As usual, summer is the busy season for the asbestos abatement industry. With most schools closed for the summer, this is the perfect time to do asbestos abatement work for the renovation, remodeling, or demolition work necessary. Interestingly, both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thought this would be the best time to ask for comments from the public and the industry about asbestos regulations.
Also interesting is that OSHA is looking to reduce regulatory requirements while EPA is looking to create regulations. OSHA's public comment period ends August 21, 2026, and EPA's docket for public comments closes on August 24, 2026.
OSHA Still Pushing Its Unpopular Asbestos Respirator Proposal
OSHA's proposed changes actually came out July 1, 2025, and that comment period closed on November 1, 2025, after an extension from the original closing date. As we discussed in our classes, the proposed changes are to reduce compliance burdens, allow for the use of more up-to-date technology, and improve the comprehensibility of the requirements for respiratory protection programs under the standards. Part of the intent of this proposal was also to better align these standards with OSHA's respiratory protection standard. However, this proposal would significantly increase a worker's exposure to asbestos. Just the elimination of the HEPA filter requirement would increase a worker's exposure by 24,000 asbestos fibers in an 8-hour workday. For more information about these changes, see our blog post OSHA’s Proposed Asbestos Respirator Changes Raise Important Safety Concerns.
On April 1 and May 19, 2026, OSHA consulted with the Advisory Committee and Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) on the proposed changes to asbestos and the other changes they proposed for the chemicals (there are 16 chemicals) that have specific respiratory protection requirements like asbestos. If you review the meeting minutes of the ACCSH, OSHA's proposal for removing the HEPA filter requirement was rejected, and the same for the proposal to change assigned protection factors. So we hope, based on all this, that should be the end of this dangerous proposal.
EPA Opens Public Docket for Asbestos Part 2 Rulemaking: A Critical Opportunity to Shape the Future of Legacy Asbestos Regulation
For decades, those of us in the asbestos industry have understood one simple truth: legacy asbestos is the problem that isn't going away. While the EPA's 2024 rule addressing chrysotile asbestos represented a step forward, it left many unanswered questions regarding the millions of asbestos-containing materials that remain in schools, commercial buildings, industrial facilities, and homes throughout the United States. Those "legacy uses" continue to expose workers, contractors, maintenance personnel, building occupants, and even homeowners to asbestos every day.
Now, the EPA has officially opened a public docket seeking additional information to assist in developing "Asbestos Part 2: Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of Asbestos" under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This is more than another request for comments. It is an opportunity for the environmental consulting, remediation, industrial hygiene, laboratory, and construction industries to provide the real-world information EPA needs to develop regulations that are scientifically sound, practical, and enforceable. As someone who has spent decades training asbestos inspectors, project designers, contractors, and consultants, we believe many of these questions deserve thoughtful responses from professionals who perform this work every day.
Why EPA Is Asking for More Information
EPA has determined that additional information is necessary before it can propose a final risk management rule addressing legacy asbestos. Unlike the Part 1 rule, which focused primarily on ongoing commercial uses of chrysotile asbestos, Part 2 addresses the asbestos that already exists throughout our built environment. EPA specifically states that the additional information will help develop:
- Practical regulatory requirements
- Economic analyses required under TSCA
- Science-based worker protections
- Feasible implementation strategies
That last point is important. Protecting workers is essential, but regulations must also recognize how asbestos work is actually performed in the field.
Demolition and Renovation Projects
One area EPA is examining involves demolition and renovation projects that fall below the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) thresholds. Anyone working in our industry knows this is where many exposures occur. EPA's asbestos NESHAP requires inspections, notifications, work practices, and trained personnel when projects exceed:
- 260 linear feet (LF)
- 160 square feet (SF)
- 35 cubic feet (CF)
But thousands of smaller renovation projects occur every year that never trigger these requirements. EPA wants to know:
- Are building owners hiring accredited asbestos professionals?
- What work practices are being used?
- Are wet methods, containment, and proper disposal still being followed?
- What happens in single-family homes?
These are important questions because many exposures occur during "small jobs" that are incorrectly assumed to present little risk. As we've discussed in our asbestos training classes for years, the amount of material removed does not determine whether asbestos fibers are released. The work practices do. See our blog post on how floor tile removal can cause asbestos exposures: "Asbestos Floor Tile Debate Results"
Self-Employed Contractors
Perhaps one of the most significant sections of EPA's request concerns self-employed contractors. OSHA's asbestos construction standard applies to employees. It does not apply to many self-employed individuals (i.e., handymen).
