Jump to content
Content on WikiMesothelioma is reviewed prior to publication by three named attorneys at Danziger & De Llano LLP. Dr. Luciano Mutti, MD, PhD, co-author of the European mesothelioma treatment guidelines, serves as the site's Medical Reviewer. See our editorial standards.

Asbestos Podcast EP39 Transcript

From WikiMesothelioma — Mesothelioma Knowledge Base


Episode 39: The Ban That Wasn't

Full transcript from Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making — a 52-episode documentary podcast produced by Danziger & De Llano, LLP.

Episode Information
Series Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making
Season 1
Episode 39
Title The Ban That Wasn't
Arc Arc 8 — The Reckoning (Chapter 4)
Era Covered 1976–1991 — the Toxic Substances Control Act through the vacatur of the EPA asbestos ban, with the regulatory gap carried to the present day
Produced by Charles Fletcher
Research and writing Charles Fletcher with Claude AI
Listen Apple Podcasts · Spotify · YouTube
Episode page Episode 39 on Mesothelioma Lawyers Near Me

Episode Summary

Episode 39 is the hole in the middle of American asbestos policy. In July 1989, after a rulemaking begun in 1979, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act banning nearly all asbestos products in the United States, phased out in stages, with new uses of asbestos banned outright.[1] The authority came from TSCA, the 1976 statute giving the EPA power over chemicals presenting an unreasonable risk.[2] Asbestos was the obvious test case — the most documented industrial carcinogen in human history — and the agency spent ten years building the record behind the rule.[3]

Asbestos manufacturers led by a company called Corrosion Proof Fittings sued to stop it. They were not alone: the government of Canada, then among the world's leading exporters of chrysotile asbestos, most of it from Quebec, filed in support of the challenge as amicus curiae, with Quebec filing separately.[3] On October 18, 1991, the Fifth Circuit vacated the ban.[3]

The court did not hold that asbestos was safe; nobody disputed the death toll. It ruled that the EPA had failed its statutory homework: under TSCA as the court read it, the agency had to prove its rule was the "least burdensome alternative" — that it had seriously considered every softer option, from labeling to restrictions to partial bans, and shown why each one was insufficient — and the court further faulted the agency for refusing to evaluate the toxicity of the substitute products that would replace asbestos.[3] The same circuit that decided Borel in 1973, opening asbestos litigation and making the industry pay for its victims, ruled eighteen years later that the government could not stop the industry from creating new ones.[4]

The practical effect was worse than the ruling. Only fragments of the rule survived: the prohibition on entirely new uses of asbestos begun after August 25, 1989, plus a handful of specific products.[1] Everything else returned to legality, imports continued, and American workers kept encountering asbestos lawfully for decades. The EPA did not attempt another comprehensive asbestos ban under the statute for a generation; the comprehensive prohibition on chrysotile asbestos did not arrive until the agency's 2024 rule.[5]

The episode's central inversion: courts would compensate the dying, but they would not prevent the dying. For more than thirty years after Corrosion Proof Fittings, the de facto regulator of asbestos in the United States was not the EPA — it was the lawsuit, and the verdicts, settlements and bankruptcy trusts that grew out of it. Because the rule did not hold, exposure did not end on a schedule, and the twenty-to-fifty-year latency clock kept getting wound: people diagnosed today were exposed after the ban was struck down.[6]

Key Takeaways

  • The ban was real, and it was thorough. The EPA's July 1989 final rule banned nearly all asbestos products in phased stages and prohibited new uses outright, after a rulemaking begun in 1979 and built over ten years.[1][3]
  • It was struck down on procedure, not on science. The Fifth Circuit did not hold that asbestos was safe. It held that the EPA had not satisfied TSCA's "least burdensome alternative" requirement as the court read it, and had refused to evaluate the toxicity of likely substitute products.[3]
  • "Least burdensome alternative" is the whole story. To ban a product killing people by the thousands, the agency first had to prove every gentler option — labeling, restrictions, partial bans — would fail.[3]
  • A foreign government helped. Canada, then among the world's leading chrysotile exporters, filed in support of the industry challenge as amicus curiae; Quebec filed separately.[3]
  • The same court had opened asbestos litigation eighteen years earlier. Borel v. Fibreboard (5th Cir. 1973) established the duty to warn and made the industry pay for its victims; Corrosion Proof Fittings (5th Cir. 1991) refused to let the government prevent the next ones.[4][3]
  • Only fragments survived. A handful of specific products remained prohibited, along with uses first begun after August 25, 1989.[1]
  • The message was "don't bother." The EPA did not attempt another comprehensive asbestos ban under TSCA for a generation; the comprehensive chrysotile prohibition arrived only with the 2024 rule.[5]
  • Litigation became the regulator. With the rule gone, verdicts, settlements and the bankruptcy trust system documented in Episodes 36 through 38 became the functioning check on asbestos in America.[7]
  • The gap is not history — it is the current caseload. Asbestos disease carries a latency of twenty to fifty years, so people diagnosed today were exposed after the ban was vacated.[6]

