Ban on asbestos diaphragms in the chlorine-related chemical industry and efforts toward a worldwide ban

Our plain-English summary of Ban on asbestos diaphragms in the chlorine-related chemical industry and efforts toward a worldwide ban, by F. Giannasi (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2007).

The study

• Author: F. Giannasi
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2007;13(1):80-4; discussion 84
• Cited by: 3 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

The EU Directive 1999/77/EC, prohibiting new applications of chrysotile, exempted diaphragms used in electrolysis to produce chorine and caustic soda in existing chlor-alkali plants until they reach the end of their service life, or until suitable asbestos-free substitutes become available, whichever is sooner. There is no technical justification for extending this exemption after January 2008, when it is scheduled for review. Economic interests should not take precedence over the social and environmental costs imposed by the asbestos production required for this industry. The EU Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment should not further delay the necessary decision on a total and immediate worldwide ban of the mining, manufacturing, and all uses of asbestos.

In plain English

This is a policy commentary, not a research study. The author, a labor inspector in São Paulo, Brazil, argued against the EU exemption, under Directive 1999/77/EC, that let existing chlor-alkali plants keep using chrysotile asbestos diaphragms to make chlorine and caustic soda. The exemption applied until the diaphragms reached the end of their service life or suitable asbestos-free substitutes became available, whichever came sooner, and was due for review before January 1, 2008. The author reported that nine of 85 Western European plants used asbestos diaphragms, making 17.4% of chlorine in 2004, down from 24% in 1996. The author estimated that at this pace elimination would take another 24 years. In Brazil, 72% of 2004 chlorine production used asbestos diaphragms. Figures from inspections at three Brazilian chlorine producers showed a worker smoothing a diaphragm while wearing an improper respirator. The author concluded there was no technical reason to extend the exemption and that economic interests should not outweigh social and environmental costs. The author called for an immediate worldwide ban on asbestos. The article measured no health outcomes.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Policy commentary arguing for ending an EU exemption and for a worldwide asbestos ban, drawing on industry production data and workplace inspection observations; not a research study
• Who was studied: The chlor-alkali (chlorine and caustic soda) industry: 85 plants in 20 Western European countries, nine of them using asbestos diaphragms (data mainly from 2004), and eight plants in Brazil in 2004. Workplace inspections took place at three Brazilian chlorine producers using asbestos diaphragms.
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in electrolysis to produce chlorine and caustic soda. These were exempted from the EU chrysotile ban in existing plants until the end of their service life or until suitable asbestos-free substitutes became available, whichever came sooner.
• Main results:
  • In Western Europe in 2004, asbestos-diaphragm technology accounted for 17.4% of total chlorine production, against 33.1% by membrane, 47% by mercury and 2.5% by other processes
  • The asbestos-diaphragm share of European chlorine production fell from 24% in 1996 to 23% in 2000, 18% in 2003 and 17.4% at the time of writing. The author estimated that at this pace another 24 years would be needed for total elimination.
  • In Brazil in 2004, 72% of chlorine production used asbestos-diaphragm technology, 23% mercury and 5% membrane
  • The Brazilian chlorine-soda industry consumed 128 tons of chrysotile asbestos in 2003
  • Brazil was the fourth largest asbestos producer, with 252,000 tons mined in 2004 (11.1% of world output). It exported 65% of its production (163,620 of 250,000 tons) in 2004.
  • Brazilian Law 9976/2000 kept existing chlorine production technologies in place and forbade new plants using mercury or asbestos diaphragms
  • During inspections at Brazilian producers, a worker was observed brushing an asbestos diaphragm surface while wearing an improper respirator
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that there was no technical reason to extend the exemption after January 2008 and that economic reasons should not take precedence over social and environmental costs. The author also called for an immediate worldwide prohibition of asbestos production, marketing and all uses.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Diaphragm, Chrysotile.

Related studies

• Dangerous and cancer-causing properties of products and chemicals in the oil refining and petrochemical industry: Part V--Asbestos-caused cancers and exposure of workers in the oil refining industry — M.A. Mehlman (1991)
• Asbestos disease in maintenance workers of the chemical industry — R. Lilis, S. Daum, et al. (1979)
• Cancer incidence among asbestos-exposed chemical industry workers: an extended observation period — B. Hilt, A. Andersen, et al. (1991)
• War on Carcinogens: industry disputes human relevance of chemicals causing cancer in laboratory animals based on unproven hypotheses, using kidney tumors as an example — R.L. Melnick, J.M. Ward, et al. (2013)
• A case-control study of renal cancer mortality at a Texas chemical plant — G.G. Bond, R.J. Shellenberger, et al. (1985)
• Urothelial cancer and some industry-related chemicals: an evaluation of the epidemiologic literature — G. Steineck, N. Plato, et al. (1990)

Browse more research in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.