expensive asbestos-cement siding substitute

overall.^  Asbestos-cement shingles, -vinyl siding, and aluminum siding are

close in overall price.

  The substitute market for asbestos-cement siding shingles is divided among

wood (hardboard and cedar shakes and shingles), 40 percent; vinyl, 35 percent;

and aluminum, 25 percent (see Attachment, Items 4-5).

  Roofing.  Table 4 shows that asphalt roofing shingles, the most popular

substitute for asbestos-cement roofing shingles, are also the least expensive

overall, even though they have half the service life,  Both tile and cedar

shingles and shake roofing are more than double the cost of asphalt roofing

(see Attachment, Items 11-14).

  The current market share for substitute roofing shingles, based on 1985

production, is asphalt shingles (primarily asphalt-fiberglass), 86 percent,

with tile  (primarily concrete) and cedar wood shingles each taking 7 percent

(see Attachment, Item 6).  Asphalt-fiberglass shingles has been and continues

to be the fastest growing segment of the roofing market, while cedar roofing

shingle and shake production has declined since 1983 (Red Cedar Shingle &

Handsplit Shake Bureau 1986b).

  Because the domestic asbestos-cement shingle market is 77 percent siding and

23 percent roofing (PEI 1986), the combined roofing and siding replacement

market for asbestos-cement shingles would probably breakdown as follows (see

Attachment, Items 4-7):
       2 For the asbestos regulatory cost model, in order to simplify the number
  of inputs, wood siding and wood roofing are combined into one wood roofing/
  siding category for which price and market share are determined (see
  Attachment, Item 4-7, 11).

                                      -  13  -

-------
                                        Projected
                                       Market Share
                                        (percent)
                            Wood              32
                            Vinyl             27
                            Asphalt           20
                            Aluminum          19
                            Tile
                                 Total       100
  Table 5 presents the data for the asbestos regulatory cost model and

summarizes the findings of this analysis.

  E. Summary

  Asbestos-cement siding shingles resemble shakes or machine -grooved, shingles

and asbestos-cement roofing shingles generally resemble either shakes or slate

(Supradur 1985).  They are primarily being used for replacement and maintenance

in luxury homes, schools, churches, and historical restoration projects (Atlas

1986b, Supradur 1986a).   Of three domestic producers in 1981, only one,

Supradur, remains in 1986.  Production has declined 34 percent from 266,670

squares in 1981 to 176,643 squares in 1985 (IGF 1986, TSCA 1982).  Only one

company, Atlas International Building Products (AIBP) of Montreal, Quebec,

Canada is known to import asbestos-cement shingles into the U.S. (Atlas 1986a,

Atlas 1986c).

  There are no substitutes for asbestos-cement shingles for maintenance and

repair applications because no substitute products resemble the asbestos

product closely enough to replace it in part (National Roofing Contractor's

Association 1986, Supradur 1986b).  However, there are many adequate

substitutes that can be used for complete replacement, remodeling or in new

construction.  The replacement market is as follows:  wood siding and roofing,


                                      -  14  -

-------
                                             Table 5.  Data Inputs  for Asbestos R»gt»l»tory Cost Model
Product
A sb os to* -Cement Shingles
Wood SI ding BI11' Roofing
Vinyl Siding
Asphalt Roofing Shingles
Aluminum Siding
Tile Roofing
Output Product
(squares) Asbestos Coe££lcle
176,6*3 0.022
H/A H/A
H/A H/A
H/A H/A
H/A H/A
H/A H/A
Consurnption
nt Production Ratio Pries
1.37 9113.00
H/A S1S2.00
H/A SI 13. 00
H/A 8 *9.00
H/A $128.00
H/A 5173.00
Equivalent Mark at
UseCul Life Price Share Euferance
*0 yeara 8113.00 B/A See Attachment
30 years 8174,05 321 See Attachment
50 years $109.16 27% See Attachment
20 years $ 61.66 20! See Attachment
50 years 8123,65 19% Sea Attachment
50 years 8167.12 Zl Sea Attachment
N/A;  Rot Applicable.




 See Attachment, Items 4-16 for explanation and calculations.

-------
32 percent; vinyl siding, 27 percent; asphalt-based roofing,  20 percent;




aluminum siding, 19 percent; and tile roofing, 2 percent.   Vinyl and aluminum




siding cost about the same as the asbestos product.  Asphalt-based roofing




shingles are about half the cost, and tile roofing and wood siding and roofing




are 45-60 percent more expensive than asbestos-cement shingles.
                                      -  16

-------
                                  ATTACHMENT
(1)    Calculation of percent of__asbestos in domestic, asbestos -cement	shingles.

       One domestic producer has a. production capacity of 134,800 squares or
12,000 tons for siding shingles and 40,000 squares or 9,500 tons for roofing
shingles (PE1 1986).  This gives an average weight of 178 Ibs./square ((12,000
tons x 2,000 lbs./ton)/(134,80Q Squares)) for siding shingles and 475
Ibs./square ((9,500 tons x 2,000 Ibs./ton)/(40,000 squares)) for roofing
shingles.   This yields a roofing and siding shingle weighted average weight of
246 Ibs./square ((134,800 squares x 178 Ibs./square -f-40,000 squares x 475
Ibs./ square)/I74,800 squares).  The domestic producer's shingles have an
average of 44 Ibs, of asbestos per square.  Therefore,  ((44 Ibs. of
asbestos/square)/246 Ibs,/square) x 100 - 17,89 percent or 18 percent asbestos
by weight in asbestos-cement domestic shingles.

       From the production capacities in squares shown above, it is estimated
that 77 percent of the asbestos-cement shingle market is siding and 23 percent
is roofing.

(2)    Calculation for Imports of asbestos-cement shingles.

       10,416.3785 tons of asbestos-cement flat and corrugated sheet and
asbestos-cement shingles were imported into the U.S. in 1985,  81.5 percent, or
8,489 tons, of this figure was from Canada.   Atlas International Building
Products (AIBP),  the only importer of these products from Canada estimates that
80 percent of their imports is asbestos-cement shingles (Atlas 1986a).  Ten
percent equals 6,791 tons or 13,582,000 Ibs, of asbestos-cement shingles.

       AIBP estimates that 60 percent of the asbestos-cement shingles imports
are siding and 40 percent are roofing shingles:

           Siding  - 0.6 x (6,791 tons) - 4,075 tons - 8,150,000 Ibs.
           Roofing - 0.4 x (6,791 tons) - 2,716 tons - 5,432,960 Ibs.

       AIBP's siding and roofing shingles weigh 155 Ibs./square and 450
Ibs./square,  respectively.

           Siding Shingles  - (8,150,000 lbs.)/(455 Ibs./square)
                            - 52,581 squares

           Roofing Shingles - (5,432,960 lbs.)/(450 Ibs./square)
                            - 12,073 squares

              Total Imports — 64,654 squares

       This estimate may be low because it does not include the 18.5 percent of
asbestos-cement products other than pipe, tubes, and fittings imported from
countries  other than Canada.  These imports from other -countries may possibly
include some flat asbestos-cement shingles (U.S. Dep. Comm. 1986a,  1986b).
                                      -  17  -

-------
(3)    Calculations for changes in production of asbestos-cement shingles
       between 1981 and 1985 .(TSCA 1982^	ICE	1986).

           (1985 production - 1981 production/1981 production) * 100
           - (176,643 squares - 266,670 squares/266,670 squares) * 100
           - -33.8% - -34%.

           Domestic production has changed as follows:

           (1985 production - 1981 production/1981 production) * 100
           - (176,643 squares - 153,603 squares/153,603 squares) * 100
           - 15%.

(4)    Calculations for the share of cedar shingle and hardboard In the wood
       s idlng market.

       Members of the Red Cedar Shingle and Handsplit Shake bureau produced
355,825 squares in 1985,  Since this association accounts for only 70 percent
of the cedar shingle and shake market, 355,825/0.70,  or 508,321 red cedar
shingles and shakes were produced in 1985 (Red Cedar Shingle and Handsplit
Shake Bureau 1986a and b) .   This combined with 1,128,992 squares of hardbomrd
siding produced in 1985 aakes for a total of 1,637,313 squares (American
Hardboard Association 1986a and 1986b).

           (508,321/1,637,313) * 100   - 31% red cedar siding
           (1,128,992/1,637,313) * 100 - 69% hardboard siding

(5)    Estimates of the projected market share for wood, vinvl. and aluminum in
       the siding market were based on estimates from the following references:
       Qualified Remodeler Magazine 1986; Alcoa 1986a and b; Contractor's Guide
       1986.

(6)    Calculations of projected market shares In the asbestos-cement, shingles
       replacement roofing market,

       Asphalt fiberglass and organic standard strip shingles produced in 1985
- 71,766,672 (Asphalt Roofing Manufacturer's Association 1986b).

       Members of the Red Cedar Shingle and Handsplit Shake Bureau produced
3,885,174 squares of roofing shingles and shakes in 1985.  Since this
association accounts for only 70 percent of the cedar shingle and shake market,
3,885,174/0.70, or 5,550,249 squares of red cedar shingles and shakes for
roofing were produced in 1985 (Red Cedar Shingle and Handsplit Shake Bureau
1986a and b).

       About 6,000,000 squares, of tile roofing were produced in 1985 (National
Tile Roofing Manufacturer's Association 1986).

       This makes a total of 83,316,921 squares consisting of 86.1 percent
asphalt shingles, 6.7 percent wood, and 7.2 percent tile.
                                      -  18  -

-------
(7)    Calculation of_total.-replacement pagket_shareE.

       The following calculations are based on the fact that 77 percent of the
asbestos-cement shingle market is siding, and 23 percent is roofing (FBI 1986),
           Wood roofing  6.7% (0.23) -f
           and siding   40.01 (0.77) - 32.34% - 32%
           Vinyl        35.0% (0.7?) - 26.95% - 27%
           Asphalt      86.1% (0.23) - 19.80% - 20%
           Aluminum     25.01 (0.77) - 19.25% - 19%
           Tile          7.2% (0.23) -  1.66% -  2%

(8)    Calculation of costs for asbestos-cement roofing and siding shingles.

       The asbestos-cement shingle F.O.B, plant cost is based on Supradur's
average price according to an IGF survey (IGF 1986).  The asbestos-cement
shingle installation cost is a weighted average for 325 Ib./square and 500
Ib./square roofing shingles and 167 Ib./square siding shingles (Means 1986a).

           Roofing asbestos-cement shingle cost

               325 Ib. $40/square
               500 Ib. S73/sauare
               Average $56.50

       Siding asbestos-cement shingle cost $46/square for 167 Ib./square (Means
1986).

       Because 77 percent of asbestos-cement shingle market is siding and 23
percent roofing,

           (56.50/square * 0.23) + ($46/square * 0.77)  - $48.42
           - $48 for installation of asbestos-cement shingles.

(9)    Cost of vinyl siding.

       The F.O.B. plant cost for vinyl siding is based on the following
references:  Alcoa 1986a and b; Certain-Teed 1986.

       The installation cost is for solid PVC panels 8"-10" wide, plain or
insulated (Means 1986).

(10)   Cost of aluminum siding.

       The F.O.B, plant cost for aluminum siding is based on the following
references:  Alcoa 1986a and b; Certain-Teed 1986.

       The installation cost for aluminum siding is the same as for PVC siding
(American Home Improvement 1986; Wages and Evans 1986;  Johnny B.  Quick 1986),
                                        19  -

-------
(11)   Cost of wood, siding and roofing.

       To determine the cost of wood siding and roofing, costs are first
derived separately for wood siding alone and wood roofing alone.   These costs
are then multiplied by their share of the asbestos-cement shingle replacement
market to give a weighted average cost for wood roofing and siding,

       (a)  Cost of wood siding.

       The F.O.B. plant price of cedar siding shingles and shakes is $80/square
(American Wood Treating 1986).  The F.O.B. plant price for hardboard wood
siding is $40/square (Weyerhaeuser 1986, U.S. Plywood 1986).

       Since the 69 percent of the wood siding replacement market for
asbestos-cement shingles is hardboard and 31 percent is cedar shakes and
shingles (see previous calculations), the average cost for all wood siding will
be

           ($80/square x 0.31) + ($40/square x 0.69) -
           $52.4Q/square for wood siding

       The installation costs for cedar wood siding shingles and shakes are
averaged from Means 1986.

           16" long with 7-1/2" exposure - $78/square
           18" long with 7-1/2" exposure - $71/square
           18" lone, with _8-1/2" exposure - $80/square
           Average of these three - $76.33 or $76/square

       The installation costs for hardboard siding was estimated to be double
that for aluminum and PVC, or $126/square.  Even if this estimate is a bit
high, it will include the cost for painting that hardboard siding requires
(American Home Improvement 1986, Moon Sidings 1986, National Home Improvement
Co. 1986).

       The weighted average cost for all wood siding is based on 69 percent of
the replacement market being hardboard and 31 percent cedar siding (see
previous calculations).

           ($126/square x 0.69) + ($76/square x 0.31) - $110.50 or $lll/aquare
is the average installation cost for wood siding.

       The operational life for wood siding is determined by taking a weighted
average of that for hardboard and for cedar wood.

       Hardboard life - 25 years (American Hardboard Association 1985,
                        Weyerhaeuser 1986).

       Cedar life     - 40 years (ICF 1985).

           (40 years x 0.31) + (25 years x 0.69) - 29.65 years - 30 years
                                      -  20  -

-------
     (b)  Cost of wood roofing.

     The average estimated F.O.B. plant cost for non-fire treated cedar
roofing shingles is $68/square (American Wood Treating 1986, RSI 1986, Cheaeo
1986a).

     The installation cost is an average of 16" and 18" roofing shingles.

         16" - $64/square
         18" - $58/square
         Average - $61/square

     (c)  Cost of wood siding and roofing

     The wood roofing market represents 1.54 percent of the entire
asbestos-cement shingle replacement market.  The wood siding market represents
30.80 percent of the entire asbestos-cement shingle replacement market for a
total market share of 32.34 percent for wood (see previous market share
calculations).  Therefore, roofing is ((1.54/32,34) x 100), or 4.8 percent of
the wood replacement market and siding is ((30.80/32.34) x 100), or 95.2
percent of the wood replacement market.

     Thus the weighted average F.O.B, plant cost for wood is;

         ($52/square x 0.952) -I- ($68 x 0.048) - $52.77/square - $53/square

     The weighted average cost for installation of wood roofing and siding is:

         ($lll/square x 0.952) + ($61/square + 0.048) - $108.60 - $109/square

     The total cost for wood is:

         $52.77 + $108.60 - $161.37/square or
         ($163/square x 0.952) + ($129/square x 0.048) - $167.37/square

     The average weighted operating life for wood roofing and siding is:

         (30 years x 0.952) 4- (40 years x 0.048) - 30.48 years - 30 years

(12) Cost_f_or asphalt, standard strip._shingl_es,

     The F.O.B. plant cost for asphalt shingles is a weighted average of
asphalt fiberglass, 83 percent, and asphalt organic, 17 percent, shingles
(Asphalt Roofing Manufacturer's Association 1986).

     Average price for fiberglass shingles - $18.50/square (Owens-Corning
1986).

     Average for organic shingles - $20/square (Owens-Corning 1986).

         {$18,50/square x 0.83) - ($20/square x 0.17) - $18.75
         - $19/square is the cost for asphalt shingles.

     Installation cost is also a weighted average of standard strip organic,
235-240 Ib./square, and fiberglass, 210-235 Ib./square shingles.

                                    -  21  -

-------
         Installation cost for fiberglass - S30/square (Means 1986)
         Installation cost for organic    - $27/square (Means 1986}

         ($30/square x 0.83) + ($27/square x 0.17) - §29.50
         - $30/square is the average cost for installation of
           asphalt shingles.

(13) Cost of roofing tile.

     The tile market is about 10 percent clay tile and 90 percent concrete
tile (National Tile Roofing Manufacturer's Association 1986).

     The F.O.B. plant cost for clay tile is an average of four companies, Smn
Valle, U.S. Tile, MCA, and Ludowici-Celadon's prices for Mission, S, and Flat
tile.  S-tile was weighted 65 percent while the Mission and Flat were each
weighted 17.5 percent.  Ludowici's average price was weighted 30 percent,
while the other three companies were each weighted 23.33 percent (U.S. Tile
1986, MCA 1986, San Valle 1986, Ludowici-Celadon 1986).  This gave a clay tile
price of $134/square.

         ((0.30 (0.65 * 250.00 -f 0.175 * 310,00 + 0.175 * 310.00)) +•
         (0.233 (0,65 * 70.40 -f 0.175 * 97.20 + 0.175 * 114.75)) +
         (0.233 (0.65 * 55.00 -f 0.175 * 106.00 + 0.175 * 106.00)) +
         (0.233 (0.65 * 58.50 -I- 0.175 * 90.40 + 0.175 * 100.57))).

     The national average F.O.B, plant cost for concrete tile is $55/square
(Monier Roofing Tile Company 1986a and b).

     Using the above tile market shares an average weighted price was derived:
($55/square x. 0.90) + ($134/square x 0.10) - $62.90 - $63/square for tile
roofing, F.O.B. plant.

     Installation cost for clay was based on an average of S and Mission tile:

         Mission -  $84/square (Means 1986)
         S-Tile  - $130/square (Means 1986)
         Average cost - $107 for clay tile installation

     Installation for concrete tile is based on the S-tile and corrugated tile
- $110/square (Means 1986).

     Total installation cost for tile, concrete (90 percent) and clay (10
percent), is:  ($110/square x 0.90) + ($107/square x 0.10) - $109.7 -
$110/square.

(14) Present value calculations	for	substitutes.

         N  - life of asbestos product
         N,  - life of substitute product

         TC - total cost of product
                                    -  22 -

-------
PV - TC x (a/b) x (b-l)/(a-l)

 a - (1.05)N*
 b - (1.05)ND

N  - 40 years
 I - (1,05)   - 7.0400

(a)  Vinvl siding

    TC - $113/square
    N  - 50 yeagg
     i - (1.05)   - 11.4674

    PV - $113 square x (11,4674/7.0400) x (7.0400 - 1)/(11.4674 - 1)
       - $106,21 - $106/square
(b)  Aluminum siding

    TC - $128/square
    N  ~ 50 yea^g
     5 - (1.05)   - 11.4674

    PV - $128 square x (11.4674/7.0400) x (7.0400 - 1)/(11.6674 - 1)
       - $120.31 - $120/square

(c)  Wood siding

    TC - $163/square
    N  - 30 years
     B - (1.05)   - 4.3219

    PV - $163 square x (4.3219/7.0400) x (7.0400 - 1)/(4.3219 - 1)
       - $181.95 - $182/square

(d)  Wood roofing

    N  - N,  - 40 years
     a    b      J
    Therefore PV - TC

(e)  Wood giding and rooffaig

    TC - $162/square
    N,  - 30 years
     i - (1.05)   - 4.3219

    PV - $162 square x (4.3219/7.0400) x (7.0400 - 1)/(4,3219 - 1)
       - $180.83 - $181/square

(f)  Asphalt roofing

    TC - $49/square
    N  - 20 yeajg
     B - (1.05)   - 2.6533
                           -  23  -

-------
             PV - $49 square x (2.6533/7.0400) x (7.0400 - l)/(2.6533 - 1)
                - $67.47 - $67/square

         (g)  Tile roofing

             TC - $173/square
             N  - 50 yean
              B - (1.05)   - 11.4674

             PV - $173 square x (11.4674/7.0400) x (7.0400 - 1)/(11.4674 - 1)
                - $162.61 - $162/square

(15)  Calculations for product asbestos coefficient for Asbestos Regulatory
     Cost Model.

     Tons of asbestos used per unit of output

         - 3,893 tons/176,643 squares
         - 0.0220 tons/square

(16)  Calculations for consumption-production ratio for Asbestos Regulatory
     Cost Model.

         (Domestic production + Imports)/Domestic production

         (176,643 squares -I- 64,654 squares)/(176,643 squares) - 1.37
                                   - 24 -

-------
REFERENCES
AIA/NA and AI,  1986 (June 29),  Opening written comments of the Asbestos
Information Association/North America and Asbestos Institute on EPA's proposed
mining and import restrictions and proposed manufacturing, importation and
processing prohibitions.  Testimony of Alfred E. Netter, President of Suprmdur
Manufacturing Corporation.

Alcoa.  R, Egbert.  1986a (November 25).  Alcoa Building Products.  Rockvllle,
Maryland.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, IGF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Alcoa."  J. Kelemen.  1986b (December 5).  Alcoa Building Products.  Rockville,
Maryland.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C,

American Hardboard Association,  1985 (June).  Association Literature:
"Questions, Answers: Hardboard Siding."  Palatine, IL.

American Hardboard Association.  1986a (October).  Association Literature:
Exterior walls product shipments 1977-1985."  Palatine, IL.

American Hardboard Association.  1986b (November 25).  Palatine, IL.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

American Home Improvement Co.  M. Duncan.  1986 (December 11).  Brentwood,
Maryland.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

American Wood Treating.  J.  Feaver,  1986 (November 21).  Mission, B.C.,
Canada.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturer's Association.  1981.  Rockville, Maryland.
Association literature:  "What you should know about fiberglass shingles."

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturer's Association.  1984,  Rockville, Maryland,
Association literature:  "The Asphalt Roofing Industry."

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturer's Association.  1986 (February 2).  Rockville,
Maryland.  Association Literature:  "Production of strip shingles,"

Atlas International Building Products.  R. Cadieux,   1986a (October 2 and
December 17). .Montreal, Quebec, Canada.  Transcribed telephone conversation
with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Atlas International Building Products.  T. Eames.  1986b (November 6),  Port
Newark, NJ.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Gesehwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C,

Atlas International Building Products.  J. Payac.  1986c (November 25),
Montreal, Quebec, Canada.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael
Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

                                    -  25  -

-------
Atlas International Building Products.  R. Cadieux.  1987 (July 7),  Montreal,
Quebec, Canada,  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind,
IGF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Certain-Teed.  S. Howe.  1986 (December 4),  Valley Forge, PA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Chemco.  D. Fandrem.  1986a (November 21).  Ferndale, WA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

Chemco.  F. Trosino.  1986b (November 21.  Ferndale, WA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

Commonwealth Aluminum.  B. Sullenberger.   1986 (December 4).  Bethesda,
Maryland.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Contractors Guide Magazine.  1986 (February).  Skokie, JL.  60077.
Siding/Sheathing Survey.  Market Report #9.  pp.  1-10.

Eternit, Inc.  B. Morrissey.  1986 (November 4),   Reading, PA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory laspact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington,  D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).   Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos-Cement Shingles.  Washington, DC.

Krusell N,, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos substitute performance
analysis:  Revised final report.  Washington, DC:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract 68-02-3168.

Johnny B, Quick.  M. Ryan,  1986 (December 11).  Washington, DC.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC,

Ludowici-Celadon.  D. Mohler.  1986 (November 25).  New Lexington, OH.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC,.

MCA.  Sales Representative.  1986 (December 3).  Maharuchi Ceramics Gonpany.
Corona, CA.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Means.  1986.  Kingston, MA.  02364.   Means Building Construction Cost Data.
Shingles, Roofing and Siding,  R.S. Means Company Inc.  pp. 141-150.
                                    -  26  -

-------
Monier Roof Tile Company,  1. Mittenmeyer.   1986a (November 25).   Lakeland,
FL.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Monier Roof Tile Company.  T. Lua.  1986b (November 25).  Corona, CA,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Moon Sidings.  S. Cho,  1986 (December 11).   Fairfax, VA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,  Washington,
DC.

National Home Improvement Co., Inc.  H. Richard.  1986 (December 11).
Washington, DC.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

National Roofing Contractor's Association.   J. Wolenski.  1986 (November 13).
Chicago, IL.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, 1CF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

National Tile Roofing Manufacturer's Association.  W. Pruter.  1986 {November
13).  Los Angeles,  CA  90039.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael
Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

National Tile Roofing Manufacturer's Association,  (n.d.)  Los Angeles, CA
90039.  Association literature:  Roofing tile; List of Members, 1986-1987.

Owens-Corning Fiberglas.  S. Persinger.  1986 (November 21).  Toledo,  OH.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

PEL  1986 (September 26),  OTS survey of Supradur Manufacturing Corporation,
Rye, NY.  Completed by Alfred E, Netter, President of Supradur.

Qualified Remodeler Magazine.  B. Sour.  1986 (November 25),  Division of
Harcourt, Brace, Jovanich.  Chicago, IL.  Transcribed telephone conversation
with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Raleigh Incorporated.  B. Raleigh.  1986 (November 17).  Belvedere, IL.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau.   1985 Bellevue, WA.  Association
literature:  "Of shakes and shingles..."; "Timeless beauty:  red cedar
shingles & handsplit shakes."

Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau.   P.  Wood.  1986a (November 21).
Bellevue, WA.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau.   1986b.  Bellevue, WA.
Association literature:  Production and distribution of red cedar shingles and
handsplit shakes, 1983-1985.

RSI.  1986a (August).  Chicago, IL.  Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Magazine.

                                    -  27  -

-------
"The fiberglass shingles flap,"  p. 10.

RSI.  1986b (October).  Chicago, IL,  Roofing, Siding, and Insulation
Magazine.  "Ban-aid for wood shakes?"  p. 32.

San Valle Tile Company.  J. Danner.  1986 (December 3).  Corona, CA,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, IGF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.
Supradur Manufacturing Corporation.  1985 (September).  Wind Gap, PA.  Product
literature on pre-shrunk mineral fiber siding and roofing specifications.

Supradur Manufacturing Corporation.  1986a (July 15).  Testimony of Alfred
Netter, President, at the Environmental Protection Agency legislative hearing
on its asbestos ban arid phase out proposal.

Supradur Manufacturing Corporation.  M. Mueller.  1986b (November 4).  Wind
Gap, PA.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, IGF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Supradur Manufacturing Corporation.  A. Netter.  1986c (November 4).  Letter
to Michael Geschwind, IGF Incorporated, Washington, D,C.

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, DC:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8601012.

U.S. Department of Commerce.  1986a.  U.S. Department of Commerce.
Consumption of Imports FY 246/1985 Annual.  Suitland, MD.   Bureau of the
Census.  U.S. Department of Commerce,

U.S. Department of Commerce P. Confer.  1986b (October 3).  Suitland, MD.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Division of Minerals and Metals.  Bureau of the
Census,  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

U.S. Plywood.  G. Landiti.  1986 (November 25).  Stamford CT.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

U.S. Tile Company.  L, Linville.  1986 (December 3).  Corona, CA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

Wages and Evans.  G. Evans.  1986 (December 11).  Transcribed telephone
conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Weyerhaeuser Corporation.  G, Downey.  1986 (December 4).   Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC,
                                    -  28  -

-------
XVIII,  DRUM BRAKELIKINGS




    A.  Product Description




    Most new light and medium vehicles, i.e., passenger cars and light trucks,




are equipped with drum brakes on the rear wheels (and disc brakes on the




front).  A drum brake consists of a metal drum within which there are two




curved metal "shoes," lined on the outside with molded friction material,




called drum brake linings.  When the brakes are applied, the curved shoes are




pressed out against a metal drum that is connected to the wheels of the




vehicle.  The pressure of the shoes against the drum stops the turning of the




wheels.  There are two drum linings (one for each brake shoe) for each wheel




(GM 1986a, IGF 1985).




    In light and medium vehicles, the lining segments are usually a third of




an inch thick or less.  In heavy vehicles (i.e. ,  heavy trucks and off-road




vehicles), the segments are at least three-quarters of an inch thick and are




called brake blocks,  instead of drum brake linings (Allied Automotive 1986).




    Asbestos-based drum brake linings contain approximately 0.38 Ibs.  of




asbestos fiber per lining on average (ICF 1986a),   Asbestos is used because of




its thermal stability, reinforcing properties, flexibility, resistance to




wear, and relatively low cost (Krusell and Cogley 1982).




    The primary production process for drum brake linings is a wet-mix process




in which asbestos is combined with resins, fillers, and'other product




modifiers and the mixture is then extruded into flat, pliable sheets.  The




sheets are cut, formed into a curved shape, and then molded for 4 to 8 hours




under moderate heat and pressure.  After grinding,  the linings are bonded




(glued) or riveted to the brake shoe (ICF 1985).   While bonded brake linings
       See Attachment, Item 1.




                                    - 1 -

-------
have greater frictional surface area, riveted linings are quieter (Allied




Automotive 1986).




    Secondary processing of drum linings may be of several types.  Some




processors install new brake linings into brake assemblies for vehicles,




Others repackage linings for sale as replacement parts in the aftermarket,




Neither of these secondary processes involve grinding, drilling, or any other




treatment of the brake linings that is performed by the primary processors.




Another distinct type of secondary processing is automotive rebuilding,




Rebuilders receive used, worn brake linings attached to the shoes.  The old




linings are removed from the shoes, the shoes are cleaned by abrasion, and new




linings are attached.  The rebuilt shoes with linings are then packaged and




sold for the aftermarket (ICF 1985, Krusell and Cogley 1982),




    B.  Producers and Importers__of Drum _Brake ..Linings




    Table 1 lists the thirteen primary processors of drum brake linings in




1985.  All produced an asbestos-based product.   Nine of the processors also




produced substitutes (ICF 1986a).




    Changes in primary processors from 1981 to 1985 include Friction Division




Product's purchase of Thiokol's Trenton, NJ, plant and Brake System Itic.'s




purchase of one of Raymark's Stratford, CT, plants (Friction Division Products




1986; Brake Systems 1986).  Brassbestos of Paterson, NJ,  went out of business




in August, 1985 (ICF 1986a) and H.K. Porter of Huntington, IN, discontinued




production of drum brake linings in 1986 (PE1 Associates 1986).  Thus, eleven




companies continue to produce asbestos drum brake linings.




    Table 2 lists the five current secondary processors of drum brake linings.




The Standard Motor Products plant was formerly owned by the EIS division of




Parker-Hannifan (ICF 1986a).  At Echlin's Dallas, TX, plant, which was




formerly owned by Raymarlc, linings are attached to brake shoes without any
                                    - 2 -

-------
                                         Table  1.   19B5  Primary Proce»»oe» of Prtaa Bicake. Linings
Company
Allied Automotive
General Hotors, Inland Division
LSI-Certified Brakes (Division of
Lear-Siaglsi:)
Abex
Huturn
Virginia Friction Products
Chrysler
U.S. Automotive Manufacturing
Friction Division Products (plant formerly
owned by Thlokol)
Carlisle, Motion Control Industries Civ.
H.K. Porter*
Brassbestos
Brake Systems Inc. (Division of Echllrt)
(plant formerly owned by Raymark)

Prodwot
Plant Location(S) Asbestos Bon -Asbestos
Cleveland, TN
Green Island, (Of
Dayton, OB
Danville, KY
Winchester, VA
Smithville, TH
Walkerton, VA
Wayne, HI
Tappahaimock , VA
Trenton, HJ
Ridgway, PA
Hunt irig ton, IN
P«t«raon, BJ
Stratford, CT
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
Eft far an ess
ICP 1986a,
Allied Aufcowotlva 1986,
TSCA 1982«
ICP 1986a, 1982a
ICF H86*, 1SCA 1982«
Ab*x 1986, TSCA 1982a
ICF 1986s, TSCA 1982«
ICF 19B6a, TSCA 19B2a
ICF 1986a, TSCA 1982s
ICF 1966a, TSCA 1982a
ICF 198S«, TSCA 1962a
ICF 198««, 1SCA 1982«
ICT 198*a, ISCA 1982a
ICF 198«*, ISCA J.982a
BroXe Systems 1986,
TSCA Wmm
 H.K. Porter «tOff>ed production of asbestos  and  semi-metallic  drum brake linings In 1986 (FEI AiwialabM 1186),

 Brassbestoi went out at biisinea* in August  1985 (ICF  1986«).   It i* ••snned that they produced aubsBtos-busod an drum brake  linings
in 1983,

-------
                                        Table 2,  19 B5 Secondary Processors of Dm* Irak* Lining*
Product
CoiRpauy Plant Location Asbestos Non~Asbestos
Cali-Biok, EIS Dlv. of Parker-Harmifan Gardena, CA X X
Standard Motor Products W«st Betid, WI X
Wagner farsippany, HJ X H/A
Allied Automotive* South Bend, IH B/A H/A
Echlin Dallas, TX X M/A
R*£»renc«a
ICF IJBSb, TSCA 19i2b
ICF 198«b, ISCA 19B2b
ICF U86b, ICF 1995
TSCA 1982b
Brake Systens 1986,
fSCA 1962b
NA;  Infoncstion not available.




* Did not participate in 1986 ICF Survey.

-------
Tahiti 3  (Continued)
Company
American lauzu Motor Inc.
Nissan Motor Corp.
Porsche Cars North America
Renault USA, Inc.
Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc.
Subaru of America Inc.
Volvo Cars of North Amsrica
Hyundai Motor America
Original Quality, Inc.
Location
Whlttter, CA
{•Jar dan a, CA
Reno, HV
BHW York, Sew York
Lyndhurst, HJ
Fsnnsaufcen, HJ
Bocklalgh, RJ
Garden Grove, CA
JacksonvlU*, PA
E@£erances
Autcxnobils Importers sf America 19BS
AutooiobH» Importers of America 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986
AutoraobllB Importers of Anwrica 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986
Autonobils Importers of America 1986
Automobile Importer* of America 1986
Automobila Importers of America 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986

-------
Table 3.  Importers of Asbestos-Based Drun Hrn>.a Linings
Company
Guardian Corp. (Division of Hagnar)
LSI-Certified Bx«k« (Division of
Lear-Sleglnr)
Abex
Toyota Motor 5*1»«, U.S. A
Mercedes-Benz of North America
Saab -Ec an la of /meiicn
Volkswagen of America
8MH at North America
Western Automotive Warehouse
Distributors
U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation
Hawthorne Bonded Brake Co.
Peugeot Motors of America
General Ho tor 8
J.I. Case Company
Alfa Romeo
Fiat
Jaguar
t.ot.uu Performance Cars
Mazda (North Arooriea) Inc.
Mitsubishi Motors Corp, Survicei, Inc.
American Honda Motor Co.
Location
Pamippany, HJ
Danville, KY
Winchester, VA
Torremsa, CA
Montvals, HJ
Orange. CT
Troy, MI
Hontvata, NJ
Los Angeles, CA
Eren, CA
Loa AngaLes, CA
LyndhuCBt, HJ
Dayton, OB
Racine, Wl
Englenood Cliffs. HJ
Dearborn. MI
Ltoni*, HJ
Rornood , HJ
Irvine, CA
Southfi.ld, HA
Gardana , CA
Bafereaees
Hagnsr 19B6«, 1C? 198*
ICP 1986«, 1C? 198*
ICF 198*
ICF 19868, ICF 1984
ICF 1984
ICF 1986a, ICF W84
ICF 1986a, ICF 1984
ICF 198*
ICF 1984
ICF 19S6«, ICF 1984
ICF 198S», ICF 1984
ICF 1984
ICF 1984
ICF 1984
Automobile Importer* of America
Automobile Importers of America
AutomoMl* Iraport»rn af America
Automobile Importern af America
Automobile Import ere of America
Automobile Importers of America
Automobile Importers of Aoerica















1986
1986
1916
1986
1986
1986
1986

-------
                                               Table 3,   Importers of Asbestos-Eased  Drti-i  Brake Linings
                 Company
                                                Location
                                                                          8»£«r*nc«i
Wagner




Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A




U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.




Mercedes-Benz of North America




Abex




Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A




General Motors




Volkswagen of taertea. Inc.




Western Automotive Warehouse Distributors




J.I. Case Go.




Peugeot Motors of America, Inc.




Climax Molybdenum




Original Quality Inc.




Fiat




American Honda Motor Co.




American Inuzu Motor Inc.




Mazda (North America) Inc.




Mitsubishi Motors Corp. Services




Nissan Motor Corp.




Renault USA, Inc.




Subaru o£ Amexica, Inc.




Hyundai Motor America
Parsippany, KJ




Torrence, CA




Brea, CA




Montvale, NJ




Winchester, VA




Santa Ana, CA




Dayton, OH




Troy, MI




Loa Angeles, CA




Racine, HI




Lyndhust, NJ




Golden, Co.




Jacksonville, FL




Dearborn, MI




Gardens, CA




Hhittier, CA




Irvine, CA




Southfield, MI




Gardens, CA




Hew York, NY




PennsB.uk en, NJ




Garden Grove,  CA
Hagnar 1986*. Wagner 198ft




ICT 1986*, ICF 1584




ICF 1986a, ICF 1984




ICF 1984




ICF 1984




ICF 1986a, ICF 1984




ICF 1984




ICF 1986a, 1986b




ICF 1984




ICF 1984




ICF 1984




ICF 1984




Original Quality 1988




Automobile Importers of America 1986




Automobile Importor» of America 1986




Automobile Importer! of America 1986




AutomoUl« Importers of America 1986




Automobile Inportors of America 1986




Automobile lopotbMi of Aisrioa 19M




Automobile Inportflrn of Amnricn If18




Automobil* Iiqpoctocc of Arncrica 1986




Automobile Importers of Amsricn 1986
 Volkswagen stated that in the 19B7 nodal year, all vehicles will ba fitted with only non-«sb«atos brake linings (ICF 198$*).

-------
additional processing (Brake Systems 1986).   Similarly, Wagner installs brake


linings with no additional processing (Wagner 1986a).


    Table 3 lists the twenty-one importers of asbestos-based drum brake


linings.


    C.  Trends


    Table A gives the production of asbestos-based dram brake linings and the


corresponding consumption of asbestos fiber.  From 1981 to 1985 there was a


19.6 percent decline in production of asbestos drum brake linings.  This is


probably due to substitution of asbestos in the OEM, and the fact that certain


luxury and high-performance cars, that currently account for roughly 5 percent


of OEM light/medium vehicles, are now equipped with four disc brakes (e.g.,


Cadillac Seville and El Dorado, Corvette, Pontiac STE and Fiero, and

                                                   *j
high-performance Camaros and Firebirds) (GM 1986a),


    In addition, it should be noted that some luxury imports, e.g., Mercedes,


BMW, and Saab, use disc brakes on all four wheels (GM 1986a, Saab-Scania of


America 1986).  New Saab cars, in fact, use non-asbestos semi-metallic disc


brake pads on all four wheels (Saab-Scania of America 1986),  Information was


not available on whether all four disc brakes in Mercedes and BMW cars were


also non-asbestos-based.  Nonetheless, the great majority of imported vehicles


are still equipped with asbestos-based rear drum brakes (Ford 1986a, Abex


1986, MIT 1986).


    Producers and purchasers of drum brake linings indicated that as of the


1986 model year, asbestos linings still account for 90-95 percent of the


original equipment market (OEM) and virtually 100 percent of the aftemarket


(GM 1986a, GM 1986c, Chrysler 1986, Allied Automotive 1986, Wagner 1986b, Ford


1986a).   However, producers and users agreed that adequate substitutes have
       Disc brakes are a higher-performance brake.  Applications of drum and
disc brakes are discussed in further detail later in this section,


                                    - 5 -

-------
(ICF 1986a).   Wagner installs asbestos and non-asbestos brake pads with mo

additional processing (Wagner 1986a).

    Table 3 lists the 1981 and 1985 importers of asbestos-based disc brake

pads.

    C,  Trends

    Table 4 gives the production of asbestos-based disc brake pads (light/

medium vehicles) and the corresponding consumption of asbestos fiber.  The

percent change in production and fiber consumption from 1981 to 1985 are -30.2

percent and -25.3 percent, respectively.

    It should be noted that some luxury import cars are now equipped with four

semi-metallic disc brakes (Allied Automotive 1986).  Saab is one such example
                              »
(Saab-Scania of America 1986).  However, the great majority of imported ears

still have asbestos-based rear drum brakes (Ford 1986a, Abex 1986, Mil 1986).

    A survey of producers, purchasers, and other sources revealed that

currently asbestos probably holds no more than 15 percent of the OEM for disc

brake pads (light/medium vehicles) (ICF 1986a, GM 1986a, Ford 1986b, Chrysler

1986, Chilton's Motor Age 1986, Allied Automotive 1986, DuPont 1986).4  The

share, however, is significantly higher for the aftermarket, though probably

not a majority (GM 1986a).->

    Allied Automotive stated that by 1990 asbestos would be replaced by nearly

100 percent in the OEM (Allied Automotive 1986).   One source stated that by

1990, 90 percent of OEM light/medium vehicles are proj ected to be front-wheel

drive, requiring semi-metallic disc brakes in the front (Chilton's Motor Age

1986).  Given the above two projections and the current trends of GM, Ford,

and Chrysler,  it is clear that by 1990 asbestos-based pads will be almost
       See Attachment, Item 2,

     5 See Attachment, Item 2,
                                    - 6 -

-------
            Table 4,   Production and Fiber  Consumption  for
                  Asbestos-Based Drum Brake Linings
                         1981         1985            References
Production (pieces)   160,470,368  129,042,578a   ICF 1986a, TSCA 1982a

Asbestos Fiber           23,878,0     24,691,8b   ICF I986a, TSCA I982a
Consumption (tons)


  Abex, Allied Automotive (both plants), Brake Systems, and Brassbestos
did not provide production information,  Brassbestos went out of
business in August, 1985; it is assumed that they produced asbestos-
based drum brake linings in 1985 (IGF 1986a),   Production was estimated
for these four companies using a method described in the Appendix A of
this RIA.

  Abex, Allied Automotive (both plants), Brake Systems, and Brassbestos
did not provide fiber consumption information.  Brassbestos went out of
business in August, 1985; however, it is assumed that they consumed
asbestos fiber for the production of asbestos-based drum brake linings
in 1985 (ICF 1986a),   Fiber consumption for these four companies was
estimated using a method described in Appendix A of this RIA.
                                - 7 -

-------
been developed for many, If not most, OEM drum brake lining applications (Abex

1986, GM 1986c, Ford 1986a).3  A report by the American Society of Mechanical

Engineers concluded that automobile and most trucks could have completely non-

asbestos friction systems by 1992 (ASME 1987).   Producers and users stated

that time is required to gear up commercial production of the substitute

linings, redesign brake systems to accommodate the particular coefficient of

friction of the substitute material (where required),  and to conduct field

tests in order to gain the acceptance of lining producers, vehicle and brake

system manufacturers, and consumers (GM 1986c,  Ford 1986a, Abex 1986),

    With the exception of Allied Automotive and Abex,  producers are apparently

not yet producing substitute drum brake linings in sizeable quantities (ICF

1986a).    Estimates for the time required to develop adequate production

capacity for substitutes were not available; however,  this time period is

likely to be linked to vehicle manufacturers' approval of new substitutes.

    Unlike disc brakes pads, in which a superior substitute has been available

for the last fifteen years (i.e., semi-metallic pads), non-asbestos drum brake

linings are relatively new (Abex 1986, Ford 1986a).  Both producers and users

of brake linings are highly averse to the risk that could be associated with

the use of new materials.  The risk is magnified, furthermore, when a major

brake system redesign is required for a substitute lining (Abex 1986, Ford
     •* Representatives from Ford and GM agreed there were adequate substitutes
for many light/medium vehicle applications (cars and light trucks), but there
were problems with finding good substitutes for large cars and niediuM-sized
trucks (e.g., 2 1/2-ton delivery trucks) (Ford 1986a, GM 1986c).  A
representative from Abex, however, firmly believed that adequate substitutes
have been developed for all drum brake lining applications (Abex 1986},

     ^ As indicated earlier, Allied Automotive estimates that 18 percent of
its 1986 drum brake lining production will be non-asbestos (Allied Automotive
1986).   Abex did not provide an estimate of the current share of its OEM drum
brake linings that are non-asbestos, but did indicate that a significant
percentage was non-asbestos (Abex 1986).
                                    - 8 -

-------
1986a, GM 1986c, Allied Automotive 1986, Wagner 1986b).5  This risk translates

into stringent and lengthy testing processes required by both government and

automobile and brake lining manufacturers before acceptance of new friction

materials and brake systems,

    Sufficient laboratory and vehicle testing has been conducted for the

substitute drum brake linings in order to certify that they comply with

federal performance and safety regulations (Abex 1986, Ford 1986a, GM 1986c).6

However, vehicle manufacturers also require, on average, a total of one

million miles of field testing in a variety of geographic locations, and under

a variety of road conditions, before a new brake lining material or brake

system design will be incorporated into OEM vehicles.  Brake lining producers

and vehicle manufacturers agreed that this field testing has only begun (Abex

1986, Ford 1986a, GM 1986c).

    According to Ford, a. potential alternative for asbestos in drum brake

linings would be to make light/medium vehicles with four non-asbestos

(semi-metallic) disc brakes (Ford 1986a),   However, brake lining producers
     ^ Producers and users stated that there are two general types of
substitute linings -- those that require only minor modifications of brake
systems and those that require major modifications or total brake system
redesigns (Ford 1986a, Abex 1986),

     " Compliance with federal performance and safety regulations -- Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 105, 121, and the proposed 135 -- can
be certified at the testing facilities of OEM brake lining producers.  At
these facilities, producers always employ, at a minimum, dynamometer testing
(recognized in the industry to be the most reliable and accurate laboratory
testing method) and vehicle testing in a controlled environment (i.e., race
track) (Abex 1986, Ford 1986a, GM 1986c).

     ' Semi-metallic disc brakes are already used on the front wheels of 85
percent of all new light/medium vehicles (Allied Automotive 1986), and certain
domestic luxury and high-performance cars are now equipped with four
non-asbestos disc brakes (GM 1986a).  Disc brakes, particularly semi-metallic
disc brakes, have higher performance than drum brakes because they have longer
service life and are generally better at removing heat quickly (GM 1986a).
Perhaps even more important for automakers, disc brakes have a very strong
marketing advantage:  disc brakes make cars sell.  They are an important
selling point with consumers (Ford 1986a,  GM 1986a, Abex 1986),

                                    - 9 -

-------
and vehicle manufacturers agreed that there currently Is not a significant

trend towards four disc brakes in light/medium vehicles,  nor is there likely

to be in the near future, because of important performance and economic

factors (Abex 1986, GM 1986a, GM 1986c, GM1 1986, Ford 1986a).   First drum

brakes make superior parking brakes (GM 1986a, Ford 1986a, Abex 1986).8  Disc

brakes, furthermore, reduce fuel economy because of "parasitic drag" and are

much higher in cost than drum brakes because of the mechanical system required

for disc brakes (Ford 1986a, GM 1986a).  Because drum brakes are significantly

cheaper and are a lower performance brake, they are used for the rear wheels,

with disc brakes in the front, in the vast majority of the light/medium

vehicle OEM (95 percent) (GM 1986a).   In most light/medium vehicles,

particularly those with front-wheel drive, there is significantly less brake

load or brake force in the rear than in the front, ^  Therefore, the cheaper

lower-performance drum brakes are used in the rear since the rear brakes do

not have to do much work (GM 1986a). ^  A final key factor that would stall a

significant switch-over to four-disc-brake cars is the enormous equipment

redesign that would be required (GMI 1986).  Therefore, for the

above-mentioned reasons, drum brake linings, at least in the near future, will

continue to be produced for the light/medium vehicle OEM at roughly a 1:1

ratio with disc brakes.
     ° The parking brake either utilizes the existing rear drum brakes
(service brakes), is a separate rear drum brake, or is a separate front disc
brake (front parking brake) (GM 1986a).

     ^ The remaining 5 percent are the luxury and high performance cars
equipped with four disc brakes (GM 1986a).

     1® In front-wheel drive cars, the brake load is 85 percent in the front
and in rear-wheel drive cars,  about 70 percent of the load is in the front
(Ford 1986a, Design News 1984).

     H In most cars, in fact, rear drum brakes would have the same service
life as rear disc brakes because of the light brake load (GM 1986a).


                                    -  10  -

-------
    D.  Substitutes

    As indicated earlier, primary processors and vehicle manufacturers agree

that acceptable drum brake lining formulations have been developed for many,

if not most, drum brake lining applications.  Although these substitutes do

not have the sane performance characteristics as asbestos-based linings (no

substitute currently provides all the advantages that asbestos linings do),

they are "acceptable" from the standpoint of vehicle drivers:  drivers will

accept changes in performance, as long as there are no "surprises" while

driving that reduce safety (Abex 1986, Ford 1986a, GM 1986c, MIT 1986).

Non-asbestos organics (NAOs) are acceptable substitutes that have been

developed for the OEM,  Lining producers and vehicle manufacturers agree that

NAOs would take the majority of the asbestos-based OEM in the event of a ban

(GM 1986e, Abex 1986, Ford 1986a, Carlisle 1986).

    NAO drum brake lining formulations, in general, include the following:

                                            i *?
fiberglass and/or Kevlar(R), mineral fibers, z occasionally some steel wool,

and fillers and resins (Ford 1986a),  Fiberglass and Kevlar(R), however,

usually account for only & small percentage of the total formulation.  For

example,  a representative from Ford stated that the optimal level of Kevlar(R)

in drum brake lining formulations is usually about 3 percent by weight (Ford

1986a),   Thus, labelling substitute drum brake linings as Kevlar(R)-based or

fiberglass-based (producers tend to do this for marketing reasons) is

misleading (Abex 1986, Ford 1986a, GM 1986c).

    Of the thirteen primary processors of drum brake linings in 1985, at least

eight currently produce NAO linings.  These firms are:  Allied Automotive,

General Motors Inland Division, Abex, Nuturn,  Virginia Friction Products,
     •^ Mineral fibers commonly used by producers include: wollastonite,
phosphate fiber, aluminum silicate fiber, Franklin fiber, mineral wool, and
PMF (processed mineral fiber) (ICF 1986a).

                                    -  11  -

-------
Chrysler, Carlisle, and Brake Systems Inc. (ICF 1986a).   Although, the

producers did not reveal the exact formulations of their NAO linings, they

provided partial lists of the ingredients in their mixtures (ICF 1986a).

    Five of the primary processors also produce a semi-metallic drum brake

lining.  These firms are:  Abex, Allied Automotive, Carlisle,  General Motors

Inland Division, and H.K. Porter (Abex 1986, Allied Automotive 1986, ICF

1986a).  Lining producers and vehicle manufacturers generally agree, however,

that there are serious production and performance problems with semi-metallic

drum brake linings (Abex 1986, GM 1986c, Ford 1986a, Carlisle 1986).  H.K.

Porter, in fact, discontinued its semi-metallie (and asbestos) drum brake

lining operations in 1986; the firm stated that it was unable to find adequate
                                                            4
substitute linings (PEI Associates 1986),  Representatives from Abex and Ford

stated that semi-metallies are very difficult to process into the required

thin arc-shaped lining segments and are, thus, very prone to crack (Abex 1986,

Ford 1986a).  ^  These representatives also stated there were unacceptable

performance problems, including "morning sickness," which involves moisture

getting into the lining overnight, rendering the product useless until it

heats up and dries out (Abex 1986, Ford 1986a),  For the above reasons, lining

producers and vehicle manufacturers agreed that semi-metallics would not take

much of a share of the asbestos-based OEM in the event of a ban (Abex 1986, GM

1986c, Ford 1986a, Carlisle 1986).

    Primary processors and vehicle manufacturers agree that there is adequate

dynamometer and vehicle-testing capacity among the OEM producers to develop

substitutes for the remaining OEM drum brake lining applications, i.e.

medium-sized trucks with four-drum-brake systems.  The difficulty in
     •^ Semi-metallics can, however, be successfully manufactured for very
heavy brake block applications, where the arc of the segments is much wider
than in drum brake linings (because of the larger drum) and the segments are
considerably thicker (Abex 1986).

                                    -  12  -

-------
developing acceptable substitute linings for medium-sized trucks results from

the more severe braking requirements for the rear drum brakes of these

vehicles than for the majority of light/medium vehicles and the fact that the

drum brake linings for medium-sized trucks must be riveted, not bonded, to the

brake shoe.  Thus, an acceptable substitute lining must have structural

strength around the rivet area (Batelle 1987).  Nevertheless, given enough

time substitute linings for medium-sized trucks will be developed,

particularly since brake systems can always be redesigned by including servo

mechanical systems to amplify or modify the braking ability of a particular

substitute lining in order to achieve the desired performance (Ford 1986a,

Abex 1986, GM 1986c, MIT 1986).

    Replacement of asbestos-based drum brake linings in the aftermarket,

however, may be much more difficult.  Most asbestos-based drum brake linings

producers and auto manufacturers agree that brake systems designed for

asbestos linings should continue to use asbestos linings.  The parties

maintain a position that substitute lining formulations that were designed for

the OEM, when used to replace worn asbestos linings, do not perform as well as

asbestos, and could jeopardize brake safety (Allied Automotive 1986, GM 1986b,

GM 1986c, Wagner 1986b, Ford 1986a, Ford 1986b).   Abex, however, indicated

that it is selling its OEM non-asbestos organic drum brake linings for the

afteraarket and reports that they are performing well (Abex 1986).

    In general there are three important reasons for little or no development

of substitute formulations engineered for aftemarket brake systens designed

for asbestos:

        •  Considerable technical difficulties with developing
           adequate substitutes for a system designed specifically for
           asbestos;
                                    -  13  -

-------
        •  No federal safety and performance standards for brakes for
           the aftermarket;-^ and,

        •  High cost of producing and testing substitute formulations
           (Ford 1986a, Wagner 1986b, Abex 1986).

    Aftermarket producers, except for those who also produce for the OEM, are

generally small and almost totally lacking in testing equipment (Ford 1986a),

Two firms stated that if some of these firms devoted substantial resources to

testing and research and development, they would be out of business (Ford

1986a, Abex 1986),  As long as there are asbestos drum brakes sold in the

aftermarket, there will be little, if any, economic incentive to develop

retrofit substitutes (LBJ Space Center 1986).  However, even with a ban on

asbestos linings for the aftennarket, the cost of substitutes designed for the

aftermarket are likely to be prohibitive, given the technical difficulties

(LBJ Space Center 1986).

    Table 5 provides the data for the regulatory cost model.  The substitute

linings in the table are an NAO lining produced by Abex and a semi-metallic

lining made by General Motors Inland Division.  It is assumed that

semi-metallic drum brake linings will account for a negligible share of the

market.   Note that the equivalent price of the NAO lining given in Table 5 is

close to the asbestos lining price because of the longer service life.

    E,  Siitnrnary

    Asbestos drum brakes are found on the rear wheels of most new light and

medium vehicles, i.e., passenger cars and light trucks (GM 1986a).  Thirteen

companies produced asbestos drum brake linings in 1985 and by the end of. 1986

only eleven continued to produce the asbestos product (ICF 1986a, FEI

Associates 1986).  In 1985, these producers consumed 24,691.8 tons of asbestos

to produce 129,042,578 asbestos drum brake linings.  Between 1981 and 1985,
        By contrast, OEM brakes must meet federal regulatory standards --
FMVSS 105 and 121 (and, in the future, the proposed 135).

                                    -  14  -

-------
                                     Table 5.  Data Inputs on Drwn Brake Linings foe Asbettos Regulntoty Cost Mod*!
    Product
                         Output
Product Asfoeafcos
  Coefficient
  Consujnpticm
Production Ratio
              Equivalent    Market
trt«fnl life      Priea      Share
                                                                                                                                         Reference
Asbestos Mixture   129,042,578 pieces   0.00019 tons/piece
                                                                  1.15
                                       $0.«3/pieee     4 years     90.63/pieee    H/A     ICF 1996m,  ICF 1985
NAO
                          R/A
                                               N/A
                                                                  H/A
                                       $0.79/pieee     5 years     90.65/piece    991
                                                                      Abei 1986,  Ford 19B6a,
                                                                      Carlisle 1986
Sand-Metallic
                          H/A
                                               N/A
                         H/A
                   $1.09/pi9C*     4 year*     $1.09/piee»
                              IX     ICF 19S£a, Abex 1986,
                                     Ford l»86a,
                                     Carlisle 1986
N/A:  Not Applicable.

B See Attachment, Itame 3-5,

  The output for drura brake linings IB split into OTH brakes (34,713,675 pieces? and aftermsrXet brakes  (94,328,903 pieces) based on the ratio of OEM
  and replacement sales shewn In Appendix A.

-------
production of the asbestos linings declined 19.6 percent (IGF 1986a).




However, asbestos linings still accounted for 90-95 percent of the OEM and




virtually 100 percent of the aftermarket (GM 1986a, GM 1986c, Chrysler 1986,




Allied Automotive 1986, Wagner 1986b, Ford 1986a).   Acceptable substitutes




have been developed for many, If not most, drum brake lining applications.




For the OEM, NAGs are expected to take 99 percent and semi-metallics 1 percent




of the asbestos drum brake lining market if asbestos were not available,  NAOs




cost the same as asbestos linings, while semi-metallics cost 73 percent more




than the asbestos-based product.  Developing adequate substitutes for the




aftermarket will be difficult due to technical difficulties and economic




factors.
                                    -  16  -

-------
                                  ATTACHMENT
1.  The asbestos fiber content per lining was calculated by dividing the 1985
    asbestos fiber consumption for drum brake linings by the 1985 production
    of drum brake linings for producers for which both fiber consumption and
    production data were available: 24,691.8 tons (49,383,600 Ibs.) divided by
    129,042,578 pieces, or 0.38 Ibs per piece.

2.  A large producer of asbestos-based drum brake linings in 1981, stated that
    the share held by asbestos in its OEM linings was 97 percent in 1983, 96
    percent in 1984, 91 percent in 1985, and is estimated to be 82 percent in
    1986.  One automobile manufacturer stated that currently 95 percent of its
    OEM drum brake linings were asbestos-based (GM 1986a),   A second
    automobile manufacturer stated that currently 98.5 percent of its OEM
    linings were asbestos-based (Chrysler 1986),   On the basis of these
    figures, it is assumed that asbestos holds roughly 90-95 percent of the
    OEM for drum brake linings.  Two major producers of brake systems for the
    automobile and truck aftennarkets stated that 100 percent of the
    aftermarket was still asbestos-based.

3.  The product asbestos coefficient is the same value calculated in Item 1
    above, converted into tons per piece.

4.  The consumption production ratio was calculated using 19,580,493 pieces as
    the value for the 1985 U.S. imports.  (Total 1985 production is
    129,042,078 pieces.)  This value, however, only includes imports for the
    firms who provided information (see Table 4),

5.  The asbestos product price is a weighted average (by production) of prices
    for producers who provided information.   The useful life of the asbestos
    product was assumed to be the same as that reported in 1984 in Appendix A
    (ICF 1985).  The two substitute lining prices were calculated by
    increasing the weighted average asbestos product price by what Abex and
    GM, respectively, reported as the percentage price increase for their
    substitute product over their asbestos product.   One company indicated
    that its NAO lining cost 25 percent more than its asbestos-based lining;
    another company stated its semi-metallic lining was approximately 73
    percent higher than its asbestos lining.  While the first company did not
    indicate the service life of its NAO lining compared to its asbestos
    product, another manufacturer of NAO drum brake linings, reported that NAO
    linings had the same or up to 50 percent longer service life.  Thus, a
    service life increase of 25 percent over the life of the asbestos product
    (that was given in Appendix H) is used in Table 5.   It was not clemr
    whether semi-metallic linings had longer or shorter service life than
    asbestos linings; therefore, the same service life as the asbestos product
    is used.
                                    -  17  -

-------
REFERENCES
Abex Corp,  R. Nelson.  1986 (December 3).  American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Conference in Washington, D.C.  Transcribed conversation with
Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Allied Automotive.  1. Rogers.   1986 (October 17).  Troy, NY.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

ASME.  1987 (April. 15),  The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.   Final
Report on Analyses of the Feasibility of Replacing Asbestos in Automobile and
Truck Brakes.   Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency,

Automobile Importers of America,  1986.  Comments of Automobile Importers of
America on Proposed Asbestos Ban Rule.   EPA Document Control No. OPTS-62036.

Battelle Columbus Laboratories.  S. Barber.  1987 (June 26).  Columbus, OH.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Brake Systems Inc.  S. Mayo.  1986 (November 18).  Stratford, CT.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C,

Carlisle.  R.  Tami.  1986 (October 17).  Ridgway, PA.  Transcribed telephone
conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C,

Chrysler Corp.  M. Heitkanp.  1986 (November 4).  Detroit, MI.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Design News.   1984 (March 26).   Asbestos Substitutes in Friction Applications,
S. Scott.

Ford Motor Co.  A, Anderson.  1986a (December 3).  American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington, D.C.  Transcribed conversation
with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Ford Motor Co.  1986b.  Comments of Ford Motor Co. on Proposed Asbestos Ban
Rule.  EPA Document Control No. OPTS-62036.

Friction Division Products.  R. Carney.  1986 (July-December).  Trenton, NJ.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

General Motors Corp.  F. Brookes.  1986a (November 19).  Dayton, OH.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

General Motors Corp.  1986b.  Comments of General Motors Corp, on Proposed
Asbestos Ban Rule.  EPA Document Control No. OPTS-62036.
                                    -  18  -

-------
General Motors Corp.  P. Vernia,  1986c (December 3).   American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington,  D.C.   Transcribed conversation
with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,  Washington,  D.C.

General Motors Institute.  S.  Gratch,   1986 (December 3).  American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington,  D.C.   Transcribed conversation
with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,  Washington,  D.C,

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CBI  Document Control No. 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:   Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington, D.C.:   Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, "U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December),   Survey of Primary Processors of
Disc Brake Pads (Light and Medium Vehicles).  Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1986b (July-December).   Survey of Secondary Processors of
Disc Brake Pads (Light and Medium Vehicles).  Washington, D.C.

Krusell N,, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp, Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis, Revised Final Report.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract 68-02-3168.

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.  J. McCullough.  1986 (December 3).  American
Society of Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington, D.C.  Transcribed
conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  E. Rabinowicz.  1986 (December 3).
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington, D.C.
Transcribed conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Original Quality, Inc.  1986.   Comments of Original Quality, Inc. on Proposed
Asbestos Ban Rule,  EPA Document Control No. OPTS-62036.

PEI Associates.  1986.  GTS.  Survey of Asbestos Product Manufacturers.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Saab-Scania of America.  D. Rainey.  1986  (November 21).  Orange, CT.
Transcribed conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.   1982a.   Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.  20-8601012,

-------
TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982b.  Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981,  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances,  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No, 20-8670644,

Wagner Corp.  F. Hayes.  1986a (December 5),  Parsippany, N.J.   Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Wagner Corp.  1986b.  Comments of Wagner Corp. on Proposed Asbestos Ban Rule.
EPA Document Control No. OPTS-62036.
                                    -  20

-------
XIX,  DISC BRAKE PADS fLIGHT/MEDIUM VEHICLES)

    A.  Product Description

    Disc brakes are used on the front wheels of virtually all (95 percent)

light and medium vehicles (cars and light trucks) (GM 1986a),   Approximately 5

percent of light/medium vehicles, certain luxury and high-performance cars

(e.g., Cadillac Seville and El Dorado, Corvette, Pontiac STE and Fiero, high-

performance Camaro and Firebird), have disc brakes on all four wheels (GM

1986a),   A disc brake consists of a caliper to which are attached two steel

plates,  each lined with a molded friction material called a disc brake pad.

The two disc brake pads straddle the rotor, or disc, that is in the center of

a vehicle's wheel.  Friction between the disc and the brake pad stops the

vehicle when the brakes are applied (ICF 1985, Krusell and Cogley 1982).

    Asbestos-based disc brake pads, like drum brake linings, are molded

products containing asbestos fiber, fillers, additives, and resins.  A dry-mix

process is usually used in their manufacture; the basic steps in this process

are as follows:

        •  Mixing of fibers, dry resins, and property modifiers;

        •  Molding and curing using heat and pressure; and

        •  Finishing by grinding and drilling.

The degree of automation of these steps may vary considerably among

manufacturers, but once the finishing is completed, the pads are either bonded

(glued)  or riveted to the steel plates (ICF 1985, Krusell and Cogley 1982,

Allied Automotive 1986).   The approximate asbestos fiber content per pad is

0.22 Ibs. (ICF'1986a).2
     1 While bonded brake pads have greater frictional surface, riveted pads
are quieter (Allied Automotive 1986).

     2 See Attachment, Item 1,


                                    -  1 -

-------
    Secondary processing of disc brake pads includes installation of pads into

new brake assemblies, repackaging for sale to the afteraarket, and

retrofitting worn brake pads with new pads for resale (IGF 1985, Krusell and

Cogley 1982) .

    In addition to asbestos-based disc brake pads, there are semi-use tallies.

Semi-metallies pads have been in the domestic market for the last 15 years

(Abex 1986).  These pads are molded products containing chopped steel wool,

sponge iron, graphite powder, fillers, and resins (Allied Automotive 1986,

Ford 1986a).  Some serai-metallic pads contain a very thin asbestos-containing

backing, or underlayer, between the plate and pad.  Other semi-metallic pads

have no underlayer or have one made of a non-asbestos material.  The

underlayer acts as a thermal barrier between the pad and plate, and helps to

bond the pad to the plate (Allied Automotive 1986).   Producers generally do

not consider semi-metallic pads with the asbestos underlayer to be asbestos

pads since the lining itself contains no asbestos and the underlayer is only a

very small percentage of the total content of the pad (Allied Automotive

1986).

    Disc brake pads are used in the front of light/medium vehicles, whether

rear-wheel or front-wheel drive, because of the heavier brake load or brake

force in the front of vehicles (GM 1986a).^  Disc brakes have higher

performance than drum brakes, which are usually used in the rear, because they

have longer service life and are generally more efficient at dissipating (GM

1986a).   Front-wheel drive vehicles, which have greater brake load in the

front (and, thus, generate more brake heat in the front) than rear-wheel drive

vehicles, use semi-metallic disc brakes in the front, exclusively (Allied
     •* In front-wheel drive cars the brake load is 85 percent in the front and
in rear-wheel drive cars, about 70 percent of the load is in the front (Ford
1986a, Design News 1984).

                                    - 2 -   •

-------
Automotive 1986, Chilton's Motor Age 1986).  Semi-metallic disc brakes perform




better at higher temperatures than asbestos-based disc brakes and have a




longer service life (Allied Automotive 1986,  GM 1986a).   Rear-wheel drive




vehicles generally use asbestos-based disc brake pads in the front, though




some also use semi-metallie front disc brakes (e.g.,  Ford Mustang) (Ford




1986b,  GM 1986a).   In general, at lower temperatures, asbestos-based disc




brakes perform better than semi-metallies, and are quieter (GM 1986a, Allied




Automotive 1986).




    B.   Producers and Importers of Disc Brake Pads (Light/Medium Vehicles)




    Table 1 lists the fourteen 1985 primary processors of disc brake pads




(asbestos and non-asbestos) for light/medium vehicles.  Thirteen of the




processors produced asbestos-based pads in 1985 and,  currently, twelve are




still producing.  Twelve of the producers also produced a non-asbestos pad




(Brake Systems 1986, IGF 1986a).   Friction Division Products only produces




non-asbestos pads (IGF 1986a).




    Changes in primary processors from 1981 to 1985 include Friction Division




Product's purchase, of Thiokol's Trenton, NJ,  plant and Brake Systems Inc.'s




purchase of one of Raymark's Stratford, CT, plants (1CF 1986a, Brake Systems




1986).   Brassbestos of Paterson,  NJ, went out of business in August, 1985 (IGF




1986a).  H.K.  Porter of Huntington, IN (not listed in Table 1), stopped




producing disc brake pads altogether prior to 1985 (IGF 1986a).




    Table 2 lists the 1985 secondary processors of disc brake pads.  The




Standard Motor Products plant, formerly owned by the EIS Division of Parker-




Hannifin, no longer is involved in secondary processing of asbestos-based pads
                                    - 3 -

-------
                                          Table  1.   1985 Primary  Proct«»ot» at Disc Brako Pads
                                                       (Light and Madiwn Vehicles)
Company
Brake Systems Inc. 
-------
                                         Table Z.  1985 Secondary Processors of Disc Br«k«s Fids
                                                       (Light «nd Median Vehicles)
                 Company
                                                                        Product
                                             Plant Location     Asbestos   HonrAsbeatos
                                                                                                         Ref fu nnr:ns
Standard Motor Products (planta ronnerly     Moat Bend, WI
owned by EIS Division of Parker-BaimlfIn)
                                   B/A
                                                      ICF 1986b, ISCA 19B2b
Hagner
Paralppany, NJ
                                                                                It/A
ICF l»86b, ICF 1985
Call-Blok CEia Bivlslon of Parkor-
Harmifin)
Gardena, CA
ICF lS86b, TSCA 1982b
N/A:  Information not available.

-------
    Table 4.  Production and Fiber Consumption for Asbestos-Based
             Disc Brake Pads (Light and Medium Vehicles)
                         1981
             1985
           Percent
           Change
             (%)     References
Production (pieces)   94,409,007   65,869,172a    -30.2    1CF 1986a,
                                                           TSCA 1982a
Asbestos Fiber
Consumption (tons)
9,525.9
7,119,2b    -25.3
IGF 1986a,
TSCA 1982a
aAllied Automotive, Abex, Brassbestos, and Brake Systems Inc. did not
provide 1985 asbestos disc brake pad production data.  Their
production was estimated using a method described in the Appendix A of
this RIA.

"Abex, Brassbestos, and Brake Systems Inc. did not provide 1985 fiber
consumption data.  Their fiber consumption was estimated using a
method described in the Appendix A of this RIA,
                                - 9 -

-------
completely replaced IB the OEM.   Although asbestos is still contained in

the underlayer of some semi-metallic pads, the trend is, also, towards

complete replacement.

    D.  Substitutes

    Semi-raetallies are the only major substitute for asbestos-based disc

brake pads (light/medium vehicles).  GM, Ford, and Chrysler indicated that

essentially all of their non-asbestos disc brake pads were semi-metallic

(GM 1986a, Ford 1986b, Chrysler 1986).  Nine of the fourteen producers of

disc brake pads make a semi-metallic product:  Allied Automotive, Nutum,

Friction Division Products, GM, Virginia Friction Products, H. Krasne

Manufacturing Co., Chrysler, Abex, and LSI-Certified Brakes (1CF 1986a,

Allied Automotive 1986, Abex 1986),  Nuturn and Virginia Friction Products

stated that Kevlar was also contained in their semi-metallic pads (ICF

1986a).   A representative from GM stated that non-semi-metallic non-

asbestos pads had a very small share of the OEM (GM 1986a).  The other

class of non-semi-metallic substitute pads are the non-asbestos organic

(NAO) pads.  Two producers, Brake Systems Inc. and Auto Friction Corp.,

were found to make these pads, but neither indicated whether they produced

them in sizeable quantities (ICF 1986a).

    As indicated earlier, asbestos holds only 15 percent of OEM disc brake

pads (light/medium vehicles).  Thus, the balance of 85 percent is nearly

all semi-metallics (Allied Automotive 1986).   Given the trend towards 100

percent front-wheel drive light/medium vehicles, it is clear that semi-

metallics will replace most if not all asbestos pads in the near future

(Chilton's Motor Age 1986, Allied Automotive 1986).
     *> See Attachment, Item 2, for the current trends of GM, Ford, and
Chrysler.

     7 See Attachment, Item 3.

                                    -  10  -

-------
    Substitutes for the thin asbestos underlayer in some semi-metallic

pads include either no underlayer or a chopped fiberglass or Kevlar(R)

underlayer, depending upon the application (Allied Automotive 1986).

Allied Automotive stated that the substitutes for the asbestos underlayer

performed just as well (Allied Automotive 1986).

    Replacement of asbestos pads with substitutes in the aftermarket,

however, is much more difficult.  Most producers and users agreed that

brake systems designed for asbestos pads should continue to use asbestos.

Semi-metallic pads which were designed for the OEM, when used to replace

worn asbestos pads, do not perform as well as asbestos, and could

jeopardize brake safety (Allied Automotive 1986,  GM 1986b, Wagner 1986b,

Ford 1986c).   A much higher percentage of vehicles in the aftermarket,

furthermore,  are rear-wheel drive, most of which were designed to have

asbestos front disc brakes (Chilttm's Motor Age 1986).

    In general, there are three important reasons for little or no

development of substitutes engineered for aftermarket brake systems that

were designed for asbestos:

        •  Considerable technical difficulties with developing
           adequate substitutes for a system designed specifically
           for asbestos;

        •  No federal safety and performance standards for brakes
           for the aftermarket;" and,

        •  High cost of producing and testing substitute
           formulations (Allied Automotive 1986,  GM 1986c, Ford
           1986a, Ford 1986b, Wagner 1986b, Abex 1986).

    Aftermarket producers, except for those who also produce for the OEM,

are generally small and almost totally lacking in testing equipment (Ford

1986a).   If any of these firms devoted substantial resources to testing
       By contrast, OEM brakes must meet certain regulatory standards, Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 105 and 121 (and, in the future, the
proposed 135) (Ford 1986a, Abex 1986).

                                    -  11  -

-------
and research and development, they would be out of business (Ford 1986a,




Abex 1986).  As long as there are asbestos disc brakes sold in the




aftermarket, there will be little, if any, economic incentive to develop




retrofit substitutes (LEJ Space Center 1986).  However, even with a ban on




asbestos pads for the aftermarket, the cost of substitutes designed for




the aftermarket are likely to be prohibitive, given the technical




difficulties (LBJ Space Center 1986),




    Table 5 provides the data for the regulatory cost model.  The




substitute is the semi-metallic disc brake pad.  Price and performance




data were not available for NAO pads either because companies would not




provide information or production was in very limited quantities (ICF




1986a).  It is assumed, however, that NAO pads would account for &




negligible share of the market.  Note that the equivalent price of the




semi-metallic pad is slightly less than the asbestos pad price because of




the significantly longer service life.




    E.  Summary




    Disc brakes are used on the front wheels of virtually all (95 percent)




light and medium vehicles (cars and light trucks).  Approximately 5




percent of all light/medium vehicles have disc brakes on all four wheels




(GM 1986a). Thirteen companies consumed 7,119.2 tons of asbestos to




produce 65,869,172 asbestos disc brake pads in 1985.  Twelve companies are




still producing.  Between 1981 and 1985, production of asbestos disc brake




pads declined approximately 30 percent (ICF 1986a, TSCA 1982a).




Currently, asbestos only comprises 15 percent of the OEM for disc brake




pads; the balance of 85 percent is held by seml-metallics (Allied




Automotive 1986).  If asbestos were no longer available it is predicted




that semi-metallies would take 100 percent of the asbestos market.  The
                                   .-  12 -

-------
                                   Table  5.  Data  Inputs on Dine Brake Fada  (LfW) for Asbestos Eegulftfeory Cosfe tfodel
                                         Product Asbestos      Consumption                                 Equivalent    Market
    Product              Output            Goaffieloot       Production Ratio      Price      U«*ful Lif»       Price      Sh«r«         Reference


Asbestos Mixture   65,869,172 places1*   0.00011 tons/piece        1.19          $0.*2/piscB     * years     $0.42/piec«    H/A     ICF If86»,  ICf  1985


Semi-Metallic             H/A                  H/A                KM           $Q,*7/pieea     7.4  years   $0.40/piBea    1001    ICF 1986a,
                                                                                                                                   H.  Kraane  1986,
                                                                                                                                   Cali-Blok  1986


H/A:  Hot Applicable.

* Sea Attachment, Items 4-6.

b the output for disc brake pads (light and modiura motor vehicles) is split into OE« brakes (tO,077,*64 places) and aftennarket brakes (55,791,708
  pieces) based on the ratio of OEM and replacement sales shown in Appendix A.

-------
equivalent price of semi-metallic disc brake pads is slightly less than




the price of asbestos disc brake pads (IGF 1986a).

-------
                                ATTACHMENT
1,  The asbestos fiber content per pad was calculated by dividing the 1985
    asbestos fiber consumption for disc brake pads by the 1985 production
    for producers for which both fiber consumption and production were
    available:  7,119.2 tons (14,238,400 Ibs.) divided by 65,869,172
    pieces, or 0,22 Ibs. per piece.

2.  GM, Ford, and Chrysler, the three largest U.S. automakers, and thus,
    probably the three largest consumers of OEM disc brake pads for light/
    medium vehicles, were asked for the share asbestos held in their OEM
    pads.   One company stated that currently only 5 percent of the OEH
    pads it consumes were asbestos-based.  The second company stated in
    its 1986 model year the share was 6,9 percent, and projected it to be
    3.9 percent in the 1987 model year,  The third company stated asbestos
    held 40 percent of its OEM pads in the 1986 model year, but projected
    the share to be 10 percent in the 1987 model year (Ford 1986b).   An
    editor from Chilton's Motor Age, an important trade publication,
    stated that currently 75 percent of domestic OEM light/medium vehicles
    were front-wheel drive (Chilton's Motor Age 1986).  Because front-
    wheel drive vehicles use semi-metallic pads, the asbestos share of OEM
    pads could not be more than 25 percent, and probably somewhat less,
    given the fact that some rear-wheel drive cars use semi-metallic pads
    (e.g.,  Ford Mustang) (Chilton's Motor Age 1986).  A large producer of
    asbestos-based pads in 1981 and a major supplier of materials for
    friction products both agree that the asbestos share of OEM pads for
    light/medium vehicles is 15 percent.  Therefore, 15 percent would be a
    good estimate for the current share.

3.  A large producer of semi-metallic pads, stated that in the 1986
    vehicle model year, 50 percent of both its OEM and aftermarket semi-
    metallic pads contained an asbestos underlayer, but by January 1987,
    90 percent of both its OEM and aftermarket pads would use either no
    underlayer or one made of a non-asbestos material.  An automobile
    manufacturer stated that in its 1986 model year, 12.7 percent of its
    semi-metallic pads contained an asbestos underlayer, all of which were
    purchased from a single source.  The rest of its pads contained no
    underlayer at all.  The second automobile manufacturer estimated the
    OEM share that contained an asbestos underlayer to be currently 10
    percent.  The third automobile manufacturer stated that in the 1986
    model year, 99.65 percent of its semi-metallic pads had an asbestos
    underlayer, and the share would be 91.75 percent in the 1987 model
    year.   Nonetheless, the overall trend is towards complete replacement.

4.  The product asbestos coefficient is the same value calculated in Item
    1 above, converted into tons per piece.

-------
5.  The consumption production ratio was calculated using 12,589,555
    pieces as the value for the 1985 U.S.  imports.   (Total 1985 production
    is 65,898,172 pieces.)  This value,  however,  only includes imports for
    the firms who provided infonnation (see Table 4).

6.  The asbestos product price is a weighted average (by production) of
    prices for producers who provided information.   The useful life of the
    asbestos product was assumed to be the same as  that reported in 1984
    in Appendix H (IGF 1985).  The price of the semi-metallic pad was
    computed by increasing the weighted average asbestos product price by
    what GM stated was the percentage price increase of its semi-metallic
    product over its asbestos product (SO.2 percent).   The useful life of
    the semi-metallic pad was computed by taking the average of what two
    companies stated to be the percent increase in useful life of their
    semi-metallic pads over their asbestos pads (the straight average of
    100 percent and 71 percent, or 85,5 percent), and then increasing the
    useful life of the asbestos product (given in Appendix H) by this
    value (85.5 percent) (ICF 1986a, 1986b),   (Note:  GM did not provide
    information on the useful life.)
                                   - 16 -

-------
REFERENCES
Abex Corp.  R. Nelson.  1986b (December 3),  American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington, D.C,  Transcribed
conversation with Richard Hollander, IGF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Allied Automotive.  E. Rogers.  1986 (October 17).   Troy,  NY.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Automobile Importers of America,  1986.  Comments of Automobile Importers
of America on Proposed Asbestos Ban Rule.  EPA Document Control No.
OFTS-62Q36.

Brake Systems Inc.  S. Mayo.  1986 (November 18).  Stratford, CT.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander,  ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Cali-Blok.  W. Favio.  1986 (July-December).  Gardena, CA.   Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Chilton's Motor Age.  S. Davis.  1986 (October 17),  Radnor, PA.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander,  ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Chrysler Corp.  M. Heitkamp.  1986 (November 4).  Detroit,  MI.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander,  ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Design News.  1984.  Asbestos Substitutes in Friction Applications.  S.
Scott.  March 26, 1984,

DuPont.  T. Merriman,  1986 (November 5).  Wilmington, DE.   Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Ford Motor Co.  A. Anderson,  1986a (December 3).  American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington, D.C.  Transcribed
conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Ford Motor Co.  A. Amburg.  1986b (November 5).  Dearborn,  MI.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander,  ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Ford Motor Co.  1986c.  Comments of Ford Motor Co,  on Proposed Asbestos
Ban Rule.  EPA Document Control No,  OPTS-62036.

General Motors Corp.  F. Brookes.  1986a (November 19).  Dayton, OH.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander,  ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C,

General Motors Corp.  1986b.  Comments of General.Motors Corp. on Proposed
Asbestos Ban Rule.  EPA Document Control No. OPTS-62036.

                                    -  17  -

-------
General Motors Corp.  P. Vernia,  1986c (December 3).  American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington, B.C.  Transcribed
conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

H.K. Porter Co.  F. Donnell.  1986 (November 30).  Huntington, IN,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

H. Krasne Manufacturing Co.  G. Mosen.  1986 (July-December).  Los
Angeles, CA.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1984,  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticide and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No. 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1985,  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products,  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of Primary Processors of
Disc Brake Pads (Light and Mediun Vehicles).  Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1986b (July-December).  Survey of Secondary Processors
of Disc Brake Pads (Light and Medium Vehicles).  Washington, D.C.

Krusell N., Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis, Revised Final Report.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract No.
68-02-3168.

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.  J. McCullough,  1986 (December 3).
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington, D.C.
Transcribed conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology,  E. Rabinowicz.  1986 (December 3),
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington, D.C.
Transcribed conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Saab-Scania of America.  D. Rainey.  1986 (November 21).  Orange, CT.
Transcribed conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982a.  Production Data for Primary
Asbestos Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-
8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982b.  Production Data for Secondary
Asbestos Processors, 1981,  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-
8670644.

                                    - 18  -

-------
Wagner Corp.  F. Hayes.  1986a (December 5).  Parsippanny, NJ.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, B.C.

Wagner Corp.  1986b.  Conaents of Wagner Corp. on Proposed Asbestos Ban
Rule.  EPA Document Control No. OPTS-62036.
                                   - 19  -

-------
XX.  DISC BRAKE PADS (HEAVY VEHICLES'!




    A.  Product Description




    Disc brake pads (both asbestos and non-asbestos) for heavy vehicles are a




small and relatively new market (Allied Automotive 1986, Carlisle 1986).




Although disc brake pads were small percentage of heavy vehicle brakes in the




past, these systems are increasingly common for these vehicles.  Except for




the larger size, the pads are similar to those described for light and medium




vehicles (Allied Automotive 1986).  Disc brake pads for heavy vehicles, to




date, are only used on the front wheels of certain intermediate-sized trucks




(12,000-22,000 Ibs. per axle) (Allied Automotive 1986).  One producer, Allied




Automotive,  stated that disc brakes could never be used for the heaviest




trucks, while another producer, Carlisle, indicated that, in perhaps five




years, disc brakes will be developed for large trucks such as tractor trailers




(Allied Automotive 1986, Carlisle 1986).




    Although non-asbestos semi-metallic pads have nearly always been used for




disc brakes for heavy vehicles in small proportions (Allied Automotive 1986,




Carlisle 1986), in the past, asbestos-based pads were used to a greater




extent.  Asbestos disc brakes for heavy vehicles are now apparently only used




to replace worn asbestos pads in the aftermarket (ICF 1986a, ICF 1985, Allied




Automotive 1986, Carlisle 1986).  The switch to semi-metallic pads from




asbestos pads is due to the high braking temperatures generated in this




vehicle application; semi-metallic pads, in general, have superior performance




and service life at high temperatures (Allied Automotive 1986).




    Semi-metallic pads are molded products containing chopped steel wool,




sponge iron, graphite powder, fillers, and resins (Allied Automotive 1986,




Ford 1986).   Some semi-metallic pads for heavy vehicles may contain a very




thin asbestos-containing backing, or underlayer, between the pad and the steel
                                    - 1 -

-------
plate to which it is attached.   Other semi-metallic pads have no underlsyer

or have one made of chopped Kevlar or fiberglass (Allied Automotive 1986).

The underlayer acts as a thermal barrier between the pad and plate and helps

to bond the pad to the plate (Allied Automotive 1986).  Producers generally do

not consider semi-metallic pads with asbestos underlayers to be asbestos pads

since the lining itself contains no asbestos and the underlayer accounts for

only a very small percentage of the total content of the pad (Allied

Automotive 1986),

    Primary and secondary processing of asbestos-based pads is the sane as

that described for light and medium vehicles.  According to Carlisle, the

approximate asbestos fiber content per pad is 1.5 Ibs. (ICF 1986a),

    B.  Prpducers_ and_Importers of Disc Brake Pads (Heavy Vehicles^

    Table 1 lists the four producers of (asbestos and non-asbestos) disc brake

pads for heavy vehicles in 1985.  Carlisle, and possibly Allied Automotive,

produced asbestos-based pads in 1985.  However, an Allied Automotive

representative stated that the firm currently manufactures only semi-metallic

pads (Allied Automotive 1986).  Brake Systems and Raymark, only manufacture

semi-metallic pads (Brake Systems 1986, ICF 1986a,  Design News 1984).

    Table 2 lists the sole secondary processor of disc brake pads for heavy

vehicles in 1985.  The firm, Hall Brake Supply, was also the only secondary

processor in 1981 (TSCA 1982b).  The pads produced by the firm are all

asbestos-based (ICF 1986b).

    There were no importers of asbestos disc brake pads for heavy vehicles in

1985 (ICF 1986a).
     •*• Information is not available on the percentage of semi-metallic pads
that possibly contain an asbestos underlayer.  Brake Systems, Inc. makes
semi-metallic disc brake pads for heavy vehicles with an asbestos underlayer
(Brake Systems 1986),  Information was not available for the other producers,

                                    - 2 -

-------
                                            Table 1.   1985 Primary fiocenaoim of Disc Irak* Fads
                                                              (Heavy Vnhiele«)
                                                                          Product
                  Company                       Plant Location    Asbestos   Hon-Asbostot                References


Carlisla, Hotion Control Industries Division   Ridgway, PA           X            X                  ICF 1986a, TSCA 19B2a


Allied Automotive                              Green Island, HY     H/Aa          X                  Allied Automotive 1986,
                                                                                                     fSCA 1982«


Brake Systems                                  Stratford, CT                      X                  Bcaka Systems 19B6

Roymark                                             H/AC                          X                  Design Haws 198*


H/A <• Information not available.

 Allied Automotivs refused to respond to our survey.  It was assumed that they produced asbestos-based disc brake pads In 1985, however
they currently only produce lami-metalllc pads (Allied Automotive 1986),

 Brake Systems produces ianl-Bietalllc pads with a very small asbestos underlay*,!; till* is not considered an asbestos diie brake pad (Brake
Systems 1986).

-Rsyroart, itself, did not provide information on its disc brake pad production.  They only produce *«nl-metallic pads (ICF 1986a, Design
News 1984).

-------
                                Table 2.   1985 Secondary Processors of Dine Irak* Pads
                                                   (Heavy Vehiclos)
                                                  Product
           y          Plant, Location     Asbentoa     Hoi5~A5b93feos                         References

                                                                       *
Hall Brake Supply      Phoenix, AZ           X                                   ICF 1986b, *    ISCA  1982b

-------
    c.

    Table 3 gives the production of asbestos-based disc brake pads for heavy

vehicles and the corresponding consumption of asbestos fiber.

    As previously mentioned, there were no importers of asbestos-based disc

brake pads for heavy vehicles in 1985 (ICF 1986a).   Hall Brake Supply was the

sole importer in 1981. (ICF 1984).

    According to Carlisle, the market for heavy-vehicle disc brakes is

growing.  The firm predicts that the switch to front disc brakes that occurred

in cars and light trucks will also happen in intermediate- and large-sized

trucks (Carlisle 1986).

    D.  Substitutes

    According to Allied Automotive and Carlisle, 100 percent of the original

equipment market (OEM) and most of the aftermarket is held by the

semi-metallic pads (Allied Automotive 1986, Carlisle 1986),  It is assumed

that the 100 percent of the aftermarket will also become semi-metallic as
                                                                           2
aftermarket vehicles are scrapped and/or switch over to semi-metallic pads.

    Table 4 provides data inputs for the regulatory cost model.

    E.  Summary.

    Asbestos disc brake pads for heavy vehicles are used only on the front

wheels of certain intermediate-sized trucks (12,000-22,000 Ibs, per axle)

(Allied Automotive 1986).  Two producers, in 1985,  consumed  117.6 tons of

asbestos to produce 156,280 disc brake pads (heavy vehicles).  Only one,

Carlisle-Motion Control Industries, currently produces the asbestos disc brake

pad for heavy vehicles (Allied Automotive 1986, Carlisle 1986, ICF 1986a),
     ^ Allied Automotive also reports that non-asbestos underlayers, which are
made of either chopped fiberglass or Kevlar(R), perform just as well as
asbestos underlayers (Allied Automotive 1986).

                                    - 5 -

-------
               Table  3.   Production  and Fiber  Consumption  for
               Asbestos-Based Disc Brake Pads (Heavy Vehicles)
                             1981
1985
                                 Asbestos                 Asbestos
                                   Fiber                    Fiber
                    Production  Consumption  Production  Consumption
                     (pieces)     (tons)      (pieces)     (tons)     References
Total
385,496 44,6 156,820a 117. 6a ICF 1986a,
TSCA 1982a
 One company refused to provide production and fiber consumption data for their
asbestos-based disc pads (heavy vehicles).  Its production and fiber consumption
have been estimated using a method described in Appendix A of this E.IA,
                                    - 6 -

-------
                                    T«bl« 4.  Data Inputs on Disc Brake Pads 
-------
    Asbestos-based pads are now only used to replace worn asbestos pads la the




aftermarket.  For OEM, semi-metallie pads are used rather than asbestos pads




because of the high braking temperatures generated in this application.  If




asbestos were no longer available, it is estimated that 100 percent of the




aftermarket would become semi-metallie.  Semi-metallic disc brake pads (heavy




vehicles) cost approximately 20 percent less than asbestos disc brake pads for




heavy vehicles.
                                    - 8 -

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT
1,  The product asbestos coefficient, as well as the asbestos and
    semi-metallic pad prices were provided by Carlisle.

2.  The useful life of the asbestos pad was assumed to be the same as that
    reported in 1984 in Appendix H (ICF 1985).   Carlisle stated that
    serai-metallie pads have 50 percent longer service life than asbestos pads;
    thus,  the useful life of the semi-metallic pad given in the table is 1,5
    times  the asbestos pad life.
                                    -  9 -

-------
REFERENCES
Allied Automotive.  E, Rogers.  1986 (October 17).  Troy, NY.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Brake Systems Inc.  S. Mayo.  1986 (November 18).  Stratford, CT.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Carlisle.  R. Tami.   1986 (October 17).  Ridgway, PA.  Transcribed telephone
conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Design News.  1984 (March 26).  Asbestos Substitutes in Friction Applications.
S, Scott.

Ford Motor Co.  A. Anderson.  1986 (December 3).  American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington, D.C.  Transcribed conversation
with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No.  20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated, 1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their Substitutes,
In Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of Primary Processors of
Disc Brake Pads (Heavy Vehicles).  Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1986b (July-December).  Survey of Secondary Processors of
Disc Brake Pads (Heavy Vehicles).  Washington, D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982a.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, B.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.  20-8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982b.  Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, B.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.  20-8670644.
                                    -  10  -

-------
XXI,  BRAKE BLOCKS

    A.  Eroduct Description

    Brake blocks are brake linings used on the drum brakes of heavy vehicles

-- heavy trucks, buses, and heavy off-road vehicles.   The comparable

components on light/medium vehicles (cars and light trucks) are drum brake

linings, which are discussed in Section XVIII.  The heavy-vehicle drum brake

consists of two curved metal "shoes" to which brake blocks are attached.  When

the brakes are applied, the curved shoes are pressed out against a metal drum
                                               f\
that is connected to the wheels of the vehicle.   The pressure of the shoes

against the drum stops the turning of the wheels (ICF 1985).

    Each shoe has two blocks, a longer one (the anchor) and a shorter one (the

cam),  resulting in a total of four blocks per wheel.  Each block is at least

three-quarters of an inch thick and covers 50° to 60° of the arc around the

wheel (Allied Automotive 1986, ICF 1985).

    Asbestos-based brake blocks contain approximately 1.16 Ibs.^ of asbestos

fiber per block on average (ICF 1986a),   Asbestos is used because of its

thermal stability, reinforcing properties, flexibility, resistance to wear,

and relatively low cost (Krusell and Cogley 1982).

    Brake blocks are usually manufactured by a dry mix process in which

asbestos fiber is combined with a powdered binder (usually an epoxy novolac

resin) to form briquets under pressure of 1,500 to 2,500 psi and temperature
     •"• Heavy trucks range fron moderately heavy, 12-22,000 Ibs. per axle, to
very heavy, i.e., tractor trailers and logging and mining trucks (Allied
Automotive 1986).  Examples of heavy off-road vehicles include agricultural
tractors and earth-moving equipment.


     2 Drum brakes for heavy vehicles are either air- or hydraulic-activated,
depending upon the application.  Tractor trailers, for example, would always
use air brakes, while medium-sized trucks would normally use hydraulic brakes
(Allied Automotive 1986).

     3 See Attachment, Item 1.

                                    - 1 -

-------
of 1985°F,^  The briquets are then formed into blocks at 265*F to 3QQ*F under

additional pressure (2,000 to 3,000 psi) for 10 to 30 minutes.  The blocks are

then cut and ground to shape.  After curing, grinding, drilling, and

chamfering (cutting grooves), the block is finished (ICF 1985).  The finished

block is then riveted to the brake shoe (Allied Automotive 1986) .

    Secondary processing of brake blocks is similar to that of drum brake

linings.  Some processors install new brake blocks into brake assemblies for

new vehicles.  Others may repackage blocks for sale as replacement parts in

the aftennarket.  None of these secondary processes involve any grinding,

drilling, or other treatment of the brake block.  Another distinct type of

secondary processing is brake rebuilding.  Rebuilders receive used, worn

blocks attached to the shoes.  The old blocks are removed from the shoes, the

shoes are cleaned by abrasion, and new blocks are attached.  The rebuilt shoes

with blocks are then packaged and sold for the aftermarket (ICF 1985, Krusell

and Cogley 1982).

    B.  Producers and Importers of Brake Blocks

    Table 1 lists the twelve primary processors of brake blocks in 1985.  At

least eight of these firms produced an asbestos-based product; Raymark did not

provide information.  Allied Automotive is a relatively small manufacturer of

brake blocks, producing only for the severe braking applications segment of

the market (i.e., logging and mining trucks) (Allied Automotive 1986).  At

least eleven of the processors also currently produce substitute products (ICF

1986a, Design News 1984).
     * Brake blocks may also be woven from asbestos yarn; however, the woven
block is an older and far less common technology (Carlisle 1986a).  Raymark
and Standee Industries are, apparently, the only two producers who still make
woven brake blocks (ICF 1986a).

                                    - 2 -

-------
                                                 Table  1.   1985 Primary Frocasiors of Brake Blocks
Company
Carlisle, Motion Control Industries Division
Abax
Nuturn
Allied Automotive
Raymark
Standee Industrie*
H.K. Porter
Brake Systems Inc. (Division of Echlin)
(plant formerly owned by Molded Industrial
Friction Co.)
Palmer Product* Corp,
Friction Product*
Scan Fac
Wheeling Brake Block
Product
Plant Lacatlan(s) Anbestos ifon-A*B»»to8
Ridgway, PA X X
Salisbury, HC X X
Winchester, VA X X
New Canfcle, IN X X
Cleveland, TH X X
Crewfordsville , IH N/A* X
Houston, IX X
Huntlngton, IN X*1 X
Frattville, AL X
Louisville, KY X X
Hedina, OH X
Mvooomwe Falli, WI X
Bridgeport, CT X° X
Lf^c..
ICf 19»6«, TSCA 1982«
Ab«c W8S, ISCA lf»2«
ICF 1986a, ISCA 1982a
Allied Automotive 1986,
TSCA 1982*
Design Hews 1984, TSCA 1982s
ICF 1986*. TSCA 1962s.
ICF 1966a, TSCA 19B2*.
ICF 19B6a, TSCA 19B2a
ICf 1986*. TSCA 1982a
friction Products 1981
ICF 1986*. TSCA 19B2a
ICF 19 66 a, ICF 1965
H/A - Information not available.




^{aymnrk refu»»d to provid* production information.  How»v«r,  it wan «»«vm»d that  thay  produced  asbestos br«k» blocks  In 1985.




 H.K. Porter *tnt«d that it would phase out Its production of  nnbestoa teak* blocks t>f  the  «nd of  1986  (FT.: Associates 1966).




°WtiBeUng Beak* Block of Bridgeport, CT phased out its production of asbestoB braie block*  in 1913 (HtittUng  Brake  Block 1986).

-------
    Changes in primary processors from 1981 to 1985 include Brake Systems




Znc.'s purchase of Molded. Industrial Friction Co.'s plant in Prattville,  AL.




The Brake Systems plant phased out asbestos-based blocks prior to 1985, and




now produces only a non-asbestos product (1CF 1986a).   Wheeling Brake Block of




Bridgeport, CT, phased out its asbestos-based brake block operations in 1986.




The firm currently manufactures a non-asbestos product (Wheeling Brake Block




1986).  H.K. Porter stated it would phase out production of asbestos-based




blocks by the end of 1986 (PEI Associates 1986).




    Table 2 lists the three current secondary processors of brake blocks.




Freightliner Corporation of Portland, OR, is essentially Mercedes-Benz's U.S.




truck operations (Freightliner 1986).  Information was not available on the




type of secondary processing in which these firms were involved.




    Table 3 lists the importers of asbestos-based brake blocks.  There were




four importers in 1981.  Hall Brake Supply, one of the 1981 importers, did not




import in 1985.  Navistar International and Abex did not provide information




on their imports, therefore the total 1985 imports could not be determined.




    C.  Trends




    Table 4 gives the production of asbestos-based brake blocks and the




corresponding consumption of asbestos fiber.  Although, producers and




purchasers of brake blocks did not provide current market shares, they




indicated that the majority of the original equipment market (OEM) and




aftermarket is probably still asbestos-based (Abex 1986, Ford 1986a, DuPont
                                    - 4 -

-------
                                 Table 2.   1985 Secondary Proc»»«ora of Br«k« Slocks
                                                      Product
                            Plant Location    Asbestos   Non-Asbaitoa
Hall Brake Supply
Phoenix, AZ
                                                            N/A
ICF UBSb,      TSCA 198Zb
IMC Corporntion
Cedar Rapids, IA
ICF mm,      tscA i»ea
Fr»igbtllB*« Corporation   Portland,  OR
                                  H/A
                                                                                ICF
                                                                                               ISCA
H/A ~ Iriformation not availabl«.

-------
            Table  3,   Imports of Asbestos-Based  Brake Blocks
                                            1981       1985
                                          Quantity   Quantity
                                          Imported   Imported
                                          (pieces)   (pieces)   References
  Total
182,809
N/A
ICF 1984
N/A •» Information not available,
                                  - 6 -

-------
           Table  4.   Production and  Fiber Consumption  for
                    Asbestos-Based Brake Blocks
                          1981
              1985
                References
Production (pieces)   18,457,840   4,570,266   IGF 1986a, TSCA 1982a
Asbestos Fiber
Consumption (tons)
12,992.5
2,643.6   ICF 1986a, TSCA 1982m
 Allied Automotive, Abex, Rayoark, and Wheeling Brake Block refused
to provide production data for their asbestos-based brake blocks.
Data on production for Allied Automotive,  Abex and Raymark was
estimated using a method described in the  Appendix A to this R1A.
Data for Wheeling Brake Block is not included.   They did not make
asbestos brake blocks in 1981 and they have stopped production of
asbestos brake blocks In 1986.  We, therefore,  assume that their 1985
production is small.

 Abex, Raymark, and Wheeling Brake Block refused to provide fiber
consumption data for their asbestos-based brake blocks.  Data on
fiber consumption for Abex and Rayntark was estimated using a method
described in the Appendix A to this RIA.  Data for Wheeling Brake
Block is not included.  They did not make  the asbestos product in
1981 and they have stopped  production in 1986.  Therefore, we assume
their 1985 fiber  consumption is small.
                               - 7 -

-------
1986).   Representatives from Ford and Abex agreed, that good substitutes have

been developed for a range of brake block applications; however, some heavy

truck and heavy vehicle applications (which they did not specify) do not yet

have substitutes (Ford 1986a, Abex 1986).  Ford also indicated that while

substitutes have been developed, many may not be near the point of large-scale

commercial production (Ford 1986a).  DuPont, a major supplier of materials for

friction products, e.g., Kevlar(R), estimated that currently 75 percent of OEM

brake blocks are still asbestos-based (DuPont 1986),  Thus, 75 percent is

assumed to be the asbestos-based OEM share, as it is the only available figure

and it is not out of line with the comments of Ford and Abex.  All firms,

however, agreed that substantial progress is being made towards the

replacement of asbestos blocks in the OEM (Abex 1986, Ford 1986a, DuPont

1986).

    D.  Substitutes

    For the vast majority of applications, i.e. heavy trucks and off-road

vehicles, excluding the super-heavy applications (logging and mining trucks),

the major group of substitutes- are the non-asbestos organics (NAOs) (Carlisle

1986a, DuPont 1986, Allied Automotive 1986).  In fact, 65 percent of Nuturn's

brake block production is currently NAD blocks (IGF 1986a).  The major

substitute for the super-heavy braking applications (logging and mining

trucks), which represent & very small share of the total market, is the

full-metallic block (Carlisle 1986a, Allied Automotive 1986).
     ^ 100 percent of railroad car brake blocks are non-asbestos (Ford 1986&,
Abex 1986);  and probably 100 percent of aircraft brake blocks are also
non-asbestos (Krusell and Cogley 1982).   These types of brake blocks have been
non-asbestos for the last several years, and it is likely that asbestos-based
blocks were never used to any great extent (if at all) for these markets
(Krusell and Cogley 1982).  Therefore, for the purposes of defining the
asbestos-based brake block market, railroad car and aircraft brake blocks will
be excluded.

                                      8

-------
    NAO formulations generally contain the following ingredients:   Kevlar(!)

and/or fiberglass and/or mineral fibers,^ perhaps some steel wool and/or other

fibers, and fillers and resins (IGF 1986a).   Fiberglass and Kevlar(R) usually

account for only a small percentage of the total formulation.  For example, &

representative from DuPont stated that the optimal level of Kevlar(R) in brake

block formulations is usually only 5 percent by weight (DuPont 1986),  Thus,

labelling substitute brake blocks as Kevlar(R)-based or fiberglass-based

(producers tend to do this for marketing reasons) is misleading (Carlisle

1986b, Abex 1986, Ford 1986a).  Of the twelve primary processors of brake

blocks in 1985, at least eight currently produce NAO blocks.  These firms are:

Carlisle, Abex, Nuturn, H.K. Porter, Brake Systems Inc., Painter Products, Scan

Pac, and Wheeling Brake Block (Abex 1986, Wheeling Brake Block 1986, IGF

1986a).7

    Producers generally agree that NAO brake blocks have the same or better

performance than asbestos-based blocks, as well as improved service life (ICF

1986a, Allied Automotive 1986, Carlisle 1986a).   A representative from

Carlisle, the largest producer of brake blocks in 1981 {with approximately

36.6 percent of the market), stated that, on average, NAO blocks had 30

percent greater service life than asbestos blocks.  (Nuturn, another major

producer, claimed its NAO blocks had 100 percent greater service life (ICF

1986a).)  NAO blocks are priced 30-50 percent higher than asbestos blocks,

according to Carlisle (Carlisle 1986a).
     ^ Mineral fibers commonly used by producers include:  wollastonite,
phosphate fiber, aluminum silicate fiber, Franklin fiber, mineral wool, and
PMF (processed mineral fiber) (ICF 1986a),

     ^ Raymark did not provide information; Allied Automotive is in the
process of developing a non-asbestos, non-full-metallie block (Allied
Automotive 1986).
                                      9

-------
    Full-metallic blocks are molded from sintered steel wool and sponge iron,

and contain no resin  (Ford 1986&).  Producers of full-metallic blocks include

Allied Automotive and Wheeling Brake Block (Allied Automotive 1986, Wheeling

Brake Block 1986).8  Allied Automotive stated that these substitutes had

improved performance over asbestos for extremely high temperature ranges

(Allied Automotive 1986).  By contrast, Wheeling Brake Block, which

manufactures full*metallie blocks in only limited quantities, stated that in

the past its product generally had poor performance compared to asbestos

blocks,  however they have been improving this product recently (Wheeling Brake

Block 1986, 1987).  Allied Automotive indicated that the full-metallic blocks

have up to two times longer service life than asbestos blocks, while Wheeling

Brake Block felt their product had the same life as asbestos blocks (Allied

Automotive 1987, Wheeling Brake Block 1987),  Carlisle, which used to make the

full-metallic brake block, but no longer does so, also stated that

full-metallics had about the same life as asbestos brake blocks (Carlisle

1987).   For the purposes of the asbestos regulatory cost model the useful life

of the full metallic brake block has been assumed to be the same as for the

asbestos block.