Key Concepts

The Borel-Court Inversion

The episode's thesis. The same Fifth Circuit that opened asbestos litigation in 1973 and made the industry pay for its victims vacated the government's asbestos ban eighteen years later.[4][3] Courts would compensate the dying; they would not prevent the dying. Compensation was approved; prevention was not.

"Least Burdensome Alternative"

The statutory standard on which the ban died. Under the Fifth Circuit's reading of TSCA, the EPA had to prove it had seriously considered every gentler option — labeling, restrictions, partial bans — and shown why each was insufficient, before banning a product that was killing people by the thousands.[3] The court also faulted the agency for refusing to evaluate the toxicity of likely substitute products.[3]

The "Don't Bother" Effect

The practical consequence, worse than the ruling itself. The EPA watched a decade of work vacated and concluded the statute was unusable for the purpose. No further comprehensive asbestos ban was attempted under TSCA for a generation, and the comprehensive chrysotile prohibition did not arrive until 2024.[5]

What Survived the Vacatur

Not nothing. The prohibition on entirely new uses of asbestos — applications first begun after August 25, 1989 — remained in force, together with a handful of specific products.[1] Everything else, including brake components, gaskets and certain construction materials, returned to legality, and imports continued.

Litigation as De Facto Regulator

With the ban gone, the machinery of Arc 8 — verdicts, settlements, bankruptcy trusts — became the only functioning check on asbestos in America. The trust system covered in Episode 36, Episode 37 and Episode 38 exists partly because this ban did not.[7] Regulation of exposure was replaced by compensation for its consequences.

The Gap and the Current Caseload

Because the 1989 rule did not hold, exposure did not end on a schedule, and the twenty-to-fifty-year latency clock kept getting wound.[6] People being diagnosed today were exposed after the ban was struck down — the vacatur is not a historical footnote but an active source of present-day disease and claims.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was the 1989 EPA asbestos ban overturned?

Not because asbestos was found safe — the Fifth Circuit's opinion did not dispute the death toll. The court ruled that the EPA had failed to meet the Toxic Substances Control Act's procedural bar as the court read it: the agency had to prove its ban was the "least burdensome alternative," meaning it had seriously considered every softer option — labeling, restrictions, partial bans — and shown why each one was not enough. The court also faulted the EPA for refusing to evaluate the toxicity of the substitute products that would replace asbestos. Ten years of rulemaking were held insufficient, and the ban was vacated on October 18, 1991.[3]

What is Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA?

Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991), is the decision that struck down the EPA's 1989 asbestos ban. The challenge was brought by asbestos manufacturers led by Corrosion Proof Fittings, with the government of Canada — then among the world's leading exporters of chrysotile asbestos — filing in support as amicus curiae. Decided October 18, 1991, it came from the same circuit that decided Borel in 1973, the decision that opened asbestos litigation.[3][4] The ruling vacated nearly the entire ban, leaving only the prohibition on new uses and a handful of specific products in place.[1]

Is asbestos banned in the United States?

Not by the 1989 rule — that comprehensive ban was vacated in 1991, and for decades afterward asbestos remained legal in most of the product categories the rule would have phased out.[1] What survived was the ban on entirely new uses of asbestos, plus five specific banned product categories. A comprehensive prohibition on chrysotile asbestos, the only form still imported, arrived with the EPA's 2024 rule under the amended TSCA.[5] What this episode covers is the gap between those two dates.

What is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)?

The Toxic Substances Control Act is the 1976 federal law that gave the EPA power to regulate chemicals presenting an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.[2] Asbestos was the test case: the most documented industrial carcinogen in human history. The EPA began its asbestos rulemaking in 1979 and spent a decade building the record for the 1989 ban.[1] When the Fifth Circuit vacated that ban in 1991 under the "least burdensome alternative" reading of the statute, the agency did not attempt another comprehensive ban under it for a generation.[3]

Most of what the 1989 rule would have eliminated. The vacatur left the new-use prohibition standing for applications first begun after August 25, 1989, along with a handful of specific products.[1] Everything else returned to legality, brake components, gaskets and certain construction materials among them, and imports continued.

