Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently banned chrysolite, the last known type of asbestos imported into the United States, union officials and health and safety advocates say asbestos still exposes far too many American workers to mesothelioma and other forms of cancer.

Inadequate Protections Cited by Union

The United Steelworkers and the nonprofit Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization have asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the EPA’s mid-March ban, arguing that it fails to provide protections for those handling existing chrysolite gaskets in refineries, chemical plants, and other facilities. 

The EPA ban requires that chrysotile asbestos be phased out over several years. The USW petition acknowledges that the EPA has mandated interim occupational exposure protections for most workers exposed to asbestos during this period.

“However, EPA failed to provide such interim protections for workers exposed when handling asbestos sheet gasket,” the court document stated. “With this petition, USW challenges EPA’s failure to provide interim protections for the thousands of workers represented by USW who will continue to handle asbestos sheet gaskets.”

Challenges to EPA’s Ban

According to a press release from the ADAO, the EPA still allows one chlor-alkali producer “an unwarranted 12 years to phase out asbestos use when non-asbestos technology is available to complete the transition several years sooner.” 

The release states that the EPA also permits “hundreds of thousands of asbestos gaskets to remain indefinitely” without protecting workers from the release of asbestos fibers. 

Furthermore, according to the ADAO, the EPA ban does nothing to protect auto mechanics exposed to asbestos while servicing or repairing existing vehicles containing chrysolite brakes, linings, and other friction parts.

Workers aren’t the only ones the ADAO says are left unprotected by the EPA ban as it currently exists. The organization’s press release states the new rule “fails to address the release of asbestos to air, water, and soil and during on and off-site disposal of asbestos-containing waste at facilities subject to the rule, even though chlor-alaki plants are concentrated in environmental justice communities in Texas and Louisiana.”

Although the USW and ADAO say the chrysolite ban doesn’t go far enough, the American Chemistry Council and its Georgia, Ohio, and Texas affiliates filed petitions in the circuit courts of appeals for those states on April 19, seeking to weaken the EPA’s rule. 

On May 7, a judicial panel consolidated all the petitions and assigned them to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana. 

Continued Risks from Legacy Asbestos

The EPA’s ban on chrysolite doesn’t address the ongoing health risks of exposure to legacy asbestos such as crocidolite (riebeckite), amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite), anthophyllite, tremolite and actinolite, plus richterite and winchite-asbestos. 

Tremolite and anthophyllite are sometimes present in talc deposits and have been found in talcum powder consumer products.

In addition, chrysolite fibers still exist in insulation, roofing, and other materials used to construct buildings from the 1930s through the 1970s. 

Draft Report on Asbestos Risks

However, on April 15, the EPA released a draft of the second part of its asbestos risk evaluation, which focuses on the dangers of chrysolite and legacy varieties. This preliminary report states that exposure to asbestos “poses an unreasonable risk to human health.” 

If the EPA’s final evaluation affirms the draft’s findings, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) mandates that the agency conduct rulemaking to eliminate the risk. 

Public and Environmental Health at Stake

A statement the ADAO issued the same day the EPA released the second part of its asbestos evaluation says millions of workers and consumers “may be exposed to asbestos from these legacy products, often unknowingly and without any precautions to prevent exposure.”

“This draft evaluation is long overdue,” Reinstein said. “We have done far too little to understand how and where Americans are being exposed to legacy asbestos that lurks in our homes, schools, workplaces, and consumer products.”

Lack of Independent Review Raises Concerns

However, the ADAO noted in its statement that in a “sharp break” with the EPA’s first 10 risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the agency “did not seek any independent scientific peer review of the draft evaluation.”

The ADAO and other organizations “have raised concerns with EPA leadership about this lack of independent oversight,” according to the statement. 

Bob Sussman, ADAO counsel, and a former senior EPA official, noted in the statement that public health experts and policymakers will rely on the second part of the asbestos evaluation “for authoritative guidance on the ongoing health threats from legacy asbestos, but the absence of independent peer review raises questions about the evaluation’s completeness and scientific validity.”

Upcoming Deadlines and Public Involvement

The EPA will complete the evaluation by Dec. 1, 2024. That date was set as part of a 2021 settlement with the ADAO, which heavily criticized the agency’s first asbestos risk evaluation completed the year before. The ADAO and other organizations objected to the evaluation because it did not include legacy uses of chrysolite and other types of asbestos.   

The ADAO and the ACC plan to participate in the 60-day public comment period for the current asbestos evaluation. 

In a statement, the ACC said, “EPA’s continued decision to consider all asbestos fiber types as equal in cancer potency when the science indicates otherwise and when EPA anticipates exposures to mixed fibers is troubling. For more than 40 years, there has been broad agreement in the toxicology and epidemiology community that there are massive differences in the potency of these fiber types for lung cancer and mesothelioma.”