    Full"metallic brake blocks on average are 20 percent more expensive per

component than asbestos brake blocks, assuming the useful lives are the same.

The computation for the price of the full metallic brake block price does

include an adjustment for the longer life of Allied Automotive'• product.'*-®
     " S.K. Wellman of Toronto, Ontario, Canada also produces a full-metallic
brake block.  They are specialty items, however, and are not carried in stock
(S.K. Wellman 1987).

     ^ See Attachment, Item 4.

     10 See Attachment, Itens 4.
                                    -  10 -

-------
    A potential substitute for brake blocks in the future may be carbon fiber

and carbon/carbon fiber composite brake blocks (Ashland Petroleum 1986).  Up

to the present time, carbon fiber and carbon/carbon fiber composite blocks

have been so expensive that they have only been used in very demanding

applications such as high-performance military aircraft and large commercial

airline applications (Ashland Petroleum 1986).  These carbon-based blocks are

used because of their high thermal stability and low weight (Krusell and

Cogley 1982).  The Ashland Carbon Fibers Division of Ashland Petroleum,

however, has recently developed a low cost carbon fiber and carbon pitch

product (which is used in combination with the carbon fiber for the

carbon/carbon fiber composite) for use in carbon-based brake blocks.  The. firm

believes that carbon blocks will now be manufactured more widely for the

commercial and industrial brake block markets (Ashland Petroleum 1986).

    Given the current OEM market shares, however, it is clear that in the

near-term NAO brake blocks will capture the majority of the asbestos-based OEM

in the event of a ban (Carlisle 1986a, Allied Automotive 1986).  A

representative from Carlisle stated that 75-80 percent of the OEM would likely

be NAO blocks, with only 0,5 percent being full-metallic; the balance being

substitutes not yet developed (Carlisle 1986a).H

    Choice of replacement of asbestos-based brake blocks in the aftennarket,

however, is more difficult to estimate.  Many producers and users agreed that

brake systems designed for asbestos brake blocks should continue to use

asbestos.   Substitute linings which were designed for the OEM, when used to

replace worn blocks, do not perform as well as asbestos, and could jeopardize

brake safety (Allied Automotive 1986, Ford 1986b).   Abex, however, indicated
     H Until other replacements can be found for the remaining 19.5-24,5
percent of asbestos-based applications, it is assumed for the present that the
NAO substitute will replace 99.5 percent of the asbestos market if asbestos
were no longer available.  See Attachment, Item 5.

                                    -  11 -

-------
that it Is selling its OEM non-asbestos-organic blocks for the aftennarket,




and reports that they are performing well (Abex 1986).  Given this evidence,




we have concluded that the aftermarket shares would be identical to the OEM




shares.




    Table 5 provides data for the regulatory cost model.  The substitutes are




the NAO and full-metallic blocks.  Note that the equivalent price of the NAG




block given in the table is close to the asbestos block price because of the




longer service life.




    E.  £unnnar^




    Brake blocks are brake linings used in drum brakes of heavy vehicles such




as heavy trucks, buses, and heavy off-road vehicles (IGF 1985).  There were




nine producers of asbestos-based brake blocks in 1985.  These companies




consumed 2,643.6 tons of asbestos and produced 4,570,266 pieces of brake




blocks.   Since 1985, H.K. Porter and Reeling Brake Block have stopped




processing asbestos.  This leaves seven current producers of asbestos brake




blocks (IGF 1986a).




    A majority of the OEM (about 75 percent) and the aftermarket is still




asbestos-based (Abex 1986, Ford 1986a, DuPont 1986).  The major group of




substitutes for most applications are the non-asbestos organics (NAOs),  It is




projected that they would capture 99.5 percent of the asbestos brake block




market if asbestos were not available.  Full metallic brakes are a major




substitute in super-heavy braking applications and they are projected to




capture the remaining 0.5 percent of the asbestos market.
                                    -  12  -

-------
                                        Table 5.  Data. Inputs on Brake Blocks foe Anbeoton Rugnlni-.ory Cost Wwltl
                                     Product Aabeatoe      Consumption                                    EqpivalMit    Market
    Product            Output          Coefficient       Production Ratio      Frirn       Useful Life      Pries       Share           References



AabeatOB Mixture  4,570,266 pieces  0,00058 toiw/pieco         1.01         SS.M/pinca    0,5 y*»r«     85.74/plec*     H/A     ICF 19B6a,  ICF 1965,


BM                     H/A                H/A                 H/A          S8.04/pi«c*    0,65 y««»    96.22/pi«c»     99.51   Carlisle 1986«
Full-Metallic           »/A                S/A                 H/A          S6.89/pi«ce    0.5 year*     $6.89/piec»      0.51   Allied Automotive 1986,
                                                                                                                                 Wheeling Brake Block
                                                                                                                                 1986,  Carlisle 1986a


N/A:  Not Applicable,

*Sea Attaelment, Items 2-5,

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT
1.  The asbestos fiber content per block was calculated by dividing the 1985
    asbestos fiber consumption for brake blocks by the 1985 asbestos brake
    block production:   2,643.6 tons (5,287,200 Ibs.)  divided by 4,570,266
    pieces, or 1.16 Ibs.  per piece.

2,  The product asbestos  coefficient is the same value calculated in Item 1
    above, converted into tons per piece.

3.  The consumption production ratio was calculated using 41,808 pieces as the
    value for 1985 U.S.  imports.   (Total 1985 production is 4,570,266 pieces.)
    This value, however,  only includes imports for the firms who provided
    information (see Table 4),

4.  The asbestos product  price is a weighted average (by production) of prices
    for producers who provided both price and production information for 1985.
    The useful life of the asbestos product was assumed to be the same as that
    reported in 1984 in Appendix H (ICF 1985),

    The price and useful  life of the NAQ block was calculated by multiplying
    what Carlisle reported as the average percent increase in price and useful
    life, respectively, of an NAO block over an average asbestos block by the
    (weighted average) asbestos product price and useful life, respectively.
    As mentioned in the text, Carlisle stated that NAO blocks are 30-50
    percent higher in price (thus, 40 percent is used as the price increase)
    and have 30 percent longer useful life.

    The price and useful  life of full-metallic brake blocks was computed based
    on information from three firms.  Wheeling Brake Block claims their
    full-metallic brake block has the same useful life as asbestos brake
    blocks, but is 10-15  percent (12.5 percent average) more expensive
    (Wheeling Brake Block 1987).   Carlisle, which no longer makes the
    full-metallic product but is familiar with the market, stated that
    full-metallic brake blocks have the same life as asbestos brake blocks,
    but are approximately 25 percent more expensive (Carlisle 1987).  A third
    firm, Allied Automotive, claims their full metallic brake block have up to
    double the useful life (we assumed 50 percent on average), but is 83
    percent more expensive than their premium asbestos product (Allied
    Automotive 1987).   In order to average the estimates for these three
    firms, an equivalent  price for the Allied Product had to be computed,
    (The equivalent price is a present value calculation that determines the
    price a product would have if it had the same useful life as asbestos.)
    This calculation showed Allied Automotive's full-metallic product to be
    22,65 percent more expensive than asbestos blocks.  The average cost of
    the full-metallic brake block is therefore 20.05 percent more expensive
    than asbestos brake blocks.
                                    - 14  -

-------
5,   The market shares for the substitutes are provided by Carlisle,   Carlisle
    stated the super-heavy applications (logging and mining trucks),  for which
    full-metallic blocks would be used, represent only 0.5 percent of the
    market.   Seventy-five Co 80 percent of the market,  stated Carlisle,  would
    be captured by NAO blocks and the rest of the market would be taken  by
    substitutes not yet developed.  However,  until other replacements can be
    found for the remaining 19,5-24,5 percent of asbestos-based applications,
    it is assumed that for the present that NAO blocks will replace 99.5
    percent of the asbestos market if asbestos were no longer available.
                                     15 -

-------
REFERENCES
Abex Corp.  R. Nelson.  1986 (December 3).  American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Conference in Washington, D,C,  Transcribed conversation with
Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Allied Automotive,  E. Rogers.  1986 (October 17).  Troy, NY.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Allied Automotive.  B. Bush.  1987 (July 10).  Troy, NY.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Ashland Petroleum Co.  1986,  Product Literature.  Carboflex  and Aerocarb
Ashland's New Low Cost Carbon Fiber and Carbonizing Products for Future Brake
Applications.  Ashland, K¥,

Carlisle, Motion Control Industries Div.  R. Tami.  1986a (October 17).
Ridgway, PA.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Carlisle, Motion Control Industries Div.  1986b.  Product Literature.
Tracking Enduramid .   Ridgway, PA.

Carlisle, Motion Control Industries Div,  R. Tami.  1987 (July 10).  Ridgway,
PA.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Design News.  1984 (March 26).  Asbestos Substitutes in Friction Applications.
S. Scott.

DuPont.  T. Merriman,  1986 (November 5).  Wilmington, DE.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Ford Motor Co.  A, Anderson.  1986a (December 3).  American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington, D.C.  Transcribed conversation
with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Ford Motor Co.  1986b.  Consents of Ford Motor Co. on Proposed Asbestos Ban
Rule.  EPA Document Control No.  OPTS-62036.

Freightliner Corp.  T, Robinson.  1986 (November 26).  Portland, OR.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Friction Products.  D. Cramer.  1986 (October 9).  Medina, OH.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No.  20-8600681.

                                    -  16  -

-------
ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of Primary Processors of
Brake Blocks.  Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1986b (July-December).  Survey of Secondary Processors of
Brake Blocks.  Washington, D.C.

Krusell N. , Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis, Revised Final Report.  Washington, D.C.: -Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract 68-02-3168.

PEI Associates, Inc.  1986.  OTS Survey of Asbestos Products Manufactwrers.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

S.K. Wellman.  P. Douglass.  1987 (July 10).  Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICP Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982a.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:   Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.  20-8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982b.  Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:   Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8670644.

Wheeling Brake Block.  G. Beckett.  1986 (November 20).  Bridgeport, CT.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Wheeling Brake Block.  G. Beckett.  1987 (July 10).  Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C,
                                    -  17  -

-------
XXII,  CLUTCH FACINGS

    A.  Product Description

    Clutch facings are friction materials attached to both sides of the steel

disc in the clutch mechanists of manual-transmission vehicles.  Two metal

pressure plates flanking the disc are pressed against the clutch facings by

springs when the clutch is engaged.  This pressure keeps the gears of the

vehicle in position by means of a metal component that extends between the

disc and the gears,   When the driver steps on the clutch pedal to change

gears, the springs pressing the plates against the clutch facings are pulled

back, releasing the pressure that holds the gears in position (ICF 1985).

    Clutch facings are Bade of molded or woven friction materials.  Molded

facings are used more widely than the woven (H.K, Porter 1986, ICF 1985).

Woven clutch facings are a premium product.  They have longer service life and

engage gears better than molded facings; however, they cost substantially more

(H.K. Porter 1986, ICF 1985).  Woven clutch facings are, therefore, used in

luxury automobiles (e.g., Mercedes-Benz) and high-performance vehicles.  They

may also be used in off-road vehicles, such as agricultural tractors and

earth-moving equipment, where improved service life is important (H.K. Porter

1986, Deere and Co.  1986),l

    Molded and woven clutch facings for the automotive markets are usually

made of asbestos or fiberglass (ICF 1985),*  The molded products are usually
     •*• The service life of these off-road vehicles ranges from 20 to 35 yemirs,
or roughly five times the life of an automobile.  Clutch facings for these
vehicles must last the lifetime of the vehicle, as the typical cost of opening
up the transmission to replace a worn facing is on the order of $10,000 (Deere
and Co. 1986).

     * In heavy trucks and heavy earth-moving equipment, the clutch facings
are replaced by buttons which can withstand greater pressure but are heavier,
noisier, and cost more than materials used in automobiles.  The buttons are
made of sintered metal (bonded metal particles).  Asbestos has almost never
been used for these clutch applications (S.K. Wellman 1986).  Thus, for the
purpose of defining the asbestos-based clutch facing market, heavy vehicle
clutch components will be excluded.

-------
made by a dry mix process, as described for disc brake pads.  Asbestos fiber

or fiberglass is combined with binders in the molding process, during which

wires are run through the component to give it shape.  The final product is

then pressed, cured, and ground to its final shape.  Woven clutch facings are

made by running asbestos or fiberglass yarn or cord through a wet mix to pick

up the wet mixture.  The yarn or cord is then woven after drying.  The woven

product is then hot-pressed, cured, and ground, as other wet-mix friction

products (e.g., drum brake linings for light/medium vehicles) (ICF 1985,

Krusell and Cogley 1982).

    Secondary processing of clutch facings is similar to the secondary

processing of automotive friction products previously discussed.  Woven clutch

facings may be rebuilt, as described for other automotive products (ICF 1985,

Krusell and Cogley 1982).  Repair of clutches is similar to repair of drum and

disc brakes, as described earlier (ICF 1985, Krusell and Cogley 1982).

    Asbestos-based molded clutch facings currently produced contain

approximately 0.26 Ibs. of asbestos fiber per piece (ICF 1986a).   (Data was

not available on the asbestos fiber content per piece for woven facings,)

Asbestos fiber is used to impart stability under friction, good wear up to

480°F, quietness, and very high tensile strength of 10,000 psi (ICF 1985).

    B,  Producers'and Importers of Clutch Facings

    Table 1 lists the three primary processors of clutch facings in 1985.

All three produce for the automobile, truck, and off-road vehicle markets;

and, all firms make asbestos as well as non-asbestos facings (ICF 1986a).

Raymark manufactures woven and, probably, molded facings (ICF 1986a, H.K.

Porter 1986).  H.K. Porter manufactures only woven facings; the firm stated
     ' See Attachment, Item 1.

     ^ Producers of clutch buttons (which are non-asbestos) for heavy trucks
and off-road vehicles are not included.

-------
                           Table 1.  1985 Primary Pioe««*ozi of Clutch facings
Product
Company
Roycmrk
H.K. Port**
Hutura
riant Locatlon(a)
Hnnhalra, PA
Stratford, CT
Crmrfordaville, IHB
Hunt innton , IH
anithvllle, IF
AsbeatDB
X
H/A
W/A
X
X
Non-Apibii.-it.OB
X
H/A
»/A
X
X
t.f«IracM
ICF 19B8a, ISCM
TSOA 190^a
FEi AsBOCtBt.BB
ICF 1988«, 1SCA
ICT 196Sa, ISCA

1982a
19BC
1982a
1982
H/A - Infoiroation not available.

 This plant, refused to respond to our survey.  It IB essuned that they are »tlll producing asbestos clutch
fscings,

-------
that it and Raymark are probably the only two current producers of woven




facings (H.K. Porter 1986).  H.K. Porter stated, however, that it would




completely replace production of asbestos-based clutch facings with




non-asbestos substitutes by the end of 1986 (PE1 Associates 1986),  Standee




Industries of Houston, TX, (not listed in Table 1) ceased production of




asbestos clutch facings prior to 1985; information was not available on




whether it produced a non-asbestos product (ICF 1986a).




    Table 2 lists the six current secondary processors of clutch facings,




Freightliner Corporation of Portland, OR, is essentially Mercedes-Benz's tl.S,




truck operations (Freightliner 1986).  Information was not available on the




type of secondary processing in which these firms were involved (ICF 1986b).




    Table 3 lists the 27 current importers of asbestos-based clutch facings.




According to DuPont, non-asbestos clutch facings are used extensively in




European cars; most new German cars, in fact, are equipped with non-asbestos




facings (DuPont 1986).  Nuturn of Smithville, TN, (not listed in Table 3)




stopped importing asbestos-based clutch facings prior to 1985 (Nuturn 1986).




Saab-Scania of America (Orange, CT; not listed in Table 3) reported that Saab




cars are equipped with non-asbestos clutch facings;  the firm stopped importing




asbestos facings prior to 1985 (Saab-Scania of America 1986).  New




Mercedes-Benz automobiles are also equipped with non-asbestos clutch facings




(DuPont 1986b).




    C.  Trends




    Table 4 gives the production of asbestos-based clutch facings and the




corresponding consumption of asbestos fiber.  The 1985 values for production




and fiber consumption do not include Raymark's Crawfordsville, IN, plant,




Information on the size of the clutch facings production at the Crawfordsville




plant was not available (ICF 1986a),
                                    - 4 -

-------
                                    Tablo 2,  1985 Sucondary Proc*i»or« o£ Clutch Facing*
Company
Sfcanliop«
Coradaco
Freljhtllnet Corp.
Ball Brak« Supply
Borg and Beck Clutch
Dona Corp.
Plant Location(a)
Brook vi lie, OH
Kunaas City, MD
Portland, OK
Phoenix, AZ
Chicago, IL
Wichita Falla, IX
Product
Mbwtoi Itan-tebMto.
X H/A
X H/A
X N/A
X N/A
H/A N/A
H/A H/A
I.f««..
ICF WSftb, ISCA »82b
ICF l»8tt, ISCA It82b
ICF 19B6b, TSCA 1982b
ICF 1986b, TSCA 19«2b
ISCA H82b
ISCA 1982b
R/A - Information not available.

-------
Table 3.  lmpe»rt»r« of Asbaatoa-laaBd Clutch Facings
Coti$>any
U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.
Toyota (-fetor Sal*«, USA
Westnm Autoraotiva Warehouso Distributors
Kawasaki Motors Corp,
J.I. Case
Goner a 1 Motors
BMW at fiorth America
MercadeH-Bsnz of Rorth America
Volkswagen of America
FnujBot Motors of America
Freightliiwr Corp.
Original Quality Inc.
Alfa ROOMO
Fiat
American Bonda Motor Company
American Isuxu Motor, Inc.
Jaguar
Lotus P«r£0mane» Cari
Mazda (North America) Inc.
Mlt.BubiaM Motor* Corp. S«rvie«s, lac.
MlBHan l^]1x>x CTozp.
Porach* CBI;B Rorfch ^macica
Renftult USA, Inc.
Location
Bran, CA
Tor rone *, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Rrmtn Ana, CA
Racine, WI
Dayton, OH
Montvala. HJ
Montvals, WJ
Troy, MI
Lyndhurst, NJ
Portland, OR
Jacknonvllls, FL
Englewood Cliffs. HJ
Dearborn, HI
Gardena, CA
Hhitti.r, CA
Leonia, NJ
Norwood , If J
Irvin*. CA
Southflald. HA
G«rd«n«, CA
Rxno, KV
R«M York, NY
Ret franc *e
ICF 1986*, ICf If 84
ICF HaS«, ICF 19M
ICF 1984
ICF lf»6», ICF 1984
ICF 19S4
ICF 1984
ICF 1S84
ICF 1984
ICF 1986a, ICF 198*
ICF 1984
ICF 198*a, ICF 198*
Original Quality 1986
Automobile Iroporfcers of AIM r lea
Automaton* Importers of Arearioa
Autoroobil* Inipott«r» of AoMtica
Automobile Importers of ArooricB
Automobil* Importers of America
Autcroobil* Importer* of Amxle*
Autoroobile Importer* of Am»ric*
Autcroobile Importera of Aro»rio»
Autcmobil* Importer! of Amerloi
AutoaxAile Importers of America
Automobile Importers of America













1986
1986
1906
1»»6
1986
1996
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986

-------
                                                               Table 3  CContlnntd)
                                                   Location
RollB-Royc« Motors,  Inc.




Subaru at America,  Inc.




Volvo CUB of north Amerlc«




Hyundai Motor America
Lyndhurst. HJ




Fennsauken, NJ




RockIrish, HJ




Garden Crovn, CA
Anfconobil* Impoz^vri of Amsrita  1986




Autccnobile Irajyirtars of Anwrlen  1986




Automobilr IrcporLocn of Ainwcica  IfSfi




AuLutiKjbl 1 n Tir.jinrt-nrn of Amilca  1996

-------
             Table 4.   Production  and  Fiber  Consumption for
                     Asbestos-Based Clutch Facings
                       1981
1985
References
Production (pieces)  7,478,934      7,237,112

Asbestos Fiber                               ,
Consumption (tons)     1,120,5          993.5
            ICF 1986a, TSCA 1982a
            ICF 1986a, TSCA 1982a
 Kaymark's Crawfordsville, IN and Stratford, CT plant refused to provide
production data.  Raymark's Stratford, CT production was estimated using
a. method described in the Appendix A of this RIA.  The Crawfordsville, IN
plant's production could, not be estimated because they did respond to the
1981 TSCA Section 8(a) data request regarding this product and thus no
previous production data were available to use for an estimate of 1985
production.  Therefore, the number for total production does not include
the production volume of Raymark's Crawfordsville, IN plant.

 Raymark's Crawfordsville, IN and Stratford, CT plant refused to provide
fiber consumption data.  Raymark's Stratford, CT plant fiber consumption
was estimated using a method described in the Appendix A of this RIA.
The Crawfordsville, IN plant's fiber consumption data could not be
estimated because they did not respond to the 1981 TSCA Section 8(a) data
request regarding this product and thus no previous fiber consumption
data were available to use for an estimate of 1985 consumption.
Therefore,  the total fiber consumption number does not include asbestos
fiber consumption of Raymark's Crawfordsville, IN plant.
                                 - 8 -

-------
    The production of asbestos-based facings remained fairly level from 1981

to 1985.  While the overall size of the clutch facings market (asbestos and

non-asbestos substitutes) is not known, the asbestos-based share of the market

may have declined somewhat.  The vast majority of the clutch facings market is

for light/BediuiE vehicles, i.e., cars and light trucks (Ford 1986, Abex 1986).

Currently, 15 percent of light/medium vehicles have manual transmissions (and,

thus,  use clutch facings), but this percentage has been steadily increasing

(Ford 1986).  Therefore, since the asbestos-based production remained fairly

constant from 1981 to 1985, the non-asbestos-based share of the overall market

may have increased.

    D.  Substitutes

    All three primary processors of clutch facings produce a non-asbestos

product; however, none of the producers would give estimates for the current

shares the substitutes hold in the original equipment market (OEM) or

aftermarket (IGF 1986a),  U.S. automakers frequently import non-asbestos

clutch facings from Europe, where they are used extensively.  According to

DuPont, the European woven clutch facings contain fiberglass, acrylic, and

other fibers and are made primarily by Valeo, a French manufacturer (DuPont

1986 and 1987).  Price and performance data for the European woven clutches

were not available.

    Rayraark and H.K. Porter also produce non-asbestos fiberglass-based woven

clutch facings (H.K. Porter 1986, DuPont 1987).  While Raymark would not

provide information, H.K. Porter stated that its fiberglass' woven facing has

the same or improved performance and service life over asbestos-based woven

facings, and that it is priced the same as its asbestos product.  While the

fiberglass product is more difficult to process, the same processing equipment

can be used.  Because woven clutch facings cost substantially more than molded
     •* The product also contains a smaller proportion of other fibers,  which
H.K. Porter did not specify (ICF 1986a).

                                    - 9 -

-------
products, however, H,K. Porter did not believe that woven fiberglass facings




could capture the majority of the asbestos-based market in the event of a ban




(ICF 1986a, H.K. Porter 1986).




    Raymark and Nuturn manufacture non-asbestos molded clutch facings (ICF




1986a).  Raymark's facing is fiberglass-based; the firm, however, would not




provide price or performance information, nor would it estimate the expected




market share in the event of a ban (ICF 1986a).  Nuturn's facing contains




araraid fiber, cellulose fiber, fiberglass, and ceramic fiber (ICF 1986a).




Nuturn indicated that its non-asbestos product was priced 49 percent higher




than its asbestos-based facing, but it had the same or up to 50 percent longer




service life.  This non-asbestos facing, however, would not be structurally




stable in higher-temperature applications.  Nuturn could not estimate the




expected share of the market in the event of a ban (ICF 1986a),




    Table 5 provides the data for the regulatory cost model.  The substitute




clutch facings included in the table are the European woven fiberglass facing,




the molded fiberglass facing, Nuturn's molded product, and the woven




fiberglass facing made by U.S. producers.  Because price and useful life were




not available for the European woven fiberglass clutch facing or Raymark's




molded fiberglass facings, for the asbestos regulatory cost model it was




assumed that the European product had the same price and longevity as the




woven fiberglass facings produced by the U.S. firms Raymark and H.K, Porter,




and that Raymark's molded fiberglass facing had the same life and price as




Nuturn's aramid and fiberglass molded facing.




    It should be noted that the asbestos substitute clutch facing market has




been changing rapidly as substitutes improve.  The market shares and prices




shown in Table 5 are 1986 estimates; as of July, 1987 some of this information




is already outdated and the market is still changing.  This change is




primarily due to U.S. firms improving their woven substitute facings (DuPont




1987).




                                    -  10 -

-------
                                      Tab la 5.  Data Inputs on Clutch Facings Cor Ashestoe R«gulntozy Crab Model
      Product
                            Output
                                           Product Asbestos
                                             Coefficient
                                  Consumption
                                  Production
                                     Ratio
                                                                                Trie*
                                       Equlvolont
                         Vaaful Lit*      trie*
                                                                      H*Ek*t
                                                                      Sh«r«
Asbestos mixture       7,237,112 jji«con   0.0001* tons/pioc*      1.12       $1.7l/plec»   5 jutxu       $1.71/pl«c«    B/A     OT 19B6a, JCF 1985, b
Woven fiberglass
(European product)
K/A
It/A
It/A
S2.92/pi»c»   7.5 yeari     32.il/pioc*    501     DuFont 1986
WOVHH figorglMS
(U.S. Product)
R/A
                    H/A
                                     S/A
                            S2.92/pl«c«   7.5
                                                                                                                        30X     ICF
Molded mraoid fib«r,
fiberglasB, cellulose
and ceramic fiber
(Huturn's product)
                             H/A
                    H/A
                 H/A        $2.55/pl8C»   6.25 yearn    S2.12/plms    101     ICF 196«a
Molded flb*rglsBS
It/A
H/A
H/A        $2.52/pl*cn   6.25 years    S2.12/pi«;e
                                                                                                                                ICF 19BSa
H/A:  Hot Applicubl*.

 See Attechmmt, Items 2-7.

-------
    E,  Summary




    Clutch facings are friction materials attached to both sides of the steel




disk in the clutch mechanism of manual transmission vehicles.  Clutch facings




are made of molded or woven friction materials; molded facings are used more




widely than woven facings (ICF 1985, H.K. Porter 1986).  In 1985, three




producers consumed 993.5 tons of asbestos to produce 7,237,112 asbestos clutch




facings.  All three firms also make non-asbestos facings (ICF 1986a).   The




production of asbestos-based clutch facings remained fairly level from 1981 to




1985.  The four major substitutes for the asbestos clutch facings are:




European facings which contain fiberglass and other fibers; molded fiberglass-




based facings produced by Raymark; a Nuturn molded facing containing aramid




fiber, cellulose fiber, fiberglass and ceramic fiber; and fiberglass-based




woven facing made by both Raymark and H.K. Porter (DuPont 1986 1987).




Equivalents costs for the substitutes were 20-25 percent higher than for the




asbestos product.  If asbestos were not available it is estimated that the




European substitute will take 50 percent, woven fiberglass 30 percent, molded




fiberglass 10 percent and Nuturn's product 10 percent of the asbestos-based




clutch facing market.
                                    -  12  -

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT
1.  The asbestos fiber content per piece was calculated by dividing the 1985
    asbestos fiber consumption for molded asbestos clutch facings 993.5 tons
    or 1,987,000 Ibs.  by the 1985 production of molded asbestos clutch facings
    (7,237,112 pieces).

2.  The product asbestos coefficient is the same value calculated in Item 1
    above,  converted into tons per piece.

3,  The consumption production ratio was calculated using 885,947 pieces as
    the value for 1985 U.S. imports.  (Total 1985 production of asbestos
    clutch facings is 7,237,112 pieces,) - This value, however, only includes
    imports for the firms who provided information (see Table 4).

4.  The asbestos mixture price is the price given by Nuturn for its molded
    asbestos product.   The woven fiberglass mixture price is the price given
    by H.K. Porter for its woven fiberglass product.

5.  The useful life of the asbestos mixture is assumed to be the same as that
    reported in 1984 in Appendix H (IGF 1985).   The useful life of the woven
    fiberglass facing produced by U.S. firms is assumed to be 50 percent
    greater than the molded asbestos product, or 7.5 years.  H.K. Porter
    stated the woven facing is a "premium" product with significantly longer
    service life than molded products (H.K. Porter 1986).  Nuturn stated its
    substitute had the same or tip to 50 percent increased service life (ICF
    1986a).  Thus, a 25 percent service life increase is assumed, which gives
    the Nuturn product a life of 6.25 years.  Because price and useful life
    were not available for the European woven fiberglass clutch facing or
    Raymark's molded fiberglass facings, for the asbestos regulatory cost
    model it was assumed that the European product had the same price and
    longevity as the woven fiberglass facings produced by the U.S. firms
    Raymark and H.K. Porter, and that Raymark's molded fiberglass facing had
    the same life and price as Nuturn's aramid and fiberglass molded facing.

6.  Based upon DuPont's statement that the European clutch facings are
    frequently used by U.S. automakers, a 50 percent share is assumed for the
    European facings.   H.K. Porter stated that 30 percent of the market would
    be captured by the fiberglass woven facings.   The remaining share is split
    equally between the molded fiberglass facings and Nuturn's product.

7.  It should be noted that the asbestos substitute clutch facing market has
    been changing rapidly as substitutes improve.  The market shares and
    prices shown in Table 5 are 1986 estimates; as of July, 1987 sone of this
    information is already outdated and the market is still changing.  This
    change is primarily due .to U.S. firms improving their woven substitute
    facings (DuPont 1987),
                                      13  -

-------
REFERENCES
Abex Corp,  R, Nelson.  1986b (December 3),   American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Conference in Washington, B.C.  Transcribed conversation with
Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,  D.C.

Automobile Importers of America.  1986.  Comments of Automobile Importers of
America on Proposed Asbestos Ban Rule.  EPA Document Control No. OPTS-62036,

Deere and Co.  R. Groteluesehen,  1986 (October 30).  Moline, IL,  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

DuPont.  T, Merriman,  1986 (November 5).  Wilmington, DE.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

DuPont.  R. Gould.  1987 (July 13).  Wilmington,  DE.  Transcribed telephone
conversation with Michael Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C,

Ford Motor Co.  A. Anderson.  1986 (December 3).   American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Conference in Washington, D.C,  Transcribed conversation
with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Freightliner Corp.  T. Robinson.  1986 (November 26).  Portland, OR.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

H.K. Porter Co.  F. Donnell.  1986 (November 20).  Huntington, IN.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products,
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No.  20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of Primary Processors of
Brake Blocks.  Washington, D.C,

ICF Incorporated.  1986b (July-December).  Survey of Secondary Processors of
Brake Blocks.  Washington, D.C.

Krusell N., Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis, Revised Final Report.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract 68-02-3168.

Nuturn.  G. Swinfen.  1986 (July-December).   Smithville, TN.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.
                                    -  14 -

-------
Original Quality, Inc.  1986.  Comments of Original Quality, Inc. on Proposed
Asbestos Ban Rule,  EPA Document Control No. OPTS-62036.

PEI Associates, Inc.  1986.  OTS Survey of Asbestos Products Manufacturers.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Saab-Scania of America.  D. Rainey.  1986 (November 21),  Orange, GT.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, 1CF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

S.K. Wellman.  B. Laditka.  1986 (October 29).  Bedford, OH.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, 1CF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982a.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.  20-8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.-  1982b.  Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8670644.
                                    -  15  -

-------
XXIII.  AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION ffiICDQN_CQMP_OMEIflIS


    A.  Product Description


    An automatic transmission consists of 5 to 15 small metal rings called


friction clutches, which are housed, along with gears, in a metal band called


the transmission band.  Each friction clutch is covered with a thin friction


clutch plate which is made from a friction paper that contains asbestos or


some other friction material.  In addition, a lining, also made from this


friction paper, is bonded to the inside of the transmission band (Mead 1986,


Borg-Warner 1986).  These automatic transmission friction components --


friction clutch plates and transmission band linings -- are immersed in a


fluid environment which dissipates much of the heat generated when gears are


changed.  Asbestos-based automatic transmission friction components made by


S.K. Wellman for medium trucks, for example, are 1/16 of an inch thick and may


contain approximately 0.11 Ibs. of asbestos per component (15 percent asbestos


by weight) (S.K. Wellman 1986).l


    Paper for automatic transmission components is manufactured by


conventional paper-making processes; i.e., raw materials (the chosen friction


material,  fillers, and resins) are pulped and fed into a continuous


papermaking machine.   Finished paper is then removed from the machine (ICF


1985) .   Automatic transmission friction components are then cut from the


paper,  and after they are pressed and shaped, grooves (these can vary in


design) are either cut or stamped into the components (ICF 1985).^
     •*• Raymark, another U.S. producer of asbestos-based automatic transmission
friction components for automobiles, refused to provide information,

     i)
     *• Cut grooves are preferred over the stamped ones because they last
longer (ICF 1985).
                                    - 1 -

-------
                              •a
    Two producers, Borg-Waraer  and S.K. Wellman, purchase their friction

paper.  Information was not available on whether the other producer, Rayaark,

manufactures or purchases its friction paper.  Armstrong World Industries

(Fulton, NY) and Mead Corporation (South Lee, MA) produce friction paper for

sale to the producers of automatic transmission components (IGF 1986a),^

    Automobiles, light/medium trucks, and off-road vehicles use components

made from friction paper (Borg-Warner 1986, S.K. Wellman 1986, Deere and Co,

1986).  Friction components for the transmissions of heavy trucks, such as

eighteen-wheel tractor trailers and logging and mining trucks, and certain

off-road vehicles (heavy tractors and earth-moving equipment), however, are

usually made from sintered metal that is molded into the desired shapes (S.K.

Wellman 1986).

    B.  Producers and Importers of Automatic Transmission Friction Components

    Table 1 lists the three current producers of (asbestos and non-asbestos)

automatic transmission friction components.  Borg-Warner produces only

non-asbestos components (it did not produce asbestos-based components in 1981

either) (ICF 1986a),   The other two manufacturers produced both asbestos and

non-asbestos components in 1985 (S.K. Wellman 1986, Raymark 1986),-*  Borg-

Warner produces transmission components for automobiles and trucks (ICF

1986a).  S.K. Wellman produces components only for off-road vehicles and

medium and heavy trucks (S.K. Wellman 1986).  The third producer, Raymark,
     ^ Borg-Warner only uses non-asbestos-based friction paper (ICF 1986a).

     ^ Armstrong World Industries makes both asbestos and nonvasbestos
friction paper; Mead Corporation only makes a non-asbestos variety.  The
latter company discontinued production of asbestos-based paper in December,
1983 (ICF 1986a).                                            T

     * S.K. Wellraan stopped producing asbestos-based automatic transmission
friction components in March, 1987 (S.K, Wellman 1986).
                                    - 2 -

-------
                                      Table 1,  Producers of Automatic txHtumiuion Friction CoBponMitB
Company
S.K. Wellmon
Rayranrk
Bo rg -Warner
Product
Plant Location Asbasfcos Non^AsbBBtoa Market
LaVergne, TH X X Medi»n and heavy trucks,
off-toad v»J>icl«s
Stratford, CT X X Autos. totckB, off-ro«d
Cr«wfordsvill», IH H/A B/A vehicles
*
Frankfort, IL X Autos, trucks
R»f»r«»»c»s
S.K, Hellnm 1986, ICF 1984
TCP 1»86«, ICF 1984,
TRCA 1932s, Dear* and Co. 1986
ICF »66«. ISCA 19B2b
H/A - Infonnation not




 S.K. Hellman stopped the production of asbestos-based automatic transmission friction ccmponsots in Harch,  1967 (S.K.  H«llmm 1986),




 Off-road vehicle* Include tractors and earth-moving equipment.

-------
makes components for automobiles, trucks, and off-road vehicles (Raymark 1986,




S.K. Wellman 1986, Deere and Co. 1986).




    There were no secondary processors of automatic transmission friction




components in 1985 or in 1981 (IGF 1986b, 1985).




    Table 2 lists the importers of asbestos-based components,




    C.  Trends




    In 1981, the industry was slowly moving away from asbestos in automatic




transmission components, and by 1985 substitution had increased rapidly




(Borg-Warner 1986, ICF 1985).  It is estimated that approximately 25 percent




of the original equipment market (OEM) is still asbestos-based.   Data were




not available for the percent share for the aftermarket, although it is likely




to be higher than in the OEM.




    Table 3 gives the production and fiber consumption of asbestos-based




components.  Because of the lack of available data, it is difficult to




determine the actual decline in production from 1981 to 1985; however, sources




generally agree that the substitution of asbestos in automatic transmission




components will be complete, in at least new vehicles, in the near future




(Borg-Warner 1986, S.K. Wellman 1986, DuPont 1986, Mead 1986).




    D.  Substitutes




    Automatic transmission components made from cellulose-based friction paper




are currently the main substitute for asbestos-based components (DuPont 1986,




Mead 1986).  Borg-Warner is the leading producer of cellulose-based components




(Borg-Warner 1986).  The chief cellulose material in its components is cotton




fiber (Borg-Warner 1986).  Cellulose-based components can also contain other




fibers in smaller proportions.  Mead Corporation produces friction paper




containing greater than 50 percent cotton fibers with varying amounts of
     " See Attachment, Item 1.



                                    - 4 -

-------
                                 Table  2.   Imports  of Asbestos -Based Automatic Ttnnsndiiion Friction Componanti
Coronan^f Location Rnxsrsiises
Volkswagen of America
Toyota Motor Sales, USA
Mareed«a-B«mz of Morth America
Western Automotive Warehouse Distributor a
Rnymnrk, via their Japanese subsidiary,
Dalkin
American Honda Motor Company
American IBUZU Motor, Inc.
Jaguar
Mazda (North America) Inc.
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. Services, Inc.
Nissan Motor Corp.
Renault USA, Inc.
Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc.
Subaru of America, Inc.
Alfa Romeo
Fiat
Lotus Performance Caxa
Foische Cars Horth America
Hyundai Motor America
Volvo Cars of Borth America
Troy, MI
Torrence, CA
Montvale, HJ
Loa Angeles, CA
Trunfcull, CT**
Gardena, CA
Whittier, CA
Leonid, HJ
Irvine, CA
SouUifleld, MA
Gardena, CA
Hew York, NY
Lyridhurst, HJ
Fannaauken, HJ
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Dearborn. MI
Norwood, HJ
Reno, NV
Garden Grove, CA
RockleiRh, HJ
ICF 1984
ICF 198*
ICF 198*
ICF 1SB4
ICF 1984
Automobile Importers of America 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986
Autcmoblle Importer a of America 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986
Automobile Importers of America HB6
Automobile Importers «£ America 1916
Automobile Importers of America 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986
Automobil* Importers of Amnrica 1986
Automobile Importers of America 1986
H/A " tnforroation nob available.




 Since Raynark refuged to provide information, Raymaxk'a corporate headquarter* is given m th» location.

-------
                            Table 3.   Production md fiber Consuipbion for
                               Bnned Automatic Tr«nsmis»leni friction Component*
                 	1981	     	1985	
                                Asbestos fiber                    Asbestos fiber
                 Production      Consumption       Production      Consumption
                  (pieeiis)          (tons)          (pieces)
     Total          H/A              H/A            585,500*           2.5*             TSCA
                                                                                        ICF 1986«


M/A - Information not available.

* Rsymark Corp. refused to provide production and fiber consumption data.  This dat« has, therefore,
been estimated using a method described in the Appendix A to this RIA.

-------
fiberglass and/or aramid fiber and/or carbon or graphite filler, depending on

the application (ICF 19863).^  S.K. Wellman, Borg-Warner, and Raymark produce

cellulose-based automatic transmission components for agricultural tractors

containing either:

        •  Cotton fiber, with carbon fiber, cellulite, graphite
           filler, and phenolic resin; or

        •  Cellulose fiber, with cellulite and phenolic resin (Deere
           and Co.* 1986).

    Industry experts agree that if asbestos were no longer available, the

original equipment market (OEM) would switch entirely to cellulose-based

components (ICF 1986a, DuPont 1986, Mead 1986),  Borg-Warner stated, and

repair shops (previously interviewed by ICF in 1983) agreed, that cellulose-

based components are also entirely interchangeable in the automobile

afteraarket with no loss of performance (Borg-¥arner 1986, ICF 1985).  Deere

and Company,  a major manufacturer of tractors, indicated that cellulose-based.

components were not interchangeable with asbestos components in the tractor

aftermarket because these transmissions were designed for the particular

coefficient of friction of the asbestos components.  Deere and Company has

redesigned transmission systems specifically for cellulose-based components.

The company stated that it was unlikely that suppliers would develop

substitutes in the tractor aftermarket because of the relatively low volume of

the market (which is also diminishing) and the extreme technical difficulty of

engineering a substitute for a transmission system that was designed

specifically for asbestos components (Deere and Co. 1986).

    Table 4 provides the data for the regulatory cost model.
     ^ Armstrong World Industries stated its non-asbestos friction paper
contained cellulose fibers and inorganic fillers; it did not indicate any
additional fibers (ICF 1986a).

-------
                                              A,   Data InputH on Automatic Tranmiaalon Friction Compomnt*
                                                        £01 Asbestos Regulatory Cost
                                                           Consumption
                                      Product Asbestos     Production                               Equivalent    Maxkefc
    Product            Output          Cosfflclnnt            Ratio         Price     Usaful Llfa      Frie*      Shaca          RBferHncBS



Asbestos Mixture   585,500 pieces   0.00000
-------
    E.  Summary




    Automatic transmission friction components are either friction clutch




plates or transmission band linings.  Friction clutch plates are made froa




thin pieces of friction paper and cover friction clutches which are small




metal rings found in each automatic transmission.  A transmission band is a




metal band that houses the gears and friction clutches; a lining made of




friction paper is bonded to the inside of the transmission band (Head 1986,




Borg-Warner 1986).




    Two companies consumed 2.5 tons of asbestos to produce 585,500 pieces of




automatic transmission friction components in 1985 (ICF 1986a).   In March,




1987 one of these companies ceased production of asbestos-based automatic




transmission friction components, leaving one remaining U.S. producer (ICF




1986a).   There are more than 14 companies importing asbestos-based components




(ICF 1984, Automobile Importers of America 1986).  Approximately 25 percent of




the OEM for automatic transmission friction components is still asbestos




based.  The major substitute for asbestos-based components are made from




cellulose-based friction paper, which contains cotton and possibly other




fibers in smaller proportions (Mead 1986).  If asbestos were no longer




available, the OEM would switch entirely to cellulose-based components.  There




is disagreement as to whether asbestos-based automatic transmission friction




components are completely interchangeable with cellulose-based components for




all vehicle types in the replacement/repair market.
                                    - 9 -

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT
1.  According to a representative from Eorg-Warner, the largest producer of
    automatic transmission friction components (all non-asbestos), asbestos-
    based components now account for roughly 50 percent of the OEM, but this
    share is rapidly declining (Borg-Warner 1986).   Representatives from
    DuPont and Head Corporation both stated that replacement of asbestos-based
    components in the OEM is now nearly 100 percent (DuPont 1986, Mead 1986).
    Using an average of the above estimates,  and the fact that Borg-Warner is
    the largest producer, it is assumed that approximately 25 percent of the
    OEM is still asbestos-based.

2.  The product asbestos coefficient was determined by dividing the total tons
    of asbestos fiber consumed by the number of pieces of components produced
    shown in Table 2.

3.  The consumption production ratio was calculated assuming no imports for
    1985,  Importers did not provide information for 1985,

4.  Since Raymark, the only remaining U.S. producer of asbestos-based
    components, did not provide information,  the asbestos product price and
    useful life is assumed to be the same as that reported in 1984 in Appendix
    H (ICF 1985).   Borg-Warner stated the purchase  price of cellulose-based
    components was 25 percent higher than the asbestos product, thus the
    cellulose product price in the table is 1.25 times the asbestos product
    price.  Borg-Warner also indicated that the useful life of the cellulose
    components was the same as the asbestos product (Borg-Warner 1986).
                                    - 10  -

-------
REFERENCES
Automobile Importers of America.  1986,  Comments of Automobile Importers of
America on Proposed Asbestos Ban Rule.  EPA Document Control No. OPTS-62036,

Borg-Warner.  T. Longtin.  1986 (November 20).  Frankfort, IL.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C,

Deere and Co.  R, Groteluesehen.  1986 (October 30).  Moline, IL.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

DuPont.  T. Merriman.  1986 (November 5).  Wilmington, DE.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticide and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CB1 Document Control No, 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington, D.C,:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of Primary Processors of
Automatic Transmission Friction Components.  Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1986b (July-December).  Survey of Secondary Processors of
Automatic Transmission Friction Components,  Washington, D.C.

Mead Corp.  L. McDonnold.  1986 (December 15),  Dayton, OH.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C,

Raymark Corp.  1986.  Comments of Raymark Corp. on Proposed Asbestos Ban Rule,
EPA Document Control So. OPTS-62036.

S.K. Wellman,  B, Laditka.  1986 (October 29).  Bedford, OH.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982a.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  IPA Document Control No. 20-8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982b.  Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C,:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8670644.
                                    -  11 -

-------
XXIV,  FRICTION MATERIALS

    A.  Product Description

    Friction materials are used as braking and gear- changing (clutch)

components in a variety of industrial and commercial machinery.^  Applications

include agricultural equipment such as combines, mining and oil-well-drilling

equipment, construction equipment such as cranes and hoists, heavy equipment

used in various manufacturing industries (e.g., machine tools and presses),

military equipment, marine engine transmissions, elevators, chain saws, and

consumer appliances such as lawn mowers, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners

(Raymark 1986b, Design News 1984, 1CF 1986a, 1985).

    Friction materials are either molded or woven products for use in wet or

dry friction systems (Design News 1984, IGF 1985, DuPont 1986, Deere and Co.

1986, Krusell and Cogley 1982),^  Molded products include thin segments,
                                                                    *3
blocks, and other components used as brake linings, as well as rings-3 and

other molded components used as clutches (H.K. Porter 1986, Design Bews 1984).

Brake linings may also be woven bands (Design News 1984, Krusell and Gogley

1982) .  Band applications range from large band brakes for oil-well-drilling

equipment, cranes, and hoists, to light-duty general-purpose bands for a

variety of commercial and industrial machines  (Design News 1984).
       This product category includes all brake and clutch applications other
than automobiles, trucks, and off-road vehicles (including tractors and earth-
moving equipment).

     * Heavy industrial equipment often use oil-cooled clutches and brakes,
sometimes referred to as wet friction products,  because of severe operating
conditions and, design considerations.  Fluids facilitate the transfer of heat
away from the working surface of the friction material providing superior
durability and resulting in longer life between major overhauls and
replacement.  Large band brakes for oil-well drilling equipment, cranes, and
hoists require a special fluid system (Design News 1984).   Wet friction
systems may also be used in other lighter-duty commercial and industrial
applications (DuPont 1986).

     •* One producer, H.K. Porter, considers these molded rings to be washers
(ICF 1986a).

                                    - 1 -

-------
    Asbestos is used in friction materials for the following reasons:

        •  Stable friction properties under heat;

        •  Strength;

        •  Wear resistance;

        •  Flexibility (asbestos-based materials can be shaped or bent
           easily);  and

        *  Relatively low cost 
-------
                                  Tab]_« 1,  1985 Primary Proc»»ior» of Friction
                                                           Product
Company
Raymark
Plant Locatlon(s)
Manhnin, FA
Strattord, CT°
AfihnBt.on
X
N/A
Kcn-Asto*stos Ite£*r*ncws
X ICF 1986», fSCA 1982a
H/A
National Friction Products   Logansport, IB
                                                         ICF 1986«, tSCA 1982u
Virginia Friction Products   Houston, TX
                                                                                      PEI Asnoclntas 19B6
Gatke Corp.
Wheeling Brak* Block
Warsaw, IN
Bridgeport, CT
X


X*
ICF 1986s, TSCA 1982»
                                ICF 1986«, TSCA 19828
B,K. Porter
Bunt Ingt on, IK
                                ICF 19B6B, TSCA 1982a
Scan PBC
                                       Falls, HI
                                                         ICT UBta, ICF 1985
R/A - Information not available.

 This plant refused to respond to our survey.  It in assumed that they nade asbestos friction materials In 1985,

 Wheeling Brake Block completely replaced its ssbestoa-based friction nateridla with non-asbestos products in 19B6
(Wheeling Brake Block 1986).

CH.K. Porter stated It would phase out Its asbsstos-baaed friction materials try th» MM] at 1981! (ICF ItBte, FEI Aasoclstos
1986).

-------
(ICF 1986a, PEI Associates 1986).  Information was not available on the size

of Virginia Friction Products' production volume; however, the firm only makes

asbestos-based friction materials for oil-well rigs and giant cranes (PEI

Associates 1986),  Wheeling Brake Block indicated it completely replaced its

asbestos'based friction materials with non-asbestos products in 1986 (Wheeling

Brake Block 1986).  H.K. Porter stated it would phase out its asbestos-based

friction-materials by the end of 1986, making only non-asbestos materials (ICF

1986a, PEI Associates 1986),

    Table 2 lists the two secondary processors of friction materials in 1985,

Hoover Company stopped consuming asbestos-based friction materials in 1986,

The firm had purchased, and possibly further processed, asbestos brake linings

for use in its vacuum cleaners (ICF 1986b).   Information is not available on

the type of secondary processing in which Western Gasket Packing Company Is

involved.**  Gasko Fabricated Products of Medina, OH (not listed in Table 2),

discontinued secondary processing of its asbestos-based product prior to 1985

(ICF 1986b).7

    There were no imports of asbestos-based friction materials in 1985 or in

1981 (ICF 1986a, 1986b, 1984).

    C.  Trends

    Table 3 gives the production of asbestos-based friction materials and the

corresponding consumption of asbestos fiber.  The 1985 production value is 51
     -* Information is not available on the non-asbestos brake lining used by
Hoover Co.    (

     ^ Information is also not available on whether Western Gasket Packing Co,
processes a non-asbestos product.

     ^ The asbestos-based product was a vacuum cleaner control disc;
information is not available on whether the firm consumes a non-asbestos
product (TSCA 1982b).
                                    - 4 -

-------
                               Table 2.  1985 Secondary ProcessorB of Pxictlon MaterIdle
                              Plant Locution    Aobostos
Hoover Co.                   Worth Canton, OB      X            X                  ICF 19B6b,  ISCA 1982b






Wsstem Casket Packing Co.   Los Angela!. CA       X           H/A                 TCP 1986b,  TSCA 1982b







H/A ~ Intormatlon not «

-------
             Table 3.   Production and Fiber Consumption of
                   Asbestos-Based Friction Materials
                         1981           1985            References
Production (pieces)   17,604,160     8,719,541*   ICF 1986a, TS6A 1982a

Asbestos Fiber                                ,
Consumption (tons)       2,461,1       1,602,5    ICF 1986a, TSCA 1982a


  Does not include production volume of Virginia Friction Products'
Houston, IX, plant.  Raymark's Stratford, CT plant arid Wheeling Brake
Block's Bridgeport, CT plant refused to provide production data for
their asbestos friction materials.   Data for tbese Raymark and Wheeling
Brake Block plants were estimated using method described in Appendix A
of this R1A.

  Does not include asbestos fiber consumption of Virginia Friction
Products' Houston, IX, plant.  Raymark's Stratford, CT plant and
Wheeling Brake Block's Bridgeport,  CT plant refused to provide fiber
consumption data for their asbestos friction materials.  Data for these
Raymark and Wheeling Brake Block plants were estimated using the method
described in Appendix A of this RIA.
                                 - 6 -

-------
percent less than that of 1981.  The 1985 value does not include Virginia

Friction Products' Houston, TX, plant; however, the production volume of this

plant is probably small.  The 1985 value for fiber consumption is 45 percent

less than that of 1981; however, the 1985 value does not include consumption

for Virginia Friction Products' plant.

    Raymark, probably the largest producer of friction materials (asbestos and

non-asbestos products combined)^ stated that non-asbestos substitutes have

been developed for most industrial applications,  but not all of these

substitutes are yet produced in sizeable quantities.  Many of these

substitutes must still undergo extensive field testing before they are

accepted by customers (Raymark 1986b).

    Other sources indicate that substitutes have been developed for »any

commercial and consumer applications, such as machine tools, chain saws, lawn

mowers, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners (Design News 1984, Hoover 1986).

DuPont, a major supplier of materials for friction products, e.g., Kevlar(R),

stated that most friction materials are now non-asbestos (DuPont 1986).  Thus,

the current asbestos-based share of the total friction materials market is
                           Q
estimated to be 30 percent.

    D.  Substitutes

    Because of the large variety of friction material applications and Che

reluctance on the part of producers to reveal much more than one or two

ingredients in their substitute formulations,  it is very difficult to make

price and performance comparisons between specific substitute and

asbestos-based products, or to estimate market shares for specific substitutes
     ° Raymark, which produces mostly friction materials, stated that 40
percent of all of its friction products are now non-asbestos (Raymark 1986b)
(Raymark also manufactures clutch facings, automatic transmission friction
components, and brake blocks (ICF 1986a>.)

     ^ See Attachment, Item 2 for a full explanation of this estimate.

                                    - 7 -

-------
(ICF 1986a).-^  Nevertheless, all producers of substitute friction materials,

except for Gatke Corporation,-^ indicated that their non-asbestos formulations

contained fiberglass, Kevlar(R),  or both, and other fibers (often mineral

fibers) (IGF 1986a).12  National  Friction Products, which manufactures a broad

range of friction materials, stated that these combinations would capture

80-85 percent of the friction materials market in the event of an asbestos

ban.  The remaining 15-20 percent of asbestos-based applications (application

areas not specified) could not be replaced immediately (ICF 1986a)."

    One example of a combination substitute product is Raymark's fiberglass

and Kevlar(R) brake block used in large cranes and oil-well drilling

equipment.  The block is priced the same as its asbestos-based product and has

the same service life, but does not perform as well at high temperatures

(Raymark 1986a).  H.K. Porter manufactures heavy-duty clutch components made

of fiberglass and Nydag wollastonite board.  These components, which are used

for hoists,  agricultural equipment, and large marine motors, are priced the

same as asbestos-based clutches and have improved wear (ICF 1986a).

    Gatke Corporation manufactures molded clutch facings, made chiefly from

fiberglass,  for use in cranes, hoists, and oil-well drilling equipment (ICF

1986a, PEI Associates 1986),  The firm, however, considers these products to
     *•" Producers often would not elaborate on the friction materials they
produced, and often were vague or uncertain about the performance of their
substitutes compared to asbestos-based products (ICF 1986a).

        Gatke produces clutch components chiefly made of fiberglass for use in
heavy machinery (ICF 1986a).

     i *)       '
     ""•^ These formulations may be similar to formulations used in clutch
facings for automotive and off-road vehicles, and similar to the
non-asbestos-organic (NAO) compounds used in automotive drum brake linings and
brake blocks for heavy trucks and off-road vehicles.

     13 Until other replacements can be found for the remaining 15-20 percent
of asbestos-based applications, it is assumed that for the present that the
Kevlar(R) and fiberglass combination substitute will replace 100 percent of
the asbestos market if asbestos were no longer available.

                                    - 8 -

-------
be inferior.  The facings are less heat-resistant, more expensive, and heavier




than asbestos-based facings.  Furthermore, the fiberglass facings are abrasive




to the transmission systems, and they are difficult to manufacture (IGF




1986a).




    DuPont indicated that brake and clutch components made chiefly from




fiberglass would not be used in wet friction systems because the glass fibers




tend to break loose, travelling through the fluid-filled environment and




causing abrasion (IHiPont 1986),




    Table 4 provides the data for the regulatory cost model.  The substitute




product is a general mixture containing fiberglass and/or Kevlar(R) in




combination with other fibers.»  It is assumed that the market share for




friction materials made chiefly from fiberglass will be negligible,




    E.  Summary




    Asbestos friction materials are used as braking and gear-changing (clutch)




components in a variety of industrial and commercial machinery (ICF 1985).




There were six primary processors of asbestos friction materials in 1985 which




consumed 1,602.5 tons of asbestos to produce 8,719,541 pieces of asbestos




friction material.  Since 1985, Wheeling Brake Block and H.K. Porter have




stopped producing asbestos friction materials, leaving four remaining




producers of the asbestos product (ICF 1986a).  The primary substitute is &




Kevlar(R) and fiberglass combination which is projected to take 100 percent of




if the asbestos products were no longer available.  The Kevlar(R) and




fiberglass combination substitute costs the same as asbestos friction




materials (ICF 1986a).
                                    - 9 -

-------
                                  Table 4.  Data Inputs on Friction Materials Cor As1»»ito« 8»gMl»toty Co*t Modal
                                                           Consumption
                                       Product Asbestos    Production                                  Equivalent    Market
    Product             Output           Coofficiont          Ratio         Price       Useful Life      Erica       Share         HaferBnceij



Asbestos Mixture   8,7X9,541 pt«e«s   0.00018 tons/ptees       1.0       $3«".65/pleeo    0.5 y««rs    $34.S5/pl«CB    H/A     1CF 1»86«, ICF 198S
                                                                                                                                      1986a
Fiberglass and           H/A                 H/A               H/A       $3*.65/plece    0.3 years    $34,65/pi*ee    1001    RsynvsrK 1986a,
Kevlar(R)                                                                                                                     national Friction
                                                                                                                              Products 1986


R/A:  Hot Applicable.

 Soe Attaclraant, ItmM 3-6.

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT
1.  The value for asbestos fiber per piece was determined by dividing the
    total asbestos fiber consumption, 1,602.5 tons, by total pieces produced,
    8,719,541 pieces.   This equals 0,000184 tons/piece or 0.37 Ibs,/piece.

2.  A conservative estimate for the asbestos-based share of the market in 1981
    would be 95 percent (non-asbestos substitutes were, in fact, available in
    1981 for various applications) (IGF 1985).  If it is also assumed that the
    overall friction materials market (asbestos and non-asbestos) remained
    constant from 1981 to 1985, then since the decline in asbestos-based
    production of friction materials was approximately 51 percent from 1981 to
    1985, the 1985 asbestos-based share of the total market would have been 49
    percent of 95 percent, or 47 percent.  H.K. Porter, furthermore, stated
    that by the end of 1986 it should have completely replaced its
    asbestos-based materials with non-asbestos substitutes.  H.K. Porter's
    approximate share of the asbestos-based market in 1985 was 11 percent (the
    production volume of Virginia Friction Products' plant is not available;
    however, it is probably small) (IGF 1986a),  Thus, if it is assumed that
    the total friction materials market remained constant from the end of 1985
    to the end of 1986, then perhaps another 10 percent can be subtracted from
    the asbestos-based share of the market, to account for the loss of H.K,
    Porter's asbestos-based production.  This would make the asbestos-based
    share of the market as of January 1, 1987, 37 percent.  Finally, taking
    into account Raymark's statement that substitutes have been developed for
    most industrial applications and DuPont's statement that most friction
    materials are not non-asbestos, it is reasonable to assume the present
    asbestos-based share is even smaller than 37 percent.  A share of 30
    percent is thus assumed.

3.  The product asbestos coefficient is the same number given in Item 1 above,
    shown in tons per piece.

4.  Given the variety of friction material applications, it is very difficult
    to compute a weighted average asbestos product price or a substitute
    product price.  The asbestos and substitute mixture prices are for
    Raymark's brake blocks used in large cranes and oil-well drilling
    equipment (stated in the text).

5.  The useful life of the asbestos mixture is assumed to be the same as that
    reported in 1984 (in Appendix H) for an asbestos friction block (IGF
    1985),   The useful life of the substitute mixture is assumed to be the
    same as the asbestos mixture, since Raymark stated its substitute friction
    block had the same service life as its asbestos product,

6.  A market share of the Kevlar(R)' and fiberglass combination substitute of
    80-85 percent is given by National Friction Products (stated in the text).
    However, until other replacements can be found for the remaining 15-20
    percent of the market it is assumed that for now the Kevlar(R) and
    fiberglass combination substitute will replace 100 percent of the asbestos
    market.
                                    -  11  -

-------
REFERENCES
Deere and Co,  R, Grotelxiesehen.  1986 (October 30).  Moline, IL.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, IGF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Design News.  1984 (March 26).  Asbestos Substitutes in Friction Applications,
S. Scott.

DuPont.  T. Merriman 1986 (November 5).  Wilmington, DE.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
DC.

H.K. Porter Co.  F. Doratell.  1986 (November 20).  Huntington, IN..
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Hoover Co.  A. McMullen.  1986 (July-December).  North Canton, OH.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, "U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Doc. Control No.  20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, In Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington, D.C,:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of Primary Processors of
Disc Brake Pads (Heavy Vehicles).  Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1986b (July-December).  Survey of Secondary Processors of
Disc Brake Pads (Heavy Vehicles).  Washington, D.C.

Krusell N,, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis, Revised Final Report,  Washington, D.C,:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract 68-02-3168.

National Friction Products,  E. Sydor.  1986 (July-December).  Logansport, IN.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

PEI Associates, Inc.  1986.  OTS Survey of Asbestos Products Manufacturers.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Raymark Corp.  G. Houser.  1986a (July-December).  Manheim, PA,  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Raymark Corp.  1986b.  Comments of Raymark Corp. on Proposed Asbestos Ban
Rule.  EPA Document Control No. OPS-62036.

                                    -  12  -

-------
TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982a.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D,C.;   Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,  EPA Document Control No.  20-8601012.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission,  1982b.  Production Data for Secondary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:   Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No.  20-8670644.

Wheeling Brake Block.  G. Beckett.  1986 (November 20).  Bridgeport, CT.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Richard Hollander, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

-------
XXV.  ASBESTOS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING

    A.  Introduction

    This chapter describes the uses and applications for asbestos protective

clothing, the producers of these garments and the fibers that can substitute

for asbestos in the production of alternative protective clothing.

    B.  Product Description

    Asbestos clothing is formed by sewing asbestos cloth with asbestos thread,

The asbestos cloth consists of any of the standard ASTM textile grades

available (varying between 75 and 100 percent asbestos), that may contain

wire, organic, or inorganic reinforcing strands (ATI 1967),

    Asbestos cloth is woven fi;om plied, twisted, and metallic yarns.

Depending on the type of yarns used, asbestos cloth of five basic types is

available.  The classes of asbestos cloth are (ATI 1967);

        •  Class A -- cloth constructed of asbestos yarns containing
           no reinforcing strands;

        •  Class B -- cloth constructed of asbestos yarns containing
           wire reinforcing strands;

        p  Class C -- cloth constructed of asbestos yarns containing
           organic reinforcing strands;

        •  Class D -- cloth constructed of asbestos yarns containing
           non-metallic, inorganic reinforcing strands; and

        •  Class E -- cloth constructed of two or more of the yarns
           used i cloth Classes A through D.

The most widely used asbestos fabrics are woven from Class A and Class B

yarns.

    The asbestos thread that is used to sew the various grades of asbestos

cloth can be either wire-inserted or non-metallic.  Depending on the tensile

strength and thermal stability requirements, asbestos thread is available in

different grades, although the majority is 80-85 percent asbestos.  These
                                    - 1 -

-------
threads are often coated with an acrylic or wax coating to increase Its




strength and to facilitate the sewing of asbestos fabrics.




    Traditionally, asbestos protective clothing has been used to ensure the




health and safety of workers exposed to very high temperatures,  molten metal




splash, or the presence of fire.  The use of asbestos gloves and mittens as




well as coats and overalls has been widespread in laboratories,  steel mills,




and glass blowing and welding shops where these hazards are likely to be




encountered (Utex 1986).  In addition, there are other areas where fully-




covering asbestos suits have been used to protect workers in very hazardous




environments.  Some examples of these more exotic job descriptions are oil-




well firemen, steel furnace workers, race care drivers, military aircraft




pilots, and astronauts (Garlock 1986).




    C.  Producers




    The 1982 TSCA Section 8(a) survey of asbestos processors identified one




company as a secondary processor (there were no primary processors) of




asbestos textiles used as protective clothing.  This company, A-Best Products




Company, located in Cleveland, Ohio was involved in the manufacture of




asbestos-containing safety clothing (TSCA 1982).  A-Best Products Company




manufactured gloves,  mittens, coats, and coveralls by sewing asbestos cloth




with asbestos thread (A-Best 1986).  They ceased production of asbestos-




containing protective clothing at the end of 1984 and since that time have




used substitute fibers in the production of protective clothing (IGF 1986a).




    Small quantities of asbestos gloves and mittens have been and continue to




be imported from foreign countries such as Taiwan, South Korea,  and Mexico




(Aztec 1986), but no specific data could be identified.




    D.  Substitutes




    The substitute materials that can replace asbestos fiber in protective




clothing are:  ceramics, fiberglass, carbon, aramid, and polybenzinidazole




                                    - 2 -

-------
(FBI) fibers.  These fibers are used alone or in blends depending on Che




specific requirements of each application,  Although fiberglass and ceramic




fibers have very high temperature use ranges, the inflexibility of these




materials make them unsuitable for protective clothing if abrasion resistance,




durability, or flexibility are important characteristics.  As higher




temperatures are reached and the need for flexibility and integrity of the




material increases (e.g., space suits, and fire-fighting equipment) it becomes




necessary to blend these fibers with other more expensive, but more resilient




fibers.  Blends of ceramic or fiberglass with carbon, aramid, and FBI fibers




can be formulated that meet or exceed the performance of any existing asbestos




product, although the cost may be significantly higher (Utex 1986),  In many




applications, however, the added cost is insignificant when weighted against




other costs.  For example, the cost of a space suit, of any type, is




insignificant in comparison to the cost of a space vehicle.




    E.  Summary




    There are currently no domestic processors of asbestos-containing




protective clothing, although some finished articles (e.g., gloves and




mittens) continue to be imported in small quantities.  Substitute fiber blends




can be used to produce alternate protective clothing that meets or exceeds the




quality standards required for asbestos protective clothing.  To a large




extent this replacement has already occurred in the protective clothing




market.  The demand for asbestos in this market is, therefore, negligible.
                                    - 3 -

-------
REFERENCES
A-Best Products Company.  M. Knauzs.  1986 (October 28),  Cleveland, OH,
44111.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D,C.

ATI.  1967,  Handbook of Asbestos Textiles,  American Textiles Institute.

Aztec Industries,  W. Outcalt.  1986 (November 4).  North Brookfield, MA,
01535.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, B.C.

Garlock Inc.  F. Piccola.  1986 (October 17).  Sodus, NY, 14551.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated,  1986a (July-December).  Survey of primary and secondary
processors of asbestos textiles.  Washington, D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982.  Production Data for Secondary
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C.:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protective Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20*8670644.

Utex Industries.  E.B, Pippert,  1986 (July-December).  Houston, TX, 77279.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C,
                                    - 4 -

-------
XXVI,
    A.  Product Description




    Asbestos textiles are produced by standard textile production techniques




involving carding, combing, and spinning of the asbestos fibers.  Asbestos




fibers can be blended with other types of fibers to give the resulting textile




products       tensile strength.  The winner in which asbestos fibers




processed into asbestos yarn and cloth products Is illustrated, in Figure 1.




    There     two basic processes employed in asbestos textile nanufacturing:




the conventional and wet processes.  Although most textiles     manufactured




by the conventional process, each of these methods will be described,
        1.  T^sg^sSL9ILfl».Pyoc^ss^ng of, Asbes.toji .......... i|'ib.eirsmj;o_|'o.ra.. Textile






        In the conventional process, raw asbestos fibers of various        are




blended and mixed according to the fiber characteristics , nartufacturiftg and




finished product requirements, and intended u"se»  The different grades of




asbestos fiber received are placed in the fiber blender where they     nixed




according to     requirements specified for the finished product.  The




selected fibers     then fed into a hopper where they are blended.  Finally,



the blended aaterial is sent to the carding operation,




    In the carding operation, asbestos fibers are combed into a relatively




parallel arrangement called a fiber mat.  This mat is pressed and layered into




a lap consisting of alternating perpendicular arrangements of fiber mats.  The




lap is then slit into thin, continuous ribbons called roving. Cotton, rayon  or




other aaterial     be       at this stage to strengthen the roving.



    loving, which has been mechanically twisted     span, to give it greater



tensile strength, forms a single yarn..  This yarn may be twisted with other



single yarns, wire or other material to produce plied yam that ean be coated



to produce thread or treated yarns.  Plied yarns nay be woven to produce






                                    - 1 -

-------
 ADDITION OF
OTHER FIBERS"
                          MILLED FIBER STORAGE
PNEUMATIC GRADING
                                           I	
                           CARDING AND COMBING
                                MATTING
                                SPfNNING
                          BRAIDING OR WEAVING
•» FINES TO RECYCLE



-»• REFUSE TO WASTE
                                  MAT AND ROVING
                                  YARN OR CORD
                               •— BRAID OR FABRIC
                Figure 1.  Manufacturing steps for asbestos textiles.


                Source:  NHS 2375.

-------
fabric, tubing (sleeving), or tape, as seen in Figure 2.  Alternately, plied

yarns may be twisted to form wiefcing and twisted rope, or braided to form

braided rope or sleeving.

    The conventional process of asbestos yarn manufacture can either be a dry

or a damp method.  These two methods are identical except that during the damp

method the yarn is moistened either by contact with water on a roller or by a

mist spray.  This moistening of the yarns reduces the amount of fiber that

becomes airborne and also aids the processing of fibers into yarn.

        2.   Wet Processing of Asbestos Fibers to Form Textile Products

        The wet process Is based on forming single filament fibers by

extrusion.   The process consists of making a gelatinous mixture of fine

asbestos fibers in water with a volatile dispersant.  The mass is then

extruded through small dies to form asbestos thread.  The extruded thread is

spun to form yarn which is fabricated into various plied yam products as in

the conventional process.

    The textile products formed using this wet technique tend to hold asbestos

fibers better than those produced by the conventional processes,  thus reducing

workplace fiber levels, but the yarn formed has the disadvantage of poor

absorption and impregnation characteristics.

        3.   Asbestos Textile Subcategories

        There are eight main subcategories of asbestos textiles that are used

in the various applications covered within this section.  Each textile

subcategory can be grouped into one of the two main categories, asbestos yarn

or cloth, as follows:

        •  asbestos yarn;
           --  yarn;
           - -  thread;
               wick;
           --  cord;
           --  braided and twisted rope; and
           --  braided tubing (sleeving).

                                    - 3 -

-------
                      FIBER PREPARATION
                                                carrer **
                                         OWOTHW
                                      BA
-------
        *  asbestos cloth

           --  cloth;
               slit and woven tape; and
           --  woven asbestos tubing (sleeving).

the manufacturing process for each of these textile subcategories is briefly

described, and some of the typical dimensions of the products are included.

In addition,  some of the typical fillers, carrier yarns, and inserts that are

used in conjunction with asbestos containing materials are described (American

Textile Institute 1967),

        R  Asbestos yarns are commonly reinforced with nylon, cotton,
           polyester, or wire.  The asbestos yarns produced are made
           in various sizes and plies and serve as the basic
           components in the fabrication of many other asbestos
           textiles:  twisted, woven, and braided.  The amount of
           asbestos contained in asbestos yarns is the basis for
           designating asbestos textile grades as listed in Table 1,
           The American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM) has
           designated various grades for asbestos textiles that differ
           slightly with each textile form.

        •  Asbestos threads are produced in both metallic
           (wire-inserted) and plain (non-metallic) classes.
           Depending on the tensile strength and thermal stability
           requirements, asbestos thread is furnished in different
           grades, although most of it is underwriters' grade (80-85
           percent asbestos).  Asbestos thread is often coated with an
           acrylic or wax coating to increase its strength and to
           facilitate the sewing of asbestos fabrics.

        •  Asbestos wick consists of several strands of asbestos yarn
           twisted together to form a general utility product with
           varied industrial applications (e.g., packing, or upon
           further processing the making of rope and braid).

        *  Asbestos cord is usually twisted asbestos yarn (a
           predetermined number of strands) that forms a cord of
           desired diameter and tensile strength.  The yarns used may
           be sized or unsized, plain or wire-inserted, single or
           plied,  depending on the end use of the product.  Asbestos
           cord is manufactured in all standard ASTM grades and ranges
           in diameter from 0.06 inches to 0.38 inches.

        •  Asbestos_rope is available in two styles;  twisted and
           braided.  Twisted asbestos rope is made by twisting two or
           more strands of asbestos wick tightly together.  Heavier
           ropes contain a binder to hold the twist.  Braided asbestos
           rope can be manufactured by three different processes:  (1)
           by braiding one or more jackets of asbestos yarn over a

                                    - 5 -

-------
        Table 1.  Asbestos Textile Grades
   Grades           Asbestos Content by Weight


Commercial        75% up to but not including 80%

Underwriters'     80% up to but not including 85%

Grade A           85% up to but not including 90%

Grade AA          90% up to but not including 95%

Grade AAA         95% up to but not including 99%

Grade AAAA        99% up to and including 100%
(Q
 Asbestos textile grades differ with each
asbestos textile form.

Source:  Handbook of Asbestos Textiles.  American
         Textile Institute,  1967.
                      - 6 -

-------
core of asbestos rope or wick; (2) by braiding asbestos
yarn braid over asbestos braid; and (3) by plaiting
asbestos yarn into a square cross section (square braid).
Asbestos rope is available in all ASTM grades and varies in
diameter from 0.25 to 2.0 inches.

Asbestos tubinp (sleeving) can be made from asbestos yarns
by braiding.  Braided tubings are manufactured in all of
the ASTM grades and range from 0.02 inches to several
inches inner diameter (i.d.).  The wall thickness varies
from 0.03 inches to approximately 0.13 inches.

Asbestos cloth is woven from various plied, twisted, and
metallic yarns.  There are five classes of asbestos yarns
that can be used to produce asbestos cloth.  The different
classes of asbestos cloth are:

    Class A -- Cloth constructed of asbestos yarns
    containing no reinforcing strands.

    Class B -- Cloth constructed of asbestos yarns
    containing wire reinforcing strands.

    Class C - - Cloth constructed of asbestos yarns
    containing organic reinforcing strands.

    Class D -- Cloth constructed of asbestos yarns
    containing non-metallic inorganic reinforcing strands.

    Class E -- Cloth constructed of two or more of the
    yarns used in cloth classes A through D,

The most widely used asbestos fabrics are woven from Class
A (non-metallic) and Class B (wire-inserted) yarns.

Asbestos tape is manufactured mostly as plain or
non-metallic tape in all of the standard ASTM grades.  It
is a narrow woven fabric manufactured from plied yarn
containing selvage edges (finished to prevent raveling).
Additionally, tape may be slit from cloth (slit tape).
Depending upon the application, the type of tape and the
associated manufacturing process varies.  For tapes
requiring heat reflectivity, aluminum layers may be sprayed
on or bonded to the cloth by a thermosetting resin.  The
thicknesses of plain tape range from 0.01 inches to 0.03
inches.  Metallic tapes can be 0,06 inches and thicker.
Standard widths of asbestos tape range from 0.5 inches to
6,0 inches,

Asbestos tubing (sleeving) can also be made in a woven
form.  Asbestos yarns can be woven to form a tubing that
has a significantly greater inner diameter than the braided
tubings.  Woven tubings are manufactured in all of the ASTM
grades in diameters of less than one inch up to 24 inches.
                         - 7 -

-------
    Two additional asbestos textile subcategories are non-woven products that

have been used for electrical insulation purposes,  but do not fall into the

two designated textile categories.   Although these products were not produced

by any companies identified during the analysis, brief descriptions are

included:

        •  Asbestos roving is simply non-twisted strands of asbestos
           fibers that have been carded.  Roving can be twisted to
           form wick or spun to fora yarn.  Asbestos roving is blended
           with cotton or other organic fibers to meet specific
           end-user requirements.  It is supplied in the five standard
           ASTM grades.  Asbestos roving has been used as electrical
           insulation, but no current applications could be found.

        •  Asbestos lap consists of parallel arrangements of asbestos
           fibers that have been combed and blended with organic
           fibers.  Asbestos lap is a non-woven fabric and has been
           used in electrical insulation.  No current uses of asbestos
           lap have been identified,

        4.  Current Application Ar_eas_ for Asbestos Textiles

        Historically, asbestos textiles have been used in a wide range of

products, but many of the traditional products are no longer in production,

Substitute fibers have taken up the bulk of the market for electrical and

thermal insulation, fire resistant materials, and protective clothing.

    The products that continue to be made in significant quantities using

asbestos textiles are:^-

        •  Woven friction materials;
        •  Packings and gaskets; and
        •  Specialty products.

    Woven friction materials account for the majority of the asbestos textile

products made from asbestos yarn and include woven brake blocks and clutch
     l It should be noted that products made from asbestos textiles are
different than similar products made from non-woven asbestos fibers.  Woven
friction materials and packings/gaskets made from asbestos textiles are not
included in the non-woven asbestos product categories, but rather mre included
in the asbestos textiles category.  A careful review of the processors data
has been performed in order to ensure that no duplication of information has
occurred,

                                    - 8 -

-------
facings.  Typically, these woven products have better performance

characteristics than molded products and are used in large industrial

equipment such as oil well drilling rigs and cranes.

    The two largest processors of asbestos textile materials are Standee

Industries and Raymark Corporation.  These companies are producers of woven

friction materials and account for almost 90 percent of the asbestos textile

market,  although the trend in woven friction materials is away from asbestos

containing materials in original equipment markets (OEM).  In 1985, 50 percent

of all OEM vehicular friction materials were expected to be asbestos free

(Scott 1984).
                                                    t\
    Packings and gaskets made from asbestos textiles  include both yarn and

cloth products.  Asbestos yarn products, braid and rope, are used extensively

in pump and valve packings and as seals for oven doors, boilers, and furnaces,

Asbestos cloth is used to manufacture manhole and flange gaskets as well as

seals in incinerator (hot-air) piping, nuclear power plant cooling water

towers,  and distillation columns.

    Although some gasket and packing products continue to be made from

asbestos textile materials, the general trend is to move away from asbestos

containing products (Garlock 1986, Darco Southern 1986).  Most gasket and

packing manufacturers have stated that they will be completely out of the

asbestos market by 1990 because of the availability of good substitutes.

    Finally, specialty products continue to be made from asbestos textile

materials, both asbestos cloth and asbestos yarn.  It is often difficult to

find substitute materials for these specialized applications, but products of

this type are usually produced in relatively small volumes (less than 5,000
     n
     *• The majority of companies involved in the production of asbestos
textiles are gasket and packing manufacturers,  although they do not account
for a very large proportion of the asbestos textile market (11 percent).

                                    - 9 -

-------
pounds).  Some products made from asbestos textiles that fall into this

category are:

        •  Mantles for gas lanterns (yarn)j

        •  Wicks for catalytic heaters (yarn);

        •  Rotor vanes and impeliar blades for pumps and compressors
           used in air tools (cloth);

        *  Ring type seals for valve and compressor plates (yarn); and

        •  Bearings for high temperature applications requiring water
           lubrication (cloth).

    It is more difficult to find substitute materials for some applications of

asbestos textiles that may require several of the favorable characteristics

that asbestos can impart to textile products.  For these types of

applications,  substitute materials may necessitate the use of a mixture of

substitute fibers to impart all of the required characteristics to the

substitute material.  Companies that produce specialty products from asbestos

are actively looking for substitute materials if none exist at present.

    B.  Producers and Importers of Asbestos Textiles

    Asbestos textiles account for less than one percent of the total amount of

asbestos fibers consumed for end-use products in the United States.  In 1985,

domestic consumption of asbestos fiber in the form of asbestos textiles was

estimated to be approximately 919 tons (ICF 1986a).  The majority of this

fiber was Grade 3 chrysotile fiber.  This figure is 16 percent of the 5,800

tons of fiber consumed in 1981 (ICF 1984a) in this category.

    The quantity of asbestos fiber contained in asbestos textile products

varies significantly, but an average figure of between 70 and 80 percent is a

reasonable estimate of the asbestos content (Garlock 1986) for most asbestos

textiles.  The total amount of asbestos-containing textiles targeted for

consumption in the U.S. is, therefore, estimated to be 1,690 tons of end-use

textile products for 1985 (ICF 1986a).

                                    -  10  -

-------
    Asbestos textile products consumed in the United States come from two

sources:   domestic processing of asbestos fibers Into yarn and cloth and

imports of yarn and cloth.  Table 2 compares the imports of asbestos textiles

and the domestic output of asbestos textile products for 1981 and 1985.

Consumption and output have decreased by over 70 percent for both textile

segments over the time period 1981 to 1985 (ICF 1986a).

    The two processors involved in the manufacture of asbestos textiles for

woven friction materials have stated that their products contain about 50

percent asbestos by weight.  The amount of fiber consumed by these companies

is estimated to be less than 800 tons.

    As other asbestos yarn products are approximately 70 percent asbestos,'

the remaining products can be estimated to contain less than 100 tons of

asbestos fiber.  Ac estimate of less than 900 tons of asbestos fiber consumed

in the production of asbestos yarn products for companies that reported using

asbestos in 1985 can therefore be made.  Although no data for the asbestos

content of specific asbestos cloth products were available, an estimate of 80

percent (Garlock 1986) asbestos content has been used to calculate the

asbestos  fiber consumption for asbestos cloth textiles.   It is estimated that

the companies that produced asbestos cloth products in 1985 consumed less than

200 tons  of fiber.  The total amount of fiber consumed in the production of

all asbestos textiles in 1985 is therefore less than 1300 tons for 1985,

    The discrepancy between the asbestos fiber consumption estimated in

Table 2 and the figure presented by the Bureau of Mines (1,344 tons) (Vlrta

1986) can partially be explained by incomplete reporting or identification of
     0
     3 The amount of fiber consumed in the production of asbestos textiles
other than woven friction materials can only be estimated because the
secondary processors were not willing to release or did not know the asbestos
concentration figures for their products.

       Includes estimated fiber consumption of imported products.

                                    -  11  -

-------
      Table 2.  Asbestos Fiber Consumption for Textile Products
           and Output of Textile  Products for 1981 and 1985
                   Domestic
                    Fiber
                 Consumption
                    (tons)
   Total
   Fiber
Consumption
   (tons)
 Domestic
Production
of Textile
 Products
  (tons)
 Imports
of Textile
 Products
  (tons)
Asbestos Yarn
  1981?'           3,920
  1985                558
   5,040
     823
  5,600
  1,125
  1,600
    455
Asbja. s to s_Clp th
  1981?440
  1985                  0
     760
      96
    550
      0
    400
    120
                    4,360
                      558
   5,800
     919
  6,150
  1,125
  2,000
    575
NOTE:  The table identifies production only for those companies for
       which data have been collected during the survey.  Some
       companies, especially those that import small quantities from
       small countries, may not have been identified,

aTSCA 1982.

bICF 1986a.

c
 This calculation is based on confidential business information.

 Estimated total fiber consumption figures for 1981 are calculated
using average asbestos concentration figures:  Asbestos yarn is
approximately 70 percent asbestos and asbestos cloth is approximately
80 percent asbestos.
                                -  12  -

-------
companies processing asbestos textiles.  The asbestos textile imports that

have been accounted for totalled about 600 tons in 1985.  The U.S. Imports for

Consumption Schedule FT 246, published by the U.S. Department of Commerce

(DOC 1985), however, indicates that approximately 1,100 tons of asbestos yarn,

slivers, etc. 
-------
asbestos cloth and asbestos yarn,  fables 3 and 4 present quantities of yarn

and cloth consumed and imported in- secondary processing,

    C.  Trends

    Thirteen companies involved in the production and distribution of asbestos

textiles in 1985 have been identified.  These 13 companies can be grouped into

four categories based on their particular involvement in the asbestos textile

market.  The categories and the companies that fall under them are listed in

Table 5.

   In 1981, there were 21 processors of asbestos textiles (four primary, 17

secondary) as identified in the 1982 TSCA Section 8(a) survey.  By 1985 the

number of processors had dropped to six (one primary and five secondary).  The

change in processors identified in the survey is a 75 percent drop for prinmry

processors" (from four in 1981 to one in 1985) and a 71 percent drop for

secondary processors (from 17 in 1981 to five in 1985) (ICF 1986a, TSCA 1982).

   In addition to processors identified in the survey, seven out of 16

companies (a 56 percent drop) identified as importers in 1982 (ICF 1984a)

continued to import in 1985 (ICF 1986a).
     " The only domestic primary processor of asbestos textiles, Rayiaaric
Corporation, produces asbestos yarn from asbestos fiber at its plant in
Marshville, North Carolina.  Subsequently, the yarn is shipped to other
Raymark plants. where secondary processing to form woven brake blocks and
clutch facings is performed (Raymark 1986).  This production sequence Is
slightly different than that used by most manufacturers of woven friction
materials,   Most processors of these types of friction materials do primary
and secondary processing at the same facility, and output is classified as
woven friction materials.  Raymark does not follow this pattern (the primary
and secondary processing facilities are at different locations), so the output
of the Marshville facility is classified as asbestos yarn.  The yarn is then
shipped to other Raymark facilities for secondary processing where it is
fabricated into woven friction materials,

                                    -  14 -

-------
          Table  3.  Quantity of Asbestos Yarn Consumed
                     by Secondary Processors
                                Quantity of
                             Domestic Asbestos
                             Mixture Consumed
                               (short tons)
                 Quantity of
              Imported Asbestos
              Mixture Consumed
                (short tons)
     Total
13.4
431.8
 The sources of domestic asbestos yarn are companies that import
the mixture, but do not"perform secondary processing.  Only one
company of this type could be identified importing 25 short tons
of asbestos yarn for distribution to other companies that
subsequently do the secondary processing.

Source:  ICY 1986a,
                                15

-------
          Table 4.  Quantity of Asbestos Cloth Consumed
                     by Secondary Processors
                                Quantity of
                             Domestic Asbestos
                                             &
                             Mixture Consumed
                               (short tons)
                Quantity of
             Imported Asbestos
             Mixture Consumed
               (short tons)
     Total
9.4
94.8
 The sources of domestic asbestos cloth are companies that import
the mixture, but do not perform secondary processing.  Only one
company of this type could be identified importing 25 short tons
of asbestos cloth for distribution to other companies that
subsequently do the secondary processing.

Source:  IGF 1986a.
                              - 16 -

-------
           Table 5.  Companies Involved in Asbestos Production and
                             Distribution  in 1985
         Category
   Company Name and
        Address
    Asbestos Textile
  Product/Intended Use
Primary Processor of
Asbestos Textiles from
Asbestos Fibers

Importer of Asbestos
Textiles for Distribution
Only

Secondary Processor of
Asbestos Textiles Received
Directly from Foreign
Sources
Raymark Corporation
Marshville, NC
Amatex Corporation
Norristown, PA
A.W. Chesterton
Woburn, MA

Arcy Manufacturing
New York, NY

Aztec Industries
N. Brookfield, MA

The Coleman Company
Wichita, KS

Darco Southern
Independence,  VA

Gatke Corporation
Warsaw, IN

Martin Merkel
Houston, IX

Standee Industries
Houston, TX
                             Utex Industries
                             Weimar, TX
Asbestos yarn/woven
brake blocks and clutch
facings

Asbestos yarn and cloth/
distribution to domestic
secondary processors

Asbestos yarn and cloth/
packings and gaskets

Asbestos cloth/welding
blankets

Asbestos cloth/gaskets
                                                      Asbestos yarn/mantles
                                                      for gas lanterns

                                                      Asbestos cloth/gaskets
                                                      Asbestos cloth/high-
                                                      temperature bearings

                                                      Asbestos yarn/packings
Asb e s t o s yarn/woven
brake blocks and. clutch
facings

Asbestos yarn/packings
                                    -  17  -

-------
                             Table 5 (Continued)
         Category
   Company Name and
        Address
    Asbestos Textile
  Product/Intended Use
Secondary Processor of
of Asbestos Textiles
Received from Domestic
Distributors
A.W. Chesterton
Woburu, MA

General Gasket Corp.
St. Louis, MO

Ehopac, Inc.
Skokie, IL

Standee Industries
Houston, TX

Utex Industries,  Inc.
Weimar, TX
Asbestos yarn/packings
Asbestos yarn and cloth/
gaskets

Asbestos yarn and cloth/
packings and gaskets

Asbestos cloth/gaskets
                                                      Asbestos cloth/packings
Source:  ICF 1986a.
                                   - 18 -

-------
    D.  Substitutes

    Asbestos has been used In textile products because it imparts desirable

characteristics to the materials that are made from it.  Asbestos based

textile products have the following characteristics that make them ideally

suited for use in high temperature an
-------
market.  An approximate breakdown of asbestos substitute markets and the




percentage of the asbestos market that each has been able to assimilate is




listed in Table 6.




        1,  Fiberglass Textiles




        Fiberglass is used preferentially when looking for substitute products




due to its good workability, durability, and cost (50-70 percent less than




similar asbestos based textiles) (Dareo Southern 1986).  Other substitute




materials tend to be acre expensive than asbestos and typically are not used




to the same extent as fiberglass (Utex 1986),




    Fiberglass textile products have been widely used as substitutes for




asbestos, but they do have several major shortcomings.  For replacement




products requiring abrasion or flux resistance, fiberglass alone is not an




adequate substitute.  Manufacturers have dealt with this problem by blending




glass with other materials.   For example,  glass can be blended with araniids to




produce textile materials that can withstand fairly high temperatures (500*F)




and show good abrasion resistance (Chemical Business 1984).




    Fiberglass fibers can be treated by chemical leaching with sulfuric acid




to form a continuous-filament, amorphous silica product with the thermal




performance of a refractory material.  After treatment with acid, the




resulting filament is almost pure silica (SiO«) and can be woven to form




textile materials with excellent thermal resistance.  The temperature limit




for ordinary fiberglass materials is around 1000*F, at which point they lose




tensile strength and begin to melt.  The amorphous silica products, however,




retain their strength and flexibility to temperatures of 1800°F and will




continue to provide thermal protection up to 3100°F, although some degree of




shrinkage and embrittlement does occur as temperatures approach the upper




limit (Armco 1979).

-------
Table 6.  Existing Market Shares for Asbestos Substitute Fibers
Substitute Fiber
Glass
Ceramic .
Aram id
FBI
Carbon
Percentage of
Asbestos Market
50%
15%
15%
10%
10%





           Note:   As wore substitute products
                  are becoming available,  the
                  market share for glass is
                  beginning to dwindle,

           Source:  Garlock 1986.
                              21

-------
    Amorphous silica textiles have seen widespread use as thermal and




electrical barriers and have replaced asbestos products to a great extent in




these applications.  The cost of high-temperature refractory silica textiles




is not much greater than fiberglass textiles (Artnco 1979) and only slightly




greater than asbestos textiles used in similar applications.  As the




performance with regard to temperature limit is better than asbestos for the




refractory glass products in nonabrasive applications (Amatex 1986a),




substitution has taken place to a large degree.




    In high temperature applications where compression and abrasion are likely




to be encountered, other materials or blends of glass, silica, and other




fibers are used.  If only slight abrasion resistance is required, the




refractory silicas do quite well.  Rope gasketing for partial grooves in oven




or furnace doors and sealing elements in all types of manufacturing equipment




that handle heat (e.g., ovens, furnaces, boilers) can be made from refractory




silicas.




    Refractory silica textiles are not ideally suited for applications




requiring a great deal of abrasion resistance, but their abrasion resistance




capability can be augmented by specially treating the material with a




hydrocarbon finish (Armco 1979).  In general, however, refractory silica




textiles  are not used in areas where abrasive conditions would be encountered.




        2.  Ceramic Fiber Textiles




        Ceramic fiber, consisting of high purity alumina and silica in various




percentages,  can be used to produce ceramic textile products.  These ceramic




textiles  are similar to amorphous and textured silica products in that they




exhibit refractory characteristics and can be used in high-temperature




applications (up to 2300°F).




    Fiberfrax  yarn,  a representative type of ceramic fiber yarn, contains




approximately 20 percent organic fiber and is spun around corrosion resistant




                                    -  22  -

-------
alloys of nickel and chromium (temperature limit 2000°F) or 1200'F




monofilament glass strands.  These inserts provide maximum tensile strength at




elevated temperatures (Carborundum 1986).




    Although ceramic fiber yarns have a high temperature limit in continuous




use, the textiles made from them lose tensile strength after exposure to heat




for extended periods of tine.  The temperature limit of the insert material




must be considered in determining whether a ceramic fiber textile product can




be used in applications where tensile strength is important.




    In the application areas where substitution is incomplete, ceramic fiber




textiles are viable substitutes for some applications currently using




asbestos:  furnace and oven door seals, flange and burner gaskets, and static




packings.  Ceramic fiber textile products have a higher temperature Unit, are




more flexible, conform to the shape required, and often have a longer service




life than comparable asbestos based products.  In general the costs of ceramic




fiber products are comparable to asbestos products.




    There are some drawbacks associated with the use of ceramic fiber for




asbestos replacement cloth and yarn products.  The ceramic cloth used in




expansion joints, a gasket application, exhibits slightly more permeability at




low temperatures and may be slightly more expensive (10-15 percent) in some




product application areas (Carborundum 1986).




    Ceramic rope products made from yarn are less dense than comparable




asbestos products, are not as packable (too resilient), and therefore do not




exhibit the required characteristics for some gasket applications.  Ceramic




fiber rope also exhibits poorer performance in some oven furnace door




applications.  Due to the low density and lower abrasion resistance of the




ceramic products, they do not meet the standards of the traditional asbestos




based products (Carborundum 1980).
                                      23

-------
    Finally, static packings made from ceramic rope usually perform very well




as asbestos replacement products, but there are not as many forms available,




so complete substitution for all asbestos packings is not possible,




        3,   AramidFiberTextiles




        Other substitute fibers that can replace asbestos in some textile




applications are aramid fibers.  By spinning a polymeric solution of aramids,




a fiber can be produced that is a good replacement for asbestos.  Aramid fiber




is stronger on a by-weight basis than asbestos and can be used in pump




packings, brake linings, and gaskets (DuPont 1980).




    Aramids can also be blended with other fibers to produce asbestos




replacement textiles that exhibit the favorable characteristics of each fiber




type incorporated into the textile material.  Amatex Corporation produces a




heat-resistant textile that is made from Nomex  and Kevlar  fibers mixed with




small amounts of polybenzimidazole (FBI) and glass fibers to raise the




temperature limit of the material (Amatex 1986).  The material, NOR-FAB ,




shows excellent abrasion- and heat-resisting characteristics, is lightweight,




and is not susceptible to most acid and alkali solutions.  By blending the




aramid fibers with other synthetics and glass fibers, the favorable




characteristics of aramids can be incorporated into products with higher




temperature limits.  In the case of NOR-FAB , excellent protection up to 65Q°F




is possible with intermittent protection at much higher temperatures.




        4.   Carbon Fiber Textiles




        Carbon fibers, another asbestos replacement fiber, are characterized




by extremely high strength and high temperature resistance.  Carbon fibers are




made by controlled carbonization of an already formed fibrous structure based




on an appropriate organic polymer.  The organic polymers most commonly used in




the production of carbon fibers are homopolymers of acrylonitrile and viscose




rayon multifilament yarns.




                                    -  24 -

-------
    The polyacrylonitrile (PAN) based fibers consist of 92-95 percent carbon




(the rest being mostly nitrogen), and the higher strength rayon based fibers




can be up to 99 percent carbon (Kirk-Othmer 1977),  In general, the carbon




fiber yarns and cloths are used in applications requiring strength and light




weight (e.g., aerospace and industrial applications).  Carbon fiber textiles




often include other fibers, such as glass, along with a matrix resin (e.g.,




polyesters, epoxies, or polyimides).




    Although there is some ambiguity regarding the term carbon fiber, it




should be noted that this term does not include graphite fibers which are




materials exhibiting the three-dimensional characteristic of polycrystalline




graphite.   Essentially all commercial carbon based textiles are made from




carbon fibers (Kirk-Othmer 1977).




    Carbon fibers have been used as an asbestos replacement in the production




of friction materials.   Even though the performance is superior to the




asbestos goods that they replace, carbon fiber tends to be very expensive and




availability can be a factor.  In this and other substitution areas, the




tradeoff between additional cost and improved performance must be evaluated.




Some applications that require a specific level of performance may, therefore,




use a more expensive fiber regardless of expense.  In other application areas




(e.g., aerospace), the cost of the fiber may be insignificant compared to the




cost of the finished product in which the textile material is being used.




        5.  Pplybenzlaldazole Fiber Textiles




        Polybenzimidazole (FBI) fibers can also be used to form asbestos




replacement textiles.  Based on the reaction of 3,3'-diaminobenzidine and




diphenyl isophthalate,  these aromatic polymers are prepared by conventional




condensation techniques.  The resulting polyimides can be fabricated into




heat- and flame-resistant fibers that exhibit a unique property for synthetic




polymers.   Most synthetic polymers do not reabsorb moisture after being




                                   -  25  -

-------
exposed to high temperatures.  FBI, however, does regain moisture (up to 13




percent) and is therefore not as subject to degradation in some applications,




    FBI fibers can be spun into yarns and then woven to form fabrics that are




heat resistant up to 932°F,  In addition, fabrics made from FBI fibers show




good acid resistance, good cryogenic characteristics, and are readily




processed on conventional textile equipment (Kirk-Othmer 1977).




    Although FBI fibers exhibit excellent characteristics for very specialized




applications (e.g., aerospace and other industries requiring high performance




products), they tend to be very expensive.  Most industries cannot afford to




use FBI containing textiles in their asbestos replacement application areas




because of the high cost and must either settle for other available substitute




fibers or blend FBI fibers with other fibers to reduce the costs,




        6.  Asbestos Replacement




        Typically, less expensive fibers such as fiberglass or ceramic are




used to make up the bulk of any asbestos replacement textile,  and the more




expensive aramid, carbon, and FBI fibers are added to impart favorable




properties on an application-by-application basis.  For applications in which




readily available substitute fiber textiles are available (i.e., commercially




available single fiber products and relatively simple blends), the amount of




fiber in the substitute product can be determined.  In these application




areas, however, substitution is considered to be complete.




    The simple textile types (non-blended) are not considered to be




replacements for the remaining asbestos textile applications as they do not




meet the performance requirements for critical uses.  For high performance




application areas the amount of each fiber that is used in an asbestos




replacement textile is determined by experimental procedure.  By varying the




concentrations of the available substitute fibers, a substitute textile
                                    -  26  -

-------
product can be formulated that exhibits all of the required characteristics

for a particular application.

    The experimental nature of asbestos replacement procedures makes it

difficult to speculate on the exact types of fibers that would be used in any

given application area.  Substitute products can be found for all asbestos

textiles even though the exact nature of substitution is complicated.  For

example, the amount of fiber of a particular type and the weight of the

finished product would be different than for a similar product made with

asbestos.^  In addition, actual formulations are often considered confidential

and it is difficult to find data on product make-up,

    As the level of detail nefded to characterize specific replacement textile

products is not readily available,  some simplifying assumptions must be Bade

for the asbestos textiles market.  These assumptions are:

        •  All asbestos yarn and cloth products will be grouped into
           one product area (textiles);

        •  The blends of fibers in replacement textiles will be
           assumed to equal the market share for existing, asbestos
           replacement textiles that are made exclusively with one
           fiber (see Table 6);

        •  Service life will be assumed to be equal for all asbestos
           and replacement textiles (actual service life can vary for
           specific applications from one to 20 times that of
           asbestos, depending on. the application).
     '  As opposed to other products that use asbestos as an additive, asbestos
textiles are comprised of up to 100 percent asbestos.  Thus, formulations made
with substitute fibers may vary significantly in weight from asbestos
products.  The relative density of the fiber compared to asbestos and the
relative amount used as compared to asbestos determine the weight of the
finished product made with substitute fibers.

     ° The actual service life is very dependent on the environment in which
the asbestos-containing product and its substitute product would be contained.
Depending on various conditions encountered in a particular use scenario
(e.g.,  abrasiveness, high temperature) the possible substitute products would
have greatly varying useful lives.  Without performing an involved technical
assessment of use conditions it is not possible to accurately predict the
differences in the actual service life for the various substitute fiber-
containing products relative to their asbestos counterparts.

                                    -  27  -

-------
        •  Unusual and unrepresentative products (e.g., aerospace
           replacement products that are 1,000 times as expensive as
           the asbestos product) will be excluded from the cost
           analysis.^

    Attachment A contains a discussion of the calculations used in this

analysis.  The inputs for the Asbestos Regulatory Model for textile products

are also presented.

    E.  Summary

    Asbestos textiles can be grouped into two categories:  asbestos cloth and

asbestos yarn.  A third category, asbestos protective clothing, has been

eliminated because no producers could be identified.

    Production and imports of these materials dwindled significantly between

1981 and 1985, and substitute products have taken over a large portion of the

market.  All segments of the asbestos textile industry for 1985 were down 70

percent or more compared to 1981 figures.

    Substitution is complete for most product areas, but products are still

made from asbestos in the following areas:   woven friction materials, packings

and gaskets, and specialty products.  The major fibers that are used as

substitutes are glass, ceramic, aramid, polybenzimidazole, and carbon fibers.

    Analysis of the asbestos textile market and identification of substitute

materials makes it possible to estimate the cost of substitute materials for

remaining asbestos markets.  The cost range for substitute products varies

significantly depending on the application.  Limited information makes it
                                               i
difficult to exactly constrain the costs, but average costs based on cost

ranges established during the course of this analysis are presented in Table 7

(see Attachment A),
     * These products tend to be produced in very small volumes and data are
generally not available concerning their cost and performance relative to
asbestos products.
                                    - 28  -

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT A






    The relevant information used to calculate the costs of substitute textile




materials relative to representative asbestos products is contained in this




attachment.




    As has been mentioned, for the application areas where substitution has




taken place, the substitute textiles tend to use relatively simple blends of




fibers.   The remaining product areas are very diverse and replacement products




differ significantly.  If, however, essentially pure fiber products were made




to replace the remaining asbestos textile markets, their costs would be in the




ranges identified in Table ?.




    Cost ranges are given because there are application-specific factors




determining the actual cost of a substitute fiber textile.  As the




specifications of a particular application may include requirements regarding




the quality as well as the quantity of substitute fiber that is used in the




final product, the actual end-product costs will vary from application to




application.




    The cost of replacement for remaining asbestos products will be assumed to




be the same for asbestos yarn and cloth products.  An average textile product




will, therefore, be the basis for determining the costs of substitution.




    The average cost of an asbestos textile mixture that was being produced in




1985 was calculated to be $1.65/lb. (IGF 1986a).  The equivalent prices for




substitute products are given in Table 8.
                                    -  29  -

-------
               Table 7.   Costs of  Substitute  Fiber Textiles

Substitute
Fiber
Glass
Ceramic
Aramid
Carbon
FBI
Cost Range
of Fiber
Relative to
Asbestos for
All Applications
1-2
1-5
6-9
4-12
10-30
Normalized
Weight of
Fiber Used
Relative to
Asbestos
0.7
0.8
0,8
2.0
1.2
Cost Range
of Finished
Product
Relative to
Asbestos
0.7-1.4
0.8-4.0
4.8-7.2
8.0-24.0
12.0-36.0
Average
Cost
Relative
to
'Asbestos
1.05
2.40
6.00
16.00
24.00
^formalized with respect to amount used and weight of finished product.

Sources:   Chemical Business 1984,  Carborundum 1980,  Industrial Minerals  1984,
          Spaulding 1986, Amatex 1986.
                                   -  30  -

-------
                                    Table 8.   Data Inputs for Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model for Textiles
       Product
         Product Asbestos
Output     Coefficient
(tons)     (tons/ton)
                                          Eguivalmtb
  Consumption       Price                    Frlte      Market
Production Ratio   ($/ton)    Uitfwl Life     ($/ton)     Sh«»
                                                                                                                           Eefacence
Asbestos Mixtures
Glass Fiber Mixtures
Ceramic Ftb»r Miactureu
Arnrnid Fiber Mixtures
Carbon Fiber Mixture*
FBI Fiber Mixture*
1,125
H/A
F/A
F/A
H/A
H/A
O.»960
B/A
H/A
H/A
B/A
R/A
1,511
H/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
3,300
3,440
7,920
19,800
52,800
79,200
J year
1 y«nr
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year
3,300
3,«0
7,920
19,800
52,800
79,200
H/A
501
151
15%
10Z
10Z
ICF 1986»
Carborundum 1986
Chemical Business 1984
Scott 198*
Spaulding 198S
Gar look 19 86
"ions of fiber per ton of textile output,

H/A:  Rot Applicable.

-------
REFERENCES
Amatex Inc.  W. Maaskant.  1986 (November 23).  Norristown, PA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, IGF Incorporated, Washington, D,C,

Amatex Inc.  1986a.  Product literature on Thermoglass(R) heat-resistant
textiles.

Armco Inc.  1979.  Product literature on Refrasil(R) heat-resistant textiles.

