Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Politics Science

EPA Staff Objected To Agency's New Rules on Asbestos Use, Internal Emails Show (nytimes.com) 212

Top officials at the Environmental Protection Agency pushed through a measure to review applications for using asbestos in consumer products, and did so over the objections of E.P.A.'s in-house scientists and attorneys, internal agency emails show. From a report: The clash over the proposal exposes the tensions within the E.P.A. over the Trump administration's efforts to roll back environmental rules and rewrite other regulations that industries have long fought. Asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral and known carcinogen, was once common in insulation and fireproofing materials, but today most developed countries ban it. The United States still allows limited use in products including gaskets, roofing materials and sealants. The proposed new rule would create a new process for regulating uses of asbestos, something the E.P.A. is obliged to do under a 2016 amendment to a toxic substances law.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EPA Staff Objected To Agency's New Rules on Asbestos Use, Internal Emails Show

Comments Filter:
  • >> new rule would create a new process for regulating uses of asbestos, something the E.P.A. is obliged to do under a 2016 amendment to a toxic substances law...Consumer groups say the agency should be looking for ways to prohibit asbestos entirely.

    So...government agency is following the law instead of random/anecdotal citizen input. Generally, I'd think this is a good thing. (If you want to entirely ban asbestos...work on passing that law instead of whining on SlashDot.)
    • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      The EPA needs to look at the regulations of toxic chemicals due to the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (i.e."mandatory requirement for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines"). There is no statement in that amendment that the EPA has to relax the use rules on asbestos.

  • by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Friday August 10, 2018 @09:54AM (#57101804)

    Let's bring back lead-based paints and gasoline.

    It creates jobs you know.

    • Let's bring back lead-based paints and gasoline.

      It creates jobs you know.

      My Municipal Airport sells ONLY leaded aviation fuel for piston-engine planes.

      • My Municipal Airport sells ONLY leaded aviation fuel for piston-engine planes.

        What they sell is a form of avgas called 100LL. Take a guess at what the LL stands for. If you guessed Low-Lead and then further realised that it is very much different from any fuel that was used back in the day when cars used copious amounts of tetraethyl lead to increase octane then you deserve some internet points.

        The only cases where fuel with the same amount of lead is used as in the past are rare engines requiring very high octane e.g. 115 grade, special events for very unique aircraft, and some mili

  • by nitehawk214 ( 222219 ) on Friday August 10, 2018 @09:54AM (#57101806)

    Trump claims asbestos is "safe". Trump has a lot of real estate. Hmm...

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday August 10, 2018 @09:57AM (#57101838)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      Hey let's bring back arsenic-treated lumber, trans fats and CFCs

      What do you mean "bring back" all of those things still exist, and are in use to this day, hell mills pump out CCA lumber but the metric fucking shit ton. Remember all those studies that said CCA was bad, it'd kill ya, cause all sorts of problems and there was a mad rush to restrict and ban it? Yeah, and guess what? Nothing, not a damn thing to show that it actually caused problems in wildlife or even humans. What was the solution when CCA was being restricted, well shit we'll just SOAK IT IN OIL(creosot

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          Yeah, so you've got two workers who were exposed to LIQUID CCA. Seriously, I worked at a mill that made pressure treated lumber with CCA, you suited up when handling it. Your entire study has to do with direct exposure to CCA, not surface contact. You get more arsenic from eating hot dogs.

          Not nearly as prevalent as they once were, although this was primarily market-driven.

          True and give it another 10 years and they'll discover that maybe they weren't really as bad as they thought, just like butter, milk, eggs, bacon, and various other fats.

          Correct. But remind me why R12 and R22 are being phased out? The Trump EPA could just as well allow the mass-manufacture of this stuff again because, you know, the destruction of the ozone layer is fake like global warming.

          Well that's easy, because they were more damaging

      • by hey! ( 33014 )

        There is a persistent error even experts make in nutrition: attributing the effects of a particular compound to a wider class of compounds to which it belongs for classification purposes. Not all saturated fats are bad, not all unsaturated fats are good. Trans fats (which by definition are unsaturated) are not all bad; the ones that are reasonably common in nature like CLA are good for you. It's when hydrogenation creates products with very high quantities of stuff like elaidic acid, which is rare in nat

  • Asbestos is nasty stuff, dying of Asbestos-related diseases is a horrible way to die. What's next bringing back DDT and PCB's?
    • by Jaime2 ( 824950 )
      All true. However, asbestos can be used safely, so allowing it under a set of well designed rules does make sense. For example, the US has spent many millions of dollars to replace asbestos containing floor tile when there is so little risk in that particular product that it's likely that more people died in the resulting construction activity than would have died had in been left there. Even if the building was used as a daycare, heck even if the building was eventually demolished with explosives.
    • 1. They're not "bringing it back". Read the article first.
      2. Asbestos is currently not banned in the US. Asbestos is currently used in many products. There are currently no regulatory processes that stop a company from using asbestos. This proposal will actually force companies to notify the EPA and go through a risk evaluation.
  • What's next? Bring back DDT? Deregulate formaldehyde? Radium jars? Start letting tobacco companies advertise that smoking is healthy?
  • Does anyone know what is actually going on here?

    From TFA I expected to see text replaced or removed but all it seems to do is add Asbestos and a specific list of uses to substance list of 40 CFR 721.

    Does the presence of this text somehow weaken existing new use restrictions of Asbestos? Or is it just that the text added while intentionally nerfed does not in any way reduce existing regulations/laws/whatever governing use of Asbestos?

    I'm so confused...

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Working...