EPA Bans Chrysotile Asbestos (apnews.com) 98
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced a comprehensive ban on asbestos, a carcinogen that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year but is still used in some chlorine bleach, brake pads and other products. The final rule marks a major expansion of EPA regulation under a landmark 2016 law that overhauled regulations governing tens of thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday products, from household cleaners to clothing and furniture. The new rule would ban chrysotile asbestos, the only ongoing use of asbestos in the United States. The substance is found in products such as brake linings and gaskets and is used to manufacture chlorine bleach and sodium hydroxide, also known as caustic soda, including some that is used for water purification. [...]
The 2016 law authorized new rules for tens of thousands of toxic chemicals found in everyday products, including substances such as asbestos and trichloroethylene that for decades have been known to cause cancer yet were largely unregulated under federal law. Known as the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the law was intended to clear up a hodgepodge of state rules governing chemicals and update the Toxic Substances Control Act, a 1976 law that had remained unchanged for 40 years. The EPA banned asbestos in 1989, but the rule was largely overturned by a 1991 Court of Appeals decision that weakened the EPA's authority under TSCA to address risks to human health from asbestos or other existing chemicals. The 2016 law required the EPA to evaluate chemicals and put in place protections against unreasonable risks. Asbestos, which was once common in home insulation and other products, is banned in more than 50 countries, and its use in the U.S. has been declining for decades. The only form of asbestos known to be currently imported, processed or distributed for use in the U.S. is chrysotile asbestos, which is imported primarily from Brazil and Russia. It is used by the chlor-alkali industry, which produces bleach, caustic soda and other products. Most consumer products that historically contained chrysotile asbestos have been discontinued. While chlorine is a commonly used disinfectant in water treatment, there are only eight chlor-alkali plants in the U.S. that still use asbestos diaphragms to produce chlorine and sodium hydroxide. The plants are mostly located in Louisiana and Texas.
The use of asbestos diaphragms has been declining and now accounts for less than one-third of the chlor-alkali production in the U.S., the EPA said. The EPA rule will ban imports of asbestos for chlor-alkali as soon as the rule is published but will phase in prohibitions on chlor-alkali use over five or more years to provide what the agency called "a reasonable transition period." A ban on most other uses of asbestos will effect in two years. A ban on asbestos in oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes and linings and other gaskets will take effect in six months. The EPA rule allows asbestos-containing sheet gaskets to be used until 2037 at the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site in South Carolina to ensure that safe disposal of nuclear materials can continue on schedule. Separately, the EPA is also evaluating so-called legacy uses of asbestos in older buildings, including schools and industrial sites, to determine possible public health risks. A final risk evaluation is expected by the end of the year.
The 2016 law authorized new rules for tens of thousands of toxic chemicals found in everyday products, including substances such as asbestos and trichloroethylene that for decades have been known to cause cancer yet were largely unregulated under federal law. Known as the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the law was intended to clear up a hodgepodge of state rules governing chemicals and update the Toxic Substances Control Act, a 1976 law that had remained unchanged for 40 years. The EPA banned asbestos in 1989, but the rule was largely overturned by a 1991 Court of Appeals decision that weakened the EPA's authority under TSCA to address risks to human health from asbestos or other existing chemicals. The 2016 law required the EPA to evaluate chemicals and put in place protections against unreasonable risks. Asbestos, which was once common in home insulation and other products, is banned in more than 50 countries, and its use in the U.S. has been declining for decades. The only form of asbestos known to be currently imported, processed or distributed for use in the U.S. is chrysotile asbestos, which is imported primarily from Brazil and Russia. It is used by the chlor-alkali industry, which produces bleach, caustic soda and other products. Most consumer products that historically contained chrysotile asbestos have been discontinued. While chlorine is a commonly used disinfectant in water treatment, there are only eight chlor-alkali plants in the U.S. that still use asbestos diaphragms to produce chlorine and sodium hydroxide. The plants are mostly located in Louisiana and Texas.
The use of asbestos diaphragms has been declining and now accounts for less than one-third of the chlor-alkali production in the U.S., the EPA said. The EPA rule will ban imports of asbestos for chlor-alkali as soon as the rule is published but will phase in prohibitions on chlor-alkali use over five or more years to provide what the agency called "a reasonable transition period." A ban on most other uses of asbestos will effect in two years. A ban on asbestos in oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes and linings and other gaskets will take effect in six months. The EPA rule allows asbestos-containing sheet gaskets to be used until 2037 at the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site in South Carolina to ensure that safe disposal of nuclear materials can continue on schedule. Separately, the EPA is also evaluating so-called legacy uses of asbestos in older buildings, including schools and industrial sites, to determine possible public health risks. A final risk evaluation is expected by the end of the year.
