RE: Request to Designate Asbestos as a High Priority Substance Under TSCA 6 Due to Use in Brake Friction Materials

Transcription

1 September 6, 2016 The Honorable Jim Jones (7101M) Assistant Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC By to RE: Request to Designate Asbestos as a High Priority Substance Under TSCA 6 Due to Use in Brake Friction Materials Dear Assistant Administrator Jones: The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) 1 urges EPA to designate asbestos as one of the first ten high priority substances under section 6(b)(2)(A) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as amended 2 due to its continued use in imported brakes and brake components. Since MEMA members do not import asbestos containing brakes or brake components, this request is not submitted as a manufacturer request for a risk evaluation under section 6(b)(4)(C)(ii). The continued importation of asbestoscontaining brakes and brake component material presents an unreasonable risk to the health of American workers, particularly those who install and repair brakes containing asbestos, and to the general public, particularly do it yourselfers (DIYers) who replace their own brakes. Criteria for High Priority Chemicals Under TSCA section 6(b)(1)(B)(i), a high priority substance is one that EPA has concluded may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use. As explained below, EPA has already determined that the manufacture (including import) or processing of asbestos for use in brakes and brake components presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health. Asbestos thus qualifies as a high priority substance. 1 MEMA represents more than 1,000 companies that manufacture motor vehicle systems and parts for use in the light and heavy duty vehicle original equipment and aftermarket industries. MEMA membership includes manufacturers of brake systems, brake components and brake friction materials. MEMA represents its members through four divisions: Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA), Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association (HDMA), Motor & Equipment Remanufacturers Association (MERA) and Original Equipment Suppliers Association (OESA). 2 Amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21 st Century Act (LCSA), Pub. L (June 22, 2016).

2 September 6, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Under section 6(b)(2)(D)(i), in designating high priority substances, EPA must give preference to chemicals that are listed in the 2014 TSCA Work Plan update, are known human carcinogens, and have high acute and chronic toxicity. Asbestos meets all of these requirements: it is on the 2014 TSCA Work Plan update, and it is a known human carcinogen with acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures. Thus, EPA must give preference to asbestos as a high priority substance. EPA Has Already Found That Asbestos in Brakes Poses an Unreasonable Risk In 1989, EPA concluded that the continued commercial manufacture, import, processing, and distribution in commerce of [brakes, brake components, and other] products identified in this rule poses an unreasonable risk of injury to human health under section 6 of TSCA. 3 EPA banned (after a phase out period) the manufacture or import of industrial asbestos friction products, asbestos containing disc brake pads for light, medium and heavyweight vehicles, and drum brake linings, and brake blocks in original equipment or aftermarket replacement parts. 4 EPA based this ban on the high level of individual risk from the exposure over the entire life cycles of each of the banned asbestos containing products. 5 The 1989 asbestos rulemaking identified workers and DIYers as two potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. EPA noted in the 1989 rule that workers involved in the installation, repair, removal, and disposal of the banned products are exposed to a serious lifetime asbestos exposure risk, despite OSHA s relatively low workplace PEL. 6 EPA observed that the effectiveness of the brake repair control measures in reducing overall exposures depends heavily on the knowledge and conscientiousness of the user, and that smaller establishments repairing brakes less frequently are less likely to invest in these relatively expensive devices [HEPA vacuum enclosures]. 7 EPA found that the structure of the brake repair... [industry], in which numerous, small businesses are the norm, will also make enforcement of [OSHA s excursion limit] difficult. 8 EPA also found that consumers, particularly DIYers, are at risk from asbestos in brakes and brake components. It found that consumers face a potential hazard as they install, use, repair, and dispose of these products. 9 Specifically, it found: Outside of the work environment, most of the U.S. population is exposed to asbestos that is released during the life cycle of asbestos products. Some of these people are consumers who are exposed to asbestos as they install, use, repair, remove, and 3 54 Fed. Reg , (July 12, 1989). 4 Former 40 C.F.R , 54 Fed. Reg. at Fed. Reg. at Id. 7 Id. at Id. 9 Id. at