How was asbestos regulated after the ban failed?

By litigation. After Corrosion Proof Fittings, the EPA did not attempt another comprehensive asbestos ban under TSCA for a generation, and the de facto regulator of asbestos in the United States became the lawsuit — the verdicts, the settlements, and the bankruptcy trust system that grew out of them.[7] Courts would compensate the dying; they would not prevent the dying.

Did Canada really defend asbestos in an American court?

Canada and Quebec participated in the litigation as amici curiae — friends of the court filing in support of the industry challenge — rather than as co-petitioners.[3] Canada was then among the world's leading exporters of chrysotile asbestos, most of it mined in Quebec. The opinion records that certain petitioners and amici argued the EPA rule was invalid in part because it conflicted with international trade agreements.[3]

Full Transcript

Cold Open: Ten Years to Build

Host 1: July 1989. The Environmental Protection Agency publishes a final rule in the Federal Register. Ten years of work. Tens of thousands of pages of administrative record. Hearings, studies, cost analyses, public comment. The rule bans nearly all asbestos products in the United States, phased over the coming years. After a century of documented death, the federal government has finally done the obvious thing.

Host 2: We're thirty-nine episodes in. I know better than to trust a triumphant opening. What happened?

Host 1: The asbestos industry sued. And on October 18, 1991, a federal appeals court threw the ban out.

Host 2: Which court?

Host 1: The Fifth Circuit. The same court that decided Borel — the court that opened asbestos litigation in 1973 and made the industry pay for its victims. Eighteen years later, that same court ruled the government couldn't stop the industry from creating new ones.

Host 2: Today on Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making—

Host 1: Episode 39: The Ban That Wasn't.

Host 2: Ten years to build. Two years to kill.

Host 2: Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making is brought to you by Danziger & De Llano, a nationwide mesothelioma law firm with over thirty years of experience. dandell.com. That's D-A-N-D-E-L-L dot com.

The Authority: TSCA and the Ten-Year Rulemaking

Host 1: Last episode was the practical one — what a family can do. This episode is why families still need to do it. Because the story of American asbestos policy has a hole in the middle of it, and the hole has a case name: Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA.

Host 2: Start with the authority. What law let the EPA try a ban in the first place?

Host 1: The Toxic Substances Control Act — TSCA, passed in 1976. It gave the EPA power to regulate chemicals that present an unreasonable risk. Asbestos was the test case. The obvious one. If TSCA couldn't handle the most documented industrial carcinogen in human history, it couldn't handle anything. The EPA started the rulemaking in 1979 and spent a decade building it.

Host 2: What did the 1989 rule actually cover?

Host 1: Nearly everything. Friction products, pipe insulation, roofing, flooring, cement products — phased out in stages. New uses of asbestos: banned outright. It was designed to end the American asbestos market, on a schedule, with time for industries to adapt.

The Challenge: Corrosion Proof Fittings, with Canada as Amicus

Host 2: Who sued to stop it?

Host 1: Asbestos manufacturers, led by a company called Corrosion Proof Fittings. And they weren't alone — the government of Canada filed in support of the challenge. Canada was then among the world's leading exporters of chrysotile asbestos, most of it from Quebec. A foreign government went into an American courtroom to defend its right to keep shipping the product into American lungs.

The Reasoning: "Least Burdensome Alternative"

Host 2: And the court's reasoning? What's the legal ground for un-banning a carcinogen?

Host 1: The court didn't say asbestos was safe. Read the opinion — nobody disputes the death toll. The court said the EPA had failed its statutory homework. Under TSCA, the agency had to prove its rule was the "least burdensome alternative" — that it had seriously considered every softer option, labeling, restrictions, partial bans, and shown why each one wasn't enough. The court also faulted the EPA for not fully analyzing the risks of substitute products. Ten years and tens of thousands of pages, and the Fifth Circuit ruled the agency hadn't shown enough of its work.

Host 2: Let me make sure I have the standard right. To ban a product that was killing people by the thousands, the government had to first prove that every gentler option would fail.

Host 1: That was the reading. And the practical effect was worse than the ruling. The EPA looked at ten years of effort, vacated in an afternoon, and concluded the statute was unusable. The agency never attempted a comprehensive asbestos ban under that law again — not for a generation. The message wasn't "redo the paperwork." The message was "don't bother."

