Ten Years After TSCA Reform: What the Lautenberg Act Has Done for Asbestos, the Poster Child of Reform

Ten Years After TSCA Reform: What the Lautenberg Act Has Done for Asbestos, the Poster Child of Reform

Posted on May 30,2026

On June 22, 2016, President Barack Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA) into law, marking the first major reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) since 1976. For public health advocates, scientists, workers, and families impacted by toxic chemical exposure, the legislation represented a long-overdue acknowledgment that the nation’s chemical safety system had failed to protect human health.

No chemical better illustrated that failure than asbestos.

For decades, asbestos had been the “poster child” for TSCA reform because the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 1989 asbestos ban was largely overturned just two years later, in 1991, under TSCA’s unworkable cost-benefit standard. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence establishing asbestos as a known human carcinogen, the law made it nearly impossible for EPA to regulate dangerous chemicals effectively.

It took 25 years of hard work to get reform passed. During the 2016 signing ceremony, President Obama stated:

“The system [is] so complex, so burdensome that our country hasn’t even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos.”

That moment carried extraordinary significance for the asbestos prevention movement. For families like mine, it was deeply personal. After losing my husband Alan to mesothelioma, I never imagined we would witness a moment when the federal government openly acknowledged asbestos as evidence of systemic regulatory failure. I vividly remember standing in the Congressional viewing room with my daughter, Emily, as President Obama signed the legislation into law. 

But now, ten years later, the question remains: Has TSCA reform delivered on its promise?

Asbestos Became the First Major Test of TSCA Reform

The answer is both yes and not yet.

Shortly after the Lautenberg Act became law, EPA identified asbestos as one of the first ten chemicals for risk evaluation under the amended TSCA framework. That decision was historically significant. Asbestos was not simply another toxic chemical under review; it was the chemical that helped justify the need for reform itself.

The amended law replaced the old cost-benefit balancing test with a health-based safety standard and required the EPA to evaluate existing chemicals based on unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. In theory, this gave the EPA stronger authority to regulate dangerous substances like asbestos.

However, implementation quickly revealed the limits of reform.

Between 2017 and 2020, under the first Trump administration, EPA narrowed the scope of its asbestos risk evaluation, excluding legacy asbestos exposures in homes, schools, workplaces, and public buildings. These exclusions ignored the reality that millions of Americans continue to encounter asbestos during renovation, demolition, natural disasters, aging infrastructure failures, and routine maintenance activities.

ADAO and allied organizations challenged EPA’s limited approach in court. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA that EPA must consider legacy uses and associated disposals of asbestos in its risk evaluation process. The decision was a major victory for science, public health, and the integrity of TSCA reform.

The First Asbestos Ban Under Amended TSCA

Despite setbacks, progress followed.

In 2020, EPA finalized Part 1 of its asbestos risk evaluation for chrysotile asbestos and determined that the chemical posed an unreasonable risk under multiple conditions of use. In 2022, the EPA proposed a rule to prohibit the ongoing use of chrysotile asbestos, the only asbestos fiber still imported into the United States.

Then, on March 18, 2024, EPA finalized the Part 1 Chrysotile Asbestos Rule.

For the first time in U.S. history, EPA successfully finalized a ban on an existing chemical under amended TSCA. The rule targeted ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos in the chlor-alkali industry and certain imported products, ending decades of regulatory paralysis.

The significance of that moment cannot be overstated.

The Lautenberg Act was designed to fix the failures that doomed EPA’s 1989 asbestos ban. The 2024 chrysotile rule became the first real-world test of whether Congress had succeeded.

The Litigation That Will Define Reform

Today, that test continues in the courtroom.

On June 1, 2026, oral arguments will take place before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the litigation challenging EPA’s chrysotile asbestos rule. The location carries unmistakable historical weight: it is the same appellate court that overturned EPA’s 1989 asbestos ban more than three decades ago. That decision cost millions of lives. We hope this future decision will save lives.

ADAO intervened in the litigation to defend the science supporting EPA’s rule while also advocating for stronger protections that address all six asbestos fibers and legacy asbestos exposure.

Recent developments have strengthened EPA’s position. Both Olin Corporation and the American Chemistry Council withdrew major components of their legal challenges to EPA’s asbestos risk evaluation. Those decisions reinforce the growing scientific and legal consensus that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to human health.

Still, the litigation underscores an important reality: reform alone does not guarantee protection. Regulatory action remains vulnerable to political shifts, delayed implementation, and court challenges.

The Unfinished Work of TSCA Reform

Ten years after passage of the Lautenberg Act, asbestos remains unfinished business.

EPA’s Part 1 rule addresses only chrysotile asbestos and only certain ongoing uses. Five additional amphibole asbestos fibers remain unbanned under federal law. Legacy asbestos continues to threaten millions of Americans in homes, schools, military housing, public buildings, and disaster debris.

In December 2024, EPA completed Part 2 of its asbestos risk evaluation and concluded that legacy asbestos and remaining fiber types also present unreasonable risk. Under TSCA, EPA was required to move forward with a proposed risk management rule. Yet statutory deadlines have already slipped, forcing additional litigation to compel agency action.

This reality reveals both the strength and weakness of TSCA reform.

The Lautenberg Act created a stronger legal framework grounded in science and public health. It gave EPA tools that did not exist under the original 1976 law. Without the reform, the 2024 chrysotile asbestos rule likely would not exist.

But the past decade has also demonstrated that reform alone is insufficient without enforcement, political will, sustained advocacy, and continued public engagement.

Prevention Remains the Only Cure

The asbestos crisis did not end with TSCA reform, nor did it end with the 2024 chrysotile rule.

Nearly 40,000 Americans continue to die annually from preventable asbestos-caused diseases. Globally, asbestos exposure remains responsible for more than 200,000 deaths each year. Every delay in prevention and policy carries human consequences measured in disease, suffering, and loss.

The tenth anniversary of the Lautenberg Act is therefore both a milestone and a reminder.

Progress is real. The promise, however, remains incomplete.

Asbestos helped expose the failures of the old TSCA. Now, asbestos continues to test whether the reformed law can truly protect public health in practice. The answer will depend not only on EPA and the courts, but also on whether policymakers, industry leaders, scientists, advocates, and communities remain committed to prevention.

There is no safe level of asbestos exposure.

And ten years after TSCA reform, prevention remains the only cure.

Based in part on ADAO’s 2023 reflection on the seventh anniversary of the Lautenberg Act.

Together change is happening.

Linda Reinstein 

2026 Sponsors: ADAO is grateful to our sponsors and supporters, especially our Platinum Sponsors: Dean Omar Branham Shirley, LLP and Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLP, Gold Sponsors: The Gori Law Firm and Motley Rice LLC, and Silver Sponsor Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen.

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, does not make legal referrals.