TX Department of State Health Services
Austin, TX – The Texas Department of State Health Services is accepting formal comments from stakeholders on the proposed asbestos rules March 26, 2021 through April 26, 2021. Comments may be submitted by mail, or email. Visit the Draft and Proposed Rules – Asbestos Program website for more information. Questions can be emailed to the EHG Rules Coordinator. Click here for the full text.
Daily Interlak
Libby, MT – The public has until April 9 to review and comment on an institutional control and assurance plan for the BNSF-owned railway corridor at the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site. The railroad corridor became contaminated when the railway company transported vermiculite containing toxic asbestos from the now defunct W.R. Grace & Co. mine near Libby. The corridor is one of several areas identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being in need of decontamination, and is referred to as Operable Unit 6 of the cleanup site. For the full article, click here.
Asbestos.com by Tim Povtak
National – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released Part 1 of its Final Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, reaffirming preliminary findings from March that were roundly criticized for underestimating the dangers of exposure to this toxic mineral. Six ongoing use categories of asbestos were evaluated by the EPA, which found 16 conditions of use that presented unreasonable risk to human health through either occupational exposures or consumer uses. The Part 2 preliminary evaluation, which will become public in mid-2021, will include five other types of asbestos, along with legacy asbestos and associated disposals of chrysotile asbestos. Click here for the full text.
Business Wire
National – The Asbestos Disease Awareness co-founder Linda Reinstein issued a statement “EPA’s final risk evaluation ignores the numerous recommendations of its own scientific advisors and other independent experts by claiming that these deficiencies will be addressed in a future Part 2 evaluation. Based on this sleight-of-hand maneuver, the Agency has issued a piecemeal and dangerously incomplete evaluation that overlooks numerous sources of asbestos exposure and risk, and understates the enormous toll of disease and death for which asbestos is responsible.” Click here for the full text.
Safety and Health Magazine
National – Critics of the Environmental Protection Agency are renewing their call for a complete ban on asbestos after the agency’s release of Part 1 of a final risk evaluation that concludes that the substance – a known human carcinogen – presents an unreasonable health risk to workers under certain conditions. Used in chlor-alkali production, consumer products, coatings and compounds, plastics, roofing products, and other applications, asbestos is among the first 10 chemicals under evaluation for potential health and environmental risks under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Released Dec. 30 and announced via a notice published in the Jan. 4 Federal Register, Part 1 of the final evaluation centers on chrysotile asbestos and states the substance poses unreasonable risk to workers involved in numerous operations. Click here for the full text.
ADAO
National – Five public health groups and six leading asbestos scientists asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the asbestos risk evaluation issued last month by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). These partners also sent EPA a 60-day letter notifying the agency of their intent to file suit under TSCA in a federal district court to assure that the agency meets its obligation to evaluate the risks of “legacy” asbestos found in millions of buildings across the United States. Click here for the full text.
Bloomberg
National – The EPA this summer will launch a court-ordered review of risks arising from old uses of asbestos that still may lead people to inhale the cancer-causing mineral, an agency official said Wednesday. This second, or supplemental, asbestos risk evaluation differs from the one that the Environmental Protection Agency published last month. It will examine all six recognized forms of asbestos instead of just the chrysotile fibers. And it will look at discontinued uses of the mineral, such as asbestos insulation and flooring, that pose exposure risks to janitors, building maintenance personnel, and others. Brent Kynoch, managing director of the Environmental Information Association stated “The only effective risk management option is a ban.” Email info@eia-usa.org for the full article text.
EPA Washington, DC
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the final risk evaluation for asbestos, part 1: chrysotile asbestos. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is required to evaluate the risks associated with exposure to existing chemicals in commerce using the best available science, and then take action to address any unreasonable risk identified. This announcement completes the first part of the final risk evaluation for asbestos. Part 1 of the risk evaluation for asbestos is specific to chrysotile asbestos.
EIA Managing Director Brent Kynoch comments “In releasing it’s final risk evaluation for asbestos: Part 1 Chrysotile, the EPA has finally acknowledged what we have all known for decades – Asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to any and all persons that are exposed. EPA still has work to do to address the risk posed by asbestos that currently exists in buildings, homes and facilities throughout the country, but this first determination is significant. We applaud EPA’s efforts, but we will continue to push for a thorough evaluation of “legacy” asbestos, including the other 5 forms of asbestos in addition to Chrysotile, which is the only subject of this Part 1 Risk Evaluation.”
NJ Law Journal by Mitchell W. Taraschi and Alexander J. Gacos
New Jersey – The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled this year that “manufacturers and distributors can be found strictly liable for failure to warn of the dangers of their products, including their asbestos-containing components and a third party’s replacement components.” Although the case focused on asbestos-related products, the impact on products liability for manufacturers and distributors may ultimately be much more far-reaching. Click here for the full text.
Missoulian by Rob Chaney
Libby, MT – In a textbook example of the importance of fine print, the state of Montana and its former insurance company have asked the state Supreme Court to decide who’s liable for almost $100 million in damages due to Libby asbestos victims. The state won a district court lawsuit in 2018 when the judge ruled National Indemnity Co. was responsible for the full settlement, even though it only had the state as a client from July 1, 1973, to July 1, 1975. The settlement involved claims from Libby residents who weren’t warned about the health dangers of asbestos exposure from W.R. Grace and Co.’s vermiculite mine between the 1950s and 1980s. When the district court ruled, the settlement amount was estimated to be $43 million to more than 200 victims. Click here for the full text.