The ink isn\u2019t even dry on the March 2024 asbestos ban, and asbestos providers are already sharpening their knives<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One prominent industry lawyer says the strategy will focus on the difference between the EPA\u2019s regulatory models, legally necessary medical evidence, and Rule 403\u2019s prohibition of unduly prejudicial evidence. Dennis Paustenbach, president of Paustenbach and Associates, a consulting firm specializing in toxicology and risk assessment, predicted that, during a lawsuit, the court could exclude the EPA\u2019s regulatory models under Rule 403. The agency\u2019s conclusions about chrysotile\u2019s cancer potency, for example, and \u201cthe alleged historical hazards to vehicle mechanics is entirely inconsistent with the epidemiological evidence,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another lawyer was even more confident. Laurence Nassif, managing partner at Simmons Hanly Conroy, said the EPA\u2019s rule \u201ccan only help our cases in court.\u201d Defendants previously have used the EPA\u2019s lack of a ban to say chrysotile is not that dangerous and not as toxic as some other forms of the mineral, he said. The EPA\u2019s rule removes that argument, Nassif said. \u201cIt will help us because they can\u2019t say EPA allows it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2024 isn\u2019t the first time the EPA tried to ban asbestos. The previous go-arounds didn\u2019t end too well for victims and potential victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That time, their strategy focused on an obscure provision in the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act<\/a>. Lawmakers introduced this law in 1971. Advocacy groups on both sides of the political spectrum immediately opposed it. Environmental groups claimed it didn\u2019t go far enough, and industry groups claimed it went too far. So, the final law contained stern words that protected people and loopholes tha protected companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One such loophole was the grandfather clause. Chemicals currently in use, including asbestos, were presumptively safe under the TCSA. To take action against dangerous chemicals, the EPA had to prove the substance posed an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.\u201d Then, any regulation or ban must use the least burdensome method to reduce chemical risk to reasonable levels while taking into consideration the benefits provided by the chemical product or process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Right from the start, evidence was an issue for the EPA. To prove that a chemical was dangerous and overcome the grandfather clause presumption, the EPA needed proof. Initially, these tests required mutual agreement with the industry or voluntary industry efforts under the HPV Challenge Program. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Later, the EPA created the Sustainable Futures (SF) Initiative model, which allowed companies to voluntarily screen their products that might pose risks to human health or the environment. In all these instances, companies usually were less than forthcoming about the dangerous side-effects of their products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the lack of evidence, EPA lawyers jumped over the first two hurdles. They overcame the safety presumption and proved that asbestos was dangerous, thanks in large part to the government\u2019s no safe exposure level<\/a> finding. But the third hurdle was too much. No one was too sympathetic when asbestos companies said they\u2019d lose money. But when these companies threatened to cut jobs, the well-documented mesothelioma risk suddenly didn\u2019t seem as dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Congress removed the \u201cleast burdensome\u201d hurdle in 2016. An asbestos ban seemed inevitable at that point. But industry lobbyists killed several bills on the subject, including one in 2020 that almost made it to a vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To avoid the legislative wars, advocates focused on the EPA\u2019s rulemaking power. But there will be a fight either way. Ruelmakeing bypasses the contentious legislative process, but runs head-on into the contentious judicial process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pleural mesothelioma (lung cancer) is the most dangerous side-effect associated with asbestos exposure. But it\u2019s not the only one. Other health risks include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Back in the day, doctors believed that occupational exposure was the only asbestos exposure risk. Now, they know better<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since asbestos fibers have jagged edges, they easily cling to almost any surface, such as clothes or hair. So, asbestos workers often unwittingly carried these fibers home, where they infected friends and loved ones. Researchers estimate that about one in five asbestos exposure cases involves such indirect exposure, and even that number might be an underestimate.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAsbestos Regulation and Legal Actions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
In 1989, the EPA passed a rule almost identical to the 2024 ban. Predictably, asbestos providers immediately hired lawyers and challenged the ban.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Demonstrating the Many Dangers of Asbestos<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u201cLeast Burdensome\u201d Standard Removeds<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Asbestos Exposure Risks<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Furthermore, since asbestos fibers float, man-made and natural disasters spread these fibers for miles. <\/h3>\n\n\n\n