ASTM.  1982.  Annual Book of ASTM Standards:  Part .32.  Textiles -- Yarns,
Fabrics, and General Test Methods,  American Society for Testing and
Materials.  Philadelphia, PA.

American Textile Institute.  1967.  Handbook of Asbestos Textiles.  American
Textiles Institute,

A.W. Chesterton.  H. Torrey.  1986 (December 5).  Woburn, MA, 01801.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Aztec Industries.  W. Outcalt.  1986 (November 4).  North Brookfield, MA,
01535.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Carborundum.  1980.  Product literature on Fiberfrax(R) heat-resistant
textiles.

Chemical Business.  1984.  Improved fibers put heat on asbestos, in Chemical
Business (April 1984).  pp. 40-42.

Darco Southern.  B. McAllister.  1986 (October 15).  Independence, VA, 24348,
Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

DOC.  1985.  Schedule FT 246.  U.S. Imports for Consumption,  Department of
Commerce.

DuPont.  1980.   Product literature on Kevlar(R) heat-resistant textiles.

Garlock Inc.  F. Piccola.  1986 (October 17).  Sodus, NY, 14551.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated,  1984a.  Importers of asbestos mixtures and products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No. 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1984b.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, In Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington, DC:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of primary and secondary
processors of asbestos textiles.  Washington, D.C,

                                    -  32 -

-------
Industrial Minerals,  1984,  Asbestos Replacement in Industrial Minerals
(June, 1984).  pp. 53-55.

Kirk-Othmer.  1981.  Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.  Volumes 4, 7, and
12.  John Wiley and Sons.  New York, NY.

NTIS.  1975.  Economic Analysis of Effluent Guidelines:  The Textile,
Frictioned Sealing Materials Segment of the Asbestos Manufacturing Industry,
U.S. National Technical Information Service.  PB-250-682.

Raymark Corp.  L. Williams.  1986 (July-December).  Marshville, NC, 28013.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner and Peter Tzanetos, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Scott, S.W.  1984.  Asbestos Substitutes in Friction Applications.  Design
News (3/26/84).  pp. 44-50.

Spaulding Co., Inc.  J. Mileham.  1986 (October 28).  Buffalo, NY, 14225.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.
                              %
TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982.  Production Data for Secondary
Processors, 1981.  Washington, D.C,:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8670644.

Utex Industries.  E. Pippert.  1986 (July-December).  Houston, TX, 77279.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Virta, R.  1986 (October 9).  Bureau of Mines.  Washington, D.C., 20006.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.
                                    -  33  -

-------
XXVII.  SHEET GASKETS




    A.  Product Description




    Gaskets are materials used to seal one compartment of a device from




another in static applications.  Asbestos gaskets, used to seal and prevent




the leakage of fluids between solid non-moving surfaces,  can be classified




into two categories; compressed sheet and beater-add.  Beater-add gaskets are




discussed under the Beater-Add Gaskets category.




    Compressed sheet gaskets use longer fibers, are more dense,  and have a




higher tensile strength than beater-add gaskets.  They are manufactured on a




special calender, known as a "sheeter", in such a manner that the compound Is




built up under high load, on one role of the "sheeter" to a specific thickness




(Union Carbide 1987).  Compressed sheet gaskets are used in heavy duty




applications where severe temperatures and pressures are likely to exist.




Different grades of asbestos sheet gasketing are available for different




temperature use limits, and the proportion of fiber to binder in the gasket




varies with the intended temperature use range.  Fiber content increases as




intended range of temperature use increases (Krusell and Cogley 1982).  Sheet




gaskets are suitable for use with steam, compressed air and other gases,




chemicals, fluids, and organic compounds to temperatures of 950°F and pressure




to 1500 psi (A.W. Chesterton 1983).




    ¥ire inserted asbestos sheet is also available for use in pipe flanges




that has slightly higher temperature and pressure limits (1000°F and 2000 psl,




respectively).  General service asbestos sheet is usually recommended for




temperatures around 700°F and can be used in superheated or saturated steaa




service, or with weak acids and alkalies (A.W. Chesterton 1982).




    Compressed asbestos gaskets are temperature and pressure dependent.  As




temperature increases their pressure capability decreases.  It is difficult,




therefore, to give exact pressure and temperature ranges, but Table 1




                                    - 1 -

-------
illustrates the useful fluid temperature and fluid ranges for compressed

asbestos gasketing (Union Carbide 1987).

    Asbestos sheet gaskets are used in exhaust systems and turbo chargers,

cylinder head and intake manifolds, and high load/high extrusion applications.

The most common sheet gaskets are used in engines, gear cases, and pipe

flanges.^

    Asbestos is the primary constituent for making compressed sheet gaskets

(varying upwards from 75 percent by weight,  depending on the application).

Elastomeric binders such as neoprene, silicone based rubber, natural rubber,

nitrile rubber, Teflon, or styrene-butadiene are used to ensure that gasketing

material remains intact.

    B.  Producers of Sheet Gasketing

    In 1985, five companies produced 2,848,308 square yards of compressed

sheet gasketing.  These companies consumed 4,041 tons of asbestos fiber (ICF

1986a).

    In addition, a sixth company produced an estimated 759,000 square yards of

compressed asbestos sheet gasketing from 1400 tons of asbestos fiber.^  The

total estimated consumption for this category is, therefore, estimated to be

3,607,408 square yards of sheet gasketing from 5,441.1 tons of fiber.  Table 2

presents the production "volume and fiber consumption for gaskets in 1985,

Known imports make up a small percentage of the total gaskets consumed in the

U.S.  There were 506.35 tons of sheet gasketing imported in 1985 (ICF 1986m).

The asbestos compressed sheet gasketing market was estimated to be worth
     •*• Due to the wide variety of gasketing shapes, sizes, compositions, and
sheathing materials available, an all-inclusive list of fabricated products is
not available.
     o
     £ Based on the methodology for allocating consumption to survey
non-respondents in Appendix A.
                                    - 2 -

-------
             Table 1.  Fluid and Pressure Ranges for
           Compressed Asbestos Sheet Gasketing Material
  Temperature arid Pressure
Product
750-1000°F, Vacuum -- 1500 psi   Premium Compressed Asbestos Sheet

250-750T, Atmos -- 1500 psi     Service Compressed Asbestos Sheet

-70-250"F, Atmos -• 1500 psi     Economy Compressed Asbestos Sheet
 Premium indicates the highest grade of compressed asbestos sheet,
usually wire inserted.  Service indicates general use compressed
asbestos sheet and economy is the lowest grade of asbestos sheet
available.

Source;  Union Carbide 1987.
                              - 3 -

-------
       Table  2.   Production of Asbestos  Sheet Gasketing arid
                    Asbestos Fiber Consumption
                  1985 Fiber
                 Consumption    1985 Production
                 (short tons)      (sq. yd.)           References
Total              5,441.1        3,607,408.0       TSCA 1982,
                                                    IGF 1986a,
                                                    IGF 1987
                              - 4 -

-------
$20.5 million in 1985, based on an average price of §5.69 per square yard (ICF



1986a),



    C.  Trends



    Between 1981 and 1985, two manufacturers of compressed asbestos sheet



gasketing, Jenkins Brothers (Bridgeport, CT) and Manville Sales Corporation



(Manville, NJ and tfaukegan, IL) discontinued their operations.  During those



four years, total production fell 44 percent from 6,472,879 square yards to



3,607,408 square yards (see Table 2),  Currently, non-asbestos gaskets hold



less than 50 percent of the gasket market, but as concerns about asbestos and



its health effects grow, the use of asbestos in compressed sheet gaskets is



expected to decline (ICF 1986a).
                              *


    D.  Substitutes



    Asbestos has been used in sheet gaskets because it is chemically inert,



nearly indestructible and can be processed into fiber.  Asbestos fibers



partially adsorb the binder with which they are mixed during processing; they



then intertwine within it and become the strengthening matrix of the product.



Since the product contains as much as 80 percent asbestos fiber, manufacturers



are also employing it as a filler.  The balance of the product is the binder



which holds the asbestos in the matrix (Kirk-Othmer 1981).



    A single substitute for asbestos is not available.  Manufacturers have,



therefore, been forced to replace the asbestos fiber with a combination of



substitute materials.  The formulations of the substitute products most often



include a combination of nore than one type of substitute fiber and more than



one filler in order to reproduce the properties of asbestos necessary for that



application.  Formulation of substitute products is done on an



application-by-application basis by each manufacturer (ICF 1986a),   For the



purposes of this analysis, the substitute products will be grouped into six
                                    - 5 -

-------
major categories according to the type of non-asbestos substitute used (Table

3 presents properties of the substitute fibers):

        •  aramid mixtures,
        •  fibrous glass mixtures,
        «  graphite mixtures,
        •  cellulose mixtures, and
        .  PTFE mixtures (ICF 1986a, Palmetto Packing 1986).

    The current market share of the different substitute formulations is

estimated to be as indicated in Table 4,  Industry experts have indicated that

asbestos sheet gaskets account for approximately 50 to 60 percent of the

current market.  It is evident, however, from the survey that the market share

of asbestos free sheet gaskets is increasing rapidly, as companies replace

asbestos in some applications.  One obstacle to complete replacement of

asbestos gaskets by substitute products is  military contract specifications

that stipulate the use of asbestos gaskets.  This includes aerospace and Naval

specifications.  A 100 percent asbestos-free market is impossible to achieve
                                                                 "3
if military specifications continue to require asbestos products.

        1.  Aramid Mixtures

        Aramid fiber products are produced by numerous companies from DuPont's

Kevlar(R) and Nomex(R) fibers,  Kevlar(R) and Nomex(R) were introduced in l&te

1980 to act as reinforcing fibers in asbestos free gaskets and other

materials.  They are highly heat resistant and strong (ten times stronger than

steel, by weight).  They are about twenty times more expensive than asbestos,

by weight.  Because it is less dense and stronger, however, less is needed for

reinforcement purposes.  At high temperatures (above 800°F), the fiber

physically degrades, but it is very strong and can withstand very high

pressure up to the temperature limit (A.W. Chesterton 1983).
     o
     -> Department of Defense branches seem willing to follow EPA requirements
and recommendations for new equipment, but for existing equipment,
revalidation with a new gasketing material would be very costly (DOD 1986).

                                    - 6 -

-------
                                              Table 3,   Substitutes for Asbftsbos Sheet Gasknting
   Product
                          Advantages
                                         01 sad-vantages
                                            Remarks
Axajnld
                Very strong.
                Year resistant,
                High tensile strength.
                                 Hard to cut.
                                 Wears out cutting dyes quickly.
                                 BOO*F temperature limit.
                                                                  ICF 198S*. ICF 19B5,
                                                                  Maeh. DBS., July 10, 1986
Fibrous Glass   Good tensile properties.
                Chemical resistant,.
                                 More expensive than
                                 asbestos.
                                 Often used in the auto
                                 industry.
ICF l»86a, ICF 1985,
Maeh. Des,, July 10, 1986
Graphite        Q«at resistant to SOOO'F.        Expensive,
                Chemical resistant.              Brittle.
                Light weight.                    Frays,
                                                                  Fastest growing substitute
                                                                  in the auto market in high
                                                                  temperature seals.
                                                                  ICF 1986a, ICF 1985,
                                                                  Maeh. Des., July 10, 1986
Cellulose
                Inexpensive.
                Good carrier web.
                                 Hot heat resistant.
                                 Useful to 350'F.
                                 Hot chemically resistant.
                                 Useful Cor low temperature
                                 applications only.
ICF U86n, ICF 1985,
Maeh, Ban,, July 10, 1986
FIFE
                low friction.
                Chemical resistant.
                FDA approved to contact food
                and medical equipment.
                                 Hot as resilient as asbestos.
                                 Deforms under heavy loads.
                                 Used primarily in the ehmical
                                 industry.
ICF l»86a,
Palmetto Packing 1966a
Ceramic
High t
-------
Table 4.   Estimated Market Shares for Substitute Fibers
          Replacing Compressed Asbestos Sheet
Substitute Fiber
Aramid
Glass Fiber
Graphite
Ceramic
Cellulose
PTFE
Estimated
Market Share
30
25
15
5
15
10
Reference
Palmetto Packing 1986
Palmetto Packing 1986
Union Carbide 1987
ICF 1986a
Palmetto Packing 1986
ICF 1986a

-------
    Aramid gaskets are usually composed of 20 percent aramid fiber, by weight,




and 60 to 65 percent fibers and fillers such as silica and clay.  The




remaining 20 to 25 percent is the binder which keeps the fibers in a matrix.




Typical applications include off-highway equipment, diesel engines, and




compressors.  These applications require a very strong gasketing material that




will withstand moderate temperatures (A.W, Chesterton 1982).




    Aramid gaskets as a substitute for asbestos sheet gaskets are used because




of the fiber's strength and high temperature resistance.  Formulations also




include mineral fillers and elastomeric binders.  Aramid product costs 1,7




times as much as the asbestos product for some applications, resulting in




gaskets that cost $9.72 per square yard.




    Industry officials project 30 percent of the total asbestos market will be




captured by this substitute (ICF 1986a, Palmetto Packing 1986),




        2.   Fibrous Glass Mixtures




        Fibrous glass is generally coated with a binder such as neoprene, TFE,




or graphite in the manufacturing process to make gaskets.  Glass fibers are




relatively easy to handle and reduce the costs of product formulation.




Fibrous glass gaskets are usually divided into two groups, "E" glass gaskets,




and "S" glass gaskets, depending upon the type of glass fiber used in the




formulation.  "E" glass  is one of the more common glass fibers, and is




occasionally manufactured into a. gasketing which is used as a jacket around a




plastic core of carbon or aramid fibers and other materials (OGJ 1986).




    "E" glass gaskets are suitable for general service applications where the




operating temperature is below 1000°F.  Above this temperature, the gasfceting




loses 50 percent of its tensile strength.  The materials can be used with most




fluids except strong acids and alkalies (A.W. Chesterton 1982).




    The second type of glass fiber, "S" glass, was developed by NASA and is




recognized as the superior glass fiber in use today (OGJ 1986).  This material




                                    - 9 -

-------
is occasionally used as & jacket around a core of graphite and other fibers.

The sheet gasketing is caustic resistant and can be used in applications with

operating temperatures that reach 1500°F. (OGJ 1986).

    Industry representatives project that glass gaskets will capture 25

percent of the total asbestos sheet gasketing market.  They estimate that the

glass material will cost twice as much as the asbestos material.  Thus, the

price will be §11.38 per square yard (Palmetto Packing 1986, IGF 1986a).

        3.  Graphite Mixtures

        Flexible graphite, developed by Union Carbide Corp. is made from

natural flake graphite, which is expanded several hundred times into a light,

fluffy material by mixing it with nitric or sulfuric acid.  It is then

calendered into a sheet (without additives or binders) (Chem. Eng, News 1986).

In addition, graphite based materials can be formed by removing all of the

elements except carbon from polyacrylnitrile polymers or viscose rayon

(Kirk-Othmer 1981).

    These materials are extremely heat resistant and inherently fire-safe.

Graphite gaskets are suitable for applications where the operating

temperatures reach 5000°F. in non-oxidizing atmospheres.  In the presence of

oxygen, the material is limited to use below 800"F, (Chem. Eng. News 1986).

The gasketing has excellent chemical resistance with the exception of strong

mineral acids.  Graphite packings can be used in most applications up to 1500

psi and unlike asbestos sheet gasketing do not show as great a

temperature/pressure dependence^ (Union Carbide 1987) ,

    Graphite material is often used in oil refinery and oil field applications

(e.g., oil-well drilling equipment) because of its high temperature
     * Flexible graphite temperature limits are independent of gasket
compressive load and therefore fluid pressure, whereas all compressed asbestos
gaskets are temperature and pressure dependent.

                                    -  10 -

-------
resistance.  A wire insert is often added for increased strength in these high



temperature, high pressure applications (OGJ 1986).



    Graphite is an expensive material, but the addition of various fillers



helps keep the cost competitive with other substitute materials (Palmetto



Packing 1986).  The cost of replacement gaskets made from graphite are



approximately two times that of the asbestos gaskets they will replace based



on fiber requirements and processing costs (Union Carbide 1987).  The price of



the substitute material is, therefore, $11.38 per square yard.  Industry



officials project this substitute's market share to be 15 percent of the total



asbestos gasketing market (Palmetto Packing 1986, Union Carbide 1987, ICF



1986a).
                              *


        4.  Cellulose Fiber Mixtures



        Cellulose fibers are generally milled from unused or recycled



newsprint or vegetable fiber in the presence of additives which ease grinding



and prevent fires during processing.



    Manufacturers of sheet gaskets that contain cellulose fiber consider their



specific formulations proprietary.  These producers, however, indicate that



these fibers are generally used with a combination of clay and mineral



thickeners.  The gaskets made from cellulose products have a content of



between 20 and 25 percent cellulose fiber and 50 to 55 percent fillers and



thickeners.  The remaining 25 percent is usually an elastoraeric binder (ICF



1986a).



    Traditionally, cellulose fiber gaskets are only used at low pressure (<250



psi) and methods to reinforce the fibers, however, increase their use limits,



resulting in excellent crush resistance, excellent dimensional stability, and



good sealability below 350°F,  Cellulose gaskets can substitute for asbestos



sheet gaskets in low temperature applications such as with oil, gas, organic



solvents, fuels, and low pressure steam (Union Carbide 1987).



                                    -  11 -

-------
    Reinforced cellulose based gaskets have increased in popularity in the




past few years.  These gaskets can duplicate all asbestos performance




parameters, except high temperature resistance.  Although they can be used at




a maximum continuous operating temperature of 350°F, their life is




substantially shortened in temperatures over 95°F.  Despite this,




manufacturers indicate that the service life of these asbestos free gaskets Is




the same as for asbestos gaskets (Carborundum 1986).




    Cellulose fiber formulations in combination with clay and mineral




thickeners are estimated to capture 15 percent of the sheet gasketing market




in the event of an asbestos ban.  Prices would be expected to rise 20 percent




to $6.83 per square yard due to increased material and production costs (ICF




1986a).




        5.  EIFJB




        FIFE fibers offer chemical resistance to all but the most powerful




oxidizing agents, acids, and alkalies in temperatures ranging from -450*F to




500"F  (Chem Eng. News 1986).  This material has good dielectric strength and




impact resistance.




    PTFE can be used in specialized applications because it has been approved




by the FDA for contact with food and in medical equipment.  In addition, it




does not stain the fluid with which it has contact  (Krusell and Cogley 1982),




    PTFE, and PTFE and graphite mixtures can be formulated into gasketing




material easily, reducing the price of the gasketing that would otherwise be




quite high (PTFE is twenty tines as expensive as asbestos).  The final




product, however, is only 3,5 times as expensive as the asbestos product.




PTFE gasketing is, therefore, $19.91 per square yard.  Industry officials




indicated that PTFE gaskets will capture 10 percent of the total asbestos




market in the case of an asbestos ban (Palmetto Packing 1986, ICF 1986a).
                                    -  12 -

-------
        6.   Ceramic Fiber Mixtures




        Ceramic fibers, composed of alumina-silica blends are used in the




manufacture of gasketing material to replace compressed asbestos sheet,




although their performance has not been outstanding (Union Carbide 1987),




These fibers impart high temperature resistance to gaskets made from them, but




little information is available on the performance characteristics of these




materials.   Costs are expected to be the same as for other ceramic based




products that can replace asbestos products (two times as expensive), but it




is unlikely that ceramic products will occupy more than five percent of the




market in the event of an asbestos ban (IGF estimate),




    E.   Summary




    It appears that substitutes for asbestos containing sheet gaskets




currently exist.  However, these products cost more to produce and may not




perform as well.  Substitute fiber formulations include aramid, glass,




graphite, cellulose, PTFE, and ceramic fibers.  The substitute materials are a




combination of fibers and fillers designed on an application-by-application




basis.   The substitute materials are classified by the fiber with the highest




content.




    The estimation of market shares and prices of the substitute formulations




in the event of an asbestos ban and the data inputs for the Asbestos




Regulatory Cost Model are presented in Table 5.
                                    -  13  -

-------
Table 5,  Data Inputs for -Asbesto* Regulatory Cost Modal
                     Elmot, Gmnketittg
Consumption
Product Asbestos Production
Product Output Coefficient Ratio
Asbestos Gasketing 3,607,408 sq. yds. 0.00151 tons/ton 1.07
Arnmid H/A N/A H/A
Fibrous Glass H/A H/A H/A
Grnphita M/A H/A H/A
Cellulose N/A H/A H/A
PTFE H/A H/A H/A
Ceramic H/A H/A H/A
Equivalent
Prioa Ui«£ul JPrie« Hatkat
(eq. yd.) Lift (aq yd.) Shaz* R«Carmce*
85,69 5 years 95.69 H/A ICF 1988a
S9.72 5 years $9.72 3« ICF 1986«, Jalmetto Packing 1986«
$11,38 5 years $11.38 25% ICF 1986«, Palmetto Packing 1986a
311.38 5 years 511.38 15X ICF 1986«, Palmetto Packing 1986a
§6.83 5 ywrs 86.83 15% ICF 1986«, Palmetto Packing 1986a
$19.91 5 yaats $15.91 10t ICF 1986a, Saljnetto Packing 1986a
$11.38 5 y»«EB $11,38 51 ICF 1986a, Carborundum 1986
H/A: Hot Applicable.

-------
REFERENCES
Carborundum,  1986.  Product literature on Fiberfrax(R) heat-resistant
materials.

Chemical Engineering.  1986 (October 27).  Asbestos Users Step Up Search for
Substitutes.  McGraw-Hill.

A.W. Chesterton.  1982.  Product literature on sealing devices.

A.W, Chesterton.  1983.  Product literature on environmental packings.

DOD.  1986.  G.D. West.  1986 (July 1).  Department of Defense, Department of
the Air Force.  Letter to the Document Control officer, Office of Toxic
Substances, Environmental Protection Agency.  OPTS Document No. 62036-Asbestos
Ban.

1CF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington, DC:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Sheet Gasketing.  Washington, DC.

Kirk-Othmer.  1981.  Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.  Volume 16.  Wiley
and Sons.  New York, NY.

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp,  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report,  Washington DC:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract 68-02-3168.

Machine Design.   1986 (July 10),  Better Gaskets Without Asbestos,  pp. 67-70.

Oil and Gas Journal.  1986 (May 26).  Refining Technology: Substitute
Materials to Replace Asbestos in Refinery-Service Gaskets and Packings,
PennUell Publication.  Tulsa, OK.  Pp.47-51.

Palmetto Packing.  S. Matt.  1986 (January 8 and 19).  North Wales, PA.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Linda Carlson, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission.  1982.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors, 1981.  Washington, DC:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Document Control No. 20-8601012.

Union Carbide Corporation.  P. Petrunich.  1987 (March 4).  Cleveland, OH,
Letter with enclosures addressed to Tony Bansal, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.
                                      15

-------
XXVIII,  ASBESTOS PACKINGS




    A,  Product Description




    The term packings is generally assigned to the subset of packings that are




designated,as dynamic (static packings are gaskets).  These dynamic or




mechanical packings are used to seal fluids in devices where motion is




necessary.  Examples where these packings have traditionally been used are in




pumps, valves, compressors, mixers, and hydraulic (piston-type) cylinders




(Kirk-Othmer 1981),  Within the mechanical packing segment there are various




types of packings (e.g., compression, automatic, and floating packings), but




only compression packings are or have been made using asbestos fibers (FSA




1983).




    Asbestos-containing compression packings can be formed into various shapes




for different uses as illustrated in Figure 1,  The simplest form of




compression packings (hence forward packings) is of the loose bulk type.  Bulk




formulations consist of blends of loose fibers and dry lubricants that are




bound with a liquid or wax binder.  These simple packings have only limited




applications (e.g., packings for injection guns) and are not considered in the




remainder of this report.  Fiber mixtures are more often extruded with a




binder and lubricant and used as a core in packings that have a braided yarn




jacket that imparts greater durability to the packing (Kirk-Othmer 1981),




    The braided variety of packings are the most prevalent and all of the




well-known packing manufacturers produce them by similar methods of




construction.  Asbestos packings are braided of strong, highest quality pure




asbestos yarn.  In addition, they may be constructed using an Inconel(R) or




other wire insert around a resilient asbestos core impregnated with graphite.




They are lubricated throughout and surfaced with anti-frictional dry lubricant




graphite (EPRI 1982).  The simplest form of braided packing is the square




braided variety that utilizes asbestos yarns of the six grades defined




                                   - - 1 -

-------
                            Bulk
                                            Square braid
  Rotted
(over core)
                                      Folded and
                                        twitted
W formed
                                                          Interlocking braid
                    Round braid
                (three jackets over care)
Figure 1.   f>™™ Types of Conpression Ebckings.   (Source:   Kirk-Ottamer 1981)

-------
according to ASTM D 299, the standard for such materials.  These grades are

listed in Table 1 (ASTH 1982).  The dimensions of the packing are controlled

by the size and number of yarns selected (Kirk-Othmer 1981).

    Another type of braided packing, braid-over-braid packing, consists of

individually braided jackets layered over a core.  These packings use

wire-inserted yarns that offer greater strength to the packing material.

Rolled compression packings are constructed of woven cloth that is coated with

a rubber binder and then cut in strips along the bias to impart maximum cloth

stretch during forming.  The rubber-saturated strips are wound around a soft

rubber core and then formed into the desired final shape.  The final cutting,

forming, and compression operations for all packing types are usually

performed by secondary processors (FSA 1983).

    All of the packing formation processes have some characteristics in

common.  First, impregnation of dry asbestos yarn with a lubricant.  After

lubricant impregnation, the yarns are braided into a continuous length of

packing which in turn is calendered to a specific size and cross-sectional

shape.  The formed product may then be coated with more lubricant or another

material.  At this stage packings can be packaged and sold for maintenance

operations or they can be further processed by pressing into the required

shape (GCA 1980).

    Finally, packings can be die-formed directly into solid rings to

facilitate handling and installation.  The packings that have been formed into

a designated shape are referred to as plastic packings (Kirk-Qthmer 1981),

    The uses and applications of asbestos packings are quite varied, but some

of the major areas in which asbestos-containing packing materials have been
     •*• Secondary processing usually occurs at the facility where the gaskets
will be used and consists of cutting and compressing the packings as they are
needed to replace worn packings already in service in various pumps, valves,
etc.

                                    - 3 -

-------
Table 1.  Standards of Asbestos Yarns Used in Asbestos Packings
Grade
Commercial
Underwriters '
A
AA
AAA
AAAA
Asbestos Content
(percent)
75-80
80-85
85-90
90-95
95-99
99-100
               Source;  ASTM 1982.
                             -  4 -

-------
used are valves and pumps employed in the electric power, petroleum refinery,

petrochemical, chemical, nuclear power, and pulp and paper industries (Union

Carbide 1987),  Depending on the scale of these operations, asbestos packings

of various shapes and sizes are required.  As described earlier, the design of

a packing is to control the amount of leakage of fluid at shafts, rods or

valve systems and other functional parts or equipment requiring containment of

liquids or gases.  Packings are used in rotary, centrifugal, and reciprocating

pumps, valves, expansion joints, soot blowers, and many other types of

mechanical equipment (FSA 1983),  Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the design of a

typical pump with a packing set and the configuration of a packing,

respectively.

    Depending on the conditions of use, various types of asbestos packings are

used.  The temperature and pressure of the system in which the packing is used

determine the style of packing that is used and the type of additional

constituents incorporated in the packing (e.g., other fibers, binders,

fillers).  Other factors that affect the composition and configuration of the

packing system include:  the rotation speed of the valve or pump member,  the

type of fluid being contained (i.e., caustic, acid, alcohol, petrochemical),

and the amount of time between scheduled maintenance operations (FSA 1983).

    Table 2 identifies the different packing types traditionally made from

asbestos fibers, their service areas, and the conditions under which typical
                         n
operations are performed.

    Asbestos is used in packings because of its unique combination of heat and

chemical resistance as well as its low price.  The important attributes of

asbestos fiber for this application are the following:
     ^ It should be noted that packings can be used in varying applications
and are not strictly limited to certain operating conditions.  Table 2 gives
likely use areas and conditions, but these are not limiting designations.

                                    - 5 -

-------
                                                    ATMOSPHERIC
                                                     PRESSURE
                                                                 Adjustable
                                                                  prenure
                                                       *• Moving jhaft
                                                       LUUGE
                                     Compression-packing s«
Figure 2.   Typical Stuffing Box Construction Utilizing Ctnpression Packings
            for Effecting a Dynamic Seal.   (Source:  FSA 1983).

-------

                         X
                             C.S-
        *
'•
                                                  ring form,  are

-------
               Table  2.   Operating Conditions  and Use Areas  for
                        Various Braided Packing Types
                                           Operating
 Packing Type         Advantages          Conditions*           Use Area


Square Braid       Wide spectrum       High-speed          Pumps and valves
                   sealing ability     rotation            of all types
                                       Low pressure
                                       <600 psi

Braid-Over-Braid   Better sealing      Slow-speed          Valve steins, expan-
                   than conventional   rotation            sion joints
                   square braid        High pressure
                                       >600 psi
                                       Hot liquids

Braid-Over-Core    Better shaft        High pressure       Nuclear power-
                   sealing             Steam applications  plants, when con-
                   More resilient      Low-speed rotation  gealing or
                   Variations in                           crystalizing
                   density                                 liquids are pre-
                                                           sent, turbines and
                                                           values in power-
                                                           plants

Interlocking Braid Denser and more     General service     Reciprocating and
                   stable              High temperature/   centrifugal pumps,
                                       pressure            agitators, valves,
                                                           expansion joints


Source:  FSA 1983, A.W. Chesterton 1982, Klein 1987.

NOTE;  General service temperature for all types of braided packings are in
       the range of 500°F although depending on the use conditions, asbestos
       packings can withstand temperatures between 1200-1500°F.
                                    - 8 -

-------
        •  heat resistance to prevent thermal decomposition of the
           packing due to elevated shaft speeds and high temperature
           fluids;

        •  chemical resistance to prevent deterioration of the packing
           due to contact with caustic and potentially explosive
           fluids;

        •  durability to provide long lasting control of fluid flow;
           and,

        •  low cost (ICF 1986a).

    B.  Producers and Importers of Asbestos Packing

    Table 3 lists the fiber consumption and quantity of packings produced in

1985.  (Raymark Corporation refused to provide production and fiber

consumption data for 1985,  but was a producer in 1981 and so was assumed to

have continued production of asbestos packing.)  The values for domestic

asbestos fiber consumption in the production of asbestos packings and the

total amount of asbestos packings produced have been changed to account for

the output of Raymark Corporation using the methodology described in

Appendix A to this R1A.  The adjusted values are 2.1 tons and 3 tons for fiber

consumption and packings production, respectively (ICF 1986a).

    The secondary processors of asbestos packings in 1983 include:  IMC

Corporation in Houston, Texas and WKM Division of ACF Industries, Inc. in

Missouri City, Texas.  While WKM Division imported its asbestos mixture, FMC

Corporation used domestic supplies in 1985.  These companies received packings

and further processed them in order to meet specifications of their customers

(ICF 1986a).



    Three manufacturers, Johns-Manville Corporation (now Manville Sales

Corporation) in Manville, New Jersey, Rockwell International in Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania, and John-Crane Houdaille (now Crane Packing) in Morton Grove,

Illionois, ceased production of asbestos packings between 1981 and 1985,


                                    - 9 -

-------
        Table  3.   Production  of Asbestos  Packing  and
                 Asbestos  Fiber Consumption
                        1985 Asbestos       1985 Production
                      Fiber Consumption   of Asbestos Packings
     Total                2,1 tons              3 tons
Values for fiber consumption and packing production for Raymark
Corporation have been estimated based on the methodology for
non-respondents described in Appendix A to this RIA.

Sources:  IGF 1986a.
                            -, 10  -

-------
During this time period, estimated domestic production declined 99.7 percent,




from 952.34 to 3 short tons and fiber consumption declined 99.8 percent, from




877.54 to 2.1 short tons (ICF 1986a, IGF 1985, TSCA 1982).




    In 1986, Durametallic Corporation, which accounted for two-third of the




total output for asbestos packings in 1985, ceased processing because of




costly insurance premiums and the possibility of regulatory action




(ICF 1986a).




    D.  Substitutes




    Asbestos-containing packings, the large majority of which are based on




various compositions and configurations of braided yarn, have dominated the




market until very recently.  A typical high performance braided asbestos




packing includes an alloy wire reinforcement, various lubricants, a zinc




powder corrosion inhibitor, and a graphite powder lubricant coating on the




yarn itself (Union Carbide 1987).  In addition, these packings may contain




various binders (e.g., elastomers or resins), fillers (e.g., mica, clay, or




asbestos) and dry lubricants (Monsanto 1987).




    Asbestos fibers have been used to make the braided jackets for packings




because of the favorable qualities that asbestos imparts to products made from




it.  Asbestos-containing packings are ideally suited for high temperature and




pressure, as well as corrosive environments.  Braided asbestos packings show




good acid/fire resistance,  low thermal conductivity, and molten metal




resistance.  Asbestos also withstands fairly high pressures (up to 4500 psi at




room temperature) and exhibits good tensile strength and abrasion resistance




(Klein 1987).   Another property of asbestos packings that has made them m




standard in the packing industry is their good compressibility and recovery




(EPRI 1982).




    The packing industry has been unable to find a single substitute for




asbestos that can reproduce its numerous qualities.  Hence, manufacturers have




                                    -  11  -

-------
been forced to replace the asbestos fiber with a combination of substitute

materials, including cellulose, aramid, FBI, FIFE, glass, and graphite fibers,

The formulations of the substitute products most often include a combination

of more than one type of substitute fiber and fillers in order to reproduce

the properties of asbestos necessary for a particular application.

    Formulation of substitute products is done on an application-by-

application basis by each manufacturer (1CF 1986a) and for the purposes of

this analysis, substitute products will be classified according to the fiber

with the largest percentage in content.  The substitute products can be

grouped into six major categories according to the type of non~asbestos
                0
substitute used:
                              *

        *  Aramid fiber mixtures,

        •  Glass fiber mixtures,

        •  FBI fiber mixtures,

        •  PTFE mixtures,

        •  Graphite mixtures, and

        •  Other fiber mixtures including cellulose, phosphate, and
           ceramic (1CF 1986e, Palmetto Packing 1986, Monsanto 1987).

The current market share for the different substitute formulations has been

estimated as indicated in Table 4.

        1.  Aramid Mixture

        Aramid fibers act as a reinforcing fiber in asbestos free packings and

other materials.  They are not as heat resistant as asbestos (500"F), but are

quite strong and flexible and can withstand mild acids and alkalies (A.W.

Chesterton 1982).  Kevlar(l) and Noniex(R) produced by DuPont Corporation are
     3 The grade or the fiber and style of the packing used (e.g., square
braid, braid-over-braid) determine the pressure rating for all applications.
Any substitute fiber can be formulated into a packing that will meet most
pressure requirements, but temperature and chemical limitations may dictate
the selection of a particular fiber for a particular application.

                                    -  12  -

-------
about twenty tines more expensive than asbestos, by weight, but because they




are less dense and stronger, less is needed for reinforcement purposes.  At




higher temperatures, the fibers physically degrade and thus are not good




replacements for asbestos products for high temperature applications.




    Aramid packings are usually 20 percent aramid fiber, by weight, and 60 to




65 percent filler, while the remaining 20 to 25 percent is binder to keep the




fibers in a matrix.  Typical applications for valves and pumps require a very




strong packing material that will withstand moderate temperatures and




pressures without deteriorating.




    Raymark Corporation, in Stratford, CT, was the only asbestos packing




manufacturer to cite aramid packings as a substitute for asbestos products.




They can be used for general service in most plants (A.W. Chesterton 1983),




Aramid-based products are likely to be 1.5 to 3 times as expensive as the




asbestos products they replace, therefore aramid packings cost between $45.30




and $90.60 per pound.  The price increase is due to production and material




cost increases (ICF 1986a).




    There are no performance disadvantages due to the dilution of the aramid




fiber with mineral fillers and this helps to reduce the price of packings.




The service life is estimated to be the same as the life of the asbestos




product.  Industry estimates indicate that aramid products will capture 20




percent of the total packings market.  The average price for an aramid-based




packing is estimated to be $67.95 per pound  (ICF 1986a, Palmetto Packing




1986).




        2.  Fibrous Glass Mixture_s




        Fibrous glass is generally coated with a binder such as neoprene, 1FE,




or graphite in the manufacturing process to make packings.  Glass fibers are




relatively easy to process into packing materials and are used extensively in




packing materials.




                                    -  13  -

-------
   Table 4.   Estimated Market Share for Substitute  Fibers
            that can Replace Existing Asbestos Products
            in Compression Packings
                     Market Share
Substitute Fiber      (percent)             Reference
Glass
Graphite
Araniids
PBI
PTFE
30
10
30
15
15
Palmetto Packing 1986
Union Carbide
ICF 1986a
ICF 1986a
Union Carbide
1987


1987
NOTE:  The market shares indicated are estimates based on
       communications with industry representatives and are
       likely to change over time.  For example, the share
       of graphite products is likely to increase over the
       next five years.  New products (e.g., phosphate based
       fibers) are likely to penetrate the market to a
       certain extent (Monsanto 1987).
                           -  14 -

-------
    Fibrous glass packings are usually divided into two groups, "E" glasi




packings, and "S" glass packings, depending upon the type of glass fiber used




in the formulation.  "E" glass  is one of the more common glass fibers, and is




often manufactured into a packing which is used as a jacket around a plastic




core of carbon or aramid fibers, and other materials (OGJ 1986).




    "E" glass packings are suitable for applications where the operating




temperature is below lOOO'F,  Above this temperature, the packing loses 50




percent of its tensile strength.  Also, the material can be used with most




fluids except strong caustics.




    The second type of fiber, "S" glass, was developed by NASA and is




recognized as the superior glass fiber in use today (OGJ 1986).  This material




is generally used as a jacket around a core of graphite and other fibers,  The




packing is caustic resistant and can be used in applications with operating




temperatures of 1500°F (OGJ 1986).




    One disadvantage of glass packings is the abrasive nature of the material,




In high shaft-speed applications, the abrasiveness of glass wears down the




shaft stem requiring frequent replacement of the stem. • Glass packings will




capture 30 percent of the total asbestos packing market and will cost twice as




much as the asbestos material.  Thus, the price will be $60.40 per pound




(Palmetto Packing, IGF 1986a).




    John Crane-Houdaille, previously one of the major producers of asbestos




packings, offers an "S"-glass yarn packing replacement that it claims Is




better than the asbestos packings it replaces.  It has a higher temperature




limit, good service life in caustics, steam, oil, liquid petroleum, and




chemicals, a high pressure limit of 7700 psi and will not score valve stems or




other pieces of equipment in which it is used (John-Crane 1987).




        3.  FBI Mixtures




        FBI (polybenzimidazole) is produced by Celanese Engineering.  It has a




                                    -  15 -

-------
useful temperature limit of approximately 1000°F and has high chemical




resistance.  It is designed to be used in high temperature, high pressure




applications, and it is easy to work with because it can be formed into rings




with little difficulty.  The non-asbestos packing costs approximately three




times as much as the asbestos product, making the cost about $90.60 per pound




(ICF 1986a).   The service life is the same as the asbestos product.




    The non-asbestos product has poorer wettability (is less porous), but this




problem can be compensated for in the design of the application.  FBI packings




will capture 15 percent of the total asbestos packing market with a price of




$90.60 per pound (ICF 1986a),




        4.  PTFE Fibers




        Many forms of polytetrafluoroethylene fibers (PTFE) are used as




substitutes for asbestos in packings, but the most popular is Dupont's




Teflon(R) (Palmetto Packing 1986).  PTFE offers chemical resistance to all but




the most powerful oxidizing agents, acids, and alkalies in temperatures




ranging from -450T to 500°F (Chem, Eng, News 1986).  This material has good




dielectric strength and impact resistance.




    PTFE can be used in specialized applications because it has been approved




by the FDA for contact with food and in medical equipment.  In addition, it




does not stain the fluid with which it has contact (Krusell and Cogley 1982)




which makes it ideal for use in paper mill applications (A.W. Chesterton




1982).




    Palmetto Packing representatives cited PTFE, and PTFE and graphite




mixtures as materials they manufacture into packing.  PTFE^ fibers are twenty




times as expensive as asbestos, but ease of handling and durability make the




product only 3,5 times as expensive as the asbestos product.  PTFE packing




material, therefore, costs $105.70 per pound (ICF 1986a),   Industry officials




indicate that PTFE packings will capture 15 percent of the total asbestos




                                    -  16 -

-------
market in the case of an asbestos ban (Palmetto Packing 1986, IGF 1986a),




        5.  Graphite




        Flexible graphite was developed by Union Carbide Corp. about twenty




years ago.  The material is made from natural flake graphite, which is




expanded several hundred times into a light, fluffy material by mixing it with




nitric or sulfuric acid.  It is then calendered into a sheet (without




additives or binders) (Chen. Eng. News 1986).  It can then be processed into




packings by standard techniques.  Other forms of graphite are also available




(e.g., carbonized viscose rayon and other fibrous graphite materials) that




have similar properties.  All graphite materials will be grouped together for




convenience and because their properties are similar.




    Graphite materials are extremely heat resistant and inherently fire-safe




(because it does not contain binders).  Graphite packings are suitable for




applications where the operating temperatures reach 5000*F in non-oxidizing




atmospheres.  In the presence of oxygen, the material is limited to use below




800°F (Chem. Eng. News 1986).  The packing has excellent chemical resistance




with the exception of strong mineral acids.




    Graphite-containing packings are often used in oil refineries and oil




fields because of its high temperature resistance.  Often, in these high




temperature, high pressure applications, a wire insert is added for increased




strength (OGJ 1986).




    Graphite materials are fairly expensive, but the addition of various




fillers helps keep the cost competitive with other substitute materials




(Palmetto Packing 1986).  Graphite packings cost about two times as ouch ms




asbestos packings on a per weight basis and costs are estimated to be $60,40




per pound (Union Carbide 1987).  Industry officials project this substitute's




market share as 10 percent of the total asbestos packing market (Palmetto




Packing 1986, IGF 1986a).




                                    -  17  -

-------
        6.  Other Substitute Fibers

        Other fiber products made from cellulose, phosphate, or ceramic fibers

have very small market shares and are not seen as viable replacement for

asbestos in general service areas at this time.  Ceramic fibers have been used

for packing materials, but do not see widespread use due to their abrasive

nature and brittleness (Union Carbide 1987).  Phosphate fibers may see an

increased market share in the future, but currently are only in developmental

stages^ (Monsanto 1987).   Cellulose fibers occupy a very limited market share

although for applications demanding little in the way of high performance they

can be used (ICF 1986a).

    E, Summary

    It appears that substitutes for asbestos containing packings currently

exist.  These products, however, cost more to produce and may not perform as

well.  Since no across the board substitute fiber exists, manufacturers have

been forced to replace asbestos with a combination of substitute materials,

including graphite, FIFE, glass, aramid, and FBI fibers.  The substitute

materials are a combination of fibers and fillers designed on an application-

by-application basis.  The materials are classified by the fiber with the

highest content.  Table 5 summarizes the characteristics of the asbestos

substitutes.

    The estimation of market shares, prices of the substitute formulations in

the event of an asbestos ban, and data inputs for the Asbestos Regulatory Cost

Model are summarized in Table 6,
     * Although these fibers seem promising there is little industry data on
their performance in field applications.

                                    -  18 -

-------
                                                    Table 5.  Substitutes Cor Asbestos Packing!
        Product
                                    Advantages
                                         Di aadvantagas
                                                                                                       Remarks
                                                                                                                                   References
Aramld
                          Very strong,
                          Tear resistant.
                          High t«nail» strength.
                                 Unabla to handle strongly
                                 acidic or basic fluids.
                                 SOO'F tamperatura limit.
                                 Widely known*
                                      la th« p«p«t laduatry.
                                 ICF 1986a, JCF 19B5
Fibrous Glass
                                sn
-------
                                              Table  6.  Data Input* for Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model
                                                                    (02B)  Packing
Product Asbestos Consumption Equivalent Maekat
Product Output Coofficlent Production Ratio Files Usafal Lifo Fries Stac» S»£«renees

-------
REFERENCES
ASTM.  1982.  Annual Book of ASTM Standards:  Part 32.  Textiles -- Yarns,
Fabrics, and General Test Methods.  American Society for Testing and
Materials.  Philadelphia, PA.

Chemical Engineering.  October 27, 1986.  Asbestos Users Step Up Search for
Substitutes.  McGraw-Hill.

A.W. Chesterton.  1982.  Product Literature on Sealing Devices.

A.W. Chesterton.  1983.  Product Literature on Environmental Packings.

John Crane-Houdaille.  1987.  Production literature on asbestos and
non-asbestos packing materials.

EPRI.  1982.  Valve Stem Packing Improvement Study.  Electric Power Research
Institute.  Boston, MA.  EPRI NP-2560.

FSA.  1983.  Compression Packings Handbook,  Fluid Sealing Association,

GCA Corporation.  1980.  Asbestos Substitute Performance Analysis.   Submitted
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances,
Washington, D.C.  In partial fulfillment of EPA Contract No. 68-02-3168.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington DC:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Packing.  Washington, DC,

Kirk-Othmer.  1981.  Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.  Volume 16.  John
Wiley and Sons.  New York, NY.

Klein, J,  Consultant,  1987 (June 23).  Transcribed telephone conversation
with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington, DC:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract 68-02-3168.

Monsanto Company.  1987.  Product Literature on phosphate fiber based
products.

Oil and Gas Journal.  May 26, 1986,  Refining Technology: Substitute Materials
to Replace Asbestos in Refinery-Service Gaskets and Packings.  PennWell
Publication.  Tulsa, OK.  Pp.47-51.

Palmetto Packing.  S. Matt.  1986 (January 8 and 19).  North Wales, PA.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Linda Carlson, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.


                                    -  21 -

-------
TSCA Section 8(a) submission.  1982.  Production Data for Primary asbestos
Processors,, 1981.  Washington, DC:  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Doc. Control No, 20-8601012.

Union Carbide Corporation.  P. Petrunich.  1987 (March 4).  Cleveland, OH,
Letter with enclosures addressed to Tony Bansal, IGF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.
                                    -  22  -

-------
XXIX.  ROOF COATINGS AND CEMENTS

    A.  Product Description

    Roof coatings and roofing cements together accounted for 90 percent of the

asbestos containing adhesives, sealants, and coatings produced in the United

States in 1985,  Other more specialized asbestos containing compounds used by

the construction, automobile, and aerospace industries accounted for the

remaining 10 percent.  They are discussed separately under the Non-Roofing

Adhesives, Sealants, and Coatings category.

    Roof coatings are cold-applied liquids which may be brushed or sprayed on

roofs or foundations to perform a variety of functions such as waterproofing,

weather resistance, and surface rejuvenation.  Asphalt based,  thinned with

solvents, and bodied with 5 to 10 percent asbestos fiber, roof coatings are

applied to most types of roofs except the typical shingled roof.  Commercial

and industrial structures such as stores, shopping centers, and office and

apartment buildings are common users.  Usually black, these coatings may be

pigmented with aluminum paste to create a silver coating with high heat

reflectance (ICF 1986; Krusell and Cogley 1982).

    Roofing cements are more viscous roof coatings.   Usually consisting of

solvent thinned asphalt and bodied with 15 to 20 percent asbestos, roofing

cements are trowel-applied with the consistency of a soft paste.  Applied to

all types of roofs, they are used to repair and patch roofs,  seal around

projections such as chimneys and vent pipes, and bond horizontal and vertical

surfaces (ICF 1986; Krusell and Cogley 1982).

    Asbestos is used in roofing compounds for its unique combination of

strength, viscosity control, and price.  The important attributes of asbestos

fiber for this application are: (ICF 1986, Krusell and Cogley 1982):

        •  asphalt reinforcement to prevent cracking due to factors such as
           temperature change;


                                    - 1 -

-------
        •  viscosity control for waterproofing since asbestos content
           aids in the application of an even coat without gaps or
           holes;

        •  sag resistance to ensure that the compound remains
           stationary on steep surfaces, and does not melt and run in
           the event of a fire;

        •  maintenance of surface protection since asbestos fiber
           prevents the liquefied asphalt from penetrating the
           resident surface;

        •  asphalt affinity to provide uniform asbestos dispersion
           without bunching or settling of fibers;

        •  weathering resistance to retard oxidation and deterioration
           of the asphalt; and,

        •  low cost.

    Companies that manufacture roof coatings also manufacture roofing cements.

Production is typically a batch process,  Bagged asbestos (usually grade 7

chrysotile) is moved from storage and dumped into a fluffing machine which is

used to separate the fibers that may have been compressed together.  The

fibers are then generally transferred to a batch mixing tank where other

ingredients are mixed until the desired consistency is obtained.  Finally the

mixture is sent for packaging or containerizing, usually into tank trucks and

five gallon metal pails with sealed lids.  In both products asbestos fibers

are thought to be completely encapsulated by other product constituents (ICF

1986; Krusell and Cogley 1982).

    B.  Producers of Roof Coatings and Cements

    In 1985, 31 firms operating 68 plants nationwide produced approximately 76

million gallons  of asbestos containing roof coatings and cements.  These

companies consumed 29.6 thousand tons of fiber accounting for 20.4 percent of
       Four of the 31 companies producing asbestos containing roof coatings
and cements in 1985 refused to provide production and fiber consumption data
for their 10 plants in operation; their production volume and fiber
consumption have been estimated using the method described in Appendix A and
are included in the totals presented here.

                                    - 2 r

-------
                   ry
145.3 thousand tons  of total asbestos consumed in 1985 for all product

categories.  Table 1 lists the total number of plants and the estimated

gallons of coatings and cements produced in 1985.   There are no importers of

these products (IGF 1986).

    Asbestos containing roof coating and cement production was estimated to be

76 million gallons.  At an average price of $2.49/gallon, this market is

estimated to be worth $189.2 million (IGF 1986).

    C. Trends

    The number of asbestos-based roof coating and cement manufacturers

declined steadily from 1981 until 1985.  During those four years 13 companies

(30 percent), formerly producing asbestos containing roofing compounds, either

substituted asbestos with other materials or discontinued their operations.

In 1986, 14 of the 31 companies remaining in 1985, accounting for more than 24

percent of 1985 output, ceased processing asbestos because of rising insurance

premiums, customer pressure to remove asbestos, and the possibility of

regulatory action (1CF 1986).

    D.  Substitutes

    Asbestos is unique among known raw minerals because it is a chemically

inert, durable mineral that can be processed into a fiber.  By partially

adsorbing the asphalt into which it is placed, the fiber becomes an integral

component of the mixture without settling or floating.  The addition of one

pound of asbestos fiber per gallon of thinned asphalt (only 10 percent by

weight) imparts a large degree of body and turns the liquid into a soft paste,

Industry leaders indicate that they have been unable to find a substitute for

asbestos that can simultaneously reproduce the numerous qualities of the
       145.3 thousand tons of asbestos fiber is the ICF total.   The Bureau of
Mines (BOM)  total is 172 thousand tons.  Therefore, asbestos fiber used in
roof coatings and cements (accounted for by ICF) will be 17 percent of the BOM
total.

                                    - 3 -

-------
      Table  1.  Production  of Asbestos Roof  Coatings  and  Cements
Source: IGF 1986
                                                       Gallons Produced
                                   Number of  Plants         (1985)
     TOTAL                                 68             75,977,365

-------
mineral.   Hence,  manufacturers have been forced to replace asbestos with a

combination of substitute materials, including cellulose,  polyethylene, and

ceramic fibers, and clay, talc, wollastonite,  calcium carbonate (limestone)

and silica gel thickeners (ICF 1986; Krusell and Cogley 1982).  The substitute

products can be grouped into three major categories according to the type of

non-asbestos substitute used;

        •  cellulose fiber mixtures,
        •  polyethylene fiber mixtures,  and
        •  other mixtures 
-------
or talc.  The additives ease grinding, prevent fires during processing, and




are normally at least 10 percent "by weight of the final product.  Fiber




lengths vary from 0.02 to 0.5 inch lengths depending on the desired viscosity




and ease in dispersion -- the greater the length of fiber, the greater the




viscosity, yet the harder the dispersion in asphalt (American Fillers &




Abrasives 1986).




    Two of the largest producers of cellulose fibers for roof coatings and




cements are Custom Fibers International of Los Angeles and American Fillers




and Abrasives of Bangor, Michigan,  Custom Fibers International produces




cellulosic fibers for asbestos replacement in coatings and cements.  Their




current total capacity for three plants nationwide is approximately 10,000




tons per year (Custom Fibers International 1986).  Their product, CF-3250Q (R)




fiber, is a 75 percent cellulose fiber which has extremely high oil absorbtion




capabilities and is used as a substitute fiber in asphalt roof coatings and




cements.  It is recommended for improving the viscosity, sag resistance, and




fiber reinforcement of coating compounds to which it is added (Custom Fibers




California 1986).   American Fillers & Abrasives of Bangor, Michigan




manufactures a range of cellulose fiber products, of which the Kayocel KA69Q




(R) is a superfine, rapid dispersing fiber containing 90 percent cellulose and




10 percent calcium carbonate.  According to the manufacturer, Kaocel fibers




can be used to manufacture a stable and uniform roof coating (American Fillers




& Abrasives 1986).




           b,   Cellulose Fibered Roof Coatings and Cements




           Manufacturers of cellulose fibered roof coatings and cements




consider their specific formulations proprietary.  However, producers of




cellulose fibers indicate that their fibers are usually used, in combination




with clay and mineral thickeners, in concentrations of between 1 and 3 percent




for roof coatings, and 3 and 5 percent for roofing cements (American Fillers &




                                    - 6 -

-------
Abrasives 1986; Custom Fibers International 1986).  Custom Fibers suggest a

starting formulation for an asbestos-free roof coating includes the following;

                Asphalt cutback
                Surfactant
                Attapulgite clay
                Talc or calcium carbonate
                CF Fibers 32500 (R)

The CF-32500 (R) cellulose fiber, at increased concentration, can also be used

for asbestos replacement in sn asphalt plastic roof cement in the following

formulation: (Custom Fibers California 1986).

                Asphalt cutback
                Surfactant
                Bentonite clay
                Talc
                CF Fibers 32500

    More than 16 companies currently produce cellulose containing roof

coatings and cements.   Table 2 identifies additional manufacturers of

cellulose containing roofing compounds (1CF 1986),

    Gardner Asphalt produces asbestos free products that contain a proprietary

formulation of cellulose fibers and inorganic thickeners.   According to

company officials,  the formulation costs more to produce and yields an

inferior product.  However, they do indicate that consumers could switch

completely to the substitute formulation if the asbestos product was made

unavailable (Gardner Asphalt 1986).

    Gibson-Homans Corporation of Twinsburg, Ohio, substituted for asbestos in

both their aluminum and standard black roofing products with a mixture of

cellulose fibers, kaolin clays, crushed limestone, sodium silicates and water

in April, 1986.  Initially losing some  of their sales due to adhesion,

-------
Table 2.  Hanufacturers of Cellulose Fibered Roof Coatings and Cements
                Manufacturer
       Location
    American  Lubricants Company
    American  Tar Company
    Asphalt Products Oil Corporation
    Elixir Industries
    Gardner Asphalt
    The Garland Company
    Gibson-Romans  Corporation
    Grundy Industries
    Kool  Seal Incorporated*
    Midwest/Gulf States Incorporated
    National  Varnish Company
    Parr  Incorporated
    Russel Standard Corporation
    Southwestern Petrolexun Corporation
    S.W.  Petro-Chem Incorporated
    Tremco Incorporated
Dayton, Ohio
Seattle,  Washington
Long Beach, California
Elkhart,  Indiana
Tampa, Florida
Cleveland, Ohio
Twinsburg, Ohio
Joliet, Illinois
Twinsburg, Ohio
Chicago,  Illinois
Detroit,  Michigan
Cleveland, Ohio
Atlanta,  Georgia
Fort Worth, Texas
Olathe, Kansas
Cleveland, Ohio
     Source:  ICF 1986
                                 -  8  -

-------
reinforcement, and application problems, company officials indicate that

reformulations with the sane ingredients are expected to retrieve previous

customers by early 1987. "While production costs have increased due to added

material, freight, and maintenance costs, profit margins have been trimmed to

retain the same price charged for previously produced mixtures containing

asbestos (Gibson-Homans 1986).

    Midwest/Gulf States no longer produces asbestos containing products and

agrees that consumers could switch to cellulose containing roofing compounds

if asbestos was banned.  However, prices would probably rise.  Currently,

cellulose containing roof coatings and cements are priced higher than their

previous asbestos containing counterparts (Midwest/Gulf States 1986).

    American Tar Company produces both asbestos and cellulose based roof

coatings.  They indicate that the cellulose containing coating costs more to

produce but is currently priced the same as the asbestos based product

(American Tar Company 1986),

    Although cellulose fiber roof coatings are gaining in popularity,

manufacturers of these products have cited some problems with the production

and result of these cellulose formulations:

         •  the cellulose fibers formulations are difficult to mix
           requiring additional ingredients such as clays and talcs;

         •  the formulations may sag and run on a. steep surfaces;

         •  the formulations may .require additional application time,
           and;

         •  the formulations cost between 2 and 37 percent more to
           produce than asbestos mixtures,

Despite  these problems manufacturers of asbestos containing roof coatings and

cements  recommend cellulose fibered formulations more than any other

non-asbestos mixture (ICF 1986a)„
                                    - 9 -

-------
     Cellulose bodied roof coatings  and cements have been  in production  for




 only six years.  However, both the  producers of cellulose fibers and those




 manufacturers who mix  the fibers  into roofing compounds indicate that




 successful  formulations have so far lasted six years with no  sign  of




 deterioration or sag.  Consequently, they claim that cellulose fibered  roofing




 compounds are likely to have the  same life as asbestos containing  products.




     Cellulose fibered  formulations  in combination with clay and mineral




 thickeners  are estimated to capture 87 percent of the roof coating and  cement




 market as a result of  an asbestos ban (see Attachment A).  Prices  would be




 expected to rise 18.5  percent (see  Attachment B) to $2.95 per gallon due  to




 increased material and production costs  (ICF 1986),




        2 .  Polyethylene Fiber, Jlixtures




            a.  Polyethylene Fibers




            Polyethylene fibers are  strong, durable, high  surface area,  short




 length fibrils that increase viscosity and improve crack  and  slump resistance




 in  all types of coatings and cements,  Hercules of Wilmington, Delaware and




 Minifibers  of Johnson  City, Tennessee are two of the largest  producers  of raw




 polyethylene fibers used by manufacturers of non-asbestos roof coatings and




 cements.  Hercules produces Pulpex  polyolefin pulps at its Deer Park, Texas




 plant.  The capacity of this single plant is approximately 27,500  tons  per




 year,  Pulpex £ (R) (Grades D-H)  is a dry fluff polyethylene  pulp  that  is an




 effective replacement  for asbestos  in roof coatings and cements formulated




 with thickening clays  (Hercules 1983).   Minifibers' Short Stuff (1) are high




 density, highly branched polyethylene fibers.  These fibers also increase




 viscosity and impart significant  crack resistance.  Minifibers' current output




 is  approximately 4,000 tons per year, although they indicate  the potential to




-quadruple this output  within 180  days (Minifibers 1986a).
                                    - 10

-------
           b.  Polyethylene Fibered Roof CoatinEs and Cements

           While roof coatings and cements manufacturers consider their

asbestos free formulations proprietary, Hercules and Minifibers, suppliers of

these fibers, indicate that polyethylene fibers are used in concentrations of

between 1 and 3 percent and in conjunction with clays and other fillers

(Minifibers 1986b; Hercules 1983).

    According to Hercules, a possible starting formulation for an asbestos-

free roof coating includes:

              Asphalt cutback (65% solids)
              Surfactant
              Attapulgite clay
              Talc
              Pulpex E (R) (D-H)

(Hercules 1983).  Minifibers recommends a slightly different formulation for

an asbestos-free roof coating containing;

              Asphalt cutback (65% solids)
              Bentonite clay
              Rubber (30 aesh)
              Calcium carbonate
              Mineral Spirits
              Short Stuff (R) Polyethylene

(Minifibers 1986b).  Pulpex E (R) (D-H) is recommended at increased levels as

a replacement fiber in an asphalt roofing cement formulation containing the

following:

              Asphalt cutback (65% solids)
              Surfactant
              Attapulgite clay
              Talc
              Pulpex E 
-------
equivalent basis, they are favored by manufacturers of aluminum roof coatings,

Unlike cellulose fibers, polyethylene fibers do not contain water which can

react with aluminum, forming a dangerous hydrogen gas, eventually resulting in

the lids of containers blowing after only six months of storage (Missouri

Paint & Varnish 1986),  To guarantee a long shelf life many manufacturers of

aluminum roof coatings such as Missouri Paint & Varnish and Columbia Paint

Corporation use polyethylene fiber formulations (ICF 1986).  Table 3

identifies some of the numerous manufacturers of polyethylene fibered roof

coatings and cements.

    Missouri Paint & Varnish has discontinued asbestos processing completely

in 1986 and substituted it with polyethylene fibers in combination with clay

and talc fillers.  They estimate that aluminum roof coatings with polyethylene

fibers cost one-third more to produce than asbestos bearing counterparts

(Missouri Paint & Varnish 1986),  Columbia Paint Corporation estimates that

the prices of the roof coatings and cements have increased over 25 percent as

a result of their decision to reformulate their asbestos containing products

with polyethylene fibers (Columbia Paint 1986).

    Manufacturers of non-asbestos roof coatings and cements whose formulations

include polyethylene fibers have indicated some problems producing the

formulations.

        •  The polyethylene fiber formulations are difficult to mix
           requiring other ingredients such as clay and talc;

        •  The formulations are not as strong due to the reduced
           tensile strength of the fibers;

        •  The formulations cost more to produce;  and,

        •  Their long term performance is still unknown since their
           life on the market has been relatively short --5 yrs.

Many current and former asbestos processors have encountered difficulties in

replacing asbestos formulations with polyethylene formulations in some roofing


                                 .   -  12  -

-------
       Table 3.  Manufacturers of Polyethylene Fibered
                  Roof Coatings and Cements
          Manufacturer                       Location
Columbia Paint Corporation           Huntington, West Virginia
Missouri Paint & Varnish Company     St. Louis, Missouri
Parr Incorporated                    Cleveland, Ohio
Russel Standard Corporation          Bridgeville, Penn.
Sampson Coatings Incorporated        Richmond, Virginia
S.W. Petro-Chem Incorporated         Olathe, Kansas
Texas Refinery Corporation           Fort Worth, Texas
Tremco Incorporated                  Cleveland, Ohio
Source: ICF 1986.
                            -  13  -

-------
compounds.  These formulations have, however, been successful in replacing

asbestos in aluminum roof coatings,   As more manufacturers of aluminum roof

coatings decide to replace asbestos (either due to increased insurance costs

or fear of government regulation), the use of polyethylene formulations is

expected to increase (ICF 1986).

    Polyethylene fibers in combination with clay and mineral thickeners are

estimated to account for 15 percent of the roof coatings and cements market as

a results of a ban on asbestos (see Attachment A).   Manufacturers of aluminum

roof coatings are expected to be the largest producers of these formulations.

Prices of roof coatings and cements bodied with polyethylene fibers would

possibly rise 35 percent (see Attachment B) to $3.36 per gallon reflecting the

increased material and production costs (ICF 1986).

        3.  Other Mixtures

           a.  Clays. Mineral Fillers. Silica Gelstand Ceramic Fibers

           Clays, such as attapulgite, bentonite, and kaolin, are all

excellent thixo tropes,-*  However, they make poor reinforcers and hence, are

usually used in combination with substitutes such as cellulose and

polyethylene fibers to produce a desired viscosity in asbestos-free roof

coatings and cements.  Clay thickeners are used at levels ranging from 2 to 8

percent, by weight, and are almost always used with surfactants  (Engelhard,

n.d,)-  Engelhard Corporation of Menlo Park, New Jersey and Floridin Company
     •{
       Thixotropy is the property exhibited by certain gels that causes a
mixture to liquefy when stirred and reharden when left stationary.  The
gelling or thixotropic characteristics of these clay additives impart high
viscosity at low shear rates which helps in maintaining mix uniformity during
processing, packaging, and application; and low viscosity at high shear rates
making application easier (Floridin 1986).

     ^ Surfactants,  such as cationic quarternarium salts,  are required to
modify the surface charge of the attapulgite thickener aiding optimal  wetting
and dispersion of the clay in the asphalt (Engelhard n.d.).


                                    -  14  -

-------
of Berkeley Springs, West Virginia are the major producers of clay thickeners




used by manufacturers of non-asbestos roof coatings and cements.




    Engelhard produces Attagel 36 (R), a low cost thixotrope used frequently




by manufacturers of rion-asbestos roof coatings and cements.  Derived from




attapulgite clay, the thickener provides thixotropic properties in asphalt




coatings and cements superior to asbestos.  According to Engelhard, roof




coatings and cements exhibit better sag resistance, easier application, and




better spraying characteristics than comparable asbestos containing




formulations (Engelhard n.d.).  Min-U-Gel AR (R),  is a similar attapulgite




based gelling product manufactured by Floridin Company, Designed for




thickening asphalt based coatings and cements, the product delivers superior




stability, application, and sag resistance to roofing products than asbestos




according to Floridin (Floridin 1986).  Southern Clay Products' Claytone 34




(R), and NL Chemicals' Bentone 34 (R), both processed from bentonite clay, are




more expensive thixotropes used in asbestos-free roof coatings and cements




(ICF 1986).




    Mineral fillers such as talc, wollastonite,  and limestone are not




thixotropes, but act as inexpensive thickeners.   They do not have strong




reinforcing characteristics and are usually used,  at concentrations ranging




from 10 to 25 percent, in combination with cellulose and polyethylene fibers




to replace asbestos (ICF 1986; American Fillers & Abrasives 1986; Hercules




1983).




    Silica gels, such as Cab-o-Sil (R) fumed silica, are good thixotropes,




providing the necessary viscosity control in asphalt compounds.  However, the




gels do not possess the reinforcing capability of either asbestos or




substitute fibers (Cabot 1986).




    Ceramic fibers are used to increase viscosity and provide asphalt




reinforcement.




                                    -  15  -

-------
           b.  Other Roof .Coatings.. and Cements




           Only three companies are currently producing substitute roof




coatings and cements that do not contain cellulose or polyethylene fibers,




Coopers Creek Chemical Corporation,  a small manufacturer of asbestos




containing roof coatings in 1985, has completely replaced asbestos with




attapulgite clay in 1986.  They indicate that the performance of the coating




is comparable to the previous asbestos based one,  but that the formulation is




slightly more expensive to produce (Coopers Creek Chemical 1986).   Silica has




replaced asbestos in all roof coatings and cements produced by Douglas




Chemical of Richmond, Virginia (Douglas Chemical 1986),  B.F. Goodrich, Akron,




Ohio, indicated that ceramic fibers have been used to formulate an asbestos-




free counterpart to their asbestos roof coating.  Company officials reported




that the mixture costs 5 percent more to produce (B.F. Goodrich 1986).  No




manufacturers are currently producing roof coatings and cements solely with




mineral fillers (ICF 1986).




    Formulations not containing either cellulose or polyethylene fibers, but




rather clay thickeners, mineral fillers, silica gels, and ceramic fibers are




estimated to have only 7 percent of the market resulting from an asbestos ban




(see Attachment A),  Prices of these compounds could rise perhaps 21.5 percent




(see Attachment B) to $3.03 per gallon (ICF 1986).




    E.  Summary




    It appears that substitutes for asbestos containing roof coatings and




cements currently exist.  However, these products cost more to produce and may




not perform as well.  Asbestos is unique among known raw minerals because of




its combination of strength, viscosity control, and price.  Since no across




the board substitute fiber exists for the mineral, manufacturers have been




forced to replace asbestos with a combination of substitute materials,
                                      16

-------
including cellulose, polyethylene, and ceramic fibers, and clay, talc,




wollastonite,  calcium carbonate, and silica gel thickeners.




    The estimation of market shares and prices of the substitute fomulmtions




in the event of an asbestos ban relies to a large degree upon educated




judgments of industry experts.  Table 4 summarizes the findings of this




analysis, and presents the data for the Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model.




    If asbestos was made unavailable, perhaps 87 percent (see Attachment A) of




the asbestos containing roofing compounds market would be taken by




formulations containing cellulose fibers in combination with clay and mineral




thickeners.  Identified most often by current and former asbestos processors




and Gardner Asphalt, a company with a large share of asbestos containing




roofing products market, this replacement fiber is cheaper than polyethylene




fiber and seems to perform adequately in reinforcement.   Prices would be




expected to rise 18.5 percent (see Attachment B) to $2.95 per gallon due to




increased costs of production (ICF 1986).  Formulations containing




polyethylene fibers, in conjunction with clay and mineral thickeners, are




estimated to account for 8 percent of the asbestos-based roofing compounds




(see Attachment A).  These fibers costing 3 or 4 times more than cellulose on




an equivalent basis tended to be favored by manufacturers of aluminum roof




coatings.  Prices of formulations bodied with polyethylene fibers would likely




rise 35 percent (see Attachment &) to $3.36 per gallon due to increased costs




(ICF 1986).  The remaining 5 percent would be divided between other




formulations containing clays, mineral fillers, silica gels,  and ceramic




fibers (see Attachment A).  Prices of these compounds could be expected to




rise 21.5 percent (see Attachment B) to $3.03 per gallon (ICF 1986),
                                    -  17  -

-------
                                                     4.   Data  Inputs  for  Asbestos R«gul*toxy Cost Kod*l
Product
Asbestos Mixture
Cellulose fiber Mixture
Polyethylene Fiber Mixture
Other Mixtures
Output
75,977,365
H/A
H/A
H/A
Product
AsbastoH Coefficient
0.00039 totis/gal
H/A
H/A
H/A
Consumption
Production Satio
1.0
H/A
H/A
H/A
Price Ustful Lit* Equivalent Pric«
SZ.49/gal 10 year* S2.«/gal
82.95/gai 10 years S2.95/gal
83,36/gal 10 years 93.36/gal
$3.03/gal 10 years S3.03/gal
Harkst
Share
H/A
07.421
7.62S
4.951
ReEaEance
ICF 1986*
ICF 1986"
ICF 1966a
ICF 19B6a
N/A:  Hot Applicable,




*3s9 Appendix A and B.




 Include! cloy, silled, aid csrwnic fiber mixtures.

-------
                                                 ATTAOttEHT A

        PROJECTED MAKKET SHARES ANALYSIS BASED OH 1985 HCOOCIItM OF              CnAUHGS ABO CMEH«
  Substitute
Fiber/M»t»ei«l
     Manufacturer(a)
  Production Hhleh Mould
Likely Switch to Substitute
             Metket 8h«*
(ntibLoLal/Grmit total X 100)
 Cellulose
 Polyethylene
 Other
                                     IK)
American Lubricants
American Tar
Asphalt Products
Elixir (Elkh.rt.,
Gardner Asphalt
Gibson-Horoana
Brandy
Kool Seal
MidMBst-Gult
Rational VjmUh
Fort, Inc.
      a
StmthM**t«rn Patrol nun
S.H. Fjtioohnnlcal
Tramco

     Subtotal 1

Colunbla Faint
Koch Asphalt
MiaBourl Faint and Varnish
Parr, Inc.
Ru.ael
Scha«f*r Hanufactuzlng
S.H. F»ttoeh«olcaL
franco

     Subtotal 2

8.F. Goodrich
Coop»r« Ccaak Chnnloal
EMiit (O.rd.n., CA)
t«xc, Inc.
                         Subtotal 3
                    TE
                                                           M,082,* 88
                                                            3,844.178
                                                            2,498,318
                                                                                               4.fl51
                         Orand total
                                                                                             100.001
       eo«np«ni«» indicated tliaj uia all thr«« »ob»tltut« nat*rl*l> dsjumdinj upon th« product.   Foe th» purpos«
of this aiuil;*!*, M* hav* divided th*ir production wjiially b«t«»«n th» tlir*« lobttitutss.
 This company indicated that it uata calluloa* and poly»thyl«n» a» * aubstitut* nat«rlal dopendlng upon fch*
product.  Foe th* purposes of this analysis, wa have divided thsir production «qual.l7 t»t,M*m the two
substitutes .

-------
                                             ATTAOWEKT B

               PROJECTED PRICES ANALYSIS BASED OH AVAILABLE HUGE OnrEREHIIAt8
                  ASBESTOS CONTAINING AND NON-ASBESTOS ROOFING COATINGS AND CBCMTS
  Substitute
Fiber/Material
                      Hanufacturar(•)
Production
  <19851
File* Incrtms
      (I)
    Av«r«g«
Erie* Incr*as*
      (I)
  Cellulose
                 AIM ri can Lubricant!
                 American Tat
                 Asphalt Product*
                 Gardner Aaphalt
                 Glbxoir Huouuim
                 Grundy
                 tool Sa*l
                 Hldwa«t-Gulf Stat.a
                 National Varnish

                      Subtotal 1
                                              40,732,632
                                        18.5
  Poly.thyl«n»   ColmbU P«tnt and Oil
                 Miamourl P«lnt and V«mi»h   	

                      Subtotal 2                 256,000
                                        35.0
  Othsr          B.F. Goodrich
                 Coop«ra Cr««k ChxulciL
                 Elixir (Oaxdtna, CA)

                      Subtotal 3
                                                 SIS,000
 Many m«nuf»ctur«r» cutt*ntly prie« non-»b»stot fortmlatloni th« inn* «• m»b«ito* contmlnlni
aixturu.  Far th« purpoo* of tills analymi*. w* h«v» inserted ttim incr««i« coit ef production
when n*c*>»Biy.
b
 Th* «v»r«g« price Increaie Mai d«tertnln»d by ealeul*tln§ « weighted averege of individual price
increase* of nao-aabaatai over a»b«stoi conteining roof coating* and cetnenti uaitig 1985 iu>betto>
containing production levels.

-------
REFERENCES
American Fillers & Abrasives Inc.  E Neckerman.  1986 (October 30),  Banger,
MI.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

American Tar Co.  D. Distler.  1986 (July-December),  Seattle, WA.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and Peter Tzanetos,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

B,F. Goodrich Co.  R. Hefner.  1986(July-December). Akron, OH.  Transcribed
telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and Peter Tzanetos, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Cabot Corp.  S. Jesseph.  1986 (October 28).  Tuscola, IL.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Jeremy Obaditch, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC,

Columbia Paint Corp.  R. Flowers.  1986 (July-December).  Huntington, WV.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and Rick Hollander,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Coopers Creek Chemical Co.  A. Morris,  1986 (July-December).  West
Conshohocken, PA.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Rick Hollander,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Custom Fibers California.  1986.   Product Literature. Asbestos Replacement
Fibers for Industry.  Benecia, CA,

Custom Fibers International.  Representative.  1986 (November 3).  Los
Angeles, CA.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Jeremy Obaditch, ICF
Incorporated,  Washington, DC.

Douglas Chemical Company Inc.  M. Clarke.  1986 (July-December).  Richmond,
VA.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Rick Hollander, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, DC,

Engelhard Corporation,  (n.d.).  Product Literature.  Attagel(R)-36 Asphalt
Thickener For Use In Cutback Coatings.  Menlo Park, NJ.

Floridin Company.  1986.  Product Literature.  Min-U-Gel(R) AR - A Specialty
Attapulgite Thickener For Asphalt Cutbacks.   Berkeley Springs, WV.

Gardner Asphalt Corp.  A. Perry.   1986(July-December).  Tampa, FL.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Eric Crabtree and Jeremy Obaditch,
ICF Incorporated, Washington DC.

Gibson-Homans Corp.   J. Slovski.   1986(July-December).  Twinsburg, OH.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Eric Crabtree and Jeremy Obaditch,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Hercules Inc.  1983 (April 11).  Wilmington, DE.   Letter to C Carter, General
Services Administration, Office of Federal Supply and Services,  Washington,
DC.
                                    -  21  -

-------
IGF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Roof Coatings and Cements.  Washington, DC.

Krusell N, Cogley 3).  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis.  Revised Final Report.  Washington, DC: Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract No,
68-02-3168.

Midwest/Gulf States Inc.  B. Reed.  1986(July-December).  Chicago, IL.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Michael Geschwind, IGF Incorporated,
Washington, DC,

Minifibers Inc.  R, Lawson.  1986a (November 3).  Johnson City, IN.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Jeremy Obaditch, IGF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Minifibers Inc.  1986b.  Product Literature.  Minifibers.  Johnson City, TH.

Missouri Paint & Varnish,  A. Gross.  1986 (July-December).  St. Louis, MO.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Michael Geschwind and Jeremy
Obaditch, IGF Incorporated, Washington, DC.
                                    -  22  -

-------
XXX.  NON-ROOFING ADHESIVES.  SEALANTS. AND COATINGS

    A.  Product Description

    Asbestos containing non-roof ing-'- adhesives, sealants, and coatings are

used primarily in the building construction, automobile, and aerospace

industries.  These products are in most cases specialty products that are

manufactured for specific applications.

    The construction industry is one of the largest consumers of asbestos

containing adhesives, sealants, and coatings.  These include:

        •  Adhesives and cements, generally containing 1 to 5 percent
           asbestos, manufactured to bond a variety of surfaces such
           as brick, lumber,  mirror, and glass,

        •  Liquid sealants, containing 1 to 5 percent asbestos, used
           for waterproofing and sound deadening interior walls.

        •  Semi-liquid glazing, caulking, and patching compounds,
           containing 5 to 25 percent asbestos, applied with a
           caulking gun or putty knife,  to seal around glass in
           windows, joints in metal ducts, and bricks adjacent to
           other surfaces,

        •  Asphalt based coatings, containing 5 to 10 percent
           asbestos, produced to prevent the decay of underground
           pipes, and corrosion of structural steel in high humidity
           environments,  such as paper mills.

Asbestos is used as a filler because it has a low price, high strength

characteristics, fibrous network that prevents sagging in application, and

excellent viscosity control (ICF 1986a;  Krusell and Cogley 1982).

    The automobile industry historically used asbestos in a wide variety of

adhesive, sealant, and coating applications.  However, the industry has been

able to find effective substitutes for most of the general uses, and the

remaining uses of asbestos are limited to specialized products such as;
     •*• Since roof coatings and cements account for 90 percent of all asbestos
containing adhesives, sealants and coatings compounds in 1985 (ICF 1986a),
these products are discussed separately under the Roof Coatings and Cements
category in Chapter XXIX (ICF 1986a),

                                    -  1 -

-------
        •  Epoxy adhesives, containing 5 percent asbestos, used for
           specialized bonding, such as hood braces.

        •  Butyl rubber and vinyl sealants containing 2 to 5 percent
           asbestos, applied over welds for corrosion protection and
           aesthetic purposes,

        •  Vehicle undercoatings to prevent corrosion and excessive
           road noise.

Asbestos content in these compounds provides the necessary viscosity control,

corrosion resistance, and sound deadening characteristics (ICF 1986a).

    The aerospace industry uses asbestos in extremely specialized applications

such as firewall sealants and epoxy adhesives.  Asbestos content varies

between 5 and 20 percent depending upon use and military specification.  The

excellent heat resistant characteristics of the•fiber make it a useful filler

in these high temperature adhesives, sealants, and coatings (ICF 1986a),

    Traditional asbestos-containing products such as texture paints* and block

             "•t
filler paints  no longer contain the fiber.  In many cases this is the result

of the 1977 Consumer Product Safety Commission ban* on consumer patching

compounds containing respirable freeform asbestos.  Many of the same companies

that were manufacturing patching compounds were also producing asbestos

containing paints.  Faced with the prospect of removing asbestos from one

product line, they decided to remove asbestos from all products, as far as

feasible, because of the potential liability involved in placing an asbestos

containing product in the consumer marketplace (NPCA 1986; ICF 1986a; Krusell

and Cogley 1982).
     *• Texture paints are heavily bodied paints which can be patterned or
textured to simulate a stucco surface on interior ceilings and walls  for
aesthetic design.

     ' Block filler paints are used to coat masonry and other stone surfaces.

     ^ Consumer Product Safety Commission.   Title 16, Chapter IV, Part 1304,
Ban of Consumer Patching Compounds Containing Respirable Freeform Asbestos.

-------
    Adhesives, sealants, and coatings are all manufactured by essentially

similar processes.  There may be one or more production lines, each dedicated

to a specific product for the length of time necessary to produce the required

inventory of that product.  Production is normally a batch process.  Bagged

asbestos is moved from storage and dumped into a fluffing 'machine that is used

to separate the fibers that may be compressed together.  The fibers are then

generally transferred to a batch mixing tank and combined with other dry

ingredients such as pigments, fillers, and stabilizers.  Solvents or resins

are added and all the ingredients are mixed until even dispersion is obtained,

The batch is then sent to a packaging operation where the mixture may be

placed in 5 or 55 gallon metal pails with lids,  or in smaller containers and

tubes,   Batch sizes vary from a few gallons to several thousand gallons

depending on the size and number of production lines, the order or inventory

size necessary to satisfy projected sales, the type of the product, and the

packaging method (ICF 1986a; Krusell and Cogley 1982).

    B.   Manufacturers of Non-Roofing Adhesives.  Sealants. and Coatings

    In 1985,  51 companies operating 66 plants nationwide produced

approximately 9.6 million gallons  of asbestos containing non-roofing

adhesives, sealants and coatings.  These companies consumed 2,951 tons of

fiber (less than 2 percent of the 145,300 tons of total asbestos consumed in

1985 for all product applications).

    The percentage of fiber consumed per unit output varied considerably

because almost every company manufactured a different product.  Table 1
     ^ Four of the 51 companies producing asbestos containing non-roofing
adhesives, sealants, and coatings in 1985 refused to provide production and
fiber consumption data for their 13 plants in operation. Their production
volume and fiber consumption have been estimated using the method described in
Appendix A and are included in the totals listed above.

                                    - 3 -

-------
      Table 1.  Production of Asbestos Non-Roofing Compounds
                             Tons Fiber Consumed   Gallons Produced
                                   (1985)                (1985)
     Total                         2,951.4             9,612,655
Source:   IGF 1986a.

-------
lists the tons of fiber consumed and the total gallons produced in 1985 (ICF




1986a).




    Non-roofing asbestos containing adhesives, sealants, and coatings




production  was estimated to be 9.6 million gallons.   At an average price of




$13.90/gallon, this market is estimated to be worth $133.6' million.  Wiile




actual prices varied greatly from a low of $1.90 to a high of $3,824, 80




percent of the products were priced at less than $30 per gallon (ICF 1986a).




    C.  Trends




    The number of asbestos-based non-roofing adhesives, sealants,  and coatings




manufacturers declined steadily from 1981 until 1985.   During those four years




28 companies (35 percent), fomerly producing asbestos containing compounds,




either substituted asbestos with other materials or discontinued their




operation.  By the end of 1986, 21 of the 51 companies that processed asbestos




in 1985 had ceased processing asbestos because of rising insurance premiums,




customer pressure to remove asbestos, and the possibility of regulatory




action.  These companies, while only accounting for 15 percent of output, were




some of the largest consumers of asbestos (accounting for 29 percent of fiber




consumption in 1985) (ICF 1986a),




    D.  Substitutes




    Asbestos is unique among known raw minerals because it is a. chemically




inert, durable mineral that can be processed into a fiber.  The fibrous




quality of this mineral delivers both strength and viscosity control to a




liquid or semi-liquid medium.  The strong fibrous network and adsorption




ability of asbestos binds the mixture together preventing a compound from
                                    - 5 -

-------
running or sagging in application.  Asbestos also imparts thixotropic

properties causing a mixture to gel.  No one substitute has been found to

simultaneously duplicate the unique characteristics of asbestos.  Hence,

manufacturers attempting substitution have been forced to replace asbestos

with a combination of substitute fibers and fillers.  Fibers such as

polyolefin, aramid, cellulose, processed mineral, glass, carbon, and phosphate

have been used to provide reinforcement and sag resistance.  Fillers, such as

clay, talc, wollastonite, mica, calcium carbonate (limestone), and silica gels

have been used to provide viscosity control.

    Since non-roofing mixtures containing asbestos are produced for numerous

specialty applications, the current market share of non-asbestos substitutes

is unknown.  Our attempt to project the market shares in the event of an

asbestos ban relies more on informed judgement of industry experts rather than

hard numbers.  Nevertheless, it is evident from the survey, that the market

share of asbestos-free formulations is increasing rapidly as more and more

companies replace asbestos in their formulations.

    Manufacturers use a trial and error procedure to arrive at an adequate

substitute formulation for their product.  Hence, it is impossible to project

the possible substitute formulations at this stage when industry is still

struggling to find adequate substitutes.  This analysis attempts to classify
      1
the likely substitute formulations by separating them into two categories

according to the dominant type of non-asbestos material used:

        •  fiber mixtures,  and
        •  non-fiber mixtures (IGF 1986a).
     ° Thixotropy is the property exhibited by certain gels which causes
mixture to liquefy when stirred and reharden when left stationary.  Asbestos,
as a thixotrope, imparts high viscosity at low shear rates helping to maintain
mix uniformity during processing, packaging and storage; and low viscosity at
high shear rates making application easier.

                                    - 6 -

-------
    The description of each substitute mixture is divided into two parts: a




description of the substitute fiber(s) or material(s) replacing asbestos




(section a),  and a description of the actual formulations (and manufacturers)




of non-asbestos adhesives, sealants and coatings (section b).




        1.  Fiber Mixtures




           a.  Synthetic. Cellulose, and Other Fibers




           Synthetic fibers, such as polypropylene and polyethylene, aramid,




and polyester fibers have all been used to increase viscosity and lend




strength and sag resistance to sealant and coating compounds so that they




remain stationary on vertical surfaces and do not melt or run as a result of




heat.  They are frequently used in conjunction with fillers such as talc and




clay in amounts one-tenth that of asbestos (Hercules 1983; DuPont 1986).




Hercules and DuPont of Wilmington, Delaware and Minifibers of Johnson City,




Tennessee are three of the largest manufacturers of synthetic fibers used by




manufacturers of asbestos-free non-roofing adhesives, sealants, and coatings.




    Hercules' Pulpex (R) polyolefin pulps are high surface area, short length




fibrils that increase viscosity and improve crack and slump resistance in many




types of applications (Hercules 1983).  Minifibers' Short Stuff (R) fibers are




similar high density, highly branched polyethylene fibers that increase




viscosity and impart significant crack resistance.  Used at levels between 1




and 2 percent, by weight, in conjunction with talc and thickening clays, these




fibers are frequently used substitutes for asbestos in various adhesives,




sealants, and coatings formulations (Minifibers 1986).  DuPont's Kevlar (R)




aramid pulp is finding increased usage as an effective replacement for




asbestos in a number of different applications.  In tire sealants and oil well




seals, Kevlar provides the necessary viscosity control at concentrations of




about 1 percent.  DuPont also indicates that Kevlar(R) pulp has been specified

-------
for use in 5 rocket programs with others currently under review (Dupont,




1986).




    Cellulose fibers are another popular substitute fiber.  These high liquid




absorbing fibers, milled from recycled and unused newsprint provide viscosity




control, sag resistance, and fiber reinforcement.  Cellulose fibers are ofcen




used at concentrations of about 3 to 5 percent, in conjunction with thickening




clays and talcs (American Fillers & Abrasives 1986).   American Fillers &




Abrasives of Bangor, Michigan, Custom Fibers International of Los Angeles,  and




James River Corporation of Haekensack, New Jersey all produce cellulose fibers




for asbestos replacement in non-roofing adhesives, sealants, and coatings.




    Other fibers such as fiberglass, ceramic, carbon, phosphate and processed




mineral have also been used to replace asbestos in products where strength,




sag, heat, and fire resistance are needed.




           b.  Substitute Fibrous Adhesives. Sealants, and Coatings




           More than 23 companies currently produce non-asbestos substitutes




for their currently or previously produced asbestos containing products using




polyolefin, polyester, araoid, cellulose, processed mineral, glass, ceramic,




carbon or phosphate fibers.




    The major manufacturers of non-roofing compounds that substitute some or




all of their asbestos with these fibers are Mameco International, Palmer




Products, Pecora, Gibson-Homans, and Flamemaster.  Table 2 identifies




additional manufacturers of non-asbestos fibered compounds (IGF 1986a),




    Mameco International, a manufacturer of specialty caulking compounds,




indicated that substituting asbestos has been extremely difficult.  None of




the substitute fibers both adsorb and absorb the semi-liquid medium used in




their formulations.  As a result, sagging has occurred after a period of time




on hot surfaces.  Polyethylene fibers are currently being used in substitute
                                    - 8 -

-------
Table 2.  Manufacturers of Substitute Fibered Non-Roofing Compounds
             Manufacturer
        Location
 Bacon Industries Inc. of California
 Chemseco Incorporated
 Cobitco Incorporated
 Dolphin Paint & Chemical Company
 Flamemaster Corporation
 Frost Paint & Oil Corporation
 The Garland Company
 Gibson-Romans Corporation
 H.B. Egan Manufacturing Company
 Hercules Incorporated
 Industrial Gasket & Shim Company
 Intercostal Division
 J.C. Dolph Company
 Kent Industries
 Maintenance Incorporated
 Mameco International
 Palmer Products Corporation
 Pecora Corporation
 Pfizer Incorporated
 Products Research & Chemicals Corp.
 Protective Treatments Incorporated
 Russel Standard Corporation
 Sterling-Clark-Lurton Corp.
Irvine,  California
Kansas City, Missouri
Denver,  Colorado
Toledo,  Ohio
Sun Valley, California
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Cleveland, Ohio
Ennis,  Texas
Miiskogee,  Oklahoma
McGregor,  Texas
Meadowlands, Pennsylvania
Union City, California
Moranouth Junction, NJ
Fort Worth, Texas
Wooster, Massachusetts
Cleveland, Ohio
Louisville, Kentucky
Harleysville, PA
Easton,  Pennsylvania
Glendale,  California
Dayton,  Ohio
Atlanta, Georgia
Maiden,  Massachusetts
 Source: IGF 1986a.
                               -  9 -

-------
products which are clearly inferior, according to company officials, but which




cost only fractionally more to produce (Mameco International 1986).




    Palmer Products hopes to discontinue asbestos processing in 1987.




Currently, they produce an asbestos-free formulation of their popular mirror




and structural glass adhesive using a combination of Kevlar (R) and cellulose




fibers.  Company officials report that the asbestos-free formulation costs no




more to produce and that consumers could switch completely to the substitute




formulation with no loss in performance if the asbestos product were made




unavailable (Palmer Products 1986).




    Pecora Corporation produces both asbestos and cellulose fibered industrial




glazing putties.  Currently,.the cellulose putties are priced above the




asbestos containing products.  Pecora indicated that since their substitute




product has been on the market for only one year, they are unsure, at this




time, whether consumers could completely switch to the asbestos-free




formulations if the asbestos product were made unavailable.  However, they




expect accelerated testing results to reveal a comparable service life for the




non-asbestos compounds (Pecora 1986).




    Gibson-Romans recently replaced asbestos in their sewer joint compound




with a combination of cellulose fibers, kaolin clay, crushed limestone, sodium




silicates and water.  Company officials indicated that the reformulated




compound had no shortcomings in performance and that its introduction did not




result in any lost sales.  However,  company officials indicated that the new




formulation costs more to produce.  As a result, profit margins have been




trimmed to retain the same price charged for the previously produced mixtures




containing asbestos (Gibson-Homans 1986).




    Flamemaster has replaced 70 percent of their asbestos containing high




temperature military coatings in 1985.  The coatings are applied to ground




support vehicles to shield heat from missile firings.  Asbestos has so far




                                    -  10  -

-------
been substituted with carbon fibers.  The remaining asbestos is expected to be

replaced with phosphate fiber pending military specification testing, mud

clearance (Flamemaster 1986).

    Although non-asbestos fibered compounds are rapidly replacing the

remaining specialty formulations that still contain asbestos, manufacturers

have encountered several difficulties:

        •  The formulations are difficult to mix and require
           additional ingredients such as clays and talc.

        •  The formulations may sag or run in application.

        •  The formulations lack corrosion and fire resistance
           requiring additional chemical additives,

        •  The formulations may dry too quickly because the synthetic
           fibers do not absorb water.

        •  The formulations cost from 1 to 42 percent more to product
           (1CF 1986a).

Regardless of these problems, manufacturers of asbestos containing non-roofing

compounds recommend these fibered formulations more than any other substitute

material for asbestos containing adhesives, sealants, and coatings (IGF

1986a).

    Formulations containing synthetic, cellulose, and other various fibers, in

combination with thickening clays and talcs,  are estimated to capture 70

percent of the non-roofing adhesives, sealants, and coatings market as a

result of an asbestos ban (see Attachment A).  Prices would be expected to be

8,9 percent (see Attachment B) higher than the existing price of asbestos

containing products. This increase, reflecting added material and production

costs, would result in an estimated average price of §15.14 per gallon for the

substitutes (ICF 1986a).
                                    -  11  -

-------
        2.  Clav and Mineral Filler Mixtures

           a.  Clays. Silica Gels and Other Fillers

           While clay, talc, and calcium carbonate are being used in

combination with various non-asbestos fibers by manufacturers of asbestos-free

non-roofing adhesives, sealants, and coatings, they are also frequently being

used on their own.  Other similar fillers such as mica, wollastonite, and

silica gel are also being used as substitutes for asbestos.  Although fillers

do not have the strong reinforcing characteristics of the substitute fibers,

they can provide adequate viscosity control (ICF 1986a).   Clay thickeners, in

combination with surfactants,'  are able to gel formulations when used at

levels ranging from 2 to 8 percent by weight (Engelhard n.d.),  Engelhard's

Attagel (R),  and Floridin's Min-P-Gel (R) are two of the most popular

attapulgite-derived thickeners used by manufacturers of asbestos-free

compounds.  Southern Clay Products' Claytone (R) and NL Chemicals' Bentoiae (R)

are derived from bentonite clay and possess similar characteristics to

attapulgite-derived thickeners, but cost more.  Silica gels, such as Cab-o-Sil

(R) fumed silica by Cabot Corporation, are also used by a small number of

non-roofing compounds manufacturers. The fumed silica, in concentrations of

between 1 and 3 percent, acts predominantly as a thixotropic thickener,

although it may be used to provide mild reinforcement to rubber sealants when

used at levels greater than 5 percent (Cabot, 1986).

    Other mineral thickeners, such as talc, wollastonite, calcium carbonate,

and mica, provide adequate bulk and increase viscosity at a low cost to

manufacturers of asbestos-free compounds.  However, these fillers do not
       Surfactants, such as cationic quarternarium salts, are required to
modify the surface charge of a clay thickener, aiding optimal wetting and
dispersion of the clay in the medium (Engelhard n.d.}.

                                    - 12  -

-------
posses the thlxotropic properties of either asbestos, clays, or silica gels,




and are consequently unable to gel a formulation.




           b.  Substitute Non-Fibrous Adhesives. Sealants, and CqatittES




           At least 18 companies currently produce asbestos-free, non-fibered




substitutes to their currently or previously produced asbestos-containing




products.  The major manufacturers that substitute some or all of their




asbestos with clays, silica gels, and mineral thickeners are Contech, Pecora,




and Widger Chemical.  Table 3 identifies some additional manufacturers using




these products to replace asbestos in non-roofing compounds (ICF 1986a).




    Contech plans to completely discontinue the use of the fiber in 1986,




Asbestos will be replaced with a washed clay that is not yet commercially




available.  According to Contech, the clay adhesive exhibits slightly better




tensile strength for dry lumber applications, but poorer strength for wet




lumber.  The new formulation only costs a fraction more to produce and will be




priced the same as the asbestos-based adhesive (Contech 1986).




    Pecora Corporation uses bentonite clay and wollastonite in their




asbestos-free caulking and patching compounds.  The substitute products,  which




have been on the market for only one year, cost more than their




asbestos-containing counterparts.  Company officials indicated that these




substitute products, like the substitute fibered putties,  are likely to have




comparable service lives to asbestos containing products (Pecora 1986),




    Companies such as Riverain, Dayton Chemicals, and Hysol Aerospace have




used silica gel formulations to replace some or all of their previous asbestos




containing specialty compounds.  Riverain Corporation currently produces some




asbestos-free automotive sean sealants using fumed silica in combination with




bentonite clay (Riverain 1986).  Dayton Chemicals has completely replaced




asbestos in their metal coating with silica in 1986, although the company




officials indicated that the product does not perform as well and costs 8




                                    -  13  -

-------
Table 3.  Manufacturers of Non-Fibered Substitute Non-Roofing Compounds
               Manufacturer
        Location
 American Abrasive Metals Company
 Amicon Division, W,R,  Grace Inc.
 Contech Incorporated
 Dayton Chemicals Div., Whittaker Corp.
 Franklin Chemical Industries
 Futura Coatings Incorporated
 Hardman Incorporated
 Hysol Aerospace & Industrial Adhesive Co.
 Parr Incorporated
 Pecora Corporation
 PPG Industries
 Products Research & Chemicals Corp.
 Republic Powdered Metals Inc.
 Riverain Corporation
 Rockwell International
 Smooth-On Incorporated
 S.W. Petro-Chem Incorporated
 Thiem Corporation
 Widger Chemical Corporation
Irvington, New Jersey
Danvers, Massachusetts
Mattawan, Michigan
West Alexandria,
Columbus, Ohio
Hazelwood, Missouri
Belleview, New Jersey
Pittsburgh, California
Cleveland, Ohio
Harleysville, PA
Adr ian,  Mi ch igan
Dayton,  Ohio
Medina,  Ohio
Dayton,  Ohio
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Gillette, New Jersey
Olathe,  Kansas
Dayton,  Ohio
Warren,  Michigan
 Source:   IGF 1986a.
                                 - 14  -

-------
percent more than Che previous asbestos formulation (Dayton Chemicals 1986).




Hysol Aerospace and Industrial Adhesives Division has substituted asbestos




with a proprietary silica formulation in 80 percent of their products.   full




substitution is expected in 198? (Hysol 1986).




    Widger Chemical Corporation of Warren, Michigan indicates that customer




pressure from General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler has forced substitution of




asbestos in all their adhesives, sealants and coatings.  They have replaced




asbestos with ground mica, ground talc, and dolamitic limestone.  Although the




final products cost more to produce,  the company officials indicated that the




switch to the mineral filler formulations did not result in any loss in




performance (Widger Chemical 1986).




    Non-fibered mixtures containing clays, silica gels, or mineral fillers are




estimated to account for 30 percent of the non-roofing compounds market as a




result of a ban on asbestos (see Attachment A).  The price of these




formulations would be expected to be 4.1 percent (see Attachment B) more than




the current price of an asbestos containing counterpart.   This price increase




results in an estimated average price of $14.47 per gallon for non-fibered




substitute adhesives, sealants and coatings (ICF 1986a),




    E.  Summary




    Asbestos is unique among known raw minerals because of its strength, fire




and heat resistance, viscosity control, and price.  Since no across the board




substitute fiber can duplicate the many properties of the mineral, the range




of different substitute formulations appears endless.   Companies use a myriad




of substitute materials such as polyethylene,  polypropylene,  aramid,




polyester, glass, ceramic, carbon, and phosphate fibers,  and clay, silica gel,




talc, wollastonite, mica, and calcium carbonate fillers (ICF 1986a).




    The asbestos containing specialty adhesive, sealant,  and coating  market




is extremely diverse.  The large number of different applications for these




                                    -  15  -

-------
products makes the task of deriving projected market shares for substitute

mixtures, resulting from an asbestos ban, almost impossible.  Consequently,

the estimation of market shares and prices of the substitute formulations

relies to a large degree upon educated judgments of industry experts.  Table 4

summarizes the findings of this analysis, and presents the data for the

Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model.

    If asbestos were made unavailable, perhaps 70 percent of the non-roofing

adhesives, sealants, and coatings market would be taken by formulations

containing substitute fibers (see Attachment A).   The average price of these

formulations is estimated to be $15.14 per gallon, reflecting an 8.9 percent

increase (see Attachment B) above the current average price of asbe$tos
                            *>
containing products (ICF 1986a).   Non-fibered formulations, containing clays,

silica gels, and various fillers are estimated to account for the remaining 30

percent of the substitute market (see Attachment A).  The average price of

these products is estimated to be $14.47, reflecting a 4.1 percent increase

(see Attachment B) over the current average price for asbestos containing

adhesives, sealants, and coatings (ICF 1986a).
                                    -  16  -

-------
                                   Table  4.  Data Inputs for Asbestos Rejulstory Coat Modal
                                                       Conatmption
                                      Product          Production                Useful   Equivalent   Market
     Product         Output     Asbeatoa Coefficient      Ratio        Price     Life*      Erie*      Sh«r*      Reference
Asbe*tos Mixture    9,612,655     0.00031 gals/ton         1.0       S13,90/gal   10 yra   513.90/gal    H/A     ICF

Fiber Mixture          K/A              N/A                N/A       $13,10/gal   10 yrs   SIS.lO/gal    70S     ICF  (1966a3«*

Non-Fiber Mixture      H/A              N/A                K/A       S14.42/gal   10 yrs   814.42/gsl    301     ICF  (1986a)**


N/A;  Hot applicable.

 *  The useful life was estimated to be ten years.   However,  due to the extreme diversity in products actual values varied
greatly.

** SB» Appendices A and B,

-------
                                                    ATTACHMENT A
                            PROJECTED MARKET SHARES AHALXSIS BASED OH 1985            OF
                                   HQJJ-HOOFIHG ADHESTOS, SEALAHTS, AHD OOAIIBGS*
   Substitute Material
                                 Manufacturer(s)
                               Production Which Herald
                             Likely Switch to Substitute
   Projected Markat Share
(Subtotal/Grunt Total x 100)
Synthetic, Cellulose, and
Othar Fibers
Bacon
Bltucote
Dolphin
FLuinemastei-
Gibson- floinjii i B
Hercules
Industrial Gasket and Shin
Kent
Matneco
Palmer
Pacora           .
Products KBsearch
Protective Treatments
Roystun
Sterling Clarke

     Subtotal 1
                                                                  2,552,057
                                                                       70,31*
Clay and Mineral Fillers
American Abrasive a
Con tech
Dayton
Franklin
Futuza
                            Pecora
                            Products Research
                            Riverain
                            Wldgsr

                                 Subtotal 2

                                 Grand Total
                                     1,077.785

                                     S,S2S,S«
           29.691

          100.COS
 This analysis is basad on firms wtiich w«ro xD.llng or  ei>l« to provida  us with  information  an htm they would react
to an asbestos ban.  It is assumed that all containing firms (in  aggrognt.B) Kill uubntitut*  for  «»b«sto» in the aame
relative |>zoportiona,

 Thas« coinpaniai indicatod they use both fiber* and fillers *« th« primary iubititut* material  d»p»ndlng upon the
product,  for th* purpose of this analysis, we have divided th*ir prodtictlon  equally bntw««n  th* tm substitutes,

-------
                                                 ATTACHMENT B

         PROJECTED PRICES ANALYSIS EASED OH AVAILABLE PRICE DIFFERENTIALS                  CONTAINING
                        ATO BOH-ASBESTOS NOH-ROOFIHG ADfTESI¥ES,          AHD
   Subsfcituto Material
                                Mauu r*ctur»t(a)
                           Production
                             <1985)
                                                                    Currmit or Probable
                                                                      Fries IntreasB
                                                                                          Price Increaoe
Synthetic, Cellulose, and   Cobitco
Other Fibars                Dolphin
                            Gibson-HumanH
                            Hercules
                            J.C. Dolph
                            Mameco
                            Falmec
                            St erling-Clort e

                                 Subtotal 1
                                                       1,487,429
                                                                                               8,91
Clay and Mineral Fillers
Mar lean Abrasives
Contach
Dayton
Franklin
Futurn
Republic Powdstsd Metals
Hidgar

     Subtotal 2
                                                         930,487
 nany swnufaptiuezs currently price nan-asbantos formulations the •MM a* asbestos containing mixtures,
For the purpose of this analysis, wa have Inserted the increased cost of production whin ti«c»ssary.

 Tha average price increase was determined by calculating a Migtited average of individual. pric»
incr**i*B of non-asbestoa over asbestos containing roof coatings and cements using 1985 aobestou
containing production levels,

 Whan 1983 production quantities were unknown, a value corresponding to tit* averag* production of i 1982
plant (according to survey data) »a« inserted,

-------
REFERENCES
American Fillers & Abrasives Inc.  E. Neckerman,  1986 (October 30), Bangor,
MI,  Transcribed telephone conversation with Jeremy Obaditch, IGF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Cabot Corp,  S. Jesseph.  1986 (October 28).  Tuscola, IL.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Jeremy Obaditch, IGF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Contech Inc.  L, -Labelle.  1986 (July-December).  Mattawan, MI.  Transcribed
telephone conversations with Rick Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington,
D.C.