3 September 6, 2016 Page 3 of 5 dispose of asbestos products that they have purchased, such as... automotive brakes. Others are exposed to asbestos released into the ambient air during the manufacture, installation, use, repair, and disposal of asbestos products. 10 Unfortunately, a broad ban on products containing asbestos was never implemented. Before the phase out dates, a court of appeals invalidated these and most other provisions of EPA s asbestos standard. 11 The court based its ruling on EPA s difficulty in balancing costs and benefits, and in meeting the least burdensome language formerly in section 6. Thus, today there is no federal ban on the manufacture, importation, processing, distribution, use, or disposal of asbestos containing brakes and brake components. With the recent statutory changes, however, EPA would not have to meet the same statutory requirements as proved decisive in Corrosion Proof Fittings. Asbestos Is Still in Some Imported Brakes and Brake Components The 1991 court decision found that [f]or these original equipment brakes, it appears that manufacturers already have developed safe substitutes for asbestos, considering that nearly all new vehicles come with non asbestos disc brakes, with non asbestos drum brakes apparently soon to follow. 12 The court was concerned about the availability of substitutes for aftermarket brakes and brake components. As would be anticipated, brake manufacturers have found acceptable substitutes since the court s decision. U.S. brake friction materials manufacturers initiated the phase out of asbestos in the late 1980s after a consensus developed on the toxicity of asbestos. As of January 2015, the phase out of asbestos and other constituents 13 in motor vehicle brake friction material was completed, thanks to laws in California and the State of Washington. 14 These laws, passed in 2010, require brake friction material manufacturers to reduce asbestos in all brake friction material sold in the states to a trace amount 0.10 percent by weight by January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2015, respectively. As a result, the California and Washington laws effectively drove an industry de facto standard, leading brake friction material manufacturers to change all of their U.S. product lines to comply with those laws. This de facto standard was solidified further when MEMA, the Brake Manufacturers Council, 15 and multiple other industry stakeholders, including the vehicle manufacturers, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Environmental Protection 10 Id. at Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5 th Cir. 1991). 12 Id. at (citation omitted). 13 Other constituents include mercury, lead, cadmium, and chromium 6 salts. 14 California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 13.5 (California SB 346); State of Washington Chapter RCW (Washington SB 6557). Washington has issued final regulations, Wash. Admin. Code Chap (2012). California expects to finalize its regulations by the end of A product council of Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association, a division of MEMA.

4 September 6, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Agency. 16 Under the MOU, stakeholders agreed to phase out the use of asbestos, along with other constituents, in brake friction material to no more than 0.10 percent by weight in brakes sold anywhere in the U.S. by January Although the California and Washington laws and the MOU allow trace amounts of asbestos in brake friction materials, U.S. brake manufacturers do not use any asbestos at all when manufacturing brake friction materials. Nevertheless, some imported brakes and brake components continue to contain asbestos. In 2015, the Department of Commerce submitted a report to Congress stating approximately $2.2 million in brake friction materials containing asbestos was imported into the U.S. in According to the report, China and Canada are the largest suppliers of U.S. imports of brake friction materials containing asbestos. Similar numbers on brake friction materials containing asbestos can be found in the U.S. Geological Survey s 2013 and 2014 Yearbook on Asbestos. 19 These reports are based on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes. While brake friction material containing asbestos was just over 1 percent of total imported brake friction material in 2013, the low cost asbestos from these offshore suppliers pose an unreasonable risk to workers and consumers, as EPA found 25 years ago. Not only are brake friction materials containing asbestos still allowed to be imported, these products are not required to be labeled as containing asbestos. Brake pads and linings use composite materials, making it difficult to determine exactly what goes into them. As a result, the continued supply of asbestos containing friction material presents a risk of exposure to mechanics and DIYers who install or work with these products and may be unaware that they are being exposed to asbestos. Without EPA taking a definitive allencompassing action on asbestos in brakes, U.S. workers and the public will remain at risk. Conclusion EPA must ensure that, within 180 days of TSCA enactment, initial risk evaluations are being conducted on 10 high priority chemicals drawn from the 2014 TSCA Work Plan. 20 MEMA urges EPA to designate asbestos as an initial high priority chemical and include brake friction materials in the scope of the risk evaluation. Given EPA s commitment to 16 Memorandum of Understanding on Copper Mitigation in Watersheds and Waterways between U.S. EPA and MEMA, Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association, Brake Manufacturers Council, Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association, Auto Care Association, Alliance of Automobile Association, Association of Global Automakers, Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, and Environmental Council of the States, January 21, The main objective of these laws and the MOU was to phase out the use of copper in brake friction materials. 18 This report was submitted to Congress, but was not published or posted on the internet. A copy of the report is included as an attachment. In 2015, 2013 import data was the most recent full year available. 19 U.S. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook: Asbestos. By Robert L. Virta and Daniel M. Flanagan asbes.pdf 20 TSCA Section 6(b)(2)(A).