Host 2: The ban failed — the claims system didn't. If exposure happened, the trusts still pay, and the difference between ninety days and a year is usually the paperwork. Danziger & De Llano files it complete, every trust at once, from day one. dandell.com.

What Survived

Host 2: So walk me through what survived the vacatur. What was actually banned in America after 1991?

Host 1: Fragments. The ban on entirely new uses of asbestos survived — no inventing fresh applications. A handful of specific products stayed banned. Everything else came back. Imports continued. Brake components, gaskets, certain construction materials — legal. American workers kept encountering asbestos, legally, for decades after the country had supposedly decided to be done with it.

The Inversion

Host 2: Which produces the inversion this episode is actually about. The same court system that made the industry pay billions for its victims refused to let the government prevent the next ones.

Host 1: That's the American asbestos settlement, in one sentence. Courts would compensate the dying. They would not prevent the dying. For thirty years after Corrosion Proof Fittings, the de facto regulator of asbestos in the United States wasn't the EPA. It was the lawsuit.

Host 2: The trusts, the verdicts, the settlements — that entire machinery exists partly because this ban didn't.

Host 1: If the 1989 rule had held, exposure ends on a schedule and the disease curve bends a generation sooner. It didn't hold. Which means the latency clock we talked about in Episode 33 — twenty to fifty years — kept getting wound. People being diagnosed today were exposed after the ban was struck down. That's not a historical observation. That's a current caseload.

Host 2: And the full ban? Does America ever actually get one?

Host 1: That story has a 2024 date on it, and it gets its own episode before this season ends. What matters here is the gap: from 1991 to that moment is more than thirty years of a known carcinogen remaining legal in the wealthiest country on earth — after its own environmental agency had banned it, in writing, with a decade of evidence attached.

Host 2: One more thing about the people inside that gap. Yvette Abrego is a case manager at Danziger & De Llano. Her father was a welder — breathed asbestos on the job every day and came home with the fibers still on his clothes. He's exactly who the 1989 rule was written to protect, and exactly who was left exposed when it died in court. For nearly twenty years, Yvette has helped working families understand what happened to them and what they can still do about it. If that's your family, call Danziger & De Llano. dandell.com.

Host 1: Paul Danziger and Rod De Llano founded the firm in 1995. Nearly two billion dollars recovered. Over a thousand families. Cases in all fifty states.

Host 2: The consultation is free, seven days a week. dandell.com.

Closing and Tease

Host 1: You've been listening to Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making. Episode 39: The Ban That Wasn't.

Host 2: Research, writing, and production for this series is supported by Danziger and De Llano, a national mesothelioma law firm with over 30 years of experience and nearly two billion dollars recovered for victims and their families.

Host 1: Next time: while the ban was dying in a New Orleans courtroom, a town in Montana was being poisoned. Not a factory. Not a shipyard. The whole town — the ballfields, the school tracks, the gardens. The company knew. The town didn't.

Host 2: An entire zip code as an exposure site.

Host 1: Episode 40: Libby, Montana. On Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making.

Host 2: Ten years of work, gone on "show your work."

Host 1: Vacated. The rule, anyway. The exposure carried on.

Host 2: Court's adjourned.

Host 1: Adjourned — not vacated. The difference turned out to be about thirty years.