Dayton Chemicals Division.  D. Eby.  1986 (July-December).  West Alexandria,
OH.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and Rick
Hollander, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

DuPont, E.I. De Nemours And Co.  J. Lynn.  1986 (June 25).  Wilmington, DE.
Comments provided to Docket No. EPA OPTS-62036.

Engelhard Corporation,  (n.d.).  Product Literature. Attagel(R)-36 Asphalt
Thickener for Use In Cutback Coatings.  Menlo Park, N.J.

Flamemaster Corp., The.  1986 (July-December).  Transcribed telephone
conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Floridin Company.  1986.  Product Literature.  Min-U-Gel(R) AR - A Specialty
Attapulgite Thickener For Asphalt Coatings.  Berkeley Springs, WV.

Gibson-Homans Corp.  J. Slovski.  1986 (July-December)  Twinsburg, OH.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch And Eric Crabtree,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Hercules Inc.  1983 (April 11).  Wilmington, DE.  Letter to C Carter, General
Services Administration, Office of Federal Supply and Services, Washington,
DC.

Hysol Aerospace and Industrial Adhesives Division.  D. Jackson.  1986
(July-December).  Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and
Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors Of Asbestos Non-Roofing Adhesives, Sealants and Coatings.
Washington, D.C.

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis. Revised Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Office Of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract No.
68-02-3168.
                                    -  19  -

-------
Mameeo International.  H. Myers.  1986 (July-December}.  Cleveland, OH.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch And Michael
Gesehwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

MiniFibers Inc.  1986.  Product Literature.  Minifibers,   Johnson City, IN,

National Paints and Coatings Association.  R. Conner,  1986 (October 21).
Transcribed telephone conversation with Jeremy Obaditch,  ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

Palmer Products Corp.  S, Palmer-Ball.  1986 (July-December).   Louisville, KIT.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and Michael
Geschwind, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Pecora Corp.  W. Waters.  1986 (July-December).  Harleysville, PA.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and Peter Tzanetos,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C,

Riverain Corp.  J. Durst.  1986 (July-December).  Dayton, OH.   Transcribed
telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and Peter Tzanetos, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Widger Chemical Corp.  J. Montgomery,  1986 (July-December).  Warren, MI.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.
                                    -  20

-------
XXXI,  ASBESTOS-REINFORCED PLASTICS

    A.  Product Description

    Asbestos-reinforced plastic is typically a mixture of some type of plastic

resin (usually phenolic or epoxy), a general filler (often chalk or

limestone), and raw asbestos fiber.  In general, the raw asbestos fiber is 17

percent of the weight of the plastic. •*•  Asbestos-reinforced plastics are used

for electro-mechanical parts in the automotive and appliance industries and as

high-performance plastics for the aerospace industry.  The use of asbestos

enhances the thermal and mechanical properties of plastic by improving heat

resistance, stiffness, strength, dielectric strength, and processability (ICF

1986a).

    In the past asbestos had been used in plastics not only for its unique

combination of chemical properties, but also as a. general filler or extender

of the plastic resin because of its low cost.  As the severity of asbestos-

related health hazards became known, asbestos was gradually replaced with

other fillers such as talc and clay (ICF 1985).  Asbestos is now only used in

plastics when the presence of the asbestos-imparted reinforcing properties is

critical to the performance of the plastic.  Such applications include:

        •  Electro-mechanical parts for the automotive and appliance
           industries;  i.e., commutators, switches, circuit breaker
           and motor starter casings, terminal boards, thermoplugs,
           and arc chutes.

        •  Parts for the aerospace industry;  i.e., heat shields and
           missile casings.

    B.  Producers and Importers of Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics

    Table 1 lists the total production and fiber consumption in this market.
       See Attachment, Item 1.

                                     - 1 -

-------
                  Table 1.  Primary Production of Asb«stos-S«in£ore«d Plastic — 1985
                                                         1985
                               1985 Production     Fiber Conswnplian
Primary Processors              Cohort fcons)         (short tons)          B*f«c*nc*
   Total                             
-------
    Six of the eight 1985 primary processors used asbestos to manufacture

                                                                *
electro-mechanical plastics and only two processors (Nannco Materials


Incorporated and the Raymark Corporation),  manufactured asbestos-containing


plastics for the aerospace industry  (ICF 1986a).


    In 1985 there were four secondary processors of asbestos-reinforced


plastics,  two of which (Ametek and the West Bend Company) imported almost all


their plastic from Japan,  The secondary processors buy finished


asbestos-reinforced plastic parts for assembly, and do not manufacture any


asbestos-reinforced plastic themselves.  Ametek and the Hoover Company


purchase commutators made of asbestos-reinforced plastic that they place in


electric motors (Ametek 1986, Hoover 1986).  The West Bend Company purchases


an asbestos-reinforced plastic thermoplug that is  then attached to its kitchen


appliances (West Bend 1986).  United Technologies  purchases an


asbestos-reinforced plastic sheet and then places  the sheet in missiles to


serve as a heat shield (United Technologies 1986).   Consumption of fiber and


total 1985 imports of product for secondary processors are listed in Table 2


(ICF 1986b).


    C.  Trends


    Asbestos use in plastics is declining as manufacturers move towards


non-asbestos compounds.  Even though the U.S. production of reinforced plastic


has been rising since 1981, the production of asbestos-reinforced plastic has


been declining (Table 3).  The production of asbestos-reinforced plastic has


fallen from 12,187 short tons in 1981,  to 4,835 short tons in 1985.  This


represents a 60 percent decline in four years.^
     2 See Attachment, Item 2.


                                    - 3 -

-------
                      Table 2.  Secondary  Production of A»bBito«~S»i«forc«
-------
               Table  3.  U.S.  Production  of Reinforced  Plastics
                      and Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
                                 (short tons)
                                   1981        1985           References
Production of Reinforced         920,000    1,105,000    Automotive News 1985
Plastic

Production of Asbestos-           12,187a       4,835b   IGF 1985, ICF 1986a
Reinforced Plastic

Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic          1,3%         0,4%   See Attachment Item 3
as a Percentage of Total
Reinforced Plastic


a!981 production from ICF 1985.

b!985 production from ICF 1986a.
                                    - 5

-------
    Since 1985, three asbestos-reinforced plastic producers, (Meridem Molded




Plastics, Inc., Resinold Engineering Corp., and Rostone Division Allan-Bradley




Co.), have stopped using asbestos (Table 1).  Celanese Engineering Resins, the




largest producer in 1985, plans to stop using asbestos by the second quarter




of 1987 (Celanese 1986).  fhe replacement of asbestos in plastics is likely to




continue at an increasing rate.




    D.  Substitutes




    While there are many potential substitutes for asbestos in the manufacture




of reinforced plastic, the discussion of the substitutes will focus on the six




substitutes that would be expected to replace the remaining asbestos -




reinforced plastics market in the event of a ban.  The six substitutes, listed




in order of importance, are fibrous glass,  teflon, Product X, porcelain,




silica, and carbon.  Manufacturers of these substitutes are listed in Table 4.




Table 5 lists the advantages, disadvantages and some general remarks about




each of the substitutes.  The following discussion of each of the substitutes




will include the justification of the predicted market shares of the




substitutes in the event that asbestos use Is banned.




        1.   Fibrous Glass




        Fibrous glass, which is essentially chopped glass,  is currently the




leading reinforcer of plastic in the United States and industry experts agree




that glass-reinforced plastic would capture the largest share of the




asbestos-reinforced plastic market in the event that asbestos use is banned.




The majority of the asbestos-reinforced plastics produced in the U.S. is used




in electro-mechanical applications and fibrous glass has proven to be a good




replacement for asbestos in such applications (commutators, circuit breakers,




electric motor casings, thermoplugs, and arc chutes.)  The glass-reinforced




plastics are strong enough to be molded into thin-walled parts and have the




required heat resistance and dielectric strength for these products.  The main




                                    - 6 -

-------
               Table 4.  Producers of Substitute Materials
            a                                       b
Glass Fibers                               Porcelain

Advance Coatings                           Relmech Manufacturing (Canada)
Armco Steel Corp.
Certainteed Corp, Fiber Glass                       .
  Reinforcements Division                  Cab-0-Sil
Compounding Technology Inc.
Durkin Chemicals, Inc.                     Cabot Corporation
Fiber Glass Industries, Inc.
Fibre Glass Development                                .
GLS Fiberglass Div.,  Great Lakes           Teflon Fiber
  Terminal & Transport
Kristal Kraft, Inc.                        Celanese Engineering Resins
LNP Corp.
Manville, Filtration and Minerals Div.
Mead Paper, Specialty Paper Div.           Product X
Miles, A.L. Company
Nicofibers, Inc.                           Raymark Corporation
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
PPG Industries, Inc., Fiber Glass Div.
Reichold Chemicals, Inc.
Techni-Glas, Inc.
Trevarno Div., Hexcel Corp.
United Merchants & Mfrs., Inc.
Wilson-Fiberfil International

Carbon Fibers
Avco Specialty
Compounding Technology Inc.
Fibre Glass Development
Great Lakes Carbon Corp.
Hercules, Inc., Aerospace Div.
Hi-Tech Composites, Inc.
Hysol Grafil Co,
LNP Corp.
Mead Paper
Stackpole Corp.
Trevarno Div., Hexcel Corp
Union Carbide Corp.
Wilson-Fiberfil International
aFrom World Plastics Directory 1986.

bFrom ICF 1986a.
                                    7 -

-------
                                         Table 5,
                                                   Substitutes for Asbestos In R»in£or.e»d Plutioa
                                                      (Liu ted In Order of
    Substitute
                                    Advantagea
Asbestos
                        Good impact resistance.
                        Flea end bent resistance.
                        Low shrinkage and wnrpnge.
                        Ease of handling during processing.
problems ,
              and occupational
Specialty usen only.
Fhnned out In lenezal purpose uses.
Fibrous Glass
                        Light weight.
                        Can be used in thin-walled pacts,
                        Good heat resistance.
May require Sana processing changes.
Processing equipment wears more
quickly.
Bra bran tued for many yaars.
Hell-suited tor us* In commitatora,
flat-icon aklcts, notor housings,
bcansmiBslon cotaponanla,
Teflon Fiber
                        Good dlslsctric strength.
                        Good impact resistance.
Poor wear ifesistance.
Bigh pricg.
Can only be used in low temperature
ranges (b»low SOO'F).
Celanese plans to us* in electro-
mechanical applications.
Porcelain
                        Temperature use to 1800'F.
Brittle.
High price,
This ii the only non-plastic
substitute cited foe asbenton-
relnforc«d plastic.
Used to make high temperature
(1500-1800'F) are chut.a.
Fumed Silic* Powder     Good dielectric ntrongth.
Poor processing characteristics.
More expensive.
Used Kith upoxy ratIn*.
Trad* n«n>» Cab-O-311.
Carbon Fiber
                        Light weight.
                        Bigh strength.
                        High chemical resistance.
                        Good hsat reEistance.
Very high price,
Condueto electricity.
U»»d In aircraft p*rt», iperting
8<»di, textile nwichln* parts.
Ui»d la molding ccrapoundi.
Source:  ICF 1986*.

-------
disadvantages of fibrous glass as an asbestos substitute are that It Is not as



heat resistant as asbestos and it is more difficult to process because of its



abrasive characteristics.  Because of its lower heat resistance, fibrous glass



is unable to replace asbestos in any of the aerospace applications still using



asbestos reinforced-plastics (missile casings and heat shields) or in the



switchgears of power plants "that require high temperature (1500-1800'F)



electro-mechanical plastics (ICF 1986a).



    Resinoid Engineering Corporation and the Rostone Division of the



Allan-Bradley Company now use fibrous glass in the manufacture of



electro-mechanical plastics for the automotive and appliance industries



(Resinoid 1986, Rostone 1986).  Meriden Molded Plastics Incorporated stated



that 70 percent of its 1985 asbestos- reinforced plastics have been replaced



with glass-reinforced plastics.  Rogers Corporation, the second largest



asbestos-reinforced plastic processor, plans to eventually replace all



asbestos with fibrous glass in electro-mechanical plastics (Rogers 1986).



Based on these substitutions, the predicted share that glass-reinforced



plastic will gain of the 1985 asbestos-reinforced plastic market is over 40


        •a
percent.J



        2.  Teflon



        The second most important substitute is teflon.  Teflon's chemical



resistance, dielectric strength, heat resistance, and impact resistance asake



it an adequate replacement for asbestos in relatively low temperature (below



500"F) electro-mechanical applications.  The largest asbestos-reinforced



plastic processor, Celanese Engineering Resins, plans to use Teflon K-10



(teflon powder) to reinforce its electro-mechanical plastics.  Celanese has



cited the high cost of the teflon powder ($8.00/lb.) as a disadvantage,
       See Attachment, Item 4.



                                    - 9

-------
although the planned sale price of the teflon-based plastic ($2.25/lb) is the




same as the company's asbestos- reinforced plastic.  Celanese has stated that




it plans to replace all its asbestos with teflon by 1987 (Celanese 1986).




        3.   Porcelain




        Porcelain, the only non-plastic substitute for asbestos-reinforced




plastics, is an effective substitute for extremely high temperature electro-




mechanical applications.  Porcelain, which is a high-quality ceramic, can




withstand temperatures up to 1800'F and also has high dielectric strength.




These characteristics enable it to be used in the extremely high temperature




arc chutes (high-temperature arc chutes guide the electric current in large




electric motors or generators used in power plants).  The main disadvantages




of porcelain are that it is difficult to mold and it costs about 50-60 percent




more than asbestos-reinforced plastics (Relmech 1986).




    High-temperature arc chutes accounted for about 30 percent of Meriden




Molded Plastics' asbestos product market and the company was unable to find an




effective substitute for that portion of its market. However, Meriden Molded




Plastic sold its plastics operations to Relmech Manufacturing in 1986 and




Relmech Manufacturing has stated that porcelain has already replaced some of




Meriden's high-temperature arc chute market and could replace all asbestos in




these arc chutes (Relmech 1986).  Porcelain is expected to capture less than 5




percent of the market in the event of a ban. (Meriden 1986) .




        4.   Fumed Silica Powder




        The fourth substitute to be discussed is Cab-O-Sil(R),  a fumed silica




powder.  One processor, Magnolia Plastics Incorporated, cited the product as a




substitute for asbestos in reinforced plastic used in electro-mechanical




applications.  While Magnolia Plastics Incorporated stated that the




Cab-O-Sil(R) could replace 100 percent of their asbestos-reinforced plastic,




the company cited some disadvantages of the substitute, such as its high cost




                                    -  10  -

-------
and poor processing characteristics.  The silica-containing plastic exhibit!

lower viscosity during manufacturing than the asbestos mixture.   The only

advantage Magnolia cited was that the Cab-O-Sil(R) is not a health hazard.

Total replacement of Magnolia's market gives Cab-O-Sil(R) less than 5 percent

of the market (IGF 1986a).

        5.  Carbon

        Carbon (usually a graphite fiber) is very strong, extremely heat

resistant, and chemically inert.  These properties make carbon-reinforced

plastics well-suited for use as missile casings and heat shields, the only

remaining asbestos-reinforced plastic products in the aerospace industry.  The

two major disadvantages of carbon are its cost and its low dielectric

strength.  Carbon fibers can cost more than 100 times as much as asbestos

fiber, effectively restricting the use of carbon-reinforced plastic to high

performance applications (Narraco 1986).  In addition, because of carbon's low

dielectric strength, carbon-reinforced plastics are generally not used to make

electro-mechanical parts (ICF 1986a).   One 1985 processor, Narmco Materials

Inc.,  has substituted carbon for asbestos in some of its plastic.

    The substitute plastic is used to make missile casings and costs only 25

percent more than the asbestos-reinforced plastic that it is replacing (Narmco

1986).  Even though carbon fibers are much more expensive than asbestos

fibers, the cost difference is mitigated by the fact that reinforcing fibers

are usually a small part of the cost of aerospace plastics and they are

required in smaller amounts for providing the same kind of reinforcement as

asbestos fibers.  The company has stated that the only reason that it has not

switched completely to carbon-reinforced plastic is that the DOD
       Viscosity is a measure of the fluidity of a substance.  Reinforced
plastics are manufactured by injecting fluid plastic into a pressure mold.
The lower viscosity imparted by Cab-O-Sil(R) makes the setting of the mold
more difficult.

                                    -  11  -

-------
specifications  for the missile casing require the use of asbestos.




Replacement of Nantco's market would give carbon-reinforced plastic less than




5 percent of the market (Narmco 1986).




    Raymark Corporation, the other producer of asbestos-reinforced plastics




used in aerospace, did not specify which substitute could 'replace asbestos In




its plastics.  The company did, however, state that it has a potential




substitute (Product X) under development and estimated that the cost of




plastic made with this substitute would be 100 percent higher than the cost of




Raymark's asbestos-reinforced plastic.   The Raymark Corporation's asbestos-




reinforced plastic product is a heat-shield used in aerospace applications and




the company would not release further information about substitutes or product




applications because Product X is part of a military contract (Raymark 1986).




    Table 6 lists the data inputs to the asbestos regulatory cost model,




including substitute prices and projected market shares as well as information




concerning the asbestos-reinforced plastic.




    £.   Summary




    Asbestos has been replaced as a general filler of plastic, but asbestos is




still used in plastic when the presence of the asbestos imparted reinforcing




properties is critical to the performance of the plastic.   Asbestos-reinforced




plastics are now only used for electro-mechanical parts in the automotive and




appliance industries and as high-performance plastics for the aerospace




industry.  In 1985 there were eight primary processors, four secondary




processors and two importers of asbestos-reinforced plastic in the United




States,  Since 1985, three of the primary processors and one of the secondary




processors have stopped processing asbestos.  The replacement of asbestos in




plastics is likely to continue at an increasing rate.   The six substitutes




expected to replace the remaining asbestos-reinforced plastics market in the




event of a ban (listed in order of importance) are:   fibrous glass,  teflon,




                                    - 12  -

-------
Product X, porcelain,  silica and carbon.
                                     13  -

-------
                                               Table 6.   Data  Inputs  for Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model
                                                          (031) Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic
Product
Product Output Asbestos Coefficient
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastic 4,835 tons 0,17 Ibs./ton8
Glass -Reinforced Plastic B/A N/A
Teflon-Reinforced Plastic H/A N/A
Product X H/A N/A
Porcelain B/A H/A
Silica-Reinforced Plastic H/A S/A
Carbon-Reinforced Plastic H/A H/A
Consixoptlcm Equivalent Market
Production P.ntto Vric* Us*Cnl lir»s Pries Stur* Reference
l,03b
H/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
H/A
§2.63/Us.C 1 y»«r §2.63/11. H/A ICF 19B6a
$1.40/Ib.d 1 y««r $1.40/U>. 47.91 ICF 19B6a
$2.2S/U>. 1 y»sr 82.25/lb. 42. 5Z Cal*nas« 1986
811,22/11.* 1 yaw $11.22/11. 7.4S Saymark 1966
$4.08/lh.f 1 y»«r S4. 06/11. 1.41 Relmsch 1986
S3.00/li. 1 year 33.00/11. 0,51 Magnolia 1986
$*7. 25/11. 1 y«w 947,25/11. 0.31 Hamco 1986
H/A:  Not Applicable.

 See Attachment, Item 1.

 Sea Attachment, Item 8.
d
 See Attachment,  Item S.

 Sae Attachment,  Iten 6.

*Sea Attachment,  Item 10.

 Sae Attachment,  Item ?.

 Sae Attachment*  Item 9<

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT
    Calculation of Product Asbestos Coefficient.   A weighted average (using
    market shares as weight)  of the product coefficient by company yielded an
    average of 0.1678 Ibs./lb.  or about 0.17 Ibs./lb.
        Company
                                  (A)              (B)
                            Product: Asbestos
                            Coefficient,  by
                            Company (Ibs. of
                            Asbestos/lbs. of   Market Share
Plastic)
1985
Weighted Product
  Coefficient,
 (A) x (B)/100
Celanese Engineering Resins
Magnolia Plastics Inc .
*
Meriden Molded Plastics Inc.
Karraco Materials Inc .
Raymark Corporation
Resinoid Engineering Corp.
Rogers Corporation
Rostone Division Allan-Bradley

0.027
0,030
0.390
0.020
0.600
0.350
0.185
0.150
Total: 0.1678 Ibs./lb,
 From ICF 1986a.
2.   Percentage Decrease in Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics Production from 1981
    to 1985.

        (/1985 Production - 1981 Production/71981 Production) x 100
        - Percentage Change '81-'85.
        (/4,835 - 12.187//12.187) x 100 - -60%.


3.   Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic Production as a Percentage of Total Reinforced
    Plastic Production. (From Table 3.)

        1981.   (12,187/920,000) x 100  - 1.3
        1985.   (4,835/1,105,000) x 100 - .4
                                    - 15  -

-------
4.  Projected Market Share of Fibrous Glass.

    Combined market shares of Resinoid Engineering Corp., Rogers Corporation,
    Rostone and 70 percent of Meriden's share:
    Price of Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic.
        Company
        (A)
     Price of
Asbestos-Reinforced
     Plastic3
    (B)

Market Share
    1985
Weighted Price
(A) x 
-------
7,   Price of Porcelain.

    Relmech Manufacturing stated that, on average,  porcelain cost about 50-60
    percent more than asbestos-reinforced plastic,


8.   Consumption/Production Eatio.

    Domestic production of asbestos-reinforced plastic in 1985  was 4,835 short
    tons (see Table 1),   1985 imports of asbestos-reinforced plastic  totaled
    127.5 tons (see Table 3).

           Consumption - Production + Imports
               4,962.5 - 4,835 + 127.5

           Consumption/Production - 4,962.5/4,835 - 1.03


9.   Useful Life of Products.

    Useful life of asbestos-reinforced plastic from ICF (1984a).   Respondents
    to survey stated that substitute products had the same expected service
    life as asbestos-reinforced plastic.

10.  Price of Product X.

    Raymark Corporation reported that it has a potential substitute under
    development as part of a defense contract.   Raymark did not release the
    name of this product and IGF has referred to the substitute as Product X.
    Raymark provided ICF with the relative price of Product X and their
    asbestos product.
                                    - 17  -

-------
REFERENCES
Araetek/Lamb Electronic Division.  Gary Davenport.  1986 (July-December),
Cambridge, OH.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Peter Tzmnetos and
Eric Crabtree, IGF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

Automotive News: 1985 Market Data Book, "Reinforced Plastics Shipments By
Markets" p. 82.

Celanese Engineering Resins.  Jaime Garza.  1986 (July-December).  Bishop, TX.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Rick Hollander and Eric Crabtree, ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

The Hoover Company.  A.R, McMullen.  1986 (July-December).  North Canton, OH
Transcribed telephone conversations with Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, D.C.

ICF Incorporated.  1985.  Appendix H:  Asbestos Products and Their
Substitutes, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and
Asbestos Products.  Washington DC:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

ICF Incorporated.  1984b.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington DC:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Doc. Control No. 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).  Survey of Primary Processors of
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic.  Washington, DC.

ICF Incorporated.  1986b (July-December).  Survey of Secondary Processors of
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic.  Washington, DC,

Krusell N, Cogley D.  1982.  GCA Corp.  Asbestos Substitute Performance
Analysis,   Revised Final Report.  Washington DC:  Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract 68-02-3168.

Magnolia Plastics Incorporated.  Robert Andrews.  1986 (July-December),
Chamblee,  GA.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Michael Geschwind and
Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington DC.

Meriden Molded Plastics Incorporated.  Robert Grossman.  1986 (July-December),
Meriden, CT 06450.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Michael Geschwind
and Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington DC.

Modern Plastics, July 1985.

Narmco Materials Incorporated.  Thomas Confer.  1986 (July-December).
Anaheim, CA.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Michael Geschwind and
Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington DC.
                                    -  18  -

-------
Raymark Corporation.  George Houser.  1986 (July-December).  Manheim, PA,
Transcribed telephone conversations with Peter Tzanetos- and Eric Crabtree, ICF
Incorporated, Washington DC.

ReImech Manufacturing,  William Dueck.  1986 (December 1).  Elmyra, Canada.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Resinoid Engineering Corporation.  Robert Denes.  1986 (July-December).
Skokie, IL.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Peter Tzanetos and Eric
Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington DC.

Rogers Corporation.  William Whitely.  1986 (July-December).   Manchester, CT.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Peter Tzanetos and Eric Crabtree, ICF
Incorporated, Washington DC,

Rostone Division Allan-Bradley Co.  Mr. Jay Floyd,  1986 (July-December).
Layfayette, IN.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Peter Tzanetos and
Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington DC.

United Technologies, Chemical Systems.  Steven Green,  1986 (July-December).
San Jose, CA.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Qbaditch and;
Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

The West Bend Company.  E.T. Hackney.  1986 (July-December).   West Bend, WI.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and Eric Crabtree,
ICF Incorporated, Washington DC.

World Plastics Directory, 1986.
                                      19  -

-------
XXXII.  MISSILE LINER

    A.  Product Description

    Missile liner is a rubber compound which Is used to coat the interior of

"rocket motors".  Because a rocket is propelled purely by the burning of

rocket fuel, it has no observable engine.  Therefore, the 'term rocket motor

refers to the entire chamber which the fuel occupies as it is being burned.

Rockets and rocket boosters are used to propel a number of objects including

military weapons and the space shuttle (ICF 1986).

    The missile liner's main function Is to insulate the outer casing of the

rocket from the intense heat being generated in the rocket motor while the

rocket fuel is being burned.„ This Is where the need for asbestos arises,

Asbestos is mixed into the rubber liner because of Its excellent heat and fire

resistance properties.  In addition, the excellent thixotropic  characteris-

tics of asbestos fiber facilitate the processing of the liner (ICF 1986).

    B.  Producers and Importers of Missile Liner

    There are currently five companies which process asbestos for use in

missile liner.  A complete list of the six plants these companies operate is

presented in Table 1.

    These companies consumed approximately 700 tons of asbestos in 1985 In

producing 4,667 tons of missile liner (ICF 1986).^  The cost of this liner was

not revealed by any of the companies either because it was considered

proprietary or because it was considered classified military information.
       Thixotropic characteristics refer to a gel's ability to liquefy when
stirred or shaken and to harden when left stationary.

     2 See Attachment for explanation of calculations.  These totals include
estimated values for the Koch Asphalt Company because  they refused to respond
to our survey.  In 1981, this plant (which was owned by Allied Corporation)
produced insulation material.  It is not clear whether that insulation
material was missile liner or some other type of insulation,  but we have
decided to include it here because all other types of  insulation are no longer
made using asbestos.

                                    - 1 -

-------
  Table 1.  Producers of Asbestos Missile Liner
           Company
    Location
Aerojet Liquid Rocket Company

Hercules, Incorporated

Kirkhill Rubber Company

Koch Asphalt Company

Morton Thiokol Corporation
Sacramento,  CA

McGregor, TX

Brea,  CA

Stroud, OK

Elkton, MD
Brigham City, UT
                      - 2 -

-------
Furthermore, it is not clear that prices would have any meaning in this




context because they would likely be arbitrary internal transfer prices rather




than market generated prices.  A company which now produces only a substitute




liner revealed that its price of asbestos liner was $7.0Q/lb. in 1935




(Uniroyal 1986).




    No importers of this asbestos product were identified (ICF 1984, ICF




1986).  Because this product is used extensively in military applications it




is likely that it is all produced domestically.




    C.  Trends




    1981 production of asbestos missile liner was 4,006 tons (TSCA 1982), and




1985 production is estimated to have been 4,667 tons.  This suggests that




missile liner production increased by approximately 16 percent.  However,




there is considerable uncertainty associated with the 1985 figure.  First of




all, the largest processor, accounting for approximately 75 percent of 1981




production, refused to respond to our survey.  Thus, we were forced to




estimate this company's production.  Second, most respondents did not tell us




how much liner they produced.  They only told us how much asbestos they




consumed.  Hence, production is estimated based on product coefficients that




range from 5 percent to 30 percent.  Nonetheless, it seems fair to say that




production of missile liner probably remained constant or increased slightly,




but it probably, did not decline appreciably.




    D.  Substitutes




    There are currently two substitutes for asbestos in missile liner.   They




are Kevlar(R) and ceramic fibers.  The Kevlar(R) liner is produced by




Uniroyal, Inc.  and by Hercules, Inc., while the ceramic fiber liner is




produced by Olin Corp.  Although these substitute liners are more expensive




than asbestos liner, industry experts believe that they can completely replace




asbestos use in this product if EPA decides to ban asbestos.   They also note




                                    - 3 -

-------
that the cost of the liner will be an extremely small portion of the total




cost of the final product.




    The projected market shares for the substitute liners were computed by




looking at past production of liner and taking prices into consideration.  The




data inputs for the Regulatory Coat Model are presented in Table 2,




    Substitution away from asbestos has been limited because government




specifications stipulate that missile liners must be made with asbestos.




Exemptions can be obtained by having the substitute pass a series of tests




which guarantee that it will perform as well as the asbestos product.  The




process of developing a substitute mixture and having it pass these tests is




very expensive.  As a result, some companies have decided to continue




producing the asbestos product even though substitutes are available.




    The substitution that has occurred has taken place for one of two reasons.




First, the company may have decided that it wished to avoid any potential




future liabilities associated with asbestos usage.  As a result, it would




incur the costs of switching to a substitute.  Alternatively, if a company is




developing a new missile, it is free to design the liner in any way it sees




fit as long as it functions properly and passes all the appropriate tests.  In




this case, substituting for asbestos is not very costly.




    E.  Summary




    Asbestos is used to produce a rubber product which lines the interior of




"rocket motors".  There are currently five producers of asbestos missile




liner, and their output is estimated to be 4,667 tons.  This estimate is,




however,  subj ect to uncertainty because some producers were unable to provide




us with all the necessary data because they felt the information may have been




classified.  No importers of this product were identified.




    Companies that have already formulated asbestos-free mixtures believe that




complete substitution can take place.  They note that the primary obstacle to




                                    - 4 -

-------
                                    Table 2.  Data  Inputs for Aubentos Rngulntory Coat Hod*l
      Product
                        Output
                                   Product Asbestos   Production
                                     Coefficient         Ratio
                              Equivalent    M-nrk«t
               Useful Lif»       ftrlct      Star*    l«f»r«nc«
Asbestos Liner
                      4,667 tons   0.15 tonn/ton
                                                         1.0
                  1 use       514,000/ton    H/A     ICF 1986
Kevlar
-------
eliminating asbestos is government contracts that mandate the use of asbestos,



Based on the opinions of industry experts, liners containing Kevlar(R) fiber



are projected to capture 80 percent of the market at a price of $14,5Q/lb.,



while liners containing ceramic fiber are projected to capture 20 percent of




the market at a price of $70.00/lb.
                                    - 6 -

-------
                                  ATTACHMENT





    The four companies that responded to our survey indicated that they



consumed 151,2 tons of asbestos fiber in 1985, but three of them did not tell



us how much missile liner they produced.  The only company still producing
                                                          t


missile liner that also reported its missile liner production was Horton



Thiokol Corp.  However, two companies which are no longer producing asbestos



missile liner, B,F. Goodrich, Inc. and Uniroyal Corp., did supply us with



their past ratios of fiber consumption to missile liner output.  We found



these values to be considerably different than Morton Thiokol's value.  As a



result, we computed a simple average of the three available ratios for use in

                            *

our analysis.  The information is summarized in Table A-l.



    Once we had the value of the consumption-output ratio (0.15) and the



amount of asbestos fiber consumed by the respondents, we were able to compute



1985 asbestos missile liner output for these four companies.  As noted



earlier, Koch Asphalt refused to respond to our survey.  Because insulation



material is a separate Bureau of Mines (BOM) asbestos fiber consumption



category, we decided to use the total for the four companies to estimate Koch



Asphalt's consumption by subtracting the consumption of the four respondents



from 700 (the BOM estimate for total consumption in this category).  This



results in an estimate of fiber consumption for Koch Asphalt.  If we then



divide fiber consumption by the consumption-output ratio, we compute an



estimate of output.



    The price of the Kevlat(R) linear was computed by averaging the prices of



the two liners.  The average of Hercules, Inc.'s liner and Uniroyal, Ine.'s



liner is §14.50/lb.  A weighted average could not be computed because we did



not have production data for either company.
                                    - 7 -

-------
Table A-l,  Consumption-Output Ratio in Asbestos Missile Liner
                             Ratio           Reference
         Average               15%       ICF 1986
                             -  g  -

-------
REFERENCES
IGF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CBI Document Control No. 20-8600681,

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos Missile Liner.  Washington, D.C.

Olin Corp.  1986.  Marion, IL 62959,  Completed Survey of Primary Processors
of Asbestos sent to Peter Tzanetos, ICF Incorporated,  Washington, D.C.

TSCA Section 8(a) Submission,  1982.  Production Data for Primary Asbestos
Processors.  Washington, DC;  Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  IPA Document Control No. 20-8601012.

Uniroyal, Inc.  R. Carpenter.  1986 (July-October),  Mishawaka, IN.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and Peter Tzanetos,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

-------
XXXIII.  EXTRUDED SEALANT TAPE

    A.  Product Description

    Sealant tape is made from a. semi-liquid mixture of butyl rubber and

asbestos (usually 80 percent butyl rubber and 20 percent asbestos by weight)

that is contained in 55-gallon metal drums (Tremco 1986). ' On exposure to air,

the sealant solidifies forming a rubber tape, that is typically about an inch

wide and about an eighth of an inch thick.  The product usually is sold to

customers in linear feet.  The tape acts as a gasket for sealing building

windows, automotive windshields, and mobile home windows.  It is also used in

the manufacture of parts for the aerospace industry and in the manufacture of

insulated glass.  Asbestos is used in the tape for its strength, heat

resistance, and dimensional stability (ICF 1986a),

    B,  Producers and Importers of Extruded_Se.alant_Tape

    In 1985 there were four processors with five plants nationwide that

manufactured the tape.  The four primary processors consumed 1,660,2 tons of

asbestos fiber in 1985, which is 1,1 percent of total domestic asbestos fiber

consumption for all product categories.   Table 1 shows the total fiber

consumption and output for this product in 1985.   There are no known

importers of the tape (ICF 1986a, ICF 1986b).

    C.  Trends

    Despite a drop in the number of processors from seven to four, the

production of sealant tape increased 22.5 percent between 1981 and 1985, while

fiber consumption in sealant tape increased only about 9.5 percent.   The
     •*• See Attachment, Item 1.

     * 1981 figures from Parr Inc., one of the two firms  (the other is
Concrete Sealants Inc.) that have ceased production of asbestos sealant tapes,
are not available, resulting in the percentage increase in production volumes
and fiber consumption for 1985 to be slightly overstated.  See Attachment,
Item 2, for calculations.
                                      1  -

-------
                         Table  1.  Primary  Production of Extruded S««I«nt f»p» —  1985
                               Production      Fibar Coms«»i«el
Primary Production                (feat)          {short tons)          R*£»rane»
   Total                       *23.048,539         1,660,2              ICF IMS*

-------
difference in the growth rates between production volumes and fiber




consumption can be explained by the fact that one of the processors that




stopped using asbestos, Concrete Sealants Inc., manufactured a relatively high




asbestos content tape in 1981 
-------
    Table 2.   Market Trends of Extruded Sealant Tape,  1981-1985
Production of Tape
(feet)
1981 345,480,853
1985 423,048,539
Consumption of Fiber
(short tons) Reference
1,516.0 ICF 1986aa
1,660.2 ICF 1986a
aSee Attachment,  Item 1.
                               - 4 -

-------
Table 3.  Substitutes for Asbastos S«al«nfc I«p«
Friee
Product Manufacturer's 5 (f.o.b.)
Asbestos ^Sealant See TaJsle 1
Tape


Structural Essex Specialty
Urethane Products






Cellulose- Fiber Concrete
Tape Sealants Inc.
Parr Inc.
Tremco Inc.



Carbon -Based Treraeo Inc.
Tape (Hon-
Asbestos Striggle
Tape(R))

Hon-Curing Tape Fiber-H»ait»
Corp.
Potential
Market
Share Attvant*g«» Di»«6vantagM
H/A Strength <«he«r Baaltb hncud*.
strength 50 pel). Liability co»t*.
Dielectric strongtli.
Heat reftistance.
Lean expensive.
No health hazard.
Stranger then nsbottt.os
tepea (tihuor utirength
700-800 psl).



Less expensive. Hot as strong.
No health hazard. Hot as heat ruistant.
Shorter service life.




No health hazard. Increased cost..




Ho health heznrd. Not as h»at resiatatit.
Loagor ihalf lift, tlnnbln to i«pl«e« 20
Remarks
Market expect ad to
(Incline ,


ESMX Is only producer
of structural urethine.
This product hss cap-
tured 90 percent of OEM
market of automobile
windshields; PTI eon-
firmed product an
potanttal substitute.
Parr markets product
for sesling windows
on mobile hones and
KVS,
Treroco and concrete
market product to
seal Mlndom,
Jreduet under davalop-
roent.
A=b»atoB i* rsplaced
with carbon black
(soot).
Tape la compound of
butyl riibbar with
Refaronce
1CF 19B6n



Eaaez 1996,
PTI 1986






Parr 1986
TrefDco 1986





Trecnco 1986




Fiber-Reain 1986

                                  p*s;e»t>t o£
                                  applicntlcno ,
calcium carbonata
CllUr.
tape in used to
manufacture aero-
apoca parts.

-------
(Tremco 1986).  However, they are generally cost-competitive with asbestos




tapes and have an added advantage in not being considered hazardous (IGF




1986a).




    Three producers of cellulose tapes have been Identified in the survey, two




former processors of asbestos, Concrete Sealants Inc. and "Parr Inc., and one




current processor, Tremco Inc.  Concrete Sealants and Tremco market cellulose




tapes that are used to seal glass in the large metal frames of building




windows,  Tremco's cellulose tape is also used to seal automobile windshields




(after-market only).  Parr Inc., which has stopped processing asbestos,




produces a cellulose-tape that is used to seal windows on mobile homes and




recreational vehicles (IGF 1986a).




    Two current processors of asbestos have cited cellulose tape as a




potential substitute for their asbestos sealant tape markets.  Treraco has




stated that its cellulose tape could replace the entire market of the asbestos




sealant tape produced at Tremco's Kentucky plant for the sealing of windows




and windshields (Tremco 1986).  Elixir Industries, which produces an asbestos




tape for sealing windows on mobile homes and recreational vehicles, stated




that cellulose tape could replace its entire asbestos tape market, although




Elixir cited the poorer performance of the cellulose tapes as a disadvantage




(Elixir 1986).  If the expected substitutions were to occur at Elixir and




Tremco, cellulose tapes would gain a majority market share of the existing




asbestos sealant tape market.




        2.   Structural Urethane




        Structural urethane, produced by Essex Specialty Products, would




capture the second largest share of the asbestos sealant tape market if




asbestos was banned.  Structural urethane is mainly used to seal automobile




windshields and has the largest share of the market for windshield sealers (90




percent of the domestic OEM market and 60 percent of the after-market of




                                    - 6 -

-------
windshield sealers.) (Essex 1986),  Essex expects the market share of the

structural urethane to increase and considers structural urethane as capable

of replacing 100 percent of the windshield sealer market.  In terms of service

life, structural urethane's expected 20 years of service is the same as the

expected service life of an asbestos tape.  Structural urethane's main

advantages over the other sealers are its strength (sheer strength is 700-800

psi, compared to about 50 psi for asbestos tapes), and lower costs (Essex

1986, Protective Treatments Inc. 1986).

    Protective Treatments Inc. markets the most popular asbestos sealant tape

and has confirmed that its entire market could be replaced by the structural

urethane.  Even without an asbestos ban, Protective Treatments Inc.

anticipates a decline in the demand for their sealant tape in both the OEM and

after-market of windshield sealers.  If structural urethane were to replace

asbestos, 100 percent of Protective Treatment's market would be captured, by

the structural urethane (Protective Treatments Inc. 1986).

        3.  Carbon-based Tape

        At its Columbus, Ohio plant, Tremco Incorporated manufactures an

asbestos containing tape called Swiggle Tape(R),  a product that has

revolutionized the manufacture of insulated glass.   The asbestos in Swiggle

Tape(R) provides thermal stability and Tremco is developing a substitute

Swiggle Tape(R) that contains carbon black in place of asbestos.  The

anticipated cost of the carbon-based Swiggle Tape(R)  is 39 percent higher than

the current price of the asbestos Swiggle Tape(R), however, Tremco does not

foresee any major obstacles to complete replacement of asbestos in its Swiggle
       Swiggle Tape(R) allows the production of insulated glass to be a
one-step process of inserting the tape between two sheets of glass.  The older
method was a multi-stepped,  labor intensive process of lining each side of
glass with separate pieces of aluminum and then applying several layers of
adhesives before adding a second glass sheet.

                                    - 7 -

-------
Tape(R).  Total substitution of Tremco's asbestos Swiggle Tape(R) market would




give the carbon-based tape a market share of less than 10 percent (Treaco




1986).




        4.  Non-Curing face




        The fourth substitute, the non-curing tape, which 'is butyl rubber with




calcium carbonate as a filler, is manufactured by the smallest asbestos




sealant tape processor, Fiber-Resin Corp.  The non-curing tape is used in the




manufacture of plastic parts for the aerospace industry.  When setting a




plastic mold, a vacuum is created to force the plastic around the mold and the




non-curing tape is used to seal the mold and maintain a vacuum.  As the name




implies, the non-curing tape is not used when the molds have to be heated.




The potential market share of the non-curing tape is less than 5 percent of




the market (Fiber-Resin 1986).




    The salient features of the available substitutes for asbestos sealant




tapes and their potential market shares in the event of an asbestos ban are




presented below.  Cellulose tapes would gain a 56.3 percent market share,




replacing the asbestos sealant tapes produced by Elixir Industries and the




asbestos tape produced at Tremco's Kentucky plant.  Structural urethane would




replace Protective Treatment's entire market.  Tremco Incorporated is




developing a carbon-containing version of its Swiggle Tape (R) that would




capture less than 10 percent of the market if asbestos is banned.  The




non-curing tape would replace 80 percent of Fiber-Resin's market.  The market




substitutions are presented in Table 3.  The data inputs for the model are




presented in Table 4.




    E.  Summary




    Sealant tape is made from a semi-liquid mixture of butyl-rubber and




asbestos and is used for sealing building windows, automotive windshields, and




mobile home windows.  The tape is also used in the manufacture of parts for




                                    - 8 -

-------
                                            Table 4.   Data Inputo for Aib*>to* Regulatory Coit Mod«L
                                                               (033) Sealant lap*
Product
Asbestos Tape
Cellulose Tape
Product
Ashes to«
Output Coefficient
*23,04B,539 ft," 0.000003*9 tonm/ft
H/A N/A
Consumption
Production
Ratio Price Ueeful Life
.fc 1 $0.0?/ft.C 20 y««*»
N/A $0.05/ft.d ,15y««r«
Equlval«mt Murk*t
Price Share Referancaa
$0.07/£t. H/A ICF 19B6a
80. OS/ft. £ 56. « ICT l»86a. Parr 1986
Structural Uretbar.o
                            K/A
                                              H/A
                                                               H/A
                                                                         $0.0?/£t.     20 years     80.0?/£t.    36.8J     ICF  196«a, Essex  1986
Carbon-Based Tape
Non-Curing tape
H/A
H/A
N/A
H/A
N/A
N/A
S0.32/ft.
$0.10/£t.
20 years 50.32/ft.
H/A* $Q. ID/ft,
6.61
0,21
Tremco 1986
nb*r-RB»in 1986
N/A:  Hot Applicable.

 See Attachment Item 7.

 See Attachment Item 4.

 Saa Attachment Item 3.

 See Attachment Item S.
 Fiber-Resin's asbestos tap* is used in a manufacturing process that taias minutos to ccxrrplet* and one* eooplat* the taps IB  dlacardad,
     Attachment Item 6.
 Due to rounding error, tha actual total of thu market uharen was 99,9 percent.  To adjust for ell* rounding error, 0,1 percent wms
 o tha cellulose tap* market, share.

-------
the aerospace Industry and in the manufacture of insulated glass.  In 1985




there were four processors with five plants nationwide that manufactured the




tape.  There are no known importers of the tape.  Although the production of




the asbestos sealant tape increased 22,5 percent between 1981 and 1985,




industry experts expect a significant erosion of the asbestos extruded sealant




tape market over the next several years due to the development of




cost-effective substitutes, particularly in the area of automotive




applications.   Effective non-asbestos substitutes for almost all the




applications of asbestos sealant tape are available.  The substitutes Include




cellulose-tape,  structural urethane, carbon-based tape and non-curing tape.
                                    - 10

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT
1,   Fiber Consumption In Production of Asbestos Sealant Tapes as Percentage of
    Total Asbestos Fiber Consumed.

    According to ICF survey data, 145,123.3 short tons of asbestos fiber were
    consumed in the United States in 1985.  A total of 1,660.2 tons were
    consumed in the production of sealant tapes in 1985.  The percentage of
    sealant fiber consumption in 1985 is (1,660.2/145,123.3) x 100 - 1.1
    percent.

2.   1981 Fiber Consumption and Sealant Tape Production.
                                Fiber
                             Consumption    Production
             1981            (short tons)     (feet)         Reference
         Total                  1,516       345,480,853      ICF 1986a
    From the above 1981 data, two calculations were performed;

        (a)  Percentage change in production volume between 1981 and 1985 —
             (/1985 production - 1981 production/71981 production) x 100 -
             C/423,048,539 - 345,480,853//34S,480,853) x 100 - 22.5 percent

        (b)  Percentage change in fiber consumption between 1981 and 1985 —
             (/1985 consumption - 1981 consumption//1981 consumption) x 100
             (/1660-1516//1516) x 100 - 9.5 percent
                                    -  11  -

-------
3.  Calculation Of Average Price Of Asbestos Sealant Tape.
                                         Price of
                                                   a
                  Company             Asbestos Tape
              Average Price             $0.07/ft.
         aFrom ICF 1986a.
    The average price was calculated as a weighted average using the market
    share of each separately priced asbestos tape as the weight:
4.  Calculation of the Product Asbestos Coefficient,
                                      Product Asbestos
                  Company               Coefficient
              Coefficient              0,009 Ibs./ft.
         aFrom ICF 1986a.
                                   - 12  -

-------
    The product asbestos coefficient was calculated as a weighted average
    using the market share of each asbestos tape as the weight.

5.  Calculation of Price of Cellulose Tape.

    Two processors identified cellulose tape as a potential substitute.
    Treraco stated that the cellulose tape that it produces could replace 100
    percent of the market of its Kentucky plant.  Elixir Industries stated
    that a cellulose tape could replace their entire asbestos sealant tape
    market and it is assumed that the cellulose tape produced by Parr (used
    for the same applications as Elixir's tape) is a good estimate of the
    price of any'potential replacement at Elixir.

    The combined output of Elixir's plant and Tremco's Kentucky plant
    represents 100 percent of the expected share cellulose tapes would gain of
    the existing asbestos tape market.  The total production replaced by
    cellulose tapes is the sum of Elixir's and Tremco's 1985 production.  The
    average price of the cellulose tape can be calculated by taking a weighted
    average (using cellulose tape market shares as a weight) of the prices of
    the two substitute tapes.

6.  Calculation of Equivalent Price of Cellulose Tape.

    The equivalent prices were calculated using a present value formula
    assuming a 5 percent real interest rate.  The equivalent price of
    cellulose tape was calculated to be §0,06/ft.

    Let:

        TC - total cost of cellulose tape - $Q.05/ft.
        PV - present value price of substitute product calculated for the
             life of the asbestos product.
        Na - Useful life of asbestos sealant tape - 20 yrs.
        Ns — Useful life of cellulose tape - 15 yrs.

    In the following present value formula:

        PV - TC x (a/b) x (b-l)/(a-l)

where
                   ME               Ka
         a - (l.QSr8 and b - <1.05>Ba   ?n
         a - 1.05   - 2.08 and b - (1.05)   - 2.65
        PV - 0.05 x (2.08/2.65) x (2.65 - 1)/(2.08 - 1)
        PV - 0,06

7.  Fiber-Resin Corp. reported that one liquid gallon of the butyl rubber
    asbestos mixture is equivalent to 275-300 feet of sealant tape and this
    works out to an average of 287.5 feet per gallon.  This information nay be
    desirable for conversion purposes.

-------
REFERENCES
Concrete Sealants, Inc.  Mr. Robert J. Hainan.  1986 (July-December),   New
Carlisle, OH 45344.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Rick Hollander
and Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Elixir Industries,  Paul Elswick.  1986 (July-December).  Elkhart, IN.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Essex Specialty Products.  Robert Rozlinski,  1986 (December 12).  Clifton,
NJ.  Transcribed telephone conversation with Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated,
Washington, DC.

Fiber-Resin Corporation.  1986 (July-December).  Burbank.CA.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC.

ICF Incorporated.  1986a (July-December).   Survey of Primary Processors of
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic.  Washington,  DC.

ICF Incorporated.  1986b (July-December).   Survey of Secondary Processors of
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic.  Washington,  DC.

MB Associates.  Tony Depaulif.  1986 (December 9).  Detroit, MI.  Transcribed
telephone conversation with Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC,

Parr Incorporated.  John Burry.  1986 (December 9).   Cleveland, OH.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Eric Crabtree, ICF Incorporated,
Washington DC.

Protective Treatments Incorporated.  Steve Short.  1986 (July-December).
Dayton, OH.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Peter Tzanetos and Eric
Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington DC.

Tremco Inc.  David L. Triable.  1986 (July-December).  Columbus, OH.
Transcribed telephone conversations with Jeremy Obaditch and Eric Crabtree,
ICF Incorporated, Washington DC.
                                    -  14  -

-------
XXXIV,  ASBESTOS SEPARATORS IK FUEL CELLS AND BATTERIES




    A.  Product Description




    In very specialized aerospace applications, asbestos  functions  as an




insulator and separator between the negative and positive terminals of  a  fuel




cell/battery.  The porous nature of the 100 percent woven-'asbestos  material




allows it to adsorb the liquids used in fuel cells and batteries.   The  liquids




used in these fuel cells/batteries are highly corrosive and reach very  high




temperatures.  The properties of asbestos that are desirable  in  this function




are its porosity, heat resistance, anti-corrosiveness, strength  and dielectric




strength (IGF 1986).




    B.  Pr_Qduce_rs__and Importers Qf^Asbjest:_os_S_ej>ar_atprs




    Currently, two companies in the country use asbestos  in fuel cells  and




batteries.   Eagle-Pitcher Industries sells its batteries  to the  Defense




Department for use on ICBMs and Power Systems Division sells  its fuel cells  to




NASA for use on the Space Shuttle (Eagle-Pitcher 1986, Power  1986).  Table 1




lists the total fiber consumed in 1981 and 1985 in this market.  Neither




Eagle-Pitcher nor Power Systems were able to state with certainty the number




of asbestos-containing fuel cells/ batteries they produced, however, given




that the separators are 100 percent asbestos, the record  of fiber consumption




gives a good indicator of the market (IGF 1986).  There are no known importers




of asbestos containing batteries/fuel cells (ICF 1986, IGF 1984).








    Since 1981, asbestos use in this function has declined slightly from  2,150




Ibs.  to 2,046 Ibs.  Neither company anticipates a change  in the  government




specifications that require the use of asbestos in their  batteries/fuel cells




and thus do not expect any drastic changes in the asbestos separator market




(ICF 1986),
                                    - 1 -

-------
    Table  1.  Asbestos  Fiber Consumption In Batteries/Fuel Cells
                                1981             1985
                           Fiber Consumed   Fiber Consumed
                              (pounds)         (pounds)      Reference
Total                          2,150            2,046        ICF 1986
                               - 2 -

-------
    D,  Substitutes




    Eagle-Pitcher Industries has developed a substitute for asbestos that




could replace about two-thirds of its asbestos battery market.  The substitute




material is aluminum silicate.  The aluminum silicate batteries cost the'same




as the asbestos batteries and show no performance differences for two-thirds




of the asbestos battery market.  Eagle-Pitcher would not elaborate on why the




remaining one-third of their asbestos batteries could not be replaced with




non-asbestos substitutes.  Power Systems Division claims that asbestos is




required for the unique conditions encountered in outer space and reports that




there are no available substitutes (ICF 1986).




    This product category, a part of the miscellaneous asbestos mixture




category, was deemed too small to be included in the asbestos regulatory cost




model.  The 1 ton of asbestos fiber consumed in this category accounted for an




extremely small percentage of the total domestic consumption (145,123.3 tons)




in 1985 (ICF 1986).




    E.  Summary




    In very specialized aerospace applications, asbestos functions as an




insulator and separator between the negative and positive terminals of a fuel




cell/battery.  Currently, two companies in the country use asbestos separators




in fuel cells and batteries.  Since 1981, the market for asbestos separators




has been stable and no dramatic changes in the market are expected in the near




future.  One of the processors, Eagle-Pitcher Industries, has developed a




substitute battery containing aluminum silicate that could replace two-thirds




of its asbestos containing batteries.
                                    - 3 -

-------
REFERENCES
Eagle-Pitcher Industries, Inc.  Richard Cooper.   1986 (July-December).
Joplin, MO 64801.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Eric Crabtree,  1CF
Incorporated, Washington, DC.

ICF Incorporated.  1984.  Imports of Asbestos Mixtures and Products.
Washington, D.C.:  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA CB1 Document Control No. 20-8600681.

ICF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).  Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic.  Washington, D.C.

Power Systems Division.  Kelvin Hecht.  1986 (July-December).  South Windsor,
CT 46224.  Transcribed telephone conversations with Peter Tzanetos and Eric
Crabtree, ICF Incorporated, Washington, D.C.
                                    - 4 -

-------
XXXV.  ASBESTOS ARC CHOTES




    A.  Product Description




    Ceramic arc chutes containing asbestos are produced by General Electric




and are used to guide electric arcs in motor starter units in electric




generating plants.  Asbestos is used in the arc chutes for its strength, heat




resistance, and dielectric strength (General Electric 1986).




    B.  Producers and Importers of Asbestos Arc Chutes




    General Electric Company is the only processor of asbestos-containing




ceramic arc chutes.  There are, however, other processors of asbestos arc




chutes,  but they manufacture plastic arc chutes that have been classified in




the asbestos-reinforced plastic category (031).   Generally, the plastic arc




chutes are smaller and are not able to withstand as high a temperature (above




1500°F)  as the ceramic arc chutes.  The plastic arc chutes are used in smaller




electric motors, often in the automotive and appliance industries (ICP 1986).




    C.  Trends




    Production of asbestos arc chutes has fallen dramatically from 9,400 arc




chutes in 1981 to 900 in 1985,  Fiber consumption has fallen correspondingly




from 141 tons in 1981 to 13,5 tons in 1985. (General Electric 1986),  Table 1




shows production of asbestos arc chutes and consumption of asbestos fiber in




1981 and 1985.




    D, Substitutes




    General Electric is converting their ceramic blast breaker, which contains




the asbestos arc chutes, to a vacuum breaker which does not require any arc




chutes.   General Electric expects to be asbestos-free within a few years and




total replacement of this asbestos product market is predicted.  General




Electric did not cite any cost or performance differences of the vacuum




breaker versus the ceramic blast breaker (General Electric 1986),
                                    . 1 -

-------
Table 1.  Asbestos-Containing Ceramic Arc Chutes, Production and
                   Fiber Consumption  1981-85
        Production of   Fiber Consumption
Year    Arc Chutes        
-------
    This product category, a part of the miscellaneous asbestos mixture




category, was deemed too small to be included in the asbestos regulatory cost




model.  The 13.5 tons of asbestos fiber consumed in this category accounted




for an extremely small percentage of the total domestic consumption (145,123,3




tons) in 1985 (ICF 1986).




    E,  {?VlfflIlflTT



    One company, General Electric in Philadelphia, produces a ceramic arc




chute containing asbestos.  The arc chutes are used to guide electric arcs in




motor starter units in electric generating plants.  Production of asbestos arc




chutes has fallen dramatically since 1981,  General Electric is converting




from using a blast breaker to using a vacuum breaker that does not require any




asbestos.  Total replacement of this asbestos product is expected within a few




years.
                                    - 3 -

-------
General Electric Company.  Richard York.   1986 (July-December).   Philadelphia,
PA 19142,  Transcribed telephone conversations with Eric Crabtree,  ICF
Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

IGF Incorporated.  1986 (July-December).   Survey of Primary and Secondary
Processors of Asbestos-Reinforced Plastic.   Washington,  D.C.
                                    •  4 -

-------
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CONTROLS ON
      ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
                  FINAL REPORT
                   VOLUME IV
                   APPENDIX G
                    Prepared for:
                 Christine Augustyniak
               Office of Toxic Substances
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   January 19, 1989

-------
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS OF  CONTROLS ON
      ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
                   FINAL  REPORT
                    VOLUME IV
                    APPENDIX G
                     Prepared for:
                  Christine Augustyniak
                Office of Toxic Substances
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     Prepared by:
                    ICF Incorporated
               Fairfax Virginia 22031-1207
                    January 19, 1989

-------
                       APPENDIX G --  SENSITIVITY ANALYSES







     This appendix presents sensitivity analyses conducted for the Regulatory




Impact Analysis.   Most of the results reported in the main body of the RIA




represent "central" cases in the sense that the assumptions embodied in those




results are viewed as most likely and most consistent with Agency policies.




The sensitivity results presented here reflect alternative assumptions for the




baseline development of asbestos products markets over the future for each of




the seven regulatory alternatives considered in detail in this RIA.




     In addition to cost/benefit results under alternative assumptions




regarding baseline asbestos product trends for the fourteen regulatory




alternatives, several illustrative model results are contained in this appendix




for (1) a type of regulatory option that is not directly considered in the




regulatory alternatives discussed in the RIA -- engineering controls on some




markets to reduce exposures, rather than product bans or fiber phase-downs, (2)




baseline scenarios in which the costs of asbestos-containing product




substitutes decline over time, and (3) additional occupational and




nonoccupational exposure assumptions for exposure settings for which




quantitative information does not exist.  Although the aftermarket exposure




controls for brake repair did not appear in the main body of the RIA, results




for the latter two classes of sensitivity analyses (declining substitute prices




and additional exposure assumptions) were presented in summary tables in




Chapter IV of Volume I of this RIA.  This appendix presents the detailed




cost/benefit results for these model runs underlying those summary results.




     The four types of sensitivity analyses are conducted for different




reasons.  For the alternative baselines for asbestos product market growth or




decline, the rationale for the sensitivity analysis is that the central case




baseline presented in the main body of this RIA probably overstates the future




                                      G-l

-------
levels of asbestos product manufacture and use because that baseline assumes no

future decline in asbestos product manufacture and use.  Recent history

suggests, however, that substantial a decline in asbestos use has occurred, and

has occurred at a more rapid pace than predicted in previous versions of the

RIA.  Hence, because the central case for future asbestos product market

quantities probably overstates the level of asbestos use, results assuming more

rapid declines of asbestos products over time are presented for comparison.

     Engineering controls for aftermarket replacement of drum and LMV disc

brakes are analyzed to determine the magnitude of the costs associated with

such controls.  No quantitative information deemed to be reliable concerning

the reduction of exposures using these controls, however, was available, so the

results for these analyses incorporate only the cost-side impacts of

engineering controls on the analysis,

     The basis for the possible decline in asbestos substitute prices over time

is primarily the empirical observation in the business and economics literature

of both economies of scale and experience curves (both of which lead to reduced

prices for goods over time).   However, the results presented for this scenario

are designed to indicate the sensitivity of the costs of the regulatory

alternatives to changing substitute prices over time, hence the 1 percent fall

per year in all asbestos substitute prices is an assumption made for

illustrative purposes.

     Finally, there are a number of product/exposure settings for which no

quantitative information on exposures are available but in which exposures are

suspected to occur.  Omitting these exposures could impart a substantial

downward bias to the estimates of benefits of the regulatory alternatives.  To

examine this possibility, occupational exposures for some settings in which
       Recent articles concerning pricing, costs, and the experience (or
learning) curve include Bass (1980), Lieberman (1984), and Oilman (1982).

                                      G-2

-------
quantitative data were not available were estimated based on, among other

information, exposures for similar products and exposure settings.

Nonoecupatlonal exposures due to product use In some other cases were assumed

based on a steady yearly release rate of one percent of the embodied asbestos

over the lifetime of each product's use.

     A.  Sensitivity Analysis for Baseline .Product,	Market. Growth Rates

     The exhibits which follow contain the cost and benefit results for

alternative assumptions regarding the baseline development of asbestos

products,  A full set of exhibits appears for each of the fourteen regulatory

alternatives presented in the main body of the RIA.  Exhibit G-l presents

descriptions of the fourteen regulatory alternatives for reference.

     The results of this sensitivity analysis are consistent with expectations.

The scenarios with greater declines 'in asbestos-containing product outputs

result in lower costs and lower benefits for the various alternatives because

baseline exposures are less and the costs of foregoing asbestos use are lower,

     B.   Sensitivity Analysis for Engineering_._Contr_Qls..._	Changing Asbestos
          Sub s t Itute Prices ,__and_ Add! t lonal Exposur e As sump 11 ons

     This section presents the results of (1) imposing engineering controls on

drum brake repair and replacement in the aftermarket (I.e., replacement brakes,

not installation of new asbestos drum brakes) and all brakes in the aftermarket

(including disc), rather than including these products in a ban or an asbestos

fiber phase-down, (2) assuming that all asbestos product substitute prices fall

by 1 percent per year throughout the simulation period, and (3) additional

occupational and nonoccupational exposure assumptions for exposure settings for

which quantitative information does not exist,

     The first set of results are based on actual engineering costs associated

with a type of exposure-reducing equipment for use during brake repair and

replacement (the derivation of these costs appears in Appendix D in Volume II


                                      G-3

-------
of this RIA).   Control equipment required under this scenario is a HEPA vacuum




system without enclosure.  Establishments already using this system are not




required to engage in any additional compliance activities, but those, without




any control equipment or with equipment of lesser efficiency would be required




to upgrade to at least this level of control.  In addition, the costs of these




controls reflect a requirement that all drum (or all drum and disc) brake




repairs and replacements, not just asbestos brakes, use these controls.  The




rationale for this requirement is that until the brake job is underway, the




workers probably would not know which brakes are asbestos and which non-




asbestos.




     Although the costs estimated for controlling asbestos exposure during




repair and replacement are likely to be accurate, the benefits model was not




revised for this model run.  This is because exposure information required to




estimate the benefits of the controls was not available.  Hence, neither the




benefits nor the cost per cancer case avoided for the markets controlled via




engineering measures are appropriate.  The engineering controls on brakes




scenarios were estimated using Alternatives G, H, and I with controlled brake




markets exempted from the all-product bans, using both the 3 percent discount




rate for both costs and benefits and the 3 percent discount rate for costs with




0 percent for benefits.  Finally, the engineering controls are assumed to be




required at the time that the product bans take effect (1987 in G, 1992 in H,




and 1997 in I).




     As the results in the exhibits indicate, imposing engineering controls on




drum brake markets does not affect the costs or benefits in the banned markets.




The perhaps surprising result, on the other hand, is that the drum brake




markets actually experience gains in welfare as a result of requiring the




controls.  This comes about because the fall in asbestos prices as a result of




the products bans more than offsets the rise in the costs of brake jobs due to




                                      G-4

-------
the engineering controls requirements.  This outcome suggests that as long as




the same magnitude of cancer cases will be avoided "by the engineering controls,




such requirements will have net social benefits if other asbestos markets are




banned.  This explains why the total social costs of the modeled alternatives




with all "brakes in the aftermarket exempted and controlled are lower than the




total costs of the same situation, but with onlv. drum brakes exempted and




controlled.  Requiring controls on disc brakes imposes costs, but these are




more than outweighed by their exemption from the asbestos product ban as long




as the same magnitude of cancer cases are avoided.




     The results for the declining asbestos product substitute prices are also




presented for Scenarios G, H, I, and J (in which diaphragms and missile liner




are exempt from the product bans) under both the 3 percent cost and benefit




discounting assumption and the 10 percent for costs and 0 percent for benefits




assumption.  The exhibits corresponding to these scenarios indicate that, as




expected, the'- social costs of the complete ban fall as asbestos product




substitute prices decline, dropping by between 20 and 30 percent for the




scenarios in which all products are banned at the same time (G, H, and I),  and




by about 30 percent for Alternative J.  The fall in costs for this scenario is




larger than in the all-products-banned simultaneously alternatives because in




scenario J, some products are banned later than others.  During the time in




which some products are banned and others are not, the non-banned products




experience additional welfare gains through reductions in asbestos fiber prices




which feed back into the asbestos product markets.  Because the model restricts




the prices of asbestos substitutes to be no less than the prices of the




asbestos-containing products, substitute prices in this scenario fall further




than in the other scenarios.




     Finally, the detailed cost/benefit tables for Alternative J using the




additional exposure assumptions for both occupational and nonoccupational




                                      G-5

-------
exposure settings in which quantitative information did not exist are




presented.  These are the detailed cost/benefit tables corresponding to the




summary information for these model runs that- appear at the end of Chapter IV




of Volume I of this RIA.
                                      G-6

-------
          Exhibit G-l.   Regulatory Alternatives  Descriptions
AlterpatiyeB:

     •    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to 1997

     •    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 25 (protective clothing
          and construction products, except for A/C sheet and
          shingle) in 1987

AlternativeBX;

     •    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to 1997

     •    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 25 (protective clothing
          and construction products, except for A/C sheet and
          shingle) in 1987

     •    Products 13 and 32 (diaphragms and uissile liner)
          exempt from regulation

Alternative D:

     •    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to 1997

     H    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) in
          1987

AlternativePX:

     •    Fiber Phase-Down from 1987 to 1997

     •    Bans on Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) in
          1987

     •    Products 13 and 32 (diaphragms and missile liner)
          exempt from regulation

Alter nat_ive E:

     •    Bans of Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) in
          1987

     •    Bans of Products 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37
          (friction products) in 1992
                                 G-7

-------
          Exhibit G-l.   Regulatory Alternatives Descriptions
                             (continued)
Alternative F:

     •    Bans of Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) in
          1987

     •    Bans of Products 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37
          (friction products) in 1992

     •    Bans of all Remaining Products in 1997.

Alte.rnat.lve FX:

     m    Bans of Products 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25
          (protective clothing and construction products) in
          1987

     «    Bans of Products 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37
          (friction products) in 1992

     •    Bans of all Remaining Products in 1997 except
          Products 13 and 32 (diaphragms and missile
          liner).

AlternativeG:

     •    Bans of all Products In 1987

AlLtern.at_ive__jGX:

     •    Bans of all Products except Products 13 and 32
          (diaphragms and missile liner) in 1987

Alternative H:

     a    Bans of all Products In 1992

Alternative HX:

     •    Bans of all Products except Products 13 and 32
          (diaphragms and missile liner) in 1992

Alternative I:

     •    Bans of all Products in 1997

Alternativem|X:

     •    Bans of all Products except Products 13 and 32
          (diaphragms and missile liner) in 1997
                                   Go
                                  - O

-------
          Exhibit G-l,   Regulatory Alternatives Descriptions
                             (continued)
Alternative J:
          Bans of Products 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16,
          17, and 25 in 1987

          Bans of Products 5, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
          and 27 in 1991

          Bans of Products 14, 36, and 37 in 1994.
                                 G-9

-------
REFERENCES
Bass, FML  1980.  The Relationship "between Diffusion Rates, Experience Curves,
and Demand Elasticities for Consumer Durable Technological Innovations,  J.
Business:  53.  pp. S51-S67.

Oilman, JJ.   1982 (March).  Market Penetration Rates and Their Effect on Value,
Research Management:  pp. 35-43.

Lieberman, MB.  1984.  The Learning Curve and Pricing in the Chemical
Processing Industries.  Rand J. of Economics: 15,  pp. 213-228.
                                      G-10

-------
Sensitiylty Analvsis Exhibits for Alternative Baselines

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE B -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Hitlers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
10.55
115.05
.00

2107.87
10.94
1717.60 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
10.55
115.05
.00

2107.87
10.94
1717.60
.00
Government
                                                                       -276.51
                                -276.51
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
3559.51
3685.50
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE B -- LCW DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterraarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $}
,00
.00
5.32
1.96
157.20
34.62
8.90
5.81
.00
.00
.02
.00
.07
438.45
.82
.40
30.67
12.99
.10
.02
17.11
17.42
.06
.43
.00
78,96
98.40
.25
206.79
40.15
19.96
486.28
20.78
.00
.00
32.62
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 *)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.06
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
,00
2005.16
43.87
1.55
.00
9.34
6.25
3.88
.39
2.92
1.22
.11
2.09
.00
.00
10.44
.00
.73
1.46
.23
.24
.10
.00
.00
10.46
7.37
10.55

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
5.32
1.97
157.25
34.62
8.90
5.81
.00
.00
.03
.00
2005.23
482,32
2.37
.40
40.02
19.24
3.98
.41
20,03
18.63
.17
2.52
.00
78.96
108.84
.25
207.52
41.61
20.19
486.51
20.88
.00
.00
43.08
8.42
10.55
3559.51 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.6577
1.7416
4.8639
.2270
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0513
.0000
.0951
6.2221
.7829
.1016
.4348
8.3564
.9063
.2165
12.9784
.3025
.0002
.7341
.0000
.4839
1.2871
.0051
1.5686
.1966
,9557
.1405
.1647
.0000
.0000
175.5588
43.7111
1.7398
265.9958
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.09
1.13
32.33
152.55
5.89
***
n/a
n/a
.50
n/a
21084.15
T7.52
3.02
3.92
92.03
2.30
4.39
1.88
1.54
61.61
927.26
3.43
n/a
163.15
84.56
48.93
132.29
211.59
21.13
3463.27
126.74
n/a
n/a
.25
.19
6.06
13.38
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE 8 -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rot Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV {OEM}
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet fiaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Nort- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $>
.00
.00
5.32
1.96
157.20
34.62
8.90
5.81
.00
.00
.02
.00
.07
438.45
.82
.40
30,67
12.99
.10
.02
17.11
17.42
.06
.43
.00
78.96
98.40
.25
206.79
40.15
19,96
486.28
20.78
.00
.00
32.62
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.01
.06
.00
.00
.00
.00
.0(3
.00
.00
2005.16
43,87
1.55
.00
9.34
6.25
3.88
.39
2.92
1.22
.11
2.09
.00
.00
10.44
.00
.73
1,46
.23
.24
.10
.00
.00
10.46
7.37
10.55

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
5.32
1.97
157.25
34.62
8,90
5.81
.00
.00
.03
.00
2005.23
482.32
2.37
,40
40.02
19.24
3.98
.41
20.03
18.63
.17
2.52
.00
78.96
108.84
.25
207.52
41.61
20.19
486.51
20.88
.00
.00
43.08
8.42
10.55
3559.51 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.4872
1 .4052
3.5130
.1569
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0414
.0000
.0658
5.0204
.5988
.0769
.3345
6.3090
.6751
.1641
9.6853
.2123
.0001
.5923
.0000
.3576
.9144
.0035 -
1.1433'
.1377
.7680
.0971
.1325
.0000
.0000
136.4880
36.3111
1 .3520
208.2629
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
10.92
1.40
44.76
220.61
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
.62
n/a
30491 .89
96.07
3.95
5.18
119.65
3.05
5.90
2.49
2.07
87.77
1341.00
4.25
n/a
220.80
119.03
70.76
181.50
302.28
26.29
5008.58
157.55
n/a
n/a
.32
.23
7.80
17.09
n/a: Not applicable
***  Harket is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE 8 -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
ieater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles .
Drum Erake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Mon- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.75
.80
75.14
31.93
9.80
2.15
.00
.00
.02
.00
.34
288.58
.08
.49
15.99
2.65
.00
.01
2.39
14.56
.06
.67
.00
6.99
19.99
.03
174.30
7.00
5.29
484.29
32.85
.00
.00
31.84
2.60
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(1Q"6 $)
.00
.00
,00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2002.13
38.78
.29
.00
6.71
4.66
.12
.36
2.70
1.20
.11
1.98
.00
.00
3.51
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.24
.10
.00
.00
10.82
7.22
4.26

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(1QA6 *)
.00
.00
.75
.80
75.17
31.94
9.80
2.15
.00
,00
.02
.00
2002.46
327.36
.37
.49
22.70
7.31
.12
.37
5.09
15.77
.17
2.66
.00
6.99
23.50
.03
175.05
8.46
5.53
484,53
32.95
.00
.00
42.65
9,83
4.26
3122.48 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0641
.3471
2.0867
.2224
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0119
,0000
.0951
3.7955
.0294
.0811
,2256
.2757
.0000
.0091
1 .3267
.2335
,0002
.2931
.0000
.0484
.2342
.0007
1,1837
,0284
.3907
.1405
.2069
.0000
.0000
98.0085
33,2487
.9438
145.0432
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
11,73
2.32
36.02
143.58
6.49
***
n/a
n/a
1.85
n/a
21055.08
86.25
12.52
6.07
100.59
26.53
***
40.30
3.84
67.52
923.69
9.07
n/a
144.41
100.33
49.19
147.89
298.10
14.15
3449.17
159.23
n/a
n/a
.44
.30
4.51
21.53
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE 8 -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            
-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE B -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol Iboard
Hi t Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Srade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Orum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
LOSS
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.75
.80
75.14
31.93
9.80
2.15
.00
.00
.02
.00
.34
288.58
.08
.49
15.99
2.65
.00
.01
2.39
14.56
.06
.67
.00
6.99
19.99
.03
174.30
7.00
5.29
484.29
32.85
.00
.00
31.84
2.60
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2002.13
38.78
.29
.00
6.71
4.66
.12
.36
2.70
1.20
.11
1.98
.00
.00
3.51
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.24
.10
.00
.00
10.82
7.22
4.26

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.75
.80
75.17
31.94
9.80
2.15
.00
.00
.02
.00
2002.46
327.36
.37
.49
22.70
7.31
.12
.37
5.09
15.77
.17
2.66
.00
6.99
23.50
.03
175.05
8.46
5.53
484.53
32.95
.00
.00
42.65
9.83
4.26
3122.48 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
,0000
.0000
.0471
.3019
1.4933
.1538
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0101
.0000
.0658
3.1514
.0227
.0595
.1732
.2221
.0000
.0065
.9802
.1615
.0001
.2359
.0000
.0359
.1665
.0005
.8469
,0199
.3232
.0971
.1617
.0000
.0000
75.6533
27.7744
.7420
114.1260
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
15.96
2.66
50.34
207.64
8.04
***
n/a
n/a
2.18
n/a
30449.84
103.88
16.21
8.27
131.07
32.93
***
56.73
5.19
97.64
1335.84
11.26
n/a
194.46
141.14
70.55
206.70
426.13
17.11
4988.19
203.78
n/a
n/a
.56
.35
5.74
27.36
n/a: Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE B -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in nit I ion dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
CS Loss PS Loss
2.44
26.66
.00

2068.38
6.68
1024.52 .00
.00 .00

Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
-141.67
Net loss
2.44
26.66
.00

2068.38
6.68
1024.52
.00
-141.67
                                      NET yELFARE LOSSES
                                U.  S.  yelfare:
                                World Welfare:
2953.68
2987.02
Mote; Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE 8 -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at
Product Product
TSCA f Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rol t board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV 
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos. Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Hisst le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftertnarket>
Mining and Mi 1 1 ing
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $}
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.43
30,87
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
.42
190.26
.01
.53
8.48
.67
.00
.00
.04
13.36
.06
.25
.00
.49
3.99
.00
155.29
1.00
1.28
483.82
50.32 •
.00
.00
30.05
3.44
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
LOSS
<10*6 $>
,00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2001 .38
34.01
,06
.00
4.70
1.10
,05
.28
2.28
1.20
.11
1.99
.00
.00
1.35
.00
,75
1.47
.24
.24
.10
.00
.00
10.03
7.01
2.44

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 *)
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.46
30.87
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
2001 .80
224,27
.06
.53
13.18
1.77
.05
.28
2.33
14.56
.17
2.24
.00
.49
5.34
.00
156.04
2.47
1.52
484.06
50.42
.00
.00
40.08
10.45
2.44
2953.68 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0058
.1020
.9076
.2185
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0045
.0000
.0951
2.4044
,0000
.0718
.1201
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0288
.2250
.0002
.0461
.0000
.0021
.0345
.0000
.9940
.0032
.1875
.1405
.2809
.0000
.0000
63.4359
28.2421
.6501
99.7125
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
21.66
2.58
42.37
141.32
6.75
***
n/a
n/a
2,08
n/a
21048.12
93.28
***
7.32
109.69
***
***
1277,14
80.68
64.72
922.84
48.51
n/a
234.14
154.59
90.51
156.97
784.28
8.13
3445.79
179.52
n/a
n/a
.63
.37
3.76
29.62
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned,  exempted, or exposure data is not available,
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE B -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY'PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Conmercial Paper
Rot Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline yrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothfng
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Mon- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (After-market)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
,00
.00
.12
.26
38.43
30.87
10.21
.86
,00
.00
.01
.00
.42
190.26
.01
.53
8.48
.67
.00
.00
.04
13.36
.06
.25
.00
.49
3.99
.00
155.29
1.00
1.28
483.82
50.32
.00
.00
30.05
3.44
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10^6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2001 .38
34.01
.06
.00
4.70
1.10
.05
.28
2.28
1.20
.11
1.99
.00
.00
1.35'
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.24
.10
.00
.00
10.03
7.01
2.44

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(1QA6 $}
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.46
30.87
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
2001 .80
224.27
.06
.53
13.18
1.77
.05
.28
2.33
14.56
.17
2.24
.00
.49
5.34
.00
156.04
2.47
1.52
484.06
50.42
.00
.00
40.08
10.45
2.44
2953.68 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
,0043
.0944
.6467
,1511
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0041
,0000
.0658
2.0533
.0000
.0519
,0924
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0205
.1556
.0001
.0341
.0000
.0016
.0246
.0000
.7070
.0022
.1616
.0971
.2167
.0000
.0000
48.4434
23.2781
.5125
78.0390
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
28.72
2.79
59.46
204.35
8.37
***
n/a
n/a
2.29
n/a
30439.78
109.22
***
10.12
142.68
***
***
1767.86
113.34
93.58
1334.61
65.68
n/a
308.31
216.91
125.28
220.69
1123.17
9.43
4983.30
232.72
n/a
n/a
.83
.45
4.77
37.85
n/a: Mot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE BX -- LOU DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values,  in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
CS Loss PS Loss
10.55
115.04
.00

102.48
10.94
1228.62 .00
.00 .00

Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
-262.69
Net Loss
10.55
115.04
.00

102.48
10.94
1228.62
.00
-262.69
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES

                                U.  S.  Uelfare;          1078.96
                                yorld Welfare:          1204.94
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE BX -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ir
18
.19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rol looard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
ton- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftennarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
aoA6 $>
.00
.00
5,32
1.96
157,20
34.62
8.90
5.81
.00
.00
.02
.00
-1.54
438.45
.82
.40
30.67
12.99
.10
.02
17.11
17.42
.06
.43
.00
78.96
98.40
.25
206.79
40.15
19.96
-.1.10
20.78
.00
,00
32.62
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 *)
.00
.00
,00
.01
.06
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
43.87
1.55
.00
9.34
6.25
3.88
.39
2.92
1.22
.11
2.09
.00
.00
10.44
.00
.73
1.46
.23
.00
.10
.00
.00
10.46
7.37
10.55

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
5.32
1.97
157.25
34.62
8.90
5.81
.00
.00
.03
.00
-1.54
482.32
2.37
.40
40.02
19.24
3.98
.41
20,03
18.63
.17
2.52
.00
78.96
108.84
.25
207.52
41.61
20.19
-1.10
20.88
.00
.00
43.08
8.42
10.55
1078.96 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.4872
1 .4052
3.5130
.1569
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0414
.0000
.0658
5.0204
.5988
.0769
.3345
6.3090
.6751
.1641
9.6853
.2123
.0001
.5923
.0000
.3576
.9144
.0035
1.1433
.1377
.7680
.0971
.1325
.0000
.0000
136.4880
36.3111
1 .3468
208.2577
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
{10*6 */case)
n/a
n/a
10.92
1.40
44.76
220.61
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
.62
n/a
-23.36
96.07
3.95
5.18
119.65
3.05
5.90
2.49
2.07
87.77
1341.00
4.25
n/a
220.80
119.03
70.76
181.50
302.28
26.29
-11.33
157.55
n/a
n/a
.32
.23
7.83
5.18
n/a: Mot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE BX -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
• 34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Kol I board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specie tty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake P.ads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Ctutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
loss
(10A6 $)
,00
.00
5.32
1.96
157.20
34.62
8.90
5.81
.00
.00
.02
.00
-1.54
438.45
.82
.40
30.67
12.99
.10
.02
17.11
17.42
.06
.43
.00
78.96
98.40
.25
206.79
40.15
19.96
-1.10
20.78
.00
.00
32.62
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.06
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
43.87
1.55
.00
9.34
6.25
3.88
.39
2.92
1.22
.11
2.09
.00
.00
10.44
.00
.73
1.46
.23
.00
.10
.00
.00
10.46
7.37
10.55

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
,00
5.32
1.97
157.25
34.62
8.90
5.81
.00
.00
.03
.00
-1.54
482.32
2.37
.40
40.02
19.24
3.98
.41
20.03
18.63
.17
•2.52
.00
78.96
108.84
.25
207.52
41.61
20.19
-1.10
20.88
.00
.00
43.08
8.42
10.55
1078.96 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.6577
1.7416
4,8639
.2270
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0513
.0000
.0951
6.2221
.7829
.1016
.4348
8.3564
.9063
.2165
12.9784
.3025
.0002
.7341
.0000
.4839
1.2871
.0051
1.5686
.1966
.9557
.1405
.1647
.0000
.0000
175.5588
43.7111
1.7322
265.9882
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 */case)
n/a
n/a
8.09
1.13
32.33
152.55
5.89
***
n/a
n/a
.50
n/a
-16.15
77.52
3.02
3.92
92.03
2.30
4.39
1.88
1.54
• 61 .61
927.26
3.43
n/a
163.15
84.56
48.93
132.29
211.59
21.13
-7.84
126.74
n/a
n/a
.25
.19
6.09
4.06
n/a: Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE 8X -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                       yELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
CS Loss PS Loss
4.26
46.42
.00

81.07
8,34
725.53 .00
.00 .00

Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

,00
.00
.00
.00
-167.74
Net Loss
4.26
46.42
,00

81.07
8.34
725.53
.00
-167.74
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                u. s. Welfare:
                                World Welfare;
643.11
697.88
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE  BX  --  MODERATE  DECLINE  BASELINE
                                               COST-BEtiEFlT  BY PRODUCT
                                (Costs discounted at 3% and  benefits  discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA M Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Caimerciat Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline yrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/c Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake linings (Afternsarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 S)
,00
.00
.75
.80
75.14
31.93
9.80
2.15
.00
.00
.02
.00
-.84
288.58
.08
.49
15.99
2.65
.00
.01
2.39
14.56
.06
.67
.00
6.99
19.99
.03
174.30
7.00
5.29
-.60
32.85
.00
.00
31.84
2.60
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
38.78
.29
.00
6.71
4.66
.12
.36
2.70
1.20
.11
1.98
.00
.00
3.51
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.00
.10
.00
.00
10.82
7.22
4.26

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
.75
.80
75.17
31.94
9.80
2.15
.00
.00
.02
.00
-.84
327.36
.37
.49
22.70
7.31
.12
.37
5.09
15.77
.17
2.66
.00
6.99
23.50
.03
175.05
8.46
5.53
-.60
32.95
.00
.00
42.65
9.83
4,26
643.11 *
Total
Cancer Cost per
Cases Cancer Case
Avoided Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
.0000
.0000
.0641
.3471
2.0867
.2224
1,5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0119
.0000
.0951
3.7955
.0294
.0811
.2256
.2757 •
.0000
.0091
1.3267
.2335
.0002
.2931
.0000
.0484
.2342
.0007
1.1837
.0284
.3907
.1405
,2069
.0000
.0000
98.0085
33.2487
.9362
145.0356
n/a
n/a
11.73
2.32
36.02
143.58
6.49
***
n/a
n/a
1.85
n/a
-8.86
86.25
12.52
6.07
100.59
26.53
***
40.30
3.84
67.52
923.69
9.07
n/a
144.41
100.33
49.19
147.89
298.10
14.15
-4.30
159.23
n/a
n/a
.44
.30
4.55
4.43
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data  is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE BX -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product Product
TSCA 9 Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rol I board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
ft/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Srake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (After-market)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $)
.00
.00
.75
.80
75.14
31.93
9.80
2.15
.00
.00
.02
.00
-.84
288.58
.08
,49
15.99
2.65
.00
.01
2.39
14.56
.06
.67
.00
6.99
19.99
.03
174.30
7.00
5.29
-.60
32.85
,00
.00
31.84
2.60
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
,00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
38.78
.29
.00
6.71
4.66
.12
.36
2.70
1.20
.11
1.98
.00
.00
3.51
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.00
.10
.00
.00
10.82
7.22
4.26

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(1QA6 $>
,00
.00
.75
.80
75.17
31.94
9.80
2.15
.00
.00
.02
.00
-.84
327.36
.37
.49
22.70
7.31
.12
.37
5.09
15.77
.17
2,66
.00
6.99
23.50
.03
175.05
8.46
5.53
-.60
32.95
.00
.00
42.65
9.83
4.26
643.11 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0471
.3019
1 .4933
.1538
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0101
.0000
.0658
3.1514
.0227
.0595
.1732
.2221
.0000
.0065
,9802
.1615
.0001
.2359
.0000
.0359
.1665
.0005
.8469
.0199
.3232
.0971
.1617
.0000
.0000
75.6533
27.7744
.7367
114.1208
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
15.96
2.66
50.34
207.64
8.04
***
n/a
n/a
2.18
n/a
-12.81
103.88
16.21
8.27
131 .07
32.93
*»*
56.73
5.19
97.64
1335.84
11,26
n/a
194.46
141.14
70.55
206.70
426.13
17.11
-6.21
203.78
n/a
n/a
.56
.35
5.78
5.64
n/a: Mot applicable
***  Market is not banned,  exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE BX -- HtGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS 8Y PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
CS Loss PS Loss
2.44
26.66
.00

66.T6
6.68
539.29 .00
.00 .00

Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
-133.73
Net Loss
2.44
26.66
.00

66.76
6.68
539.29
.00
-133.73
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
474.77
508.10
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE BX -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               {Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Saskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads L«V {Aftermarket)
Mining and Milting
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
{1ET6 $)
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.43
30.87
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.58
190.26
.01
.53
8,48
.67
.00
.00
.04
13.36
.06
.25
.00
.49
3.99
.00
155.29
1.00
1,28
-.42
50.32
.00
.00
30.05
3.44
.00

Oomest i c
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
34.01
.06
.00
4.70
1.10
.05
.28
2.28
1.20
.11
1.99
.00
.00
1.35
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.00
.10
.00
.00
10,03
7.01
2.44

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 S)
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.46
30.87
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.58
224.27
.06
.53
13.18
1.77
.05
.28
2.33
14.56
.17
2.24
.00
.49
5.34
.00
156.04
2.47
1.52
-.42
50.42
.00
.00
40,08
10.45
2.44
474.77 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0058
.1020
.9076
.2185
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0045
.0000
.0951
2.4044
,0000
.0718
.1201
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0288
.2250
.0002
.0461
.0000
.0021
.0345
.0000
.9940
.0032
.1875
.1405
.2809
.0000
.0000
63,4359
28.2421
.6425
99.7049
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
21.66
2.58
42.37
141.32
6.75
***
n/a
n/a
2.08
n/a
-6.10
93.28
***
7.32
109.69
***
***
1277.14
80.68
64.72
922.84
48.51
n/a
234.14
154.59
90.51
156.97
784.28
8.13
-2.96
179.52
n/a
n/a
.63
.37
3.80
4.76
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE BX -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets '
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (ftftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.43
30.87
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.58
190.26
.01
.53 .
8.48
.67
.00 .
.00
.04
13.36
.06
.25
.00
,49
3.99
.00
155.29
1.00
1.28
-.42
50.32
.00
.00
30.05
3.44
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6-$>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
34.01
.06
.00
4.70
1.10
.05
.28
2.28
1.20
.11
1.99
.00
.00
1.35
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.00
.10
.00
.00
10.03
7.01
2.44

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.46
30.87
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.58
224.27
.06
.53
13.18
1.77
.05
.28
2.33
14.56
.17
2.24
.00
.49
5.34
.00
156.04
2,47
1.52
-.42
50.42
.00
.00
40.08
10.45
2.44
474.77 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0043
.0944
.6467
.1511
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0041
.0000
.0658
2.0533
.0000
.0519
.0924
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0205
,1556
.0001
.0341
.0000
.0016
.0246
.0000
.7070
.0022
.1616
.0971
.2167
.0000
.0000
48.4434
23.2781
.5073
78.0338
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
28.72
2.79
59.46
204.35
8.37
***
n/a
n/a
2.29
n/a
-8.82
109.22
***
10.12
142.68
***
***
1767.86
113.34
93.58
1334.61
65.68
n/a
308.31
216.91
125.28
220.69
1123.17
9.43
-4.28
232.72
n/a
n/a
.83
.45
4.82
6.08
n/a: Mot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available,
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE D -- LOU DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS ST PARTY
                            {Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
CS Loss PS Loss
10.77
117.46
.00

2106.44
10.36
1750.39 .00
.00 .00

Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
-260.49
Net Loss
10.77
117.46
.00

2106.44
10.36
1750.39
.00
-260.49
                                      MET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
3607.11
3734.93
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE D -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE

                                              CQST-BEMEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               {Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
' 34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater- Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings 
.00
.00
5.32
1.96
156,98
34.59
8.90
5.81
.00
.00
.02
.00
.07
438.45
1.35
.62
63.31
12.99
.10
.02
17.11
17.37
.06
.43
,00
78.94
98.21
.25
206.79
40.09
19.96
486.25
20.77
.00
.00
32.62
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.00
.01
.06
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2005.12
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
6.25
3.88
,39
2.92
1.22
.11
2.09
.00
.00
10.44
.00
.73
1.46
.23
.24
.10
,00
,00
10.46
7.37
10.77

Cross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
5.32
1.97
157.04
34.60
8.90
5.81
.00
.00
.03
.00
2005.19
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
19.24
3,98
.41
20.03
18.59
.17
2.52
.00
78.94
108.65
.25
207.52
41.55
20,19
486.49
20.87
,00
,00
43.09
8.42
10.77
3607.11 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.6577
1.7416
4.8483
.2270
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
,0513
.0000
.0951
6.2221
1.0504
.1435
.6395
8.4194
.9063
.2165
12.9784
.3025
.0002
.7341
.0000
.4839
1.3118
.0051
1.5773
.1966
.9557
.1405
.1647
.0000
.0000
177.3033
43.1976
1.7796
267,8614
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/ease)
n/a
n/a
8.08
1.13
32,39
152.42
5.89
***
n/a
n/a
.50
n/a
21083.76
77.52
2.60
4,30
111.68
2.29
4.39
1.88
1.54
61.47
927.21
3.43
n/a
163.12
82.82
48.92
131.57
211.27
21.13
3463.08
126.71
n/e
n/a
.24
.19
6.05
13.47
it/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE D -- LOU DECLINE BASELINE


                                              COST-BENEFIT BY-PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline yrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings 
n/a
n/a
10.91
1.40
44.82
220.43
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
.62
n/a
30491.32
96.07
3.22
5.33
138.42
3.02
5,90
2.49
2.07
87.56
1340.93
4.25
n/a
220.75
116.49
70.75
180.35
301 .81
26.29
5008.31
157.52
n/a
n/a
.31
.24
7.76
17.18
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned,  exempted,  or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE D -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)

Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
fiovernment

CS Loss PS Loss
4.46
48,65
.00

2084.98
8.54
1251.05 .00
,00 .00

Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
-178.08

Net Loss
4.46
48.65
.00

2084.98
8.54
1251,05
.00
-178.08
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare;
                                World Welfare:
3162.42
3219.62
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE D -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3X and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Mi I tboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Baskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
ft/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads Hv
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Costings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterroartet)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
.00
.77
.80
76.83
32.13
9,80
2.22
.00
.00
.02
.00
.34
288.58
.36
.85
45.54
2.70
.00
.01
2.51
14.86
.06
.67
.00
7.02
20.51
.03
179.91
7.23
5.30
484.48
32.89
.00
.00
32.03
2.60 •
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2002.39
38.78
1.02
.00
7.33
4.66
.12
.33
2.64
1.20
.11
1.98
.00
.00
3.54
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.24
.10
,00
.00
10.82
7.22
4.46

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.77
.80
76.86
32.14
9.80
2.22
.00
.00
.02
.00
2002.73
327.36
1.37
.85
52.87
7.36
.12
.34
5.15
16.06
.17
2.66
.00
7.02
24.04
.03
180.66
8.70
5.54
484.72
32.99
.00
.00
42.85
9.83
4,46
3162.42 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0797
.3346
2,0557
.2224
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0119
.0000
.0951
3.7955
.2055
.1435
.4266
.2757
.0000
.0203
1 .6872
.2335
.0002
.2931
.0000
.0484
.2342
.0007
1.1865
.0284
.3907
,1405
.2069
.0000
.0000
99.7529
32.7994
.9817
147.1626
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/ease)
n/a
n/a
9.70
2,40
37.39
144.47
6.49
***
n/a
n/a
1.85
n/a
21057.87
86.25
6,67
5.93
123.93
26.69
***
16.72
3.05
68,79
924.03
9.07
n/a
144.99
102.64
49.28
152.26
306.24
14.18
3450.52
159.42
n/a
n/a
.43
.30
4.54
21.49
n/a: Mot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE D -- MODERATE DECLIKi BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
RoElboard
HHlboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Dewiest ic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
<10"6 $)
.00
.00
.77
.80
76.83
32.13
9.80
2.22
.00
.00
.02
.00
.34
288.58
.36
.85
45.54
2.70
,00
.01
2.51
14.86
.06
.67
.00
7,02
20.51
.03
179.91
7.23
5.30
484.48
32.89
.00
.00
32.03
2.60
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2002.39
38.78
1.02
.00
7.33
4.66
.12
.33
2.64
1.20
.11
1.98
.00
.00
3.54
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.24
.10
.00
.00
10.82
7.22
4.46

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
.77
.80
76.86
32.14
9.80
2.22
.00
.00
.02
.00
2002.73
327.36
1.37
.85
52.87
7.36
.12
.34
5.15
16.06
,17
2.66
.00
7.02
24.04
.03
180.66
8.70
5.54
484.72
32.99
.00
.00
42.85
9.83
4.46
3162.42 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0598
.2898
1.4702
.1538
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0101
.0000
.0658
3.1514
.1856
.1158
.3524
.2221
.0000
.0154
1.2733
.1615
.0001
.2359
.0000
.0359
.1665
.0005
.8491
.0199
.3232
,0971
.1617
.0000
,0000
77.1913
27.3509
.7759
115.9547
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
12.93
2.77
52.28
208.94
8.04
***
n/a
n/a
2.18
n/a
30453.87
103.88
7.39
7.35
150.04
33.13
***
22.12
4.04
99.47
1336.33
11.26
n/a
195.25
144.39
70.68
212.76
437.76
17.14
4990.14
204.02
n/a
n/a
.56
.36
5.75
27.27
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE 0 -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Sulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
CS Loss PS Loss
2.62
28.56
.00

2070.87
7.29
1049,31 .00
.00 .00

Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
-135.75
Net Loss
2.62
28.56
.00

2070,87
7.29
1049.31
.00
-135.75
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Melfare;
                                yorld Welfare:
2987.05
3022.89
Note; Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERKATIVE D  --  HIGH DECLINE  BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT  BY  PRODUCT
                               {Costs discounted at 3% and  benefits discounted at
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater -Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV {OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LBV {Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $3
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.48
30.88
10.21
.86
,00
.00
.01
.00
.42
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
.68
.00
.00
.04
13.37
.06
.25
.00
.49
4.00
.00
155.43
1.01
1.28
483.82
50.32
.00
.00
30.19
3.44
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $}
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2001.39
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
1.10
.05
.28
2.28
1,20
.11
1.99
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.24
.10
.00
.00
10.03
7.01
2.62

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.50
30.88
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
2001.81
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
1.78
.05
.28
2.33
14.57
.17
2.24
,00
.49
5.35
.00
156.18
2.48
1.52
484.06
50.42
.00
.00
40.22
10.45
2.62
2987.05 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0058
.0983
.8999
.2185
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0034
.0000
.0951
2.4044
.0652
.1435
.2900
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0288
.2250
.0002
.0461
.0000
.0021
.0345
.0000
1.0027
.0032
.1875
.1405
.2809
.0000
.0000
65.8147
28.1138
.6842
102.3000
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/ease)
n/a
n/a
21.72
2.67
42.79
141.34
6.75
***
n/a
n/a
2.75
n/a
21048.19
93.28
11.92
6.66
134.21
***
***
1277.47
80.76
64.75
922.85
48.60
n/a
234.42
154.88
90.53
155.77
785.51
8.13
3445.83
179.52
n/a
n/a
.61
.37
3.83
29.20
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned,  exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE D --  HIGH DECLINE BASELIUE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BV PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Mi I Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
8eater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/ft Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks 	 	 	
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consuner
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.48
30.88
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
.42
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
.68
.00
.00
.04
13.37
.06
.25
.00
.49
4.00
.00
155.43
1.01
1.28
483.82
50.32
.00
.00
30.19
3.44
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
{1QA6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2001.39
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
1.10
.05
.28
2.28
1.20
.11
1.99
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.24
.10
.00
.00
10.03
7.01
2.62

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.50
30.88
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
2001.81
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
1.78
.05.
.28
2.33
14.57
.17
2.24
.00
.49
5.35
.00
156.18
2.48
1.52
484.06
50.42
.00
.00
40.22
10.45
2.62
2987.05 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0058
.0983
.8999
.2185
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0034
.0000
.0951
2.4044
.0652
.1435
.2900
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0288
.2250
.0002
.0461
.0000
.0021
.0345
.0000
1.0027
.0032
.1875
.1405
.2809
.0000
.0000
65.8147
28.1138
.6842
102.3000
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
21.72
2.67
42.79
141 .34
6.75
***
n/a
n/a
2.75
n/a
21048,19
93.28
11.92
6.66
134.21
***
***
1277.47
80.76
64.75
922.85
48.60
n/a
234.42
154.88
90.53
155.77
785.51
8.13
3445 .83
179.52
n/a
n/a
.61
.37
3.83
29.20
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE B -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $>
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.48
30.88
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
.42
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
.68
.00
.00
.04
13.37
.06
.25
.00
,49
4.00
.00
155.43
1.01
1.28
483.82
50.32
.00
.00
30.19
3.44
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2001.39
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
1.10
.05
.28
2.28
1.20
.11
1.99
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.24
.10
.00
.00
10.03
7.01
2.62

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
{10A6 $}
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.50
30.88
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
2001.81
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
1.78
.05
.28
2.33
14.57
.17
2.24
.00
.49
5.35
.00
156.18
2,48
1.52
484.06
50.42
.00
.00
40.22
10,45
2.62
2987.05 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0043
.0908
.6409
.1511
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0030
.0000
.0658
2.0533
.0619
.1158
.2453
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0205
.1556
.0001
.0341
.0000
.0016
.0246
.0000
.7138
.0022
.1616
.0971
.2167
.0000
.0000
50.4883
23.1588
.5428
80.2698
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
28.80
2.89
60.08
204.39
8.37
***
n/a
n/a
3.08
n/a
30439.88
109.22
12.56
8.25
158.72

***
1768.32
113.44
93.63
1334.62
65.81
n/a
308.69
217.31
125.32
218.81
1124.93
9.43
4983.35
232.72
n/a
n/a
.80
.45
4.83
37.21
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted,  or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE DX -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
earnest ic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
CS LOSS PS Loss
10.77
117,45
.00

101.08
10.36
1261.36 .00
.00 .00

Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
-246.73
Met Loss
10.77
117.45
.00

101.08
10.36
1261 .36
.00
-246.73
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
1126.48
1254.30
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE OX -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2?
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Mi 1 Iboard
Pipeline yrap
Beater -Add Caskets
High Srade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads UW 
.00
.00
.00
.01
.06
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
6.25
3.88
.39
2.92
1.22
.11
2.09
.00
.00
10.44
.00
.73
1.46
.23
.00
.10
.00
.00
10.46
7.37
10.77

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
5.32
1.97
157.04
34.60
8.90
5.81
.00
.00
.03
.00
-1.58
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
19,24
3.98
.41
20.03
18.59
.17
2.52
.00
78.94
108.65
.25
207.52
41.55
20.19
-1.13
20.87
.00
.00
43.09
8.42
10.77
1126.48 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.6577
1.7416
4.8483
.2270
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0513
.0000
.0951
6.2221
1.0504
.1435
.6395
8.4194
.9063
.2165
12.9784
.3025
.0002
.7341
.0000
.4839
1.3118
.0051
1.5773
.1966
.9557
.1405
.1647
.0000
.0000
177.3033
43.1976
1.7720
267.8538
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.08
• 1.13
32.39
152.42
5.89
***
n/a
n/a
.50
n/a
-16.59
77.52
2.60
4.30
111.68
2.29
4.39
1.88
1.54
61.47
927.21
3.43
n/a
163.12
82.82
48.92
131.57
211.27
21.13
-8.05
.126.71
n/a
n/a
.24
.19
6.08
4.21
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE DX -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Sulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
CS Loss PS Loss
4.46
48.65
.00

82,35
8.54
764.72 ,00
.00 .00

Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
-168.55
Net Loss
4.46
48.65
,00

82.35
8.54
764.72
.00
-168.55
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U, S. Welfare:
                                yorld Welfare;
682.99
740.18
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE DX -- LOy DECLIME BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
ft/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads L«V (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterroarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
5,32
1.96
156.98
34.59
8.90
5,81
.00
.00
.02
.00
-1,58
438,45
1.35
.62
63.31
12.99
.10
.02
17.11
17.37
.06
.43
.00
78.94
98.21
.25
206.79
40.09
19.96
-1.13
20.77
.00
.00
32.62
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.06
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
6.25
3.88
.39
2.92
1.22
.11
2.09
.00
.00
10.44
.00
.73
1.46
.23
.00
.10
.00
.00
10.46
7.37
10.77

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
.00
5.32
1.97
157.04
34.60
8.90
S.81
.00
.00
.03
.00
-1.58
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
19.24
3.98
.41
20.03
18.59
,17
2.52
.00
78.94
108.65
.25
207.52
41.55
20.19
-1.13
20.87
.00
.00
43.09
8.42
10.77
1126.48 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.4872
1 .4052
3.5033
.1569
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0414
.0000
.0658
5.0204
.8475
.1158
.5160
6,3659
.6751
.1641
9.6853
.2123
.0001
.5923
.0000
.3576
.9327
.0035
1.1506
.1377
.7680
.0971
.1325
.0000
.0000
138.1149
35.8125
1 .3825
209.9639
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
10.91
1.40
44.82
220.43
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
.62
n/a
-24.00
96.07
3.22
5.33
138.42
3.02
5.90
2.49
•2.07
87.56
1340.93
4.25
n/a
220.75
116.49
70,75
180.35
301.81
26.29
-11.64
157,52
n/a
n/a
.31
.24
7.79
5.37
n/a: Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE DX -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA it Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Mi 1 Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV {Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
.77
.80
76.83
32.13
9.80
2.22
.00
.00
.02
.00
-.88
288.58
.36
.85
45.54
2.70
.00
.01
2.51
14.86
.06
.67
.00
7.02
20.51
.03
179.91
7.23
5.30
-.63
32.89
.00
.00
32.03
2.60
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 *}
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
38.78
1.02
,00
7.33
4.66
.12
.33
2.64
1.20
,11
1.98
.00
.00
3.54
.00
.75
1,47
.24
.00
.10
.00
.00
10.82
7.22
4.46

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
.77
.80
76.86
32.14
9.80
2.22
.00
.00
.02
.00
-.88
327.36
1.37
.85
52.87
7.36
.12
.34
5.15
16,06
,17
2.66
.00
7.02
24.04
.03
180.66
8.70
5.54
-.63
32,99
.00
.00
42.85
9,83
4.46
682.99 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
. Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0797
.3346
2.0557
.2224
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0119
.0000
.0951
3.7955
.2055
.1435
.4266
.2757
.0000
.0203
1 .6872
.2335
.0002
.2931
.0000
.0484
.2342
.0007
1.1865
.0284
.3907
. 1405
.2069
.0000
.0000
99.7529
32.7994
.9741
147.1551
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
9.70
2.40
37.39
144.47
6.49
***
n/a
n/a
1.85
n/a
-9.26
86.25
6.67
5.93
123.93
26.69
***
16.72
3.05
68.79
924.03
9.07
n/a
144.99
102.64
49.28
152.26
306.24
14.18
-4.49
159.42
n/a
n/a
.43
.30
4.58
4.64
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE DX -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BE«EFIT BT PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Are Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
.77
.80
76.83
32.13
9.80
2.22
.00
.00
.02
.00
-.88
288.58
.36
.85
45.54
2.70
.00
.01
2.51
14.86
.06
.67
.00
7.02
20.51
.03
179.91
7,23
5,30
-.63
32.89
.00
.00
32.03
2.60
,00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.£34
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
38.78
1.02
.00
7.33
4.66
.12
.33
2.64
1.20
.11
1.98
,00
.00
3.54
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.00
.10
.00
.00
10.82
7.22
4.46