Sad Day (Score:2)
But why? (Score:2)
I think asbestos is the least of your worries if you work in a bleach factory...
Re: (Score:3)
thanks to regulations removing asbestos from that work environment, yes, true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you probably have a good chance of knowing the risks of asbestos if you work in a bleach factory. I think there are some environments where using asbestos makes sense, or even required, and there are others that don't. We already outlawed the latter. Regardless, the new rule in general is idiotic. For example, not putting asbestos on brake pads is going to make trucks fall off a cliff easier as their brakes won't cool off. Those pull of ramps exist on mountains for a reason and making brakes hotter (worse) is going to cause trucks use them more often. This will in turn cause more deaths to both truckers and more likely the passengers in cars who are in the way of the out of control truck. So to be clear, worse brakes = more deaths. Are you sure you want to be on the road with that truck, especially with your kids and other family members as passengers?
Not a lot of asbestos in brake linings any more, other than for really cheap stuff bought from China. There are a lot of options that work well. Organic, Ceramic, and semi metallic.
I use ceramic on my Jeep, and they stop better than asbestos, last longer, are gentler on the rotors and are quieter. And for your example of falling off a cliff - My Jeep and I are in that situation sometimes, and I'm quite thankful for my ceramic pads. 8^)
Re: (Score:1)
Who benefits?
China.
The US only has 5% of the world consumers but can be producers for almost 75%.
Unless it's banned.
They include China in "global south" so they don't get sanctioned globally for anything.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I think asbestos is the least of your worries if you work in a bleach factory...
Tell me again how asbestos exposure is still questionable regarding harm, because I’m starting to wonder about all these bleach alternatives.
I remember when the margarine pimps sold me that butter was worse for you too.
Re:But why? (Score:5, Informative)
There are different forms of asbestos. The kind that was used as shingles on houses and is still present in many places is of little consequence, as it doesn't break up into tiny fibers that get inhaled, which is the mechanical means by which the bad effects of asbestos happen. The term used is 'friable', meaning easily broken up by hand and crumbly. In my state (MD) you can dump this stuff at the local landfill after removing it yourself.
Those supporting chrysotile make the argument that the form used is nonfriable and therefore doesn't shed fibers, and therefore does not cause the asbestos-related illnesses accompanying other forms of asbestos. The lobbyists working against it use the term 'could cause', implying you could put the stuff in a crusher or something and turn it into fibers, which is true enough I suppose.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Industry party line [chrysotile...iation.com]
Opponents [asbestossafety.gov.au]
Re: (Score:2)
The lobbyists working against it use the term 'could cause', implying you could put the stuff in a crusher or something and turn it into fibers, which is true enough I suppose.
If it's in brake linings, it WILL be turned into a fine, airborne dust. That's how brakes work.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess a brake caliper is a 'crusher'.
Re: Law found unconstitutional in 3...2... (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you elaborate on why you think pollution regulations are a form of socialism?
Re: (Score:3)
I thought big business like the EPA because of its piles of regulations prevent competitors and startups from encroaching on their turf. Kind of like the big pharmaceuticals secretly like the FDA.
Re: (Score:3)
It's always been a bit of an urban legend in the HVAC industry that DuPont is the beneficiary of the EPA's refrigerant phase-outs, because they'll just come up with something new, patent it, and the competition is no longer able to produce the older gases with expired patents.
If I was Mythbusters, I'd rate it as plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
Same argument with florocarbons used in emergency inhalers for asthmatics. They were exempted, then the government un-exempted them, but apparently because the inhaler companies got patents on the new stuff, so could get back to charging a ton on new patents.
Ymmv but seems rotten if it was insignifant as a use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Law found unconstitutional in 3...2... (Score:4, Interesting)
You should be glad that he hasn't gotten his cronies to start claiming that jailing him for bludgeoning you to death is a violation of his right to swing his fist....
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's a violation of his right to use what ever material he wants, your right to life however is trivial to him. You should be glad that he hasn't gotten his cronies to start claiming that jailing him for bludgeoning you to death is a violation of his right to swing his fist....
Whacky group solipsism, which seems like a contradiction in terms.
But for all the "get off my lawn" and "it was better in the olde days" rhetoric, asbestos is a problem and there are superior solutions in many cases.
Take Brake pads for instance. Asbestos vs ceramic pads? Better stopping power, much less brake fade, less noise and dust, last a lot longer, and gentler on the rotors. Less expensive in the long run.
