EPA Seeks Information to Develop TSCA Regulation for Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of Asbestos

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on June 23, 2026, that it seeks information “to develop a durable Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulation for legacy uses and associated disposals of asbestos, non-chrysotile and chrysotile asbestos fiber types, and asbestos-containing talc” (Asbestos Part 2). EPA evaluated these materials in its 2024 risk evaluation. EPA notes that “[e]xposure risk arises whenever asbestos-containing materials are disturbed — during renovation, demolition, or repair — which is precisely where EPA is focusing its data collection.” According to EPA, obtaining “real-world information directly from workers, building owners, states, Tribes, industry, and communities allows EPA to target protections where people are actually exposed and to build a rule that holds up when challenged, so those protections take effect and stay in place.” Responses are due August 24, 2026.

EPA notes that TSCA Section 6(c)(1)(C) authorizes EPA to adjust the TSCA Section 6(c)(1)(A) proposed rule deadline for chemicals like asbestos when additional information is necessary to propose the rule. EPA issued the final Asbestos Part 2 risk evaluation in December 2024. EPA states that it will propose the Asbestos Part 2 risk management rule by June 3, 2027, “so that EPA can gather the exposure information needed to make those protections as strong and defensible as possible.” EPA requests information on activities that disturb asbestos-containing materials (including work by self-employed individuals), use of legacy products such as construction materials, and air-sampling methods and laboratory capabilities. According to EPA, these data “will strengthen the rule’s exposure and economic analyses — clarifying who is exposed, how often, under what conditions, and the costs and benefits of potential actions.”

Commentary

Asbestos has a long and storied history under TSCA, including a 1989 EPA rule that would have banned and phased out almost all asbestos-containing products under TSCA; a 1991 decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA that overturned that rule and chilled EPA’s regulatory action on existing chemicals under TSCA for decades that followed; and a TSCA reform debate that often pointed to asbestos as the poster child for why legislative changes were necessary, culminating in the landmark 2016 amendments to TSCA. More recently, as discussed below, EPA issued a rule in 2024, again to prohibit nearly all ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, and another lawsuit was filed in the Fifth Circuit challenging various aspects of that rule, which is still pending decision.

EPA’s work on “Part 2” of the asbestos risk evaluation is becoming its own story, beginning with EPA agreeing to supplement the “Part 1” risk evaluation following a 2019 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA that EPA could not exclude “legacy uses” of chemicals — that is releases and exposures from, for example, in-place asbestos that is being removed — from the scope of TSCA risk evaluations. EPA’s 2024 final “Part 2” risk evaluation found unreasonable risk from the unprotected handling and disturbance of legacy asbestos, triggering the statutory requirement for EPA to undertake a second risk management rulemaking under TSCA. When EPA missed that deadline, it was promptly sued by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO). EPA’s latest Federal Register notice — and suggestion that it would propose the rule by June 2027 — effectively asks for an additional year on top of a deadline EPA had already missed by 1.5 years. ADAO has already signaled it will oppose the delay; whether the litigation will force a faster timeline remains unclear. The court may simply defer to EPA’s stated need for more information to build a defensible record.

Whenever EPA turns the page, the next chapter on a proposed TSCA Section 6 rule should be an interesting read. Risk management approaches for legacy asbestos — present in a variety of materials in homes, schools, public and commercial buildings, and infrastructure across the country — are likely to be challenging to develop and implement. EPA’s efforts to address legacy lead in paint, for example, required a complex program of certification, training, lead-safe work practices, and other administrative and recordkeeping requirements for the tens of thousands of contractors who engage in renovation, repair, and painting activities in pre-1978 housing. EPA’s recent notice on Asbestos Part 2 suggests a renewed focus on cost-benefit analysis. In The Acta Group’s view, a future proposal is likely to include disturbance-triggered requirements, with work practices, exposure controls, and cleanup standards tied to activities like renovation, demolition, and disposal, likely modeled on the lead renovation requirements. In the meantime, companies with asbestos-containing materials in their own facilities or those who are otherwise likely to disturb such materials should strongly consider submitting any available information on things like disturbance frequency, the technical feasibility of avoiding such disturbance, and related costs.