Named Entities

Entity Role / Context
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal agency that built the asbestos ban rulemaking under TSCA from 1979, published the final rule in July 1989, and — after the Fifth Circuit vacated it — did not attempt another comprehensive asbestos ban under that statute for a generation.[1][3]
Corrosion Proof Fittings Asbestos manufacturer that led the industry challenge to the EPA's 1989 ban and gave the resulting case its name, Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA.[3]
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit The federal appeals court, sitting in New Orleans, that vacated the EPA asbestos ban on October 18, 1991 — the same court that decided Borel in 1973, opening asbestos litigation.[3][4]
Government of Canada Filed in support of the industry's challenge as amicus curiae, with Quebec filing separately. Canada was then among the world's leading exporters of chrysotile asbestos, most of it mined in Quebec.[3]
Province of Quebec Source of most Canadian chrysotile asbestos and a separate amicus curiae in the challenge to the EPA rule.[3]
Clarence Borel Texas insulation worker whose lawsuit produced Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. (5th Cir. 1973), establishing manufacturers' duty to warn and opening asbestos litigation (Episode 35).[4] Cited here as the other half of the inversion: Borel and Corrosion Proof Fittings came from the same circuit, eighteen years apart.
Yvette Abrego Case manager at Danziger & De Llano, featured in this episode's closing sponsor segment. Her father was a welder who came home with asbestos fibers on his clothes — "exactly who the 1989 rule was written to protect." Prior spotlight: Episode 16.
Paul Danziger & Rod De Llano Founders of Danziger & De Llano (1995). Over a thousand families represented, cases in all fifty states.
  • Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir., decided October 18, 1991) — The decision that vacated the EPA's 1989 asbestos ban for failure to satisfy TSCA's "least burdensome alternative" requirement as the court read it, and for refusing to evaluate the toxicity of likely substitute products. Left only the new-use ban and a handful of specific products standing.[3][1]
  • Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973) — The decision that established asbestos manufacturers' duty to warn and opened modern asbestos litigation. Paired with Corrosion Proof Fittings in this episode as the two case captions that contain thirty years of American asbestos policy.[4]
  • Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 1976) — The statute giving the EPA authority to regulate chemicals presenting an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment; the legal foundation for the 1989 ban.[2]
  • "Least burdensome alternative" — The TSCA standard, as the Fifth Circuit read it, requiring the EPA to prove it had seriously considered every softer option — labeling, restrictions, partial bans — and shown why each was insufficient before imposing a ban.[3]
  • The new-use ban — The surviving core of the 1989 rule: applications of asbestos first begun after August 25, 1989 remained prohibited after the vacatur.[1]
  • 2024 chrysotile asbestos rule — The EPA's Part 1 rule under the amended TSCA section 6(a), prohibiting ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos — the comprehensive prohibition that did not arrive until more than thirty years after the vacatur.[5]

Key Facts and Statistics

Figure Detail
1976[2] The Toxic Substances Control Act becomes law, giving the EPA authority over chemicals presenting an unreasonable risk[2]
1979[1] The EPA begins the asbestos ban rulemaking[1]
Ten years[3] The span of the rulemaking, which the Fifth Circuit's opinion recites as the period during which the agency considered the asbestos ban[3]
July 12, 1989[3][1] Publication date of the final rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 29,459, with the prohibitions section at 29,460[3][1]
August 25, 1989[1] The cutoff defining a "new use" — applications first begun after this date remain banned to this day[1]
October 18, 1991[3] The Fifth Circuit vacates the ban in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201[3]
18 years[4][3] The span between Borel (1973) and Corrosion Proof Fittings (1991), both from the Fifth Circuit[4][3]
A handful of products[1] What stayed banned alongside the prohibition on new uses; everything else returned to legality[1]
2024[5] The year a comprehensive prohibition on chrysotile asbestos finally issued, more than three decades after the vacatur[5]
20–50 years[6] Asbestos disease latency, which is why people diagnosed today were exposed after the ban was struck down[6]

Timeline

Date Event
1973 Borel — the Fifth Circuit opens asbestos litigation and establishes the industry's liability to its victims (Episode 35)[4]
1976 The Toxic Substances Control Act passes, giving the EPA power to regulate chemicals presenting an unreasonable risk[2]
1979 The EPA begins the asbestos ban rulemaking — hearings, studies, cost analyses, public comment[1]
July 12, 1989 The EPA publishes the final rule: nearly all asbestos products banned in phased stages, new uses banned outright[1]
August 25, 1989 The effective cutoff for "new uses" — the provision that survives everything after it[1]
1989–1991 Asbestos manufacturers led by Corrosion Proof Fittings challenge the rule; Canada and Quebec file in support as amici curiae[3]
October 18, 1991 The Fifth Circuit vacates the ban under the "least burdensome alternative" standard and for inadequate analysis of substitutes[3]
Post-1991 Only the new-use ban and a handful of specific products survive; brake components, gaskets and certain construction materials return to legality; imports continue[1]
1991 onward No further comprehensive asbestos ban is attempted under TSCA for a generation; litigation and the trust system operate as the de facto regulator[7]
2024 The EPA issues its chrysotile asbestos rule under the amended TSCA — the comprehensive prohibition, arriving more than thirty years late[5]

