The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has informed a federal appeals court of its decision to revisit the Biden administration’s prohibition on chrysotile asbestos, the final form of asbestos still utilized in the United States. This decision comes amid ongoing concerns about the health risks associated with asbestos, which is responsible for thousands of cancer-related deaths each year, notably causing diseases such as mesothelioma.
Last year, the Biden administration aimed to finalize the ban on chrysotile asbestos, marking a significant victory in the continuing effort to combat cancer linked to this hazardous material. In a recent court filing, the EPA indicated it will undertake a reassessment of this ban over the next 30 months. The agency stated that according to the Toxic Substances Control Act, it is obligated to evaluate the risks a chemical poses and the implications of restricting its use.
The EPA plans to examine whether aspects of the ban might be overly stringent and if alternative solutions, like implementing permanent protections in workplaces, could adequately mitigate risk. Chrysotile asbestos is used in various products, including brake blocks and certain industrial materials, and the ban was put into place under an updated Toxic Substances Control Act. Organizations in industries affected were given a transition period of at least five years to adapt to the changes.
Environmental advocates have criticized the EPA’s reassessment as a significant regression in public health protection against a known carcinogen. Michelle Roos, the executive director of the Environmental Protection Network, voiced concerns that the EPA’s actions reflect a troubling trend of prioritizing industry interests over public health.
In contrast, the American Chemistry Council has expressed support for a risk-based approach to regulatory measures, suggesting that the EPA’s reconsideration could align with best scientific practices.
The scrutiny surrounding the EPA’s leadership, including the presence of former industry officials in influential positions, raises questions about the agency’s future direction regarding chemical safety and environmental protections. The EPA has yet to respond directly to media inquiries about this matter.
This development highlights the ongoing tension between regulatory agencies and public health advocates as the fight against hazardous substances like asbestos continues. A careful balance must be struck to protect health while considering the complexities of regulatory frameworks and industry impacts.