Log In Sign Up

What the New Federal Asbestos Ban Actually Covers and Why It Matters

The US Environmental Protection Agency issued a landmark ruling in March 2024 that prohibited the only form of asbestos still legally used in American manufacturing, ending a regulatory saga that stretched back decades. While the headlines focused on the historic nature of the move, the practical scope of the prohibition is narrower than many people assume, and the ripple effects are being watched closely in countries like Australia that continue to grapple with their own asbestos legacy.

For Australians, the announcement carries particular weight. Australia banned all forms of asbestos in 2003, yet it still records one of the highest per-capita rates of mesothelioma in the world, largely because of the Wittenoom mining disaster and the widespread use of asbestos cement sheeting in homes built before 1987. Any new international rule on chrysotile, the most common form of the mineral, inevitably shapes how Australian industries export, import, and trade with partners overseas.

The new federal rules in the United States apply specifically to chrysotile asbestos, the curly white fibre that was still being imported for use in chlor-alkali production, asbestos diaphragms, certain gaskets, and a small number of other industrial applications. The ruling under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act marks the first comprehensive federal prohibition in more than three decades and triggers a phase-out period for affected manufacturers.

Australia, by contrast, has been operating under a complete ban for over twenty years, but enforcement and remediation remain ongoing challenges. Federal and state regulators continue to discover the material in unexpected places, from the Barangaroo redevelopment in Sydney to older school buildings in Melbourne and Brisbane. The American decision is therefore less about what Australia needs to do domestically and more about how global supply chains, building material imports, and pressure on holdout nations may finally shift.

The Scope of the Prohibition

The new rule targets six specific categories of chrysotile asbestos use that the EPA determined posed an unreasonable risk to human health. These include chlor-alkali production, where asbestos diaphragms have been used in chlorine manufacturing for more than a century. The rule also addresses sheet gaskets in chemical processing, certain friction products such as brake linings for specialised vehicles, and a small number of other industrial applications.

Manufacturers and processors will have up to twelve years to phase out their use of the material, though the EPA signalled that the longest grace periods would be subject to strict reporting and risk management requirements. Importers face similar deadlines, with the rule applying to any product containing chrysotile that enters the US market after the compliance dates set in the regulation.

A handful of narrow exemptions remain. These are not permanent carve-outs but transitional arrangements designed to allow industries to develop and test alternatives. The most closely watched exemption involves the chlor-alkali sector, where the switch to non-asbestos membrane technology has been underway for years but requires significant capital investment.

Industries With Continuing Exemptions

The following sectors received the longest transition periods, reflecting the technical difficulty of substitution:

Timeline for Phase-Out and Compliance

Compliance dates are staggered across the six regulated categories, with the earliest deadlines falling within two years of the rule's publication. Chlor-alkali facilities, the largest remaining users of chrysotile, received the longest runway, reflecting the scale of investment required to convert plants to membrane cell technology. Smaller users, such as those importing finished gaskets or brake components, will need to find alternatives far sooner.

The EPA also committed to ongoing review during the transition, including periodic assessments of whether the risk-management measures imposed on users are being honoured. Failure to comply can trigger penalties under TSCA, which were substantially strengthened by the 2016 amendments to the law. Australian companies exporting to the United States, particularly in the mining equipment and chemical processing sectors, will need to track these compliance dates carefully.

Australia's Local Context and Continuing Challenges

Australia banned all forms of asbestos in 2003, but the legacy of past use continues to shape public health policy. Wittenoom, a former crocidolite mining town in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, remains a de facto exclusion zone and is still the subject of state government warnings against travel. The contamination of the town and its surrounds is the single largest reason mesothelioma rates in Western Australia remain elevated.

In Sydney, the multi-billion-dollar Barangaroo development on the harbour foreshore became a high-profile case study in asbestos management when bonded asbestos cement was discovered during demolition. Similar discoveries have been made during renovations of older homes in suburbs like Newtown and Glebe, where fibro sheeting was a popular building material in the postwar decades. The NSW Environment Protection Authority requires licensed removalists for any work involving more than ten square metres of bonded asbestos.

Australian states and territories maintain their own registers and removal rules:

Worker Safety and Emergency Response

The new US rule includes strengthened worker protection measures, including enhanced training requirements, exposure monitoring, and medical surveillance for employees in the limited industries still using chrysotile during the transition. These provisions echo long-standing Australian standards under the model Work Health and Safety Regulations, which treat asbestos removal as a high-risk construction activity.

Federal disaster response coordination also comes into play when natural events disturb asbestos-containing materials. Bushfires that raze older homes in regional Victoria or New South Wales, as well as flood events that inundate fibro-clad buildings, can release fibres into the air and require coordinated clean-up. The recent pattern of military assistance during fire and flood emergencies, including ADF logistics support during the Black Summer bushfires, has also raised questions about how responders are protected when they enter contaminated zones. An overview of how these disaster relief deployments typically work offers useful context for understanding the federal-state coordination that asbestos incidents often require.

Gaps the New Rule Does Not Address

Despite the significance of the EPA's action, the prohibition does not address legacy asbestos already in place in millions of American buildings, schools, and homes. Removal remains a matter of state and local regulation, and the federal government has not committed new funding for remediation. This mirrors the Australian experience, where the focus since 2003 has been almost entirely on managing in-situ materials rather than mandatory removal.

Nor does the new rule cover other forms of asbestos, although the EPA noted that crocidolite, amosite, and other variants were already effectively prohibited under earlier regulatory action. The risk of imported products containing asbestos from countries with weaker regulations remains, and customs enforcement at ports will be critical. The Australian Border Force has made several seizures in recent years of building materials and automotive parts that tested positive for the mineral.

A Global Push Toward a Total Ban

The American decision brings the United States closer to the position of more than sixty countries that have already implemented comprehensive asbestos bans. Russia, India, and a handful of others continue to produce and export the material, often arguing that controlled use is acceptable. International health bodies, including the World Health Organisation, have repeatedly called for a global prohibition, citing the availability of safer substitutes in virtually every application.

For Australia, the shift reinforces a policy direction the country adopted two decades ago but also highlights the continuing need for vigilance. With homes, schools, and commercial buildings across the country still containing legacy asbestos, the work of safe management, removal, and disposal will stretch well into the second half of this century. Readers concerned about asbestos in their own homes or workplaces should contact their state environment authority or a licensed removalist before undertaking any renovation work, and stay informed about federal decisions that shape the global market for these materials.