5 September 6, 2016 Page 5 of 5 eliminating risk of injury to human health from asbestos exposure, this issue should be a priority for EPA. Thank you for consideration of this request. Please do not hesitate to contact Laurie Holmes, Senior Director, Environmental Policy, with any questions. Sincerely, Ann Wilson Senior Vice President, Government Affairs Enclosure

6 Report on Importation of Brakes Containing Asbestos 15-H-018-ITA-IA Draft due to OCFAO March 2, 2015; close of business The manufacture of asbestos brakes has been banned in the United States for about 10 years yet the Committee understands that some imported brake pads are still manufactured with asbestos. Commerce shall submit a report within 120 days of enactment of this Act regarding the current policy with respect to the importation of asbestos-containing brakes and an assessment of the ability of U.S.-based manufacturers to produce brakes without asbestos or other banned substances. Background The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule banning most asbestos-containing products on July 12, In 1991, this regulation was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result of the Court's decision, only a few asbestos-containing products remain banned. These include corrugated paper, rollboard, and other paper products, spray on asbestos surfacing materials, and new uses of asbestos. Asbestos is not banned from use in brake pads and linings. 1 While it is legal to sell and produce asbestos containing brake products in the United States, little if any production of asbestos containing brake products occurs in the United States. Likewise the sale of brake products containing asbestos is also limited. U.S. manufacturers produce brakes using a variety of alternative materials such as copper. These alternatives offer improved wear resistance and braking performance, but new environmental concerns have surfaced regarding some of them. EPA concluded a memorandum of understanding on January 21, 2015 with most major automotive vehicle parts trade associations to reduce the environmental impacts from brake materials. The agreement calls for the voluntary reduction of copper and other materials in motor vehicle brakes. The Copper-Free Brake Initiative calls for cutting copper in brake friction materials to less than 5 percent by 2021 and 0.5 percent by This voluntary initiative also calls for cutting the amount of mercury, lead, cadmium, asbestiform fibers and chromium-6 salts in motor vehicle brake pads and it includes provisions for the study of lower impact alternates. These steps will decrease runoff of these materials from roads into the nation s streams, rivers and lakes, where these materials can harm fish, amphibians and plants. 2 Imports Roughly $2.2 million in asbestos containing brake friction materials and pads were imported into the United States in 2013 (most recent full year available). This is just over one percent of total imports of brake pads and linings. While 2014 imports through November have increased slightly, imports remain at roughly 50 percent of 2009 levels of $4.5 million. China is the largest supplier providing above half of U.S. imports but again significantly below its 2009 levels. 1 For more information, please see: 2 More information can be found at: !opendocument 1

7 Total 4,510,177 2,223,832 2,330,266 3,306,517 2,174,843 China 1,868, , ,412 1,195,376 1,167,409 Canada 171,955 85, ,635 1,076, ,861 Germany 183, , , , ,055 Argentina 8, ,299 89, ,343 Spain 62,300 56,324 31, , ,303 The United States imported $180 million in non-asbestos brake friction materials and pads in Brazil is the largest provider of non-asbestos brake friction materials and pads followed by China Total 109,888, ,154, ,040, ,805, ,393,336 Brazil 40,204,291 49,001,180 53,805,075 54,240,912 46,044,010 China 11,597,710 20,235,752 26,873,212 28,082,940 34,409,017 Japan 10,113,592 13,893,108 16,366,056 30,229,020 26,205,672 India 8,723,799 15,079,380 13,248,825 14,622,316 17,941,727 Mexico 3,909,582 4,144,051 6,583,628 5,763,593 13,481,470 EPA has an Asbestos Abatement/Management Ombudsman. The Ombudsman provides information to the public sector, including individual citizens and community services, about the handling, abatement, and management of asbestos in schools, the work place, and the home. 3 The information includes pertinent regulations and best practices for handling and disposal of asbestos containing products. 3 Please see: 2