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 The EPA's own summary of which asbestos prohibitions are in force. It records that in 1989 the agency "attempted to ban most asbestos-containing products by issuing a final rule under Section 6 of Toxic Substances Control Act," that most of the 1989 final rule "was overturned in 1991 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals," and that as a result the 1989 regulation "only bans new uses of asbestos in products that would be initiated for the first time after 1989 and bans 5 other specific product types". The page cites the underlying rule as "Asbestos: Manufacture, Importation, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce Prohibitions (54 FR 29460, July 12, 1989)" and defines a "new use" as one first initiated after August 25, 1989. Codified at 40 CFR 763 Subpart I. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — U.S. Federal Bans on Asbestos
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., declares the policy that adequate data should be developed on the effects of chemical substances on health and the environment, and authorizes regulation of substances presenting an unreasonable risk. Section 6 supplies the ban authority the EPA invoked in 1989 and the "least burdensome" language the Fifth Circuit construed against the agency in 1991. Cornell Legal Information Institute — 15 U.S.C. § 2601
  3. ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 Corrosion Proof Fittings v. Environmental Protection Agency, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991), decided October 18, 1991. The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded most of the EPA's 1989 asbestos ban, holding that the agency had not shown its rule was the "least burdensome alternative" required by TSCA section 6(a) as the court read it, and faulting the EPA for refusing to evaluate the toxicity of likely substitute products. The opinion records that Canada and Quebec participated as amici curiae — not as co-petitioners. The court's own words settle the distinction: "The EPA argues that the briefs of two of the amici curiae, Quebec and Canada, should be stricken because they improperly raise arguments not mentioned by any petitioner." The opinion also records that certain petitioners and amici argued the rule conflicted with international trade agreements. The opinion describes the ten years during which the EPA considered the ban. The rule under review is cited in the opinion at 54 Fed.Reg. 29,459 and 29,460. Public.Resource.Org — 947 F.2d 1201
  4. ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973). Clarence Borel, a Texas insulation worker, sued the manufacturers whose products he had handled for more than thirty years. The Fifth Circuit held that asbestos manufacturers owed a duty to warn end users of the dangers of their products, establishing strict liability in the asbestos context and opening the litigation that produced the bankruptcies and trusts this series documents. Covered in Episode 35. Public.Resource.Org — 493 F.2d 1076
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 "Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos; Regulation of Certain Conditions of Use Under Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act," final rule published March 28, 2024. Issued under TSCA as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act of 2016, this rule prohibits ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos — the only form still imported into the United States — and is the comprehensive prohibition that did not follow the 1991 vacatur for more than three decades. Federal Register — Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Asbestos-related disease, including mesothelioma, typically carries a latency period of 20 to 50 years between initial exposure and diagnosis. Applied to this episode: exposure occurring after the October 1991 vacatur places the resulting diagnosis window at approximately 2011 through 2041, which is the basis for the episode's claim that people diagnosed today were exposed after the ban was struck down. Series canon, established in Episode 33 and used consistently across the production's episode research files.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Independent public tracker of the U.S. asbestos bankruptcy trust system — every active trust, what it holds, what it pays, and what it requires — compiled from annual reports and other documents filed in the trusts' bankruptcy dockets and updated weekly. Cited here for the compensation machinery that grew up in the regulatory gap this episode documents, covered in Episodes 36 through 38. It is built by the team behind this podcast; the series discloses this on-mic. AsbestosTrusts.org — Asbestos Trust Directory

Primary Sources

Trust Claims and Compensation

Series Navigation

Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making — Arc 8: The Reckoning
Previous: Episode 38: What Your Family Needs to Know Episode 39: The Ban That Wasn't Next: Episode 40: Libby, Montana

About This Series

Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making is a 52-episode documentary podcast tracing the complete history of asbestos from 4700 BCE to the 2024 EPA ban. The series is produced by Danziger & De Llano, LLP, a nationwide mesothelioma law firm with over 30 years of experience and nearly $2 billion recovered for asbestos victims.

Episode 39 is Chapter 4 of Arc 8 ("The Reckoning") and the arc's turn from compensation back to prevention. Episodes 36 through 38 documented the machinery that pays asbestos victims — the Johns-Manville bankruptcy, the trust system it templated, and what a family should actually do with it. Episode 39 asks why that machinery had to exist at all, and finds the answer in a single 1991 decision.

The episode's thesis is an inversion: the same Fifth Circuit that opened asbestos litigation in Borel in 1973, making the industry pay for its victims, vacated the EPA's asbestos ban eighteen years later and left the government unable to prevent the next ones. Courts would compensate the dying; they would not prevent the dying. Episode 40, Libby, Montana, turns from the courtroom to a single town poisoned while the ban was dying — an entire zip code as an exposure site.

Retrieved from "https://wikimesothelioma.com/w/index.php?title=Asbestos_Podcast_EP39_Transcript&oldid=4464"