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.77
.80
76.86
32.14
9.80
2.22
.00
.00
.02
.00
-.88
327.36
1.37
.85
52.87
7.36
.12
.34
5.15
16.06
.17
2.66
.00
7.02
24.04
.03
180,66
8.70
5.54
-.63
32.99
.00
.00
42.85
9.83
4.46
682.99 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0598
,2898
1 .4702
.1538
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0101
.0000
.0658
3.1514
.1856
.1158
.3524
.2221
.0000
.0154
1.2733
.1615
.0001
.2359
.0000
.0359
.1665
.0005
.8491
.0199
.3232
.0971
.1617
.0000
.0000
77.1913
27.3509
.7707
115.9495
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
12.93
2.77
52.28
208.94
8.04
***
n/a
n/a
2.18
n/a
-13.39
103,88
7.39
7.35
150.04
33.13
***
22.12
4.04
99.47
1336.33
11.26
n/a
195.25
144.39
70.68
212.76
437.76
17.14
-6.50
204.02
n/a
n/a
.56
.36
5.79
5.89
n/a; Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE DX -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Hitlers
Foreign Miners & Milters
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
CS LOSS PS LOSS
2.62
28.55
.00

69.24
7.29
564,01 .00
.00 .00

Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
-127.80
Met- Loss
2.62
28.55
.00

69.24
7.29
564.01
.00
-127.80
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
508.07
543.91
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE OX -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%3
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rot I board
MHtboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Baskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(1CT6 $}
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.48
30.88
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.62
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
.68
.00
.00
.04
13.37
.06
.25
.00
.49
4.00
.00
155.43
1.01
1.28
-.44
50.32
.00
.00
30.19
3.44
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
1.10
.05
.28
2.28
1.20
.11
1.99
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.00
.10
.00
.00
10.03
7.01
2.62

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.50
30.88
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.62
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
1.78
.05
.28
2.33
14.57
.17
2.24
.00
.49
5.35
.00
156.18
2.48
1.52
-.44
50.42
.00
.00
40.22
10.45
2.62
508.07 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
• .0058
.0983
.8999
.2185
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0034
,0000
.0951
2.4044
,0652
.1435
.2900
.0000
, .0000
.0002
.0288
.2250
.0002
.0461
.0000
.0021
.0345
.0000
1 .0027
.0032
.1875
.1405
.2809
.0000
.0000
65.8147
28.1138
.6766
102.2924
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
21.72
2.67
42.79
141.34
6.75
***
n/a
n/a
2.75
n/a
-6.47
93.28
11.92
6.66
134.21
***
***
1277.47
80.76
64.75
922.85
48.60
n/a
234.42
154.88
90.53
155.77
785.51
8.13
-3.14
179.52
n/a
n/a
.61
.37
3.87
4.97
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE E -- LOU DECLINE BASELINE
                                       yELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            {Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS toss PS Loss Allocation
8.72
95.12
,00

80.14
8.50
514.72 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Met Loss
8.72
95.12
.00

80.14
8.50
514.72
.00
Government                                                                 .00              .00



                                      SET WELFARE LOSSES

                                U.  S.  Welfare:           603.5?
                                World  Welfare:           707.20


Mote: Negative entries are welfare  gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE E -- LCW DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Mi I Iboard
Pipeline yrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV {After-market}
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
-.47
-3.58
-13.61
-.80
8.90
-.49
.00
.00
-.10
.00
-1.05
438.45
1.35
.62
63.31
6.99
-.06
-.01
14.54
21.60
.15
-.19
.00
-.90
-6.25
.00
-23.36
-2.55
-.79
-.75
-1.77
.00
.00
16.65
-1.09
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
8.21
5.21
8.72

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $5
.00
.00
-.47
-3.58
-13.61
-.80
8.90
-.49
.00
.00
-.10
.00
-1,05
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
11.82
3.33
.29
16.65
22.39
.28
1.61
.00
-.90
-6.25
.00
-23.36
-2.55
-.79
-.75
-1.77
.00
.00
24.85
4.12
8.72
603.57 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
5.0204
.8475
.1158
.5160
5.6962
.6751
.1454
9.6853
.4063
.0003
.3522
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
101.6571
17.6734
.9179
144.9284
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
96.07
3.22
5.33
138.42
2.08
4.93
1.99
1.72
55.12
877.15
4.58
n/a
n/a
n/a
rt/8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.24
.23
9.50
4.16
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE E -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Ml I Lboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
-.47
-3.58
-13.61
-.80
8.90
-.49
.00
.00
-.10
.00
-1.05
438.45
1.35
.62
63.31
6.99
-.06
-.01
14.54
21.60
.15
-.19
.00
-.90
-6.25
.00
-23.36
-2.55
-.79
-.75
-1.77
.00
.00
16.65
-1.09
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
8.21
5.21
8.72

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
-.47
-3.58
-13.61
-.80
8.90
-.49
.00
.00
-.10
.00
-1,05
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
11.82
3.33
.29
16.65
22.39
.28
1.61
.00
-.90
-6.25
.00
-23.36
-2.55
-.79
-.75
-1.77
.00
.00
24.85
4.12
8.72
603.57 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
6.2221
1 .0504
.1435
.6395
7.6476
.9063
.1948
12.9784
.5444
.0004
.4719
.0000
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
136.3872
23.2356
1.1694
193.1030
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 */case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.89
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
77.52
2.60
4.30
111.68
1.55
3.67
1.48
1.28
41.13
654.58
3.42
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.18
.18
7.46
3.13
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE DX -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Urap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings {OEM}
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM*
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.48
30.88
10,21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.62
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
.68
.00
.00
.04
13.37
.06
.25
.00
.49
4.00
.00
155.43
1.01
1.28
-.44
50.32
.00
.00
30.19
3.44
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
{tOA6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
1.10
.05
.28
2.28
1.20
.11
1.99
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.75
1.47
.24
.00
.10
.00
.00
10.03
7.01
2.62

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.12
.26
38.50
30.88 '
10.21
.86
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.62
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
1.78
.05
.28
2.33
14.57
.17
2.24
.00
.49
5.35
.00
156.18
2,48
1.52
-.44
50.42
.00
.00
40,22
10.45
2.62
508.07 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0043
.0908
.6409
.1511
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0030
.0000
.0658
2.0533
.0619
.1158
.2453
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0205
.1556
.0001
.0341
.0000
.0016
.0246
.0000
.7138
.0022
.1616
.0971
.2167
.0000
.0000
50.4883
23.1588
,5375
80.2646
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
28.80
2.89
60.08
204.39
8.37
***
n/a
n/a
3.08
n/a
-9.36
109.22
12.56
8.25
158.72
***
•***
1768.32
113.44
93.63
1334.62
65.81
n/a
308.69
217.31
125.32
218.81
1124.93
9.43
-4.54
232.72
n/a
n/a
.80
.45
4.87
6.33
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE  E  --  MODERATE DECLINE  BASELINE

                                              COST-BE«EFIT  BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and  benefits  discounted  at  3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat .
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Srake Pads UW {Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.08
-.51
-5,29
-.47
9.80
-.17
.00
.00
-.02
.00
-.62
288.58
.36
.85
45.54
-.20
-.06
-.00
2.49
21.64
.15
.20
.00
-.15
-1.53
.00
-13.10
-.62
-.23
-.44
-1.36
.00
.00
17.53
.22
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
C10A6 $>
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
38.78
1.02
.00
7.33
3.34
.00
.30
1.91
,78
.13
1.56
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
,00
.00
.00
.00
7.71
5,09
3.74

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.08
-.51
-5.29
-.47
9.80
-.17
.00
.00
-.02
.00
-.62
327.36
1.37
.85
52.87
3.13
-.06
.29
4.40
22.42
.28
1.75
.00
-.15
-1.53
.00
-13.10
-.62
-.23
-.44
-1.36
.00
.00
25.24
5.31
3.74
434.17 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
3.1514
.1856 •
.1158
.3524
.4463
.0000
.0201
1 .6356
.3948
.0003
.1444
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
67.9765
13.2788
.5410
89.4626
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.04
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
103.88
7,39
7.35
150.04
7.02
n/a
14.60
2.69
56.80
877.61
12.15
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.37
,40
6.91
4.85
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted,  or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE E -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV {Aftermarket}
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.08
-.51
-5.29
-.47
9.80
-.17
.00
.00
-.02
.00
-.62
288,58
.36
.85
45.54
-.20
-.06
-.00
2.49
21.64
.15
.20
.00
-.15
-1.53
.00
-13.10
-.62
-.23
-.44
-1.36
.00
.00
17.53
.22
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
38.78
1.02
.00
7.33
3.34
.00
.30
1.91
.78
.13
1.56
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
7.71
5.09
3.74

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $3
.00
.00
-.08
-.51
-5.29
-.47
9.80
-.17
.00
.00
-.02
.00
-.62
327.36
1.37
.85
52.87
3.13
-.06
.29
4.40
22.42
.28
1.75
.00
-.15
-1.53
.00
-13.10
-.62
-.23
-.44
-1.36
.00
.00
25.24
5.31
3.74
434.17 *
Total
Cancer Cost per
Cases Cancer Case
Avoided Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
,0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
3.7955
.2055
.1435
.4266
.5434
.0000
.0260
2.1198
.5287
.0004
.1903
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
89.2860
17.1378
.6690
116.5842
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.49
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
86.25
6.67
5.93
123.93
5.76
n/a
11.30
2.07
42.41
654.93
9,22
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.28
.31
5.59
3.72
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE E -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
2.23
24,27
.00

58.04
6.16
256.7? .00
.00 .00
,00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Met Loss
2.23
24.27
.00

58.04
6.16
256.77
.00
Government
                                                                           .00
                                                                                           .00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare;
                                yorld Welfare;
317.03
347.47
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE E -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline tlrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.02
-.13
-2.62
-.32
10.21
-.08
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.43
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
-.65
-.03
-.00
.29
21.28
.15
.08
.00
-.04
-.55
.00
-8.75
-.24
-.10
-.31
-1.21
.00
.00
15.77
.82
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
34,01
.65
.00
6.60
.00
.00
.29
1.84
.77
.13
1.41
.00 .
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.31
5.01
2.23

Gross
Domestic
Total
LOSS
(10A6 $)
,00
.00
-.02
-.13
-2.62
-.32
10.21
-.08
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.43
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
-.65
-.03
.29
2.13
22.05
.28
1.49
.00
-.04
-.55
.00
-8.75
-.24
-.10
-.31
-1.21
.00
.00
23.08
5.83
2.23
317.03 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.5116
,0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
2.4044
.0652
.1435
.2900
.0000
,0000
.0028
.2884
.5130
,0004
.0739
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
69.4623
16,2392
.4624
91 .4573
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
93.28
11.92
6.66
134.21
n/a
n/a
103.11
7.38
42.99
655.07
20.18
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.33
.36
4.81
3.47
n/a: Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE E -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol I board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrygated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Hen-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 *>
.00
.00
-.02
-.13
-2.62
-.32
10.21
-.08
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.43
190.26
,13
.96
32.33
-.65
-.03 .
-.00
.29
21.28
.15
.08
.00
-.04
-.55 •
.00
-8,75
-.24
-.10
-.31
-1.21
.00
.00
15.77
.82
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
.00
.00
.29
1.84
.77
.13
1.41
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.31
5.01
2.23

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.02
-.13
-2.62
-.32
10.21
-.08
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.43
224,27
.78
.96
38.93
-.65
-.03
.29
2.13
22.05
.28
1.49
.00
-.04
-.55
,00
-8.75
-.24
-.10
-,31
-1,21
.00
.00
23.08
5.83
2.23
317.03 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
1.2196
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
2.0533
.0619
.1158
.2453
.0000
.0000
.0023
.2307
,3832
,0003
.0570
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
53.3928
12,5913
.3795
70.7329
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(1QA6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.37
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
109.22
12.56
8.25
158.72
n/a
n/a
128.42
9.23
57,55
877.80
26.16
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.43
.46
5.87
4.48
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE F -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                       MELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in mil lion dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
9.21
100,43
.00

2084.22
8.93
1392.75 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
9,21
100.43
.00

2084.22
8.93
1392.75
.00
.00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare;
                                World Welfare:
3486.18
3595.53
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE F --  LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Ki I Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.36
-2.00
66.48
27.53
8.90
2.24
.00
.00
-.06
.00
-.66
438.45
1,35
.62
63.31
6.99
-.06
-.01
14.54
21.60
.15
-.19
,00
73.66
53.29
.24
62.11
19.72
18.67
479.71
18.25
.00
.00
16.65
-1.09
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
4,83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
5.86
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
,00
8.21
5.21
9.21

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.36
-2.00
66.51
27.54
8,90
2.24
.00
.00
-.06
.00
1995.92
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
11.82
3.33
.29
16.65
22.39
.28
1.61
.00
73.66
59.16
.24
62.53
20.53
18.84
479.84
18.33
.00
,00
24.85
4.12
9.21
3486,18 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.3Z88
.4976
3.1029
.2270
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0146
.0000
.0951
6.2221
1.0504
.1435
.6395
7.6476
.9063
.1948
12,9784
.5444
.0004
.4719
.0000
.2765
.9863
.0051
.8504
.1704
.2920
.1405
.0495
.0000
.0000
136.3872
23.2356
1.4423
200.4127
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided .
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
7.19
-4.02
21.44
121.32
5.89
***
n/a
n/a
-4.22
n/a
20986.28
77.52
2.60
4.30
111.68
1.55
3.67
1.48
1.28
41.13
654.58
3.42
n/a
266.35
59.98
-47.61
73.53
120,53
64.51
3415.80
369.97
n/a
n/a
.18
.18
6.39
17,39
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
ALTERNATIVE F -- LOW OECLIME BASELINE
          COST-BENEFIT Br PRODUCT
   {Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)




Product Product
TSCA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38



# Description

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Urap
Beater -Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket}
Mining and Milling
Total
n/a: Not applicable
*** Market is not banned, exempted,
* U.S. net UK?! fare r.aRt
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
2.36
-2.00
66.48
27.53
8,90
2.24
.00
.00
-.06
.00
-.66
438,45
1.35
.62
63.31
6.99
-.06
-.01
14.54
21.60
.15
-.19
,00
73.66
53.29
.24
62.11
19.72
18.67
479.71
18.25
.00
.00
16.65
-1.09
.00


or exposure data
Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
,00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
43.87
1.38
.00
8,10
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
5.86
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
8.21
5.21
9.21


is not available.
Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2,36
-2.00
66.51
27.54
8.90
2.24
.00
.00
-.06
.00
1995.92
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
11.82
3.33
.29
16.65
' 22.39
.28
1.61
.00
73.66
59.16
.24
62.53
20.53
18.84
479.84
18.33
.00
.00
24,85
4.12
9.21
3486.18 *


Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided

.0000
.0000
.2274
.3441
2.1456
.1569
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
,0101
.0000
.0658
5.0204
,8475
.1158
.5160
5.6962
,6751
.1454
9.6853
.4063
.0003
.3522
.0000
.1912
.6820
,0035
.5880
.1178
.2019
.0971
.0343
.0000
.0000
101.6571
17.6734
1.1066
149,9828



Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
10,40
-5.81
31.00
175.45
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
-6.10
n/a
30350.34
96.07
3.22
5.33
138,42
2.08
4.93
1.99
1.72
55.12
877.15
4,58
n/a
385.19
86.74
68.86
106.34
174.31
93.30
4939.92
535.05
n/a
n/a
.24
.23
8.32
23.24



-------
                               ALTERNATIVE F --  MODERATE DECLINE  BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            {Present values, in million dollars,  at  3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
3.93
42.84
.00

2067.47
7,23
1047.95 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
3.93
42.84
.00

2067,47
7.23
1047.95
.00
.00
                                      «ET yELFARE LOSSES
                                U.  S.  Welfare:
                                yorld Welfare:
3119.36
3169.43
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE E -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
3.74
40.76
.00

67.94
7.13
362.49 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
3.74
40.76
.00

67.94
7.13
362.49
.00
.00
                                      NET yELFARE LOSSES
                                U.  S.  Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
434.17
482.06
Note: negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE F -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rol Iboard
Mi I Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
ft/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Caskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $)
.00
.00
.19
-.41
33.27
27.40
9.80
.77
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.15
288.58
.36
.85
45.54
-.20
-.06
-.00
2.49
21.64
.15
.20
.00
6.09
10.00
.03
66.26
2.89
4.71
480.08
29.75
.00
.00
17.53
.22
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
38.78
1.02
.00
7.33
3.34
.00
.30
1.91
.78
.13
1.56
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
7.71
5.09
3.93

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.19
-.41
33.29
27.40
9.80
.77
.00
.00
-.01
.00
1996.43
327.36
1.37
.85
52.87
3.13
-.06
.29
4.40
22.42
.28
1.75
.00
6.09
11.34
.03
66.68
3.70
4.88
480.21
29.82
.00
.00
25.24
5.31
3.93
3119.36 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0304
.0274
1.4739
.2224
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0014
.0000
.0951
3.7955
.2055
.1435
.4266
.5434
.0000
.0260
2.1198
• .5287
.0004
.1903
.0000
.0228
.1899
.0007
.7700
.0258
.0738
.1405
.0765
.0000
.0000
89.2860
17.1378
.8396
119.9053
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
6.22
-14.91
22.59
123.17
6.49
***
n/a
n/a
-9.85
n/a
20991.63
86.25
6.67
5.93
123.93
5.76
n/a
11.30
2.07
42.41
654.93
9.22
n/a
267.04
59.73
47.28
86.60
143.63
66.14
3418.40
389.67
n/a
n/a
.28
.31
4.68
26.02
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE F -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%>
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5 '
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rot Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings {OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterinarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV {Aftermarket}
Mining and Milling
Total
Cosiest i c
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
-.01
-.13
15.08
27.04
10.21
.21
.00
.00
-.00
.00
.05
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
-.65
-.03
-.00
,29
21.28
.15
.08
.00'
.27
1.26
.00
63.69
.17
.98
480.23
46,31
.00
.00
15.77
.82
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
.00
.00
.29
1.84
.77
.13
1.41
.00
.00
.25
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
7.31
5.01
2.36

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 *)
.00
.00
-.01
-.13
15.09
27.04
10.21
.21
.00
.00
-.00
.00
1996.64
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
-.65
-.03
.29
2.13
22.05
.28
1.49
.00
.27
1.50
.00
64.11
.98
1.15
480.36
46.38
.00
.00
23.08
5.83
2.36
2965.56 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0012
.0000
.4632
.1511
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0001
.0000
,0658
2.0533
.0619
.1158
.2453
.0000
.0000
.0023
.2307
.3832
.0003
.0570
.0000
.0005
.0189
.0000
.4810
.0022
.0110
.0971
.0806
.0000
.0000
53.3928
12.5913
.4765
72.2027
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
-6.80
n/a
32.58
178.96
8,37
***
n/a
n/e
-92.71
n/a
30361.27
109.22
12.56
8.25
158.72
n/a
n/a
128.42
9.23
57.55
877.80
26.16
n/a
540.76
79.45
111.47
133.27
445.36
104.08
4945.22
575.13
n/a
n/a
.43
.46
4.95
41.07
n/a: Mot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE FX --  LOW DECLINE  BASELINE
                                       UELFARE EFFECTS BY  PARTY
                            (Present values,  in milHon dollars,  at  3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Hitters
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
9.21
100.42
.00

87.51
8.93
911.54 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
9.21
100.42
.00

87.51
8.93
911.54
.00
.00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U.  S.  Welfare:
                                World  Welfare:
1008.26
1117.61
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE F -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               {Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
3?
38

Product
. Description
Commercial Paper
(tailboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Srake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.01
-.13
15,08
27.04
10.21
.21
,00
.00
-.00
.00
.05
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
-.65
-.03
-.00
.29
21.28
.15
.08
.00
.27
1.26
.00
63.69
.17
.98
480.23
46.31
.00
.00
15.77
.82
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
1996.58
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
.00
.00
.29
1.84
.77
.13
1.41
.00
.00
.25
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
7.31
5.01
2.36

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
{10A6 *>
.00
.00
-.01
-.13
15.09
27.04
10.21
.21
.00
.00
-.00
.00
1996.64
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
-.65
-.03
.29
2.13
22.05
.28
1.49
.00
.27
1.50
.00
64.11
.98
1.15
480.36
46.38
.00
.00
23.08
5.83
2.36
2965.56 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
,0000
.0000
.0016
.0000
.6671
.2185
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0001
.0000
.0951
2.4044
.0652
.1435
.2900
.0000
.0000
.0028
.2884
.5130
.0004
.0739
.0000
.0007
.0271
.0000
.6953
.0032
.0158
.1405
.1169
.0000
.0000
69.4623
16.2392
.6027
93.5793
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
-4.84
n/a
22.62
123.76
6.75
***
n/a
n/a
-66.00
n/a
20993.84
93.28
11.92
6.66
134.21
n/a
n/a
103.11
7.38
42.99
655.07
20.18
n/a
390.65
55.46
80.53
92.21
310.99
72.70
3419.46
396.75
n/a
n/a
.33
.36
3.91
31.69
n/a: Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE  F  --  HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present  values,  in  million dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Milters
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
2.36
25.71
.00

2056.48
6.19
906.73 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
2.36
25,71
.00

2056.48
6,19
906.73
.00
.00
                                      NET  WELFARE  LOSSES
                                U.  S.  Welfare;
                                World yelfare;
2965.56
2997.45
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE F -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits dfscounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Prodyct
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Billboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc irake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings CAfterraarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domest i c
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.19
-.41
33.27
27.40
9.80
.77
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.15
288.58
.36
.85
45.54
-,2Q
-.06
-.00
2.49
21 .64
.15
.20
.00
6.09
10.00
.03
66.26
2.89
4.71
480.08
29.75
.00
.00
17.53
.22
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $3
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
38.78
1.02
.00
7.33
3.34
.00
.30
1.91
,78
.13
1.56
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
7.71
5.09
3.93

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.19
-.41
33.29
27.40
9.80
.77
.00
.00
-.01
.00
1996.43
327.36
1.37
.85
52.87
3.13
-.06
.29
4.40
22.42
.28
1.75
.00
6.09
11.34
.03
66.68
3.70
4.88
480.21
29.82
.00
.00
25.24
5.31
3.93
3119.36 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0212
.0191
1.0211
.1538
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0009
.0000
.0658
3.1514
.1856
.1158
.3524
.4463
.0000
.0201
1 .6356
.3948
.0003
.1444
.0000
.0159
.1319
.0005
.5326
.0179
.0512
.0971
.0529
.0000
.0000
67.9765
13.2788
.6590
91.7624
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10*6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.94
-21.42
32.60
178.13
8.04
***
n/a
n/a
-14.15
n/a
30358.09
103.88
7.39
7.35
150.04
7.02
n/a
14.60
2.69
56.80
877.61
12.15
n/a
383.27
86.00
67.82
125.20
206.65
95.29
4943.68
564.22
n/a
n/a
.37
.40
5.96
33.99
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE FX -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Dfaphragins
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Hissi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.36
-2,00
66.48
27.53
8.90
2.24
.00
.00
-.06
.00
-1.26
438.45
1.35
.62
63.31
6.99
-.06
-.01
14.54
21.60
.15
-.19
,00
73,66
53.29
.24
62.11
19.72
18.67
-.90
18.25
.00
.00
16.65
-1.09
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 *)
.00
.00
' .00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
5.86
.00
.42
.81
.17
.00
.07
.00
.00
8.21
5.21
9.21

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
2.36
-2.00
66.51
27.54
8.90
2.24
.00
.00
-.06
.00
-1.26
482.32
2.73
,62
71.42
11.82
3.33
.29
16.65
22.39
.28
1.61
.00
73.66
59.16
.24
62,53
20.53
18.84
-.90
18.33
.00
.00
24.85
4.12
9.21
1008.26 *
Total '
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
,0000
.2274
.3441
2,1456
.1569
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0101
.0000
.0000
5.0204
.8475
.1158
.5160
5.6962
.6751
.1454
9.6853
.4063
.0003
.3522
.0000
.1912
.6820
.0035
.5880
.1178
.2019
.0000
.0343
.0000
.0000
101.6571
17.6734
1.1014
149.8147
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
10.40
-5.81
31.00
175.45
7,30
***
n/a
n/a
-6.10
n/a
n/a
96,07
3.22
5.33
138.42
2.08
4.93
1.99
1.72
55.12
877.15
4.58
n/a
385.19
86.74
68.86
106.34
174.31
93.30
n/a
535.05
n/a
n/a
.24
.23
8.36
6.73
n/a: Mot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
,  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE FX -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               {Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterrwrket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
,00
.00
2.36
-2,00
66.48
27.53
8.90
2.24
.00
.00
-.06
.00
-t.26
438.45
1.35
.62
63.31
6.99
-.06
-.01
14.54
21.60
.15
-.19
.00
73.66
53,29
.24
62.11
19.72
18.67
-.90
18.25
.00
.00
16.65
-1.09
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
,00
.00
5.86
.00
.42
.81
.17
.00
.07
.00
.00
8.21
5.21
9.21

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.36
-2.00
66.51
27.54
8.90
2.24
.00
.00
-.06
.00
-1.26
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
11.82
3.33
.29
16.65
22.39
.28
1.61
.00
73.66
59.16
.24
62.53
20.53
18.84
-.90
18.33
.00
,00
24.85
4.12
9.21
1008.26 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.3288
.4976
3.1029
.2270
1.5116
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0146
.0000
.0000
6.2221
1,0504
.1435
.6395
7.6476
.9063
.1948
12.9784
.5444
.0004
.4719
.0000
.2765
.9863
.0051
.8504
.1704
.2920
.0000
.0495
.0000
.0000
136.3872
23.2356
1.4347
200.1695
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
C10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
7.19
-4.02
21.44
121.32
5.89
***
n/a
n/a
-4.22
n/a
n/a
77,52
2.60
4.30
111.68
1.55
3.67
1.48
1,28
41.13
654.58
3,42
n/a
266.35
59.98
47.61
73.53
120.53
64.51
n/a
369.97
n/a
n/a
.18
.18
6,42
5.04
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE FX — MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Hitlers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
3.93
42,84
.00

70.76
7.23
566.75 .00
.00 .00

,00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
3.93
42,84
.00

70.76
7.23
566.75
.00
.00
                                      NET yELFARE LOSSES
                                U, S. yelfare:
                                World Welfare:
641.44
691.50
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE FX -- MODERATE DECLINE BASEL I HE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rol Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV 
.00
.00
.19
-.41
33.27
27.40
9.80
.77
.00
.00
-.01
,00
-.75
288.58
.36
.85
45.54
-.20
-.06
-.00
2.49
' 21.64
.15
.20
.00
6.09
10.00
.03
66.26
2.89
4.71
-.54
29.75
.00
.00
17.53
.22
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
38.78
1.02
.00
7.33
3.34
.00
.30
1.91
.78
.13
1.56
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.42
.81
.17
.00
.07
.00
.00
7.71
5.09
3.93

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.19
-.41
33.29
27.40
9.80
.77
.00
.00
-.01
,00
-.75
327.36
1.37
.85
52.87
3.13
-.06
.29
4.40
22.42
.28
1.75
.00
6.09
11.34
.03
66.68
3.70
4.88
-.54
29.82
.00
.00
25.24
5.31
3.93
641.44 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0304
.0274
1.4739
.2224
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0014
.0000
.0000
3.7955
.2055
.1435
.4266
.5434
.0000
.0260
2.1198
.5287
.0004
.1903
.0000
.0228
.1899
.0007
.7700
.0258
.0738
.0000
.0765
.0000
.0000
89.2860
17.1378
.8320
119.6621
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
i 6.22
-14.91
22.59
123.17
6.49
***
n/a
n/a
-9.85
n/a
n/a
86.25
6.67
5.93
123.93
5.76
n/a
11.30
2.07
42.41
654.93
9.22
n/a
267.04
59.73
47.28
86.60
143.63
66.14
n/a
389.67
n/a
n/a
.28
.31
4.72
5.36
n/a: Mot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data  is not available.
  *  U-.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE FX -- MODERATE DECLINE 8ASEUNE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Hi I Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Caskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OE«)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Baskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Are Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Billing
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.19
-.41
33.27
27.40
9.80
.77
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.75
288.58
.36
.85
45.54
-.20
-.06
-.00
2.49
21,64
.15
.20
.00
6.09
10.00
.03
66.26
2,89
4.71
-.54
29.75
.00
.00
17.53
.22
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
38.78
1.02
.00
7.33
3.34
.00
.30
1.91
.78
.13
1.56
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.42
.81
.17
.00
.07
.00
.00
7.71
5.09
3.93

Sross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<1
.00
.00
.19
-.41
33.29
27.40
9.80
.77
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.75
327.36
1.37
.85
52.87
3.13
-.06
.29
4.40
22.42
.28
1.75
.00
6.09
11.34
.03
66.68
3.70
4.88
-.54
29.82
.00
.00
25.24
5.31
3.93
641.44 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0212
.0191
1.0211
.1538
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0009
.0000
.0000
3.1514
.1856
,1158
.3524
.4463
.0000
.0201
1 .6356
.3948
.0003
.1444
.0000
.0159
.1319
.0005
.5326
.0179
.0512
.0000
.0529
.0000
.0000
67.9765
13.2788
.6538
91.5942
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.94
-21.42
32.60
178.13
8.04
***
n/a
n/a
-14.15
n/a
n/a
103.88
7.39
7.35
150.04
7.02
n/a
14.60
2.69
56.80
877.61
12.15
n/a
383.27
86.00
67.82
125.20
206.65
95.29
n/a
564.22
n/a
n/a
.37
.40
6.01
7.00
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned,  exempted,  or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE FX --  HIGH DECLINE SASEUNi
                                       yELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values,  in million dollars,  at 3%5
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Donestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
2.36
25.70
.00

59.76
6.19
425.52 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
,00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Met Loss
2.36
25,70
.00

59.76
6.19
425.52
.00
.00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                Uorld Welfares
487.64
519.55
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE FX -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%>
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rot I board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/G Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEH)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Hon- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Killing
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
-.01
-,13
15,08
27.04
10.21
.21
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-.54
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
-.65
-,03
-.00
.29
21.28
.15
.08
.00
.27
1.26
.00
63.69
.17
.98
-.39
46.31
.00
.00
15.77
.82
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
.00
. .00
.29
1.84
.77
.13
1.41
.00
.00
.25
.00
.42
.81
.17
.00
.07
.00
.00
7.31
5.01
2,36

Gross •
Domestic
Total '
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.01
-.13
15.09
27.04
10.21
.21
.00
,00
-.00
.00
-.54
224,27
.78
.96
38.93
-.65
-.03
.29
2.13
22.05
.28
1.49
.00
.27
1,50
.00
64.11
.98
1.15
-.39
46.38
.00
.00
23.08
5.83
2.36
487.64 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
,0016
.0000
.6671
.2185
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0001
,0000
.0000
2.4044
.0652
.1435
.2900
.0000
.0000
.0028
.2884
.5130
.0004
.0739
.0000
.0007
,0271
,0000
.6953
.0032
.0158
.0000
.1169
.0000
.0000
69.4623
16.2392
.5951
93.3362
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
-4.84
n/a
22,62
123.76
6.75
***
n/a
n/a
-66.00
n/a
n/a
93.28
11.92
6.66
134.21
n/a
n/a
103.11
7.38
42.99
655.07
20.18
n/a
390.65
55,46
80.53
92.21
310.99
72.70
n/a
396.75
n/a
n/s
.33
.36
3.96
5.22
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE FX -- HIGH DECLINE 8ASELIME

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roliboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
ieater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings {OEM}
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake i locks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
-.01
-.13
15.08
27.04
10.21
.21
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-.54
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
-.65
. -.03
-.00
.29
21.28
.15
.08
.00
.27
1.26
.00
63.69
.17
.98
-.39
46.31
.00
.00
15.77
.82
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10"6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
.00
,00
.29
1.84
.77
.13
1.41
.00 <
.00
.25
.00
.42
.81
.17
.00
.07
.00
.00
7.31
5.01
2.36

firsss
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $5
.00
.00
-.01
-.13
15.09
27.04
10.21
.21
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-.54
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
-.65
-.03
.29
2.13
22,05
.28
1.49
.00
.27
1.50
.00
64.11
.98
1.15
-.39
46.38
.00
.00
23.08
5.83
2.36
487.64 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0012
.0000
.4632
.1511
1 .2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0001
.0000
.0000
2.0533
.0619
.1158
.2453
.0000
.0000
.0023
.2307
.3832
.0003
.0570
.0000
.0005
.0189
.0000
.4810
.0022
.0110
.0000
.0806
.0000
.0000
53.3928
12.5913
.4713
72.0346
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
-6.80
n/a
32.58
178.96
8.37
***
n/a
n/a
-92.71
n/a
n/a
109.22
12.56
8.25
158.72
n/a
n/a
128.42
9.23
57.55
877.80
26.16
n/a
540.76
79.45
111.47
133.27
445.36
104.08
n/a
575.13
n/a
n/a
.43
.46
5.00
6.77
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE G — LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
12.32
134.29
.00

2778,41
9.81
4143.77 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
Net Loss
12.32
134.29
.00

2778.41
9.81
4143.77
.00
.00
                                      MET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare;
                                World Welfare:
6934.49
7078.59
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE 6 •- LOW DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol Iboard
Hi I Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Caskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Baskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Kon- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
10,99
1.96
310.13
114.72
8.90
10,56
.00
.00
.02
.00
.26
438.45
1,35
.62
63.31
14.92
.16
.03
25.70
36.85
,25
.43
.00
303.38
235.37
.99
319.92
87.79
78.49
1961 .33
79.58
.00
.00
36,26
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
,04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
5.65
3.94
.35
2.45
.92
.15
2.09
.00
.00
7.88
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7.13
12.32

Sross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
',00
.00
10.99
1.97
310.17
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
.03
,00
2683.50
482,32
2.73
.62
71.42
20.57
4.10
.38
28.15
37.77
.40
2.52
.00
303.38
243,25
.99
320.48
88.88
78,72
1961,50
79.67
.00
.00
45.31
8.18
12.32
6934.49 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
1.1509
1.7416
10.8603
.7944
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0513
.0000
.3329
6.2221
1.0504
.1435
.6395
11.6170
1.3749
,3031
20.1886
.8469
.0007
.7341
.0000
.9679
3.4521
.0178
2.9764
.5963
1.0220
,4917
.1734
.0000
.0000
209,0213
47.9474
2.3709
328.6007
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
9.55
1.13
28.56
144.41
5.89
***
n/a
n/a
.50
n/a
8061.70
77.52
2.60
4.30
111.68
1.77
2,98
1.26
1.39
44,59
602.38
3.43
n/a
313.45
70.46
55.68
107.67
149.07
77.02
3989.45
459.54
n/a
n/a
.22
.17
5.19
21.10
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE 0 -- LOW DECLINE BASELIKE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roi Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline yrap
Beater -Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Fiat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Afterraarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
10,99
1.96
310.13
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
.02
.00
.26
438.45
1.35
.62
63.31
14.92
.16
.03
25.70
36.85
.25
.43
.00
303.38
235.37
.99
319.92
87.79
78.49
1961 .33
79.58
.00
.00
36.26
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
5.65
3.94
.35
2.45
.92
.15
2.09
.00
.00
7.88
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7.13
12.32

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
10,99
1.97
310.17
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
.03
.00
2683.50
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
20.57
4.10
.38
28.15
37.77
.40
2.52
.00
303.38
243.25
.99
320.48
88.88
78.72
1961.50
79.67
.00
.00
45.31
8.18
12.32
6934.49 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.9286
1.4052
8.7628
.6410
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0414
.0000
.2686
5.0204
.8475
.1158
.5160
9.3392
1.1052
.2445
16.2894
.6833
.0005
.5923
.0000
.7810
2.7854
.0143
2.4015
.4811
.8246
.3967
.1399
.0000
.0000
168.1760
40.4240
1.9145
266.3603
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
11.83
1,40
35.40
178.97
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
.62
n/a
9991.41
96.07
3.22
5.33
138.42
2.20
3.71
1.56
1.73
55.27
745.38
4.25
n/a
388.48
87,33
69.00
133.45
184.75
95.45
4944.40
569.53
n/a
n/a
.27
.20
6.43
26.03
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE G --  MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in  million dollars, at  3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
6.04
65,81
.00

2769.88
9.22
3423.43 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
6.04
65.81
,00

2769.88
9.22
3423.43
.00
,00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U.  S.  Welfare:
                                World  Welfare:
6199.35
6274.38
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE 6 -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans, Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
3.44
.86
209,04
113.95
9.80
6.21
.00
.00
.02
.00
.95
288.58
.36
.85
45.54
' 5.63
.05
.02
8.40
36.83
.25
.74
.00
88.36
99.82
.39
317.78
36.81
39.88
1961.82
105.49
.00
.00
38.72
2.84
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 *>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24
38.78
1.02
.00
7.33
5.36
3.87
.35
2.35
.91
.15
1.99
.00
.00
6.16
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7.13
6.04

fiross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
3.44
.86
209.08
113.96
9,80
6.21
.00
.00
.02
.00
2684.19
327,36
1.37
.85
52.87
10.99
3.92
.37
10.75
37.74
.40
2.73
.00
88.36
105.98
.39
318.34
37.89
40.11
1962.00
105,59
.00
.00
it?. 76
9.97
6.04
6199,35 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.3247
.3931
6.9583
.7848
1.5116
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0145
.0000
.3329
3.7955
.2055
.1435
.4266
3.2055
.1952
.0777
5.8259
.8275
.0007
.3781
.0000
.2606
1.3660
.0066
2.7983
,2287
.4894
.4917
.2297
.0000
.0000
161.2858
41.7213
1.5787
235.8584
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
10.59
2.20
30,05
145.21
6.49
***
n/a
n/a
1.53
n/a
8063.77
86.25
6.67
5.93
123.93
3.43
20.09
4.79
1.84
45.61
602.63
7.23
n/a
339.00
77.58
58.89
113.76
165.68
81,94
3990.46
459.63
n/a
n/a
.30
.24
3.82
26.28
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE 6 -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline yrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
3.44
.86
209.04
113.95
9,80
6.21
.00
.00
.02
.00
.95
288.58
.36
.85
45.54
5.63
.05
.02
8,40
36.83
.25
.74
.00
88.36
99.82
.39
317.78
36.81
39,88
1961 .82
105.49
.00
.00
38.72
2.84
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
,00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24
38.78
1.02
.00
7,33
5.36
3.87
.35
2.35
.91
.15
1.99
.00
.00
6.16
.00
.56 •
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
,00
9.05
7.13
6.04

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
3.44
.86
209.08
113.96
9.80
6.21
.00
.00
.02
.00
2684.19
327.36
1.37
.85
52,87
10.99
3.92
.37
10.75
37.74
.40
2.73
.00
88.36
105.98
.39
318.34
37.89
40.11
1962.00
105.59
.00
.00
47.76
9.97
6,04
6199.35 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.2827
.3466
5.7635
.6337
1.2196
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0126
.0000
,2686
3.1514
.1856
.1158
.3524
2.9130
.1842
.0680
5.0650
.6685
.0005
.3172
.0000
.2275
1,1647
.0057
2.2661
.1972
.4153
.3967
.1825
.0000
.0000
133.9481
35.9186
1.3078
197.5789
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 I/case)
n/a
n/a
12.16
2.49
36.28
179.84
8.04
***
n/a
n/a
1.76
n/a
9993.99
103.88
7.39
7.35
150.04
3.77
21.30
5.47
2.12
56.46
745.69
8.62
n/a
388.46
90.99
68.09
140.48
192.20
96.57
4945.65
578.51
n/a
n/a
.36
.28
4.61
31.38
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE G -- HIGH OECLIME BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Ml I Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
1.29
.30
142.29
112.91
10.21
3.85
.00
.00
.01
.00
1.26
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
3.11
.03
.01
3.20
36.37
.25
.51
.00
31.75
47.01
.19
307.23
18.33
22.51
1962.04
139.81
.00
.00
37.97
3.77
,00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
5.12
3.82
.34
2.27
.91
.15
1.90
.00
.00
4.65
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7.13
3.98

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
1.29
.30
142.33
112.91
10.21
3.85
.00
,00
.01
.00
2684.50
224,27
.78
.96
38.93
8.24
3.86
.35
5.47
37.29
.40
2.41
.00
31.75
51.66
.19
307.80
19.42
22.74
1962.22
139.90
.00
.00
47.02
10.90
3.98
5873.92 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.1159
.1169
4.5691
.7757
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0051
.0000
.3329
2.4044
.0652
.1435
.2900
1 .6303
,0986
.0253
2.0765
.8088
.0007
.2066
.0000
.0892
.6115
.0030
2.6374
.1083
.2630
.4917
.3070
.0000
.0000
140.9863
40.7585
1 .2395
202.6725
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
11.12
2.54
31.15
145.57
6.75
***
n/a
n/a
1.87
n/a
8064.70
93.28
11.92
6.66
134.21
5.05
39.10
13.98
2.63
46.10
602.74
11.68
n/a
356.03
84.49
62.92
116.71
179.29
86.46
3990.91
455.71
n/a
n/a
.33
.27
3.21
28.99
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE G --  HIGH DECLINE  BASEUNE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS 8Y  PARTY
                            (Present values, in  million dollars,  at  3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
3.98
43.35
.00

2762.04
8.68
3109.90 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
3.98
43.35
.00

2762.04
8.68
3109.90
.00
.00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
U, S. Welfare:
World Welfare:
                                                       5875.92
                                                       5927.95
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE  G  --  HIGH  DECLINE  BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY  PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and  benefits discounted  at  3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
1.29
.30
142.29
112.91
10.21
3.85
.00
.00
,01
.00
1.26
190.26
.13
.96
32,33
3.11
.03
.01
3.20
36.37
.25
.51
.00
31.75
47.01
.19
307. Z3
18.33
22.51
1962.04
139.81
.00
.00
37.97
3.77
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
5,12
3.82
.34
2,27
.91
.15
1.90
.00
.00
4.65
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7.13
3.98

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
.00
1.29
.30
142.33
112.91
10.21
3.85
.00
.00
.01
.00
2684.50
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
8.24
3.86
.35
5.47
37.29
.40
2.41
.00
31.75
51.66
.19
307.80
19.42
22.74
1962.22
139.90
.00
,00
47.02
10.90
3,98
5875.92 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.1063
.1089
3.8823
.6267
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0047
.0000
.2686
2.0533
.0619
.1158
.2453
1 .5385
.0948
.0234
1 .9034
.6542
.0005
.1798
.0000
.0821
.5464
.0027
2.1440
.0981
.2331
.3967
.2403
.0000
,0000
118.9540
35.1758
1.0374
171.9987
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
12.12
2.73
36.66
180.18
8.37
* tu-
n/a
n/a
2.04
n/a
9995.14
109.22
12.56
• 8.25
158.72
5.35
40.67
15.14
2.87
56.99
745.83
13.42
n/a
386.77
94.55
68.93
143.56
197.88
97.53
4946.20
582.12
n/a
n/a
.40
.31
3.83
34.16
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned,  exempted,  or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE GX -- LOW DECLINE BASEL I ME

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%>
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads IVN (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Costings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV CAftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
10,99
1.96
310.13
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
.02
.00
-2.16
438.45
1.35
.62
63.31
14.92
.16
.03
25,70
36.85
.25
.43
.00
303.38
235.37
,99
319.92
87.79
78.49
-1.55
79.58
.00
.00
36.26
1.05
,00

Domestic
- Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
5.65
3.94
.35
2.45
.92
.15
2.09
,00
.00
7.88
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.00
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7.13
12.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(1QA6 $}
,00
.00
10.99
1,97
310.17
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
.03
.00
-2.16
482.32
2.73
,62
71.42
20.57
4.10
.38
28.15
37.77
.40
2.52
.00
303.38
243.25
.99
320.48
88.88
78.72
-1.55
79.67
.00
.00
45.31
8,18
12.31
2285.78 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
,0000
1.1509
1.7416
10.8603
.7944
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0513
.0000
.0000
6.2221
1.0504
.1435
.6395
11.6170
1.3749
.3031
20.1886
.8469
.0007
.7341
.0000
.9679
3.4521
.0178
2.9764
,5963
1.0220
.0000
.1734
.0000
.0000
209.0213
47.9474
2.3444
327.7496
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
9.55
1.13
28.56
144.41
5.89
*#*
n/a
n/a
.50
n/a
n/a
77.52
2,60
4.30
111.68
1.77
2.98
1.26
1.39
44.59
602.38
3.43
n/a
313.45
70.46
55.68
107.67
149,07
77.02
n/a
459.54
n/a
n/a
.22
.17
5.25
6.97
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE GX -- LOU DECLINE BASELINE

                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY

                            (Present values, in mill ion dollars, at 3%)
                                                                    Fiber Value
          Party                       CS Loss         PS Loss       Allocation      Met Loss


Domestic Miners & Milters                                12,31             .00           12.31
Foreign Miners & Millers                                134,27             .00          134.27
Importers of Bulk Fiber,                                   .00             .00             .00
  Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors                              94.99             .00           94.99
Foreign Primary Processors                                9.81             .00            9.81
Domestic Product Purchasers            2178.48             .00             .00         2178.48
Foreign Product Purchasers                 .00             ,00             .00             .00

government                                                                 .00             .00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES


                                U. S. Welfare;         2285,78

                                World Welfare:        . 2429.86




Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE GX -- LOW DiCLIHE BASELINE
                                         COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                  (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)




Product Product
TSCA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

# Description

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Baskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterniarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
,00
.00
10.99
1.96
310.13
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
.02
.00
-2.16
438.45
1.35
.62
63.31
14.92
.16
.03
25.70
36.85
.25
.43
.00
303.38
235.37
.99
319.92
87.79
78.49
-1.55
79.58
.00
.00
36.26
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
5.65
3.94
.35
2.45
.92
.15
2.09
.00
.00
7.88
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.00
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7.13
12.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<1QA6 $)
.00
.00
10.99
1.97
310.17
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
.03
.00
-2.16
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
20.57
4.10
.38
28.15
37.77
.40
2.52
.00
303.38
243.25
.99
320.48
88.88
78.72
-1.55
79.67
.00
.00
45.31
8.18
12.31
2285.78 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided

.0000
.0000
.9286
1.4052
8.7628
.6410
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0414
.0000
.0000
5.0204
.8475
.1158
.5160
9.3392
1.1052
.2445
16.2894
.6833
.0005
.5923
.0000
.7810
2.7854
.0143
2.4015
.4811
.8246
.0000
.1399
.0000
.0000
168.1760
40.4240
1 .8931
265.6736

Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
11.83
1.40
35.40
178.97
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
,62
n/a
n/a
96.07
3.22
5.33
138.42
2.20
3.71
1.56
1.73
55.27
745.38
4.25
n/a
388.48
87.33
69.00
133.45
184.75
95.45
n/a
569.53
n/a
n/a
.27
.20
6.50
8.60
n/a; Mot applicable
*** Msirkpt" l « nnt ("laririArl *»*orari1"Ar! rtr ffayrmct rr*A Hsii'a tc nn1" ssvsji \ »K! e
U.S. net welfare

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE GX -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELIME
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Milters
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
6.03
65.79
.00

86,47
9.22
1458.14 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
6.03
65.79
.00

86.47
9.22
1458.14
.00
.00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare;
1550.64
1625.65
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE GX -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%>
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc irake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domest i c
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
3.44
.86
209.04
113.95
9.80
6.21
.00
.00
.02
.00
-1.47
288.58
.36
.85
45,54
5.63
.05
.02
8.40
36.83
.25
.74
.00
88.36
99.82
.39
317.78
36.81
39.88
-1.05
105.49
.00
.00
38.72
2.84
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
38.78
1.02
.00
7.33
5.36
3.87
.35
2.35
.91
.15
1.99
.00
.00
6.16
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.00
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7.13
6.03

Gross
Domest i c
Total
Loss
(1QA6 $}
.00
.00
3.44
.86
209.08
113.96
9.80
6.21
,00
.00
.02
.00
-1.47
327.36
1.37
.85
52.87
10.99
3.92
.37
10.75
37.74
.40
2.73
.00
88.36
105.98
.39
318,34
37,89
40.11
-1.05
105.59
,00
.00
47.76
9.97
6.03
1550.64 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided .
,0000
.0000
.3247
.3931
6.9583
.7848
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0145
.0000
.0000
3.7955
.2055
.1435
.4266
3.2055
.1952
.0777
5.8259
.8275
.0007
.3781
.0000
.2606
1.3660
.0066
2.7983
,2287
.4894
.0000
.2297
.0000
.0000
161.2858
41.7213
1.5522
235.0073
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
10.59
2.20
30.05
145.21
6.49
***
n/a
n/a
1.53
n/a
n/a
86.25
6.67
5.93
123.93
3.43
20.09
4.79
1.84
45.61
602.63
7.23
n/a
339.00
77.58
58.89
113.76
165.68
81.94
n/a
459.63
n/a
n/a
.30
.24
3.89
6.60
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted,
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
or exposure data is not available.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE GX — MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Seater-Add Caskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV 
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
38.78
1,02
.00
7.33
5.36
3.87
.35
2.35
.91
.15
1.99
.00
.00
6.16
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.00
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7.13
6.03

Cross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
3,44
.86
209.08
113,96
9.80
6.21
.00
.00
.02
.00
-1.47
327.36
1,37
,85
52.87
10.99
3.92
.37
10.75
37.74
.40
2.73
.00
88.36
105.98
,39
318.34
37.89
40.11
-1.05
105.59
.00
,00
it?. 76
9.97
6.03
1550.64 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.2827
.3466
5,7635
.6337
1 .2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0126
.0000
.0000
3,1514
.1856
.1158
.3524
2.9130
.1842
.0680
5.0650
.6685
.0005
.3172
.0000
.2275
1.1647
.0057
2.2661
.1972
.4153
.0000
.1825
.0000
.0000
133.9481
35.9186
1.2864
196.8922
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 */ease)
n/a
n/a
12.16
2.49
36.28
179.84
8.04
***
n/a
n/a
1.76
n/a
n/a
103.88
7.39
7.35
150.04
3.77
21.30
5.47
' 2.12
56.46
745,69
8.62
n/a
388.46
90.99
68.09
140.48
192.20
96.57
n/a
578.51
n/a
n/a
.36
.28
4.69
7.88
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE EX -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Srade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (After-market)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
. Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
1.29
.30
142.29
112.91
10.21
3.85
.00
.00
.01
.00
-1.16
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
3.11
.03
.01
3.20
36.37
.25
.51
.00
31.75
47.01
.19
307.23
18.33
22.51
-.83
139.81
.00
.00
37.97
3.77
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
5.12
3.82
.34
2.27
.91
.15
1.90
.00
.00
4.65
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.00
.10
,00
.00
9.05
7.13
3.97

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
1.29
.30
142.33
112.91
10.21
3,85
,00
.00
.01
.00
-1.16
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
8.24
3.86
.35
5.47
37.29
.40
2.41
.00
31.75
51.66
.19
307.80
19.42
22.74
-.83
139.90
.00
.00
47.02
10.90
3.97
1227.21 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.1159
.1169
4.5691
.7757
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0051
.0000
.0000
2.4044
.0652
.1435
.2900
1.6303
.0986
.0253
2.0765
.8088
.0007
.2066
.0000
.0892
.6115
.0030
2.6374
.1083
.2630
.0000
.3070
.0000
.0000
140.9863
40.7585
1.2129
201.8214
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
11.12
2.54
31.15
145.57
6.75
***
n/a
n/a
1.87
n/a
n/a
93.28
11.92
6.66
134.21
5.05
39.10
13.98
2.63
46.10
602.74
11.68
n/a
356.03
84.49
62.92
116.71
179.29
86.46
n/a
455.71
n/a
n/a
.33
.27
3.28
6.08
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE GX -- HI8H BECilklE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
3.97
43.33
.00

78.63
8.68
1144.61 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
3.97
43.33
.00

78.63
8.68
1144.61
,00
Government                                                                 ,00             .00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES

                                U. S. Welfare:         1227.21
                                World Welfare:         1279.22
Note; Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE GX -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline yrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftertnarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
1.29
.30
142,29
112.91
10.21
3.85
.00
.00
.01
.00
-1.16
190.26
.13
.96
32.33
3.11
.03
.01
3.20
36.37
.25
.51
.00
31.75
47.01
.19
307.23
18.33
22.51
-.83
139.81
.00
.00
37.97
3.77
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 *)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
34.01
.65
.00
6.60
5.12
3.82
.34
2.27
.91
.15
1.90
.00
.00
4.65
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.00
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7.13
3.97

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
1.29
.30
142.33
112.91
10.21
3.85
.00
.00
.01
.00
-1.16
224.27
.78
.96
38.93
8.24
3,86
.35
5.47
37.29
.40
2.41
.00
31.75
51.66
.19
307.80
19.42
22.74
-.83
139.90
.00
.00
47.02
10.90
3.97
1227.21 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.1063
.1089
3.8823
.6267
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0047
.0000
.0000
2.0533
.0619
.1158
.2453
1.5385
,0948
.0234
1.9034
.6542
.0005
.1798
.0000
.0821
.5464
.0027
2.1440
.0981
.2331
.0000
.2403
.0000
.0000
118.9540
35.1758
1.0160
171,3120
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 */case)
n/a
n/a
12,12
2.73
36.66
180.18
8.37
***
n/a
n/a
2.04
n/a
n/a
109.22
12.56
8.25
158.72
5.35
40.67
15.14
2.87
56.99
745.83
13.42
n/a
386.77
94.55
68.93
143.56
197.88
97.53
n/a
582.12
n/a
n/a
.40
.31
3.91
7.16
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE H -- LQU DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, In million dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of iulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
7,27
79.23
.00

2396.09
8.33
2464,89 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
7.27
79.23
.00

2396.09
S.33
2464.89
.00
.00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U,  S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare;
4868.25
4955.81
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE H -- LOU DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       {Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rotlboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans, Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
6.53
1.18
184.46
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
.16
260.86
.80
.3?
37.67
9,16
.10
.02
15.30
21.92
.15
.26
.00
180.39
139.97
.59
190.33
52.21
46.67
1166.16
47.32
.00
.00
22.01
.48
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
,00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
37.84
1.19
.00
6.99
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
6.80
.00
.49
.94
.20
.15
.08
.00
.00
8.21
5.21
7.27

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
.00
6.54
1.19
184.50
68,21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
2314.75
298.71
2.00
.37
44,66
13.99
3.50
.32
17.41
22.71
.28
2.07
.00
180.39
146.7?
.59
190.81
53.15
46.87
1166.31
47.41
.00
.00
30.22
5.69
7.27
4868.25 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.5521
.8355
5.2101
.3811
.7252
.0000
.0000
,0000
.0246
.0000
.1597
2.9850
.5039
.0688
.3068
5,6962
.6751
.1454
9.6853
.4063
.0003
.3522
.0000
.4643
1 .6561
,0085
1 .4279
.2860
.4903
.2359
,0832
.0000
.0000
101.6571
17.6734
1.1331
153,8295
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(1QA6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
11.84
1.42
35.41
178.99
7.31
***
n/a
n/a
.65
n/a
14495.12
100.07
3.96
5.36
145.59
2.46
5.18
2.22
1.80
55.89
877.36
5.87
n/a
388.49
88.62
69.01
133.63
185.81
95.59
4944.61
569.95
n/a
n/a
.30
.32
6.41
31.65
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data fs not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTiRNATIVE H -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterraarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 *)
.00
.00
1.11
.32
106.22
67.59
6.01
2.83
.00
.00
.01
.00
.70
144.99
.07
.55
23,80
1.00
.00
.01
2.80
21.89
.15
.46
.00
27.12
39.71
.13
187.87
13.19
16.55
1166.55
68.55
.00
.00
21.76
1.48
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
24.58
.19
.00
4.9Z
3,34
,00
.30
1.91
.78
.13
1.56
.00
.00
2.87
.00
.49
.94
.20
.15
.08 .
.00
.00
7.71
5.09
2.49

Gross
Domest i c
Total
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
1.11
.32
106.25
67.60
6.01
2.83
.00
,00
.01
.00
2315.29
169.56
.26
.55
28.72
4.33
.00
.31
4.71
22.67
.28
2.02
.00
27.12
42.58
.13
188-.35
14.13
16.74
1166.70
68.64
,00
.00
29.47
6.57
2.49
4295.76 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.1159
.1194
3.8321
.5027
.9717
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0052
.0000
.2140
2.0577
.0424
.0923
.2393
.5434
.0000
.0260
2.1198
.5287
.0004
.1903
.0000
.0906
.6017
.0025
1.7640
.0910
.2248
.3161
.1593
.0000
.0000
89.2860
17.1378
.8699
122.1451
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
{10A6 */case>
n/a
n/a
9.61
2.66
27.73
134.46
6.18
***
n/a
n/a
2.01
n/a
10819.71
82.40
6.24
5.99
120.00
7.98
n/a
11.80
2.22
42.88
655.05
10.59
n/a
299.45
70.77
51,75
106,78
155.35
74.47
3691.21
430.98
n/a
n/a
.33
.38
2.86
35.17
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE H -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
2.49
27.18
.00

2369.84
6,00
1923.43 .00
.00 .00
.00
,00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net toss
2.49
27.18
.00

2369.84
6.00
1923.43
.00
Government                                                                 .00             .00
                                      NiT WELFARE LOSSES

                                U, S. yelfare:         4295.76
                                yortd Welfare:         4328.94
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE H --  MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE

                                              CQST-BENERT BY PRODUCT

                                       {Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
&
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
RoUboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater -Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings COiM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Hon- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drym Brake Linings {Aftermarket}
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
,00
.00
1.11
.32
106.22
67.59
6.01
2,83
.00
.00
.01
.00
.70
144.99
.07
,55
23.80
1.00
.00
.01
2.80
21.89
.15
.46
.00
27.12
39.71
.13
187.87
13.19
16.55
1166.55
68.55
.00
.00
21.76
1.48
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss ,
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
24.58
.19
.00
4.92
3.34
.00
.30
1.91
.78
.13
1.56
.00
.00
2.87
.00
• .49
.94
.20
.15
.08
.00
.00
7.71
5.09
2.49

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
1.11
.32
106.25
67.60
6.01
2.83
.00
.00
.01
.00
2315.29
169.56
.26
.55
28.72
4.33
.00
.31
4.71
22.67
.28
2.02
.00
27.12
42.58
.13
188.35
14.13
16.74
1166.70
68.64
.00
.00
29.47
6.57
2.49
4295.76 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0894
.0927
2.8906
.3753
.7252
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0040
.0000
.1597
1.5540
.0336
.0688
.1804
.4463
.0000
.0201
1 .6356
.3948
,0003
.1444
.0000
.0700
.4595
.0020
1 .3183
.0699
.1713
.2359
.1181
.0000
.0000
67.9765
13.2788
.6566
93.1721
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 t/case)
n/a
n/a
12.45
3.42
36,76
180.11
8.29
***
n/a
n/a
2.60
n/a
14498.53
109.12
7.88
8.03
159.25
9.71
n/a
15.25
2.88
57.43
877.78
13.96
n/a
387.47
92.66
67.20
142.88
202.23
97,72
4946.26
581.21
n/a
n/a
.43
.49
3.80
46.11
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE H -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%>
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Milters
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
1.35
14.68
,00

2353.25
4.59
1733.12 .00
,00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
1.35
14.68
.00

2353.25
4.59
1733.12
.00
Government                                                                 .00             .00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES

                                U. S. Welfare;         4087.72
                                World Welfare:         4106.99
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE H -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Caskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Afterntarket)
Kining and Killing
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(1(T6 $}
.00
,00
.16
.03
39.03
66.73
6.27
1,21
.00
.00
.00
.00
,91
75.99
.00
.62
14.17
.00
.00
.00
.42
21.47
.15
.23
.00
3.40
10.37
.03
178.00
3.02
5.60
1166.69
97.67
.00
.00
19.11
1.83
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
15.53
.01
.00
3.40
.00
.00
.29
1.84
.77
.13
1.41
.00
.00
1,07
.00
.49
.94
.20
-.15
.08
.00
.00
7.31
5.01
1.35

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 *)
.00
.00
.16
.03
59.05
66.73
6.27
1.21
.00
.00
.00
.00
2315.49
91.51
.02
.62
17.57
.00
.00
.30
2.26
22.25
.28
1.64
.00
3.40
11.45
.03
178.49
3.96
5.79
1166.85
97.76
.00
.00
26.42
6.84
1.35
4087.72 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0156
.0087
2.0790
.4954
.9717
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0007
.0000
.2140
1.0444
.0000
.0923
.1375
.0000
.0000
.0028
.2884
.5130
.0004
.0739
.0000
.0111
.1504
.0005
1.6290
.0200
.0738
.3161
.2269
.0000
.0000
69.4623
16.2392
.6330
94.6999
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10"6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
10,13
3.70
28.40
134.71
6.46
***
n/a
n/a
2.74
n/a
10820.66
87.62
***
6.73
127.79
n/a
n/a
104.87
7.83
43.37
655.17
22.24
n/a
307.32
76.10
57.62
109.57
198.12
78.47
3691 .67
430.88
n/a
n/a
.38
' .42
2.13
43.16
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE HX — LOM DECLINE BASELINE
                                       yELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Nirters & Killers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk fiber.
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
7.26
79.21
,00

81.35
8.33
1296.38 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
7.26
79.21
.00

81.35
8.33
1296.38
.00
.00
                                      NET yELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare:,
1384.99
1472.54
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
ALTERNATIVE H -- HIGH DECLINE BASEL1ME
          COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
   {Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)




Product Product
TSCA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

* Description

Commercial Paper
Rot Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Baskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.16
.03
59.03
66.73
6.27
1.21
.00
.00
.00
.00
.91
75.99
.00
.62
14.17
.00
.00
.00
.42
21.47
.15
.23
.00
3.40
10.37
.03
178.00
3.02
5.60
1166.69
97.67
.00
.00
19.11
1.83
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
15.53
.01
.00
3.40
.00
.00
.29
1.84
.77
.13
1.41
.00
.00
1.07
.00
.49
.94
.20
.15
.08
.00
.00
7.31
5.01
1.35

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<10A6 $>
.00
.00
.16
.03
59.05
66.73
6.27
1.21
.00
.00
.00
.00
2315.49
91,51
,02
.62
17.57
.00
.00
.30
2,26
22.25
.28
1.64
.00
3.40
11.45
,03
178.49
3.96
5.79
1166.85
97.76
.00
,00
26.42
6.84
1.35
4087.72 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided

.0000
.0000
.0125
,0071
1 .5859
.3699
.7252
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0005
.0000
.1597
.7984
.0000
.0688
.1047
.0000
.0000
.0023
.2307
.3832
.0003
.0570
.0000
.0089
.1178
.0004
1.2194
.0157
.0575
.2359
.1672
.0000
.0000
53.3928
12.5913
.4791
72.7922

Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
12.67
4.55
37.23
180.40
8.65
***
n/a
n/a
3.44
n/a
14499.80
114.62
***
9.02
167.83
n/a
n/a
130.60
9.79
58.06
877.94
28.83
n/a
382.49
97.18
72.02
146.37
251.44
100.74
4946.88
584.63
n/a
n/a
.49
.54
2.81
56.16
n/a: Not applicable
*** Mrarkpt j«s nnt hwnn&H e*Y«nrs1"pH nr A*nACiifA rlsita ic nnt sa/at I »hl o

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE HX -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%>
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rot Iboard
Hi I Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc irake Pads LHV ( Aftermarket}
Mining arid Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
6.53
1.18
184.46
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
-1.28
260.86
.80
.37
37.67
9.16
.10
.02
15.30
21.92
.15
.26
.00
180.39
139.97
.59
190.33
52.21
46.67
-.92
47.32
.00
.00
22.01
.48
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 *)
.00
,00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
37.84
1.19
.00
6.99
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
6.80
.00
.49
.94
.20
.00
.08
.00
.00
8.21
5.21
7.26

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
6,54
1.19
184.50
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
-1.28
298.71
2.00
.37
44.66
13.99
3.50
.32
17,41
22.71
.28
2.07
.00
180.39
146.77
.59
190.81
53.15
46.87
-.92
47.41
.00
.00
30.22
5.69
7.26
1384.99 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.7399
1.1196
6.9816
.5107
.9717
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0330
.0000
.0000
3.9999
.6752
.0923
.4111
7.6476
.9063
.1948
12.9784
.5444
.0004
.4719
.0000
.6222
2.2192
.0114
1 .9134
.3833
.6570
.0000
.1115
.0000
.0000
136.3872
23.2356
1.5010
205.3206
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.83
1.06
26.43
133.57
5.45
***
n/a
n/a
.49
n/a
n/a
74.68
2.96
4.00
108.65
1.83
3.86
1.65
1.34
41.71
654.74
4.38
n/a
289.91
66.14
51.50
99.73
138.66
71,33
n/a
425.33
n/a
n/a
,22
.24
4.84
6.75
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE HX -- LOW DECLIWE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3
Product Product
TSCfi # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftertnarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Af termarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
6.53
1.18
184.46
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
-1.28
260.86
.80
.37
37.67
9.16
.10
.02
15.30
21.92
.15
.26
.00
180.39
139.97
,59
190.33
52.21
46.67
-.92
47.32
.00
.00
22.01
.48
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
37.84
1.19
.00
6.99
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
6.80
.00
.49
.94
.20
.00
.08
.00
.00
8.21
5.21
7.26

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
6.54
1.19
184.50
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
,00
-1.28
298.71
2.00
.37
44.66
13.99
3.50
,32
17.41
22.71
.28
2,07
.00
180.39
146,77
.59
190.81
53.15
46.87
-.92
47.41
.00
.00
30.22
5.69
7.26
1384.99 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
,5521
.8355
5.2101 -
.3811
.7252
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0246
.0000
.0000
2,9850
.5039
.0688
.3068
5.6962
.6751
.1454
9.6853
.4063
.0003
.3522
.0000
.4643
1 .6561
.0085
1.4279
.2860
.4903
.0000
.0832
.0000
.0000
101.6571
17.6734
1.1204
153,4212
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
11.84
1.42
35.41
178.99
7.31
***
n/a
n/a
.65
n/a
n/a
100.07
3.96
5.36
145.59
2.46
5.18
2.22
1.80
55.89
877.36
5.87
n/a
388.49
88.62
69.01
133.63
185.81
95.59
n/a
569.95
n/a
n/a
.30
.32
6.48
9,03
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE HX -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Hiners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss At location
2.49
27.16
,00

55.10
6.00
754.92 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Met Loss
2.49
27.16
.00

55.10
6.00
754.92
.00
Government                                                                 ,00             .00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:          812.51
                                World Welfare:          845.67
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE HX -- MODERATE DECLINE BASiLWE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rottboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Srake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket}
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
1.11
.32
106.22
67.59
6.01
2.83
.00
,00
.01
.00
-.73
144,99
.07
.55
23.80
1,00
.00
.01
2.80
21.89
.15
.46
.00
27.12
39.71
.13
187.87
13.19
16,55
-.53
68.55
.00
.00
21.76
1.48
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 *)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
24.58
,19
.00
4.92
3.34
.00
.30
1.91
,78
.13
1.56
.00
.00
2.87
.00
.49
.94
.20
.00
.08
.00
,00
7.71
5,09
2.49

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
1.11
.32
106,25
67.60
6,01
2.83
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.73
169.56
.26
.55
28,72
4.33
.00
.31
4.71
22.67
.28
2,02
.00
27.12
42.58
.13
188.35
14.13
16.74
-.53
68.64
.00
.00
29.47
6.57
2.49
812.51 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.1159
.1194
3.8321
.5027
,9717
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0052
.0000
.0000
2.0577
.0424
.0923
.2393
.5434
.0000
.0260
2.1198
.5287
.0004
.1903
,0000
.0906
.6017
• ,0025
1.7640
.0910
.2248
,0000
.1593
.0000
.0000
89.2860
17.1378
.8529
121 ,5980
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
9.61
2.66
27.73
134.46
6.18
***
n/a
n/a
2.01
n/a
n/a
82.40
6.24
5,99
120.00
7,98
n/a
11,80
2.22
42.88
655.05
10.59
n/a
299.45
70.77
51.75
106.78
155,35
74.47
n/a
430.98
n/a
n/a
.33
.38
2.92
6.68
n/a: Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
     ALTERNATIVE K -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
               COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
(Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)




Product Product
TSCA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

# Description

Commercial Paper
Rot I board
Mi 1 (.board
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM) .
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings «
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftertnarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (After-market)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 *)
.00
.00
6.53
1.18
184.46
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
.16
260,86
.80
.37
37.67
9.16
.10
.02
15.30
21.92
.15
.26
.00
180.39
139.9?
.59
190.33
52.21
46.67
1166.16
47.32
.00
.00
22.01
.48
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
37.84
1.19
.00
6.99
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
6.80
.00
.49
.94
.20
.15
.08
.00
.00
8.21
5.21
7.27

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
' .00
.00
6.54
1.19
184.50
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
2314.75
298.71
2.00
.37
44.66
13.99
3.50
.32
17.41
22.71
.28
2.07
.00
180.39
146.77
.59
190.81
53.15
46.87
1166.31
47.41
.00
.00
30.22
5.69
7.27
4868.25 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoi ded

.0000
.0000
.7399
1.1196
6.9816
.5107
.9717
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0330
.0000
.2140
3.9999
.6752
.0923
.4111
7.6476
.9063
.1948
12.9784
.5444
.0004
.4719
.0000
.6222
2.2192
.0114
1.9134
.3833
.6570
.3161
.1115
,0000
.0000
136.3872
23.2356
1,5181
205.8677

Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(1QA6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.83
1.06
26.43
133.57
5.45
***
n/a
n/a
.49
n/a
10817,17
74.68
2.96
4.00
108.65
1.83
3.86
1.65
1.34
41.71
654.74
4.38
n/a
289.91
66.14
51.50
99.73
138.66
71.33
3689.98
425.33
n/a
n/a
.22
.24
4.79
23.65
n/a: Not applicable
*** Market IR not banned. **xe»mntAfi nr pxnAsnr** H?*tA is nnf- AvsilAbt**

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE  HX  -- MODERATE DECLiNE BASELINE

                                               COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                        (Costs  and benefits discounted at  3%)
Product Product
TSCA f Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEH>
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans, Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV < Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
1.11
.32
1.06.22
67.59
6.01
2.83
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.73
144.99
.07
.55
23.80
1.00
.00
.01
2.80
21.89
.15
.46
.00
27.12
39.71
.13
187.87
13.19
16.55
-.53
68.55
.00
.00
21.76
1.48
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
,00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
24.58
.19
.00
4.92
3.34
.00
.30
1.91
.78
.13
1.56
.00
.00
2.87
.00
.49
.94
.20
.00
.08
.00
.00
7.71
5.09
2.49

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
1.11
.32
106.25
67.60
6.01
2.83
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.73
169.56
.26
.55
28.72
4.33
.00
.31
4.71
22.67
.28
2.02
.00
27.1-2
42.58
.13
188.35
14.13
16.74
-.53
68.64
.00
.00
29.47
6.57
2,49
812.51 *
Total
Cancer Cost per
Cases Cancer Case
Avoided Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
.0000
.0000
.0894
.0927
2.8906
.3753
.7252
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0040
.0000
.0000
1.5540
.0336
.0688
.1804
.4463
.0000
.0201
1 .6356
.3948
.0003
.1444
.0000
.0700
.4595
.0020
1.3183
.0699
.1713
.0000
.1181
.0000
.0000
67.9765
13.2788
.6439
92.7638
n/a
n/a
12.45
3.42
36.76
180.11
8.29
***
n/a
n/a
2.60
n/a
n/a
109.12
7.88
8.03
159.25
9.71
n/a
15.25
2.88
57.43
877.78
13.96
n/a
387.47
92.66
67.20
142.88
202.23
97.72
n/a
581.21
n/a
n/a
.43
.49
3.87
8.76
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE HK -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            {Present values, in million dollars, at 3X5
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
1,35
14.6?
.00

38.51
4.59
564,61 .00
.00 ,00
.00
.00
.00

,00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
1.35
14.67
.00

38.51
4.59
564.61
.00
Government                                                                 .00             ,00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES

                                U. S. Welfare:           604.46
                                yorld Welfare:           623.72
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE HX — HIGH DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               {Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Ro 1 1 board
Mi I (.board
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings 
Disc Brake Pads LMV {OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads IMV (Afteraiarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $)
.00
.00
.16
.03
59.03
66.73
6.27
1.21
.00
.00
.00
.00
• -.53
75.99
.00
.62
14.17
.00
.00
.00
.42
21.47
.15
.23
.00
3.40
10.37
.03
178.00
3.02
5.60
-.38
97.67
.00
.00
19.11
1.83
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
15.53
.01
.00
3.40
.00
.00
.29
1.84
.77
.13
1.41
.00
.00
1.07
.00
.49
.94
.20
.00
.08
.00
.00
7.31
5.01
1.35

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 *)
.00
.00
.16
.03
59.05
66.73
6.27
1.21
.00
.00
.00
.00
-.53
91.51
.02
.62
17.57
.00
.00
.30
2.26
22.25
.28
1.64
.00
3.40
11.45
.03
178.49
3.96
5.79
-.38
97,76
.00
.00
26.42
6.84
1.35
604.46 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0156
.0087
2.0790
.4954
.9717
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0007
.0000
.0000
1 .0444
.0000
.0923
.1375
.0000
.0000
.0028
.2884
.5130
.0004
.0739
.0000
.0111
.1504
.0005
1 .6290
.0200
.0738
.0000
.2269
.0000
.0000
69.4623
16.2392
.6159
94.1528
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
{10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
10.13
3.70
28.40
134.71
6.46
***
n/a
n/a
2.74
n/a
n/a
87.62
***
6.73
127.79
n/a
n/a
104.87
7.83
43.37
655.17
22.24
n/a
307.32
76.10
57.62
109.57
198.12
78.47
n/a
430.88
n/a
n/a
.38
,42
2.18
6.42
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available,
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE HX -- HIGH DECLINE BASiLINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rot Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
8eater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Srake Linings (OEM}
Disc irake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings {Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $>
.00
.00
.16
.03
59.03
66.73
6.27
1.21
.00
.00
.00
.00
-.53
75.99
.00
.62
14.17
.00
.00
.00
.42
21.47
.15
.23
.00
3.40
10.37
.03
178.00
3.02
5.60
-.38
97.67
.00
.00
19.11
1.83
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
toss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
15.53
.01
.00
3.40
.00
.00
.29
1.84
.77
.13
1.41
.00
.00
1.07
.00
.49
.94
.20
.00
.08
.00
.00
7.31
5.01
1.35

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
.16
.03
59.05
66.73
6.27
1.21
.00
.00
.00
.00
-.53
91.51
.02
.62
17,57
.00
.00
.30
2.26
22.25
.28
1.64
.00
3.40
11.45
.03
178.49
3.96
5.79
-.38
97.76
.00
.00
26.42
6.84
1.35
604.46 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
,0000
.0125
.0071
1.5859
.3699
.7252
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0005
.0000
.0000
.7984
.0000
.0688
.1047
.0000
.0000
.0023
.2307
.3832
.0003
.0570
.0000
.0089
.1178
.0004
1.2194
.0157
.0575
.0000
.1672
.0000
.0000
53.3928
12.5913
.4663
72.3839
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
12.67
4.55
37.23
180.40
8.65
***
n/a
n/a
3.44
n/a
n/a
114.62
***
9.02
167.83
n/a
n/a
130.60
9.79
58.06
877.94
28.83
n/a
382.49
97.18
72.02
146.37
251 .44
100.74
n/a
584.63
n/a
n/a
.49
.54
2.88
8.35
n/a; Mot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE I -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
3.00
32.68
.00

2066.72
7.14
1015.33 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
3.00
3E.68
.00

2066.72
7.14
1015.33
.00
Government
                    .00
                                                                                           .00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
3085.05
3124.87
Hole: negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE ! -- LOH DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA f Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Caskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.96
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
.07
107.41
.33
.15
15.51
3.93
.04
.01
6,30
9.02
.06
.11
.00
74.29
57.64
.24
78.37
21.50
19,22
480.24
19.49
.00
.00
9.26
.15
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
LOSS
(10*6 $>
.00
,00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
32.64
1,03
,00
6.03
4.42
2.96
.26
1.82
,68
.11
1.56
.00
.00
5.86
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
7.35
3,78
3.00

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.99
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
1996.65
140.06
1.36
.15
21.54
8.34
3.00
.27
8.12
9.71
.17
1.66
.00
74.29
63.50
.24
78.79
22.31
19.39
480.37
19.56
.00
.00
16.61
3.93
3.00
3085.05 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.3288
.4976
3,1029
.2270
.4319
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0146
.0000
.0951
1.7777
.3001
.0410
.1827
3.5284
.4193
.0866
5.7682
.2420
.0002
.2097
.0000
.2765
.9863
.0051
.8504
.1704
.2920
.1405
.0495
.0000
.0000
61 .8500
7.9591
.6747
90.5084
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.19
,98
24.49
123.76
5.05
***
n/a
n/a
.48
n/a
20993.95
78.78
4.53
3.70
117.90
2.36
7.16
3.11
1.41
40.12
916.20
7.93
n/a
268.62
64.39
47.71
92.65
130.96
66.39
3419.52
394.85
n/a
n/a
.27
.49
4.44
34.09
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE I -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       {Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Mi 1 1 board
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings {OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Slocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes *
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 S)
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.96
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
.07
107.41
.33
.15
15.51
3.93
.04
.01
6.30
9.02
.06
.11
.00
74.29
57.64
.24
78.37
21.50
19.22
480.24
19.49
.00
.00
9.26
.15
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
{10*6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996,58
32.64
1.03
.00
6.03
4.42
2.96
.26
1.82
.68
.11
1.56
.00
.00
5.86
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
7.35
3.78
3.00

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10*6 *5
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.99
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
1996.65
140.06
1.36
.15
21.54
8.34
3.00
.27
8.12
9.71
.17
1.66
.00
74.29
63.50
.24
78.79
22.31
19.39
480.37
19.56
.00
.00
16.61
3.93
3.00
3085.05 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.2274
.3441
2.1456
.1569
.2986
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0101
.0000
.0658
1.2292
.2075
.0284
.1263
2.4413
.2901
.0599
3,9885
.1673
.0001
.1450
.0000
.1912
.6820
.0035
.5880
.1178
.2019
.0971
.0343
.0000
.0000
42.7646
5.5207
.4666
62.5999
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10*6 */case)
n/a
n/a
11.84
1.42
35.42
178.99
7.30
***
rv/a
n/a
.69
n/a
30361 .44
113.94
6.54
5.35
170.51
3.42
10.35
4.50
2.04
58.02
1325.01
11.47
n/a
388.48
93.11
69.00
133.99
189.39
96.02
4945.31
571 .03
n/a
n/a
.39
.71
6,42
49.28
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE I -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            {Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
.73
7.97
.00

2030.96
3.82
760.86 .00
.00 .00

.00
,00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
.73
7.97
.00

2030.96
3.82
760.86
.00
,00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
2792.55
2804.35
Note; Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE I  -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               CCosts discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drun Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Afterrnarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $)
.00
.00
.27
.08
37.76
27, 77
2.53
.91
.00
.00
.00
.00
.34
50.93
.01
.24
8.66
.00
.00
.00
.69
9.00
.06
.18
.00
6.24
11.39
.03
76.74
3.46
4.92
480.43
30.78
.00
.00
7.04
.40
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
15.58
.04
.00
3.30
.00
.00
.25
1.60
.67
.11
1.25
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
5.23
3.39
.73

Gross
Domestic
Total
loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.27
.08
37.77
27,77
2.53
.91
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.92
66.51
.05
.24
11.96
.00
.00
.26
2.29
9.67
.17
1.43
.00
6.24
12.73
.03
77.16
4.27
5.09
480.56
30.85
.00
,00
12.27
3.78
.73
2792.55 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0304
.0274
1.4739
.2224
.4319
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0014
.0000
.0951
.7778
.0065
.0410
.0932
.0000
.0000
.0065
.5480
.2335
.0002
.0671
.0000
.0228
.1899
.0007
.7700
.0258
.0738
,1405
.0765
.0000
.0000
29.3391
4.1079
.3317
39.1348
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.80
2.84
25,63
124.84
S.87
***
n/a
n/a
2.25
n/a
20996.80
85.51
7.28
5.93
128.41
n/a
n/a
39.52
4.19
41.41
916.55
21.31
n/a
273.33
67.02
47.51
100.22
165.65
68.98
3420.90
403.11
n/a
n/a
.42
.92
2.20
71.36
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE I -- MODERATE DECLIME BASELINE

                                              COST-8ENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol tboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roof ins Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans, Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.27
.08
37.76
27.77
2.53
.91
.00
.00
.00
.00
.34
50,93
.01
.24
8.66
.00
,00
.00
.69
9.00
.06
.18
.00
6.24
11.39
.03
76.74
3.46
4.92
480.43
30.78
.00
.00
7.04
.40
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
, Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
1996.58
15.58
.04
.00
3.30
.00
.00
.25
1.60
.67
.11
1.25
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
5,23
3.39
.73

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.27
.08
37.77
27.77
2.53
.91
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.92
66.51
.05
.24
11.96
.00
.00
,26
2.29
9.67
.17
1.43
.00
6,24
12.73
.03
77.16
4.27
5.09
480.56
30.85
.00
.00
12.27
3.78
.73
2792.55 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0212
.0191
1.0211
.1538
.2986
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0009
.0000
.0658
.5390
.0046
,0284
.0646
.0000
.0000
.0045
.3813
.1615
.0001
.0465
.0000
,0159
.1319
.0005
.5326
.0179
.0512
.0971
.0529
.0000
.0000
20,4089
2.8682
.2299
27.2178
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/C8S<8>
n/a
n/a
12.64
4.07
37.00
180.54
8.49
***
n/a
n/a
3.23
n/a
30365.55
123.38
10.23
8.58
185.36
n/a
n/a
56.71
6.02
59,88
1325.51
. 30.73
n/a
392.30
96.50
68.15
144.89
238.35
99.38
4947.30
583.67
n/a
n/a
.60
1.32
3.18
102.60
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE I -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Sulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
.36
3.90
.00

2018.66
2.90
691.55 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
.36
3.90
.00

2018.66
2.90
691.55
.00
,00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. yelfare:
                                World Welfare:
2710.56
2717.37
Note; Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE I -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rot I board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
8eater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tfle
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads. LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Hon-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Hissi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket}
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.02
.00
17.49
27.31
2.64
.28
.00
.00
.00
.00
.42
21.70
.00
.27
4.39
,00
.00
.00
.04
8.76
.06
.06
.00
.31
1.79
.00
71.11
.41
1,07
480.49
47.23
.00
.00
5.24
.45
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
,00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
7.09
.00
.00
1.75
.00
.00
.25
1.58
.66
.11
1.14
.00
.00
.25
.00
.42
.81
,17
.13
.07
.00
.00
4.34
3.30
.36

Gross
Dourest ic
Total
Loss
(10% $)
.00
.00
.02
.00
17.50
27.31
2.64
.28
.00
.00
.00
.00
1997.00
28.79
.00
.27
6.14
.00
.00
.25
1.62
9.42
.17
1.20
.00
.31
2.04
.00
71.53
1.21
1.24
480.62
47.31
.00
.00
9.58
3.75
.36
2710.56 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0016
.0000
.6671
.2185
.4319
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0001
.0000
.0951
.3244
.0000
.0410
,0457
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0288
.2250
.0002
.0194
.0000
.0007
.0271
.0000
.6953
.0032
.0158
.1405
.1169
.0000
.0000
19.5065
3-.7870
.2331
26.6252
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
9.93
***
26.24
125.00
6.11
***
n/a
n/a
3.02
n/a
20997.63
88.75
***
6.58
134.40
n/a
n/a
1168.94
56.19
41.85
916.65
62.01
n/a
452.58
75.23
82.18
102.88
384,92
78.86
3421.30
404.65
n/a
n/a
.49
.99
1.54
101.80
n/a: Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE I -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
. Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Baskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.02
.00
17.49
27.31
2.64
.28
.00
.00
.00
.00
.42
21.70
.00
.27
4.39
.00
.00
.00
.04
8.76
.06
.06
.00
.31
1.79
.00
71.11
.41
1.07
480.49
47.23
.00
.00
5.24
.45
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
7.09
.00
.00
1.75
.00
.00
..25
1.58
.66
.11
1.14
.00
,00
,25
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
4.34
3.30
.36

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.02
.00
17.50
27.31
2.64
.28
.00
.00
.00
.00
1997.00
28.79
.00
.27
6.14
.00
.00
.25
1.62
9.42 .
.17
1.20
.00
.31
2.04
.00
71.53
1.21
1.24
480.62
47.31
.00
.00
9.58
3.75
.36
2710.56 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0012
.0000
.4632
.1511
.2986
.0000
.0000
.0000
,0001
.0000
.0658
.2254
,0000
.0284
.0317
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0205
.1556
.0001
.0135
.0000
.0005
.0189
.0000
.4810
.0022
.0110
.0971
.0806
.0000
.0000
13.5968
2.6416
.1616
18.5468
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
13.95
***
37.79
180.75
8.83
***
n/a
n/a
4.24
n/a
30366.76
127.75
***
9.52
193.62
n/a
n/a
1618.09
78.94
60.52
1325.66
89.08
n/a
626.48
107.78
- 113.75
148.69
551.24
112.91
4947.89
586.58
n/a
n/a
.70
1,42
2.21
146.15
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not evaitable.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE IX -- LOy DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS iY PARTY
                            
-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE IX -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT 8Y PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
•10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rol tboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
. A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc irake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Killing
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.96
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.53
107.41
.33
.15
15.51
3.93
.04
.01
6.30
9.02
.06
.11
.00
74.29
57.64
.24
78.37
21.50
19.22
-.38
19.49
.00
.00
9.26
.15
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
32.64
1.03
.00
6.03
4.42
2.96
.26
1.82
.68
.11
1.56
.00
.00
5.86
.00
.42 -
.81
.17
.00
.07
.00
.00
7.35
3.78
3.00

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<10"6 $)
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.99
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.53
140.06
1.36
.15
21.54
8.34
3.00
.27
8.12
9.71
.17
1.66
.00
74.29
63.50
.24
78.79
22.31
19.39
-.38
19.56
.00
.00
16.61
3.93
3.00
607.13 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.3288
.4976
3.1029
.2270
.4319
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0146
,0000
.0000
1.7777
.3001
.0410
.1827
3.5284
.4193
,0866
5.7682
.2420
.0002
.2097
.0000
.2765
.9863
.0051
.8504
.1704
.2920
.0000
.0495
.0000
.0000
61.8500
7.9591
.6671
90.2653
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(1QA6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.19
.98
24.49
123.76
5.05
***
n/a
n/a
.48
n/a
n/a
78.78
4.53
3.70
117.90
2,36
7,16
3.11
1.41
40.12
916.20
7.93
n/a
268.62
64.39
47.71
92.65
130.96
66.39
n/a
394.85
n/a
n/a
.27
.49
4.49
6.73
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE IX -- LCW DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT 8Y PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM}
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Afterniarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Boniest ic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
2,69
.49
75.96
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
,01
.00
-.53
107.41
.33
.15
15.51
3.93
,04
.01
6.30
9.02
.06
.11
.00
74.29
57.64
.24
78.37
21.50
19.22
-.38
19.49
.00
.00
9.26
.15
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
32.64
1.03
.00
6.03
4.42
2.96
.26
1.82
.68
.11
1.56
.00
.00
5.86
.00
.42
.81
.17
.00
.07
.00
.00
7.35
3.78
3.00

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.99
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
-.53
140.06
1.36
,15
21.54
8.34
3.00
.27
8.12
9.71
.17
1.66
.00
74.29
63.50
.24
78.79
22.31
19.39
-.38
19.56
.00
.00
16.61
3.93
3.00
607.13 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.2274
.3441
2.1456
.1569
.2986
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0101
.0000
.0000
1.2292
.2075
.0284
.1263
2.4413
.2901
.0599
3.9885
.1673
.0001
.1450
.0000
.1912
.6820
.0035
.5880
.1178
.2019
.0000
.0343
,0000
.0000
42.7646
5.5207
.4614
62.4317
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
11.84
1.42
35.42
178.99
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
.69
n/a
n/a
113.94
6.54
5.35
170.51
3.42
10.35
4.50
2.04
58.02
1325.01
11.47
n/a
388.48
93.11
69.00
133,99
189.39
96.02
n/a
571.03
n/a
n/a
.39
.71
6.49
9.72
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE IX -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            {Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Soverrment
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
.73
7.97
.00

34.25
3.82
279.65 ,00
,00 .00

,00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
Net Loss
.73
7,97
.00

34.25
3.82
279.65
.00
.00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare;
                                World Welfare:
314.64
326.42
Mote; Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE IX -- MODERATE DiCLINE BASELINE

                                              CQST-BEMEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%J
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rot (board
Mi I tboard
Pipeline Urap
Beater-Add Baskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/c Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads L«V (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
.27
.08
37.76
27.77
2,53
.91
.00
.00
.00
.00
-.26
50.93
.01
.24
8.66
.00
.00
.00
.69
9.00
.06
.18
.00
6.24
11.39
.03
76.74
3.46
4.92
-.18
30.78
.00
.00
7.04
.40
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
15.58
.04
.00
3.30
.00
.00
.25
1.60
.6?
.11
1.25
.00
.00
1.34
.00
.42
.81
.17
.00
.07
.00
.00
5.23
3.39
.73

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
{10A6 $)
.00
.00
.27
.08
37.77
27.77
2.53
.91
.00
.00
.00
.00
-.26
66.51
.05
.24
11.96
.00
.00
.26
2.29
9.67
.17
1.43
.00
6.24
12.73
.03
77.16
4.27
5.09
-.18
30.85
.00
.00
12.27
3.78
.73
314.64 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0212
.0191
1.0211
.1538
.2986
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0009
.0000
.0000
,5390
.0046
.0284
.0646
.0000
.0000
.0045
.3813
.1615
.0001
.0465
.0000
.0159
.1319
.0005
.5326
.0179
.0512
.0000
.0529
.0000
.0000
20.4089
2.8682
.2246
27.0497
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
12.64
4.07
37.00
180.54
8.49
***
n/a
n/a
3.23
n/a
n/a
123.38
10.23
8.58
185.36
n/a
n/a
56,71
6.02
59.88
1325.51
30.73
n/a
392.30
96.50
68.15
144.89
238.35
99.38
n/a
583.67
n/a
n/a
.60
1.32
3.25
11.63
n/a; Not applicable
***  Harket is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE IX -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               
-------
                               ALTERNATIVE IX -- HIGH BECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values,  in million dollars,  at 3%}
Party
Domestic Miners & Killers
Foreign Miners & Killers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
.36
3.90
.00

21.95
2.90
210.34 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
.36
3,90
.00

21.95
2.90
210.34
,00
.00
                                      HET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare;
                                yorId.yeI fare:
232.64
239.44
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE IX -- HIGH DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
N on -Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket}
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.02
.00
17.49
27.31
2,64
.28
.00
.00
.00
.00
-.18
21.70
.00
.27
4.39
.00
.00
.00
.04
8.76
.06
.06
,00
.31
1.79
.00
71.11
.41
1.07
-.13
47.23
.00
.00
5.24
.45
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
,00
.00
.00
,01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.09
.00
.00
1.75
.00
.00
.25
1.58
.66
.11
1.14
.00
.00
.25
.00
.42
.81
.17
.00
.07
.00
.00
4.34
3.30
.36

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
,02
.00
17,50
27.31
2.64
.28
.00
.00
.00
.00
-.18
28.79
.00
.27
6.14
.00
.00
.25
1.62
9.42
.17
1.20
.00
.31
2.04
.00
71.53
1.21
1.24
-.13
47.31
.00
.00
9.58
3.75
.36
232.64 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0016
.0000
.6671
.2185
.4319
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0001
.0000
.0000
.3244
.0000
.0410
.0457
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0288
.2250
.0002
.0194
.0000
.0007
.0271
.0000
.6953
.0032
.0158
.0000
.1169
.0000
.0000
19.5065
3.7870
.2255
26.3820
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
9.93
***
26,24
125.00
6.11
***
n/a
n/a
3.02
n/a
n/a
88.75
***
6.58
134.40
n/a
n/a
1168.94
56.19
41.85
916.65
62.01
n/a
452.58
75.23
82.18
102.88
384.92
78.86
n/a
404.65
n/a
n/a
.49
.99
1.58
8.82
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE IX -- HIGH OECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater -Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Slocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterroarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 S>
.00
.00
,02
.00
17,49
27.31
2.64
.28
.00
.00
.00
.00
-.18
21.70
.00
.27
4.39
.00
.00
.00
.04
8.76
.06
.06
.00
.31
1.79
.00
71.11
.41
1.07
-.13
47.23
.00
.00
5.24
.45
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.09
.00
.00
1.75
.00
.00
.25
1.58
.66
.11
1.14
.00
.00
.25
.00
,42
.81
.17
.00
.07
.00
.00
4.34
3.30
.36

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
.02
.00
17.50
27.31
2,64
.28
.00
.00
.00
.00
-.18
28.79
.00
.27
6.14
.00
.00
.25
1.62
9.42
.17
1.20
.00
.31
2.04
.00
71,53
1.21
1.24
-.13
47.31
.00
.00
9.58
3.75
.36
232.64 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0012
.0000
.4632
.1511
.2986
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0001
.0000
.0000
.2254
.0000
.0284
.0317
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0205
.1556
.0001
.0135
.0000
.0005
.0189
.0000
.4810
.0022
.0110
.0000
.0806
.0000
.0000
13.5968
2.6416
.1564
18.3787
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
13.95
***
37.79
180.75
8.83
***
n/a
n/a
4.24
n/a
n/a
127.75
***
9.52
193.62
n/a
n/a
1618.09
78.94
60.52
1325.66
89.08
n/a
626.48
107.78
113.75
148.69
551.24
112.91
n/a
586.58
n/a
n/a
.70
1.42
2.29
12.66
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                 ALTERNATIVE J -- LOU DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars,  at 3%)

Party
Domestic Miners & Hitters
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government

CS Loss PS Loss
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8.64
663.54 .00
.00 .00

Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00

Met Loss
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8.64
663.54
.00
.00
                                      NET UELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
748.43
836.84
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                             ALTERNATIVE J  --  MODERATE DECLINE 8ASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY  PARTY
                            (Present values,  fn million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
2,42
26.36
.00

51.48
6.84
358.90 ,00
,00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00 .
Net Loss
2.42
26.36
.00

51.48
6.84
358.90
.00
Government                                                                .00             .00


                                      NET WELFARE  LOSSES
                                U.  S.  Welfare:          412.80
                                yoHd  Welfare:          446.01

Note: Negative entries are welfare  gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE J -- MODERATE DECLINI BASELINE
                                               COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Srade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings {OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile iiner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.04
.86
1Z3.13
-.35
9.80
-.10
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.46
99.44
.36
.85
45.54
1.32
-.01
.01
3.47
24.65
.17
,46
.00
-.08
48.24
.00
-9.64
-.34
-.14
-.33
-1.08
.00
.00
12.86
.33
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
20.48
1.02
.00
7.33
3.59
.00
.31
1.98
.81
.13
1.63
.00
.00
3.34
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
6.70
4.13
2.42

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.04
.86
123.16
-.35
9.80
-.10
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.46
119.92
1.37
.85
52.87
4.90
-.01
.32
5.45
25.46
.30
2. TO
.00
-.08
51.58
.00
-9.64
-.34
-.14
-.33
-1.08
.00
.00
19.56
4.46
2.42
412.80 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
.3931
4.3907
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.4977
.2055
.1435
.4266
.8664
.0000
.0327
2.6245
.5880
.0005
.2218
.0000
.0000
.7200
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
62.6429
10.2699
.5288
87.0641
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 t/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.20
28,05
n/a
6.49
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
80.06
6.67
5.93
123.93
5.66
n/a
9.65
2.08
43.30
638.19
9.46
n/a
n/a
71.64
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.31
.43
4.57
4.74
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE J -- MODERATE DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       CCosts and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol I board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater -Add flaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans, Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
-.04
.86
123.13
-.35
9.80
-.10
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.46
99.44
.36
.85
45.54
1.32
-.01
.01
3.47
24.65
.17
.46
.00
-.08
48.24
.00
-9.64
-.34
-.14
-.33
-1.08
.00
.00
12.86
.33
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
20.48
1.02
.00
7.33
3,59
.00
.31
1.98
.81
.13
1.63
,00
.00
3.34
.00
.00
,00
.00
,00
,00
.00
,00
6.70
4.13
2.42

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<1QA6 $)
.00
.00
-.04
.86
123.16
-.35
9.80
-.10
.00
.00
-.01
.00
-.46
119.92
1.37
.85
52.87
4.90
-.01
.32
5,45
25.46
.30
2.10
.00
-.08
51.58
.00
-9.64
-.34
-.14
-.33
-1,08
.00
.00
19.56
4.46
2.42
412.80 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
.3466
3.3724
.0000
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.0916
.1856
.1158
.3524
.7249
.0000
.0259
2.0710
.4459
.0004
.1715
.0000
.0000
.5616
.0000
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
45.9805
7.6053
.4041
64.6751
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.49
36.52
n/a
8.04
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
109.85
7.39
7.35
150.04
6.77
n/a
12.19
2.63
57.10
842.06
12.23
n/a
n/a
91.84
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.43
.59
5.98
6.38
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                      ALTERNATIVE J -- LCW DiCLiNE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT Bf PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
ieater-Add Gaskets
High Srade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Mon- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV ( Aftermarket}
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
-.43
1.96
207.38
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
,00
-.09
.00
-.97
189.34
1.35
.62
63.31
9.69
.08
.01
17.10
24.66
.17
.20
.00
-.83
157.60
,00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
12.31
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.97
207.42
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
225.01
2.73
.62
71.42
14.43
3.54
.33
19.27
25.48
.30
2.06
.00
-.83
164.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
19.87
3.59
7.31
748.43 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
1 .4052
5.8793
.0000
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
2.2514
.8475
.1158
.5160
6.3280
.7495
.1641
10.9292
.4585
.0004
.3974
.0000
.0000
1.8688
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
76.7895
11.5777
.8457
122.3435
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/ease)
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.40
35.28
n/a
7.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
99.94
3.22
5.33
138.42
2.28
4.72
1.99
1.76
55.57
841 .65
5.18
n/a
n/a
88.08
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.26
.31
8.65
6.12
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted,
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
or exposure'data is not available.

-------
                                       ALTERNATIVE J -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCft #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2?
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Hill board
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads L«V (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket )
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.96
207.38
-.73
8,90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
189.34
1.35
.62
63.31
9.69
.08
.01
17,10
24.66
.17
.20
,00
-.83
157.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
12.31
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
{10A6 $}
.00
.00
-.43
1.97
207.42
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
225.01
2.73
.62
71.42
14.43
3.54
.33
19.27
25.48
.30
2.06
.00
-.83
164.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
19.87
3.59
7.31
748.43 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.7416
7.7573
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
3.1110
1 .0504
.1435
.6395
8.3800
.9927
.2165
14.4204
.6049
.0005
.5244
.0000
.0000
2.4658
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
106.2551
15.8541
1.1258
166.7950
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(1QA6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.13
26.74
n/a
5.89
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
72.33
2.60
4.30
111.68
1.72
' 3.57
1.51
1.34
42.12
637.88
3.92
n/a
n/a
66.75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.19
.23
6.50
4.49
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE J -- HIGH DECLINE 8ASELIKE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in milIfon dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Sutk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
1.19
13.03
.00

34.79
5.61
206.62 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
1.19
13.03
.00

34. 79
5.61
206.62
.00
Government
                                                                           .00
                                   .00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U.  S.  Welfare:
                                World Welfare;
242.61
261.25
Note; Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                     ALTERNATIVE J -- HiSH DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rol Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads IHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Slocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket}
Disc Brake Pads IHV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
LOSS
.00
.00
-.01
.30
71.13
-.20
10.21
-.03
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-.28
47.86
.13
.96
32.33
-.15
-.01
.00
.60
24.24
.17
.25
.00
-.01
14.06
.00
-5.39
-.08
-.04
-.20
-.87
.00
.00
10.94
.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
,00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
11.35
.65
.00
6.60
.00
.00
.30
1.91
.80
.13
1.49
.00
.00
1.44
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
6.02
4.08
1.19

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.01
.30
71.15
-.20
10.21
-.03
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-.28
59.21
.78
.96
38.93
-.15
-.01
.30
2.51
25.04
.30
1.74
.00
-.01
15.50
.00
-5.39
-.08
-.04
-.20
-.87
.00
.00
16.96
4.82
1.19
242.61 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
,0000
.0000
.0000
.1169
2.4668
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
,0000
.0000
.7022
.0652
.1435
.2900
.0000
.0000
.0043
.4326
.5716
.0005
.0918
.0000
.0000
.2022
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
45.1981
9.6922
.3089
61.7985
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10"'6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.54
28.84
n/a
6.75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84.31
11.92
6.66
134.21
n/a
n/a
70.19
5.80
43.79
638.32
18.93
n/a
n/a
76,68
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.38
.50
3.87
3.93
n/a: Mot applicable
***  Harket is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                      ALTERNATIVE  J  --  HIGH  DECLINE BASELINE

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY  PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and  benefits discounted  at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description .
Commercial Paper
Rot I board
Mi t (board
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
ft/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV {OEM>
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing :
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Hining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.01
.30
71.13
-.20
10.21
-.03
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-.28
47.86
.13
.96
32.33
-.15
-.01
.00
.60
24.24
.17
.25
.00
-.01
14.06
.00
-5.39
-.08
-.04
-.20
-.87
.00
.00
10.94
.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
11.35
.65
.00
6.60
.00
.00
.30
1.91
.80
.13
1.49
.00
.00
1.44
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
6.02
4.08
1.19

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
C10A6 $>
.00
.00
-.01
.30
71.15
-.20
10.21
-.03
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-.28
59.21
.78
.96
38.93
-.15
-.01
.30
2.51
25.04
.30
1.74
.00
-.OI-
IS. 50
.00
-5.39
-.08
-.04
-.20
-.87
.00
.00
16.96
4.82
1.19
242.61 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
.1089
1 .9205
.0000
1 .2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.5157
,0619
.1158
.2453
.0000
.0000
.0036
.3551
.4338
.0004
.0724
.0000
.0000
.1625
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
33.3542
7.1818
.2387
45.9901
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.73
37.05
n/a
8.37
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
ft/a
114.81
12.56
8.25
158.72
n/a
n/a
85.20
7.07
57.71
842.22
23.98
n/a
n/a
95.44
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
rr/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.51
.67
5.01
5.28
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned,  exempted,  or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
Sensitivity Analysis  Exhlbitg__for..Brake.	Engineering. Controls

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE 6 -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                          ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERMARKET DRUM BRAKES

                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY

                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
12.19
132.97
.00

2769.36
8.45
4084.67 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
12.19
132.97
.00

2769.36
8.45
4084.6? **
.00
Government                                                                 .00             .00
                                      MET WELFARE LOSSES


                                U. S. Welfare;         6866.22

                                World Welfare:         7007.64
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

Includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
Losses may be overestimated because this analysis assumes that all brake jobs are
performed using engineering controls.  However, all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not
employ these controls.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE G -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                               ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTiRMARKET DRUM BRAKES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               {Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rot I board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEK)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Afterenarket)
Mi ni ng and M i t i. i ng
Total
Dottiest ic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
,00
10.99
1.96
310.13
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
,00
.02
.00
.26
438.45
1.35
.62
63.31
14.92
.16
.03
25.70
36.85
.25
,43
.00
303.38
235.37
.99
319.92
87.79
78.49
1961.33
79.58
.00
.00
-22.84
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24
43.87
1.38
.00
8,10
5.65
3.94
.35
2.45
.92
.15
2.09
.00
.00
7.88
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
.00
.00
7.13
12.19

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $3
.00
.00
10.99
1.97
310.17
114.72
8.90
10,56
.00
,00
.03
.00
2683.50
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
20.57
4.10
.38
28.15
37.77
.40
2.52
.00
303.38
243.25
.99
320.48
88.88
78.72
1961.50
79.67
.00
.00
-22.84 **
8.18
12.19
6866.22 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
1.1509
1 .7416
10.8603
.7944
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0513
.0000
.3329
6.2221
1 .0504
.1435
.6395
11.6170
1 .3749
.3031
20.1886
.8469
.0007
.7341
.0000
.9679
3.4521
.0178
2.9764
.5963
1.0220
.4917 .
.1734
.0000
.0000
.0000
47.9474
2.1776
119.3861
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
9.55
1.13
28.56
144.41
5.89
***
n/a
n/a
.50
n/a
8061 .70
77.52
2.60
4.30
111.68
1.77
2.98
1.26
1.39
44.59
602.38
3.43
n/a
313.45
70.46
55.68
107.67
149.07
77.02
3989.45
459.54
n/a
n/a
n/a
.17
5.60
57.51
n/a: Not applicable

***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.

 **  Includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
     Losses may be overestimated because this analysis assumes that all brake jobs are
     performed using engineering controls.  However, all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not

  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE G -- LOW-DECLINE BASELIME
                               ENGINEERING CONTROLS OH AFTERMARKET DRUM BRAKES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol (.board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $5
.00
.00
10.99
1.96
310.13
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
.02
.00
.26
438.45
1,35
,62
63,31
14,92
.16
.03
25,70
36.85
.25
.43
,00
303.38
235.37
,99
319.92
87.79
78.49
1961,33
79.58
.00
.00
-22,84
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
5.65
3.94
.35
2.45
.92
.15
2.09
.00
.00
7.88
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
.00
.00
7.13
12.19

fiross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<10A6 $}
.00
,00
10.99
1.97
310.17
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
.03
.00
2683.50
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
20.57
4.10
.38
28.15
37.77
.40
2.52
.00
303.38
243,25
.99
320.48
88.88
78.72
1961.50
79.67
.00
.00
-22.84 **
8.18
12.19
6866.22 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
,0000
,9286
1 .4052
8.7628
.6410
1.2196
.0000
.0000
,0000
.0*14
.0000
.2686
5.0204
.8475
.1158
.5160
9.3392
1.1052
,2445
16.2894
.6833
.0005
,5923
.0000
.7810
2,7854
.0143
2.4015
,4811
.8246
.3967
.1399
.0000
.0000
.0000
40.4240
1 .7490
98.0188
Cost per
Cancer Case ,
Avoided
<10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
11.83
1.40
35.40
178.97
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
.62
n/a
'9991.41
96.07
3.22
5.33
138.42
2.20
3.71
1.56
1.73
55.27
745.38
4.25
n/a
388.48
87.33
69.00
133,45
184.75
95.45
4944.40
569.53
n/a
n/a
n/a
.20
6.97
70,05
n/a: Not applicable

***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available,

 **  Includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
     Losses may be overestimated because this analysis assumes that all brake jobs are
     performed using engineering controls.  However, all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not

  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE H --  LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                          ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERMARKET DRUM BRAKES
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in  mi El Jon dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Killers
Foreign Winers & Mi Hers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
7.10
77.40
.00

2387.88
7,10
2420.61 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
7.10
77.40
.00

2387.88
7.10
2420.61
.00
.00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U.  S.  Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
4815.59
4900.09
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE H -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                               ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERMARKET DRUM BRAKES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               {Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings {OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Mon- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Hissile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
6.53
1.18
184.46
68,21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
.16
260.86
,80
.37
37.67
9.16
.10
.02
15.30
21.92
.15
.26
.00
180.39
139.97
.59
190.33
52.21
46.67
1166.16
47.32
.00
.00
-22.27
.48
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 S)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
37.84
1.19
.00
6.99
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
6.80
.00
.49
.94
.20
.15
.08
.00
.00
.00
5,21
7.10

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
6.54
1,19
184.50
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
2314.75
298.71
2.00
.37
44.66
13.99
3.50
.32
17.41
22.71
.28
2.07
.00
180.39
146.77
.59
190.81
53.15
46.87
1166.31
47.41
.00
.00
-22.27
5,69
7.10
4815.59 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.7399
1,1196
6.9816
.5107
.9717
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0330
.0000
.2140
3.9999
.6752
,0923
.4111
7.6476
.9063
.1948
12.9784
.5444
.0004
.4719
.0000
.6222
2.2192
.0114
1.9134
.3833
.6570
.3161
.1115
.0000
.0000
.0000
23.2356
1.2888
69.2512
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
8,83
1.06
26.43
133.57
5.45
***
n/a
n/a
.49
n/a
10817.17
74.68
2.96
4.00
108.65
1.83
3.86
1.65
1,34
41.71
654.74
4.38
n/a
289.91
66.14
51.50
99.73
138.66
71.33
3689,98
425.33
n/a
n/a
n/a
.24
5.51
69.54
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted,
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
or exposure data is not available.

