The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will release additional data the agency received related to the proposed risk management rule for chrysotile asbestos tomorrow for public comment. These data concern chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production and may be used by EPA in the development of the final rule including the proposed chrysotile asbestos prohibition compliance dates for these uses.
In April 2022, EPA proposed a rule to prohibit the ongoing use of the only known form of asbestos currently imported into the U.S., chrysotile asbestos. This form of asbestos is found in products like asbestos diaphragms, sheet gaskets, brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes/linings, other vehicle friction products, and other gaskets. The proposed rule would protect people from the unreasonable risk to human health from chrysotile asbestos, which EPA evaluated in Part 1 of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos. EPA also is working expeditiously to complete a Part 2 of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, evaluating legacy uses and associated disposals, including other types of asbestos fibers in addition to chrysotile.
Raw chrysotile asbestos currently imported into the U.S. is used exclusively by the chlor-alkali industry. Chlor-alkali chemicals are used in important sectors including for the disinfection of drinking water. However, most chlor-alkali plants no longer use asbestos diaphragms, and alternatives are available.
EPA proposed that the prohibition on the commercial use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms occur two years after the effective date of the final rule, to give facilities time to transition away from asbestos technology. The agency requested comment on whether this timeframe was practicable, including information on the specific and detailed timelines to build or convert existing chlor-alkali facilities to asbestos-free technology. The agency received significant comment on these issues during the proposed rule comment period.
After the comment period, EPA received comments and met with stakeholders including affected industry and other interested groups about the use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production. Many commenters argued the two-year timeline would not provide the chlor-alkali industry a reasonable transition period and requested EPA provide additional time to allow the chlor-alkali industry to transition away from asbestos-containing diaphragms, to allow for this transition to occur without causing economic disruptions, and public health impacts resulting from potential disruption of drinking water disinfection supplies due to fluctuations in the production of chlorine.
EPA also received comments supporting the two-year prohibition timeline including a letter from the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) that stated: “EPA’s proposal correctly calls for the chlor-alkali industry to stop importing and using asbestos two years after the final rule becomes effective…. this phase-out deadline…can be accomplished without disrupting the U.S. supply of chlorine and caustic soda…[industry’s] recent voluntary closure of substantial asbestos-diaphragm capacity demonstrates that the remaining plants can be shut down quickly and without hardship to industry or consumers.” Another letter from ADAO provides information to show that the chlor-alkali industry “has shut down a substantial portion of its asbestos diaphragm production capacity in the last three years and is in the process of transitioning to non-asbestos membrane technology,” and information on industry conversion to membrane technology, specifically the conversion of the OxyChem facility in LaPorte/Battleground, Texas.
EPA requests public comment on the data once it has published and how EPA should consider it during the development of the final rule. Comments can be submitted to docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057 at regulations.gov for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Original source can be found here