Posted on June 2, 2026
ADAO Returns to the Fifth Circuit to Defend the Science and Strengthen Asbestos Protections
“If EPA cannot ban asbestos, it’s unclear under what circumstances EPA could ever ban a chemical,” said Laura Glickman, a Justice Department attorney representing EPA.
That statement captured the significance of the moment as attorney Robert Sussman appeared before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of ADAO and our 17 co-petitioners in Texas Chemistry Council v. EPA, a landmark case involving EPA’s 2024 Part 1 Chrysotile Asbestos Rule.
For ADAO, the case has always been about defending science, preserving the EPA’s authority to protect public health under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and strengthening the rule’s protections to prevent avoidable death and disease.
Nearly 40 years ago, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA overturned much of the EPA’s 1989 asbestos ban and shaped U.S. asbestos policy for decades. On June 1, we returned to that same court to support EPA’s science-based determination that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to human health while advocating for stronger protections where important gaps remain.
Representing ADAO and our coalition of public health organizations, firefighters, physicians, scientists, and occupational health experts, Robert Sussman urged the Court to ensure that workers, firefighters, consumers, and communities receive the strongest protections possible.
ADAO joined this lawsuit to ensure that Americans are fully protected from the deadly consequences of asbestos exposure.
We support the EPA’s determination that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to human health. We support the scientific record underlying that determination. And we believe the rule should be strengthened to better protect workers, firefighters, consumers, and communities from ongoing and future asbestos exposures.
For more than 20 years, ADAO has represented asbestos victims, grieving families, workers, firefighters, public health advocates, and communities seeking stronger protections. Through scientific conferences, congressional briefings, educational programs, prevention initiatives, and advocacy efforts, we have witnessed firsthand the devastating human and economic costs of asbestos-related diseases.
An Important Public Health Milestone
Recent developments in the case underscore the strength of the EPA’s scientific record and the growing consensus regarding the dangers of asbestos.
On May 6, Olin Corporation withdrew its challenge to EPA’s Part 1 Chrysotile Asbestos Rule. Two weeks later, on May 20, the American Chemistry Council and allied petitioners withdrew their challenge to EPA’s risk evaluation and the scientific basis supporting EPA’s determination that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to human health.
As a result, there is now broad agreement among the parties that chrysotile asbestos poses an unreasonable risk to human health.
However, despite accepting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, ACC continues to oppose a ban on asbestos in chlor-alkali production. Meanwhile, the two largest producers, Olin and Oxychem, have agreed to stop importing asbestos and are well on their way to installing nonasbestos technology. ACC’s insistence that no ban is needed is irresponsible in light of its members’ clear commitment to end asbestos use as soon as possible and its own recognition that the science requires action by EPA to address the serious risks of asbestos exposure
United by Science and Public Health
Together, our coalition brought decades of expertise in occupational medicine, environmental health, toxicology, epidemiology, worker protection, and disease prevention. Our participation reflected a shared commitment to science-based public health protections and preventing future asbestos-caused diseases.
Our position before the Court was straightforward:
- We support the EPA’s determination that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk.
- We support the science underlying the rule.
- We believe the protections should go further.
Specifically, ADAO argued that:
- Federal law defines asbestos as six regulated fiber types, yet the rule addresses only chrysotile asbestos and six conditions of use.
- EPA’s rule should be strengthened to ban all reasonably foreseeable future importation and use of asbestos fibers and asbestos-containing products.
- The 12-year compliance deadline for OxyChem to end asbestos use is excessive and does not rely on the most expeditious asbestos-replacement technology available.
- Workers, firefighters, consumers, and communities deserve stronger protection from ongoing and future exposures, including releases of asbestos to air, water, and soil.
Our goal is simple: preserve the EPA’s scientific foundation while strengthening protections where significant gaps remain.
Prevention Is the Cure
This case is about protecting people before they become patients, firefighters before they become statistics, and families before they hear a devastating diagnosis.
It is about ensuring that public policy reflects decades of scientific evidence: there is no safe level of asbestos exposure.
ADAO and our co-petitioners are deeply grateful to Robert Sussman for his outstanding representation throughout this litigation. For years, Bob has provided exceptional legal counsel and demonstrated an unwavering commitment to protecting public health. His advocacy ensured that the voices of workers, firefighters, scientists, physicians, and affected families were heard before the Court.
What Happens Next
The Fifth Circuit will now consider the arguments and issue its decision.
While we await the Court’s ruling, one fact remains clear: the science is irrefutable.
The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to human health. Recent developments in this litigation have only reinforced the urgent need for a comprehensive ban on all six regulated asbestos fiber types in all conditions of use, as well as EPA’s prompt proposal of its forthcoming Part 2 Risk Management Rule to address legacy asbestos still present in homes, schools, workplaces, and communities across the nation.
Regardless of the outcome, ADAO remains committed to advancing prevention, education, and policy solutions that protect public health, including passage of the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) Act. Unlike EPA’s current rule, ARBAN would ban all forms of asbestos in all uses, providing the comprehensive and permanent protections Americans deserve.
The progress achieved in this case matters.
- The science is irrefutable.
- The evidence is overwhelming.
- The need for prevention remains urgent.
ADAO will continue working until asbestos-caused diseases are eliminated, legacy asbestos hazards are addressed, and every American is protected from asbestos exposure.
To everyone who supports ADAO through your advocacy, partnership, donations, and encouragement: thank you. Together, we are advancing prevention, protecting public health, and saving lives.
Listen to the Fifth Circuit oral arguments: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/24/24-60193_6-1-2026.mp3
~ Linda Reinstein
President and CEO
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO)