In March 2024, in a significant environmental and public health development, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared a monumental final rule – to prohibit any-and-all ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, marking a seismic move toward the meaningful safeguarding of public health. Chrysotile, the only form of asbestos currently imported, processed, or distributed in the United States, is primarily found in products like diaphragms, sheet gaskets, brake blocks, and vehicle friction products.

EPA’s latest asbestos ban is a long time coming

This pivotal EPA regulation comes in response to the – now, long-known – dangerous health impacts of asbestos exposure, which is linked to severe illnesses including asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, and laryngeal cancer. Given the historical prevalence of asbestos in thousands of products and building materials, risks remain high, particularly as these materials age or are disturbed by building activities.

In Puerto Rico, where many buildings still harbor old asbestos materials, the risk of exposure remains a concern. Harry Pena, President of Zimmetry Environmental, a firm based in Bayamon, emphasized the importance of this regulation for the residents of Puerto Rico. According to Pena, asbestos exposure continues to contribute to over 40,000 deaths annually across the country. He notes that as materials containing asbestos become friable or are otherwise disturbed, microscopic asbestos fibers can easily become airborne, posing significant health risks during demolition, remodeling, or renovation activities.

Legacy asbestos persists despite regulation

Established in 2002, Zimmetry Environmental has been at the forefront of combating these risks through industrial hygiene, indoor environmental quality testing, and consulting services. The firm specializes in identifying asbestos exposure risks, thereby safeguarding public health and assisting companies in their adherence to health and safety regulations; their services extend across Puerto Rico, the Caribbean, and Central America, providing critical support in maintaining regulatory compliance and ensuring safe indoor environments.

Challenges in Banning Asbestos

Regarding its seemingly ubiquitous industrial use, the persistence of asbestos can largely be attributed to several factors, including the rights and interests of asbestos companies, as well as the effectiveness of their legal strategies. Initially, asbestos was highly valued for its affordability and fire-resistant properties, making it popular in construction and manufacturing industries; even after the adverse health effects were documented in 1899, economic interests often overshadowed public health concerns.

In 1989, the EPA made an initial attempt to ban asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). However, this attempt was thwarted by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the ban needed to use the “least burdensome” approach – a decision heavily influenced by asbestos industry lawyers. This ruling clearly demonstrated the power of well-funded legal teams who could challenge regulatory actions – not only at a base level, but all the way up to the highest judiciary level, thus severely complicating efforts to ban or regulate hazardous substances.

Political Influences and Public Relations

The interplay between politics and industry also played a significant role. Asbestos companies not only employed capable legal teams, but also launched extensive public relations campaigns to sway public opinion and political agendas – efforts that were often successful in painting asbestos litigation lawyers in a negative light, thereby diminishing the momentum for stricter regulations.

During the 1990s, the political climate further influenced the regulatory landscape. A wave of conservative judges slowed asbestos litigation, and legislative efforts to amend the TSCA were stalled. The election of Donald Trump and the appointment of Scott Pruitt as EPA head further delayed advancements in asbestos regulation, given Pruitt’s opposition to what he termed the “EPA’s activist agenda.”

The Long Road to a Partial Ban

It wasn’t until the amendment of the TSCA in 2016 and subsequent changes in the political administration that progress was made. The partial ban introduced by the EPA under the Biden administration is a significant step, yet it only covers chrysotile asbestos and will not take full effect for over a decade. This delayed implementation means that exposure risks will persist in the interim.

The Need for Comprehensive Action

The journey toward a comprehensive asbestos ban illustrates well the complex interplay between industrial interests, legal challenges, and political dynamics; while the recent EPA rule is a step in the right direction, it’s clear that achieving a total ban on all forms of asbestos will require sustained advocacy, rigorous enforcement of existing regulations, and a shift in both political will and public awareness.

The EPA’s announcement extends beyond a mere regulatory change; it signals a transformative approach to public health protection, as it targets chrysotile asbestos. Chrysotile is a type of asbestos, one that is responsible for approximately 80% of global asbestos usage; it currently has ongoing prevalence in a myriad of common products, such as brake linings, gaskets, and even in the manufacture of chemicals like chlorine bleach and sodium hydroxide.

Despite this progressive, long-awaited step, the American Chemistry Council has advocated for a 15-year transition period to mitigate any potential for disruptions to the supply chain of critical chemicals – a concern that highlights the complex interplay between public health policy and industrial needs.

The actual effectiveness of this ban hinges on its actual implementation, which is fraught with challenges – as historical precedence shows, the road to enforcing such bans is often obstructed by legal and industry pushbacks. Notably, the rule permits the continued use of asbestos-containing gaskets until 2037 at specific sites like the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site, underscoring the prolonged risk and gradual phase-out strategy.

Not surprisingly, legal battles are anticipated, as past attempts have been stymied by judicial decisions demanding substantial evidence of the rule’s necessity and proportionality; the presence of judges with historical opposition to stringent environmental regulations also suggests potential obstacles in upholding the ban.

For those already affected by asbestos-related diseases, the ban does not provide retroactive relief or compensation; legal avenues remain the primary recourse for victims seeking compensation for their suffering.

Looking Forward

While the EPA’s ban on asbestos marks a pivotal moment in environmental and public health policy, it also highlights the enduring challenges of eradicating a substance so ingrained in industrial applications. The extended implementation timeline and the potential for legal challenges underscore the need for vigilant enforcement and public awareness to ensure that the ban’s goals are realized; nevertheless, this new EPA rule is another crucial step toward eliminating asbestos-related diseases altogether.