EPA wants information about:
- Flooring installers
- Drywall contractors
- Roofing contractors
- Renovation contractors
- Siding contractors
- Handymen
- Sole proprietors
Questions include:
- How often do they disturb asbestos?
- How do they identify asbestos-containing materials?
- Do they receive asbestos awareness training?
- What engineering controls do they use?
- What barriers prevent them from having suspect materials analyzed before beginning work?
This is a conversation our industry has needed for years. Many self-employed contractors work in older buildings where asbestos-containing materials remain common. Unfortunately, many rely solely on experience or visual assessment rather than laboratory analysis. That approach is risky—not only for the contractor but also for their clients and anyone occupying the building.
Legacy Asbestos Products Still in Service
EPA is also looking beyond insulation and floor tile. The agency is requesting information about asbestos still present in:
- Industrial equipment
- Pumps
- Valves
- Gaskets
- Packing materials
- Brakes
- Clutches
- Electrical equipment
- Textiles
- Heat-resistant fabrics
- Commercial appliances
- Boilers
- Furnaces
- Kilns
- Elevators
- Military equipment
Many younger environmental professionals may never encounter some of these products. Those of us who have been in the industry for several decades know they are still out there. Understanding where they remain, who works with them, and how often they are disturbed will be critical in developing effective regulations.
The Air Sampling Debate Continues
One section of EPA's request immediately caught our attention. EPA is requesting information regarding the use of:
- Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM)
- Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)
Specifically, EPA asks whether laboratories have sufficient TEM capacity if lower exposure limits ultimately require TEM analysis instead of PCM. Anyone who has followed our writing knows we have discussed the limitations of PCM for years. PCM counts fibers. TEM identifies asbestos. Those are two very different things. See our blog post: "The Fallacy of Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) Clearance Air Sampling, or 5 Reasons Why We Should Stop Using PCM for Clearance."
EPA is asking practical questions that deserve careful consideration:
- Can laboratories handle increased TEM demand?
- What would increased costs mean?
- How much longer would turnaround times become?
- Would compliance monitoring become impractical?
These aren't academic questions. They directly affect contractors, consultants, industrial hygienists, laboratories, regulators, and building owners. Finding the balance between scientific accuracy and practical implementation will be one of the biggest challenges facing EPA.
Practical Experience Matters
One aspect we appreciate about this request is that EPA is not simply asking for opinions. The agency is requesting:
- Exposure data
- Industry practices
- Economic impacts
- Laboratory capabilities
- Engineering controls
- Worker training information
- Real-world implementation challenges
This is exactly the type of information regulators need. Those of us working in the field every day understand that regulations look very different on paper than they do during an emergency water loss, a school renovation, a hospital shutdown, or an industrial outage. Field experience matters.
This Is Your Opportunity to Be Heard
EPA cannot develop effective regulations without meaningful participation from those who perform this work every day. If you are an
- Asbestos consultant
- Industrial hygienist
- Laboratory director
- Project designer
- Contractor
- Building owner
- Safety professional
- Environmental attorney
- Training provider
- Equipment manufacturer
This is your opportunity to contribute. Your experience can help ensure future regulations improve worker protection while remaining practical and achievable.
Final Thoughts
The asbestos industry has evolved tremendously over the past four decades. Technology has improved. Analytical methods have advanced. Training has become more comprehensive. Yet legacy asbestos remains one of the most significant occupational and environmental health challenges facing our country.
EPA's Part 2 rule has the potential to shape asbestos management for decades to come. Whether that rule becomes practical and effective depends, in part, on the quality of information EPA receives during this public comment process. As we've said many times throughout our careers, "good regulations are built on good science—but they must also be informed by real-world experience."
This is one of those opportunities where the professionals who work with asbestos every day can help shape the future of our industry. Let's make sure our voices are heard.
**Call to Action**
If you work in the environmental, construction, remediation, industrial hygiene, or laboratory industries, we encourage you to review EPA's questions carefully and consider submitting comments based on your professional experience. Your input could influence how legacy asbestos is regulated for years to come—affecting worker protection, building owners, contractors, laboratories, and consultants nationwide.
At Future Environment Designs, we will continue monitoring this rulemaking process and providing updates as additional information becomes available. We will also continue to incorporate these regulatory developments into our asbestos training programs so that inspectors, designers, contractors, and environmental professionals remain informed and prepared for the future.
The best regulations are developed when regulators listen to those who do the work every day. This is one of those opportunities. Don't let it pass.