About the only asbestos in pads comes from China on the cheapest pads. So the brake pad
Re: Law found unconstitutional in 3...2... (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you elaborate on why you think pollution regulations are a form of socialism?
He didn't say "socialism". He said, "socialistic", a right-wing nutjob code word used for tribal signaling.
Re: Law found unconstitutional in 3...2... (Score:4, Funny)
They will be out protesting soon, telling everyone that they will have to pry their asbestos from their cold, dead lungs.
Re: (Score:2)
Privatized profit, socialized sickness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
say it the line, Bart!
"Everyone I don't like is Hitler!"
(national socialists)
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is no Constitutional provision for the US EPA to even exist
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ..."
Re:Law found unconstitutional in 3...2... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are enumerations for the general welfare clause. They are often ignored.
Re: Law found unconstitutional in 3...2... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think that means what you think it means....
What the AC tried to say: (Score:4, Informative)
Because there is no Constitutional provision for the US EPA to even exist, all it will take is a case going to SCOTUS, and the EPA will wind up history, with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act joining other socialistic constructs in the ashbin of history.
The Supreme Court this year is reconsidering a key 1984 decision, which if overturned could threaten countless regulations and would transfer power away from executive agencies like the EPA and transfer 'specialist decision making' to the judicial branch [archive.is].
= = = =
Members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined on Wednesday to overturn or limit a key precedent that has empowered executive agencies and frustrated business groups hostile to government regulation.
Judging from questions in two hard-fought arguments that lasted a total of more than three and a half hours, the fate of a foundational doctrine of administrative law called Chevron deference appeared to be in peril.
The doctrine takes its name from a 1984 decision, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most cited cases in American law. Discarding it could threaten regulations in countless areas, including the environment, health care, consumer safety, nuclear energy and government benefit programs. It would also transfer power from agencies to Congress and the courts.
Under Chevron, judges must defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. In close cases, and there are many, the views of the agency take priority even if courts might have ruled differently.
= = = = =
The future of the EPA and countless other agencies looks bleak.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is no Constitutional provision for the US EPA to even exist, all it will take is a case going to SCOTUS
The Commerce clause. Export of materials into the atmosphere is a form of interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would return that power and RESPONSIBILITY back to congress where it should be. Congress can hire and make use of experts in the fields to advise for legislation that may be required.
We do not need unelected and therefore unanswerable entities mak
Corporations Salivating Over This SCOTUS decision (Score:2)
"A single activist judge carefully selected by plaintiffs could undo all the regulations of a Federal agency charged with protecting the public." Robert Reich [youtube.com]
Coming this summer.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
soo funny. but wrong.
In which lung do you think(presuming you can do that) the majority of the brake pad material lands in over it's useful life ?
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking an an ex-Industrial Hygienist with 10 years in the profession: you are so very very wrong. Look up the word "friable"
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking an an ex-Industrial Hygienist with 10 years in the profession: you are so very very wrong. Look up the word "friable"
I'd appreciate yours thoughts/opinion on why it is the billions of stop and go freeway miles throughout the 70s and 80s didn't lead to an epidemic of mesothelioma.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking an an ex-Industrial Hygienist with 10 years in the profession: you are so very very wrong. Look up the word "friable"
I'd appreciate yours thoughts/opinion on why it is the billions of stop and go freeway miles throughout the 70s and 80s didn't lead to an epidemic of mesothelioma.
Appreciate your opinion on why Asbestos should be used even though it is not the best material. We've had people claiming that trucks are going to fall off cliffs and people die because of asbestos removal from brake linings, that having asbestos in brake linings is a right and that removing it is unconstitutional because regulations are unconstitutional.
Asbestos haas largely been removed from linings since the 1990's, - you can still get them from China - and the only modern brake lining that it is sup
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing the merits of asbestos, and I know asbestos used weaned in the 90s. If you reread my post, perhaps you'll be back on topic - it was a sincere question.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not arguing the merits of asbestos, and I know asbestos used weaned in the 90s. If you reread my post, perhaps you'll be back on topic - it was a sincere question.
Oh - pardon me. I'm a silly boy, thanks for setting me straight. 8^)
Well since you sincerely asked why there was not an epidemic of mesothelioma, before asbestos was removed from brake linings for superior solutions, let us consider the use characteristics of brake linings. In use, asbestos is shed from the linings, and gravity has a tendency to attract the asbestos toward the center of the earth. Stuff falls to the ground.
