EPA Seeks Delay to Potentially Overturn Chrysotile Asbestos Ban
“The new administration’s interpretation is, as we know, different in key respects from the prior administration’s,” Bergeson said in an email.
EPA will likely seek additional delays, given the agency’s 30-month estimated timeframe to complete the review process, Bergeson said.
EPA appeared to have concluded a decades-long effort to ban asbestos in the U.S. in March 2024, prohibiting all remaining uses of chrysotile asbestos—the last form still in use domestically. Linked to over 40,000 annual cancer deaths, chrysotile asbestos had remained in automotive gaskets and brakes, plus chlor-alkali industry diaphragms used in producing chemicals for water treatment. The ruling marked the first regulation finalized under 2016 revisions to TSCA.
Last year, following the ban, chlorine producer Olin Corp. and several industry groups challenged the ruling in separate Fifth District Court filings.
Former Olin CEO Scott Sutton had stated in a 2022 letter to previous EPA Administrator Michael Regan that “the ban will escalate an already tight chlorine supply situation, and could drive the U.S. to be more dependent on imports of products that are vitally important to our economy.”
He added that Olin had shut down 865,000 MT/yr of chlorine capacity based on asbestos diaphragms and that further shutdowns were possible as acceptable asbestos replacement alternatives are not available.
In February, EPA asked the court to delay the appeal proceedings for 120 days while it reviewed the contested asbestos ruling. After completing the review, EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) agreed to reconsider the ruling, wrote Lynn Dekleva, OCSPP’s deputy assistant administrator, in the June 16 filing. Dekleva asked the court to further delay the proceedings while the agency engages in the rulemaking process.
During this time, OCSPP plans to examine workplace protection requirements in the use of asbestos-containing sheet gaskets in non-titanium dioxide chemical production. The agency also will assess whether the ban “went beyond what is necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk and whether alternative measures—such as requiring permanent workplace protection measures—would eliminate the unreasonable risk.”
Dekleva further stated that the two-and-a-half-year timeframe is necessary because of a review backlog.
“OCSPP currently has several other rulemaking proceedings to conduct, each with aggressive statutory and/or court-ordered deadlines. OCSPP will thus have to balance its commitment of resources between this Asbestos Part 1 rulemaking and its numerous other rulemaking proceedings. Because of this, EPA currently believes that 30 months is the fastest it can complete this rulemaking.”
In the meantime, companies affected by the ruling will need to continue complying with it, Bergeson noted.
“As far as what does it mean for the regulated community, it means more uncertainty,” she said. “While the rule is being reimaged, it remains enforceable. Compliance with its terms is thus required even though EPA may not concur. It remains to be seen what EPA might do differently, but stakeholders are urged to assist EPA with revising the rule as appropriate.”
When asked to comment on the court filing, an EPA spokesperson referred back to the Fifth Circuit document, highlighting the need for more time to conduct the rulemaking process and the agency’s intent to consider workplace protection requirements for certain uses of asbestos.
“EPA will consider all reasonably available information and assess, consistent with the best available science and its risk management authority, what is necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk,” the spokesperson stated.