-------
                                       ALTERNATIVE J -- LOy DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-8EHEFIT BY PRODUCT
                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Caskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans, Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.96
207,38
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
189.34
1.35
.62
63.31
9.69
.08
.01
17.10
24.66
.17
.20
.00
-.83
157.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
12.31
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Cross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.97
207.42
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
225.01
2.73
.62
71.42
14.43
3.54
.33
19.27
25.48
.30
2.06
.00
-.83
164.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
19.87
3.59
7.31
748.43 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.7416
7.7573
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
3.1110
1.0504
.1435
.6395
8.3800
.9927
.2165
14.4204
.6049
.0005
.5244
.0000
.0000
2.4658
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
106.2551
15.8541
1.1258
166.7950
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/c8se)
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.13
26.74
n/a
5.89
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
72.33
2.60
4.30
111.68
1.72
3.57
1.51
1.34
42.12
637.88
3.92
n/a
n/a
66.75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.19
.23
6.50
4.49
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                 ALTERNATIVE J -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3X)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Government
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8.64
663.54 .00
.00 .00

.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
«et Loss
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8.64
663.54
.00
.00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
748.43
836.84
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
Sensitivity 'Analysis Exhibits for Additional Exposure Assumptions

-------
                                ALTERNATIVE J -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                     DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Killers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8.64
425.50 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
7.31
79,76
.00

77.58
8.64
425.50
.00
Government
                                                                           .00
                                   .00
                                      MET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:
                                World Welfare:
510.40
598.80
Note; Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                       ALTERNATIVE J -- LOy DECLINE BASELINE
                                            DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings .(OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings {Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
<1QA6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.06
168.63
-.73
7.31
-.45
.00
,00
-.09
.00
-.97
90.04
.99
.29
46,77
2.15
.08
,01
1.07
12.02
.09
.20
.00
-.83
126.05
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
-.10
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
,00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
,31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
,00
-.43
1.07
168.67
-.73
7.31
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
125.72
2.37
.29
54.87
6.89
3.54
.33
3.24
12.83
.22
2.06
.00
-.83
133,05
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
7.45
3.59
7.31
510.40 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.4052
5,8793
.0000
1.2196
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
2.2514
.8475
.1158
.5160
6.3280
.7495
.1641
10.9292
.4585
.0004
.3974
.0000
.0000
1.8688
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
76.7895
11.5777
.8457
122.3435
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
.76
28.69
n/a
5.99
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
55.84
2.79
2.53
106.34
1.09
4.72
1.99
.30
28.00
613.18
5.18
n/a
n/a
71.20
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.10
.31
8.65
4.17
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                       ALTERNATIVE J -- LOW DECLINE BASEL IME
                                            DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Urap
Beater -Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Men- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket 3
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $3
.00
.00
-.43
1.06
168.63
-.73
7.31
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
90.04
.99
.29
46.77
2.15
.08
.01
1.07
12.02
.09
.20
.00
-.83
126.05
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
-.10
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
LOSS
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.07
168.67
-.73
7.31
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
125.72
2.37
.29
54.87
6.89
3.54
.33
3.24
12.83
.22
2.06
.00
-.83
133.05
.00
' -21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
7.45
3.59
7.31
510.40 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.7416
7.7573
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
3.1110
1 .0504
.1435
.6395
8.3800
.9927
.2165
14.4204
.6049
.0005
.5244
.0000
.0000
2.4658
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
106.2551
15.8541
1 . 1258
166.7950
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case}
n/a
n/a
n/a
.61
21.74
n/a
4.84
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
40,41
2.25
2.04
85.81
.82
3.57
1.51
.22
21.22
464.73
3.92
n/a
n/a
53.96
r»/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.07
.23
6.50
3.06
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE K -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                               ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERMARKET DRUM BRAKES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Urap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
ft/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterrnarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Mi 1 1 ing
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 *}
.00
.00
6.53
1.18
184.46
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
,02
.00
.16
260.86
.80
.37
37.67
9.16
.10
.02
15.30
21.92
.15
.26
.00
180.39
139.97
.59
190.33
52.21
46.67
1166.16
47.32
.00
.00
-22.27
.48
.00

Domestic
Producer
.Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
37.84
1.19
.00
6.99
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
6.80
.00
.49
.94
.20
.15
.08
.00
.00
.00
5.21
7.10

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
6.54
1.19
184.50
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
2314.75
298.71
2.00
.37
44.66
13.99
3.50
.32
17.41
22.71
.28
2.07
.00
180.39
146.77
.59
190.81
53.15
46.87
1166.31
47.41
.00
.00
-22.27
5.69
7.10
4815.59 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.5521
.8355
5.2101
.3811
.7252
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0246
.0000
.1597
2.9850
.5039
.0688
.3068
5.6962
.6751
.1454
9.6853
.4063
.0003
.3522
.0000
.4643
1.6561
.0085
1.4279
.2860
.4903
.2359
.0832
.0000
.0000
.0000
17.6734
,9623
52.0015
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
11.84
1.42
35.41
178.99
7.31
*##
n/a
n/a
.65
n/a
14495.12
100.07
3.96
5.36
145.59
2.46
5.18
2.22
1.80
55.89
877.36
5.87
n/a
388.49
88.62
69.01
133.63
185.81
95.59
4944.61
569.95
n/a
n/a
n/a
.32
7.38
92.60
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted,
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
or exposure data is not available.

-------
                               ALTERNATIVE I -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                          ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERMARKET DRUM BRAKES
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in niiltion dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Milters
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
2.92
31.89
.00

2059.38
6.04
996,72 .00
,00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
2.92
31.89
.00

2059.38
6.04
996.72
.00
Government
                                                                           .00
.00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES

                                U.  S.  Welfare:          3059.02
                                yorld Welfare:          3096.95
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE I -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                               ENGINEERING CONTROLS OH AFTERMARKET DRUM BRAKES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               {Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
ieater-Adci Gaskets
High firade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing.
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Mi Uing
Total
Domest i c
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.96
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
.07
107.41
.33
.15
15.51
3.93
.04
.01
6.30
9.02
.06
.11
.00
74.29
57.64
.24
78.37
21.50
19.22
480.24
19.49
.00
.00
-9.35
,15
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
32.64
1.03
.00
6.03
4.42
2.96
.26
1.82
.68
.11
1.56
.00
.00
5.86
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
.00
3.78
2.92'

Gross
Domest i c
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.99
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
1996.65
140.06
1.36
.15
21.54
8.34
3.00
.27
8.12
9.71
.17
1.66
.00
74.29
63.50
.24
78.79
22.31
19.39
480.37
19.56
.00
.00
-9.35
3.93
2.92
3059.02 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.3288
.4976
3.1029
.2270
.4319
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0146
.0000
.0951
1.7777
.3001
.0410
.1827
3.5284
.4193
.0866
5.7682
.2420
.0002
.2097
.0000
.2765
.9863
.0051
.8504
.1704
.2920
.1405
.0495
.0000
.0000
.0000
7.9591
.5705
28.5542
• Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
{1QA6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.19
.98
24.49
123.76
5.05
***
n/a
n/a
.48
n/a
20993.95
78.78
4.53
3.70
117.90
2.36
7.16
3.11
1.41
40.12
916.20
7.93
n/a
268.62
64.39
47.71
92.65
130.96
66.39
3419.52
394.85
n/a
n/a
n/a
.49
5.13
107.13
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE  I  --  LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                               ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERMARKET DRUM BRAKES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and  benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol I board
Mi 1 Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High firade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/e Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake 1 locks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Af termarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Af termarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.96
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
.07
107.41
.33
.15
15.51
3.93
.04
.01
6.30
9.02
.06
.11
.00
74.29
57.64
.24
78.37
21,50
19.22
480.24
19.49
.00
.00
-9.35
.15
.-oo

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $}
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
32.64
1.03
.00
6.03
. 4.42
2.96
.26
1.82
.68
.11
1.56
.00
.00
5.86
.00
,42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
,00
3.78
' 2.92

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.99
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
1996.65
140.06
1.36
.15
21.54
8,34
3.00
.27
8.12
9.71
.17
1,66
.00
74.29
63.50
.24
78.79
22.31
19,39
480,37
19.56
.00
.00
-9.35
3.93
2.92
3059.02 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.2274
.3441
2.1456
.1569
.2986
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0101
.0000
.0658
1 .2292
.2075
.0284
,1263
2,4413
.2901
.0599
3.9885
.1673
.0001
,1450
.0000
.1912
.6820
.0035
.5880
.1178
.2019
.0971
.0343
.0000
.0000
.0000
5.5207
.3945
19.7632
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 $/ease>
n/a
n/a
11.84
1.42
35.42
178.99
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
.69
n/a
30361 .44
113.94
6,54
5.35
170.51
3.42
10,35
4.50
2.04
58.02
1325.01
11.47
n/a
388.48
93.11
69.00
133.99
189.39
96.02
4945.31
571,03
n/a
n/a
n/a
.71
7.41
154.78
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                ALTERNATIVE G -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                    ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERMARKET LMV DRUM AND DISC BRAKES

                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY

                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
12.11
132.06
.00

2762.23
7.10
4078.35 ,00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
12.11
132.06
.00

2762.23
7.10
4078.35 **
.00
Government                                                                 .00             .00
                                      NET yELFARE LOSSES


                                U. S. Welfare:         6852.69

                                yortd Welfare:         6991.85
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

Includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
Losses may be overestimated because this analysis assumes that all brake jobs are
performed using engineering controls.  However, all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not
employ these controls.

-------
ALTERNATIVE H -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
     DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES
       COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
(Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)




Product Product
TSCA "

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38



w Description

Cowraercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater -Add flaskets
High Srade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Aytomatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hilling
Total
n/a; Not applicable
*** Market is not banned, exempted,
* U.S. npf we»l f fir& ro«tf
Domestic
Consigner
Surplus
LOSS
(«A6 $>
,00
.00
5.16
,55
148.35
58.79
4.04
.08
.00
.00
.02
.00
.16
140.69
.53
.15
24.67
2.35
.10
.02
.71
10.14
.07
.26
.00
159.15
110.58
.49
75.14
1.33
40.38
1001.52
41.11
.00
.00
5.66
.48
.00


or exposure data is
Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<1QA6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
37.84
1.19
.00
6.99
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
6.80
.00
.49
.94
.20
.15
.08
.00
.00
8.21
5.21
7.27


not available.
Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
5.16
.55
148.39
58.79
4.04
.08
.00
.00
.02
.00
2314.75
178.53
1.72
.15
31.66
7.19
3.50
.32
2.82
10.93
.20
2.07
.00
159.15
117.38
.49
75.62
2.27
40.57
1001.67
41.19
.00
.00
13.86
5.69
7.27
4236,00 *


Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided

.0000
.0000
.5521
,8355
5.2101
.3811
.7252
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0246
.0000
.1597
2.9850
.5039
,0688
.3068
5.6962
.675.1
.1454
9.6853
.4063
.0003
.3522
.0000
.4643
1 .6561
.0085
1.4279
.2860
.4903
.2359
.0832
.0000
.0000
101.6571
17.6734
1.1331
153.8295



Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
9.35
.66
28.48
154.27
5.58
***
n/a
n/a
.65
n/a
14495.12
59.81
3.41
2.12
103.19
1.26
5.18
2.22
.29
26.89
637.15
5.87
n/a
342.73
70.88
57.05
52.96
7.92
82.74
4246.61
495.24
n/a
n/a
.14
.32
6.4V
27.54



-------
                                ALTERNATIVE I -- LOU DECLINE BASELINE
                                     DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES
                                       1CLFARE EFFECTS BY PARTT
                            (Present values, in Billion dollars, at 3%
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Killers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
3.00
32.68
.00

2066.72
7.14
702.96 .00
.00 .00
.00
,00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
3.00
32.68
.00

2066.72
7.14
702.96
.00
Government                                                                 .00             .00


                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:         2772.68
                                yorld Welfare:         2812.50

Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                       AtTERNATIVE I -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                            DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEK)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
N on -Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket}
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10~6 $}
.00
.00
1.99
.22
57.62
23.31
1.57
.03
.00
.00
.01
,00
.07
46.39
.19
,05
9.16
.97
,04
.01
.20
3.04
.02
.11
.00
63.59
42.71
.19
19.88
.16
16.02
396.63
16.33
.00
.00
2.30
.15
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
,00
1996.58
32.64
1.03
.00
6.03
4.42
2.96
.26
1.82
.68
.11
1.56
.00
.00
5.86
.00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
7.35
3.78
3.00

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.00
.23
57.65
23.31
1.57
.03
.00
.00
.01
.00
1996.65
79.03
1.22
.05
15.19
5.39
3.00
,27
2.02
3.73
.13
1.66
.00
63.59
48.58
.19
20.30
.97
16.19
396.76
16.40
.00
.00
9,64
3.93
3.00
2772.68 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
,3288
.4976
3.1029
,2270
.4319
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0146
.0000
.0951
1.7777
.3001
.0410
.1827
3.5284
.4193
.0866
5,7682
.2420
.0002
.2097
,0000
.2765
.9863
,0051
.8504
.1704
.2920
.1405
.0495
.0000
.0000
61.8500
7.9591
.6747
90.5084
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
6.07
.46
18.58
102.69
3.63
***
n/a
n/a
.48
n/a
20993,95
44.46
4.07
1.26
83.13
1.53
7.16
3.11
.35
15.40
711.39
7.93
n/a
229.93
49,25
37.52
23.87
5.68
55.45
2824.38
331.14
n/a
n/a
.16
.49
4.44
30.63
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available,
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                       ALTERNATIVE I -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                            DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       {Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product .
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LBV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans, Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets :
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Sattery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterraarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Afterraarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
1.99
.22
57.62
23.31
1.57
.03
.00
.00
.01
.00
.07
46.39
.19
.05
9.16
.97
.04
.01
.20
3.04
.02
.11
.00
63.59
42.71
.19
19.88
.16
16.02
396.63
16.33
.00
.00
2.30
.15
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
32.64
1.03
.00
6.03
4.42
2.96
.26
1.82
.68
.11
1.56
.00
.00
5.86
.00
.42
.81
,17
.13
.07
,00
.00
7.35
3.78
1 3.00

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(1CT6 $>
.00
.00
2.00
.23
57.65
23,31
1.57
.03
.00
.00
.01
.00
1996.65
79.03
1.22
.05
15.19
5.39
3.00
.27
2.02
3.73
.13
1.66
.00
63.59
48.58
.19
20.30
.97
16.19
396,76
16.40
.00
.00
9.64
3.93
3.00
2772.68 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.2274
.3441
2.1456
.1569
.2986
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0101
.0000
.0658
1.2292
.2075
.0284
.1263
2.4413
.2901
.0599
3.9885
.1673
.0001
.1450
.0000
.1912
.6820
,0035
.5880
.1178
,2019
.0971
.0343
.0000
.0000
42.7646
5.5207
.4666
62.5999
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.78
.66
26.87
148.51
5,25
***
n/a
n/a
.69
n/a
30361 .44
64.29
5.88
1.83
120.22
2.21
10,35
4.50
.51
22.27
1028.81
11.47
n/a
332.53
71.23
54.26
34.52
8.22
80.19
4084.62
478.90
n/a
n/a
.23
.71
6.42
44.29
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                     ALTERNATIVE G -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                         ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERMARKET LWV DRUM AND DISC BRAKES

                                              COST-BENEFIT EY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LKV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc irake Pads LMV (Aftermarket}
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
10.99
1.96
310.13
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
.02
.00
.26
438.45
1.35
.62
63.31
14.92
.16
.03
25.70
36.85
.25
.43
.00
303.38
235.37
.99
319.92
87.79
78.49
1961 .33
79.58
.00
.00
-21.98
-6.13
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<1QA6 *>
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
5.65
3.94
.35
2.45
.92
.15
2.09
.00
.00
7.88
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
.00
.00
.00
12.11

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<10A6 i)
.00
.00
10.99
1.97
310.17
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
,03
.00
2683.50
482.32
2.73
.62
71.42
20.57
4.10
.38
28.15
37.77
.40
2.52
.00
303.38
243.25
.99
320.48
88.88
78.72
1961.50
79,67
.00
.00
-21.98 **
-6.13 **
12.11
6852.69 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
,0000
1.1509
1,7416
10.8603
.7944
1.5116
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0513
.0000
.3329
6.2221
1 .0504
.1435
.6395
11.6170
1 .3749
.3031
20. 1886
.8469
.0007
.7341
.0000
.9679
3.4521
.0178
2.9764
.5963
1.0220
.491?
.1734
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
2.1208
71.3818
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 $/ease)
n/a
n/a
9.55
1.13
28.56
144.41
5.89
***
n/a
n/a
.50
n/a
8061.70
77.52
2.60
4.30
111.68
1.77
2.98
1.26
1.39
44.59
602.38
3.43
n/a
313.45
70.46
55.68
107.67
149.07
77.02
3989.45
459.54
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.71
96.00
n/a: Not applicable

***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.

 **  Includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
     Losses may be overestimated because this analysis assumes that all brake jobs are
     performed using engineering controls.  However, all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not
     employ these controls.

  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                     ALTERNATIVE G --  LCW DECLINE BASELINE
                         EN6INEERJM6 CONTROLS OH AFTERMARKET LMV DRUM AND DISC BRAKES
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       {Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drmi Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Hissile Liner
Sea lent Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
10.99
1.96
310.13
114.72
8.90
10.56
.00
.00
.02
.00
.26
438.45
t.35
.62
63.31
14,92
.16
.03
25.70
36.85
.25
,43
.00
303.38
235.37
.99
319.92
87.79
78.49
1961 .33
79.58
.00
.00
-21.98
-6.13
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 *)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24-
43,87
1.38
.00
8.10
5.65
3.94
.35
2.45
.92
.15
2.09
.00
.00
7.88
.00
,56
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
.00
.00
.00
12.11

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
10.99
1,97
310.17
114.72
8.90
10,56
.00
.00
,03
.00
2683.50
482.32
2,73
.62
71.42
20.57
4.10
.38
28.15
37.77
.40
2.52
.00
303,38
243.25
.99
320.48
88.88
78.72
1961 .50
79.67
.00
.00
-21 .98 **
-6.13 **
12.11
6852.69 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
,0000
.0000
.9286
1.4052
8.7628
.6410
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0414
,0000
.2686
5.0204
.8475
.1158
.5160
9.3392
1.1052
.2445
16.2894
.6833
.0005
.5923
.0000
.7810
2.7854
.0143
2.4015
.4811
.8246
.3967
.1399
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.6994
57.5452
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10*6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
11.83
1.40
35.40
178.97
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
.62
n/a
9991 .41
96.07
3.22
5.33
138.42
2.20
3.71
1.56
1.73
55.27
745.38
4.25
n/a
388.48
87.33
69.00
133.45
184.75
95.45
4944.40
569.53
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.13
119.08
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
 **  Includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
     Losses may be overestimated because this analysis assumes that all brake jobs are
     performed using engineering controls.  However,  all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not
     employ these controls.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                ALTERNATIVE H — LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                    ENGINEERING CONTROLS OH AFTERMARKET LMV DRUM AND DISC BRAKES
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners 6 Millers
importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
7.04
76.82
.00

2382,67
6.11
2417,81 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Met Loss
7.04
76.82
.00

2382.67
6.11
2417.81 **
.00
Government                                                                 .00             .00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:         4807.53
                                World Welfare:         4890.46
Note; Negative entries are welfare gains.
Includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
Losses may be overestimated because this analysis assumes that all brake jobs are
performed using engineering controls.  However, all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not
employ these controls.

-------
                                     ALTERNATIVE H -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                         ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERMARKET LMV DRUM AND DISC BRAKES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               {Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA if
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
MI 1 Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Sealer -Add Gaskets
Miih Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV {Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
,00
.00
6.53
1.18
184.46
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
.16
260.86
.80
.37
37.67
9.16
.10
.02
15.30
21.92
.15
,26
.00
180.39
139.97
.59
190.33
52.21
46.67
1166.16
47.32
,00
.00
-21.66
-2.93
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $>
,00
.00
.00
.00
,04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
37.84
1.19
.00
6.99
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
6.80
,00
.49
.94
.20
.15
.08
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.04

Gross
Domest i c
Total .
Loss
<10A6 $3
.00
.00
6.54
1.19
184,50
68.21
5.30
6.28
,00
.00
.02
.00
2314.75
298.71
2.00
.37
44.66
13.99
3.50
.32
17.41
22.71
.28
2.07
.00
180.39
146.77
• .59
190.81
53.15
46.87
1166.31
47.41
.00
.00
-21.66 **
-2.93 **
7.04
4807.53 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.7399
1.1196
6.9816
,5107
.9717
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0330
.0000
.2140
3.9999
.6752
.0923
.4111
7.6476
.9063
,1948
12.9784
.5444
.0004
.4719
.0000
.6222
2.2192
.0114
1.9134
.3833
.6570
,3161
.1115
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.2527
45.9796
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.83
1.06
26.43
133,57
5.45
***
n/a
n/a
.49
n/a
10817.17
74,68
2.96
4.00
108.65
1.83
3.86
1.65
1.34
41.71
654.74
4.38
n/a
289.91
66.14
51.50
99.73
138.66
71.33
3689.98
425.33
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.62
104.56
n/a; Not applicable

***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.

 **  Includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
     Losses may be overestimated because this analysis assumes that all brake jobs are
     performed using engineering controls.  However, all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not
     employ these controls.

  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                     ALTERNATIVE H -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                         ENGINEERING CONTROLS OH AFTERMARKET LMV DRU« AND DISC BRAKES

                                              COST-BENEFIT 8¥ PRODUCT

                                       {Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product Product
TSCA # Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
ft/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans, Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
6.53
1.18
184.46
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
.16
260.86
.80
.37
37.67
9.16
.10
.02
'15.30
21.92
.15
.26
.00
180.39
139.97
,59
190.33
52.21
46.67
1166.16
47.32
.00
.00
-21.66
-2.93
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
37.84
1.19
.00
6.99
4.83
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
6.80
.00
.49
.94
.20
.15
.08
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.04

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
6.54
1.19
184,50
68.21
5.30
6.28
.00
.00
.02
.00
2314.75
298.71
2.00
.37
44.66
13.99
3.50
.32
17.41
22.71
,28
2.07
.00
180.39
146.77
.59
190.81
53.15
46.87
1166.31
47,41
.00
.00
-21.66 **
-2.93 **
7.04
4807.53 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.5521
.8355
5.2101
.3811
.7252
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0246
.0000
.1597
2.9850
.5039
.0688
.3068
5.6962
.6751
.1454
9.6853
.4063
.0003
.3522
.0000
.4643
1.6561
.0085
1 .4279
.2860
.4903
.2359
.0832
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.9350
34.3008
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 ft/case)
n/a
n/a
11,84
1.42
35.41
178.99
7.31
***
n/a
n/a
.65
n/a
14495.12
100.07
3.96
5.36
145.59
2.46
5.18
2.22
1.80
55.89
877.36
5.87
n/a
388.49
88.62
69.01
133.63
185.81
95.59
4944.61
569.95
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
• 7.53
140.16
n/a; Not applicable

***  Market is not banned,  exempted, or exposure data is not available.

 **  Includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
     Losses may be overestimated because this analysis assumes that all  brake jobs are
     performed using engineering controls.  However,  all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not
     employ these controls.

  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                ALTERNATIVE I -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                    ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERMARK61 LMV BRUM AND DISC BRAKES
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in nillion dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Hitlers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
E.91
31,71
.00

2055.59
5,32
995,90 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
2.91
31.71
.00

2055.59
5.32
995.90 **
.00
Government                                                                 .00             .00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES

                                U, S. Welfare;         3054.40
                                World Welfare:         3091.43
Note; Negative entries are welfare gains.
Includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
Losses may foe overestimated because this '.analysis assumes that all brake jobs are
performed using engineering controls.  However, all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not
employ these controls.

-------
                                     ALTERNATIVE I  -- LOU DECLINE BASELINE
                         ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERKARKET LMV DRUM AND DISC BRAKES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hi 1 1 ing
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
,00
2.69
.49
75.96
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
.07
107.41
.33
.15
15.51
3,93
.04
.01
6.30
9.02
.06
.11
.00
74.29
57.64
.24
78.37
21.50
19,22
480,24
19.49
.00
.00
-9.15
-0.87
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
C10A6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
32.64
1.03
.00
6.03
4.42
2.96
.26
1.82
.68
.11
1.56
.00
.00
5.86
,00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
.00
.00
2.91

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.99
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
1996.65
140,06
1.36
.15
21.54
8.34
3.00
.27
8.12
9,71
.17
1.66
.00
74.29
63.50
.24
78,79
22.31
19.39
480.37
19.56
.00
.00
-9.15 **
-0.87 **
2.91
3054.40 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.3288
.4976
3.1029 '
.2270
.4319
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0146
.0000
.0951
1 .7777
.3001
.0410
.1827
3.5284
.4193
.0866
5.7682
.2420
.0002
.2097
.0000
.2765
.9863
.0051
.8504
.1704
.2920
.1405
.0495
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.5572
20.5818
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.19
.98
24.49
123.76
5.05
***
n/a
n/a
.48
n/a
20993.95
78.78
4.53
3,70
117.90
2.36
7.16
3.11
1.41
40.12
916.20
7.93
n/a
268.62
64.39
47.71
92.65
130.96
66.39
3419.52
394.85
n/s
n/a
n/a
n/a
5,22
148.40
n/a: Not applicable

***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.

 **  includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
     Losses may be overestimated because this analysis assumes that all brake jobs are
     performed using engineering controls.  However,  all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not
     employ these controls.

  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                     ALTERNATIVE I --LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                         ENGINEERING CONTROLS ON AFTERMARKET LMV DRUM AND DISC BRAKES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2?
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37'
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
RoLlboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Baskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/c Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterraarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
2.69
.49
75.96
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
.07
107.41
.33
.15
15.51
3.93
.04
.01
6.30
9.02
.06
.11
.00
74.29
57.64
.24
78.37
21.50
19,22
480.24
19.49
.00
.00
-9.15
-0.87
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 *)
.00
.00
,00
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1996.58
32.64
1.03
.00
6.03
4.42
2.96
.26
1.82
.68
.11
1.56
.00
.00
5.86
,00
.42
.81
.17
.13
.07
.00
.00
.00
.00
2.91

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $}
	 • - .00 -••••
.00
2.69
.49
75.99
28.09
2.18
2.59
.00
.00
.01
.00
1996.65
140.06
1.36
.15
21.54
8.34
3.00
.27
8.12
9.71
.17
1.66
.00
74.29
63.50
.24
78.79
22.31
19.39
480.37
19,56
.00
.00
-9.15 **
-0.87 **
2.91
3054.40 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
--=•.0000 - •
.0000
.2274
.3441
2.1456
.1569
.2986
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0101
.0000
.0658
1.2292
.2075
.0284
.1263
2.4413
.2901
.0599
3.9885
.1673
.0001
.1450
.0000
.1912
.6820
.0035
.5880
.1178
.2019
.0971
.0343
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.3854
14.2333
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 */case)
n/a
n/a
11.84
1.42
35.42
178.99
7.30
***
n/a
n/a
.69
n/a
30361 .44
113.94
6.54
5.35-
170.51
3.42
10.35
4.50
2.04
58.02
1325.01
11.47
n/a
388.48
93.11
69.00
133.99
189.39
96.02
4945.31
571.03
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.55
214.60
n/a: Not applicable

***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.

 **  Includes consumer surplus loss due to engineering controls on non-asbestos brakes.
     Losses may be overestimated because this analysis assumes that all brake jobs are
     performed using engineering controls.  However, all "do-it-yourself" jobs may not
     employ these controls.

  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
Sensitl-yity Analysis Exhibits for Declining Substitute .Prices

-------
                                       ALTERNATIVE  6  --  LOW DECLINE  BASELtNE
                                           DECLINING SUBSTITUTE  PRICES

                                             COST-BENEFIT BY  PRODUCT

                               {Costs discounted at 3% and benefits  discounted  at  0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Hf Ltboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Slocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
9.26
1.06
264,72
102.87
7.31
.54
.00
.00
.02
.00
.26
287.33
.99
.29
46.77
4.43
.16
.03
6.03
22.04
.15
.43
.00
276.42
198.41
.86
175.07
17.58
70.57
1754.29
71.76
.00
.00
10.71
1,05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
5.65
3.94
.35
2.45
.92
,15
2.09
.00
.00
7.88
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7.13
12.32

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
9.26
1.07
264.77
102.87
7.31
.54
.00
.00
.03
.00
2683.50
331.20
2.37
.29
54.87
10.08
4.10
.38
8.47
22.95
.30
2.52
.00
276.42
206.29
.86
175.63
18.66
70.80
1754.47
71.86
.00
.00
19.76
8.18
12.32
6122.14 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
1.1509
1.7416
10,8603
,7944
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0513
.0000
.3329
6.2221
1.0504
.1435
.6395
11.6170 .
1.3749
.3031
20.1886
.8469
,0007
.7341
.0000
.9679
3.4521
.0178
2.9764
.5963
1.0220
.4917
.1734
,0000
.0000
209.0213
47,9474
• 2.3709 '
328.6007
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.05
.61
24.38
129.50
4.84
***
n/a
n/a
.50
n/a
8061.70
53.23
2.25
2.04
85.81
.87
2.98
1.26
.42
27.10
458.46
3.43
n/a
285.59
59.76
48.46
59.01
31.30
69.27
3568.37
414.46
n/a
n/a
.09
.17
5.19
18.63
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned,  exempted,  or exposure data is not  available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                ALTERNATIVE 0 -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                     DECLINING SUiSTITUTE PRICES
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Mi Hers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS toss PS Loss Allocation
12.32
134.29
.00

2778,41
9.81
3331.41 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
12.32
134.29
.00

2778.41
9.81
3331 .41
.00
Government                                                                 .00             .00
                                      MET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:         6122.14
                                World Welfare;         6266.24
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                       ALTERNATIVE G — LCW DECLINE BASELINE
                                            DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High firade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/e Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterrnarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV {Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
9.Z6
1.06
264.72
102.87
7.31
,54
.00
.00
.02
.00
.26
287.33
.99
.29
46.77
4.43
.16
.03
6.03
22.04
.15
.43
.00
276.42
198.41
.86
175.07
17.58
70.57
1754.29
71.76
.00
.00
10.71
1.05
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10"6 $>
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2683.24
43.87
1.38
.00
8.10
5.65
3.94
.35
2.45
.92
.15
2.09
.00
.00
7.88
.00
.56
1.09
.23
.17
.10
.00
.00
9.05
7,13
12.32 '

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<1QA6 $>
.00
.00
9.26
1.07
264.77
102.87
7.31
.54
.00
.00
.03
.00
2683,50
331.20
2.37
.29
54.87
10.08
4.10
.38
8.47
22.95
,30
2.52
.00
276.42
206.29
.86
175.63
18.66
70.80
1754.47
71.86
.00
.00
19.76
8,18
12.32
6122.14 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.9286
1.4052
8.7628
.6410
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0414
.0000
.2686
5.0204
.8475
.1158
.5160
9.3392
1.1052
.2445
16.2894
.6833
.0005
.5923
.0000
.7810
2.7854
.0143
2.4015
.4811
.8246
.3967
.1399
.0000
.0000
168.1760
40.4240
1.9145
266.3603
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
rt/a
n/a
9.98
.76
30.21
160.50
5.99
***
n/a
n/a
.62
n/a
9991.41
65.97
2.79
2.53
106.34
1.08
3.71
1.56
.52
33.59
567,29
4.25
n/a
353.95
74.06
60.06
73.13
38.79
85.85
4422.53
513,67
n/a
n/a
.12
.20
6.43
22.98
n/a: Mot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                ALTERNATIVE H --  LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                     DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTr
                            (Present  values,  in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Killers
Foreign Miners & Killers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
cs Loss PS Loss Allocation
7,27
79.23
.00

2396.09
8.33
1832.64 .00
.00 .00
.00
,00
.00

,00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
7.27
79,23
.00

2396.09
8.33
1832.64
.00
Government                                                                 .00              .00
                                      NET  WELFARE LOSSES

                                U. S.  Welfare;          4236.00
                                World  Welfare:          4323.56
Note; Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
        ALTERNATIVE H --  LOW DECLINE BASELINE
             DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES

               COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

{Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)




Product Product
TSCA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
K
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38



9 Description

Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Srade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos- Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
n/a; Not applicable
*** Market is not banned, exempted,
* U.S. net welfare cost
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
5.16
.55
148.35
58.79
4.04
.08
.00
.00
.02
.00
.16
140.69
.53
.15
24.67
	 2.35
.10
• .02
.71
10.14
.07
.26
.00
159.15
110.58
.49
75.14
1.33
40.38
1001.52
41.11
.00
.00
5.66
.48
.00


or exposure data
Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<1QA6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2314.59
37.84
1.19
.00
6.99
• • 	 4.83 	
3.39
.30
2.11
.79
.13
1.80
.00
.00
6.80
.00
.49
.94
.20
.15
.08
.00
.00
8.21
5.21
7.27


is not available.
Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
5.16
.55
148.39
58.79
4,04
.08
.00
.00
.02
.00
2314.75
178.53
1.72
.15
31.66
•• •7.-19----
3.50
.32
2.82
10.93
.20
2.07
.00
159.15
117.38
.49
75,62
2.27
40.57
1001 .67
41.19
.00
.00
13.86
5.69
7.27
4236,00 *


Total
Cancer
.Cases
Avoided

.0000
.0000
.7399
1.1196
6.9816
.5107
.9717
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0330
.0000
.2140
3.9999
.6752
.0923
.4111
•-•7.6476 ••
.9063
.1948
12.9784
.5444
.0004
.4719
.0000
.6222
2.2192
.0114
1.9134
.3833
.6570
.3161
.1115
.0000
.0000
136.3872
23.2356
1.5181
205 .8677



Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
6.98
.49
21.25
115.13
4.16
***
n/a
n/a
.49
n/a
10817.17
44,63
2.55
1.58
77.01
	 .94
3.86
1.65
.22
20.07
475.48
4.38
n/a
255.77
52.89
42.57
39.52
5.91
61.75
3169.09
369.58
n/a
n/a
.10
.24
4.79
20.58



-------
                                      ALTERNATIVE J -- LOU DECLINE BASELINE
                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Urap
Beater-Add Gaskets ••
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missi Ee Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.96
207.38
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
189.34
1.35
.62
63.31
9.69
.08
.01
17.10
24.66
.17
,20
.00
-.83
157.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
12.31
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.97
207.42
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
225.01
2.73
.62
71.42
14.43
3.54
.33
19.27
25.48
.30
2.06
.00
-.83
164.60
.00
-21.50-
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
19.87
3.59
7.31
748.43 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
1 .4052
5.8793
.0000
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
2.2514
.8475
.1158
.5160
6.3280
.7495
.1641
10.9292
.4585
.0004
.3974
.0000
.0000
1.8688
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
76.7895
11.5777
.8457
122.3435
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case>
n/a
rv/a
n/a
1.40
35.28
n/a
7.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
99.94
3.22
5.33
138.42
2.28
4.72
1.99
1.76
55.57
841.65
5.18
n/a
n/a
88,08
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.26
.31
8.65
6.12
n/a: Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                ALTERNATIVE J -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                            ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY
                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Hitlers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8,64
663.54 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Met Loss
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8.64
663.54
.00
Government
                   .00
.00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare;
                                World Welfare:
748.43
836.84
Note: Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                      ALTERNATIVE J  --  LOW DECLINE  BASEL IHE
                                  ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL  EXPOSURE  ASSUMPTIONS

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY  PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted  at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol (.board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrygated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automat ic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 $}
.00
.00
-.43
1.96
207.38
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
189.34
1.35
.62
63.31
9.69
.08
.01
17.10
24.66
.17
.20
.00
-.83
157.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
12.31
-.74
• .00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4,74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
-.43
1.97
207.42
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
225.01
2.73
.62
71.42
14.43
3.54
.33
19.27
25.48
.30
2.06
.00
-.83
164.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
19.87
3.59
7.31
748.43 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
,0000
2.3105
25.2685
.0000
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
3.1698
.8475
.1158
.5160
6,3280
.7495
.1641
10.9292
.4585
.0004
.3974
.0000
.0000
11.9583
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
76.7895
11.5777
.8457
153.6458
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 $/case>
n/a
n/a
n/a
.85
8.21
n/a
7.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
70.99
3.22
5.33
138.42
2,28
4.72
1.99
1.76
55.57
841 ,65
5.18
n/a
n/a
13.76
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.26
.31
8.65
4.87
n/a: Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                    ALTERNATIVE  J  --  LOy DECLINE BASELINE
                                ADDITIONAL  OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
                                            COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT
                             (Costs discounted at  3%  and benefits discounted  at  0%)




Product Product
TSCA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

# Description

Commercial Paper
Rotlboard
Mi I Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Mon- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos -Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV {Aftermarket}
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.96
207.38
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
189.34
1,35
.62
63.31
9.69
.08
.01
17.10
24.66
.17
.20
.00
-.83
157.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
12.31
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $}
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(1QA6 $}
.00
.00
-.43
1.97
207.42
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
225.01
2.73
.62
71.42
14.43
3.54
.33
19.27
25.48
.30
2.06
.00
-.83
164.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
19.87
3.59
7.31
748.43 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided

.0000
.0000
.0000
2.8635
33.3402
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
4.3801
1.0504
.1435
.6395
8.3800
.9927
.2165
14.4204
.6049
.0005
.5244
.0000
.0000
15.7783
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
106.2551
15.8541
1.1258
208.0813

Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<1QA6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
.69
6.22
n/a
5.89
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
51.37
2.60
4.30
111.68
1.72
3.57
1.51
1.34
42.12
637.88
3.92
n/a
n/a
10.43
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.19
.23
6.50
3.60
n/a: Not applicable
*** Market lo nnt banned. P*xemnted_ nr exnocsurp data IR not avail abtf*
*  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                      ALTERNATIVE J -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                 ADDITIONAL NONOCCUPATIOMAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted at 3% and benefits discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Ml I Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc. \
Sheet Saskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Hi 1 1 ing
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.96
207.38
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
189.34
1.35
.62
63.31
9.69
.08
.01
17.10
24.66
.17
.20
.00
-.83
157.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
•1.63
.00
.00
12.31
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
{10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.97
207.42
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
225.01
2.73
.62
71.42
14.43
3.54
.33
19.27
25.48
.30
2.06
.00
-.83
164.60
,00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
19.87
3.59
7.31
748.43 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
4.2918
24.6948
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
34.2721
2.1813
.7727
'8.0623
8,3800
.9927
.5368
14.4204
1 .9553
.0005
4.8945
.0000
.0000
9.8746
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
106.2551
15.8541
1.1258
240.0764
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
.46
8.40
n/a
5.89
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.57
1.25
.80
8.86
1.72
3.57
.61
1.34
13.03
637.88
.42
n/a
n/a
16.67
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
ft/a
.19
.23
6.50
3.12
n/a: Mot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
                                ALTERNATIVE J -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                           ADDITIONAL NONOCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS

                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY

                            (Present values, in million dollars,  at 3%)
Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers
Fiber Value
CS Loss PS Loss Allocation
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8.64
663.54 .00
.00 .00
.00
.00
.00

.00
.00
.00
.00
Net Loss
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8.64
663.54
.00
Government
                                                                           .00
                                                                                           .00
                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES
                                U. S. Welfare:

                                World Welfare:
748.43

836.84
Notes Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
                                       ALTERNATIVE  J  --  LOU DECLINE  BASELINE
                         ADDITIONAL  OCCUPATIONAL  AND  NQHQCCUPAT1QNAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
                                            DECLINING SUBSTITUTE  PRICES

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY  PRODUCT

                               (Costs discounted  at 3% and benefits  discounted  at  0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mini ng and Mill ing
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.06
168.63
-.73
7.31
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
90.04
.99
.29
46.77
2.15
.08
.01
1.07
12.02
.09
.20
.00
-.83
126.05
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
-.10
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Cross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.07
168.67
-.73
7.31
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
125.72
2.37
.29
54.87
6.89
3.54
.33
3.24
12.83
.22
2.06
.00
• -.83
• 133.05
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
7.45
3.59
7.31
510.40 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
5.4137
50.2777
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
35.5412
2.1813
.7727
8.0623
8.3800
.9927
.5368
14.4204
1 .9553
.0005
4.8945
.0000
.0000
23.1871
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
106.2551
15.8541
1.1258
281 .3628
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
.20
3.35
n/a
4.84
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.54
1.09
.38
6.81
.82
3.57
.61
.22
6.56
464.73
.42
n/a
n/a
5.74
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.07
.23
6.50
1.81
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted,
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
or exposure data is not available.

-------
                                ALTERNATIVE J -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                  ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL AND NONOCCUPATIQNAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
                                     DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES

                                       WELFARE EFFECTS BY PARTY

                            (Present values, in million dollars, at 3%)

Party
Domestic Miners & Millers
Foreign Miners & Millers
Importers of Bulk Fiber,
Mixtures, and Products
Domestic Primary Processors
Foreign Primary Processors
Domestic Product Purchasers
Foreign Product Purchasers

CS Loss PS Loss
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8.64
425,50 .00
.00 .00
Fiber Value
Allocation
.00
.00
.00

.00
,00
.00
.00

Bet Loss
7.31
79.76
.00

77.58
8.64
425.50
.00
Government                                                                 .00             .00






                                      NET WELFARE LOSSES


                                U. S.  Welfare:          510.40

                                World Welfare:          598.80




Notes Negative entries are welfare gains.

-------
07/20/89 Table
10:26 AM

PMN Filing Costs8
5{E) SNUR w/o testing
5ye«rS  1989  - 2000 were n
                                                                                                 were made for  the  totals of these actions.os
                                                                                                          regressing the  total  annual costs for these
categories over  the  years  1972  -  1988 against  time.
                                                                           1-4

-------
                                      ALTERNATIVE j -- LOW DECLINE BASELINE
                                 ADDITIONAL NONQCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS

                                              COST-BENEFIT BY PRODUCT

                                       {Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
- 38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol Iboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum. Brake Linings (OEM>
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEH)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Caskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake "Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
toss
(10A6 $>
.00
.00
-.43
1.96
207.38
-.73
8.90
-.45
,00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
189.34
1.35
.62
63.31
9.69
.08
.01
17.10
24.66
.17
.20
.00
-.83
157.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
12.31
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
C10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.43-
1.97
207.42
-.73
8.90
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
225,01
2.73
.62
71.42
14.43
3.54
.33
19.27
25.48
.30
2.06
.00
-.83
164.60
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
19.87
3.59
7.31
748.43 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
3.4629
18.7161
.0000
1 .2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
24.8022
1.7600
.6235
6.5052
6.3280
.7495
.4069
10.9292
1 .4819
.0004
3.7095
.0000
.0000
7.4839
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
76.7895
11.5777
.8457
177.3917
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
n/a
.57
11.08
n/a
7.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9.07
1.55
.99
10.98
2.28
4,72
.80
1.76
17.19
841.65
.55
n/a
n/a
21 .99
n/a
rv/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.26
.31
8.65
4.22
n/a: Hot applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------



07/20/89 Table
10:19 AM


PMH f il ina Costs8
5<£)
5(E»
5{E)
Total
SNUR w/o testing
SNUR with Ecotox testing
SNUR with Health testing
Annual Costs
1 -2: INDUSTRY COST OF

1979
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,05
(mil
1980
1.77
0.01
0.03
0.07
1.87
I tons of
1981
3.35
0.00
0.07
0.12
3.52
MEW CHEMICAL REGULATION
PURSUANT
TO TSCA
SECTION
5
1986 dollars)
1982
4.54
o.oi
0,04
0.08
4.68
1983
6.76
0.05
0.23
0.27
7.32
1984
5.95
0.10
0.12
0.15
6.32
1985
7.05
0.18
0.11
0.14
7.48
1986
7.95
0.23
0.16
0.20
8.54
1987
8.06
0.20
0.11
0.15
8.53
19S8
10.65
0.12
0.19
0.23
11.18
                                              Table 1-2A:  INDUSTRY COS! OF MEW CHEMICAL  REGULATION PURSUANT TO TSCA SECTION 5

                                                               ((Billions of 1986 dollars)
                                                1989
1990
        1991
                                                                        1992
                                                                                1993
                                                                                        1994
                                                                                                1995
                                                                                                        1996
                                                       1997
                                                                                                                       1998
                                                                                                                               1999
                                                                                                                                       2000
               PMN Filing Costs
               5(E) SNUR w/o testing
               5{£) SHUR with Ecotox testing*;     --       "      "      "      "      "
               5(E) SHUR with Health testing

               Total Annual Costs              11-92   13.01   14.10   15.18   ^.2717.36
                                                           Footnotes for Tables D-2  and  D-2A

a  Reflect annual costs of filing pre-manufacturing  (PKN>  review nonces prior  to the manufacture  process,  or  .mport  of «« che-icals not or, the  TSCA
Inventory!  estimates «ere calculated by OTS staff based on  an  average  cost of  $4,700 per PHNS sub
-------
                                       ALTERNATIVE J -- LOy DECLINE BASELINE
                         ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL AND NCSJOCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
                                            DECLINING SUBSTITUTE PRICES

                                              COST-BENEFIT Br PRODUCT

                                       (Costs and benefits discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LBV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Kon-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Mining and Milting
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(1CT6 $>
.00
,00
-,43
1.06
168.63
-.73
7.31
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
90.04
.99
.29
46.77
2.15
.08
.01
1.07
12.02
.09
.20
.00
-.83
126.05
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
-.10
-.74
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
8.10
4.74
3.46
.31
2.17
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
7,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
7.31

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
-.43
1.07
168.67
-.73
7.31
-.45
.00
.00
-.09
.00
-.97
125.72
2,37
.29
54.87
6.89
3.54
.33
3.24
12.83
.22
2.06
.00
-.83
133.05
.00
-21.50
-2.35
-.73
-.69
-1.63
.00
.00
7.45
3.59
7.31
510.40 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.0000
4.3681
38.1053
.0000
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
25.7206
1 .7600
.6235
6.5052
6.3280
.7495
.4069
10.9292
1 .4819
.0004
3.7095
.0000
.0000
17.5735
.0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
76.7895
11.5777
.8457
208.6940
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/ease)
n/a
n/a
n/a
.24
4.43
n/a
5.99
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.89
1.35
.47
8.43
1.09
4.72
.80
.30
8.66
613.18
.55
n/a
n/a
7.57
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.10
.31
8.65
2.45
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost

-------
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CONTROLS ON
      ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
                     ADDENDUM
                      Prepared for:

                   Christine Augustyniak
                 Regulatory Impacts Branch
             Economics and Technology Division
           Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
         United States Environmental Protection Agency
                 Washington, D,C.  20460
                     Prepared by:

                    ICF Incorporated
                   9300 Lee Highway
                Fairfax, Virginia 22031-1207
                    June 26, 1989

-------

-------
                             ASBESTOS RIA ADDEHDUM

1.  In t r oduc t Ion

      This addendum to EPA's Regulatory  Impact Analysis of Controls on

Asbestos and Asbestos Products  (January  19, 1989) presents estimates of the

costs and benefits of the Agency's Final Rule concerning controls for asbestos

and asbestos products.

      The January 19, 1989, Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) presents in

detail the theoretical approach, data inputs, computer simulation models,  and

background studies and analyses conducted in the course of developing

estimates of the costs and benefits  of the Agency's Final Rule.  The

Regulatory Alternatives examined quantitatively in the January 19, 1989, RIA

consist of 14 different control options  or combinations of control options

ranging from immediate bans of all asbestos products to combinations of phase-

downs, product bans, and exemptions  of some products.  The estimated costs and

benefits of those 14 Regulatory Alternatives were provided to EPA decision

makers (and to the public) to assist in  determining the appropriate

characteristics of the Final Rule.

      Based on the methods, data inputs, computer simulation models, and

background studies presented in the  RIA, this Addendum to the RIA presents the

costs and benefits of the Agency's Final Rule and the sensitivity of the costs

and benefits to alternative assumptions  concerning key inputs to the

calculations.  The Addendum is organized into two sections and two appendices

as follows:

      *     Section 2 describes the  Agency's Final Rule and the
            conditions and assumptions that define the Agency's
            estimates of the costs and benefits of the regulatory
            alternative adopted.in the Final Rule;
                                     - 1 -

-------
      *     Section	3 presents the estimated costs and benefits of the
            Final Rule under several sets of alternative assumptions
            concerning important inputs to the calculations;

      *     AppendixI contains the source code for the latest version
            of the asbestos regulatory cost simulation model (ARCM);  and

      *     Appendix II contains the source code for the latest version
            of the asbestos benefits simulation model (ABM).

2.  The FinalmRu\Le and the Main Analysis Assumptions

      The Final Rule for controlling asbestos and asbestos products consists

of a three (3) stage ban of certain asbestos products.  The analysis and

results presented-in the RIA and in this Addendum are based on the simulation

period starting in 1987 because the vintage of the most recent data concerning

products and substitutes available to the Agency is 1986,  Hence, the dates of

the staged bans in this analysis are 1987, 1991, and 1994.  In the Final Rule,

the staged ban dates are 1990, 1994, and 1997.

      Table 1 contains a list of asbestos product categories and associated

identification codes.  Note that product categories 5 and 27 have been

redefined as four distinct product categories (5, 27, 38, and 39) for this

analysis.  The basis for this division of product categories 5 and 27 is

discussed below.

      Based on these product definitions and codes, the product categories

banned in each stage of the Final Rule are as follows:



   Stage    Year        Banned Products1 Identification Numbers


      I     1987        4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 25

     II     1991        5, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 27

    III     1994        1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 17, 21, 29, 30, 36, and 37
                                     -  2 -

-------
TABLE 1.  ASBESTOS PRODUCT CATEGORIES AND DESCRIPTIONS
     Product #          Product Description
         1           Commercial Paper
         2           Rollboard
         3           Millboard
         4           Pipeline Wrap
         5           Beater-Add Gaskets
         6           High Grade Electrical Paper
         7           Roofing Felt
         8           Acetylene Cylinders
         9           Flooring Felt
        10           Corrugated Paper
        11           Specialty Paper
        12           V/A Floor Tile
        13           Asbestos Diaphragms
        14           A/C Pipe
        15           'A/C Sheet, Flat
        16           A/C Sheet, Corrugated
        17           A/C Shingles
        18           Drum Brake Linings   (OEM)
        19           Disc Brake Pads LMV  (OEM)
        20           Disc Brake Pads HV
        21           Brake Blocks
        22           Clutch Facings
        23           Automatic Trans. Components
        24           Friction Materials
        25           Asbestos Protective  Clothing
        26           Asbestos Thread, Yarn, etc.
        27           Sheet Gaskets
        28           Asbestos Packing
        29           Roof Coatings
        30           Non-Roofing Coatings
        31           Asbestos-Reinforced  Plastics
        32           Missile Liner
        33           Sealant Tape
        34           Battery Separators
        35           Arc Chutes
        36           Drum Brake Linings   (Aftermarket)
        37           Disc Brake Pads LMV  (Aftemarket)
        38           Beater-Add Gaskets/2
        39           Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
        **           Mining and Milling

-------
All other product categories listed In Table 1 are not subject to the bans




under the Final Rule,  The Final Rule Is thus very similar to the RIA's




Alternative "FX" except that the timing of the bans for some product




categories is different and some product categories banned under




Alternative "FX" are not banned under the Final Rule,




      Four of the asbestos product categories In Table 1 are defined somewhat




differently from their definitions in the RIA.  In particular, products 5 and




38 together form the original product category 5 in the RIA, and products 27




and 39 similarly form the original product 27 in the RIA.  These two product




categories have been divided in this analysis based on substitution




possibilities and exposure considerations into (a) segments that are subject




to the bans under the Rule and (b) portions that are not banned under the




Rule.  The segments that remain under the original product category




definitions 5 and 27 are subject to the bans, while the portions now referred




to as product categories 38 and 39 are not subject to the bans.  Table 2 shows




the reorganization of the original product categories 5 and 27 into the new




categories 5, 27, 38, and 39 based on the substitutes associated with




different segments of the original aggregated markets 5 and 27.  The




reorganization of these two product categories as shown in Table 2 is guided




by the nature of the potential substitutes for each market segment.  However,




the market segments are composed of various specialty industrial uses of




asbestos for which substitution may be difficult at present, very costly, and




for which exposures are likely to be low.  Hence, the substitutes listed




represent these sets of specialty uses which have been exempted from the bans




of the Final Rule.

-------
           TABLE 2.  REORGANIZATION OF BEATER-ADD GASKETS AND SHEET GASKETS MARKETS
 New Market
   Uses/
Substitutes
 Included
Market Share of
Uses/Substitute
Original Market
Market Share of
Uses/Substitute
  Mew Market
  5.  Beater-Add Gaskets
 38.  Beater-Acid  Gaskets/2
                                  Cellulose
                                  Aramid
                                  Fibrous Glass
                                  Graphite
                                  PTFE
                                  Ceramic
                              25%
                              30%
                              20%
                              10%

                              85%
                              10%
                              5%

                              15%
                              29.42%
                              35,29%
                              23.53%
                              11.76%

                             100.00%
                             66.67%
                             33.33%

                             100.00%
27. Sheet Gaskets
39. Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
                                 Cellulose
                                 Aramid
                                 Fibrous Glass
                                 Graphite
                                 Ceramic
                                 PTFE
                             15%
                             30%
                             25X
                             15%
                              5%

                             90%
                                                               10%
                             16.67%
                             33.33%
                             27.78%
                             16.67%
                              5.55%

                            too.00%
                                                                                       100.00%
Source:  Based on information in Appendix F -- Use and Substitutes Analysis, Volume ill.
        Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products
        January 19, 1989.                                                       '
                                        -  5  -

-------
      The RIA presents the theoretical approach, computer simulation

procedures, input data, and background studies that underlie the estimates of

the costs and benefits of the regulatory alternatives examined in the RIA and

of the Final Rule presented in this Addendum.  Hence, these will not be

reviewed, only referenced, in this Addendum with the exception of the small

number of additions and/or revisions of input data and baseline assumptions

used in this analysis of the Final Rule that differ from those published in

the RIA.

      The theoretical approach for estimating the costs and benefits of the

Final Rule is that presented in Chapter 2 of the RIA,  In addition, the

computer simulation models for estimating the costs and benefits of regulatory

alternatives for asbestos products are virtually the same as those contained

in the RIA.*  The most recent computer simulation model codes are contained in

appendices to this Addendum.

      The input data for estimating the costs and benefits of the Final Rule

for asbestos and asbestos products include exposure and dose-response

information, product quantity and use data, and product characteristics and

substitutes information.  In the estimates of the costs and benefits of the

Final Rule, virtually all of these input data are as reported in the RIA and

its appendices.  Hence, only differences between the input information

presented in the RIA and its appendices and those that underlie the cost and

benefit estimates of the Final Rule presented in this Addendum are reviewed

here.
     * No changes were made in the.approach to estimating costs and benefits
of regulation.  Some changes  in detail were made  to  the regulatory cost model
to simulate variations in  the originally proposed regulatory alternatives.

-------
      Concerning the basic input data presented in the RIA, a few revisions

were made to the product market quantity and/or benefit data for certain

markets.  The markets and the relevant adjustments are described below;

      *     Beater-Add Gaskets andSheet Gaskets:  Markets 5 (Beater-Add
            Gaskets) and 27 (Sheet Gaskets) were each split into two
            segments based on the nature of uses and substitution
            possibilities, as discussed above and as shown in Table 2.
            The non-banned portions of these two markets consist of
            specialty industrial uses for which substitution is
            difficult and potentially expensive and for which exposures
            are likely to be low.  These specialty uses are identified
            by the market shares of several potential substitutes.  The
            quantity in the original Beater-Add Gaskets market is split
            in the ratio of 85:15 for the new market 5 (Beater-Add
            Gaskets) and market 38 (Beater-Add Gaskets/2),  respectively,
            based on the market shares of the substitutes which identify
            specialty industrial uses in the original Beater-Add Gaskets
            market.  Similarly, the quantity in the original Sheet
            Gaskets market is split in a ratio of 90:10 for the
            reorganized market 27 (Sheet Gaskets)  and market 39 (Sheet
            Gaskets/PTFE), respectively.  The exposure data were also
            adjusted -- the same ratios were applied to occupational
            populations exposed and the non-occupational exposure levels
            (number of fibers breathed per year) to obtain the
            appropriate exposure figures for the four new markets,
            Table 3 shows the new quantity and exposure information for
            these markets.

      *     Clutch JFac_ings_:  Occupational exposure estimates for clutch
            repair were not included in the RIA because no data were
            available on exposures during clutch repair.  Additional
            information has been obtained, allowing the estimation of
            the levels of asbestos to which workers are exposed while
            repairing clutches and the full-time equivalent (FTE)
            population associated with asbestos clutch repair.
            Occupational exposure to asbestos during clutch repair is
            estimated to be 0,15 fibers/cc and the FTE population is
            estimated to range from 406 to 543 persons.  This translates
            to 390 million fibers per year [0.15 fibers/cc x 1.3
            (breathing rate) x 8 hours/day x 250 days/year] and an FTE
            population of 475 persons (the average of 406 and 543),  The
            estimates for clutch rebuilding are 73 million fibers per
            year and an FTE population of 125 persons (shown in Table
            III-5 of the RIA).  Therefore, the exposure inputs for
     * IGF Incorporated,  1989,  "Exposure and Population Estimates for Clutch
Repair."  Memorandum to Dr. Kin Wong, EPA from Nora Zirps and Maravene
Edelstein, ICF Incorporated, dated February 21, 1989.

                                     -  7 -

-------
                                           TABLE 3.  QUANTITY AND EXPOSURE  INFORMATION FOR THE REORGANIZED
                                                    BEATER-ADD GASKETS AND  SHEET GASKETS MARKETS®
                                                  Original  Beater-Addgaskets Market
                                          5.  Beater-Add Gaskets
                  38. 8eater-Add Gaskets/2
                                                           Original  Sheet  Gaskets  Market
                         27.  Sheet Gaskets
                      39. Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
Quantity (tons)
14,029.25
2,475.75
3,246,667,2
360,740.8
Occupational Exposure

  Primary Manufacturing
Ho. of People
Hi IE ion Fibers/Year
Secondary Manufacturing
So. of People
H i 11 i on F i bers/ Year
Installation of Products
Mo. of People
Million Fibers/Year
Repair & Disposal of Products
Bo. of People
Million Fibers/Year
Non-occupational Exposure
Primary. Manufacturing
No. of People
Million Fibers/Year
Use of Products
No. of People
Million Fibers/Year
199.75
110

1,101.6
57

45,404.45
57

45,404.45
57


37,082,888
0.031705

171,136,373
0,000317128
35.25
110

194.4
57

8,012.55
57

8,012,55
57


37,082,888
0.085595

171,136,373
0.000055964
150.3
208

796.5
276

5,166.9
276

5,166.9
276


43,468,616
0.00549

171,136,373
0.000146879
16.7
208

88.5
276

574.1
276

574.1
276


43,468,616
0.000561

171,136,373
0.00001632
      a Only those exposure settings are shown in this table for which data exists for any of the markets.

        Data for  this category are estimated based on analogous exposure settings for product categories for which exposure informal ion
        exists.   For details see Appendix A.6 in Volume  II of the Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products,
        January 19, 1989.

-------
            clutch facings in the repair and disposal category are an FTE
            population of 548 persons (475 -t- 73) and 355 million fibers per
            year [(475 x 390 4- 73 x 125) / (475 + 73)].


      In addition to these few revisions of input data and assumptions, EPA

has identified a set of conditions and assumptions concerning market demands,

exposure to asbestos, and asbestos product substitute costs which, with the

other input data contained in the RIA, form the basis for the cost and benefit

estimates of the Final Rule presented in this Addendum.  The important

characteristics of the estimates that are relevant include 1) future growth or

decline of demand for each asbestos product, 2) inclusion of occupational

exposures to asbestos that are suspected or known, but for which there are no

direct quantitative measurements, and 3) the future course of the prices of

asbestos and asbestos product substitutes.

      EPA has adopted the "Low Decline" baseline set of product growth rates

presented in the RIA for this analysis of the Final Rule.  These are presented

in the RIA in Chapter 3 and in the EIA's Appendix A-l.  In general, the "Low-

Decline" baseline set of assumptions projects no change in the future

consumption of asbestos products relative to the present.  Because most

empirical evidence indicates a fall in asbestos product consumption over time,

use of the "Low Decline" baseline tends to overstate the costs of the Final

Rule.

      EPA has also determined that  (1) the exposed populations and fiber

concentrations presented in Chapter 3  (subject  to the modifications presented

above) and (2) the additional occupational exposure information for certain

product categories and exposure settings for which no quantitative exposure

data were available, as outlined in Chapter 4 of  the RIA, are appropriate
                                     . 9 .

-------
inputs for this analysis of the Final Rule,   Chapter 3 (Tables III-I through




III-5) of the RIA presents estimates of the number of people exposed and their




associated annual exposure levels for five exposure settings.  These are




reproduced here (with the modifications discussed above) in Tables 4 through




8.




      Chapter 4 of the RIA (Tables IV-6 through IV-9) and Appendix A-6 of the




RIA present additional exposure information for some product categories and




exposure settings.  In particular, for occupational products and settings for




which no quantitative information concerning releases and exposures was




available -- occupational exposures in manufacturing, installation, and repair




and disposal -- exposures were estimated based on analogous exposures for




product categories for which exposure information exists.  This procedure for




estimating occupational exposures was conducted for one product's




manufacturing stage, eight products' repair and disposal stage, and nine




products' installation stage.  The basic rationale for this procedure Is that




similar activities involving roughly comparable probable exposure paths and




concentrations are likely to result in similar exposures.  Tables 9 through 11




tabulate the additional occupational exposure information developed for this




analysis for these three different exposure settings  (primary manufacturing,




installation, and repair and disposal).




      The quantitative information on exposures listed  in Tables  4 through 8




and the additional occupational  exposures listed  in Tables 9  through  11 are




the exposure estimates used for  most of this analysis of the  Final Rule.  One




sensitivity analysis reported  in this Addendum, however, also allows  for




additional  information  in non-occupational  exposure  settings  for  which  data




did not exist but in which exposures are  likely.   These additional non-






                                     -  10  -

-------
TABLE 4,  EXPOSURE LEVELS {IN HILUONS FIBERS INHALED PER YEAR) AND KWBER OF PERSONS EXPOSED
            TO PRIMARY MANUFACTURING PRODUCTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND NQN-QCCUPATIOilAL SETTINGS
                                     Occupational

                            No. of People     Hit.  Fib./Yr
             Non-oecupati onaI

No. of People         Mil.  Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18,
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Z6.
27,
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Conmerciat Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Acid Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings {OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV {OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transniiss. Coup,
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV CA/M)
Beater-Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
Hining and Hilling


12
35
199.75
27

206


2

650
286
53

11
421
140
15
283
239
11
191

78
150,3
9
582
553
157
380
134
207
2
1,144
776
35.25
16.7
155


145
134
110
113




111

87
270
478

473
385
390
385
377
406
113
398

457
208
198
273
220
164
220
220


385
390
110
208
121


5,747,875
4,847,937
37,082,888
254,772






19,744,593
3,313,602
21,232,368

891,143
9,292,154
3,681,659
1,704,883
9,785,424
8,761,571

12,922,247

16,306,866
43,468,616
7,031,484
84,570,429
70,389,388
19,925,386




25,249,953
20,383,263
37,082,888
43,468,616
841,214


0.0232
0.0476
0.031705
0.405






0.00000185
0.167
0.0218

0.00361
0.0575
0.0214
0.000000827
0.00388
0.0027

0.00234

0.00214
0.00549
0.0000534
0.00233
0.0000394
0,0018




0.0575
0.0214
0.005595
0.000561
0.407

-------
K>
                                     TABLE 5.   BCPOSURE LEVELS (IN MILLIONS FIBERS INHALED  PER YEAR)  AND NUKBER  OF  PERSONS  EXPOSED
                                                 TO SECONDARY MANUFACTURING PRODUCTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND NON-OCCUPATIOKAL  SETTINSS
                                                                          Occupational                            Non-occupational

                                                                 No. of People     Mil. Fib./Yr      Ho. of people         Mil. Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11,
12.
13.
14.
15.
16,
17,
18.
19.
20.
21.
11.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34,
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Commercial Paper
RoU board
Millboard
Pipeline yrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings 
-------
TABLE 6,
          EXPOSURE LEVELS (IN MILLIONS FIBERS WHALED PER YEAR) AND NUMBER OF PERSONS EXPOSED
            TO INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND NON-OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS
                                     Occupational                            Non-occupational

                            No. of People     Mil. Fib./¥r      No. of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11,
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23."
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29,
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38,
39.
**
Conmercial Paper
Rol I board
Mi I Ifaoard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing felt 396
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe 933
A/C flat Sheet 49
A/C Corrugated Sheet 7
A/C Shingles 323
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Ayto. Transroiss. Corap.
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
loof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/H)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (A/M>
Beater-Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
Mining and Milling






439 171,136,373 0.000018






296 171,136,373 0.0000264
723 171,136,373 0.00000298
723 1 71 , 136 , 373 0 . 00000043
130 171,136,373 0.00000052











210,250 1.04












-------
        TABLE 7,  EXPOSURE LEVELS (IN MILLIONS FIBERS INHALED PER YEAR) AND HUKBE8 OF PERSONS
                    EXPOSED TO USE OF PRODUCTS FOR.OCCUPATIONAL AND NON-OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS
                                          Occupational                            Non-occupational

                                 No.  of  People     Hit.  Fib./Yr      No, of People         Hi I. Fib./Yr
 1.   Comnercial Paper
 2.   Rotlboard
 3.   Millboard
 4.   Pipeline Urap
 5,   Beater-Add Gaskets
 6.   High-grade Elect.  Paper
 7,   Roofing Felt
 8.   Acetylene Cylinders
 9,   Flooring Felt
10.   Corrugated Paper
11.   Specialty Paper
12.   V/A Floor Tile
13,   Diaphragms
14.   A/C Pipe
15.   A/C Flat Sheet
16.   A/C Corrugated Sheet
17.   A/C Shingles
18.   Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
19.   Disc Brake Pads, LMV (OEM)
20.   Disc Brake Pads, HV
21.   Brake Blocks
22.   Clutch Facings
23.   Auto. Transmiss. Corap,
24.   Friction Materials
25.   Protective Clothing
26.   Thread, yarn etc.
27.   Sheet Gaskets
28.   Asbestos Packings
29.   Roof Coatings
30.   Non-Roofing Coatings
31.   Asb. Reinforced Plastics
32.   Missile Liners
33.   Sealant Tape
34.   Battery Separators
35.   Arc Chutes
36.   Drun Brake Linings 
-------
                                     TABLE 8.  EXPOSURE LEVELS (IK MILLIONS FIBERS IKHALED PER YEAR) AND NUMBER OF PERSONS EXPOSED

                                                 TO REPAIR/DISPOSAL OF PRODUCTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND NON-OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS
H
Ul
                                                                           Occupational


                                                                  Ho.  of  People     Wit.  Fib./Yr
             Non-occupat ionaI


No. of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3,
4.
5,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Comnercial Paper
Rot I board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Baskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt 263
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet 61
A/C Corrugated Sheet 9
A/C Shingles 225
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV {OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, HV 117
Brake Blocks 3,985
Clytch Facings 548
Auto. Transmiss. Comp.
Friction Materials 43
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chytes
Drum Brake Linings (A/«) 86,398
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (A/M) 32,568
Beater -Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
Mining and Billing


296







2,080
2,080
244


390
388
355

120











378
386





171,136,373 0,0000067







171,136,373 0.0000173
171,136,373 0.0000025
171,136,373 0.0000067
49,442,265 0.0123
27,453,272 0.00624
1 70 , 871 , 494 0 . 000000587
170,871,494 0.0000171














134,351,509 0.0123
151,989,122 0.00624




-------
           TABLE 9,   ADDITWBAL  OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR PRIMARY MANUFACTURING




                                         Occupational                            Non-occupational

                                 No.  of  People    Mil.  Fib./Yr      Mo, of People         Mil, Fib./Yr


 1.   Commercial  Paper
 2.   Rollboard
 3.   Millboard
 4.   Pipeline Wrap
 5.   Beater-Add  Gaskets
 6.   High-grade  Elect.  Paper
 7.   Roofing Felt
 8.   Acetylene Cylinders                                200
 9.   Flooring Felt
10.   Corrugated  Paper
11.   Specialty Paper
12.   V/A Floor Tile
13.   Diaphragms
14.   A/C Pipe
15.   A/C flat Sheet
16.   A/C Corrugated Sheet
17.   A/C Shingles
18.   Drum Brake  Linings (OEM)
19.   Oisc Brake  Pads, LHV (OEM)
20.   Oisc Brake  Pads, HV
21.   Brake Blocks
22.   Clutch Facings
23.   Auto. Transmtss. Comp,
24.   Friction Materials
25.   Protective  Clothing
26.   Thread, yarn etc.
27.   Sheet Gaskets
28.   Asbestos Packings
29.   Roof Coatings
30.   Non-Roofing Coatings
31.   Asb. Reinforced Plastics
32.   Missile Liners
33.   Sealant Tape
34.   Battery Separators
35.   Arc Chutes
36.   Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
37.   Disc Brake Pads, LHV (A/M)
38.   Beater-Add Gaskets/2
39.   Sheet 6askets/PTFE
**   Mining and Milling

-------
TABLE 10,  ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF  PRODUCTS











                                 Occupational                            Non-occupational




                        No. of People     Hit. Fib./Yr      No.  of People         Hit.  Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37,
38.
39.
**
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Mi I Iboard 20
Pipeline Wrap 2,725
Beater -Add Baskets 45,404.45
High-grade Elect. Paper 300
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cyl inders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper 350
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings {OEM>
Disc Brake Pads, iMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transmiss, Comp.
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets 5,166.9
Asbestos Packings 2
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings 1,780
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners 260
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, IMV (A/M)
Beater-Add Caskets/2 8,012.55
Sheet Gaskets/PTFE 574.1
Mining and Hilling


57
52
57
57




57















276
276

364

57





57
276


-------
00
                                         TABLE  11.  ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR REPAIR/DISPOSAL OF PRODUCTS











                                                                            Occupational                            Non-occupational




                                                                   Bo. of People     Mil. Fib./Yr      No.  of People         Mil.  Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19,
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33,
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
#*
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard 20
Pipeline Wrap 2,725
Beater-Add Gaskets 45,404.45
High-grade Elect. Paper 300
Roofing Felt
Acetylene cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper 350
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe 1,458
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drun Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV COEM}
Disc Brake Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transmlss. Comp.
Friction Materials
Protect jve Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets 5,166.9
Asbestos Packings 2
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chytes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV CA/M>
8eater-Add Gaskets/2 8,012.55
Sheet 6askets/PTFE 574.1
Mining and Milling


57
18
57
57




57


296












276
276









57
276


-------
occupational exposures were derived by assuming that one-tenth of one percent

of the asbestos content of the product is released over the total life of the

product.  These releases are caused by normal weathering of products or by

various activities, such as cutting, sawing, and sanding that occur to the

products in the course of their use.  Table 12 presents these additional

non-occupational exposure assumptions.

      The assumptions and numerical calculations used to derive the additional

occupational and non-occupational exposures are described in Appendix A-6 of

the RIA in greater detail.*

      Based on both the original set of occupational and non-occupational

exposures and fiber concentrations  (Tables 4 through 8 above) in the RIA and

the additional exposures for occupational settings (Tables 9 through 11 above)

described in the RIA and in this Addendum, Tables 13 through 17 present the

combined estimates of exposed populations and asbestos fiber concentrations

used in developing the cost and benefit estimates of the Final Rule.  Cost and

benefit estimates of the Final Rule based on only the original occupational

and non-occupational exposures and  concentrations (as reported in the RIA and

modified for this analysis as outlined above) are presented as a sensitivity

analysis in this Addendum as are estimates based on all of the quantitative

information and additional exposure information for both occupational and non-

occupational settings.

      The third major characteristic of the Agency's estimates of the costs

and benefits of the Final Rule is the assumption that prices of substitutes
       The RIA appendix describes additional non-occupational exposure
assumptions for a one percent  release  rate.  The one-tenth of one percent
assumption described here  supercedes the RIA's  assumption,

                                     -  19 -

-------
TABLE 12.  ADDITIOBAL HOH-OCCUPATIOMAi EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR USE OF PRODUCTS
                              Occupational



                      No,  of People     Hi I.  Fib./Yr
             Non-occupational




No. of People         HH. Fib./Yr
1.
2,
3,
4.
5.
6,
7.
8,
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
ieater-Add Gaskets
High-grade Elect, Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transmiss. Comp,
Friction Katerials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chytes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M>
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (A/M)
Beater -Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Saskets/PTFE
Mining and Milling


171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373







171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373


171,136,373

171,136,373

171,136,373


171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373
171,136,373

171,136,373




171,136,373
171,136,373



0.000002615
0.000008025
0.000317128
0.0000372







0.000098058
0.000015473
0.00000165
0.000014599


0.000035265

0.000029745

0.000481319


0.000146879
0.00001872
0.000443328
0.000044266
0.000121815

0.000012691




0.000055964
0.00001632


-------
TABLE 13.  HAIN AHALTSIS EXPOSURE LEVELS (IN MILLIONS FIBERS INHALED PER TEAR)  AND NUMBER  OF  PERSOKS  EXPOSED  TO




                 PRIMARY MAHUFACTUR1HG PRODUCTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND NON-OCCUPATIONAL  SETTINGS
                                              Occupational



                                     No, of People     Mil. fib./Yr
             Hon~occupational



Mo. of People         Mil.  Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
?.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12,
13.
14,
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26,
27.
28.
29,
30.
31.
32,
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Cotimereial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Urap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LMtf (OEH)
Disc Brake Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch facings
Auto. Transmiss. Comp.
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Hissile Liners
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Are Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, i-MV CA/M)
Beater-Acid Saskets/2
Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
Mining and Milling


12
35
199.75
27

206


2

650
286
53

11
421
140
15
283
239
11
191

78
150.3
9
582
553
157
380
134
207
2
1,144
776
35.25
16.7
155


145
134
110
113

200


111

87
270
478

473
385
390
385
377
406
113
398

457
208
191
273
220
164
220
220


385
390
110
208
121


5,747,875
4,847,937
37,082,888
254,772






19,744,593
3,313,602
21,232,368

891,143
9,292,154
3,681,659
1,704,883
9,785,424
8,761,571

12,922,247

16,306,866
43,468,616
7,031,484
84,570,429
70,389,388
19,925,386




25,249,953
20,383,263
37,082,888
43,468,616
841,214


0.0232
0.0476
0.031705
0.405






0.000001B5
0.167
0.0218

0.00361
0.0575
0.0214
0.000000827
0.00388
0.0027

0.00234

0.00214
0.00549
0.0000534
0.00233
0.0000394
0.0018




0.0575
0.0214
0.005595
0.000561
0.407

-------
NJ
                             TABLE  14.   «AJN  ANALYSIS EXPOSURE  LEVELS  OK MILLIONS  FIBERS  INHALED PER YEAR) AND NUMBER Of PERSONS EXPOSED TO




                                             SECONDARY MANUFACTURING PRODUCTS  FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND NON-OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS









                                                                           Occupational                            Hon-occupational




                                                                  No. of People     Hit. Fib./Yr      No. of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4,
5,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Kill board
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, L«V (OEM)
Disc Srake Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transmiss. Corap,
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Non-Roof ing Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, tHV (A/M)
Beater-Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Gaskets/PTFI
Hining and Milling


448

1,101.6
30




149






731
46

19
48

28

208
896.5
25


529




1,988
254
194.4
88.5



57

57
57




57






125
146

127
166

195

408
276
276


239




125
146
57
276


-------
TABLE 15.  «AIN ANALYSIS EXPOSURE LEVELS (IN MILLIONS FIBERS INHALED PER YEAR) AND NUHBER Of PERSONS EXPOSED TO




                    INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND NOtl-OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS
                                               Occupational




                                      No.  of  People     Mil.  Ffb./Yr
             Won-oeeupat ionaI




No. of People         Mil. Ffb./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline yrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High-grade Elect. Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEH)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transfiiiss. Cotnp.
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Ash. Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liners
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M>
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (A/M)
Beater-Add Gasfcets/2
Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
Mining and Hilling


20
2,725
45,404.45
300
396



350


933
49
7
323









5,166,9
2

1,780

260





8,012.55
574.1



57
52
57
57
439 171,136,373



57


296 171,136,373
723 171,136,373
723 171,136,373
130 171,136,373








r
276
276
210,250
364

57





57
276







0.000018






0.0000264
0.00000298
0,00000043
0.00000052











1.04












-------
TABLE 16.  MAIN ANALYSIS EXPOSURE LEVELS (IB MILLIONS FIBERS IMBALEB PER YEAR) AND NUMBER OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO

                        USE OF PRODUCTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND NON-OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS




                                              Occupational                            Norr- occupational

                                     No. of People     Mil, Fib./Yr      No, of People         Mil.  Fib./Yr
      1.  Commercial Paper
      2.  Rollboard
      3.  Millboard
      4.  Pipeline Wrap
      5.  Beater-Add Gaskets
      6.- High-grade Elect. Paper
      7.  Roofing Felt
      8,  Acetylene Cylinders
      9.  Flooring Felt
     10,  Corrugated Paper
     11.  Specialty Paper
     12.  V/A  Floor Tile
     13.  Diaphragms
     14.  A/C  Pipe
     15.  A/C  Flat Sheet
     16.  A/C  Corrugated Sheet
     17.  A/C  Shingles
     18.  Orun Brake Linings  (OEM)
     19.  Disc Brake Pads,  LHV  WEH)
     20.  Disc irake Pads,  BV
     21.  Brake Blocks
     22.  Clutch Facings
     23.  Auto. Transniss.  Comp.
     24.  Friction Materials
     25.  Protective Clothing
     26.  Thread, yarn  etc.
     27.  Sheet Gaskets
     28,  Asbestos Packings
     29.  Roof Coatings
     30.  Non-Roofing Coatings
     31.  Asb. Reinforced  Plastics
     32.  Missile Liners
     33.  Sealant Tape
     34.  Battery Separators
     35.  Arc  Chutes
     36,  Drum Brake  Linings  (A/H)
     37.  Disc Brake  Pads,  LHV  (A/H)
     38.  Beater-Add  Gaskets/2
     39.  Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
     **  Mining and  Milling
 60,943,018
 34,659,752

226,546,000
0.00058
0,00064

0,0061
165,602,982
191,886,248
0.00058
0.00064

-------
                            TABLE 17.  MAIN ANALYSIS EXPOSURE LEVELS (IN MILLIONS FIBERS INHALED PER TEAR)  AND  NUMBER OF  PERSONS  EXPOSED  TO


                                              REPAIR/DISPOSAL OF PRODUCTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND NQN-QCCUPftTIOMAL SETTINGS
fo
Ul
                                                                          Occupational


                                                                 Ho. of People     Hit. F!b./Yr
             Non-occupational


No. of People         Mil. Fib./Yr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7,
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Conroerciat Paper
Roll board
Hi I Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High-grade Ijiect. Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Flat Sheet
A/C Corrugated Sheet
A/C Shingles
Drtan Brake Linings {OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LHV {OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Auto. Transniss. Coup.
Friction Materials
Protective Clothing
Thread, yarn etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packings
Roof Coatings
Mon-Rooffng Coatings
Asb. Reinforced Plastics
Kissile Liners
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Brim Brake Linings (A/«)
Disc Brake Pads, LHV (A/M)
Beater-Add fiaskets/2
Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
Mining and Milling


20
2,725
45,404.45
300
263



350


1,458
61
9
225


117
3,985
548

43


5,166.9
2







86,398
32,568
8,012.55
574.1



57
18
57
57
296



57


296
2,080
2,080
244


390
388
355

120


276
276







378
386
57
276







171,136,373 0.0000067







171,136,373 0.0000173
171,136,373 0.0000025
171,136,373 0.0000067
49,442,265 0.0123
27,453,272 0.00624
170,871,494 0.000000587
170,871,494 0.0000171














134,351,509 0,0123
151,989,122 0.00624




-------
for asbestos and asbestos products will decline over time at a. rate of one

percent per year.  Substantial empirical evidence for downward trends in

prices due to "experience" exists.  The basis for this assumption is the

empirical observation in the business and economics literature of both

economies of scale and experience curves (both of which lead to reduced costs

of and prices for goods over time).'   Economies of scale occur when as the

volume of production rises, the average cost of production falls.  In the case

of substitutes for asbestos and asbestos products, many alternatives to

asbestos would experience substantial increases in production volume over time

under the bans of the Final Rule.  Experience in producing goods also tends to

reduce costs of production over time through "know-how" and other efficiencies

that are discovered only through actually producing a product.

      The empirical literature on "experience curves" demonstrates that

accumulated production experience can generate reduced costs over time

depending on the rate of increase of production volume experience and. that

these cost reductions are fairly consistent from  industry to industry.

Thompson  (1981)** indicates that in 190 studies,  rates of decline of value

added with a doubling of production experience varied from 12 percent in

automobile production, 15 percent in color television production, to 40 to 50
     * Recent articles concerning pricing, costs, and_the experience (or
learning) curve  include Bass, Frank M.,  "The Relationship Between  Diffusion
Rates, Experience Curves, and Demand  Elasticities for Consumer  Durable
Technological Innovations," Journal of Business., Part 2, July 1980; and
Lieberman, Marvin B.,  "The Learning Curve and  Pricing in the Chemical
Processing Industries," RandJournal  of  Economics.  Summer 1984.

     ** Thompson, Donald N.,  "The Experience Curve Effect on Costs and Prices;
Implications for Public Policy",  in Regulation of Marketing and the Public
Interest:	_Essavs in Honor of Ewa.ldii.iT.i,.._Grether.  eds. , Balderson, F.E., J.M.
Carman,  and F.M. Nicosia.

                                     -  26 -

-------
percent in semiconductors and Integrated, circuits.  Thus, the one percent




decline of prices for substitutes for asbestos is fairly conservative.




Although this may overestimate the rate of decline for some products that have




been in existence for some time, it may substantially underestimate the rate




of decline of prices for other, newer products or products with new




applications.  A sensitivity analysis based on the assumption of no decline of




asbestos product substitute prices is provided in this Addendum.




      Another sensitivity analysis uses a methodology different from that of




the main analysis to calculate the impact of OSHA's 0.2 f/cc PEL on




occupational exposures.  The main analysis assumes that exposures that were




above the PEL have been lowered to the PEL and that exposures that were below




the PEL have not been changed.  This approach does not explicitly account for




non-compliance with OSHA's standard, but it implicitly accommodates the




possibility of non-compliance because the 0.2 f/cc level to which previously




high exposures are assumed to be lowered may be seen as an average between




work places that have brought exposures below the PEL by some margin and work




places that remain above the PEL (and out of compliance).  The sensitivity




analysis explicitly accounts for non-compliance by assuming that most work




places have lowered exposures to the levels that OSHA predicted its analysis




for the PEL, but that a few asbestos work places do not comply with the PEL.




OSHA assumed that those complying with the PEL will reduce their workplace




exposures significantly below the standards to ensure compliance.  OSHA's




analysis adjusted all exposures in its data base that were at or above 0.2




f/cc to 0.15 f/cc in cases where OSHA assumed that engineering controls were




used.  In cases where OSHA assumed that respirators were used, OSHA reduced




the exposures by a factor equal to the effective protection factor of the






                                     - 27 -

-------
respirator,  OSHA assumed that exposures below 0.2 f/cc would be reduced by 20

percent due to engineering controls ,

      OSHA did not factor non-compliance into its analysis of the costs and

benefits of the PEL because with non-compliance both costs and benefits

decline in proportion, leaving cost-benefit ratios unchanged.  On the other

hand, EPA's assessment of the costs and benefits of this rule is affected by

non-compliance with the OSHA PEL.  Therefore, a non-compliance rate of 2

percent (a relatively low rate compared to non-compliance rates in other

Federal health and environmental regulatory settings) is assumed in

conjunction with the OSHA fiber level adjustments.  The exposure level in non-

complying work places is assumed to 1.99 f/cc, the average exposure of work

places above the PEL according to OSHA compliance data.**   The  weighted

average of the 1.99 fibers/cc concentration for non-complying firms and the

fiber levels that reflect the OSHA methodology for complying firms is then

multiplied by the breathing rate, the number of hours per day, and the number

of days per year for each product category (as presented in Appendix A.4 of

the RIA).  Tables 18 through 21 present the million fibers breathed per year

for occupation exposure during primary manufacturing, secondary manufacturing,

installation, and repair & disposal of products using the original estimates,
     * ICF Incorporated, 1989, "Effect of Applying OSHA1s Methodology to EPA's
Exposure Data to Estimate Post-0.2 f/cc PEL Exposure Levels."  Memorandum to
Dr. Kin Wong, EPA from  Nora Zirps and Maravene Edelstein, ICF Incorporated,
dated January 11, 1989.

     **  Environmental Protection Agency,  1988,  "OSHA Compliance  Data for
Asbestos,"  Memorandum  to John Rigby, Chemical Control  Division, EPA from Kin
Wong, Chemical Engineering Branch, Economics & Technology Division, EPA, dated
August 1, 1988.

                                     - 28  -

-------
TABLE 18,  EXPOSURE LEVELS BASED OH OSHA METHODOLOGY AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
                 ASBESTOS PEL DURING PRIMARY MAKUFACTUR1WS
rait lion fibers/year

1,
2,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28,
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Product Category
Commercial Paper
Rol I board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater- Add Gaskets
High-grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Papers
Vinyl -Asbestos Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
Asbestos -Cement Pipe
Flat A-C Sheets
Corrugated A-C Sheets
A-C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM}
Disc Brake Pads,' LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads (HV)
Brake Slocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Transmission Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, Yarn, etc.
Sheet Gasket ing
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings and Cements
Non-Roofing Coatings, etc.
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/H)
Disc Brake Pads, LHV (A/M)
Beater-Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Sasketing/PTFE
Mining & Milling
Main
Analysis


145
134
110
113

200


111

87
270
478

473
385
390
385
377
'406
113
398

457
208
198
273
220
164
220
220


385
390
110
208
121
OSHA
Estimates


113.03
104.52
86.99
90.33

160.00


90.33

68.64
210.60
361 .40

358.80
288.60
293.80
288,60
286.00
304.20
90.33
293.80

346.94
161.20
153.40
202.80
164.32
163.80
164.32
164.32


288.60
293.80
86.99
161.20
135.20
OSHA Estimates with
2% Non-comptiance


197.28
185.63
169.69
172.14

239.58


172.14

158.33
309.87
457.65

455.10
386.31
391 .40
386.31
383.76
401 .60
172.14
391.40

439.35
261 .46
Z53.81
302.22
243.82
264.00
243.82
243.82


386.31
391.40
169.69
261 .46
235.98

-------
TABIE 19.  EXPOSURE LEVELS BASED ON OSHA METHODOLOGY AND NQK-COMPLIANCE WITH
                ASBESTOS PEL BUSING SECONDARY MANUFACTURING
mi 1 1 i on f i bets/year

1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24,
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32,
33.
34.
35,
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Product Category
Coraraerefal Paper
Rot (board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High-grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Papers
Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
Asbestos- Cement Pipe
Flat A-C Sheets
Corrugated A-C Sheets
A-C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV 
-------
TABLE 20.  EXPOSURE LEVELS BASiD OH OSHA METHODOLOGY AUD NON-CWPLIAHEE WITH
                ASBESTOS PEL DURING INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS
rail lion fibers/year

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8,
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24,
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Product Category
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High-grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Papers
Vinyl -Asbestos Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
Asbestos -Cement Pipe
Flat A-C Sheets
Corrugated A-C Sheets
A-C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LHV (OiH)
Disc Srake Pads (HV)
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Transmission Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, Yarn, etc.
Sheet Gasket ing
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings and Cements
Non-Roofing Coatings, etc.
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Kissile liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, LMV (A/H)
Beater-Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Gasketing/PIFE
Mining & Milling
Main
Analysis


57
52
57
57
439



57


296
723
723
130









276
276

364

57





57
276

OSHA
Estimates


45.60
41.60
45.60
45.60
44.20



45.60


296.40
811.20
811,20
. 13.00









220.80
220.80

291.20

45.60





45.60
220.80

OSHA Estimates with
2% Non- compliance


148.17
144.25
148.17
148.17
146,80



148.17


393.95
898.46
898.46
116.22









319.86
319.86

388.86

148.17





148.17
319.86


-------
TABLE 21.
EXPOSURE LEVELS BASED ON OSHA METHOOOL06Y AND NON-COMPLIANCE
   ASBESTOS  PEL DURIHG REPAIR  & DISPOSAL OF PRODUCTS
mi 1 1 i on f i hers/year

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19,
20.
21.
22.
23.
24,
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
**
Product Category
Coiwiereial Paper
Rot t board
Millboard
Pipeline yrap
Beater- add Gaskets
High-grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Papers
Vinyl -Asbestos Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
Asbestos- Cement Pipe
Flat A-C Sheets
Corrugated A-C Sheets
A-C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads, LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads (HV)
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Transmission Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, Yarn, etc.
Asbestos Sheet Gasket ing
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings and Cements
Non-Roofing Coatings, etc.
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drun Brake Linings (A/M)
Disc Brake Pads, LHV (A/M)
Beater-Add Saskets/2
Sheet Gasket tng/PTFE
Mining & Milling
Main
Analysis


57
18
57
57
296



57


296
2,080
2,080
244


390
388
355

120


276
276







378
386
57
276

OSHA
Estimates


45.60
14.40
45.60
45.60
28.60



45.60


236.80
5.20
5.20
23.40


312.00
309.40
283.40

93.60


ZE0.80
220.80







301.60
309.40
45.60
220.80

OSHA Estimates with
2% Non-compliance


148.17
117.59
148.17
148.17
131.51



148.17


335.54
108.58
108.58
126.41


409.24
406.69
381.21

195.21


319.86
319.86







399.05
406.69
148.17
319,86


-------
the OSHA methodology, and assuming that two percent of all firm's will not

comply with the asbestos PEL,  The remaining exposure estimates do not change.

      Finally, the Agency's assumptions for this analysis of the costs and

benefits of the Final Rule also include data concerning the efficiencies of

baghouses in collecting asbestos fibers.  The baghouse efficiencies underlying

the data presented earlier are part of the overall set of baseline assumptions

for this analysis.  A sensitivity analysis of the results for the Final Rule

using an alternative set of baghouse efficiencies used by EPA's Office of Air

and Radiation is provided in this Addendum.*  These alternative baghouse

efficiency estimates are higher than those used in the main analysis and

hence, the estimated emissions under these alternative baghouse efficiency

assumptions are lower.  The Agency's main analysis assumptions and the

alternative sensitivity case set of assumptions concerning baghouse

efficiencies for different sets of products are presented in Table 22.  The

exposure estimates for this sensitivity analysis are obtained by multiplying

the estimates for ambient fibers breathed per year in the main analysis by the

adjustment factors shown in Table 22.*

3,  ResultsandSensitivity Analyses

      The estimated costs and benefits of the Agency's Final Rule under the

assumptions outlined above are presented in Tables 23 and 24.  Table 23

presents the estimates based on three percent discounting for costs and no

discounting for benefits, while Table 24 presents  the costs and the benefits
     * EPA, "Asbestos Exposure Assessment", Revised Report, dated March 21,
1988.

     ** A sample calculation to derive the adjustment factors from the two
sets of baghouse efficiencies  is shown  in Table 22.

                                     - 33  -

-------
TABLE 22.  ALTERHATIVS BAGHOUSE EFFICIENCIES AMD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR liOtl-OCCUPATIGMAL EXPOSURE £»ATA
Product Categories
Paper:
3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11
Coatings and Sealants:
29, 30
Packings and Gaskets:
5, 27, 28, 38, 39
Texti les:
26
A/C Pipe:
14
A/C Sheet:
15, 16, 17
Friction Materials:
18-24, 36, 37
Plastics:
31
Main Analysis
Baghouse
Efficiency
99.67%
99.677.
99,67%
99.67%
99.95%
99,95%
99.95%
99.95%
Air Office
Baghouse
Efficiency
99.988%
99.987%
99.988%
99.986%
99.986%
99.988%
99.986%
99.979%
Adjustment Factor
for Mort- occupational
Exposure Data
12/330a
13/330
12/330
14/330
14/50
12/50
14/50
21/50
   a The adjustment factor is the relative inefficiency of the baghouses assumed by the Air
     Office and that assumed for the main analysis.  The ambient (non-occupational) exposure
     data under the main analysis assumptions are multiplied by this factor to effect a
     reduction in the actual exposure for the sensitivity analysis because the Air Office
     assumes less inefficient baghouses (that is lesser ambient release of asbestos).  The
     adjustment factor in this case is calculated as:

             (100  - 99.988)  /  (100  - 99.67)  =  0.012/0.33  =  12/330
                                              -  34  -

-------
             TABLE  23.   COST  BENEFIT  BY PRODUCT FOR ALTERNATIVE P - LCM DECLINE BASELINE (198?-2000)

                                          (Main Analysis Assumptions)
                                  (Substitute Prices Declining at 1% Annually)

                             (Costs Discounted at 3% and Benefits Discounted at OS)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 •
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
**

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Hi Uboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Feit
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads L«V (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Caskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non* Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Are Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterwarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV 
-------
             TABLE 24.   COST BENEFIT BY PRODUCT FOR ALTERNATIVE  P -  LOW OECLIN6  BASELINE  {1987-2000)

                                           (Main Analysis Assimiptions)
                                  (Substitute Prices Declining at 1% Annually)

                                     (Costs and Benefits Discounted at 3%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
**

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Mi U board
Pipeline Wrap
8eater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
•Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterraarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket)
Beater-Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
Mining and Hi Uing
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
3.73
1.06
111.17
-.81
7.31
-.50
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-1.06
92.36
.99
.29
16.98
2.39
.10
.02
-.04
12.05
.09
.25
.00
-.92
90.22
.00
45.03
-.07
-.80
-.76
-1,80
.00
.00
1.24
-.39
-2.07
-.63
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
6.59
4.74
3.46
.31
1.99
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
6.30
.00
.46
.88
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
.00
.00
6.97

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<1QA6 $3
.00
.00
3.73
1.07
111.20
-.81
7.31
-.50
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-1.06
128.03
2.37
.29
23.57
7.13
3.56
.33
1.95
12.87
.22
2.11
.00
-.92
96.52
.00
45.48
.81
-.80
-.76
-1.80
.00
.00
8.79
3.94
-2.07
-.63
6.97
458.89 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.4213
2.3105
21 .4782
.0000
1.2196
.0000
.0000
.0000
.1035
.0000
.0000
3.1698
.8475
.1158
.2314
6.3280
.7495
.1641
7.3051
1.0488
.0004
.3974
.0000
.0000
10.7625
.0000
1.0770
1 .3325
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
76.7895
11.5777
.0000
.0000
.9301
148.3600
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/ease>
n/a
n/a
8.85
.46
5.18
n/a
5.99
n/a
n/a
n/a
-,02
n/a
n/a
40.39
2.79
2.53
101.85
1.13
4.75
2.01
.27
12.27
613.20
5.30
n/a
n/a
8.97
n/a
42.23
.61
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.11
.34
n/a
n/a
7.49
3.09
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
                                                      36  -

-------
discounted at three percent (where benefits are discounted from the time of

exposure).

      For each product category, Tables 23 and 24 list domestic consumer,

producer, and total surplus losses (as defined and measured in the RIA ),

total cancer cases avoided, and the cost per case avoided (total costs divided

by the number of cancer cases avoided).  Of course,  benefits entries (cancer

cases avoided) are positive only for the product categories subject to a ban.

Hence, the cost per case avoided entries for the product categories not banned

are listed as "n/a".

      As the results in Table 23 indicate, banning products causes total

discounted consumer and producer surplus losses of about $459 million.  The

bans avoid an undiscounted total of almost 202 cancer cases.  These figures

imply that the Final Rule as a whole has a cost-per-cancer-case-avoided of

$2,27 million, as shown in Table 23, for the three percent discounting for

costs and no discounting for benefits.

      The individual product category listings show market-by-market costs and

benefits of the Final Rule.  Costs are higher for product categories banned

earlier and for which substitutes are more expensive, and benefits are higher

for product categories banned earlier and which pose greater risks of

exposure.  The cost-per-cancer-case-avoid entries for each product category

(with the exception of the automatic transmission components and A/G shingles

categories) range from just over $30 million down to zero and slightly

negative costs per cancer case.  Negative costs per case are possible if a
       Domestic consumer and producer surplus losses are those that are borne
by U.S. entities.  Foreign consumers and producers can also be affected by the
U.S. regulations for asbestos, but their gains or losses are not included in
these tables (although they are modeled and estimated in the analysis).

                                    - 37 -

-------
product category is banned In the more distant future.  During the time the

product is not banned but while other products are banned, the cost of

asbestos fiber is lower than it otherwise would have been.   Hence,  it is

possible for the surplus gains for a number of years due to the lower asbestos

fiber price to exceed the costs associated with the ban of the product for the

remainder of the scenario.

      The results in Table 24 are identical to those in Table 23 for costs,

but the benefits in this table are discounted at three percent from the time

of exposure.  As the table indicates, discounting the benefits reduce their

present value from almost 202 to just over 148 cancer cases avoided.  The

reduced estimates of benefits translate into higher (in absolute value) costs-

per-cancer-case-avoided for each product category and for the total.

      In addition to the main analysis estimates of the costs and the benefits

of the Final Rule, several sensitivity analyses of the costs and benefits were

conducted.  Five sets of sensitivity analyses studied are; (1) assume that

prices of substitutes for asbestos products remain constant over time, (2) use

only the known quantitative information on exposures reported in Tables 4

through 8,  (3) use the main analysis exposure estimates plus the additional

non-occupational exposure estimates shown in Table 12, (4) apply the OSHA

estimates of exposures and low level non-compliance assumptions to the main

analysis assumptions, and (5) assume the alternative set of baghouse

efficiencies reported in Table 18.
     * The asbestos supply curve is upward sloping, with an estimated
elasticity of 1.46.  See Appendix A.2  in Volume  II  of  the Regulatory Impact
Analysis of Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos  Products, January  19, 1989.

                                    -  38 -

-------
      Table 25 reports the costs and benefits of the Final Rule (using three




percent discounting for costs and no discounting for benefits) using all of




the same data and assumptions underlying the main analysis except that




substitute prices are assumed to be constant through the future.  Relative to




the main analysis results, Table 25 shows that if substitute prices are




constant through the future, the costs rise from about $459 million to about




$806 million; benefits are unaffected by this change of assumptions.  This




raises the cost-per-cancer-case-avoided from $2.27 million to $4 million.




      Table 26 shows the costs and benefits (costs discounted at three percent




and benefits undiscounted) of the Final Rule using the main analysis




assumptions except that only the exposure settings for which quantitative




information was available are included (the exposure estimates  in Tables 4




through 8 earlier).  Relative to the Table 23 benefits, the number of cancer




cases in Table 26 is about 38 cases lower (164.04 versus 201.82), and costs




are unaffected.  Table 27 shows .the costs and benefits of the Final Rule using




the main analysis exposure information available (in Tables 13  through 17) and




the additional non-occupational exposure assumptions reported in Table 12.




Relative to the main analysis estimates of benefits, the benefits in Table 27




are about 9 cases higher  (210.80 versus 201.82).




      Table 28 shows the costs and benefits of the Final Rule using the fiber




concentration estimates developed based on the OSHA. methodology and assuming




that two percent of all firms do not comply with the asbestos PEL, as reported




in Tables 18 through 21 above, along with,the remaining unaffected  information




from Tables 13 through 17.  Relative to the main analysis estimates of




benefits in Table 23, the benefits in Table 28 are about 47 cases higher




(248.82 versus 201.82).  This indicates that the net effect of  using  the






                                     - 39  -

-------
             TABLE  25.  COST BENEFIT BY PRODUCT  FOR ALTERNATIVE P - LOU DECLINE BASELINE (1987-2000)

                                           (Main Analysis Assumptions)
                                     (Substitute Prices Constant  Over Time)

                             (Costs Discounted at 3X and Benefits Discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
&
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 ,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
#w .