And the same with mechanics. unless the mechanic working on the brakes inhales
Re: (Score:2)
You made an interesting attempt, but I still think you don't understand the question asked of the OP.
Asbestos, as found in brake pads, is friable.
Brake dust, on the road, will not sink to the ground as if it's magnetically charged and attracted to asphalt. Vehicles and the turbulence of their wheels will stir this stuff up and it will be inhaled by the many drivers that come after. Not to mention homes that live near freeways... but I digress.
Your post suggests I don't consider asbestos to be a problem - I
Re: (Score:2)
You made an interesting attempt, but I still think you don't understand the question asked of the OP.
Asbestos, as found in brake pads, is friable. Brake dust, on the road, will not sink to the ground as if it's magnetically charged and attracted to asphalt. Vehicles and the turbulence of their wheels will stir this stuff up and it will be inhaled by the many drivers that come after. Not to mention homes that live near freeways... but I digress.
Your post suggests I don't consider asbestos to be a problem - I never suggested asbestos lacked problems.
I'm merely curious why the abundance of it on American roadways hasn't led to cases. It's not the wrong question, and it has nothing to do with use cases.
Well it's good to know that Asbestos is exempt from the laws of gravity. s/
Road grit is not just Asbestos It is a composition of basic dirt, rocks, rubber, and various lubricants, plus road salt in many places, and once upon a time what asbestos might fall off of brake pads, which is not the major component of road grit at all. Salt especially is hydrophilic which is indeed one of the ways used to keep dirt roads from putting as much dust in the air when people drive over it. It attracts water, which gre
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think they did not?
Re: (Score:2)
Asbestos causes no harm unless you are stupid enough to cut into it or demo a building without proper protective gear.
Well it’s a good thing we mandated all those asbestos warning signs everywhere to prevent that from ever happening, right?
Oh wait, I almost forgot. We didn’t actually give a shit enough to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
What's also fucked up is the EPA is pursuing marginal harmless uses of asbestos in insignificant quantities that don't pollute the environment where it is used; where the material plays an essential role.. while ignoring the area where it could actually become an environmental hazard:
the EPA is also evaluating so-called legacy uses of asbestos in older buildings, including schools
I guess they're trying to use this to Indirectly reduce production in countries where it's still being manufactured. So basi
Re: (Score:1)
Personal experience here, you don't have to be stupid. Just ignorant. "Asbestos was banned a long time ago, and it was ceiling tiles so we're safe". Nope. I had linoleum flooring that was worn, and I had no idea it could contain asbestos. I covered it with a patch, mostly for cosmetic reasons; but that patch was loose. Then I found out after a few years that asbestos was still being used in linoleum up until the early 80s, and might have been installed from old stock several years past the end of prod
Nooo! (Score:3)
The EPA is taking away everything nice. It was my favorite asbestos, and by far the best tasting. Those flaky filaments have a cotton candy texture to it. Tastes like something between rubber and cement. Top it off with some epoxy glue .. mmm mm mmm .. Delicious!
decontamination (Score:3)
you can still eat it. You even get paid for it.
You have only to declare a business of asbestos decontamination for buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why ban things when capitalism can find a solution?
Capitalism has already found a solution.
Most bleach is manufactured without asbestos filters, using fluoropolymer ion exchange membranes instead.
Only older factories still use asbestos. The EPA told them in October that it would be phased out, so they had time to switch.
Re: (Score:2)
So it wasn't the market, after all?
Re: (Score:2)
>> The EPA told them...
> So it wasn't the market, after all?
Can government itself and it's agencies also be seen as market players?
Re: (Score:2)
>> Can government itself and it's agencies also be seen as market players?
> Other market players don't get to toss people into prison when they do something they don't like, so no.
Ok, so maybe there are different market sizes and ways to delimit them, and some of them have less level the playing field's than others.
Re: (Score:2)
The EPA told them they couldn't keep doing the thing they were doing, and they figured out a way to do something else. The EPA didn't tell them how to solve the problem, just that we have (long since) identified that there is a problem, and they need to stop being one.
In order to have the freest possible market, you need regulation to stop some people's freedom to make money from overriding other people's freedom to exist, be healthy, etc etc. There is not and never has been a completely free market, becaus
Re: (Score:2)
The EPA told them they couldn't keep doing the thing they were doing, and they figured out a way to do something else.
Actually, most of them had already switched to alternatives.
The EPA mandate only affects the laggards.
Re: (Score:2)
The market has made a movement. But humans (and the companies they run) are not rational actors. The ban in this case is not going to affect people participating in the market, but rather those rent-seeking on it - those running factories into the ground with no interest in investing in their own future.
