The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization filed a federal lawsuit in April 2026 against the Environmental Protection Agency, asking a court in Washington, D.C. to order the agency to propose a long-overdue rule restricting legacy asbestos. The group says EPA missed a December 3, 2025 statutory deadline that followed the agency’s own finding that handling older asbestos products poses an unreasonable risk to human health.
The case turns on a narrow but consequential question: whether EPA can be compelled to act on a finding it already made. ADAO, founded by Linda Reinstein, previously sued the agency in 2021 to force the Part 2 Risk Evaluation that underpins the current dispute. MesoWatch has also covered ADAO’s separate FOIA lawsuit over the White House East Wing demolition.
What the Legacy Asbestos Rule Covers
EPA finalized the Part 2 TSCA Risk Evaluation for Asbestos on November 27, 2024, and published it in the Federal Register on December 3, 2024. The full title is Supplemental Evaluation Including Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of Asbestos. The evaluation reviewed legacy uses like floor tiles, pipe wrap, and older insulation, along with associated disposals of chrysotile and five other asbestos fiber types. It also covered asbestos-containing talc.
The agency reached three central findings:
- Disturbing legacy asbestos poses unreasonable risk to human health. The finding applies most directly to workers involved in construction and demolition activities, including cutting, sanding, and grinding materials that contain asbestos.
- Undisturbed legacy asbestos does not pose unreasonable risk to human health. Intact material in place is treated differently from material that is being worked on or removed.
- No unreasonable risk to the environment.
The unreasonable-risk determination triggers a separate obligation under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Once EPA makes that finding, the agency must propose a risk management rule within one year. That clock started when the evaluation was published in December 2024 and ran out on December 3, 2025.
What ADAO Is Asking
The lawsuit is brought under TSCA section 20(a)(2), the citizen-suit provision that allows a person or organization to ask a federal court to compel EPA to perform a non-discretionary duty. The statute requires 60 days of advance notice. ADAO issued that Notice of Intent to Sue on February 13, 2026. When the notice period passed without a proposed rule, the group filed the complaint.
ADAO is not asking a court to write the rule. The group is asking for an order directing EPA to publish a proposed rule and move the rulemaking forward on a schedule the court sets.
“This lawsuit is about accountability and enforcement, advancing prevention and ensuring no one is left unprotected,” Reinstein said in ADAO’s announcement of the filing.
Why the Deadline Matters
Legacy asbestos is the asbestos already inside older buildings: homes, schools, hospitals, commercial structures, and public infrastructure. It is the form of exposure most likely to affect ordinary renovation workers, maintenance crews, and families in aging housing. A risk management rule would set federal requirements for handling, labeling, and disposal when that material is disturbed.
EPA’s Spring 2025 semi-annual regulatory agenda scheduled the proposed rule for November 2026 and final action for February 2028. Those targets are internal projections, not binding deadlines, and they sit well past the statutory date the agency was legally required to meet.
The Part 2 evaluation itself was the result of an earlier round of litigation. A 2019 Ninth Circuit ruling in Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA and a consent decree in Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization et al. v. Regan et al. (4:21-cv-03716, N.D. Cal.) required EPA to broaden its asbestos review to include legacy uses. ADAO is now back in court for the same reason: arguing that EPA committed to act, then did not.
Context
The lawsuit lands while EPA’s separate Part 1 chrysotile asbestos ban is under challenge in a different forum. Oral arguments in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals are scheduled for June 2026.
Background is available in our earlier coverage of the original 2022 chrysotile proposal, the final 2024 chrysotile ban, and the Fifth Circuit challenge led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Part 1 targets one type of asbestos still being imported. Part 2 targets the much larger universe of asbestos already installed in buildings across the country. Both rules are now tied up in litigation, from opposite directions.
TSCA section 20(a)(2) allows a citizen or organization to ask a federal court to order EPA to perform a duty the statute says is mandatory. The plaintiff must give EPA 60 days of advance notice. If EPA does not act in that window, the plaintiff may file suit.
What did EPA decide about legacy asbestos?▼
In November 2024, EPA finalized its Part 2 Risk Evaluation and concluded that disturbing legacy asbestos, including activities like cutting, sanding, or grinding in construction and demolition, poses an unreasonable risk to human health. The agency found that undisturbed legacy asbestos does not pose an unreasonable risk, and that there is no unreasonable risk to the environment.
What deadline did EPA miss?▼
Once EPA finds an unreasonable risk, TSCA requires the agency to propose a risk management rule within one year. The Part 2 evaluation was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2024, which set a statutory deadline of December 3, 2025. EPA did not propose a rule by that date.
What is ADAO asking the court to do?▼
ADAO is not asking the court to write the rule. The group is asking for an order directing EPA to publish a proposed risk management rule and follow a schedule the court sets. The case is brought under TSCA section 20(a)(2), the statute’s citizen-suit provision.
How is this different from the EPA chrysotile ban?▼
The 2024 chrysotile ban, known as Part 1, targets ongoing imports and industrial uses of chrysotile asbestos. Part 2 targets legacy asbestos already installed in buildings, along with disposal of six fiber types and asbestos-containing talc. The Part 1 rule is under challenge in the Fifth Circuit. The Part 2 rule has not yet been proposed, which is the reason for this lawsuit.