EPA Banned Chrysotile in March 2024. The Chlor-Alkali Phase-Out Runs Through 2036.

The EPA finalized its chrysotile asbestos rule on March 18, 2024 and the rule is now nearly two years into a phased compliance schedule that will run through 2036 for the chlor-alkali industry. One year after the EPA’s final action under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the actual market response is uneven, the litigation is pending in the Fifth Circuit, and the underlying public-health calculus that drove the rule still tracks decades of mesothelioma latency from past chrysotile exposure.

Chrysotile is the only form of asbestos still legally manufactured, imported, or used in US commerce. EPA’s finding under TSCA Section 6(a) was that the evaluated conditions of use pose an unreasonable risk to human health. The rule prohibits manufacture, processing, distribution, commercial use, and disposal of chrysotile asbestos across multiple sectors, with sector-specific compliance schedules. The longest phase-out, for chlor-alkali industry diaphragms, runs 5 to 12 years from the effective date.

For people with mesothelioma whose exposure traces to past chrysotile use, the new rule does not change the legal landscape. Cases continue in active state and federal litigation. Trust funds established under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code continue to process claims from workers exposed to chrysotile-containing products. The rule is forward-looking, not retrospective.

What the Rule Prohibits

The EPA’s evaluation under TSCA covered six conditions of use: chlor-alkali industry diaphragms, sheet gaskets used in chemical production, oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brake blocks and linings, other vehicle friction products, and other gaskets. The final rule prohibits each of those uses on a sector-specific compliance schedule.

Aftermarket automotive brakes and oilfield brake blocks face the shortest compliance windows. Brake-shop mechanics and brake-product distributors had to begin phasing out chrysotile-containing inventory within months of the May 28, 2024 effective date, with most distribution and commercial use deadlines running through 2024 and 2025. Sheet gaskets used in chemical production face intermediate windows. The longest phase-out, for chlor-alkali industry diaphragms, runs 5 to 12 years.

The chlor-alkali sector has been the policy focus because of the small number of remaining facilities and the technical challenge of converting from asbestos diaphragm cell technology to membrane cell technology. New chlor-alkali facilities must comply by May 28, 2029. Legacy facilities with demonstrated need have until May 28, 2036. The schedule reflects the EPA’s analysis of available substitute technology and the engineering complexity of full conversions.

The Chlor-Alkali Map

Approximately 4 to 6 US chlor-alkali plants still used asbestos diaphragm cell technology in March 2024 when the rule was finalized. That figure was down from 10 facilities in 2019, which had represented roughly 30% of US chlor-alkali capacity. The contraction has been driven by a combination of cost economics, regulatory pressure, and corporate transition planning that began before the EPA’s final rule.

Olin Corporation operated the largest share of remaining capacity. Olin’s plant in McIntosh, Alabama had used asbestos diaphragms for chlorine production since 1978. Olin shut down approximately half of that diaphragm-grade capacity in 2021 and announced a full McIntosh phase-out by late 2024. The company’s Plaquemine, Louisiana plant followed in December 2024 with a transition announcement to non-asbestos technology, and Olin announced shutdowns at its Freeport, Texas plant the same month.

OxyChem operated the remaining principal capacity. The company ceased asbestos diaphragm use at its Niagara Falls, New York facility in late 2023. OxyChem retains chlor-alkali capacity at other US sites that the EPA rule will reach over the longer phase-out window. The company’s specific facility-by-facility transition timing is documented in its annual SEC filings and in industry trade-press reporting.

The Gulf Coast geographic concentration of remaining chlor-alkali capacity, with Olin’s McIntosh, Plaquemine, and Freeport facilities and OxyChem’s heavy footprint, places the rule’s compliance pressure on the same petrochemical corridor that has historically anchored US asbestos exposure cases. Those cases are documented in the Houston Ship Channel exposure sites investigation.

The Fifth Circuit Litigation

The Texas Chemistry Council and the American Chemistry Council filed petitions for review of the EPA’s chrysotile rule before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The petitions argue the EPA exceeded its authority under TSCA, applied compliance schedules that fail to account for industry transition feasibility, and erred in the cost-benefit framework supporting the unreasonable-risk finding. The case is captioned Texas Chemistry Council v. EPA.

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and the United Steelworkers filed a joint brief in support of the EPA rule. ADAO and the union have been the principal civil-society proponents of the chrysotile phase-out for over a decade. Their brief argues the EPA’s risk evaluation was supported by extensive evidence and that the phase-out schedule already accommodates industry transition concerns.

Final briefs were submitted in early 2026. Oral argument is tentatively scheduled for the first week of June 2026. Earlier abeyance periods, which had given the EPA time to reconsider portions of the rule under the Trump administration’s regulatory review process, concluded ahead of the briefing schedule. A separate set of industry challenges before the Fifth Circuit involving Chamber of Commerce parties has run on a related procedural track.

What the Rule Does Not Reach

The chrysotile rule covers the six conditions of use the EPA evaluated. It does not reach asbestos contained in legacy installations not currently being manufactured, processed, or distributed. Asbestos pipe insulation in pre-1980 industrial facilities, asbestos floor tiles in older buildings, and asbestos in legacy automotive parts already installed remain governed by other regulatory regimes. OSHA’s asbestos standards (29 CFR 1910.1001 for general industry, originally promulgated in 1971 and effective in 1972) continue to govern occupational exposure during demolition, renovation, and maintenance.

The EPA’s TSCA Asbestos Reporting Rule, finalized in 2024, separately requires reporting of historical asbestos use to the EPA. That data collection is the foundation for any future Part 2 rulemaking covering legacy asbestos uses. The Part 1 rule is the going-forward prohibition. The Part 2 process, if completed, would govern legacy materials.

For people whose mesothelioma traces to legacy chrysotile exposure, the relevant legal framework remains state-court tort litigation, federal asbestos multidistrict litigation, and Section 524(g) trust claims. The new rule changes the future exposure picture. It does not change the calculus for past exposure already in litigation.