Re: (Score:2)
Dangerous things are essential to modern civilization. Gasoline is extremely flammable and toxic, but we mostly manage to use it safely. Even an EV's HV battery can be quite lethal if you go poking around at it. Radioisotopes are still probably the scariest things discovered by mankind and yet we've found beneficial uses for those too.
The risk has to be balanced against the benefits, otherwise we might as well just go back to living in caves.
Capitalism didn't find a solution (Score:1)
Once capitalism has something that works and is cheap and profitable they will generally leave it alone because nobody likes to upset an apple cart. The only other thing they can do that is competition and you just don't see a lot of that anymore. Hell I honest we don't see any of it anymore
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalist systems are not inherently unregulated.
One of the costs of doing business is following the law. If your product kills people, it is not allowed to exist. If you can make it so your product no longer kills people, you can keep selling it, even if making it non-lethal is a cost on you. But everyone else is (supposedly) held to that same standard.
Capitalism didn't (and will never) find a solution until it was necessary to find a solution. Something that made it necessary for companies to find a solu
WTF?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, do you need to even ask?
Where's the profit in keeping people alive a few years more when they can get asbestosis and spend a fortune on healthcare?
Re: (Score:3)
Why only 40 years ?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, knowingly? I've never heard of asbestos causing trouble other than as inhaled insulation particles. I am of course willing to learn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but inhaling anything is bad news. Even stuff like powdered sugar, nevermind that it dissolves, causes cancer. Even oxygen, despite we need it to live, we need antioxidants to prevent it from killing us. Asbestos insulation particles are known to be particularly bad to breathe, because they are stabby -- but that damage mechanism wouldn't translate to drinking it, at least not if it can't get past the cells destined to get sloughed off. And we aren't, for example, banning sand because it causes silico
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, knowingly? I've never heard of asbestos causing trouble other than as inhaled insulation particles. I am of course willing to learn.
I'm just curious as to why you think "insulation" is the relevant term here rather than "asbestos"? Insulation isn't what causes asbestosis, asbestos does. And yes car mechanics have died of it too (especially those who used to blow out brake pads with compressed air).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK if you don't know either, both of us are too lazy to look it up, but at least I'm not rude about it.
Just wait until the Courts overturn it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that the majority of small planes still use leaded fuel right? We CBA to even do anything about that.
Under the last president we were desperately trying to find new uses for asbestos.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaded fuel is being phased out by 2030. Many good reasons for this, including the fact that avgas is the last leaded fuel on the planet. The lead is produced by one refinery in the UK, and there is only one refinery in Louisiana that can produce the world's supply of avgas for a year.
Handling leaded gas is hard, it
Greenpeace Lite (Score:1, Interesting)
Greenpeace, the formerly-Soviet-funded psyop, is still calling for worldwide ban on chlorine. This is the most the current administration could get done on that front.
One of Greenpeace's founders left in 1986 over this issue because it would cause the deaths of hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
Watch the psychos here cheer it on anyway because those people are poor and dark and from far away. They would trade a few suspected domestic cancers for millions of dead babies abroad.
For the sake of those p
WR Grace (Score:1)
My father has scarred lungs due to this crap. He was sent to W.R. Grace without any PPE or masks for his job (and luckily hasn't been diagnosed with Mesothelioma) but he constantly coughs like he's choking on his own blood. It's sad, as his job was another large company out there (Stars with Honey, ends in Well) as a senior systems analyst and programmer. So many dangerous things like High Voltage access (without electricians license), but the biggest damaging to him, health wise, was being in an asbestos
We built a neighborhood on top of asbestos hills (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow San Jose has it all- asbestos, mercury, what else could you want?
Another site is pretty much anywhere west of Coalinga in central California. Look up New Idria, where the dirt is 15% asbestos. Oh and there's an off road area there.
Yep, nasty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A bit like the former asbestos mining town of Wittenoom, in Western Australia. Fun fact - Australia's richest person, Gina Rinehart, inherited her wealth from the guy who helped open asbestos mining in the area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A really grubby, greedy, selfish family.
Gypsum? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Mineralogy (Score:2)
Chrysotile is a hydrated magnesium silicate mineral, in the "serpentine" structural group (based on -Si2O5(OH)4 structures). It's the most-used of the asbestos minerals.
By inference, the other asbestos minerals aren't affected by this legislative change. They are actinolite, amosite ("brown asbestos"), anthophyllite, crocidolite ("blue asbestos"), and tremolite. All are structurally classified as "amp