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rot (board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Saskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LKV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plsstics
Missi le Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pods L«V (Aftermarket)
Beater-Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domest i c
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
4.86
1,96
140.60
-.81
8,90
-.50
' .00
.00
-.00
.00
-1.06
191.65
1.35
.62
27.59
9,93
.10
.02
11.13
24.70
,17
.25
.00
-.92
116.08
.00
140.20
39.01
-.80
-.76
-1.80
.00
.00
13.66
-39
-2.07
-.63
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10"6 $)
.00
.00
,00
.01
.03
,00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
6.59
4.74
3.46
.31
1.99
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
6.30
.00
,46
.88
.00
,00
.00
.00
,00
7.55
4.33
.00
.00
6.97

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $5
.00
.00
4.86
1.97
140.63
-.81
8.90
. -.50
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-1.06
227.33
2.73
.62
34.18
14.67
3.56
.33
13.12
25.51
.30
2.11
,00
-.92
122,38
.00
140.66
39,90
-.80
-.76
-1.80
.00
.00
21.21
3.94
-2.07
-.63
6.97
806.51 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.5822
2.8635
28.3392
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.1430
.0000
.0000
4.3801
1.0504
.1435
.3197
8.3800
.9927
.2165
10.0943
1.3838
.0005
.5244
.0000
.0000
14.2005
.0000
1.4882
1.8413
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
106.2551
15.8541
.0000
.0000
1.2565
201 ,8209
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
8.35
.69
4.96
n/a
5.89
n/a
n/a
n/a
-.01
n/a
n/a
51,90
2.60
4.30
106.91
1.75
3.59
1.53
1.30
18.44
637.90
4.01
n/a
n/a
8.62
n/a
94.52
21.67
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
,20
.25
n/a
n/a
5.55
4.00
n/a; Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
                                                  -  40  -

-------
             TABLE  26.   COST BENEFIT BY PRODUCT  FOR  ALTERNATIVE  P  -  LOW DECLINE BASELINE  (1987-2000)

                                    (Quantitative Estimates  of Exposure Only)
                                  (Substitute Prices Qeclining at 1% Annually)

                             (Costs Discounted at 3% and Benefits Discounted at Q3«5
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
**

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads IMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum irake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Afterraarket)
Beater-Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Gaskets/PTFE
Mining and Hilling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(10"6 $)
,00
,00
3.73
1.06
111.17
-.81
7.31
-.50
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-1.06
92,36
.99
.29
16.98
2.39
.10
.02
-.04
12.05
.09
,25
,00
-.92
90.22
.00
45.03
-.07
-.80
-.76
-1.80
.00
.00
1.24
-.39
-2.07
-.63
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
6.59
4.74
3.46
.31
1.99
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
6.30
.00
.46
.88
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
.00
.00
6.97

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
<10A6 $)
.00
.00
3.73
1.07
111.20
-.81
7.31
-.50
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-1.06
128.03
2.37
.29
23.57
7.13
3.56
.33
1.95
12.87
.22
2.11
,00
-.92
96.52
.00
45.48
.81
-.80
-.76
-1.80
.00
.00
8.79
3.94
-2.07
-.63
6.97
458,89 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.5754
1.7416
6.5937
,0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0256
.0000
.0000
3.1110
1.0504
.1435
.3197
8.3800
.9927
.2165
10.0943
1.3838
.0005
.5244
.0000
.0000
2.2192
.0000
1.4882
.2981
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
106.2551
15.8541
.0000
.0000
1 .2565
164,0360
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
<10A6 $/case)
n/a
n/a
6.48
.61
16.86
n/a
4.84
n/a
n/a
n/a
-.07
n/a
n/a
41.15
2.25
2.04
73.71
.85
3.59
1.53
.19
9.30
464.74
4.01
n/a
n/a
43.49
n/a
30.56
2.72
n/a
n/s
n/a
n/a
n/a
.08
.25
n/a
n/a
5.55
2,80
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
                                                   - 41  -

-------
             TABLE  27.   COST BENEFIT BY PRODUCT  FOR  ALTERNATIVE  P  -  LOU DECLINE BASELINE (1987-2000)

                (Hairs Analysis Assumptions and Additional  Non-Occupational Estimates of Exposure)
                                   (Substitute Prices Declining at 1% Annually)

                              (Costs Discounted at 3% and Senefits Discounted at OX)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
**

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Roll board
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Baskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEK)
Disc Brake Pads LHV 
-------
            TABLE 28,  COST  BENEFIT BY PRODUCT FOR ALTERNATIVE P - LOU DECLINE BASELINE (1987-2000)

              {Main Analysis Assumptions with OSHA Methodology for Exposure and 2% Mon-comptianee)
                                  (Substitute Prices Declining at 1% Annually)

                             (Costs Discounted at 3%  and Benefits Discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 •
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
**

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rol Lboard
Mi I Iboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper .
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non- Roof ing Coatings
Asbestos-Reinforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Afterraarket)
Disc Brake Pads LMV (Aftermarket)
Beater-Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Qaskets/PTFE
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consisner
Surplus
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
3.73
1.06
111.17
-.81
7.31
-.50
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-1.06
92.36
.99
.29
16.98
2.39
.10
.02
-.04
12.05
.09
.25
.00
-.92
90.22
.00
45,03
-.07
-.80
-.76
-1.80
.00
.00
1.24
-.39
-2.07
-.63
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
Loss
(10*6 $)
.00
.00
.00
.01
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
6.59
4.74
3.46
.31
1.99
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
6.30
.00
.46
.88
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
.00
.00
6.97

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(10A6 $)
.00
.00
3.73
1.07
111.20
-.81
7.31
-.50
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-1.06
128.03
2.37
.29
23.57
7.13
3.56
.33
1.95
12.87
.22
2.11
.00
-.92
96.52
.00
45.48
.81
-.80-
-.76
-1.80
.00
.00
8.79
3.94
-2.07
-.63
6.97
458.89 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.7164
5.9487
63.5961
.0000
.5767
.0000
.0000
.0000
.3715
.0000
.0000
4.8518
.8980
.0465
.2283
8.6202
.9993 .
.2260
10.3201
1 .4528
.0007
.5393
.0000
.0000
16.2598
.0000
1.S252
1 .9781
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
111.7843
16.5719
.0000
.0000
1 .2565
248.8178
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(10A6 S/case)
n/a
n/a
5.21
.18
1.75
n/a
12.68
n/a
n/a
n/a
-.01
n/fl'
n/a
26.39
2.64
6.30
103.25
.83
3.56
1.46
.19
8.86
305.08
3.90
n/a
n/a
5.94
n/a
29.82
.41
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.08
.24
n/a
n/a
5.55
1.84
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
                                                 -  43  ..

-------
"lower" OSHA estimates and accounting for non-compliance by a small proportion




of firms actually results in higher overall exposure.  Empirically, a very low




rate of non-compliance with the OSHA PEL more than offsets the reduced




exposures based on the OSHA methodology.




      Finally, the costs and benefits (costs discounted at three percent and




benefits undiscounted) of the Final Rule using the main analysis assumptions




and the alternative baghouse efficiencies reported in Table 22 are presented




in Table 29,  Again, costs are unaffected by this change of assumptions.  As




the table indicates, the total number of cancer cases falls in this




sensitivity analysis relative to the main analysis estimates by about 19




cancer cases (183.19 versus 201.82).
                                     - 44  -

-------
             TABLE  29.   COST  BENEFIT  BY  PRODUCT  FOR ALTERNATIVE P  - LOy DECLINE BASELINE (1987-2000)

                       (Main Analysis Assumptions with Alternative Baghouse Efficiencies)
                                  (Substitute Prices Declining at 1.% Annually)

                             (Costs Discounted at 3% and Benefits  Discounted at 0%)
Product
TSCA #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
**

Product
Description
Commercial Paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Pipeline Wrap
Beater-Add Gaskets
High Grade Electrical Paper
Roofing Felt
Acetylene Cylinders
Flooring Felt
Corrugated Paper
Specialty Paper
V/A Floor Tile
Asbestos Diaphragms
A/C Pipe
A/C Sheet, Flat
A/C Sheet, Corrugated
A/C Shingles
Drum Brake Linings (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (OEM)
Disc Brake Pads HV
Brake Blocks
Clutch Facings
Automatic Trans. Components
Friction Materials
Asbestos Protective Clothing
Asbestos Thread, etc.
Sheet Gaskets
Asbestos Packing
Roof Coatings
Non-Roofing Coatings
A'sbestos-Re.inforced Plastics
Missile Liner
Sealant Tape
Battery Separators
Arc Chutes
Drum Brake Linings (Aftermarket)
Disc Brake Pads LHV (Aftermarket)
Beater-Add Gaskets/2
Sheet Saskets/PTFE
Mining and Milling
Total
Domestic
Consumer
Surplus
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
3.73
1.06
111.17
-.81
7.31
-.50
.00
.00
-.00
.00
-1.06
92.36
.99
.29
16.98
2.39
.10
.02
-.04
12.05
.09
.25
.00
-.92
90.22
.00
45.03
-.07
-.80
-.76
-1.80
.00
.00
1.24
-.39
-2.07
-.63
.00

Domestic
Producer
Surplus
loss
(10A6 $)
.00
,00
.00
.01
.03
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00 .
.00
.00
35.67
1.38
.00
6.59
4.74
3.46
.31
1.99
.81
.13
1.86
.00
.00
6.30
.00
.46
.88
.00
.00,
.00
.00
.00
7.55
4.33
.00
.00
6,9?

Gross
Domestic
Total
Loss
(1QA6 $)
.00
.00
3.73
1.07
111.20
-.81
7.31
-.50
.00
.00 '
-.00
.00
-1.06
128.03
2.37
.29
23.57
7.13
3.56
.33
1.95
12.87
.22
2.11
.00
-.92
96.52
.00
45.48'
.81
-.80
-.76
-1.80
.00
.00
8.79
3.94
-2.07
-.63
6.97
458.89 *
Total
Cancer
Cases
Avoided
.0000
.0000
.1049
1.2118
22.3284
.0000
1.5116
.0000
.0000
.0000
.1430
.0000
.0000
2.9004
.4494
.1435
.3106
6.2084
.8473
.2165
9.9928
1.2934
.0005
.4089
.0000
.0000
13.0784
.0000
.9680
1.8333
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
102.5393
15.4425
.0000
.0000
1.2565
183.1895
Cost per
Cancer Case
Avoided
(1QA6 $/case)
rt/a
n/a
35.55
.88
4.98
n/a
4.84
n/a
n/a
n/a
-.01
n/a
n/a
44.14
5.27
2.04
75.86
1.15
4.20
1.53
.20
9.95
464.74
5,15
n/a
n/a
7.38
n/a
46.99
.44
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.09
.26
n/a
n/a
5.55
2.51
n/a: Not applicable
***  Market is not banned, exempted, or exposure data is not available.
  *  U.S. net welfare cost
                                                   -  45  -

-------
                              AFP1SODIX I




SODRCE CODE FOR THE ASBESTOS REGULATORY COSTS SIMULATION MODEL (ARGM)

-------
ARCH AND.FOR
Wednesday May 24, 1989  12:00 AM
Page 1
1 c
2 c
3 c
4 c
5 c
6 c
7 c
8 c
9 c
10 c
ii c
12 c
13 c
14 c
15 c
16 c
1? c
18 c
19 C
20 c
21 c
22 c
23 c
24 o
25 c
26 c
27 c
28 c


ASBESTOS RE6ULATORY COST MODEL (ARCH) : MAIN PROGRAM

Version 7.1 : May 24, 1989.

(version for use when aftermarket brakes are not banned within
4 years of OEM brakes, declining prices of substitutes are
used, or if caps could start later in the simulation period)

3rogram written by:

Vikratn Widge
ICF Incorporated
9300 Lee Highway
Virginia 22031-1207

(703) 934-3000

Accompanying Documentation:

1. User's Manual
2. Technical Support Document




29 $include: 'atdsub'
30 $ large
31 c
32 c
33
34 c



program arcm

35 $indude: 'stdvar'
36 $indude: 'vars.cmn'
37 c
38
39 c
40
41
42 c
43
44 c
45 c
46 c
47 c
48 c
49 c
SO c
51
52
53
54 •
55
56
57 c
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 c
65
66
67 1
68 c
69
70
71
72
73 o
74
75
76
77
78
79
80

integer onsub(ira),bam(36:373

character istr(6)*55
real amq(ny, 36:37)

connon/amq/amq



this section prints the opening statement on the screen



call vinit
call crt els
call box (Q,3,15,63,vrwrm)
call pcsa (1,17,'EPA/QTS Asbestos Regulatory Cost Model (ARCM)'c,
vbold)
call pcs (2,17,' Version 7, O'c)

istr 1 ='This program models the economic impacts and costs of c
istr 2 ='asbestos fiber and product regulations. It permits a'c
istr 3 ='variety of regulatory options to be implemented and'c
istr 4 "'allows flexibility in tneir implementation. For'c
istr 5 ''assistance in using this model please refer to the'c
istr 6 =' accompany ing user' s manual and related documentation. 'c

do 1 1=1,6
call pcs (i+7,13,istr{ij)
continue

call pcs (20,20, 'Please respond to queries as indicated. 'c)
call pcs (24, 25, 'Press any key to continue'c)
call setcyr (vy.vx)
i pse~key_getc 0

call eeop (5,0)
call pcs 9, 20, 'Refer any specific questions regarding'c)
call pcs 10,20, 'operation of this program to:'c)
call pcs 12, 30, 'Vikratn Widge'c)
call pcs 13, 30, 'ICF Incorporated'c)
call pcs 14,30/9300 Lee Highway 'c)
call pcs 15, 30, 'Virginia 22031-1207'c)

-------
ARCM AMD.FOR
                           Wednesday  May  24,  1989   12:00  AM
                                                                        Page 2
   81
   82
   83
   84
   85
   86
   87
   90 c
   91
   92
   93 c
   94 c
   95
   95
   97 c
   98
   99
  100
  101
  102
  103
  104 101
  105 10
  108 c
  107
  108
  109
  110
  111
  112 c
  113
  114
  115
  116
  117
  118
  119
  120
  121
  122
  123
  124 c
  125
  126
  127
  128
  129
  130
  131 o
  132
  133 c
          call  pcs  (17,30,'(703)  934-3000'c)

          call  pcs  {24,25,'Press  any key to continue'c)
          call  setcur (vy,vx)
          ipse=key_getc()

          call  eeop (5,0)
          call  pcsa (12,25,'  Initializing...  'c.vrev)
          call  setcur (vy.vx-1)

          call  sinit
          call  asbin
          bam{36)  =  0
          bam(37)  =  0
          do  10 n  =  1,  byrs
            ix = byear(n)  -  baseyr •
           do 101 nn = 36,  37
              if ((isban(ix.nn)  .eq
                if {ban(nn)  .eq.  0)
              endif
           continue
          continue
                           i) .and.  (.not. exnpt(nn)}) then
                          baw(nn) = ix
          if  (cstyr .ge.  maxO(faaro(38),bam{37)))  then
            iacap  = 1
          else
            iacap  = 0
          endif

          if  ((option  .ne.  1)  .and.  (iacap .eq.  0))  then
  write
  write
  write
  write
  write
  write
  write
  write
  stop
endif
                        "this version is for declining substitute prices'
                        "and currently does not support non-ban options'
                        'when after-market brakes have not been banned*
                        'aftermarket bans —
                        'cap start year
',  bam(36),  bara(37)
',  cstyr
          do 1492  1=1,np
           if {(cprat(i) .It.
            write
            write
            stop
          endif
                    1) .and, (cprat{i) .ne. -1.)) then
              'this version is for declining substitute prices'
              'and currently does not support exports'
         this-section transforms data from year of data (ibyd) to specified
         baseyear, and calculates quasi-rent perpetuities by  including the
         reformulation cost perpetuities.
          onsub{i)=nsub(1)

134 1492  continue
135 c
136 c	
137 c~
138 c
139 c
140 c
141 c
142 c"
143 c
144
145
146 c
147
148
149
150
151 c
152
153 c
154
155 c
156
157 c
158
159
160
            do 310 1=1,np
              implnf (f )"• false.

            •  if (cprat(i)  .eq. -1) then
                cprat(i}=l
                Inipinf (1)».true.
              endif

              if (cprat(i)  .gt. 1) epq(l,1)=epq(l,i)*cprat{i!

              bbpq(i)=epq(l,1)

              fqe(1)=fqe(l)+epq(1,i)*awt(1)

              idif=baseyr-ibyd
              do 357  ij=l,idif
                if (y .It.  15) then

-------
ARCM_AMD.FOR                 Wednesday May 24. 1989  12:00 AM                       Page 3
161
162
163
164
165
166 357
167 c
168
169 c
170 310
171 c
172 c
173 c
174
175
17S
177 c
178
179
180 c
181
182 c
183
184
185 4838
186 c
187
188
189
190
191 c
192
193
194
195
196 c
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205 c
206
207 c
208 468
209 c
210
211
212 c
213 c
214
215 c
216
217 c
218 c
219 o
220 c
221 c .
222 c
223 c
224 1111
225 c
22S
227
228
229 c
230
231
232 G
233
234
235
236 c
237 3001
238 c
239
240
,ig=ij
else
ig=15
endif
epq(l,1)=epq(l, t)*(l+grthrt(i, ig}}
continue

bepq(l, i)=ep£|(l, i)

continue



s1ope=fpe(l)/(se1ast*fqe(l)3
rints5fpe{l}~slope*fqe(l)
if (selast ,eq. 1) rint=0

bbfq=fqe(l)
fqe(l)»0

yr=l

do 4638 1=1, np
fqe(l)=f£te{l}+epq(l,1)*awt{i)
continue

afpe=fpe{l)
fpe(l)=rint+slope*fqe(l)
If (baseyr ,eq. ibyd) fpe(l) <* afpe
if (fpe(l) .gt. afpe) go to 44444

do 468 i=l,np
aepp(i)=epp(l, 1)
epp(l, i )=(fpe(l)-afpe)*awt(i J*epp(l, 1}
bepp{l, t)*epp(l,i)

if (rcost(i) .gt. 05 then
qrareaf i)=ccost{ i;*epq(l, 1)-*-rcost(i}
avc{ i)=epp(l, i)-(qrarea(i)/epq(l, i);
elseif (ccost(i) .gt, 0) then
avc ( 1 ) =epp ( 1 , i ) -ccost ( i )
else
go to 468
endif

swqr(i)=l

continue

bfpe(l)-fpe(l)
bfqe(l)=fqe(l)


call adjust

yr=2



this section modifies the product demand curves annyally.



cio 300 1=1, np

do 3001 j=l,onsub(i)
a=(l+fd1scrt **ns{i,j)
b=(l+fdiscrtj**naii)

if (ns(i,j} .ne. na(i))
aps(yr, i , j}=aps(yr% i , j)*(a/b}*(b-l)/(a-l)

if (aps(yr,i,j) .It. aepp(i)) then
aps(yr,i,j)=aepp(i)
endif

continue

if (onsub(ij ,eq. 1) then
ps(yr,i,l)=aps(yr,i,l}

-------
ARCM_AMD,FOR                 Wednesday May 24,  1989  12:00 AM                       Page  4



  242         else
  243           insub=0
  244           do 201 j=l,onsubO)
  245             do 2011 k=l,1nsub
  246               if (aps(yr,i,j)  .eq.  ps(yr,i,k))  then
  247                 ms (i, kj =nts (i ,k)+ams(i, j)
  248                 go to 201
  249               endif
  250 2011        continue
  251 c
  252             insub=insub+l
  253             psfyr,i,insub)=aps(yr,i,j)
  254             ms(i,insub)=ams(i,j)
  255 201       continue
  256 o
  257           nsub(i)=insub
  258 c
  259           do 4631 j=l,nsub(i)-l
  260             do 46311 k=j+l,nsub(i)
  261 c
  262                 if (ps(yr,i.j)  .eq. ps(yr,i,k})  then
  263                   call eeop  (5,0)
  264                   call setcur  (12,0)
  265                   write (*,*)  '    PRICES OF SUBSTITUTES STILL EQUAL'
  266                   write (*,*)  '    YEAR:',baseyr+yr-l,'  MARKET:',idp(i)
  257                     		  '  '  '
  268
  269
  270
  271
  272 c
  273
  274
  275
  276
  277
  278
  279
  280 c
  281 46311
  282 4631
  283
  284 c
  285 462     count=0
  286         do 4621 j=»l.nsub( i)
  287           c0unt=couDt-Hns{ i, j)
  288           1nsub(i,j)=.false.
  289           if (swqr(i)  .eq. 1)  lnsub(i,j)=.true.
  290 4621    continue
  291 c
  292         if {(count  .It. 0.999999)  .or.  (count .gt.  1.000001)) then
  293           call eeap (5,0)
  294           call setcur  (12.0)
  295           write (*,'(5x,2a,12,a,f14.7,a,14)') 'MARKET SHARE(S) OF ',
  296      -    'SUBSTITUTES IN MARKET '.idp(i).' ADD TO '.count,  ' IN YEAR
  297      -    yr+baseyr-1
  298         •  call setcur  (22,0)
  299           stop
  300         endif
  301 c
  302 300   continue
  303 c
  304 o
  305       if (option  .eq. 3) then
  306         optn(yr) = 3
  307       elseif (cstyr .eq . 0)  then
  308         optn(yr) = 1
  309       elseif {yr  .ge. cstyr-baseyr+i) then
  310         optn(yr) = 2
  311       else
•  312         optn(yr) = i
  313       endif
  314 c
  315       option = optn(yr)
  316 c
  317       qcap(yr)=cjcapm(yr)
  318 c
  319       do 400 i»l.np
  320 c












write *,*) '
write *,*} '
call setcur (22,
stop
endif
if (ps(yr,i,j) .gt
pternp=ps(yr, i , j)
enrtemp=ms ( i , j )
ps yr,i,j)=ps(yr,i
n?s i , j}=n)s{ i ,k)
ps yr, i,k)=ptenjp
ms i,k)=erntemp
continue
SUBSTITUTES :',j,k
PRICES:', ps(yr,i, j),ps(y
0}


. ps(yr,i,k)J go to 46311


-k)



continue
endif



-------
ARCH AND.FOR                 Wednesday May 24, 1389  12:00 AM                       Page 5
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
34i
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
cur bsetpepq{l, 1 )
do 1002 ig=baseyr-ibyd+l,yr
c
if (ig .gi. 15) then
igj-15
else
igj=ig
end if
c
cur bsaq=cur bseq*{l+grthrt(i , igj))
4002 continue
c
da 4001 j=l,nsub|i)
qs(yr, i, j)=cur bseq*ms(i, j)
if (j . eq. 1) fhen
qsl(yr,i,j}=qs(yr,i,j.)
else
qsl(yr.i, j)=qsl{yr,i,j-l)-Hjs(yr,1,j)
end if
4001 continue
c
rq=qsl(yr, i ,nsub(1}}
if (rq .eq. 0.) swqr(i)=0
c
if (swqr t) . eq. 1) then
qrarsa i ) =ccost ( i ) *rc[+rcost ( i )
end if
c
c **** engineering control cost calculation ****
c
if (rq ,ne. 0} ecost{i)=(feoost(i)+vecost{i)*rq}/rq
0
if {(option .eq. 2) .and. exmpt(idp(i))j then
if (qcap(yr) .eq. 0) then
qcapm(yr)=qcapm(yr5-t-(awt(i)*qsi(yr,i,nsub(i)))
else
qcap(yr)=qcap{yr)-{avrt(i)*qsl(yr,i ,nsub(1)}}
c
if (qcap(yr) .It. 0) then
call eeop (5,0)
call setcur (12,0)
write (V{lOx,a.14//n 'MODIFIED FIBER CAP <
'YEAR ' ,baseyr+yr-l
write (*/(2(10x,a,fl3.7/})'} 'INPUT CAP
'MODIFIED CAP =








































0 IK '//

'.qcapmCyr),
'.qcaptyr)
write {V(/10x.a,12)') 'ERROR AT EXEMPTED PRODUCT '#' ,
idp(i)
call setcur (22,0)
stop
endif
c
endif
endif
400 continue
c
call iddc (0)
call tddc (0)
call eqpq
if (afpe .ge. fpe(yr)) go to 2222
c
44444 iyr=yr-*-bassyr-l















  382       call eeop (5,0)
  383       call setcur  (12,0)
  384       write (*.'(ISx.a//)')  'BASELINE FIBER PRICE >  '//
  385       -                       'DATA  YEAR FIBER PRICE'
  386       write (*,'(10x,a,14,a.fl4.7/)'). 'Baseline fiber price  for
  387       -                                 iyr,' =  ',fpe(yr)
  388       write (*,'(10x,a,i4,a,f!4.7)')  'Data year (',ibyd,
  389       -                                ') fiber  price  =  '.afpe
  390       call setcur  (22,0)
  391       stop
  392 c
  393 c
  394 2222  bfpe(yr)=fpe(yr}
  395       bfqe(yr)=fqe(yr)
  398       do 210  i=l,np
  397         bepp(yr,iJ=eppfyr, i)
  398         bepqfyr,i)=epq(yr,i)
  399 c
  400 c  setting price of exports  equal to baseline pries.

-------
ARCH AMD.FOR
                    Wednesday May 24,  1989  12:00 AH
                                                                        Page 8
  401 C
  402
  403
  404
  405 c
  406 210
  40?
  408
  409
  410
  411
  412
  413
  414
  415
  416
  41?
  418
  419
  420
  421
  422
  423
  424
  425
  426 c
  42?
  428
  429
  430
  431
  432 c
  433 49261
  434
  435 4926
  436 c
  437
  438 c
  439 c ***
  440 c
  441
  442
  443
  444
  445 c
  446
  447
  448
  443
  450
  451 c
  452 2339
  453
  454
  455
  456 c
  457 8888
  458
  459 c
  460
  461
  462
  463 c
  464
  465
  466
  46?
  468
  469
  470
  471 c
  472
  473
     if (cprat(i) .It.  1) then
       ps(yr,i,nsub(i))=bepp(yr,i)
     end if

   continue

adjustment of fiber demand curve to reflect export
markets' last step adjustment.
                                               .or.
                                              .and.
 if  ( enf  .or,  Ibf)  .and,
       (option  .eq.  1)  .and.^ibchk  .gt. yr)]
       option  .eq. 2)  .and.  (.ibchk  .gt. yr)
       qcap(yr)  .gt. 0))  .or.
     (  option  .eq. 3)  .and.  (qcap(yr)  .gt.  0})}) then
  call enlbl
  call  iddc  (1)
 end if

** SUPERIMPOSING AFTERMARKET ADJUSTMENTS *****
   do 4926 1=1,np
     if {(idpfl) .eq. 36)
       do 49261 j»l.nsufa(i
         qs{yr,
                         or.  (idp(1>  .eq. 37)S then
                        i
              ~j)=amq(yr; idp(i))*ms(iT j)
         if U
           qsl(yr
         else
           qsl(yr
         end if

       continue
     end if
   continue

   call iddo (0)
              eq.  1)  then
                i,j)=qs(yr,i,j)

                i,j)=qsl(yr,i,j-l)+qs(yr,i,j)
   call tddc (1)
   if (option .eq. 3) go to 2339
   call bancsqr
   call eqpq

   if (option .eq. 1) then
     if {fpe(yr)  .eq. 0) fpe(yr)=rint
     call aronban
     go to 8888
   end if

   capr=.false.
   call fpc!234
   call fppfpq
   if (exfj call exempt
   yr=yr+l
   if (.not.(yr
              .gt.' ie))  go to 1111
   call benout
   call asbout
   call pcsa (15,38,
                    completed *c,vrev)
    if (fname(3)  .ne.  'Iptl') then
    call pcsa (18,15,'TO PRINT OUTPUT FILE '//
               fname{3)(l:1enoh(fname(3)))//' ENTER'c.vbold)
    call pcsa (19,15. "'PF ARCH  7/fname(3)(l:1ench(fname(3)})//
               "'AT THE UOS PROMPT, 'c.vbold)
    endif
    call setcur (22,0)

    stop
    end

-------
ADJUST. FOR
1 c
2 c
3 c
4 c
5 c
6 c
7 c
8 c
9 c
10 c
11 c •
12 c
13 c
14 c
15 c
16 c
17 c
_
Wednesday Hay 24, 1989 12:00 AH pa


ARCM : AFTERMAKET ADJUSTMENT DUE TO OEM BAN
(used only with arcm_amd.for)

Version 7,1 : Hay 24, 1989.

Program written by:

Vikram Widge, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207




 19 c   Adjustment of Aftermarket due to OEM ban and calculation of OEM  losses

 21 c~~     ~	~	
 22       subroutine adjust
 23 G
 24 {include;'vars.cmn'
 25 c
 2f       real      arejfny, 36:37), oemqfny, 18:19), amadjfny, 36:3?)
 27       Integer   oem(18:19S
 28 c
 29       cornmHi/araq/airtq
 30       coirnion/arnadj/aniadj
 31 c
 32 c
 33 o ***** regular baseline development for OEM and A/M *****
 34
 35       do 10 1=ltnp
 36 c
 37         if ((idp(i) ,eq. 18) .or. (idp(i)  .eq.  19}) then
 38           oanq(l,idp(i))=bepq(l,i)
 33           do 20 iy=2,endyr-baseyr+l
 40             igj=baseyr-ibyd+iy~l
 41             if (jgj .gt. 15) igj=15
 •J*             oemq(iy.idp(i))«oenKi(ty-ltidp{1))*(l-t-grthrt{f.igj))
 43 20        continue
 44         end if
 45 c
 ff         ^  ((idp(i)  ,eq. 36) .or.  (idp(i)  .eq.  37)) then
 47           amq(l.idp(t})=bepq(l,i)
 48           do 30 iy=2,endyr-baseyr+l
 49             igj=baseyr-ibyd+iy-l
 50             if (igj .gt. 15) igj=15
 =i ,„          amq(iy.1dp{1))=amq(1y-l,idp(i))*(l+grthrt(1,1gj))
 52 30        continue
 53         endif
 54 c
 55 10    continue
 56 c
 57 0  *****  base]ine adjustment  for A/M  due  to OEM  bans *****
 58 c
 59       oeiti(18)=Q
 60       oem(19)=0
 61 c
 62       do 40  M.np
 63         do  60  lyz.endyr-baseyrtl
 84 c

 ff           1f.iU^P(P  ;e3- I8'  -or-  (Wp(0  -eq.  19))  then
 °f             ^ ((swban(iy,i)  .eq. 1)  .and. (oem{idp(i))  .eq. 0))
 01      ~       oem(idp{i))=iy
 68 c
 69             amacjj(iytidp{i)+18)=0
 70  c
 71              if  (oem(idp(i))  .eq. 0) go to 40
 72 G
 73              if  (iy  .ge.  oens(idp{i))+4) then
 74                atemfi=0
 75                if {(i3ban{fy,1dp(1)+l8) .eq. 1)  .and.
 76      -             [.not. exmpt(!dp(i)+18))) go  to 40
 77 c
78               do 50 k=l.iy-oetn(1dp(i)}
79                 if (k  .eq. 4) then
80                   atemp=aemq(iy-4,idp(i))*0.9?7

-------
ADJUST,FOR                   Wednesday May 24, 1389  12:00 AM                       Page 2


   81                 elseif (k ,eq, 8} then
   82                   atemp=atemp+oeraq(iy-8,idp(i))*0.839
   83                 elseif (k .eq. 12} then
   84                   atemp=atemp+oernq{ iy-12, idp{ i ))*0.451
   85                 endif
   86 50            continue
   87 c
   88               amq(iy,idpfi)+18)=amq{iy,idp{i)+18)-atemp
   89               amadj(iy,idp{i)H8)=atemp
   90 c
   91               if (amqfiy, idp(i}-<-18} .le. 0) then
   92      •           call pcs (15,10,'aftermarket qty. < or = O'c)
   93                 call setcur (17,10)
   94                 write (*,51)  'year',iy+baseyr-1,'mkt.',1dp(i)+18,
   95      -                      'a/m qty.',amq{iy,idp{i)+18)
   9651              format (tll,a,2x,14,3x,a,2x,i2,3x,a,2x,fl0.1)
   97                 cal-1 setour (20,0)
   98                 stop
   99               endif
  100             endif
  101           endif
  102 60      continue
  103 40    continue
  104 c
  105       return
  106       end

-------
ARBANJW.FOR                 Wednesday May 24,  1989  12:00 AM                       Page  i
    2 c
    3 c
    4 c     ARCH :  CALCULATION OF AREAS UNDER BANS ONLY
    5 c            (version of aronban.for used with arcm amd.for)
    6 c
    ? o     Version 7.1 :  May 24, 1989.
    8 c
    9 c     Program written by;
   10 c
   11 c        Vikram Widge,  1CF Incorporated,  9300 Lee Hwy.,  VA 22031-1207
   12 c        (703)  934-3000
   13 c
   14 c	
   IS c
   16 c
   17 $1arge
   18 c
   19 e
   20 c
   21 c                   This subroutine calculates tha CS gains
   22 c                   and PS losses when only bans take place.
   23 c
   24 c    -——_	  —   ~-	—	—	-	———   —-
   25 c
   26       subroutine aronban
   27 c
   28 $ include:'vars.cmn'
   29 c
   30       real       araadj(ny,38:37)
   31       common/amadj/amadj
   32 c
   33       pedif=bfpe(yr)-fpe(yr)
   34       area2(yr)=pedif*fqe(yr)
   35       area4(yr)=0.5*ped i f*(bfqe(yr)-fqe(yr))
   36       do 230 1=1,np
   37         if  (swban(yr.i) .eq.  1)  go to 230
   38         area5(yr» i) = (epp(yr,1)-bepp(yr,i)}*epq(yr,i}
   39 c
   40         if  (Sidp(i)  .eq. 35)  .or. (idp{i)  .eq. 37)) then
   41          atemp=0
   42          do 10 j=l.nsub(1)
   43             atenip=aterap+amadj{yr, idp( i) )*ms(i, j)*(ps(yr, i, j)-bepp(yr,
   44 10       continue
   45
   46 c ***** areaS is a  gain here and so is a  negative entity *****
   47           area5(yr»i)=area5(yr,i)+aterap
   48         endif
   49 c
   50 230   continue
   51       return
   52       end

-------
AREAS678.FOR                 Wednesday May 24, 1989  12:00 AM                       Page 1


    I c	
    2 c
    3 c
    4 c     ARCH :  CALCULATION OF AREAS 5, 6, 7 AND 8
    5 c
    5 c     Version 7.1  : May 24, 1989.
    7 c
    8 c     Program written by:
    9 c
   10 c        Vikram V/idge, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c	
   14 c
   15 c
   18 Slarge
   17 c
   18 c	
   19 c
   20 c               This subroutine calculates AREAs 5, 8, 7, and 8.
   21 c	
   22 c
   23 o
   24       subroutine arsa5678  (f)
   25 c
   26 $ include:'vars.cmn'
   2? c
   28 c
   29       area5(yr,i)=(fpp(yr,i)-bepp{yr,i)}*fpg(yr,i]
   30       if {{fpp(yr,i} .gt. bepp(yr.i))  .or. (fpq(yr.i)  .eq. 0)} then
   31         call sarea6 (i)
   32       end if
   33       if (swqr(i)  .ne. 1) return
   34 c
   35.       if (fppflag(i) .eg. 1) then
   36         dif=tfpp(i)-avc(i)
   37       else
   38         dif=bepp(yrti)-avc(i)
   39       end if
   40 c
   41       if ((qcap(yr) .eq. 0) .or. (fpq(yr.f)  .eq. 0)) then
   42         area7(yr,i)=Q
   43         do 90 j=l,nsub(i)
   44           if (.not.(lnsub(i,j))) go to  90
   45           area8(yr,i)=area8(yr,i)+dif*gs{yr,i,i)
   48           area8plyr,i)=area8p(yr,i)-Kiif*qs{yr,i,j)*{l/fd1scrt-l)
   47           lnsub(i,j)=.false.
   48 90      continue
   49         swqr(i)=Q
   50         return
   51       end if
   52 c
   53       do 100 j=l,nsub(i)
   54         if (.not.{1nsubi1rj)))  return
   55         if (fps(ij) .gt. pf(yr)) then
   56           area7(yr,i)=area7(yr, i)-Klif*qs(yr,ir j)
   57           go to 100
   58         elseif (fps(1,j)  .eq. pf(yr))  then
   59           if (j .eq. 1) then
   60             area7(yr,i)=dif*fpq(yr,i)
   61           else
   82             area7(yr,i)=area7(yr,i}+dif*(fpq(yr,i)-qsl(yr,i,j-l))
   63           end if
   64           areaB
   65         elseif
   66           areaS
                   yr,i)=area8{yrfi)+dif*(qsl(yr,i,j)-fpq(yr.i)}
                   fps(1?J) .It. pffyr)} then
             	 yr,i)*area8{yr,i)+chf*qs{yr,i,j)
67           area8p(yr, i)=area8p{yr,i)+dif*cis(yr, i, j}*{l/fd1scrt-l)
68           lnsub{1,j)«.false.
69           if (j .eq. 1) swqr(i}=0
70         endif
71 100   continue
72 o
73       return
74       end

-------
AS8IN.FOR                    Wednesday May 24, 1989  12:00 AH                      Page  1


    1 c		
    2 c~~
    3 c
    4 c     ARCH :  USER AND DATA INPUT
    5 c
    6 c     Version 7.1 :  May 24, 1989.
    ? c
    8 c     Program written by:                                     •
    9 c
   10 c        Vikram Widge, 1CF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   11 c        (703) 934-3000
   12 c
   13 c	
   14 c
   IS c
   16 Sinclude:'stdsub'
   17 $1arge
   18 c
   19 c                     	           	
   20 c— -                      :                     •   —      -
   21 c             This subroutine accepts data from user interactively
   22 c             and reads data from Input files,
   23 c	
   24 c
   25 c
   26 c
   27       subroutine asbin
   28 c
   29 linclude:'stdvar'
   30 $inc1ude:'vars.cmn'
   31 c
32 o
33
34 o
35
36 c
37
38
39
40
41 c
'42
43 c
44 C

real

integer

character
_
-
-

logical



taps{25, im,ks),sub_dec(ks}

pid(10),beyr

res , dstr I *65 , dstr2*52 , dstr4*40 , cst r2*60 ,
cstr3*60 , f str 1*60 , f str2*53 ,dstr5*4Q ,dstr9*68 ,
dstr7*65 , dstr8*54 , dstrO*65 , fst r3*60 , nyc*4 , nzc*4 ,
f str4*53 , pnnl*6Q , prm2*65 , cqc *10

ccap


   45 c
   46 c              this section obtains the inputs from the operator.
   47 c	
   48 c
   49 c
   50       call eeop (5,0)
   51       call pcs (7,10.'Three regulatory scenarios are supported '//
   52      -               'by this program'c)
   53       call pcs (10,25,'1. SAN OF PRODUCTS ONLY'c)
   54       call pcs (12,25,'2. SAN OF PRODUCTS AND AN 'c)
   55       call pcs
   56       call pcs
   57 5550  call pcs
13,25,'      ANNUAL FIBER CAP'c)
15,25/3.  ANNUAL FIBER CAP ONLY'c}
19,22,'Enter i of option dssired V
   58       option=ichk (1,3)
   59       if (option .eq. -9999) go to 5550
   60       if (option , eq, 1) cstyr=0
   61 c
   62       call eeop (5,0)
   63       call pcsa (8,28,' SIHULATION PERIOD 'c.vrev)
   64 5551  call pcs (12,20,'Please enter BASE year MM'c)
   65       basayr=ichk (-993,-999)
   66       if (baseyr .eq. -9999) go to 5551
   67
   68 5552  call pcs (14,20,'Please enter END year  MM'c)
   69       endyr=ichk (baseyr+1,-999)
   70       if (endyr .eq. -9999) go to 5552
   71       call eeop (22,0)
   72 c
   73 c     if (endyr .le. baseyr) then
   74 c       call pcsa (22,15,' £NO YEAR SHOULD BE GREATER THAN 8ASE YEAR
   75 c    -             vrev)
   76 c       go to 5551
   77 c     endif
   78 c
   79       ie=endyr-baseyr+l
   80       if ((endyr-baseyr) ,gt, ny-1) then

-------
ASBIN.FOR
Wednesday May 24, 1989  12:00 AM
Page 2
81
82
83
84
85
86 c
87
88
89 c
90 4780
91
92
93 c
94
95
96
97 46921
98 4692
99 c
100 47801
101
102
103
104 o
105
106
107
108
109 22
110 c
111
112
113
114
US
116 c
117
118
119
120 c
121
1-22
123
124 9571
125 957
126 c
127
128
129 c
130
131
132
133 c
134
135
136 55
13f 44
138 33
139
140 c
141 4922
142 c '
143
144
145 4923
146
147
148 c
149 415
150
151 c
152
153
154 c
155
156
157 c
158
159 c
160 416
write (nyc, ' ( i2) ' ) ny
call pcsa (22,15,' THIS PROSRAM SUPPORTS A SPAN OF '//nyc
' YEARS 'c.vrev)
go to 5551
endif

ccap=, false.
f nairie{ 1 ) = ' eaperm . dat '

if ({option .eq. 1) .or. (option .eq. 2}) then
call eeop 5,0)
call pcsa 8,28,' PRODUCT BAN SCHEDULE 'c.vrev)

do 4692 iyy=l,ny
do 46921 ixy=l,io
isban{ iyy, ixy)=0
continue
continue

call pos (12, 5, 'Enter the number of years in '//
'which bans will take place MM'c)
call yr chk (byrs,Q,22)
call eeop (9,0)

do 22 n=l,byrs
write (nyc, '(12)') n
call pcs (12,15, 'Enter ban year #'//nyc(l:2}//' MM'c)
call yr_ehk (byear(n),l,22)
continue ~

ibchk=99
call eeop (9,0)
do 33 n=l,byrs
beyr=byear ( n ) -baseyr-t-1
call nprd_ehk (iban,22, 'b',byear(n))

if (iban .eq. 99) then
ibchk^beyr
byrs=n

do 957 lra=l,ip
do 9571 n=beyr,ie
isban(1l,lm)=l
continue
continue

go to 4922
endif

call eeop (9,0)
do 44 nn=l, iban
call tsca (nn.nban, 'fa',12)

do 55 ll=beyr,1e
isban(11,nban)=l
continue
continue
continue
endif

if (option .eq. 1) go to 996S

call eeop (5,0)
call pcsa (8.28.' FIBER CAP SCHEDULE 'c,vrev)
call pcs (11,5, 'Please enter fiber end amount (tons) MM'c)
endanrt=rchk (OdO,-999dO)
if (endanrt .eq. -999i.} go to 4923

call pcs (13, 5, 'What year will phase down start? MM'c)
call yr_ehk (cstyr,l,14)

call pcs (15,5, 'What year will phase down terminate? MM'c)
call yr_chk (cendyr,2,16)

iss = cstyr - baseyr +• 1
ise = cendyr - baseyr •*• 1

if (ccap) go to 4777

ierrl=0

-------
ASBIN.FOR                    Wednesday May 24, 1989  12:00 AM                       Page 3
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
open (1 , iostat=ierrl
if (ierrl . 1e, 0) go
call file chk (0,1)
f 11e=fnatne(l) .status* 'old')
to 418

call pcs Tl 7, S, 'Please enter name of file containing '//
'annual fiber caps and permit value'c)
call pcs (18,5, 'allocation tannage. '//
'(Include path if necessary) NM'c)
call cchk (fname(l))
call eeop (22,0)
go to 416
c
418 read (1,*) (qcapm(i)
do 66 n = ise, ie
qcaptn(n) = endamt
66 continue
c




i = iss, Ise - 1)




4792 if (option .ne, 2) go to 4583
c
do 4582 i = iss, ie


if (qcapm(i) .ne. 0) go to 4582
icby " i •*• baseyr •
- 1
do 45821 n = 1, byrs
if {icby .gt. byear(n)) go to 45821
call eeop Ts,0)
call pcsa (8,3, '

YOU HAVE SPECIFIED PRODUCT BANS FOR '//
'YEAR(S) AFTER FIBER CAP GOES TO ZERO 'c.vrev)
write (nyc, "(14)
call pcs (10,10,
call pcs (12,10,
-
) icby
Fiber cap goes to zero in '//nyc//' 'c)
One or more products have been banned '//
in the following years: 'c)
call setcur (14,0)
write (*.'{tl5,4(5(14,3x)/))') (byear( j) , j=l,byrs)
call pcsa {20,8,
-
close (1)
call pcs (24,25,
YOU WILL BE PROMPTED FOR BAN AND '//
FIBER CAP SCHEDULES A6AIN 'c.vrev)

Press any key to continue 'c)
call setcur (vy,vx)
ipse = key §etc{)
go to 4780
45821 continue
4582 continue •
e
4583 cstr2='
ostr3=' Year
call eeop (5,0)




'c
Fiber Cap Amount (tons)lc

call pcsa (5,28,' FIBER CAP SCHEDULE 'c.vrev)
call pcs 6,13,cstr2
call pcs 8,13,cstr3
call pcs 9,13,cstr2
call setcur (11,0)
c





if (cendyr .eq. endyr) then
ix = ie
else


ix = cendyr - baseyr
endif
c
33 = 10
c




write (nyc, '(14)'} baseyr +1-1
write (cqc, '(alO) ')'
c
No Cap

if {baseyr + 1 - 1 ,eq. cstyr - 1) then
call pcs (11,22, nyc//' 'c;
call pcs (ll,vx+18
33 * 11
else
cqc//' 'c)


call pcs (ll,22,nyc//'-'c)
write (nyc, '(14)') cstyr-1
call pcs (ll.vx.nyc//' *c)
call pcs (ll.vx+13
33 = 11
endif
0
do 838 i = iss, ix
cqc//' 'c)




3 = J3 + i + i - iss
c

if (1 .gt. 9 + iss) then
call more
j = 20



-------
ASBIN.FOR                    Wednesday May 84,  1989  12:00 AM           •            Page 4
241
242 c
243
244
245
246
Z4? 836
248 c
249
250
251 c
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264 c
255
266
267
268
269
270 c
271 4775
272
273 c
274 4777
275
276 4778
277
278
279
280
281 7777
282 c
283
284
285

-------
ASBIN.FQR                    Wednesday Hay 24,  1989   12:00 AM                       Page  5


  321       i=ichk (0,9)
  322 c
  323       if (i .eq.  -9999) call  pty_chk (0,*9876)
  324       if (i .eq.  0} go to 9877
  325 c
  326 98761 call DCS (23,10,'Enter  new allocation  for '//
  327      -     perm(i)(i:lench(perm(i)))//'  MM'c)
  328       paloc(i)=rchk (QdQ,-999dO}
  329       if (paloc{i)  .eq. -9999.)  go to 98761
  330
  331       write (nyc,'(i2)') 1
  332       call pcs { H-9,13,nyc(l:2)//'.  V/penn(1)//'  'c)
  333       write (cqc,'(f10.21')  paloc(i)
  334       call pcs (vy,vx+6,cqc//' *c)
  335       go to 9876
  336 c
  337 9877  call eeop (23,0)
  338 2469  call pcs (23,10,'Enter  # of parties to whom  permits  are  to  '//
  339      -                'be allocated MM'c)
  340       ires=ichk (1,9)
  341       call eeop (24,0)
  342 c
  343       if (ires .eq. -9999) call  pty chk  (1,*2469)
  344 c
  345       call eeop (23,0)
  346       do 998S 1=1,10
  347         pflag(1)=0
  348 9965  continue
  349 c
  350       do 99651 11=1,ires
  351         write (nyc,'(
-------
ASBIN.FOR                    Wednesday Hay 24, 1989  12:00 AM                       Page  6
401
402
403 c
404
405
408
407
408
409 c
410 8682
411
412
413 56921
414 5692
415 c
416
417 c
418
419
420 '
421
422
423 c
424
425
426
42?
428
429 522
430 c
431
432
433
434
435
436 o
437
438
439
440 c
441
442
443
444 59571
445 5957
446 o
447
448
449 c
450
451
452
453
454
455 555
456 544
45? 533
458 c
459 c
460 8684
4S1
482
463
464
465 c
466 8688
467
468
463 66921
470 6692
471 c
472
473 c
474
475
476
477
478
479 o
480
enf=. false.
lbf=. false.

call eeop (4,0)
call pcsa (8,28.' ENGINEERING CONTROLS 'c,vrev)
call pcs (12, 5, 'Do any products have engineering controls '//
'put on them? (Y/N) MM'cJ
call ynchk S*8682,*8684)

do 5692 iyy=l,ny
do 56921 ixy=l,ip
enctl(iyy, 1xy)=. false.
continue
continue

enf=.true.

call pcs (14, 5, 'Enter the number of years in which '//
'engineering'c)
call pcs (15,5, 'controls will be put on products HM'o)
call yr ehk (ienyrs, 0,16)
call eeop (9,0)

do 522 n=l, ienyrs
write (nyc, ' (12) ' ) n
call pcs (12, 15, 'Enter CONTROL year #7/nyc(i:2)//" MM'c)
call eeop (14,0}
call yr_chk (enyr(n) ,1,14)
continue

ienchk=99
call eeop (9,0)
do 533 n-1, ienyrs
ienyr=enyr(n)-baseyr+l
call nprd_chk (ien,14, 'e',enyr(n))

if (ien .eq. 99) then
ienchk=ienyr
i enyrs=n

do 5957 lm=l,1p
do 59571 ll=ienyr,ie
enctl( Tl,lm)=.true.
continue
continue

go to 8684
endif

call eeop (9,0)
do 544 nn=l, ien
call tsca (nn.nen, 'e1 ,12)
do 555 ll=ienyr,1e
enctl(n,nen) = .true.
continue
continue
continue


call eeop (4,0)
call pcsa (8,28,' PRODUCT LABELING 'c.vrev)
call pes (12, 5, 'Do any products have labels '//
'put on them? (Y/N) MX'c)
call ynchk (*8688,*8695)

do 6692 lyy-l.ny
do 66921 txy-l.lp
labelflyy, 1xy)». false.
continue
continue

lbf=.true.

call pcs (14, 5, "Enter the number of years in which'//
' label ing 'c)
call pcs (15,5, 'requirements will be introduced MM'c)
call yr chk (11yrs,0,16)
call eeop (9,0)

do 622 n-l,ilyrs

-------
   A^B^N  £"DR
        '                       Wednesoay May 24,  1989   12;QO AM                       D    d
                                                                                     r 3C[@ O


    561      ~      'used'c
    -3 62       ti ^ 1" r it-• *    *   D     *     ?
    S63       Hcfrt;!'    T" !.frcentags of foreign  fiber  supply'c
    ZCA       astra-    2. tiasticity of fiber  SUDD!V>

    565 c         9= Y°U HAVE ENTERED AN ^ACCEPTABLE PERCENTAGE'S

    566       fsup=91.60

    ^f 7       se!ast*l,46
    30O C

    569 8629  call  eeop  (4,0)

    571 c     Cal1  PCSa  '8'30'' MISCELLANEOUS 'c.vrev)

    572       call  eeop  (9,0)

    f/3       call  pcs (10.8,dstr7
    3/4      call  pcs   !2,8,dstrO

    i?fi «fi?oi "•-  PM   13<8'dstr7f
    3/6 86291 can  pcs (15,8 dstr4}

    578       Til8 
-------
                               Wednesday  May 24,  1989  12-00 AM
                                                                                    Page  3

     341
    £42       ,f
                    e  ^-  V)
    643         ,bg;:i  "q-   L  S  'or-  (res  -ei.  T)) then

    645       e1f^4(reS  '«»•  'M'^  •<»•• (res .eq. V))  then

    647       ^gr^  'eq'  >H''  'or- <"" -eq. V))  the,
    648       e)se

    ccn         9° to 7784
    "0       endif
    651 c




    1,

    o57      call eeop  (4,0)

    «f SCR,  ca,'| P«a  (8.28.'  INPUT  FILES  'c.vrevj
    659 S661  call pcs  (12,5,fstri)          c.vrev;
    660      call pcs  (13.5.fstr2)
    661       call cchk   fname(2)j
    662       call eeap  (14,0)
    o63 c
    664       ierr2=Q



   667       call  file chk"(0,2?°

   II c      9°  t0 666T
   670

   671 6662   call  pcs fl5,S,fstr3)
   672       call  pcs (I6.5,fstr4
   |73       ca  1  cchk (fname(4}}
   674       call  seop (17,Oj

   676       ierr4=0
   677             / A


   f?9       can file chk'{0t4f° *
   680       go to 666?
   681 c
   682 6664  call eeop (40)

  683 ^     call pcsa (8,28.' OUTPUT OPTIONS 'c.vrev)

  635       if {option .eq,  l) then
  oiJo        cresf=0
  S87        go to 7799
  688        end if
  689  c

  |J      _ca11 pcs (12,5/Would you  like a printoyt of the
  coy         -,,     ,,  /*   consistancy cheek  (Y/fO MM'cl
  o||        call  ynchk  (  7781,*7782)           i""/ nfi i-;

  694  7781   cresf=l
  695       go to 7799
  696 c
  697  7782  cresf=Q
  698 c

  5?? 7799  call  pcs (14,5,'Would  vou  like
  / fifl       «-. If 1  ..__!_;. /•*-"»••*,* j__	* .   *lf\e
 702 7791     dprf=l
 703         go to 6660
 704 c
 705 7792     dprf=0
 706 c

 708 666°  call [S  lM'Md y°U Hke  the  Emulation output'c)

 7091924  Sg  gl^i^SS8^ *»•'"*«• "4.?'?i
          call cehfc

                                         or
711 c

^       "fiiBairV?.''  -or-
n*         go to 1929

nl       elgoe1tf0(!9le  -eq-  >D'!  'or- (res
?17       else
718         go to 1924
719       endif
720 c

-------
Wedrtesoay Hay 24,  1989   12:00  AM
Page 10
721
722
723
724
7ZS
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
7S4
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
7S5
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
I9ZS
1927





c





c
1929
2927





c





c
2929
3927





c





c
3929
4927





c





c
4929


c
c
c
c
c
c
c

c

2125

c


c




call eeop (9,0)
call pcs (12,5, 'Please enter name of file where simulation '//
'output 'c)
call pcs (13,5, 'should be stored. (Include path if '//
'necessary) MM'c)
call cchk (fname(3)3
call eeop (14,0)

1err3=Q
open (3,f i le=fname{3) , iostat=ierr3,status='new' )
if (ierr3 . le. 0) go to 1929
call file chk (1,3)
call ynchk" P1929,*1927)

call eeop (9,0)
call pcs (12, 5, 'Please enter name of file where BASELINE '//
'indices'c)
call pcs (13, 5, 'should be stored. (Include path if '//
'necessary,) MM'c)
call cchk (fname(8))
call eeop (14,0)

ierr8=0
open (8,f 1 le=fnanie{8) , iostat=ierr8,status='new')
if (ierrS . 1e, 0) go to 2929
call file chk {1,8)
call ynchk" (*2929,*2927)

call eeop (9,0)
call pcs (12,5, 'Please enter name of file where ALTERNATIVE '//
'indices'c)
call pcs {13,5, 'should be stored. (Include path if '//
'necessary,) MM'c)
call cchk (fname(9))
call saop (14,0)

ierr9=0
open (9,f i le=fname(9) , iostat=ierr9,status='new' J
if {ierr9 .le. 0) go to 3929
call file chk (1,9)
call ynchk" (*3929,*3927)

call eeop (9,0)
call pcs (12,5, 'Please enter name of file where cost-benefit '//
'TABLES" 'c)
call pcs (13, 5, 'DATA should be stored. (Include path if '//
'necessary,) MM'c)
call cchk (fname(6)).
call eeop (14,0)

ierr6=0
open ( 6 , f i le=f name ( 6 ), iostat= 1srr6 , status* ' new ', f onn= ' unformatted ' )
if (ierr6 .le. 0) go to 4929
call file chk (1,6)
call ynchk" (*4929,*4927)

call eeop (4,0)
call pcsa (12,25,' Processing... 'c.vrev)
call setcur (vy,vx-l)



this section reads the input data files



read (2,*) fpe(l),fd1scrt.ifayd

i=l
read (2, '(i2,2xPa24)',end=213Q) idp(1),desc(1)
read (2,*J idp(i),awt(i) ,ccost(i) ,rcost(i),epp(l, i) ,eoq(l, 1),
na(i).cprat(l),feoost(1),vecost(i)( lcost(i)

ccost{ i )-(ccost( 1)/0. 04)*fd1scrt
rcostj i )={rcost{ f )/0. 04)*fdiscrt

if (ibgr .eq. 1) then
read 2,* 1dp{i),(grthrt(i,k),k=l,15)
read 2,*
read 2,*

-------
 ASBiN.FQR
  801
  802
  803
  804
  805
  805
  807
  808
  809
  810 c
  811
  812
  813
  814 c
  815
  816
  817
  818
  819
  820 21241
  821 2124
  822
 823
 824
 825
 826 21231
 827 2123
 828
 829 c
 830
 831
 832
 833 2126
 834
 835
 836 c
 837 2130
 838  o
 839
840
841
    c
                    Wednesday May 24,  1989   12:00  AM


  elseif  (ibgr  .eq.  2)  then
     read  (2,  )

     read  (2'    1dp(i)'(3rthrtn.k},k=l,15)
  else
     read  (2,  )
     read  2,
     read  (2,  )  idp(1),(grthrtfi,k),k=l,15}
  endjf                                  '

 /ead (4,*)  idp(1)fnsub{i),(taps(l.t.j).ns(1.j),
                                                                                   Page U
            if  fmultsub)  then
             do  2124  j=l,nsub(i)
842
843
844
           do 2126  ik=l,ny
             if  {{isban(ik,idp(i)j
                swban(ik,i)=l
           continue
           i = i+l
           go to 2125
          close (l
          close h
          close (4
             continue
           else
             do 2123 j*l,nsub{1)
               do 21231 iy»l,ie
                 aPs{iy,i,j)=taps(l,j,j)
               continue
             continue
           endif
                              1)  .and.  (.not.  exntpt(idp(i})}}
return
end

-------
ASBOUT.FOR
                             Wednesday May  24,  1989   12;QQ  AM
                                                                                   Page
    4  c
    5  c
            ARCH :  OUTPUT SUBROUTINE

            Version 7.1
8 c Program written by:
j| ° y^rn?"1 W'd9^' ^CF incorporated, 9300
12 c
13 c
14 c~ 	 	 — 	 	 • 	 	 — 	
15 c
16 Sinclude: 'stdsub'
17 $large
18 c
19 o
Lee Hwy., VA 22031-12Q7

                  This  subroutine writes the output to a file or printer
          subroutine asbout
  20
  21 c
  22 c
  23 cf
  24 c
  25
  26 c
  27 $ include:'stdvar'
  28 linclude:'vars.cmn'
  L.y C
  30
  31  c
  32       character

  34 c

  35 ^     character^!) bstri,bstr2,pstri,fstrl,csi,cs2,CS3,pQ.pl,p2
  37 c
 38
 39
 40
 41
 42
 43
•44
 45 c
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53 c
 54
 55
56
57
58
59 c
60 c
          real
                       Ps1(t0},csl{i0},alt(ny),a3t(ny),v(l0),r(l0)
                                                              *4,
          if (option .eq,  1)  then
            opt= Prodyct ban  only*
          eisejf| (option .eq.  2)  then
                         an  and  annual fiber
           opt='Annual  fiber  caps onlv'
         endif

         if (ibgr  .eq.  1) then
           bopt='Low Decline'
         elseif {ibgr .eq. 2) then
           bopt= Moderate decline'
         else
           bopt='High Decline'
         endif
if (fname(3j
  pgbrk='1'
else
  pgbrk='  '
endif
                      .eq. 'Ipti') then
61 c
62 c
63 c
84 r —
65 c
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75 c
76
77
78 o
79
80
this section divides all areas by 1,000

do 8893 yr * 1
alt(yr| = 0.
a3t(yr) » 0.
do 88931 j =
areaS yr,j
areaS yr,j
area? yr.j
areaB yr.j
area8p(yr,v

ie

1, np
s areaS
= area§
= area?
= areafl
} =* areaSf




yr,j
yr.j
y,j
Yr.j
>(yr».




/ 1000.
/ 1000,
/ 1000,
•) / looo.'
if (option eq 1) go to 88931
if Uswfaan(yr,j) .eq. 1) .or. e>opt(.1dp{j))) go to 88931
a3t I Vr ) — a3tiVrl 4. flyeaaCt ,
-------
ASBOKT.FOR
                             Wednesday May 24,  1989   12:00  AM
                                                                                    Page  2
     31
     82
     83
     84
     85
     86
     87
     88
     89
     90
     91
     92
     93
     94
     95
     96
    97
    98
    99
   100
   101
   102
   103
   104 c
   105
   106
   107 c
   108
   109
   110
   111
   112
   113
   114
   115
   118
  117
  118
  119
  120 c
  121
  122
  123
  124 c
  125
  126
  127
  128
  129
  130
  131
  132
  133
  134
  135
  136
 137
 138
 139
 140
 141
 142
 143
 144
 145
 146
 147
 148 c
 149
 150
 151
 152
 153
 154
 155
 156
157
158
159 c
160 103
      88931
     8893
     continue
       areal(yr) = areal(yr) / 1000.
       area? yr) = area2fyri / iOQQ.
       area3(yr) = araa3(yr) / 1000.
       area4(yr) = area4(yr) / 1000.
       areap(yr) = areap(yr) / 1000.
   continue
                          this section writes the suimary output

           fmt
           fmt
           fmt
           usl=
      12
      14)='
      15)='
     /12x,a5,lx,fl4.2,lx,fl4,2)'
     2x.a25.15x.fl2.2.1x.fl2.2,lx,fl2
     /2x,a25.28x.fl2.2,lx,fl2.2)'
          call getdat ( iyr, imon, tday)
          call gettim ( Ihr, Imin, isec, ilOOth)
          IT  (iday  ,ge, 10) then
          aiwrite (dstr.'(2(12,lh/),14n imon, iday, iyr

                  {dstr,'(i2,2h/0,U,lh/,i4)'} iraon.fday, iyr
          If (Imin ,ge.  10) then
            write (tstr.'(12.1h:fi2)') ihr.imin
          else
                         (12-2h:0-»)')  ihr.imln
          call  pcsa  (12,36.'  completed  'e.vrev)
          call  pcsa  (15.23,'  Writing  output...  'c vrev)
          call  satcur  (vy,vx-l)                 c.vrav;

          open  (3,fi1e=fname{3
                                                   pgbrk
    ic    in\   '"•""= iu/ <' "' "i" unronnaiiea
    (fname(3)  ,eq.  'Iptl'}  write (3,'{a)r
 ipage=0
 call  header (0)
 write
 write
 write
 write
3,'
3,'
l::
(/7x;J19,lx,a/)') 'Regulation Option ;'  opt
7   in ,     ,( I 'Beginning Year     '  '
7x,al9,lx,,4/H 'Ending Year
7 'a}Hx'f^V) 'Baseline Growth
                                                          ,fc»aseyr
                                                          ,endyr
         fsup=fsyp 100.
         dsup=dsup*100.
         write
         write
         write
       3|'
       3,'
    /7x.a,f7.2/)''
    7x,a.f6.1,a/)!
    7x,a,f6.1,a/j'
         bstrl='
         if  (opt
                 Elasticity of  fiber  supply  :'tse)ast
                foreign  fiber  supply       ;'  fsup  •«(
                 Domestic fiber supply       :',dsup  '«
      it ion 7eq. 3J go to 20IT  ~~	~~	—
      |3,'{//7x,a/)') 'PRODUCT BAN SCHEDULE'
      "ti 'flfar ?/ !fn  .      fSCA Product Nos.'
      = ilinti7X'             X'a/)>) bstrl-bstl>2.bstrl

do 10 n*i,byrs
  \l {^hk .eq.  99)  go  to 103
  if {ibchk  eq.  byear(l)-baseyr-i-l) then
    golo ||nsi''(22x'i4'13x.a^') bywr(n),'A11 Products

  elself  (ibchk .eo.  byear(n)-baseyr+l) then
    write (bansl,'(22xrf4,13x,a)')  byear(n),
    go to 10S                      
-------
Wednesday May 24, 1989  12;00 AH                       Page 3
151
162
163
164 c
165
166
16?
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180 1011
181
182
183 101
184
185
186
187 10
188 c
189
190 c
191 105
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206 1051
207
208
209 c
210 102
211
212 c
213 c
214 200
215
216
217
218
219
220 c
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231 c
232 203
233
234
235
236 c
237
238
239
240
ix=byear(n)-baseyr-t-l
ic=0
f lagl=0

do 101 nn=l, ip
If {(isban(ix,nn) .eq. 1} .and. {.not. exmpt(nn) ) } then
tempi=bansl
if (flagl .eq. 0} then
write (temp, '( 12) ' ) nn
bans IstercpU 1:39) //temp
Hagl=l
else
write (temp, ' (a, \Z\) ' ',',nn
bansl=templ(l:41+ic*3 //temp
ic=ic-t-l
end if

do 1011 m=ix, ie
isban(tn,nn)=0
continue

endif
continue

write (3, '(a)') bansl
i 1 ine=i Hne+1
continue

go to 102

write (3, '(a)') bansl
1 1ine«1 line*!
write (bans2, '(40x,a)') 'except'
ic=0
do 1051 1=1, ip
temp2=bans2
if (exmpt(1)) then
if (ic .eg. 0) then
write (tamp, '(a, i2) ') ' ',i
else
'write (temp, '(a. 12)') ', ', i
endif
bans2=temp2{l :46-Mc*3)//temp
ic=ic+l
endif
continue
if (ic .gt. 0) write {3, '(a)1) bans2
i11ne*f line+1

write (3,'(15x,a//)'} bstrl
i 11ne»i line+3


if (.not.(ertf)) go to 703
if (iline .gt. 50) call header (0)
write (3,'(//7x,a/)') 'ENGINEERINS CONTROLS SCHEDULE'
bstr2=' Year of Control TSCA Product Has.'
write {3,'(15x,a//.15x,a/f15x,a/D bstrl.bstr2.bstn
iiine=nine+7 '

do 70 n-l, ienyrs
if (ienchk .eq. 99) go to 203
if E ienchk .eq. enyr(l)-baseyr+l) then
write (bansl, '{22x, 14, 13x,a\}'} enyr(n),'All Products '
go to 702
elseif (ienchk .eq, enyr(n)-ijaseyr+l) then
write (bansl,'(22xr14,13x,a)') enyr(n),
'All Remaining Products '
go to 702
endif

write {bansl, '(22x, 14)') enyr(n)
ix=enyr{n) -basayr+1
ic=0
f1agl»0

do 701 nn=l, ip
if (enctlt ix,nn)) then
templ=bansl
if (flagl .eq. 0) then

-------
4SBOUT.FOR
                             Wednesday May 24.  1989  12:00 AH
aage 4
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249 c
250
251
252
253 7011
254 c
255
256 701
257 c
258
259
260 70
261 o
262
263 c
264 702
265
266 7021
267
268 c
269 703
270
271
272
273
274
275
276 c
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287 c
288 503
289
290
291
292 o
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305 c
306
307
308
309 9011
310
311
312 901
313
314
315
318 90
317 c
318
319 c
320 902
write (temp, ' ( 12 j ' ) nn
bansl=templ(i:39)//temp
f lagl=l
else
write (temp, ' (a, 12\5 ') ',',rm
bans l=tempi(l:41+ic*3) //temp
ic=ic+l
end if

enctl(Q,nnS=.true.
do 7011 tn=ix, ie
enct 1fra,nn) = , false.
continue

end if
continue

write (3, ' (a) ' ) bansl
t line*! 1 tne+i
continue

go to 7021

writs (3, '(a) ' ) bansl
i 1ine=i line+1
write (3, '(15x,a//)') bstrl
i line=i line+3

if .not.(lbf)) go to 903
if (option ,ne. 3) .and. enf) call header (0)
if nine ,gt. 50} call header (0)
write (3,'(//7x,a/)') 'PRODUCT LABELING SCHEDULE
bstr2=' fear of Labeling TSCA Product Nos.
write {3,'(15x,a//,iSx,a/,15x,a/n bstrl, bstr2,
11ine™i line+7

do 90 n=l , i lyrs
if fikhk .eq. 99) go to 503
if {ikhk .eq. lyrflj-baseyr+l) then
write (bansl, '(22x,14,13x,a\)'j lyr(n),'All
go to 902
elseif (ikhk .eg. 1yr(n)-baseyr+l) then
write (bansi/(22x.i4,13x,a)1) lyr(n),
'AIT Remaining
go to 902
end if

write (bansl, '(22x,i4)') lyr(n)
ix=1yr(n)-baseyr+l
ic=0
flagl=0

do 901 nn=l,ip
if (label{ix,nn)) then
templ=bansl
if (flagl .eq. 0) then
write (temp, '(i2) ') nn
bansl =templ ( 1 : 39 ) //temp
flagl-1
else
write (temp, '(a,12\)') ',',nn
bansl=templ(l:41+ic*3j//temp
ic»ic+l
end if

]abel(0,nn)=.trye.
do 9011 m=ix, ie
label(m,nn)s>. false.
continue

end if
continue

write (3, '(a) ') bansl
iline»iline+i
continue

go to 9021

write (3, '{a)') bans!































'
r
bstrl




Products



Products





































-------
  ASBOUT.FOR
                              Wednesday May 24,
                                                                                     Page  5
   321
   322 9021
   323
   324 c
   325 903
   326
   327
   328
   329
   330
   331
   335
   336
   337
   338
   339 21
   340
   341
   34Z
   343
   344
   345
   346
   347
   348 c
   349 c
   350
   351
  352
  353
  354
  355
  356
  357
  358
  359
  360
  361
  362
  3fi3
  364
  365
  368
  367
  368
  369
  370
  371  45
  372
  373 47
  374
 375
 376 o
 377
 378
 379'
 380
 381
 382
 383
 384
 385
 386
 387
 388
 389
 390
 391
 392
 393
 394  20
 395 c
 396
 397
398
399
400
    i i ine=n 1 ine-i-1
    write  (3.'(15x,a//)') bstrl
    i line=i line-t-3

    write  (3,'(5(/),7x,a)') 'PRODUCT EXEMPTIONS'
    ic*0
    do 21  i=l,1p
     templ=bansl
     if (exmpt(i)) then
       if (ic .eq. 0)  then
         write (temp,'(12)')  i
         bansl='  '//temp(I:Z)
       else
         write (temp,'(a,12)')  ',  '  j
         bansl=templ{l: ic*4)//teaip{l:4)
       end if
       ic=ic+l
     end if
   continue
   if (ic  .at. 0)  then
     write C3,'(/lQx,a/)')  ;rhe following products have been '//
  else
    write  (3,'(/10x,a/)') 'No products have been exempted '//
     ,.,                   'from regulation'
  if (option .eq. 1} go to 300

                       1' header f°)

                           8£R PERMIT ALLOCATION0 (by9?onnage)'
                           '15x'a/)<                      9  '
  aloc^O
  i p i d=0
  If {pflag(lO)  .eq.  1}  then
    JJJ'g g.'(lSx.2a.7x.a)')  'I.  ' ,perm(10) , 'ALL'
  end if
  do 45  i=l,9
    if  (pflag(i)  .eq. 0) then
     paloc(i)=0
     go to 45
    enoif
    ipid=ipid+l
    write (3.fmt(5)J  ipid. '. ', penn{1) ,paloc{i)
    a ioc=a1oc+paloc(i)
    1 11ne=1
 continue
 i 1irte=i line+4
 if (iline .gt. 25) call header (0)

 *r1te_(3,'(//7x,a/)') 'FIBER CAP SCHEDULE'

 write (3  '(/10^a/10x,a/10x,a//}'}1'TheCfiber°clJrschedu1e  '//
       rshovm below is the effective  cap  ','schedule   iT   '//
"writ* il  'nfS mn ,'"c]u* fbaseyr+l,ix
  if  (1 .It. cstyr} then
    write  {3,'{20x,14.19x,alO)')  i/  No Cap  '
  else
  endiftS  (3>'(20x'i4'19x'f10-2)') 1,qcap(1-baseyr+l)
continue
if tcendyr ,ne. endyr) then
  write (3,'(20xJ4,a.i4,14x,fl0.2)'J
enoif
writs (3,'{15x,a)') bstrl
if {.not.(capr)) go to 300
cendyr,'-',endyr,endamt

-------
AS80UT.FOR
                             Wednesday May 24, 1989
                                           !:00 AM
                                                                         Page 6
  401
  402
  403
  404 c
  405 300
  406
  40?
  408
  409
  410
  411
  412
  413 3001
  414
  415 c
  416
  41?
  418
  419
  420 c
  421
  422
  423
  424
  425
  426
  427
  428 c
  429
  430
  431
  432
  433
  434
  435
  436 c
  437
  438
  439 c
  440 310
  441 c
  442 c
  443
  444
  445
  446
  447
  448
  449
  450
  451
  452
  453
  454 c
  455
  456
  457
  458
  459
  460
  461 o
  462
  463 c
  464
  465
  466
  467
  468
  469
  470
  471 c
  472
  473 o
  474
  475
  476
  477
  478
  479
  480
 write (3.'(5(/),5x,2a/,5x,2a)}')  'Note: Fiber cap schedule
-'revised during model  run to','       ensure that cap is ',
-'binding in all years,'

 ca 11 header (1)
 write (3/(t20,a)')  'DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT CATEGORIES'
 if (pgbrk ,eq.  '!')  write (3,'(a,t20,a)'} '+',
 write (3, '(/5x,a//13x.a,25x,a/5x,a/J '] usl, 'TSCAI",
        'PRODUCT DESCRIPTION',usl
 do 3001  1=1,np
   write  (3,'(15x,i2,27x,a)')  icipS i) ,desc(1)
 continue
 write (3,'(5x,a/) '}  usl

 do 310 j*l,np
   bamn(j)*'  '
   if (exmpt(idp(j)))  bartm(j) = 'X'
   if (swban(ie.j)  ,eq.  1)  banm{j)='B'

   if (enctl(Q,idp{j)))  then
     if (banm(j)(l:l)  .eq.  ' ')  then
       templ='  I'
     else
       templ=',E'
     end if
   end if

   if (Iabe1(0,idp(j))}  then
     if (banm(j)(l:l)  ,eq.  ' ')  then
       temp2='  L'
     else
       tenip2»r,L'
     end if
   end if

   temp»ban0i( j)
   banm{j)='  '//temp(1:1)//tempi(1:2)//temp2(1:2}

 continue
write (6) nodrt
do 346 i=l, nodrt
dcsl=Q
dps 1=0
fcsl=0
fps1«0
do 30 j=l,np
dcons( j)»0
dpros( jj=0
fcons(jl=0
fpros( j}=0
do 301 yr=2, ie
areaSd a area5(yr,j
area6d = area6{yr,j
area7d = area7(yrtj
areaSd = area8(yrtj
arSpd = area8p(yr,j)












/ (1 + discrt
/ (1 + discrt
/ 1 + discrt
/ 1 -i- discrt












i
\
•j
i
71+ discrt(i)
                                                   yr - 1
                                                   yr - 1
                                                   yr - 1
                                                   yr - 1
                                                  {yr - 1

      cons = areaSd +  areaSd

      if  (Coptn(yr)  .eq.  1)  .and.  (cprat(J)  .It.  1)  .and.
          (areaSd  .It,  0})  then
        dcons(j) = doons(j) +• cons *      cprat(j)
        fcons(j) = foons(j) •*- cons * (1  - cprat(jj)
      else
        dcons(j) = dconsfj) +• cons
      end if

      pros = area7d +  areaSd  + argpd
1 ! \ \Up
fpros
elseif
dpros
fpros
else
dpros
ai^jy , ct| . 4 ,aiiM. imi
j) = fpros(j + pros
cprat(i) .gt. 1) then
jj = dprosTj) + pros /
j) = fpros(j) + pros *
j) * dpros(j) + pros
inn \ Ji j
cprat(j)
(1 - 1 /
Wi ICi!
cprat(j)}

-------
ASBOUT.FCR
                             Wednesday May 24, 1989  12:00 AM
                                                                      Page  ?
  481
  482 C
  483 301
  484 c
  485
  486
  487
  488
  489 30
  490 c
  491
  492
  493
  494
  495
  498
  497 c
  498
  499
  5QO c
  501
  502
  503 c
  504
  SOS c
  506
  507 c
  508
  509 c
  510
  511 40
  512 c
  513
  514 c
  515
  516
  517
  518 c
  519
  520
  52i
 ,522
  523
  524
  525
  526
  527
  528
  529
  530
  531
  532
  533
  534
  535'
  536
  537
  538
  539
  540
  541
  S42
  543
  544
  545
  546
  547
  548
  549
  550
  551
 552
 553
 554
  555
  556
  557
  558
  559
  550 c
    end If

  continue

  dcsl  =des1 + dcons(j)
  dps!  =dps1 + dprosfjj
  fcsl  =fcsl + fconsjj'
  fpsl  =fps) + fprosu
continue
fmcs  = dcsl + fcsl + dpsl +• fpsl
fmdcs = dcsl + dpsl
fmps  =0.
fmdps ~ 0,
pval  = 0.
do 40 yr = 2, ie

  areald = arealfyr) /  (1 + discrtM
  area3d = area3(yr) /  (1 +• discrt(i
  araa2d = area2{yrj /
  area4d = area4(yr) /
                         1 •*• discrtf1
                         1 +• discrtf i
  areapd = areap(yr) /  (i -f- discrt(i)]

  fiaps » fmps +• area2d + area4d

  if (optn(yr) ,eq. 1} go to 40

  pval = pval •»• areapd
continue

fmdps = fmps * dsup / 100.

discrt(i) = discrt(i) * 100.
call tabagg fl,discrtf f), fines, fmps, pval)
call tabagg i2,discrt(i),fmdcs,frodpstpval)

write (3, '(a)') pgbrk
ipage=ipage+l
** (yr - 1)
** (yr - 1)

    yr- 1
    yr - 1

   (yr - 1}
write
write
write
write
3, '
3, '
3, '
3 '
tB4,2a
tS4,2a
t64,a,
t28,a)
if (pgbrk .eq. 'i
write (3,'(//t3Q,
if (pgbrk .eq. '1
)') 'Date: ',
}') 'Time; ',
i2/)') 'Page:
*
*
a

*
write (3,*
') 'WELFARE
write (3, '
dstr
tstr
', ipage
TABLE 2'
{a,t26,llx.
EFFECTS BY
(a,t30,a)')




a)1) '+
PARTY'
'+' (
write (3,'(/tlS,2a,f47T7a77)*j '(Present Va lues, in thousand  ',
                          'dollars, at  ',discrt(i),' Percent)'
pO=	'//

pi-

p2=

psl
psl
psl
psl
osl
csl

Party
Allocation Nat Loss'

Permits'
1 =fmps*dsup/100.
2 =fmps*fsup/100.
4 =dpsl
5 =fpsl
8 =dcsl
9)-fcs1

CS Loss PS Loss '//

of '//







zero=0.
usw=0
write (3,'{//2x,a//,2(4x,a/}f2xfa/}'
do 575 j-1,9
  if (pflag(lO) .eq. 1) then
    a 1oo«l
    paloc(j)=0
  endif
  peral=0
  if (option .ne.  1) then
    pera 1 =pva 1 *pa loc ( j ) /a loc
  endif
  rn l=cs 1 ( j 3+-psl ( j )+pera 1
                                      pO.pl, pZ.pfl
  if {(j .eq.  2) .or. (j .eq. 5) .or. (j .sq. 9)) go to 555

-------
ASBOUT-FOR
                             Wednesday Hay 24. 1989  12:00 AM
Page
561 555
562
563
564
565
566 c
567
568
569 c
570 575
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590 c
591
592 c
593 346
594
595 c
598 c
597 c
598 c
599 c
BOO c
601 c
502
603
604
605
806
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618 c
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627 59
628
629 c
630
831
632
533
634
635
636
637
638
639
640 c
if (J . le. 7) then
write (3,frnt(14)) perm( j) ,psl( j) ,pera l,rn I
else
write (3,fmt(3)) perm( j) ,csl( j) ,psl( j) ,pera I,rn1
endif

v(j)=peral
r(j)=rnl

continue
if (pflag(lO) .eq. 1) then
write (3,fmt(15)) penn{10) ,pval,pval
v 10}=pva1
r{iQ)=pval
usw=usw-»-pva1
ww=ww+pya 1
else
write (3,fmt(15)) perm( 10), zero, zero
v 1Q)=0
r 10)=0
endif
write (3,'(2x,a/)f) pO
write (3,'(4(/),t30,a)') 'NET WELFARE LOSSES'
if (pgfark .eq. V) write (3. '(a, t30, a) ')'+',
' '
write 3, ' {/72Qx,a,fl6,2V) '} 'U. S. Welfare: ',usw
write 3,'{20x.a,fl6.2//)') 'World Welfare: ',ww
write 3, '(///10x,a) ') 'Note; Negative entries are welfare '/
'gains. '

write (6) discrt(i), (csl( j),ps1( j) ,v(j),r( j), j=l,lQ).usw,ww

continue
if (cresf .eq. 0) go to 600



this section writes the consistency check



write (3, '(a) ') pgbrk
ipage=ipage+l
write 3,' tS4,2a)'} 'Date: \dstr
write 3.' t64,2a)'j 'Time: '.tstr
write 3,' t64,a,i2/)') 'Page: *,ipage
writs 3,'t26,a)'}' MODEL CONSISTENCY CHECK'
if (pgbrk .eq. 'I'} write (3, '(a,t26,a)') '+',
™ * '
write (3,* 	
csl=' S« of
' Sum of
cs2='Year AREA 1 = AREAs 5 & 7 AREA 3
'AREAs 6 & 8'
cs3=' (Fiber Mkt.) over output mkts. (Fiber Mkt.) '//
'over output mkts.'
write (3,'(//7x.a//,3{8x,a/),7x,a//)') usl.csl.cs2,cs3,usl

do 59 yr=2, ie
iyr=yr+baseyr-l
if (optn yrj .eq. 1) then
write (3,'(8x,14,2x.a)') lyr, '***** PHASEDOWN SCHEDULE '//
'NOT IN EFFECT ******
else
write (3,fnit(4)) iyr,arial(yr),alt(yr),area3(yr},a3t(yr)
endif
continue
write (3,'(7x,a//)') usl

y(9)='Note: 1. Banned and exempted markets are not included in
'Areas 6'
y(12)«' (oytput) or Areas 3 (fiber) as of the year of '
'ban for'
y{13}= purposes of the model >rs consistency check.*
y(lO}» 2, Differences in decimal places are due to '//
machine rounding.'
y(14)B 2. Difference in the consistency check is due to '
engineering'
y(15)« controls and/or labeling requirements.'




























/






















II

11
















'II

II




11




-------
AS8°UT-FOR                   Wednesday May 24.  1989  12:00  AM                       P    g
           •rite f3,'(/3(10x,a/)n y(9).y(l2).y(l3}
641
642 c
843       if (enf  ,0r,  Ibf)  then
644         «rite  (3/(2(10x,a/)n y{14),y{l5)
  645

  LI       en£lte(3/(10x,any(10)
  648 c
  649 600   if (dprf .aq.  1)  call  detout  (ie)


 1       endfnn(3)  'eq-  'lptF) Writs  f3«'W:
 653       dose (3}
 654 c
 655       return
 656    .   end

-------
BANCSQR.FOR          .        Wednesday May 24, 1989  12:00 AM                       Page 1
1 c
2 c
3 c
4 c
5 c
6 c
7 c
8 c
9 c
10 c
tl c
12 c
13 c
14 c
15 c



ARCH : CALCULATION OF CS AND QR LOSSES FOR BANNED PRODUCTS

Version 7.1 ; May 24, 1989.
Program written by:

Vlkram Widge, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hv»y., VA 22031
(703) 934-3000












-1207




16 $1arge
17 c
18 c
19 c
20 c
21 c
22 c
23 c
24
25 c



This subroutine calculates the CS and. QR losses in banned


subroutine bancsqr




markets.




26 Slnclude: 'vars.arm'
27 c
28 c
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 801
40
41 80
;42
43


do 80 i=i,np
if (swbanfyr, i) .eq. 0) go to BO
do 801 1=l.,nsub{i)
area6lyr,i)=area6(yr,i)+(ps(yr,i,j)-epp(yr,i))*qs(yr,i
if jswqr(i) ,rie. 1) go to 801
if (Insubd.j)) then
area8p(yr, i }=areaflp{yr, i )+(epp(yr, i ) -avc( i } )*qs(yr, i
fdiscrt
lnsub(i,j)=. false.
end if
continue
swqr(i)=0
continue
return
end





,3)

.j)/








-------
3ENOUT.FOR                   Wednesday May 24,  1989  12:00 AH                       Page  i


    I  c		
    2  c™:
    3  c
    4  e     ARCH :  BENEFIT MODEL INTERFACE ROUTINE
    5  c
    6  c     Version 7.1 :  May 24,  1989.
    1  c
    8  c     Program written by:
    9  c
   10  c        Vikrara Widge,  ICF Incorporated,  9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   11  e        (703)  934-3000
   12  c
   13  c   	  	,.:	^^^^^^^^^^^^
   U  c
   15  c
   16  $ large
   17  c
   18  c	
   19  c
   20  c     This subroutine writes the index files for yse in the Benefits Model
   21  c		
22 c
23 c
24
25 c
26 e
27
28 c


subroutine benout

ibp = maximum number of products for benefits routine
parameter (ibp=37)

29 Sinclude: 'vars.cmn'
30 c
31 c
32
33 c
34
35 o
36 c
37 ****
38 c
39
40
41 c
-•42
43
44 0
45
46
47
48
49
50 101
51 10


real bi(2:ny, ibp+l),ai(Z:ny, ibp-t-1)

integer ina(ibp)


if (idp(np) ,ne, ibp) return

open (8,f i 1e=f nameCS) )
open (9ff i ]e=fnarae(9)S

write (8, '{ i2,2(5x, i4)|'} ie-l,baseyr,endyr
write (9,'{12,2(5x,14)}'} ie-l,baseyr,endyr

do 10 ib=l, ibp
ina(ib)»0
do 101 ia=2,ny
bi ia, ib =0,
ai ia, ib =0.
continue
continue
   52 c
   53       do 5 i=l,np
   54         if (na{i) .It.  1.)  then
   55           ina(idp{i)H
   56         else
   5-7           ina(idp(i))<*na(i)+Q,5
   58         end if
   59 5     continue
   BO       write (8,'(37i3,a3)') ina,'   1'
   61 c
   62       do 20 ia»2,ie
   63         do 201 1b"l,np
   64 o
   55           bi(1a,idp(ib))=bepq{ia,ib)/bbpq(ib)
   66 c
   67           if (swbanUa.ib)  ,eq. 1) go to 201
   68           if (optn(ia) .eq. 1} then
   69             at(la.1dp(1b))-bl(1a,1dp(lb))
   70           else
   71             if ((qcap(ia) .eq. 0)  .and. {.not. exmpt(1dp(i})))
   72      -       go  to 201
   73             ai(ia,idp(ib))=fpq(ia,ib)/bbpq(ib)
   74           anclif
   75 c
   76 201     continue
   77 c
   78         bi(1a,ibp+l)»bfqe{ia)/bbfq
   79 o
   80         if (optn(ia) .eq. 1)  then

-------
3ENOUT.FOR
                             Wednesday May 24, iggg   i_2:OQ AM
                                                                         Page 2
   61
   82
   83
   84
   85
   86
   87
   88
   90
   91
   92
   93
   94
   95
   96
   97
   98
    aifia, ibp+J,)=fqe( iaj/bbfq
  else
    ai( ia, ibp+l)=qcapni( iaj/bbfq
  end if

  write  '8,'(38(f4.2,ix))'} (fai(1a.ib), ib=l.ibp+l)
  write  (9,'(38(f4.2,lx))') (ai(ia,ib), ib=l,ibp+1)
   89 20    continue
endfile 8'
sndfile 9
close (8
close (9

return
end

-------
                          Wednesday Hay 24, 1989  12:00 AM
                                                                                 page 1
 1 c
 2 c~
 3 c
 4 c
 5 c
 6 o
 7 c
 8 c
 9
10
11
12
          ARCH :  DETAILED OUTPUT SUBROUTINE

          Version 7.1 :  May 24, 1989.

          Program written by;

             Vikram Widge, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy..  YA 22031-1207
         .  	(.703.)..934-3000	,
               This subroutine writes  the detailed output  if requested
         subroutine detout
         character    bann*6,
         character*80 ffmt(4)
         logical       stars.
         y(D«'
              'Scenario'
         y(2)»'   Year
              'Quantity'
fmt
fnit
fffit
fmt
frat
fmt
ffmt
ffmt
ffmt
6)>
n-
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
         ffmt(4)-
 14 c
 15 c
 16 Slarge
 17 c
 18 c	
 19 c    ~
 20 c
 21 c	
 22 c
 23 c
 24
 25 c
 26 $ include;'vars.cmn'
 27 c
 28 c
 29
 30
 31
 32 c
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37 c
 38
 39
 40
 41
,42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48 o
 43
 50
 51
 52
 S3
 54
 55
 56
 5?
 58
 5§
 60
 61
 62
 63
 84
 65  c
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74  c
 75
 78
 77
 78
 79
 80  c
                    begn(2S*ii,  nf*20
                   pluss
                 Baseline

                 Price
          Baseline

          Quantity
                       Scenario

                        Price
             ,   '(12x,14,lx,f13.2,lx,f13.2,a!2,10x,a6)'
             7}»'(12x,i4rlx,fl3.2.1xffl3.2/lx,fl3.2,lx,flS.2)'
                   12x,14,ix.fl3.2.1x,fl3.2,10x.a3.2x,fI5.2)'
                   12x,i4,lx,fl3.2,lx,fl3.2,8x,a6,10x,a6)'
                   12x,i4.1Qx,a3,2x,fl3.2,10x,a3.2x,fi5.2)'
                   12x,14.1x,fl3.2,lx,fl3.2.10x,a3,lx,fl6.2)'
                   9x,i4Tlx,flO,2,lx1fl2.2,6x,a3,9x,a3,14x,a3}'
        9x,i4,ix,fl0.2,lx,fI2.2.1x,fl0.2.8x,a3.4x,fl4.2)'
        9x,14,lxrfl0.2,lx,fl2,2.lx.fl0.2,2xrfl0.2.3x,fl4.2)'
        9x.14.1x.fl0.2,lxffi2.2,7x,a3.9x,a3t4x,fl4.2)'
        do 70  i = l,rtp+l
          write (3,'(a)') pgbrk
           tpage^ipage-t-l
                "  ' t64,2a)')
                     t64,2s}'}
                     t64,a,i2/
                     //t28.a"
write (3,
write (3,'
write (3,'
write (3,'
if (pgbrk
                     .eq.  'I1
Date:
Time:
) 'Pac
         ,dstr
         ,tstr
             . ipage
  'PRICES AND QUANTITIES BY MARKET*
write (3,'(a,t28,a)r) '+',
          write (3,'(/t28,a//)T
                .eq. np+1) then
•if
                             (Undiscountea.valyes]
            y{3)=
                Baseline     Baseline
       ' Demand       Scenario'
       ' Year    Price       Quantity
       'Price        Quantity'
                      Scenario
                       Supply

                       Price
                                                                Scenario'
                      '(t33.2a)')  'Market:  ','Asbestos Fiber'
                      '(/7x,a//f3(8x,a/j,7x,a/S'3 ual,(y(k}.k-1.3}.ual
  write (3,
  write (3,
else
  write (3.'(t28,a,i2,2a)') 'Market:  '  1dp(i}.'. ',desc(1)
  if (exmpt(idp{i))) write (3r'(/t23,a)')
                     'This market is EXEMPTED from regulation'
  write (3,'(/7x,a//,2{8x,a/),7x,a/)') usl.y(l),y(2),usl
end if
                     np+1) then
                    ,ffmt(l)5 tjaseyr,fpe(l),f{?e{l),' -'
if (1 ,eg.
  write (3,
else
  write (3,frat(6)) baseyr,epp{l,i),epq(l,1),'-','
end if

-------
3E70UT.FOR
                             Wednesday May 24,  1989   12:00  AH
                                                                      Page 2
   81
   62
   83
   84
   85
   86
   87
   88
   89
   90
   91
   92
   93
   94
   95
   96
   9?
   98
   99
  100
  101
  102
  103
  104
  105
  106
  107
  108
  109
  110
  111 C
  112
  113
  114
  115
  116
  117
  118
  119
  120
  121
  122
  123
  124
  125
  126
  127
  128
  129
  130
  131
  132
  133
  134 701
  135 c
  136
  137
  138 c
  139
  140
  141
  142
 143
  144
 145
 146
 147
 148
 149
 150 c
 151 69
 152
 153
 154
 155
 156
 157
 158
 159
 160
 pluss  =  .false.
 do  701 yr=2,ie
   iyr=baseyr+yr~l
   if  (i  , eq.  (np+1))  then
     if  (fqe(yr)  .eq.  0)  then
       pluss  = .true.
       if  ({optn(yr)  .eq.  1)  -or.  (qcapm(yr)  .eq,  0))  then
        write (3,ffrnt(4)) iyr,bfpe(yrj .bfqe(yr),'+-H-','+++'.
                           fqe(yr)
      else
        write (3,ffmt(2)) iyr,bfpe(yr),bfqe(yr),pfl(yr),'+++'
                           qcapm(yr)
      endif
    elseif  (optrifyr)  .eq. 1)  then
      write  (3,ffmt(2))  iyr.bfpe(yr) ,bfqe{yr) ,fpe(yr),'  -  ',
                         fcje{yr)
    elseif  {qcap(yr}  .eq. 0)  then
      pluss  = .true.
       if  (qcapm(yr)  .eq.  0} then
        write (3.ffmt{4)) iyr,bfpe(yr),bfqe(yr), '-I-M-' ,'+++',
                           qcap(yr)
      else
        write (3,ffmt(2)) iyr,bfpe(yr),bfqe(yr),pfl{yr),'+++',
                           qcapm(yrj
      endif
    else
      write  (3.ffmt(3)}  iyr.bfpe(yr),bfqe(yr),pfIfyr),pf(yr),
                        qcapm(yr)
    endif
  endif

  if (i .le.  np) then
    stars =  .false,
    if (bepqlyr,1)  .eq. 0.) then
      write  (3,fitit(12)j  iyr, 'n/a',bepq(yr,1). rn/a',bepq{yr, i)
    elseif (swban{yr,ij  .eq,  I) then
      bann='Banned'
      write  {3,fmt(ll))  iyr.bepp{yr,i),bepq{yr,i),bann,bann
    elseif loptn{yr|  .ne.  1)  then
      if  {(fpq(yr,i)  .eq.  0)  .or.  ((qcapfyr)  .eq. 0}  .and,
          {.not. exmpt(idp{i})}}}  then
        write (3.fmt(lO)) iyr,faepp{yr,i),bepq(yr,i),'***',
                           fpq(yr.ij
        stars  =  .true,
      else
        write  (3,fmt(7))  lyr.bepptyr,1),bepq(yr,1),fpp(yr,f),
                          fpq(yr.i)
      endif
    else
      writs  (3,frat{7)) iyr.beppfyr,i),bepq(yr,i),epp(yr,i),
                       epq(yr.i)
    endif
  endif
continue

write (3f'{7x,a,4(/))') usl
 if (option .eq.  1) go to  69

 if { i .eq.   (np+1)) then
  write (3,'(/7x.2a)') 'Note  : 1.  Scenario price  is the fiber'
                       1  price plus the value of a permit.'
  write (3,'(/7x,a/19x,a/)')  '       2. Scenario Quantity  '//
    'includes  fiber demanded by',"exempted markets, if any.'
elseif (stars) then
        "   	    'Mote : "***" indicates either  ',
                           'scenario price is greater than'
                            maximum substitute price or  ',
                      'fiber cap is zero.'
write (3r'(///7x,2a)']

write (3,'(7x,2a)')
endif

if ((i .eq. (np+1)) .and. pluss) then
  if (option .eq. I] then
faegn
begn
nf«'
go te
elseif
begn
begn
nf«'
l)»'Note :
7x,a7,aj'
3 691
(endamt .eq
1) = '
2) = '
7x,alO,a)r
                      0) then
                    3.

-------
DETOUT.FOR
                             Wednesday May 24,  1989  12:00 AM
Page 3
161
152
163
164 c
165 691
S66
167 c
168
169
170
171 c
172 70
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
185
187
188
tag
190
191
192
193
194 c
195
196
197 c
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
21?
218
219 801
220 c
221
222
223 80
224 c
225
226
go to 691
endif
go to 70

write (3,nf) begn(l), '*'•»•++'' indicates either '//
'all markets have been banned or'

write (3,nf) begn{2},' fiber cap is zero and '//
'price is no longer meaningful."
endif

continue
y{3}=' Market Area S Area 6 Area 7 '//
' Area 8'
y 4}='(TSCA #}'
y 5)»'Note: 1. Areas 1-4 in the fiber market are listed under '//
'Areas 5-8. '
y{6}"' 2. Areas 6 & 8 include consumer and producer '//
'surplus losses for'
y{7)»' all banned, exempted, and non-banned markets, '//
'Hence, this is a'
y(8)=' complete accounting of all welfare effects,'//
The mode! '
y(ll)=' consistency check, however, is defined in terms'//
' of non -banned'
y(15)=' and non-exempted product markets and the fiber '//
'market. There-'
yUS}=' fore, to perform this check using the '//
'figures in this table,'
y{17}=' the welfare effects in the banned and '//
'exempted markets should'
y(18)»' be excluded. Refer to user''s guide for '//
'further explanation.'

fiwt{8)='(13x,i2,lx,fl5.3,lx,fl4,3,lx,fl4.3,lx,fl4.3)'
ftnt (9) = '(/13x, a5,lx,fl2.3,ix,fl4.3,ix,fl4,3,lx,fl4,3}'

do 80 yr=2,ie
iyr=baseyr+yr-l
write (3, '(a) ') pgfark
ipage-ipage+1
write 3, t64,2a ' 'Date: ',dstr
write 3,' t64,2a ' 'Time: ',tstr
write 3,* t64,a,i2/)') 'Page: ', ipage
write 3,' t30.a,i4)') 'AREAS 1-8 FOR '.iyr
if (pgbrk .eq. ' l')write(3, '(a,t3Qra) ') '•»•', '
write 3,'(/t29,a/)') '(Undiscounted Values) '
write (3.'(7x,a//,2(10xra/),7xra/)') usl,y(3),y(4).usl
do 801 i=l,np+l
if (i .eo. (np+l)l then
write (3,fuit(9)) 'Fiber ' ,areal(yr) ,area2(yr) ,area3{yr) ,
area4(yr)
endif
if ( i . le. np) then
pros=area8{yr , i j+area8p{yr, i )
write (3,fmt{8)) fdp( i J ,area5(yr, i) ,area6(yr, i) ,
area? (yr,i), pros
• endif
continue

write (3, ' 7x,a/)' ) usl
write (3,' 7x,a//,8(7x.a/))') (y{k),k=5,8),y(ll),(y(k},k=15,18)
continue

return
end

-------
cfJLBL.FOR
                             Wednesday May 24, 1989  12:00 AM
                                                                                    3age I
 i C
 2 e~
 3 c
 4 c
 5 c
 6 c
 7 c
 8 c
 9 c
10 c
11 c
iZ c
            ARC« :  ENQINEERiNG CONTROL AND LABELING COSTS CHECK

            Version 7.1 :  May 24, 1989.

            Program written by:

               Vlkram yidgs, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-120?
               (703) 934-3000
   13 c	
   14 c
   15 c
   16 $include:'stdsub'
   17 $ large
   18 c
   19 c 	
   20 c~
   21 c
   22 c
   23 c
   24 o
   25 c~
   26 c
   27
   28 c
   29 $include:'stdvar'
          This^subroutine checks to sea If the costs of engg.  control  and/or
          labeling added to the baseline price exceed the 1st  step  of  the
          product's demand function.
         subroutine enlbl
   30
   31
   32 c
   33
   34 c
   35 c
   36
   37
   38 c
   39
   40
   41
   42
   43
   44
   45
   46
   47
   48 c
   49
   50
   51 c
   52
   53
   54
   55
   56
   57-.
   58
   59
   60
   61 c
   62
   63
   64
   65
   66
   67 c
   68
   69
   70
   71
   72
   73
   74
   75 c
   76
   77
   78 30
   79
   80
   $ include:'vars.emn'
         character   rtyc*4
         istop=*Q
         n=0
         do 10
           temp=
       I, ftp
                                 temp*tefnp+1cost( 1
                               then
if  enctl(yr,idp(i
if  1abel{yr,idp(i
if  swqr(i)  .eq. 1
  temp=tenrp+avc{i)
else
  temp=temp+bepp{yr
endif
           if  (temp  .gt.  ps(yr,i,nsub(i)))  then
             if  (istop  .eg.  0)  then
              call  eeop  (4,0;
              write (nyc,'(14)')  baseyr*yr-l
              call  pcsa  (8,12,' BASELINE  PRICE/AVC  + ENSINEERIH6  '//
                 'CONTROL COSTS AND/OR  'c.vrev)
              call  pcsa  (9,12,' LAIELINS  COSTS  EXCEED FIRST  STEP  IN
                 'YEAR  7/nyc//' FOR:     'c.vrev)
              call  setcur  (12,0)
             endif

             if  (swqr(ij  .eq,  1} then
              tenip»avc{i)
             else
              tetnp=bepp(yr,i)
             endif
                                 Here to come...  \vrev)
                                 Press any key  to continue'.vbold)
  if (n .gt. 10) then
    call pcsa (22,12,'
    call pcsa (23,12,*
    ipse=key getc()
    call eeop (10,0)
    call satcur (12,0)
  endif

  write (*,30)  'Product ',idp(1),swqr(i),temp,ecost(i),lcost(i),
               ps(yr,i,nsub(i|)
  format (tl2,a,i2,t25J2,5x,4fl0.2)
  istop=l
endif

-------
iNLBL.FOR                    Wednesday May 24, 1989  12:00 AM                       Page 2
81 c
82 10
83 c
84
85
86
87
88 c
89
90

continue

if (istop .eq.
call setcur
stop
end if

return
end



1) then
(20,0)






-------
EQPQ.FGR
                             Wednesday Hay 24,  1989   12:00 AH
1 c
2 c
3 c


4 c ARCM : EQUILIBRIUM PRODUCT PRICES ANO QUANTITIES
5 c

6 c Version 7.1 : May 24, 1989,
? c
8 c Program written
9 c
10 c Vikram Widge

by:

, ICF Incorporated, 930Q Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
11 c (703) 934-3000
12 c
13 c
14 c
15 c
16 $1arge
17 c
18 c
19 c








20 c this subroutine calculates the equilibrium price
21 c &
22 c
23 c
24 c
25 subroutine eqpq
26 c
27 linclude: 'vars.cmn'
28 c
29 integer swpe
30 o
31 c
32 swpe=0
33 qerat=i . 0
34 do 90 1»l,nstd
quantity in the asbestos fiber market.













35 fpe(yr)=slope*tfqs(i)-»-rint
36 if ((fpe yr)
37 - (fpe yr)
38 fqe(yr =tfq
39 go to 91
40 elseif ({fpe(i
41 - {fpe(j
42 swpe=l
43 go to 90
44 endif
45 91 if ((fpa(yr)
46 - (swpe .eq
47 fpe yr)*tfps
48 fge yr)=(fpt
49 if i .eq. j
eq. tfps(i)) .or,
ge. tfps(Hl))) then
5(1}

fr) .It. tfps(i-t-l) .and.
fr] ,gt. tfps (1*2 )) than



gt. tfps(ij) .and.
1 )) then
s 1)
5 yr)-rint)/slope
then
50 qerat=fqe{yr)/tfqs(lS
51 else

52 qerat-(fqe(yr)-tfqs(1-l))/(tfqs(f)-tfqs(i-l))
53 endif
54 endif
55 90 continue



56 if (nstd .eq. 0) then
57 fpe(yr)=Q
58 fqe{yr)=0
59 endif
60 o
61 c
62 c






63 c This section translates fiber equilibrium price (fpe) to
64 c product market equilibrium price (epp) and quantity (epq).
65 c
66 c
67 c
68 do 150 1»1, np
89 if (fps(l.l) ,
70 qfe(yrti)=0
?! go to 151
11 else
73 do 1501 j=l,
74 if (fps(i.




It. fpe(yr}) then


nsub(i)
j) .gt. fpe(yr)) then
75 if (j .eq. nsub(i) J then
76 qfe(yr,i)=fqs(yr,i,j)
77 go to
78 else
79 go to
80 endif
151

1501


-------
EQPq.FOR
Wednesday May 24,  1989  12:00 AM
                                                                                   Paae 2
SI
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92 1501
93
94 151
95
96
97
98
99
100 150
101
102







_



cc
end
epq{
epd
epp
if
a^
endi
eontir
returr
end
                  elseif (fps(i.j)  .It.  fpe(yr))  then
                    qfe(yr,i)=fqs(yr,i,j~l)
                  else
                    if (j  .eq.  1)  then
                      qfe(yr, i)=fc|s(yr, i, i)*qerat
                    else
                      qfe{yr,i)=(fqs(yr,1,j)~fqs(yr.i,j-1)}*qerat+
                                 fqs(yr,i,j-l)
                    endif
                    go to  151
                  endif
                continue
                dif
              epqtyr,i)=qfe(yr,i)/avrt(i)
              epdif=fpe(yr)-afpe
                  yr, i)*epd if*awt(1)+-aeppp)
                  (swqr(i)  .eq.  1}  .and.  (epq(yr,i)  ,ne.  0))  then
                avc(1)=epp(yr,i)-qrarea(i)/epqtyr,1)

-------
EX£MPT'FOR                   Wednesday May 24.  1989   12:00 AM                       Page {

    I c
    2 c   '	'	•—•	—	
    3 c                                                                   "           "

    I c     ARCM :  CALCULATION OF  SCENARIO PRICES AND CS GAINS IN EXEMPTED MARKETS

    6 c     Version 7.1  : Hay 24,  1989.

    8 c     Program written by
    9 c

   11  c        !7oSr934-fo6oICF Incorpqrated' 930° Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
   12  c
   13  c_	
   14  c            	—	•—	.	,		
   IS  c
   16  $ large
   17  c
   18  c	
   19 c     '	i	—'	——	
   20 c
  I? P                   This subroutine calculates  the  price  and
  22 c                   consumer surplus gains  In exempted markets.
  23 c	'—'	——	.	
  24 c
  25       subroutine exempt
  26 c
  27 linclude: 'vars.CRin'
  28 c
  29 c
  30       do  10  i»l,np

  32        tfpp(1)*6 exmpt(1dP('^> 9° to 10
  33        fppflag(i)=Q
  34 c
  35        fp
-------
rPCl234.FQR                  Wednesday Hay 24,  1989   12:00 AM                       Page L
    i  c	
    Z  c
    3  c
    4  c     ARCM :  CALCULATION OF FINAL SCENARIO FIBER PRICE AND AREAS 1,  2,  3,  AND 4
    5  c
    6  c     Version 7,1 ;  Hay 24, 1989.
    7  c
    8  c     Program written by:
    9  c
   10  c        Vikram Widge,  ICF Incorporated,  9300 Lee Hwy.,  VA 22031-1207
   11  c        (703)  934-3000
   12  c
   13  c_	                „,-_,„	'		
   14  c
   15  c
   16  $include:'stdsub'
   17  $ large
   18  o
   19  c	
   20  c
   21  c                this subroutine calculates fiber price after  a
   22  c                usage cap and then calculates areas 1,  2, 3,  and 4.
   23  c	
   24  c
   25  c
   26        subroutine fpc!234
   27  c
   28  $ include:'stdvar'
   29  $ include;'vars.cmn'
   30  c
   31  c
   32        integer   st3,end3,f1ag3
   33  c
   34        character res,nyc*4,nzc*15
   35  c
   36  c
   37        iy=yr-t-baseyr~l
   38        write (nyc,'(14)'} iy
   39  *40    if (qeap(yr)  .ge. fqe(yr)) then
   40  40    if (qcap(yr)  .gt. fqe(yr)) then
   41          capr=,true.
   •42          call  eeop (4,0)
   43          call  pcsa (9,12,'  THE FIBER CAP QUANTITY SPECIFIED FOR 7/nyc//
   44                       'IS  NOT BINDING 'c.vrev)
   45          call  DOS (12,15,'   The relevant variable values are:'c)
   46          call  pcs (13,15,'                              YEAR - '//
   47       -                  nyc//' 'c)
   48          write (nzc,'(flfl.2)') qcap(yr)
   49          call  pcs (14,15,'                FIBER CAP QUANTITY = '//
   50       -                  nzq(l:10)//' rc)
   51          write (nzc,'(f15.7)') fqe(yr)
   52          call  pcs (15,15,'              EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY ='//
   53       -                  nzc//' 'c)
   54          call  pcs (18,15,'(after bans & exemptions, if anyl'c)
   55          write {nzc,'(fi5.7)') bfge(yr)
   SB          call  pcs (18,15,'     BASELINE EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY = '//
   SI       -                  nzc//' 'c)
   58          -call  pcs (20,15,'   Do you want to continue? (Y/N) We)
   59          call  ynchk (*45,*44)
   60  c
   61  44      call  setcur (22,0)
   62          stop
   63  c
   64  45      call  pcs (20,15,'Please enter new fiber cap quantity for '//
   65       -                  nyc//' HM'c)
   66          qeap(yr)=*rchk (OdO,ld6)
   67  c
   68          if (qcap(yr) ,eq.  -9999.) go to 45 .
   69          go to 40
   70  c
   71          call  eeop (4,0)
   72          call  pcsa (12,25,' Processing...   'c,vrev)
   73          call  setcur (vy,vx-li
   74        endif
   75  c
   76               .
   77        if (qcap(yr}  .eq. 0) then
   78          pf(yr)-tfps(l)
   79          st3=l
   80         qcrat=0

-------
3C1234.FOR                  Wednesday May 24, 1989  12:00 AM                       Page 2
81
82
83 c
84
85
86
8?
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
9?
98
99
100
101
102
103 250
104 251
105 c
106 252
107 c
108
109 c
110
111 c
112
113
114 c
115
116 o
11?
118
119
120
121
l'-22
123
124
125 255
126
127
128 c
129 300
130
131
132
133
go to 251
end if

do 250 i=l,nstd
if (tfqs(i) .ea. qcao(yr)) then
pf(yr)=tfps(i)
st3»Hl
go to 251
elseif (tfqs(i) .gt. qcap(yr)3 then
pf(yr)=tfps(i)
st3»i
if (1 .eq. 1) then
qcrat«qcap(yn)/tfqs(l)
else
qcrat=(qcapfyr)-tfqs( i-i))/(tfqs( i )-tfqs( i-l) )
end if
go to 251
enoif
if (bfpe(yr) ,ge. tfps(i}) then
end3=i-l
go to 252
endif
•continue
end3=nstd

pf 1 ( yr ) =s lope*qcapm( yr )+r 1 nt

if (pf(yr) .It. bfpe(yr)} go to 300

fpdif=pf(yr3-bfpe(yr)

areal(yr) = fpdif * qcap(yr)
area2(yr) = (bfpe(yr) - pfl{yr)) * qcapm(yr)

arsap(yr) = (pf(yr) - pfl(yr)) . * qcap(yr) * (-1.)

flag3=0
do 255 j=st3,end3
If (flaq3 .eg, 0) then







































area3(yr)=(tfqs{st3)-qoap{yr)}*{tfps(st3)-bfpe(yrS)
f1ag3=l
else


area3{yr)=area3(yr}+{tfqs{j)-tfqs(j-l)}*(tfps(j}-bfp8(yr})
endif
continue
area4(yr)=0.5*(bfpe{yr}-pfl(yr))*(bfqe(yr)-qcapm(yr}}
return

call eeop (4,0)
call pcsa (15,25,' PF( 7/rtyc//' } < BFPE( 7/nyc//'} 'c
call setcur (22,0)
stop
end






,vrev)




-------
PFPQ.FCR                   Wednesday May 24,  1989  12:00 AM                       Page



  2 c                               ~       ~~      ~     ~"        ™~
  3 c
  4 c     ARCH :  CALCULATION OF SCENARIO PRODUCT PRICES AND QUANTITIES
  5 c
  6 c     Version 7.1 :  May 24, 1989,
  7 c
  8 c     Program written by:
  9 c
 10 c        Yikram Widge,  ICF Incorporated,  9300 Lee Hwy.,  VA 22031-1207
 11 c        (703)  934-3000
 12 c
 13 c	
 14 c
 15 c
 16 jlarge
 17 c
 18 c	
 19 c
 20 c              this  subroutine calculates the final price and
 21 c              quantities  for all  the product markets,  using the
 22 c              final price and cap quantity in the fiber market.
 23 c	
 24 c
 25 c
 26       subroutine fppfpq
 27 c
 28 $ include:'vars.cmn'
 29 c
 30 c
 31       do 140  i=l,np
 32         if (exmpt(idp(i}}  .or.  (swban(yr.i)  .eq. 1)) go to 140
 33         if (fps(1,l) .It.  pf{yrj)  then
 34           qf(yr,i)«0
 35           go  to 141
 3S         else
 37           do  1401 j»l.nsub(1)
 38             if  (fps(l.j) .It. pf(yr)) then
 39               qf(yr,i)»fqs(yr,i,j-l)
 40               go to  141
 41            elseif (fps(l.j)  .eq.  pf(yr)) then
 42               if (j  .eq. 1) then
 43                 qf(yr,f)»fqs(yr,i,i)*qcrat
 44               e1se
 45                 qf (yr, 1)»(fqsfyr, i, j)-fqsfyr, i,j-l))*qcrat+
 46      -                    fqs{yr,i,j-l)
 47               endif
 48               go to  141
 49            endif
 50 1401      continue
 51         endif
 52         qf(yr,i)=qfe(yr,i)
 53141     fpq(yr,i)»qf(yr.i)/awt(i)
 54 c
 55         'if (enct1(yr,idpfi)j) fppfyr, i)«ecost{1)
 56         if (labeuyr,idpji))) fpp(yr,i5=fpp(yr,i]
 57 c
 58         if (swqr(i)  .eq. 1] then
 59           avc(i)=bepp(yr,i)-qrareaf i)/bepq(yr,i}
 60           fppiyr,i)=fpp(yr,i)+fpdif*a»rt(i)+avc{1)
 61           fppflag(i)=0
 62 c
 63           if  (fpp(yr.l) .It.  bepp(yr.i)!  then
 64             fppf!ag(1)»l
 55             tfpp(1Mpp(yr.1)
 66             fpp(yr,i)=bepp(yr,i)
 67           endif
 68 c
 69         else
 70           fppf1ag(1)»0
 71           fpp{yr,i)=fpp(yr, i)-ffpdif*awt( i )+bepp(yr, I]
 72         endif
 73         call  area5678 (i)
 74 140   continue
 75       return
 76       end

-------
HEADER.FOR                   Wednesday May 24, 1989  12:,G AM                       Page i
2 c
3 c
4 c
5 c
6 c
7 c
8 c
9 c
10 c
11 c
12 c
13 c
ARCH : OUTPUT HEADER SUBROUTINE
Version 7.1 : May 24, 1989.
Program written by:
Vikram Wictge, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy.
(703) 934-3000
, VA 22031-1207
15 c
16 Slarge
17 c
18 c
19 c
20 c
21 c
This subroutine writes the header for the output
to a file or printer
   23  c
   24        subroutine header (idt)
   25  c
   26  $ include:'vars.cmn'
   27  c
   28  c
   29          If (ipage .ne.  0)  write (3,'{a)') pgbrk
   30          ipage=ipage+l
   31  c
                         t64.2a)')  'Date:  ',dstr
                         t64.2a)')  'Tims:  ',tstr
                         t64,a.12/)')  'Page:  ',ipage
32         write
33         write
34         write
35 c.
36         if  {idt  .eq. 1) return
37 c
38         if  (ipage  .eq. 1) then
39           write  (3.'(128,8)'}  'REGULATION  SCENARIO1
40           if (pgbrk  .eq.  T) write  (3,'{a,t28,aj')  '•*•',
41      -                         '  	             '
42         else                   ~	
43           write  (3,'(t24,a)'
44           if (pgbrk  .eq,  '!'
45
46         endif
47 c
48         iline»5
49 G
SO         return
51         end
                                    'REGULATION SCENARIO (contd.)1
                                    write (3, '(a,t24,a)')  V.

-------
iQDC.FOR                     Wednesday May 24,  1989   12:00  AH                       Page 1
1 c
2 c
3 c
4 c
5 c
6 c
7 c
8 c
9 c
10 c
11 c
12 c
13 c
ARCM : INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT STEP-DEHANQ FUNCTIONS
Version 7.1 : May 24, 1989,
Program written by:
Vikram Wicige, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
(703) 934-3000
14 c
15 c
16 $ large
17 c
18 c
19 c
20 c
21 c
22 c
23 c
24 c
25
26 c
This Subroutine calculates the Individual
product market Derived Demand Curves,
subroutine iddc (e1c_f1)
   27 Jinclude: 'vars.cmn'
   28 c
   29       integer elc fl
   30 c
   31 c
   32       do 30 i=l,np
   33        terap=0
   34        if  (enetlfyr,idp{i})}  teinp=temp+ecost(i
  •35        if  OabeHyr, idp{i|J)  tanp=temp+lcost(i]
   36        temp=temp*elc  fl
   37 c
   38        do  301 j=l,nsub(i)
   39          fpsf i,j)=afpe*(ps(yr,i,j}-aepp(i)-temp)/awt{1}
   40          fqsfyr,i,j)=qs(yr,i,j)*awt(i)
   41 c
   42          if  (j  .gt.  15 then
   43            fqs(yr,i,j)=fqs(yr,i,j)+fqs(yr,i,j-l)
   44          end if
   45 c
   46 301     continue
   47 c
   48        if  (swqr{i)  ,ne,  1) go to 30
   49        do  302 k=l,nsyb{i)
   50           if  (Insub(l.lO)
   51      -     fps{i ,k)=fps| i,k)-*-qrarea(i)/fqs(yr, i ,nsub{ i))
   52 302     continue
   53 30    continue
   54 c
   55       return
   56       end

-------
RES^CHK.FOR                  Wednesday May 24,  1989   12:00 AM                       Page  1
    3  c
    4  c     ARCH :  USER RESPONSE CHECK SUBROUTINES
    5  c
    6  c     Version 7.1 :  May 24,  1989,
    7  c
    8  c     Program written by;
    9  c
   10  c        Vikram Widge,  ICF Incorporated,  9300  Lee  Hwy.,  VA 22031-1207
   li  c        (703)  934-3000
   12  c
   13  c _
   14  c
   15  c
   16  $inc1ude: 'stdsub'
   17  $!arge
18 c
19 c
20 c
21 c
22 c
23 c
24 c
25 c

This subroutine scrolls the fiber cap screen one
at a time to display the complete schedule.


line

   28        subroutine more
   27 c
   28 Sincltide:'stdvar'
   29 c
   3Q c
   31        call  pcsa  (22,28,'  More  to come...  'c.vrev)
   32        kk=vx-l
   33        call  pcs  (24,25,'Press any key to continue'c)
   34        call  setcur  (22,kk)
   35        ipse=key_getc()
   36        call  eeop  (22,0)
   37        call  upscroll  (1,11,20,0.79,vnorm)
   38 c
   39        return
   40        end
   41 c
  ,42 o
   43 c	
   44 c                   ~~	!	___		
   45 c             This subroutine  checks to see if output file exists
   46 o             and  Informs  user appropriately,
   47 c	
   48 c             "     '    '	—	'	
   49 c
   50        subroutine file chk  {1,j}
   51 c
   52 linclude:'stdvar'
   53 $ include:'vars.cmn'
   54 c
   55 c
   56        if (i .«). 1) go to  10
   57 c
   58       call pcsa {22,10,' FILE  V/fname(j)(l:1ench(fname(j)))//
   59      -                 ' NOT FOUND ON DEFAULT PATH 'c.vrevf
   60       return
   61 c
   62 10    call pcsa (15,15,' FILE  V/fname{j)(l:lench(fname(j)))//
   83      -                 ' ALREADY EXISTS!  'c.vrev)
   84       call pcs (17,5,'Should file be overwritten (Y/N) KM'c)
   65 c
   88       return
   67       end
   68 c
   69 o
   70 c
   71 c             ~~	
   72 c             This subroutine checks to see if the product # is specified
   73 c             in the valid range and returns the valid product id,
   74 c	
   75 c	~	~~	"	—
   76 c
   77       subroutine tsca (i,j,a,1y)
   78 c
   79 $ include:'stdvar'
   80 Sinclude:'vars.cmn'

-------
SES CHK.FOS
                             Wednesday May 24,  1989  12:
                                                           AM
                                                                                 Page 2
   31 c
   82 c
   83
   84 c
   85 c
   86 10
   37
   88 c
   89
   90
   91
   92
   93 c
   94
   95
   96
   9? c
   98
   99
  100
  101
  102
  103
  104 c
  105
  106
  107 c
  108 c
  109 c
    a .eq
    a .eq.
if (a ,eq. 'V) call pcs
          character   nye*2,a
          write (nyc, '02} ') 1
          call pcs (iy.S, 'Enter the TSCA 8(a) product number of 'c)

          if (a .eq.  V)  call  pcs (vy.vx, 'BANNED'c)
                     ''   call  pcs  vy,vx, 'EXEHPTEQ'c)
                          call  pcs (vy.vx. 'CONTROLLED 'c)
                                   (vy,vx, 'LABELED'c)

          call pcs (vy,vx,'  product #'//nyc//' MM'c)
          j=ichk (l.ip)
          call eeop (22,0)

          If (j .eq.  -9999)  then
            write (nyc, ' { 12) ' )  ip
            call pcsa (22,10,'  THE TSCA I OF THE PRODUCT  SHOULD '//
                 'BE  BETWEEN 1  AND 7/nyc//' 'c.vrev)
            go to 10
          end if
          return
          and
                    This subroutine requests a year and checks  to  see  if year  is
                    specified correctly within the scenario.
            subroutine yr_chk (ir,if 1,1 ye)
            character   nyc*4,nzc*4
110 c
ill c
112 c
113 c
114 c"
115 c
118
117 c
118 Sinclyde:'stdvar'
119 $include: 'vars.cfiin'
120 c
121 c
H2
123 c
124 c
125
126
127 c
128 10
129
130 c
131
132
133
134
135
136
  137
  138
  139
  140
  141
  142
  143
  144
  145
  146
  147
  148
  149
  150
  151
  152
  153
  154
  155
  156
  157
  158
  159
  160
,y=Vy
ix=vx

vy=iy
vx=1x

if (ifl .eq. 0) then
  i r= i chk (1, enctyr- bassyr)
el self (1f1  .eq.  1) than
  ir=ichk (baseyr+i,endyr)
else
  ir=ichk (cstyr,endyr)
end if

call eeop (iye,0)

if {ir ,eq.  -9999) then
  if {If! .eq.  0) then
    write {nyc,'(12)*) endyr-baseyr
    call pcsa (22,10,' NUMBER OF YEARS SHOULD BE LESS '//
                      'THAN OR EQUAL TO V/nyc(l:2)//' 'c.vrev)
                      then
                       baseyr
                       endyr
                       YEAR NOT IN SPECIFIED RAN6E pctvrev)
                      'SHOULD BE SPECIFIED BETWEEN '//nyc//
                      ' AND V/nzc//1 'c.vbold)
  else
    write (nyc,"(14)') cstyr
    write (nzc,'(i4)') endyr
    call pcsa (22,25,' YEAR NOT IN SPECIFIED RANSE 'c.vrev)
    call pcsa (23,20,'SHOULD BE SPECIFIED BETWEEN '//nyc//
                      ' AND 7/nzc//' 'c.vbold)
  end if
  go to 10
end If
1)
            elseif (ifl .e
              write (nyc,'
              write (nzc,'(14
              call pcsa (22,25,
              call pcsa (23,20,

-------
S£$_CHK.FOR                  Wednesday May 24.  1989  12:00 AH                       Page 3
161 c
162
163
164 c
165 o
IBS c
167 c
168 c
169 c
L70 c
171 c
172 c
173
174 c

return
end




This subroutine checks to see If the number of
specified are in the acceptable range.



subroutine nprd_ehk ( 1r, iye,a, iy4) -








products






175 Sinclude: 'stdvar'
176 $mc
177 c
178 c
179
180 c
181 c
182
183 10
184
185 c
186
187
188
189 c
190
191
192
193 c
194
195
198
197
198
199
200
201 o
202
203
204 c
205 c
206 c
207 c
208 c
209 c
210 c
211 c
212 c
213
214 c
lude: 'vars.cmn'


character nyc*4,a



write {nyc, '(14) ') 1y4
call pcs (12, 5, 'Enter * of products to be 'c)

if (a .eq. 'b' call pcs vy.vx, 'BANNED 'c)
if (a .eq. 'e' call pcs vy,vx, 'CONTROLLED 'c)
if (a .eq. T call pcs vy.vx, 'LABELED 'c)

call pcs (vy.vx,1 in '//nyc//' (99 for all products) MM
ir=ichk (1,99)
call eeop ( iye.Q)

If fir .eq. -9999) go to 10
if ({ir .gt. 1p) .and. (ir .ne. 39)) then
write (nyc, '(12)') ip
call pcsa (22,20,' A MAXIMUM OF V/nyc{l:2)//
' PRODUCTS MAY BE SPECIFIED 'c.vrev)
go to 10
end if

return
end


















'c)
















This subroutine displays the appropriate error message
regarding party id during the permit allocation process.



subroutine pty chk (1,*)






215 linelyde; 'stdvar'
216 c
217 c
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227 c
228
229


if (i .eq. 0) then
call pcsa (24,20,' THE PARTY ID ENTERED IS NOT VALID
elseif (i .eg. 1) then



'c.vrev)

call pcsa (24,10,' TOE NUMBER OF PARTIES SHOULD BE '//
'SPECIFIED BETWEEN 1 AND 9 'c.vrev)
elseif (i .eq. 2) then
call pcsa (24,15.' S0VERNMENT CAN BE THE ONLY '//
'PARTY WHEN SPECIFIED 'c.vrev}
end if

return 1
end









-------
SAREA6.FOR
                             Wednesday Hay 24,  1989  12:00 AN
                                                                                    3age
  10 c
  11 c
  12 c
  13 c	
  14 c
  15 c
  16 $ large
   ARCM :  CALCULATION OF AREA 6

   Version 7.1  :  May 24,  1989.

   Program written  by:

                    Kf  Incorporated,
                                          Lee Hwy.,  YA 22031-1207
  20 c
  21 c
  22 c'
  23 c
  24
  2S c
  28 linelude:'vars.cmn'
  27 c
  28 c
  29
  30 c
  31  c
  32
  33
  34 c
  35
 38
 3?
 38
 39
 40
 41
 42
 43
"44
 45 190
 46 193
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55  195
56
57
                   This Subroutine calculates AREA 6,
  subroutine sarea6 (i)
 Integer st6,end6,fIag6


areas(yr,i)=Q
 if (fpq{yr,i)  .eq, bepq(yr,i)) return

do 190 j-l,nsub(i)
  if ((qcap(yr) .eq,
    st6=l
                      OS -or. (fpq(yr,i) .eq. 0)) then
g
end
if
If
if
go i
oontir
3 to 193
if
qsi(yr,'i
o 193
ue
•J)
;ii
.it
.eq
•gt
fpq
fpq
                            yr,1
                            yr, 1
                            yr,i
                                  go to 190
                                  stS-j-t-l
                                  st6=j
do  195  I*st6,nsub(1)
      (f!ag6  .eq.  0)  then
  else
    area6(yr,i}=area6(yrIiMqsI(yr,i,1)-qSi(yr
  end1f
continue
return
end

-------
SINIT.FOR
                             Wednesday  May  24,  1989   1Z:OQ  AM
                                                                                   Page 1
            ARCM :  INITIALIZATION  OF ALL ARRAYS

            Version 7.1  :  May 24,  1989.

            Program written  by:

               Vikram tfidge,  ICF Incorporated, 9300  Lee Hwy., VA 22031-1207
               (703) 934-3000
  I C
  3 c
  d c
  S c
  6 c
  7 c
  8 c
  9 c
 10 c
 11 c
 12 c
 13 c	
 14 c
 15 c
 16 $1args
 17 c
 18 c___
 19 c
 20 c
 21 c	
 22 c
 23 c
 24
 25 c
 26 $ include:'vars.cmn'
 27 c
 28 c
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37
 38
 39
 40
 41
,42
 43  c
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 5?
 58
 59 c
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65 4747
 66 3737
 67 c
68
6S
 70 3738
71 2727
72 c
73
74
 75
 76
 77
 78
 79
80 c
                         This Subroutine initializes all arrays.
           subroutine sinit
do 2727 1=1, ny
fpepj-O
f get 1-0
bfpe{l)=0
bfqef])=0
areal 1 =0
area? 1 =0
area3 1 *0
• area4 1 -0
pf(l)-0
pfi(i)-o
qcap(1)=Q
qcapmf lj=0
b year i l)=Q
do 3737 i-1
epp 1,i)=











im
3
epq i,i)-0
bepptl, i)=Q
bepq(l, i)=0
areaS 1 , i
area6 1, i
area? 1, i
area8(1,i
arsaSpC 1 ,
qfe(l,lH
gf(1,1)=0
fpq(1,i)-(
=0
=0
*0
=0
}=0
)

)
fpp(1,i)=0
. swban ( 1 , i ) =0
do 4747 j=l,ks
ps 1,i,j)=0
                 qsil.i.j «0
                 fqsilri,j)=0
               continue
             continue

             do 3738 1-1. «p
               1sban(1,1)-0
             continue
           continue
do 5757 1=1,
  avc(ij=0
                       im
             nsub(i)=0
             fppf1ag(i)=0
             tfpp(1]-0
             qrarea( i)=0

-------
5 INJT.FOR
                             Wednesday May 24, 19£
page 2
81
82
83 6757
84 5757
85 c
86
87
88 1234
89 C
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101 C
102
103
do 6767 j
= l,ks

fps(irj}=0
continue
continue

do 1234 i=l
discrt ( i)
continue

perm 1}='
perm 2}='
perm(3}='
perm(4)='
psnu{5 ='
penti(6 ='
perm 7)='
perm 8 ='
perm 9 ='
perm(10)=
penn(ll) =

return
end



,10
=0


3om, Miners t







i Millers'
-oreign Miners & Millers'
Importers Of
3om. Primary
Bulk Fiber'
Processors'
Foreign Primary Processors
Importers Of
Importers Of
3 OBI. Product
For. Product
' Government '
'Total'



Mixtures'
Products'
Purchasers'
Purchasers'






-------
TA3AGG.FQR                    Wednesoay  May 24,  1989   13:00  AM                       Page i
    I  c	
    2  c                          ——
    3  c
    4  c     ARCM  :  AGGREGATE  TABLES OUTPUT SUBROUTINE
    C  „

    6  c     Version 7.1  :  May 24,  1989.
    7  c
    8  c     Program written by:
    9  c
  10  c        Vikram Widge,  1CF Incorporated. 9300 Lee Hwy,, VA 22031-1207
  11  c        (703) 934-3000
  12  c
  13  ^
  14 c                        :    '               ~~~          		"		
  15 c
  16 $1arge
  17 c
  18 c	
  19 c                            ~       ~~  '             ~™    ™~~~	
  20 c        This subroutine writes  the 'welfare effects by market'  tables
  21 c	
  22 c                                     ~	™"	
  23 c
  24       subroutine tabagg {itab.drt.fibcs.fibps,pva1)

  26 Jinclude:'vars.cmn'
  27 c
  28 c
  29       real          c(ip),p(ip)
  30 c
  31       character    ctab*2
  32 c
  33       character*80  us2,us3
  34 c
  35 c
  36
  37
  38 c
  39
  40
  41 c
 42
  43
  44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49                                      _            	
 50       if (itab  .eq.  2) write  (3,'(/t31,a)')  '[Domestic Effects only}'
 51       write (3,'(/tlS,2a,f4.1,a//)') '{Present Values, in thousand  ',
 52      -                         'dollars, at  ',drt,' percent)'
 53       us2='  Market        CS Loss       PS Loss         Permit'
 54       us3='(TSCA #)        .                              Value        Sta
 55      -tus'   '
 56       write (3,'(7x,a//2(iOx,a/),7x,a/)') usl.us2,us3,usl
 57 c
 58        do  30  j=l,np
 59          if  (itab .eq.  1)  then
 60           coris*dcons I j) -t-f cons (j)
 61           pros=dpros(j)-«-fprosi jj
 62         else
 63           cons=dconsfj)
 84           pros=dpros(j)
 65         endlf
 66  c
 67         if   itab .eq.  2}  then
 68           c  iejpf j)|=cons
 69           p  idp(j;)=pros
 70         endif
 71  c
 72         write  (3,fnrt(l))  idp(j),cons,pros,banm(j)
 73  30    continue
 74  c
 75        if  (itab  .eq.  2) write (6) drt.(c(t),p{1),1»l.1p),fibcs,fibps
 76 c
 77        if  (option .eq.  1)  then
 78         write  (3,fmt(12))  'Fiber',fIbcs.fibps
 79       else
80         write (3,frat(2))  'Fiber',flbcs.fibps,pval
write (3, '
a}') pgbrk
ipage=ipa§e+l
.if (itab eq. 1) ctab-'lA'
if (itab
write 3,
write 3,
write 3,
write 3,
eq, 2} ctab»'18'
t64,2a)'J 'Date: ',
t64,2a)'} 'Time: ',
t64.a.12/)'j 'Page:
t26.2a)'l '
if {pgbrk .eq. '!'} write (3,'
write {3,'(//t26,a )') 'WELFARE
if (pgfark .eq. '!') write (3,'




dstr
tstr
' , i page
TABLE '.ctab
(a,t26,a)') '•*-','
EFFECTS 8Y PRODUCT MARKET'
(a,t26,a)'S '+',

-------
Wednesday May 24.  1989  12:00 AM
Page 2
81
82 c
83
84 e
85
as
87
88
89
90 c
91
92
93
94
95
96
9?
98 c
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106 c
107
108
end if



write (3, ' (7xra/) ' ) usl


write (3. '(/10x,a/j'l 'LEGEND FOR PRODUCT STATUS:'
write (3. '(IQx
write (3, ' lOx
write (3, ' IQx
write (3, ' IQx

a ) ' S ' 8 Banned '
a ' X exempted from regulation'
a ' ' E Engineering controls active'
a//)') ' L Labeling requirements'

write (3, '(/lOx.a) ') 'Note: 1. Negative entries are welfare'//
-
gains.
write (3, '(/lOx.a) '} ' 2. CS Loss in the Fiber market is'/
-
the sura of all downstream'
write(3, ' (IQx. a) }' producer and consumer welfare losses
write (3, '(/10X.A) ') ' 3. Consumer and producer surplus '/
-

if (itab .eo. 1
'losses reported above are'

) then
write(3, ' (lOx.a) ' ) ' for foreign and domestic '//
-
else
'consumers and producers.'

write(3, ' flOx.a) ' ) ' for domestic consumers and '//
-
end if

return
end
'producers only. '





-------
3°C.FOR                     Wednesday «ay 24,  1989  18:00 AM                       Page 1
2 C
3 C
4 C
5 C
6 C
7 C
8 C
9 C
10 C
11 C
12 C
13 C
14 C
15 C
16 $1arge
17 C
IS C
19 C
20 C
21 C
22 C
23 c

ARCH : TOTAL DERIVED STEP-DEMAND FUNCTIONS

Version 7.1 : Hay 24, 1989.
Program written by:
Vikram tfidge, ICF Incorporated, 9300 Lee titty ,
(703) 934-3000






This subroutine calculates Total Derived Demand






VA 22031-1207






Curve for fiber.

24 subroutine tddc (bflag)
    c
 26  linclude:'vars.CBn'
27 c
28 c
29
30 c
31
32 c
33 c
34
35
36
37
38
39 5757
40 c
41
42
•43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 2011
52
53
54 201
55 20
56 c
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 2101
64 210
65 c
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80 1011


real



tfh
-------
rDOC.FOR                      Wednesday May 24,  1989  12:00 AM                       Page  2


   81  101      continue
   82  10     continue
   83  c
   84        return
   85        end

-------
VAOC ^Mfg
    1  C
    ?  f* ""
    3  c
    4  c

    6  c
    7  c
    8  c
    9  c
  10  c
  11  c
  12 c
  13 c
  14 c~
  15 c
  IB c
  17 c
   20 c
   21 c
   22 c
   ii c
  37
  Ifl
  39
  40
  4?
  4
70
71
/ a
/a
/a
                             Wednesday May 24,  1989  12:00 AM
             ARCM :  PARAMETER DEFINITION  &  COMMON  VARIABLE'LIST

             Version 7,1  ;  May 24,  1989.

             Program written  by;

                               F Incorporated. 9300 Lee Hwy.,  VA 22Q31-1207
                                                                                    Page i
                   Definition of parameters  for the variables
           ip = maximum number  of  products
           im * maximum number  of  tangible products
          ?*. = mxmm nul*er  of  years  in any  regulatory  scenario
          ks - maximum number  of  substitutesVan? given
27 parameter (ip=44, ini=34,ny=lS,ks=6)
29 c
30 c 	
31 c
32 c
33 c 	
34 c
~ 	 ~ 	 — 	 — 	
All variable TYPEs and DIMENSION* are defined below

                                      '-



          integer   yr swar(fm) ,byr.cendy
50
51
52 c
53
54
55 c
56
57
58 c
59 c
80 c
61 r —
62 C
63 c
—
65 c
56
67
Dflacnlfn f •
envrin 11 1 \ ,
y l /J » lyifiyj , ieny
character pern(12)*3Q,fname(9}*
tstr*5,usl'80,f(Tit(15)
loqlca! imoinf 1 ' 11 hf'
enctl(0:ny;ip)Jatei(


Coninon blocks are

common/af ep/af pe , aepp
comnon/arl234/arBat a^«,«5 ,- — i
iMij , oassyr ,endyr, byrs , byearlny)
in , i sban ( ny , i p ) , i 1 i ne , i e nstd
TS, f lyrs, cstyr ^optn(ny)
20,banm(1m)*8,dstr*10,y{18)*80
45 , pgbrk , desc ( 1m) *24

Q:ny,ip),capf '


defined below


        conwon/faanm/banra
        coinnon/basie/yr,np,fdiscrt,ie
        coraion/bbq/bbpq,bbfq
        comnon/bpqe/bfpe.bfqe
                        ,
        eonnon/byr/baseyr , endyr , cenctyr , cstyr
        cornion/cap/qcap.qcapm
        camnMn/capr/capr
        cotwion/cdiscrt/discrt.nodrt
       _«»nQn/cout/oot1on,eridairtf 8aT*it,faup,dsup. ibgr.cresf ,
                                                          <**>,

-------
VARS.CHN                     Wednesday May Z4, 1989  12:00 AM                       Page 2


   81       coranort/cprat/cprat
   82       commort/desc/desc
   83       connton/dif/epdif, fpdif, pedif
   84       caniTMn/dout/fmt.pgbrk.dstr, tstr.usi ,y
   85       cornmon/skost/fecost.vecost.ecost, least
   36       comnon/elflag/enctl,label
   87       cowiTton/elxf/enf, Ibf ,exf
   88       coiroion/elyr/enyr, lyr, ienyrs, ilyrs
   89       cornmon/epqp/epp.epq
   90       coiwwn/exmpt/exrapt
   91       comnon/fname/fname
   92       conmon/fpqp/fpp,fpq
   93       cornnon/fpqs/fps,fcis
   94       conroon/ibyd/ibyd
   95       cortinan/idp/idp
   96       coimon/impinf/impinf
   97       conmon/lrtsub/lnsub
   98       comnon/multsyb/multSLib
   99       conuion/na/na
  100       coranon/nstd/nstd
  1Q1       conmon/nsub/nsub
  102       coimon/paloc/paloc
  103       common/perm/perm
  104       comnon/pflag/pflag
  105       conrnon/pqe/fpe,fqe
  106       coumon/pqf/pf,pfl,qf
  107       conmon/pqs/ps,qs,qsl
  108       comnon/qfe/qfe
  109       CQirmon/qrat/qerat.qerat
  110       conmon/qrent/ararea.avc
  111       cotrraon/ read 1 n/aps, ams. rcos t, ccost, ns, grthrt
  112       cormon/sban/byear.byrs, isban
  113       coim»n/s lint/slope, rint
  114       coRinon/swban/swtoan
  115       coimon/swgr/swqr
  116       coramon/tffpp/fppflag.tfpp
  117     .  oonnion/tout/dcons.dprQs.f cons, f pros, ipage, i line
  118       oonmon/tpqs/tfps.tfqs

-------
                         APPENDIX II




SOURCE CODE FOR TEE ASBESTOS BENEFITS SIWJU.TIW MODEL (ABM)

-------
ABM.FOR
                              Tuesday May
1988  12:00 AM
Page I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
il
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4Z
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
5Z
83
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
52
63
64
65
66
87
68
89
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
C INTERACTIVE BENEFITS MODEL FOR ASBESTOS RIA
C WRITTEN BY JO MAUSKGPF - RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE, NORTH
C CAROL I HA
C
C TEL. (919) 541-6468
C
C 5/16/88
C
C
SURGE
SNOFLOATCALLS
C
C
C
r
\*













CQMMQN/T/MANQP,MANOS,!NSQ, USED, DI SO, MANAP, MANAS, INSA.USEA,
*DlSA,PMANQP,PMANQS,PIN$Q,PUSEQ,PO!SQ,PMANAP,PMANASfPiNSA,
*PUSEA,POiSA

REAL MANQP(38) ,MANQS(3S) , INSOS38) ,USEO(38) , DISO(38) ,
*MANAP(38), MANAS (38), INSA(38) ,US£A(38) ,DISA{38) ,PMANOP(38) ,
*PMAHO$(38) .PINSGf 38} .PUSEQ
*PMANAS(38 j , PINS A (38) , PUSEA
38 ,POSSO(3& ,PHANAP(38),
38),POISA(38)
DIMENSION POP(38,10),P(5,5j,V(5},TOTi{2,28,4),
*RHAX(38,1Q),RLEV{38,10), TA(18,4) ,PPP{2,38) ,
* DISC(10).m(2,4}.BPROJ{38,20),PROJ(38,20),RRRl(38,8,ll),
* R(28,4),RR(28,4),RRR2(38.!
REAL FKL(38),FKHf38),GWT(9
REAL AS£,DT,TT
},11),TEM1(38,8.11).TEM2(38,8,11)
3),QSRWT(4,3)

INTEGER LIFE(38}.AGEST.AGEINT.NPN{38),A(38),B(10)
INTEGER AG£M!Q,YEAR,!YRS

R£AL*8 PP, P,T,R.WT,V.TOTl,m,FOTM. FOIL, DISC, ftR,
*EXP1,£X1,£1,TA.RRR1,RRR2,PPP,TEM1,TEM2
CHARACTER RES.PG8RK

CHARACT£R*25 FILE, F1LE2, FILES, F1LE4, FILE?
COMMON /A1/T(28,4)
COMMON /Ol/ F,MAXOT,PP
DATA FKL/ 01, .01, 01, 01,


01. .01. .01. .01. .01. .01. .01.
.01,. 01. .01,. 01 ,.01,. 01,. 01.. 01.. 01.. 01.. 01.. 01.. 01.. 01,
.01, .01, .01, .01, ,01, .01,
01, .01, .01, .01, .01, .01, .Ol/
OATA FKM/ . 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 ,
. 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 ,
. 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 ,
. 00000001 , . OOOQ0001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 , , 00000001 , . 00000001 ,
. OOOQ0001 , . 00000001 , . OQOOQQ01 , . OQQQ0001 , - 00000001 , . 00000001 ,
. 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 ,
. 00000001 , , 00000001 , . 00000001 , . 00000001 , , 00000001 , . 00000001/
DATA ASEST/5/
OATA AGE I NT/ 10/
DATA OWT/.0,.i,.205, .210.
* .146, .174, .176, .139, .108,


193,.175,.117,.0,.0,
099,. 083.. 055,. 020,
* .06,. 36,. 17,. 13.. 11.. 10.. 07,. 0..0/
DATA OSRMT/.695,.095,.185
* .431,. 059,. 449,. 061/
C
WRITE *,'(24(/))')
,.025, .431,. 059, .449, .061,



WRITE *,* 'THIS PR06RAM MODELS THE BENEFITS OF ASBESTOS'
WRITE *,* 'PRODUCT REGULATIONS.'
WRITE *,*

WRITE *,* 'TO RUN THIS PROSRAM, FOLLOW THE USER FRIENDLY'
WRITE *,*) 'INSTRUCTIONS!
WRITE *, '(8(/}}()


PAUSE 'Press the  or the  key to continue'
C
WRITE (V{24{/))')


WRITE *,* 'Please enter name of data file containing BASELINE*
WRITE (*,*) 'indices. (Include path 1f necessary,)'
READ (V(A)') FILES
WRITE *,' ///)')


WRITE *,* 'Please enter name of data file containing ALTERNATIVE
WRITE *,* 'indices. {Include path if necessary,)'
READ (*,'{A)') FILE4
WRITE (*,'!///)')
C
8661 IERR3»0




OP£K( 1 , IOSTAT=I ERRS , FI LE=F I LE3 , STATUS= ' OLD ' )
IF {IERR3 ,LE. 0) SO TO 6662
WRITE V //)')
W«ITE *,* 'FILE '.FILE3,
WRITE *. ' //)')

1 MOT FOUND ON SPECIFIED PATH'

WRITE *,* 'Please enter name of data file containing BASELINE'

-------
ABM,FOR
                              Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM
                                                                                  =age 2
       146
      1927
 82
 83
 84
 85 6662
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95 C
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
L10
111
112
113
114
115 1928
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135 C
136 2929
137
138
139
140
141 2927
142
143
144
145
146
147 2928
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
15S
159
160
WRITE (*,*}  'Indices,  {include path if necessary,}'
READ (V(A)') FILE3
WRITE (*,'(///)')
60 TO 6661
I£RR4=Q
OPEN (2,10STAT=!ERR4,F!LE=F1LE4,STATUS='OLO')
IF (IERR4 .LE. 0) GO TO 146
WRITE (*.'(//)'}
WRITE  *.*)  TILE ',FILE4,' NOT FOUND QH SPECIFIED PATH'
WRITE  *,'(//)')
WRITE  *,* 'Please enter name of data file containing ALTERNATIVE'
WRITE (*,*   'indices.  (Include path if necessary,)'
READ {*,'(A)') FIIE4
WRITE (*,'{///)•)

WRITE (*,*)  'Would you like the output to be routed to the'
WRITE {*,*)  'printer or to a file on disk ?  Enter P or D'
REAO (*,'(A)') RES
WRITE (*,*)
IF {{RES .EQ. 'P') .OR. (RES .EQ. 'p'}) THEN
  FILE2='LPT1'
  PQ8RK='l'
  OPEN (3,F1LE=F!L£2)
ELSEIF ({RES .EQ. '0') .OR. (RES .£Q. fd')} THEN
  PGBRK=' '
  WRITE  *,*) 'Please enter desired name of OUTPUT file.'
  WRITE  *,*) '(Include path if necessary.)'
  REAO (V(A)') F11E2
  IERR2*0
  OPEN (3 (FILE*FILE2.IOSTAT«I£RR2.STATUS"'NEW)
  IF (IERR2  .LE. 0} SO TO 2929
  WRITE (*,*
  WRITE  *,*  'FILE  '.FILE2,' ALREADY EXISTS!'
  WRITE  *,*
  WRITE  *,*  'Should file be overwritten (Y/N}?'
  READ (*,'(A)') RES
  IF {(RES .EQ.   'Y') .OR, (RES .EQ.   'y'}) THEN
    OPEN (3,FIl£=FiL£2,STATUS='QlD'}
    SO TO 2929
  ELSEIF ((RES .EQ.   'N'> .OR. (RES  .EQ. 'n')) THEN
    WRITE  *.*)
    WRITE (*,*)   'Enter new name of  output file    —>'
    READ (V(A)'J FILE2
    WRITE {*,*)
    SO TO 1927
  ELSE
    GO TO 1928
  ENOIF
ELSE
  WRITE (*,
  WRITE (*,
  WRITE (*,
  SO TO 145
ENOIF
                           INVALID OPTION - PLEASE CHOOSE AGAIN'
              PRINT  *
              WRITE  {*,*)
              WRITE
              'Please enter desired name of '//
              'cost-benefit TABLES" DATA file.'
              '(Include path if necessary,}'
              REAO (V(A)')  FILE?
              IERR7=0
              OPEN (7,FILE=FILE7»IOSTAT=I£RR7,STATUS"'NEW,FORM*'UNFORMATTED']
              IF (IERR7 .LE.  0}  SO TO 1929
              WRITE  *,*
              WRITE  *,*  'FILE  '.FILE7,'  ALREADY EXISTS!'
              WRITE  *.*
              WRITE  *,*  'Should file be  overwritten (Y/N)?1
              READ (V(A)'}  RES
              IF ((RES .EQ.  'Y') .OR.  {RES .EQ.  'y')) THEN
                OPEN  (7,FtL£=FILE7,STATUS='OLD',FORM-'UNFORMATTED'}
                SO TO 1929
              ELSEIF  {  RES  .EQ.  'N')  .OR.  (RES .EQ.  'n')) THEN
                WRITE  *,*}
                WRITE  *.*>  'Enter new name of output file    --->'
                READ  l*,'(A)') F1LE7
                WRITE {*,*)
                SO TO 2927
              ELSE
                SO TO 2928
              ENOIF

-------
uesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AH
Paqe 3
181 C
162 1929
163
164
165 743
166 744
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
ISO
181
182
183 •
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203 123
204
205
206
207
208
209 124
210
211
212
213
214
215125
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226 126
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240

R£AD(1,743] IYRS.ISY.IEY
READ(1,744) (LIFE(I) ,1*1.38)
READ(2,743) m,ISS,!£E
FQRMAT(I2,2(5X,!4S)
FORMAT(38I3)
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE (
WRITE (
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE {
WRITE
WRITE {
WRITE (
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
PAUSE
WRITE (
WRITE {
WRITE (
tfilTE
WRITE {
WRITC (
WRITE
WRITE (
WRITE (
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
,'(6(/))')




r

;
t


(
(
,
F

r
r
r
p
M
p
(
(
(
(
t
t


'YOU WILL NOW SELECT THE POPULATION TO 8£ ANALYZED'
) 'FOR THE PROJECTED HEALTH BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION
'THE POPULATION CAN BE COMPOSED OF THE FQLLOWINS'
'TEN CATEGORIES:'

) ' 0 - PRIMARY MANUFACTURING OCCUPATIONAL'
1 - SECONDARY MANUFACTURING OCCUPATIONAL'
1 ' 2 - INSTALLATION OCCUPATIONAL'
3 - USE OCCUPATIONAL'
4 - REPAIR/DISPOSAL OCCUPATIONAL'
) ' 5 - PRIMARY MANUF. AMBIENT NON-OCCUP. '
5 ' 6 - SECONDARY MANUF, AMBIENT NON-QCCUP.'
) ' 7 - INSTALLATION NON-OCCUPATIONAL '
8 - USE NON-OCCUPATIONAL '
9 - REPAIR/DISPOSAL NON-OCCUPATIONAL '
6(/))')
ss the  or the  key to continue'
U0(/))r)
'YOU HAVE FOUR OPTIONS FOR CHOOSING THE POPULATION'
'TO BE ANALYZED. THESE OPTIONS AND THEIR CORRESPONO-
'ING REFERENCE NUMBERS ARE THE FOLLOWING;'

1 - ALL CATEGORIES'
2 - ALL OCCUPATIONAL CATAQORJES'
3 - ALL NON-OCCUPATIONAL CATASORIES'
4 - USER SELECTED 6ROUPS'


'ENTER THE REFERENCE NUMBER OF YOUR CHOICE.'
READ (*,*) ISRQUP
WRITE (V(24{/))')
IF {IQROUP .EQ. 1} THEN
NEG-iO
DO 123 1=1, NEG
BUM
CONTINUE
ENOIF
IF {IGROUP .EQ. 2} THEN
N£S=5
00 124 1*1, NEG
. BUM
CONTINUE
ENOIF
IF (ISROUP .EQ. 3} THEN
N£S=5
DO 125 5=6,10
BU-5H
CONTINUE
ENDIF
If (IGRQUP .EQ. 4) THEN
WRITE (*,*) 'HOW MAN? CATEGORIES ARE YOU INTERESTED IN?'
READ (*,*) NEQ
WRITE (* *)
WRITE (*.*)
DO 126 1-1, NES
WRITE (*,*} 'ENTER CATESQRY ', 1
READ (*,*) B(I)
b(l)-b(l)+l
CONTINUE
ENOIF
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
* >
* *
*' *
* *
* *
*'*
20(/))')
'THIS PROGRAM GIVES YOU THE OPTION OF RUN«INS THE'
'MODEL FOR ALL PRODUCTS, SPECIFIC GROUPS OF PRODUCTS,
'OR ANY INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT, IF YOU WOULD LIKI TO SEE
'A LIST OF ALL THE PRODUCTS AND THEIR REFERENCE'
'NUMBERS ENTER 1, IF NOT ENTER 0. '
READ (*,*}"!
WRITE (VW/))')
IF (I ,EO, IS CALL LIST
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
* >
*'»
*f *
« ' *
24(/))')
'IF YOU WISH TO RUN THE MODEL FOR ALL THE PRODUCTS,'
'ENTER 1, IF ONLY FOR A SUBSET OF ALL THE PRODUCTS'
'ENTER 0.'

-------
ASM.FOR
                              Tuesday May 31,  1388  12:00 AM
                                                                                  Page 4
      127
 241
 242
 243
 244
 245
 246
 247
 248
 249
 250
 251
 252
 253
 254
 255
 256  128
 257
 258
 259
 260
 251
 262
 263
 264
 265
 266
 287
 268
 259
 270
 271
 272
 273
 274
 275
 276
 277
 278
 279
 280
 281
 382
 283
 284
 285
 286
 287
 288
 289 2112
 290
 291
 292
 293
 294
 295
 296
 297
 298
 299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320 2113
READ (*,*) I
WRITE {*,'(12(/))')
 IF (I .EQ.  1) THEN
  NP=3S
  00 127 N=1,NP
    A(N)=N
  CONTINUE
 ELSE
  WRITE (*,*}'HOW HANY PRODUCT CATA6QRIES ARE YOU INTERESTED IN?'
  READ (*,*) NP
  WRITE (V(24(/)}')
  00 128 N=1.NP
    WRITE (*,*} 'EUTER THE PRODUCT REFERENCE f FOR PRODUCT ',N
    READ (*,*) A(N) •
WRITE (V(35(/))'j
  CONTINUE
  ENDIF
WRITE (V(27(/))'S
  WRITE (*,*}  'THE DEFAULT DOSE RESPONSE CONSTANTS ARE:'
  WRITE  '  '
  WRITE
  WRITE
  WRITE  *,*}
  WRITE  '  '
  WRITE
  WRITE
  WRITE
  WRITE
  WRITE
  WRITE (*i*5
  READ (*,*}  I
  WRITE (V(20(/))r;
  IF (I .EQ.  1 )  THEN
  WRITE  '
  WRITE
  WRITE
  READ (*,*)
  WRITE "
  WRITE
  WRITE
  WRITE
  WRITE
  DO 2112  N=i,I
    WRITE  (*,*)  'ENTER PRODUCT NUMBER ',N,  '   THAT HAS A DOSE'
    WRITE  (*,*)  'RESPONSE CONSTANT TO BE CHANGED.'
    READ  (*,*) NPNfN)
  WRITE "  "
  WRITE
  CONTINUE"
  WRITE (V(24(/))'}
  00 2113  N»1,I
   WRITE  {*,*) 'THE LUNG CANCER DOSE RESPONSE CONSTANT FOR '
   WRITE  {*.*) 'PRODUCT ',Nf>N(N},' - ' ,FKL(NPN(N)}
   WRITE  (*,*)
    WRITE  (*,*)  'ENTER 1 IF YOU WISH TO CHANGE THIS,  ENTER 0'
    WRITE  (*,*)  'IF YOU OON"T.'
   READ {*,*}  II
 ,  WRITE  '
   WRITE  .  .  .
   IF  (II  .EQ.  1)  THEN
    WRITE  {*,*)  'ENTER THE NEW LUNG CANCER  DOSE RESPONSE CONSTANT'
    WRITE  *,*  'FOR PRODUCT (,NPN(N),'  .'
    READ  (*,*) FKL(NPN(N)}
    EHOIF
   WRITE  (*,'{4(/))'}
    WRITE  (*.*)  'THE MESOTHELIOMA DOSE  RESPONSE CONSTANT FOR'
   UDTTC  i*  *\ -PRODUCT ',NPN(«),r = ',FKM(NPN(N}}
                                  LUNG CANCER   = 0.01'
                                  MESGTBELIQMA = 0.00000001'
                          '00  YOU  WISH  TO  CHANGE  THESE  CONSTANTS  FOR  ANY'
                          'PRODUCT CATEGORIES?'

                          'ENTER 1 IF YOU  WANT  TO HAKE  CHANGES, AND ENTER'
                          '0  IF YOU OON"T,'
                          'IN HOW MANY  PRODUCT  CATEfiORIES  ARE  YOU  INTERESTED'
                          'IN CHAN6INS  AT  LEAST ONE  OF  THE DOSE  RESPONSE'
                          'CONSTANTS?  '

                        *!(/))')
                          'RESPOND  TO THE  PROMPTS  TO ENTER THE REFERENCE'
                          'NUMBERS  OF THOSE  PRODUCTS HAVING DOSE RESPONSE'
                          'CONSTANTS THAT  YOU WISH TO MODIFY.'
                        )'
                           'ENTER 1  IF YOU WISH TO CHAM THIS, ENTER  O1
                           'IF YOU DON"T.'
                          II
 WRITE i
  WRITE
  WRITE
  WRITE
  READ (V
  WRITE (*
  WRITE {*
  IF (ii ,EQ; i) THEN
  WRITE {*,*) 'ENTER THE NEW HESOTHELIOHA OOSE RESPONSE
  WRITE  *,*) 'CONSTANT FOR PRODUCT ',NPH(N)
  READ (*.*) FKM(NPN{N))
  ENDIF
 WRITE {*,'{8(/)}')
CONTINUE

-------
ABM.FOR
                              Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347 130
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
358
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364 101
365 202
366
367
388
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
398
397
398
399
400
WRITE
END1F
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
READC
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
READC
WRITE
WRITE
READC
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
00 13
WRIT!
READ
(*,'

iV(
• ,£
*
*' ''
,
*. 1
IF *
*
*
*>
* ' '
* ''
V)
(V
*,*)
»,*)
V)
(V
(*.*
V
V
(V
3 N«l
: (*,
r.'
(3(/))')

13(/)n
'THIS PROGRAM GIVES YOU THE OPTION OF US INS THE'
'1977 OR 1930 BASELINE LUN8 CANCER DEATH RATES.'
'IF YOU WANT TO USE 1977 RATES ENTER 1977 BELOW"
'IF YOU WANT TO USE 1990 RATES ENTER 1990 BELOW.'
IY
12(/))')
'THIS PROGRAM ALLOWS YOU TO CHOOSE THE RATIO OF'
'EXCESS GASTROINTESTINAL CANCER DEATHS TO LUNG'
'CANCER DEATHS - COMMONLY ASSUMED VALUES ARE '
' 0 OR 0.1. YOU MAY ENTER ANY VALUE BELOW '
GI
(IK/))')
'NOW CHOOSE THE NUMBER OF DISCOUNT RATES'
NN

'NOW SELECT THE'.NN,' DISCOUNT RATES. ENTER THESE
'RATES AS THEIR DECIMAL EQUIVALENTS. AS AN '
'EXAMPLE, A DISCOUNT RATE OF 10% WOULD BE ENTERED'
"AS .1'
(4(/>n
,NN
'(A, 12)') ' ENTER DISCOUNT RATE # ',N
5 OISC(N)
              CONTINUE
              WRITE
              WRITE (*,*  'WHAT EXPOSED POPULATION CHARACTERIZATION FILE'
              WRITE (*,*  '00 YOU WANT TO USE?   REMEMBER TO INCLUDE THE'
              WRITE  *,*  'DRIVE SPECIFIER!'
              READ (V(A)')  FILE
              OP£N!UNIT=4,FILE=FiLE,FORH='FORMATTED',STATUS='OLD')
              WRITE(V(24(/))')
                     **  '
              WRITE  (*.*
THE OUTPUT OF THIS RUN IS STORED IN THE FILE'//
 NAMED '.FILE2
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
* *
* *
'I* 'WAIT FOR THE PROGRAM TERMINATED'//
' MESSASE BEFORE YOU PROCEED. '
WRITE (V(13(/))r)
CALL lNTAB(FILE3,F!LE4,F!L£2,FILE,IYRS,ISY,IEY,N£S,B,Nf>,
A,FKL,FKM,IY,S!,NN,DISC,PGBRK)
FORMAT (IX)
FORMAT (10(4f20.8/))
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
4,101)
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
READ (4,101
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
4,202
4,101
HANOP

MANOS

INSO

USED

D1SO

MANAP

MANAS

INSA

USEA

DISA

PMANOP

PMANOS

PINSO

PUSEQ

PDISO

PMANAP

READ (4,202) PHANAS
READ (4,101)

-------
ASH.FOR                       Tuesday May 31, 1988  12:00 AM                        Page 6
401
402
403
404
405
406
40?
408
409
410
411
412
413 446
414 445
415 444
416
41?
418
419 448
420 44?
421
422
423
424
425 37
426 36
427 34
428
429
430
431
432 3342
433 3341
434 C
435 C
436 C
437
438
439
440
441 28
442 27
443
444
445 C
446 C
447 C
448
449
450
451
452
453 47
454 46
455
456
457
458 696
459 695
460
461
462 C
463 C
464 C
465
466
467
468
489 78
470 77
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478 C
479
480
READ (4,202) PINSA
READ (4,101)
READ (4,202) PUSEA
READ 4,101
READ (4,202) PDJSA
00 444 K=l,33
00 445 1=1,8
00 446 J=l,ll
RRRI K,I,j =0.0
RRR2 K,1,J =0.0
TEM1 K,I,J =0.0
TEM2 K.I.J =0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
00 44? K=!,2
00 448 1=1,38
PPP(K,I)=Q.O
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
00 34 K=l,2
00 36 1=1,28
DO 37 J«l,4
TOT1(K,I,J)=0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
DO 3341 1=1,38
DO 3342 J=i,20
BPROJ(I,J)=0.0
PROJ(i,J}=0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE

IB=BAS£LINE/ALTERNATIVE INDEX

DO 98 18=1,2
DO 27 K*i,5
00 28 KKai.5
P(K,KK}=0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
EXP1=Q,Q
CALL DARIAO(PGP,R«AX,RLEV,IB,BPROJ,PRGJ,IYRS,PS8RK)

IP=PRODUCT INDEX NP*NQ. OF PRQDUCTS(38)

DO 1 IIP-l.NP
IP»A(tIP)
DO 46 1=1,28
DO 47 J-1.4
RR(I,J)-O.Q
R(I.J)-0.0
CONTINUE
DO 895 1=1,18
DO 696 J»1.4
TA(I.J)«0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
EX1=0.0
SS1«0,0

I8=EXPOSURE 6ROUP INDEX NS=NUMBER OF EXPOSURE SROUPS(IO)

DO 11 IIOI.NES
DO 77 1=1,28
DO 78 J-1.4
T(I.JM>.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
IQ=8(IIS)
El-0.0
ISH=0
IF (IG.EQ.5.0R.1G.EQ.10) ISH=LIFE{IP)
IF (POP(IP,IS},EC},0.) GOTO 11
CALL INIT(RLEV,RKAX,IP,IS,NO,POP,SS1) .
A6EMID»A6EST
J=ASE 8ROUP INDEX NA-NO, OF A6E 6ROUPS(9)
DO 5 J«l,9
WT=QWT(J,NO)

-------
ABM.FOR                       Tuesday May 31,  1388  12:00 AM                        Page 7
481
482 C
483
484 2
485
486 C
487
488 C
489
490
491
49 2
493
494 C
495 C
496 C
497 C
498 C
499
500
501
502
503 C
504 C
505 C
506 C
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514 10
515 C
516 C
517 C
518
519
520 8
521
522 5
523
524 11
525
526
527
528
529 1
530
53 i 98
532
533
534
535
If (WT.EQ.O.) GOTO 5

00 2 1=1,5
vm=o.
V{1}=4,

N=(90~AGEM!Q}/5
!A=5 YEAR INDEX NT=MAX NUMBER OF TIME PERIODS IN A LIFE{18)

00 8 !A=1,N
ASE=(!A-1)*5+AG£MID+2.S
!PER=!A+{A6EM10/5)
CALL INC(OSRWT,FDIE,NO,AG£,IPER,IY)


LUNS CANCER


OT=!A*5-12.5
IF(DT .GT .MAXOT) DT=MAXDT
IF(DT .IT. 0.) DT=0.
FDTL=FOIE*FKl(!P)*F*DT/l,£5


HESQTHELIQMIA

rr=(!A-i)*S+2.5
FDTM=O.Q
!F{TT.LE,10) SOTO 10
FDTM=FKM( !P)*F*{TT-1Q)**3
IF(TT.LE.lO-t-MAXDT) SOTO 10
FOTM»FOTH- FKH { 1 P } *F* ( TT - 1 0-HAXOT ) **3
FDTM=5,*FOTM
YEAR=(tA*S)H984



CALL TRANSI(FOTL,FDTM,P,V,AeE,IPER,PP,WT,OSR«T,NO,
* ISHrIP,IG,lB.IA,SITEl,AGEHlD,TA)
CONTINUE

ASEMID=A6EMIO+A6EINT
CALL AS(T,R,!S,LlF£,!P,Elr£Xl)
CONTINUE
CALL AGG(R,TOTl,lfi,IP,!B,BPROJ,PROJ,ftR,
* EXP1.EX1.I¥RS,TEM1,TEM2.DISC,«N)
CALL PRNT(R,RR,28,4,2,IP,TA,SS1,IYRS,IB,PPP,01SC,NN,
* RRR1.RRR2)
CONTINUE
CALL TOTAL(TOT1,IB,TT1,EXP1,PGBRK)
CONTINUE
CALL BANEFF{OISC,TOT1,TT1,IB,KN(RRRI,RRR2.PPP,NP,A,
* PGBRK.TEH1.TEM2)
STOP
END

-------
:ALC.FOR
                              Tuesday May 31, 1938  12:00 AM
Page 1
            SUBROUTINE TRANS!(FQTL,fOTM,P,V,AGE,IPER,PP,WT,Q$RMT,NQ,
2
3 c
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 39
23
24
25
25
27 421
28
29
30
31
32 2
33
34 1
35
36
37
38 3
39
40 99
41 98
•42
43
44
45
46
47 C
48 c
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
53
60
61
62
63
64 1
65
66
67 c
68 c
69
70 c
71
72
73
74
75
78
77
78
79
80
* [SH,IP.IG,IB,IA,GI,E1,AGEMID,TA)

DIMENSION P(5,5},V(5),VV(5},QSRWT{4,3),TA{18,4}
INTEGER AGEMID
REAL'S S,S1,PP.P,T,FMR.AFMR,BFMR,WT,V,VV,S2,S3.
* FDTL.FOTM.El.TA
COMMON /A1/T(28,4)
CALL LiF£(IPER.FMR,Q$RWT,NQ)
F (AS£.ST,8S) 60TO 39
P(1.2 »FDTL
P(1.3 =6!*FOTL
P 1,4)=FOTM
P 1,5)=FMR
P 1,1)=!.0-{P(1,2)+P(1,3)+P(1,4)+P(1,5)}
IF(P(1,1).L£. 0.000) P(1.1)=O.ODO
P 2,2 =1.0
P 3,3 =1.0
P 4,4 =1.0
P 5,S}=1.0
GOTO 421
P(i,l)=0.000
P 1,2 =FOTL
P 1,3 =G!*FDTl
P 1,4 =FDTH
P 1,5 =1.0-{P(1,2)+P(1,3)+P(1,4))
DO 1 1=1,5
s=o.
Sl=0.
00 2 J=l,5
S1=S1-^(I,J)
S«S-*-P(J,I)*V(J)
IF(DA8S(S1-1.0DO). ST.. 000000100) GOTO 99
VV(I)«S
CALL ACCUM(T.TA,V,VV,28,4,2,IPER.FDTL.FDTM,PP,WT,AGE,
* ISH,IP,I6,IB,EA.E1,AS£HIO)
DO 3 !=1,S
V(I)=VV(I)
RETURN
WRITE{3,S8) I,{P{I,J),J-i,5)
FORKAT(14,5F11,8)
STOP
END

SUBROUTINE ACCUM{T,TA,V,VV,N1,N2,N3, IPER,FDTL,FOT«,PP,WT,
* AQE,ISH,IP,IGrI8,IA,El.A6£MID)
THIS SUBROUTINE ACCUMULATES DATA. ALL GROUPS ARE ADDED TOGETHER

REAL*8 PP,S1,T.WT.V,VV,FOTL,FOTM,E1,TA
DIMENSION T(K1,N2),V{5).VV{5),TA(18,4)
INTEGER !K(4),AGEHID
DATA IK/2,3,4,5/
RIA=(IA-l)*5.+2.5
RISH=!SH
!FT={RISH/5.+.S)
«IPER=IA+1FT
SAGE=AG£MID
!,AG£=(A6E+2.5)/S.
DO 1 K-1,4
S1=(VV(IK(K))-V(IK(K) )-*PP*WT
T(MIPER,K =T(M1PER,K +S1
TA{IASE,K =TA(IAG£,K -t-Sl
E1=E1+S1* ASE-SAGE)
CONTtNUE
RETURN
END


SUBROUTINE AG(T,R,IS,LIFE,iP,ll,EXl)

DIMENSION T(28,4),R(28,4),
* LIFE{38)
R£AL*8 A3,A2,R1.RZ,R,T.E1,EX1
IF(IG.NE.4,ANO.!G.NE.9) GOTO 10
N»LIFE(IP)
RN=N
00 20 K=l,4
DO 30 1=1,28
DO 40 J=1,N
K=(J-l)/5+l

-------
CALC.FOR
                   Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AH
                                             Page 2
   31
   82
   83
   84
   85
   86
   87
   88
   89
   90
   91
   92
   93
   94
   95
   96
   97
   98   40
   99   30
  100   20
  101
  102
  103   10
  104
  105
  105
  107   80
  108   70
  109
  110   60
  111
  112
  113  c
  114  o
  115
  116
  117  c
  118
  119
  120
  121
  1-22
  123
  124
  125   64
  125
  127
  128
  129   7?
  130   76
  131
  132
  133   78
  134
  135
  136
  15?
  138
  139
  140
  141
  142
  143
  144
  145   38
  146   36
  147
  148
  149
  150   22
  151
  152
  153   37
  154
  155   99
  156
  157
  158
  159
  160
IF (J.LE
IF {J.GT
IF
IF
IF
IF
IF
IF
IF
J.GT
J.ST
J.GT
J.GT
J.GT
j.ar
J.GT
IF (J.GT
5)
5.AND.J
10, AND.
15. AND.
20. AND.
25. AND.
30. AND.
35. AND.
40. AMD.
45. AND.

.IE. 10)
RJ=J
RJ=J-5
J.LE. 15) RJ=J-10
j.LE.20
J.LE. 25
J.LE.30
J.LE. 35
J.LE. 40
RJ=J-15
RJ=J-2Q
RJ=J-25
RJ=J-30
RJ=J-35
J.LE. 45) RJ=J-40
J.LE. 50) RJ=J-45
    A2=i,-A3
    IF((I-(Krl)).LE.O) R1=O.Q
    IFf  I-(K-lS).GT'.O) R1-T((HK-1)).«)
    IFf  I-KJ.LE.O) R2=0.0
    IF{  1-K).ST.O) R2=T{(I-K},Mj
   R(I,H)=R{I,M)-t-{(A3*Rl)+(A2*R2))
   CONTINUE
   CONTINUE
   CONTINUE
    EX1=EX1+RN*E1
   GOTO 60
   CONTINUE
   DO 70 M=l,4
   00 80 1=1,28
   R{I,H}=R{r,M)+T(I,M)
   CONTINUE
   CONTINUE
    EX1-EXH-E1
   CONTINUE
   RETURN
   END
  SUBROUTINE AGGfRJOTI. Ifi.IP, IB.BPROJ.PROJ.RR,
* EXPl.EXl.lYRS.TEHUEMZ.OISC.NH)

  DIMENSION R(28.4),TOT1(2.28.4),TEH1(38,8,11),TEM2(38,8,11).
* BPROJ(38,20J.PROJ(38,20},RR(28r4}.OISC(10),S(4),ai(4)
  REAL*8 A3,A2,Rl,R2,R,TOTl,RRtEXPi,EXl.TEMl.TEM2,OISC,S.CR
  DATA CR/1. 09, 1.56,1. 02, l.O/
  N-IYRS
   00 64 1=1,4
   S(I)»0.000
   CONTINUE
   00 78 1=1,28
   DO 77 J=l,3
   s(J)»s{JHUi.j)
   CONTINUE
   CONTINUE
   DO 78 1=1,3
   S(4)=S(4)+S(I)
   CONTINUE
   IF(8PROJ(IP.1).EQ.O.O) SOTO 999
  (8PROJ(IP.K}/BPROJ(IP,1}}
  )**K))
   IF(IB,EQ,2) SOTO 99
   00 37 J=1,HNH
   DO 36 1=1,4
   00 38 K-l.IYRS
   IF(J.LT,NNN
   TEH1(IP,I,J)-TEMI(IP,I,J)+
          ,,,,
   *S{I)*(1.0DO/(i.OOO+OISC
   IF(J.EQ.NNN) TEM1(IP,I,J
=TEH1(IP,I,J)+
)*$(!))
       ..            ,,
   ({iPROJ(IP.K)/BPROJ(IP,l
   CONTINUE
   CONTINUE
  DO 22 1=5,7
  11=1-4
  TEMl(IP,I,J}«T£Hl(IPrI!.J)*CR(!I)
  CONTINUE
  TEMl(IP,8,J)-TEMl(IP.l,J)*CR(l)+TEMl(IPr2,J)*CR(2)
  +TEM1(1P,3,J}*CR{33
  CONTINUE
  GOTO 95
   CONTINUE
   DO 57 J-l.NNM
   DO 56 1=1,4
   00 58 K=1,IYRS
   IFfJ.LT.NNN) TEH2(IP,I,J)=
   TEH2(IP.I.J)+((BPROJ(IP,K)/BPROJ(IP,1))

-------
 CALC.FOR
   161
   !6Z
   163
   164  58
   165  56
   166
   167
  168
  169  52
  170
  171
  172  57
  173  95
  174  999
  17S
  176
  177
  178
  179
  180
  181
  182
  183
  184
  185
 186
 187
 188
 189
 190
 191
 192
 193
 194
 195 30
 136 20
 197 10
 198
 199
200      *
201  50
202
203
                              Tuesday May 31. 1988  12:00 AM
                                                                                    Page  3
   CONTINUE
   DO 52 1=5,7
 CONTINUE
 CONTINUE
 CONTINUE
00 10 H=l
00 20 1=1,
00 30 J=i,N
MJ-1 1/5+1
   '
           4
           28
    J.LE.5) RJ=J
  F J.ST.5.ANO.J.LE.10) RJ=j-5
              ...
    J.ST.10.AND.J.IE.15
                         RJ=J-10
                         RJ=J-15
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
 DO 50 vM.N
 !F(8PROJ(!P,1}.GT.O.O) EXPI
RETURN
END

-------
ILE.FOR                       Tuesday  May  31.  L988   12:00 AM                        Page i


   1          SUBROUTINE  FIl£{IB,BPR0J,PR0J,IYRS.PGBRK)
   Z  c
   3          DIMENSION 8PROJ(38,20},3(2,38,20),PROJ(38,20}
   4           CHARACTER  PGBRK
   5           !F(!B.EQ.2  GOTO  200
   6           WRITE  (3,*
   7           WRITE  (3,*)
   8           WR!TE(3,396)  PGBRK
   9  396      FORMATJA,32X.'INPUT DATA  5',//}
  10           WRIT£(3,39?)
  11  39?      FORMAT(1 OX,'Baseline  Indexes  for the  38 Products over 20 ',
  12       *    'Years')
  13           WR1TE{3,797)
  14  797      FORMAT(IX.1	
  15       *    '	~7"""                        ',/71	
  IS          DO 30 K>1,IYRS
  17          READS!,40)  {S(l,J,K),J=l,38)
  18  40      FORMAT  (38{F4.2,IX))
  19           WRIT!  (3,434)  (S(l,J,K),J»l,38)
  20  434       FQRMAT(3Q(F4.2,1X),/,8{F4.2,1X))
  21  30      CONTINUE
  22           WRITE{3,797)
  23           W.RIT£(3,398)  PGBRK
  24  398      F0R«AT(A, 32X, ' INPUT DATA 6', //)
  25           WR1T£(3,399)
  26  399      FORMATUOX, 'Regulatory Alternative Indexes for 38 ',
  27       *    'Products  over  20 Years')
  28           WRITE  (3,797)
  29           00  50 K=1,!YRS
  30           R£AO(2,60) (S(2.J,K).>1,38)
  31  60       FORMAT (38(F4.2,1X))
  32           WRITE (3,434)  (S(2,J.K}.>1,38)
  33  50       CONTINUE
  34           WRITE (3,797)
  35           DO  70 1=1,38
  36           00  80 J-l.IYRS
  37           BPROJ(I,J)«S(2rI,J)
  38  80       CONTINUE
  39  70       CONTINUE
  40           DO  90 1=1,38
  41           DO  100 J«1,IYRS
 •42           PROJ(I,J)=S(1,I,J)
  43  100      CONTINUE
  44   90      CONTINUE
  45           SOTQ 210
 46  200      DO  220 K=l,38
 47           00  230 L=1,IYRS
  48  230.      BPROJ(K,L)=PROJ(K,L)
 49  220      CONTINUE
  50  210      CONTINUE
  SI           RETURN
  52           END

-------
INOATA.FOR
                              Tuesday May 31.  1988   12:00 AM
                                                                           Page 1
 2 c
 3
 4
 5
 6

 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
             SUBROUTINE QAREAO(PQP,RNAX,RLEV,IB.BPROJ.PROJ,IYRS.PGBRK)

            CQHMON/T/MANQP.MANQS.INSO,USED,DISO.MANAP,MANAS,INSA.USEA,
           *QESA.P«ANaP,PMANOS,PINSO.PU$EO.PDI$O.PMANAP,PMANAS,PINSA.
           *PUSEA,PDISA
            CHARACTER  PGBRK
            DIHENS10N  RPOP
            DIMENSION  RMAX
           *MANOP(38),MANOS
                   38,lQ),8PROJf38,2Q},REXP(38,10)
                   38
             , !NSA(38
                   38,10},POP(38,10),RLEV(38.1Q}.PROJ(38.20),
, INSO(38),USEO{38),DISO(38),MANAP{38),
,USEA{38),DISA{38},PMANOP(38),PMANOS{38),
                      PUSEO(38J,PDtSO(38),P«ANAP(38),PMANAS(38)
                      DitcPAMsi onrcif^ai
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
38
37
38







69




67
66


c
0

C '
  39 C
  40 C
  41 C
  42 o
  43
  44
  45
  46
  47
  48
  49
  50
  51
  52
  53
  54
  55
  56 o
  57 c
  58
  59
  80
  61
  62
  63
  64
  65
  66
  57
  68
  S3
  70
  71
  72
  73
  74
  75
  76
  77
  78
  79
  80
  MANAS(38
* PINSO{38
* P1NSA(38),P
  EQUIVALENCE(REXP(1,1),MANOP{15)
  EQUIVALENCE(RPOP;1,13,PMANQP(1))
  CALL FILE(IB,BPROJ,PROJ,!YRS,P58RK1
  Sl=0.0
 00 66 1=1,38
  DO 67 j=l,10
  IF(RPOP(I.J).EQ.O.)GOTO 69
  POP(I,J)=RPOP(I.J)*BPROJ(I,1)
  IF(POP(I,J).EQ,0.)  GOTO 69
  S1«S1+POP(I,J)
  RMAX(I.J}»1.0
  RLEV(I,J)=REXP(I,J)
  SOTO 67
  CONTINUE
  POPU.JJ-0.0
  RLEV I,J =0.0
  RMAXfl.J =0,0
  GOTO 67
  CONTINUE
  CONTINUE
  RETURN
  END
   SUBROUTINE INIT(RLEV,RHAX,IP,IG,NO,POP,SSI)
THIS SUBROUTINE DEFINES THE PRODUCT-SROUP SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
      USED IN THE SIMULATION.
F=!NTENSITY OF EXPOSURE,   SB=EXPOSURE AS OF 1985,
MAXDT=MAX DOSE ASSUMED,   V- INITIAL STATE VECTOR.

   DIMENSION RLEV(38,10),POP(38,10),RMAX(38,10)
   REAL*8 PP
   INTEQER !OCC{10;
   COMMON /Ol/ F.MAXDT.PP
   DATA IOCC/1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2/
    F=RLEV{IP,IG)/2600,
   HAXDT=RHM(IP,I6)
   PP=POP(5P,IS}
   SS1=SS1+PP
   NO=IOCC(!G)
     IF(IP,£Q.12,AND,IS.EQ.9) N0=3
   RETURN
   END
    SUBROUTINE !NC(OSRWT,FDIE,NO,AGE,IPER,IY)
    DIMENSION OSRWT(4,3),FES(18,4)
    REAL FOES(18,4),FN£S(18t4)
    DATA FOEi/
    0..0..0,,.5,1.0.3.0.9.0,33.5.93.0.247.5,489.5,802.0,
    1330.5,1797.5,2283.0,2632.5,2300,5,1700.5,
    0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,3.5,3.0,19.5,54.5,198.0,453.0,872.0,
    1328.5,1775.5,1857.5,2358.0,2351.0,1618.5,1264.0,
    Q.,0.,0,,0.5,0.5,1.5,5.0,18.0,54.5,114.0,191,5,277,0,
    383.5,400.0,410.5,429.5,402.5,394.0,
    0..0..0.,1.0,0.5,3.0,6.5,26.0,82.0,131.0,236.5.290.0,
    348.0,321.5,402.0,404.5,228.5,254.O/
    DATA FNES/
    0..0..0.,.5,1..3..9.,33.5,93.,247.5,518.9,850.1.
    1712.4,2313.4,2938.2,3388.,2960.8,2188.6,
    .5,.5..5,.5,3.5,3.,19.5,54.5,198.,453,,924.3,
    1408.2,2285.,2390.6,3034.8,3025.8,2083,,1626,8,
    0..0..0.,.5,.5,1.5,5.,18.,91.1.190.6,320.1,463.,
    641.,868.6,888.1,717.8,672.7,658.5,
    O.,0..0.,l.,.5.3..8.5.26..137..219.,395,3,484.7,
    581.7.537.4,671.9,676.1,381.9,424.6/
     FOIE =0.0
     DO 190 1-1,4

-------
INOATA-FOR                    Tuesday May 31, 1988  12:00  AM                        page  2
      i9o
  85         RETURN
  85         EHD
  87 c
  88 c
  89       SUBROUTINE LIFE(IPER,FMR,QSRWT,NO)
  »0       REAL'S FMR
  91       DIMENSION OSRWT(4,3)
  92       REAL GHR(18,4!
  93       DATA SMR/




  S



 I
 103       FMR=0.
 104       DO 1  K=l,4

 lie

 iS   .
 109       END

-------
lABLES.FOR                   Tuesday Hay 31, 1988  12:00 AM


    1         SUBROUTINE  INTAB(FILE3,FILE4,FILE2 FILE  IYRS  'SY IFV NFC  a
    I c    *  NP,A,FKL,FKM,IY,G!,NN,D!SC,PQBRK)               '    'NEG'8'

    f         REAL  FKL(38),FKM(38),GI
             REAL*§^OISCUO)
                                                                               Page 1
    7
    a
    9
   10        WRITE(37lO)>6BRK
    1  10     FORHAT(A,32X,'INPUT DATA I',//
   12        WRIT£{3»20)
   13  20     FORMAH30X. 'Scenario Modelled'
   14        HR1T£(3,3Q)
   15  30     FQRMATUX, '
   IS     *  '          ——	
                                                   TTTT
   17         WRITE (3.40]	—"	
   18  40     FQRMATIBX,'DATA FILES',//)

   |  5°  ,  a^SLS^gflH?,«
   55      *   Baseline Product Indexes',14X,A25,/,9X
   II      *  ;,II?f&^x.i&!/?n]at10"''7x'A25'/'9x-
   25  60
   26         	,x	(
  27  70  ^  roRMAf{9X/Numi3er4of'Years',25X,I4  / 9X
  29         ^^^''m'UJM''£nd Year',30X;!4,//}
  30        WR!TE(3,80)  PGBRK

  332  8°    WRITESgof''1"™™™2''77'
      °®     FORMAT(25X, 'Exposure Qrouos An»1v3>e>riM
  34        WRITE{3,30              P      y     J
  35        CALL SR(GROUP)
  36        DO 100 1=1,NEi
  37        WRITEf3.HO) SROUP(B{I))
  38  110    F08HAT(15X,A45,/)
  39  100    CONTINUE
  40        WR!TE(3,3Q)
  41         WRITi{3,120) PQ8RK
  42   120    FORMATIA,32X,'INPUT DATA 3',//)
 43         WRITE{3,130)

  44   130^  FORWmzx/Products Analyzed and their Dose-Response',

  46         WRITE(3,30)
  47        WRITE(3.140)
 48   140   FORMAT(IX, 'PRODUCT' 20X  'LUNfi CANCFR'  ix 'MP^nTUPi rriMi'
 49      * SX.'YFAR FOB'  w 'oirrnncM  LflNUR -4X'  MESOTHELIOMA ,
 50        WITE{3,15)

 52  ^  * 3TlI(CANci'fE'RESPONSE''2X''OOSE"RESraSI''2X''BASaiNE''
 53        W«iT£(3,160)
 54  160   FORMAT(27X,' CONSTANT  ' 5X ' fONSTAKT
 55      * 'TO LlJNSM            '  '   t-u"ala«l
 SB       WRIT£{3,170)
 "  17°   roRMAT|57X 'CANCER',5X,'CANCER'
 ^***       WH1! c, (w r 175}
 59  175   FORHAT(68X,'RATIO')
 60       WRIT£(3,30)
 61       CALL PR(PROO)
 62       00 180 1=1,NP

 64  190   FORMATtix.AZS'.SxTff&'s"
 65  180   CONTINUE            " '
 66       VRITE(3(30)
 67       WRITE(3,200) P68RK

 8  20°   KSA2fif-'INPU™TA4'-//3
 70  210   FORMAT(28X,'Discount Rates  Used'
 71        WRITE{3,30)
 72        DO 220  1=1,NN
 73        J?R*OISC(I)*100.
 74        WRITE(3,230) I.RR
 75  230   FORHAT{6X,I2 ' '
 7S  220   CONTINUE
 11        WUT£{3,30)
 78        RETURN
 79        END
80 c

-------
TABLES.FOR
                              Tuesday May  31,  1988   12:00 AH
                                                                                   Page I
   81
   82
   83
   84
   85
   86
   87
   88
   89
   90
   91
   92
   93
   94
   95
   96
   9?
   98
   99
 100
 101
 102
 103
 104
 105
 108
 107
 108
 109
 110
 111
 112
 113
 114
 115
 116
 117
 118
 119
 120
 121
 122
 123
 124
 125
 126
 127
 128
 129
 130
 131
 132
 133
 134
 135
 135
 137
 13'8
 139
 140
 141 i
 142 (
 143
 144
 145 (
 146 (
 147 (
 148
 149
 150
 151
 152
 153
 154
 155
 15S
 157
 158
 159
 ISO
   SUBROUTINE tjR(GROUP)
   CHARACTERS GROUP(10)
   ,.„«,.„ .   .pRIHARY MANUFACTURING-OCCUPATIONAL'
             SECONDARY MANUFACTUR1NG-QCCUPATIONAL'
             INSTALLATION-OCCUPATIONAL'
             USE-OCCUPATIONAL'
             REPAIR/DISPOSAL-OCCUPATIONAL'
             PRIMARY MANUFACTURING-NON-OCCUPATIONAL'
             SECONDARY MANUFACTURING-NON-OCCUPATIONAi'
             INSTALLATION-NON-OCCUPATIONAI'
             USE-NON-OCCUPATIONAL'
   GRQUP(1G)='REPAIR/01SPOSAL-NON-QCCUPATIQNAL'
   RETURN
   END
GROUP
GROUP
GROUP
GROUP
GROUP
GROUP
GROUP
GROUP
GROUP(9
    SUBROUTINE  PR(PROQ)

    CHARACTERS  PROD(38)
PROD
PROO
PROO
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROO
PROO
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROO
PROO
PROD
PROD
PROO
PROO
PRQO
PROO
PROD
PROD
PROO
PROO
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROO
PROO
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROO
PROD
PROO
PROO
PROO
PROD
1).
2) =
3 =
4 =
5 =
6 =
7 «
8 =
9 =
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33)
34
35
36
37
38
RETURN '
END
            'COMMERCIAL  PAPER1
            'ROLLBOARO'
            'MILLBOARD'
            'PIPELINE WRAP'
            'BEATER-AQO  GASKETS'
            'HSH-GRD ELECTRICAL PAPER'
            'ROOFING FELT'
            'ACETYLENE CYLINDERS'
            'FLQQRINS FELT'
            ''CORRUGATED PAPER'
            ''SPECIALTY  PAPER'
            •'V/A FLOOR  TILE'
            = 'DIAPHRAGMS'
            *'A/C PIPE'
            •'A/C FLAT SHEET'
            •'A/C CORRUGATED SHEET'
            ••A/C SHINGLES'
            ''DRUM BRAKE LIN, NEW
            ''DISC 8RK PADS,LV,NEW
            ''DISC 8RK PAOS.HV
            'BRAKE SLOCKS'   ..
            ''CLUTCH FACINGS'
            :'AUTQ. TRANS. COM!3.'
            'FRICTION MATERIALS'
            'AS8 PROTECT. CLOTH'
            'ASB THRO,  YARN ETC'
            'SHEET GASKETS'
            'ASBESTOS PACKINGS'
            'ROOF COATINfiS ETC'
            'OTHER COAT, & SEAL,'
            'ASB RE INF.  PLAST.'
            'HISSILE LINERS'
            'SEALANT TAPE'
            'BATTERY SEPARATORS'
            'ARC CHUTES'
            'DRH BRK LIN.,OLD'
            'DISC BRK PADS,LV,OLD1
            'MININS/MILLINQ'
 SUBROUTINE PRNT{R,RRtKlrN2.N3,IP,TA.SSl.IYRS,IB,PPP,OISC.
* NN.RRR1.RRR2)
 THIS SUBROUTINE AGSREGATES AND PRINTS THE DATA ASSEMBLED
   IN THE ACCUM  SUBROUTINE

 R£AL*8 S1,S2,RT,R.RR,RRT,TA,TTA,AVA,CR,CRRT.CRT.TRT,TRRT
  REAL*8 CTRT,CTRRT,PPP,RRR1,RRR2,DISC,SST,SS
  DIMENSION CR(4),CRRT(4},CRT(4),PPP(2,38)
  DIMENSION RRRK38.8.11  ,RRR2(38f8,n),DISCUO},SST{ll)
  DIMENSION SS(4,11)
 DIMENSION R 28,4),RT(4),RR(28,4),RRT(4),TA(18,43,TTA{4),AVA(45
  DATA CR/1.09,1.56,1.02,1.O/
   TRT=0.
   TRRT=0.
   CTRT=0.
   CTRRT=0.
   DO 57 1=1,11
   SST(I)=0,000

-------
TABLES.FOR                    Tuesday May 31, 1988  12:00 AM                        Page 3
161 57
162
153
164
165 61
166 59
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 27
177 4
178
179
180 3
181
182
183
184
185
186 89
187 88
188
189
190
191 7
192 6
193
194
195
195
197 14
198 8
199
200
201
202
203
204 49
205
206
207
208
209 51
210
211 47
212
213 95
214
215
218
217 69
218
219
220
221
222 71
223
224 67
225 99
226
227
228 c
229 c
230
231 C
232 C
233 c
234
235
238
237
238
239
240
CONTINUE
00 59 1=1,4
DO 61 J=l,ll
SS{I,J)=0.000
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
DO 3 K=1,N2
S2=Q.
S3=0,
00 4 1=1,28

00 27 KK=1,N
IFfKK.EO.N) SS K,KK)=SS{K,KK)+RR(I,K)
EF KK.LT.N) SS OK =SS K.KK)f(RR(I,K)*(l ,ODO/(1
* OISC(KK))Hl*5-3) )
CONTINUE
S2=S2+R(!,K)
RT(K)=S2
CRT(K)=RT(K)*CR(K)
CONTINUE
DO 88 K-1,3
TRT»TRT+RT{K)
CTRT=CTRT+CRT(K)
00 89 KK=1,N
SST(KK)=SST(KK)i-SS(tC,KK)
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
00 6 K=l,4
S4=Q.
00 7 1=1,18
S4=S4+TA(I,K)
TTA(K)=S4
DO 8 K»l,4
S5»Q.
IF(TTA(K). IE. 0.0001) GOTO 8
00 14 1=1,18
S5=S5+TA(I,K)/TTA(K)*(I*S-2.5)
AVA{K)=S5
PPPU8.IPHS1
IF(IB.EQ.Z) GOTO 95
00 47 J=1,N
00 49 1=1,3
RRR1(IP,I,J)-SS([.J)
CONTINUE
RRR1(IP,4,J)=SST(J)
00 51 1=5,7
11=1-4
RRR1(IP.I.J)*SS(II,J)*CR(II)
CONTINUE
RRR1{IP,8.J)»SS(1,J)*CR(1)+SS(2,J)*CR(2)+SS(3,J)
CONTINUE
SOTO 99
CONTINUE
DO 67 J=1,N
DO 69 1=1,3
RRR2(IP,I.J)*SS(I.J)
CONTINUE
,RRR2(IP.4.J)-SST(J)
00-71 1=5,7
11=1-4
RRR2(1P,I,J)=SS(II,J)*CR(II)
CONTINUE












000+


































*CR(3)











RRR2(IP.8.J)-SS(l.J)*CR(l)+SS(2.J}*CR(2)-i-SS(3,J)*CR{3)
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
RETURN
END


SUBROUTINE TOTAKTOTl.IBJTI.EXPl.PGBRK)

THIS SUBROUTINE PRINTS TOTALS FOR ALL PRODUCTS

REAL*8 TOTl.TTl.EXPl.TO.TC.CR.TTO.TTC.TNP
CHARACTER PSSRK
DIMENSION TOT1(2,28,4),TO(28),TC(28),CR(4),
* TT1{2,4)
OATA CR/1. 09, 1.56.1. 02. l.OO/
TTD*0.
TTC=0 .

















-------
CABLES.FOR
Tuesday Hay 31,  1988  12:00 AM
Page 4
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320




7


1



20
10




43
42



44


48


95

62

46
96

63
47

30


64


65



50
60

78

70



c
c


c













444


TNP=0,
00 7 1=1,28
TD(IS=0,
TC(I}*0'.
CONTINUE
00 1 1=1,4
TTl(fS,I}=0.0
CONTINUE
00 10 K=l,4
DO 20 J=l,28
TTlUB,K)<»m(IB,K)+TOTlUS,J.K}
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
DO 42 J=l,28
DO 43 K=l,3
TO J =TO(JS*TOTi(IB,J,KS
1C J »TC(J)+(TOT1(IB,J,K)*CR(K))
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
DO 44 K-1,3
TTO=*TTD-t-TTldB,K)
TTC=TTC+(TTl(lB,tCS*CR(K))
CONTINUE
DO 48 K-1,4
TNP=TNP+TTl{IB,tCS
CONTINUE
1FUB.EQ.1) SOTO 46
MRITE(3,95) PSBRK
FQRMAT(A,32X, 'OUTPUT DATA Z' ,11}
WftIT£(3,62)
FORMAT{25X,' Totals for All Products-Baseline ',///)
GOTO 47
WUT£(3,96) PS8RK
FORMAT ( A, 32X,' OUTPUT DATA 1 ',//)
«R!T£{3,63)
FORMAT(25X,' Totals for All Products - Alternative',///!
CONTINUE
WRITE(3,30)
FORMAT (IX,'
* ' './/)
WRI?Et3,64}
FORMATS IX, 'TINE SINCE' ,3X, 'LUNG CANCER', 5X, 'G.I. CANCER ',5X,
* 'MESOTHEL!OHA',3X,'ALL EXCESS1 ,5X, 'ALL EXCESS')
WRITE(3,65)
FORMATf IX, 'EXP. ONSET' , SIX, 'CANCER DEATHS' ,2X, 'CANCER CASES'
DO 50 1=1,28
!!={ I-l)*5
12=11+5
WR1TE(3,60) I1,12,(TOTI(IB,I,J),J-1,3},TO(I),TC(I}
FORMAT(I4,'-',13,3F16.5,2fl5.5)
WRITE(3,76)
FORHATdX./)
«R!TE(3,70) (ni(IB.J),J-lf3),TTO,TTC
FORMATf' TOTALS ',3F16.5,2fl5,5,///}
WRITE{3,3Q)
RETURN
END


SUBROUTINE BAHEFF(OISC,TOT1,TT1, I8,NN,RRR1,RRR2,PPP,NP,
* A,P68RK,TEH1.TEK2)

DIMENSION TOT1(2,28,4),§ISC(10),
* TT1 2,4),OIFl(28,4),DD(283,DC(28),CR(4),TEHl(38,8,n),
* DTI 4),PPP(2,38),OIFP(38.8),TRRR{8},TEH2(38,8,U),
* DIS 10,5),RRR1(38,8,11).RRR2(38,8,11),OIFT{38,8),TRRM(8)
REAL*8 TOTI.m,OIFltOOrOC,TOO.TOC,CR,OIFT.TRRM,
* DIS, DISC, EXP1,RRR1,RRR2,PPP,DIFP,TRRR,T£H1,TEH2
INTE6ER A(38),NP
CHARACTER P6BRK
CHARACTER*25 PROO(38)
DATA CR/1. 09, 1.56,1. 02, LOO/
N-l+NN
00 19? K=i,N
DO 444 1=1,8
TRRR(!)*0.0
TRRMUJ-0.0
CONTINUE
DO 200 1=1,38
DO 210 J-1,8

-------
TABLES,FOR
                              Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AH
                                                                                    Page 5
321
322
323
324
325
325
32?
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
333
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
350
361
362
353
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
330
391
392
393
394
395
398
397
398
399
400




210
200




446
445








230

240


330
3SO

360


830
47

471


840
48

472

340
250


260















280
290

300




310

320
19?

385

395


              OIFP(I,J)=O.ODO
              OIFT(I,J}=O.ODO
              QlFT(i,J}*TEM2(I,J,K
              DIFP(I,J}*RRRZ(I,J.K
             'CONTINUE
              CONTINUE
              DO 445 1-1,8
              00 446 J=l,38
              -TEM1(I,J.K)
              -RRRKI.J.K)
              TRRR!
              TRRM!
=TRRR{1
 TRRH{!
              CONTINUE
              CONTINUE
              CALL  PR(PROO)
                DIFT(J,I)
.N)
.H)
                 K.EQ.N)  RR=Q.
IF     .
IF K.LT.N) RR=OISC(KS*IOO.
DO 320 JJ»1,4
IF (JJ.EQ.2) GO TO 330
IF(JJ.EQ.3) SOTO 830
IF(JJ.EQ.4) SOTO 840
WRITE(3,230) PSBRK
FORMAT{A,32X,'OUTPUT DATA 3',//)
WR1TE(3,240) RR
FORMAT(4X,'Cancer Deaths Avoided by Product',
' Discounted from Time of Effect at ',F5.1,'%')
SOTO 340
WRITE(3,350) PSBRtC
FORMAT(A,32X,'OUTPUT DATA 4',//)
WRITE(3,360) RR
FORHAT{4X,'Cancer Cases Avoided by Product',
' Discounted from Time of Effect at ',F5.1,'%')
GOTO 340
WRITE{3,47) PSBRK
FORMAT{A,32X,'OUTPUT DATA 3A'.//)
WR!TE{3,471) RR
FORMAT(3X,'Cancer Deaths Avoided by Product',
' Discounted from Time of Exposure at  ',F5.1,'%'
QOTO 340
WRITE{3,48} PSBRK
FOR«AT(A,32X,'OUTPUT DATA 4A',//)
WRITE(3,472) RR
FORMAT(3X,'Cancer Cases Avoided by Product',
'  Discounted from Time of Exposure at  ',F5.1,'%'
WRITE(3,250)
FORMAT(IX,'       	
                                                      777)
             WRITE ['3,2 50}"'
             FORMAT(8X,'PRODUCT NAME',8X,'LUNS CANCER',2X,'GI  CANCER',
             2X,'MESOTHELIOMA',2X,'TOTAL CANCER',//)
IF
IF
IF
IF
IF
IF
IF
IF
JJ.EQ.1.0R.JJ.EQ.3
JJ,EQ,1,OR,JJ.EQ.3
JJ.EQ.2.0R.JJ.EQ.4
JJ.EQ.2.0R.JJ.E0.4
JJ.EQ.l
JJ.EQ.2
JJ.EQ.3
JJ.EQ.4
WRITE (7
WITE (7
WRITE 7
WRITE 7'
ILOW=l
!HliH=4
!IOW=5
!H1SH=8
OIFP
DIFP
DIPT
DIPT
I.IHIQH
I.IHIGH
I.1HIGH
I.IHIGH
,1=1,38
,1=1,38
,1=1,38
,1=1,38
00 290 1=1, NP
If-A(I)
!F(JJ.EQ.1.0R.jJ.EQ.2)
                                                          JRRR
                                                          JRRR
                                                          ,TRRM
                                                          ,TRRM
                                           IHIGH)
                                           IHIGH
                                           IHIGH
                                           IHIGH
             WRITE{3,280) PROD(IP),(DIFP{IP,J),J=ILQWfIHIGH)
             IF(JJ.EQ.3,OR,JJ.EQ.4)
             WRITE{3,280) PROD(IPS, (OIFT(IPJ), J-ILOW, IHIGH)
             FORHAT(3X,A25,FI0.5,3X,F10.5PlX,F10.5r4X,F10,5)
             CONTINUE
             WRITE{3,300)
             FORMAT(3X,//)
             IF(JJ.EQ.l.OR.JJ.EQ.Z)
             WRITE(3,310) (TRRR(I),I-ILOWrIHI6H)
             !F(JJ.EQ.3,OR.JJ.E0.4)
             WRITE(3,310) (TRRM(I),I-IIOW,IHI6H)
             FORHAT(12X,'TOTAL',llX,F10,i,3X,F10.5,lX,F10.5,4X,F10.5)
             WRITE{3,2503
             CONTINUE
              CONTINUE
             WRITE(3,385) PSBRK
             FORHAT(A,32X,'OyTPtJT  DATA 5',//)
             WRITE(3,39S)
             FORMAT(24X/Number of People Exposed  in Base Year')
             WRITE 3,250)
             WRITE 3,405

-------
 TABLES-TOR                    Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AM                        Page 6


  401  405    FQRHAT{12X,'PRODUCT',12X,'NUMBER OF PEOPLE',//}
  402         00 415 1=1,NP
  403         !P=A{!)
  404         WRITE(3,425) PROO(IP),PPP(2,IP)
  405  425    FQRMAT{3X,A25,3X,F1Q.QS
  406  415     CONTINUE
  407         tfRITE(3,2503
  408         TOD=0.
  409         TDC*Q.
  410         00 24 1=1,28
  411         00(11=0.
  412         DC([)=0.
  413  24     CONTINUE
  414         00 6  !=i,NM
  415         00 5 J=l,5
  416         DIS(I,J)=O.DO
  417  5      CONTINUE
  418  6      CONTINUE
  419         00 10 1=1,28
  420         00 20 J=l,4
  «1         DIF1(I,JHTOT1(2,I.J)-TOT1U,I,J))
  422  20     CONTINUE
  423  10     CONTINUE
  424         DO 50 J=l,4
  425         OT1(JHTT1{2,J)-TT1(1,J))
  425  50     CONTINUE
  427         00 76 1=1,28
  428         00 77 K=l,3
  429         00(1 =DD(I)-H3IFlf!,K)
  430         DC(I =OC(l)-f-(QIFi(I,K)*CR(K))
  431  77     CONTINUE
  432  76     CONTINUE
  433         DO 79 K-1.3
  434         TOQ=TDD+DT1(K)
  435         TDOTDO(DT1(K:)*CR(K))
  436  79     CONTINUE
  437         00 55 K»1,NN
  438         00 70 J-1,3
  439         DO 80 1=1,28
  440          DIS(K.J)*0!S(KJ)+DIFl{I,J)*(1.00/(l.DO+DISC(K))**(I*5-3))
  441  80     CONTINUE
  442  70     CONTINUE
  443  55     CONTINUE
  444         DO 56 K=1,NN
  445         00 83 1*1,28
  446          DISEK,4)=OIS(K,4)+00(I)*(1.0DO/fl.DO+OISC(K)
  447          OIS(K,S)-OIS(K,5)+OC[I)*(1.000/(l.OO+OISC K)
  448  83     CONTINUE
  443  56     CONTINUE
  450         WRITE{3,437) PSBRK
  451  437    FORMAT(A,32X,'OUTPUT DATA 6',//}
  452         WRITE(3,12Q)
  453  120    FORMAT(15X,'Cancers Avoided for All Products by Time Period'
  454         WRITE 3,250)
  455          WRITE(3,87)
  456  87      FORMAT (IX,'TIHI SINK', 3X, 'LUNG CANCER', 3X, '81 CANCER',
  497      *  3X.'MESOTHELIOMA'.SX,'ALL EXCESS',3X,'ALL EXCESS')
  458        •  WRITE(3,88)
  459  88      FORMATflX,'START  OF',46X,'DEATHS',7X,'CASES')
  460          WRIT£(3,489)
  461  489    FQRMATUX, 'ANALYSIS',//)
.  462         00 130 1=1,28
  463         I1»(I-1)*5
  464         rZ-Il+5
  465  130     WRITE(3,140) 11,12,(D!F1(I,J),J=1,3),00(1),DC(I)
  466  140     FORMAT{3X,i4,'-',I3,3X,F10,4,4X,F10,4,2X,F10,4,5X,F10.2,
  467      *  3X.F10.2)
  468          (fflITE(3,79f)
  489  796     FORHATflX,/)
  470        WRITE{3,78)  (OTl(J),J»i,3).TDD,TDC
  471   78     FORHAT(4X,'TOTAL',5X,F10.4,4X,F10.4,2X,F10.4,SX,F10.2,
  472      *   3X.F10.2,/}
  473          WRITE(3,478)
  474  478     FORMATEIX,'OISCOUHTIO  TOTALS',/)
  475          DO 27 K*1.NM
  476          RR=OISC(K)*100.
  477          WITE{3,81) RR,(DIS(K, J) ,J-1,5)
  478  81      FORMAT{1X,F5,2,'  PERCENT'3X,F1Q.4,4X,F10.4,2X,F1Q,4,5X,
  479      *  F10.2.3X.F10.2)
  480  27      CONTINUE
1*5-3))
!*5-3))

-------
TABLES.FOR
                              Tuesday May 31,  1988  12:00 AH
Page 7
481
482
483
484 c
485 c
488
487 C
488 C
489 C
490 C
491 C
492
493
494
495
49S
49?
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
SIS
WRfTE(3.250)
RETURN
END


SUBROUTINE LIST

THIS SUBROUTINE LISTS TO THE SCREEN THE
ASSOCIATED REFERENCE NUMBERS.


WRITE?
WRITEf
WRITE
yRITEf
WRITE
WRITE
WR!T£(
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE{
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
WRITEf
WRITE{
WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
f
t
_
t
t
r
,
t


r
f
r
t
,


t
,

f

} ' List of Products and Their
}
' 1-COMMERCIAL PAPER
' 2-ROLLBOARD
' 3-MILLBOARD
' 4-PIPELINE WRAP
' 5-BEATER-AOO GASKETS
' S-HGH-SRD ELECTRICAL PAPER
' 7-ROQFIN6 FELT
' 8- ACETYLENE CYLINDERS
' 9-FLQQRINQ FELT
' 10-CQRRU6ATED PAPER
'11-SPECIALTY PAPER
'12-V/A FLOOR TILE
' 13-DIAPHRAGMS
'14-A/C PIPE
'15-A/C FLAT SHEET
) '16-A/C CORRUGATED SHEET
'17-A/C SHINGLES
'18-DRUM BRAKE LININSS.NEW
'
'
PAUSE 'Press the «R£TURN> or the <=£NTER>
RETURN
END







PRODUCT NUMBERS AND THEIR



Reference Numbers: '

19-OISC BRK. PADS, LV, NEW'
20-OISC BRK PA0S,HV
21-8RAICE BLOCKS'
22-CLUTCH FACIN6S'
23-AUTO. TRANS. COHP '
Z4-FRICTION KATERiALS'
25-ASS PROTECT. CLOTH'
26-ASB THRD, YARN, ETC'
27-SHEET SASKETS '
28-ASBESTOS PACKINGS '
29-RQQF COATINGS ETC'
30-OTHER COAT, & SEAL,'
31-ASB.-REINF. PLAS'
32-MISSILE LINERS'
33-SEALANT TAPE'
34-BATTERY SEPARATORS'
35-ARC CHUTES'
36-ORM 8RK LIN, OLD'
37-01 SC BRK PADS, LV, OLD'
38-MININ6/MIUING'
key to continue'



-------