Toxic-Free Future is committed to promoting the use of safer products, chemicals and practices for a healthier future through cutting-edge research, advocacy, grassroots organizing and consumer engagement.
        Since the 1980s, exposure to methylene chloride has claimed the lives of dozens of consumers and workers. The chemical used in paint thinners and other products can cause immediate death from asphyxiation and heart disease, and has also been linked to cancer and cognitive impairment.
       The EPA’s announcement last week to ban most uses of methylene chloride gives us hope that no one will die from this deadly chemical.
       The proposed rule would ban all consumer use of the chemicals, as well as most industrial and commercial uses, including degreasers, stain removers, paint or coating removers, and more.
        It also includes time-limited critical-use exemptions from workplace protection requirements and notable exemptions from the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and NASA. As an exception, the EPA offers “workplace chemical protection programs with strict exposure limits to better protect workers.” Specifically, this rule keeps highly toxic chemicals out of the shelves of stores and most workplaces.
       It’s no small feat to say that a rule banning methylene chloride will definitely not be enacted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, which our coalition has been working hard to reform for years.
        The pace of federal action on toxics remains unacceptably slow. It didn’t help that the EPA leadership took an anti-regulatory stance in January 2017, just as the TSCA reform took effect. It’s been nearly seven years since the revised rules were signed into law, and this is only the second action the EPA has proposed against “existing” chemicals under its control.
        This is an important step forward in protecting public health from toxic chemicals. The operational timeline to date shows the years of critical work needed to achieve this goal.
        Not surprisingly, dichloromethane is on the EPA’s “top ten” list of chemicals to be assessed and regulated under the reformed TSCA. In 1976, three people died from acute exposure to the chemical, leading to calls by the Environmental Protection Agency to ban its use in paint removers.
        Prior to 2016, the EPA already had substantial evidence of the dangers of this chemical—indeed, existing evidence prompted then-administrator Gina McCarthy to use the EPA’s powers under the reformed TSCA to propose a ban on consumer and workplace use. paints containing methylene chloride and means for their removal. by the end of 2016.
        Our activists and coalition partners were more than happy to share many of the tens of thousands of comments EPA received in support of the ban. Government partners are excited to join us in our campaign to convince retailers like Lowe’s and Home Depot to stop selling these products before the ban is finally passed.
       Unfortunately, the EPA, led by Scott Pruitt, blocked both rules and slowed down action on a broader chemical assessment.
        Outraged by the EPA’s inaction, the families of young people who died from these products traveled to Washington, met with EPA officials and members of Congress, and humanely learned about the real dangers of methylene chloride. Some of them have joined us and our coalition partners in suing the EPA for additional protection.
       In 2019, when EPA Commissioner Andrew Wheeler announced a ban on sales to consumers, we noted that the action, while welcome, still hurt workers.
        The mothers of the two victims and our PIRG partners in Vermont have joined us in filing a lawsuit in federal court asking the EPA to provide consumers with the same protections as workers. (Because our lawsuit is not the only one, the court joined in with petitions from the NRDC, the Latin American Progressive Labor Council, and the Halogenated Solvent Manufacturers Association. The latter argued that the EPA should not ban consumer use.) While we are pleased that a judge denied an industry trade group’s request to strike down a consumer protection rule, we are deeply disappointed that the court’s failure in 2021 to require EPA to ban commercial use exposed workers to this hazardous chemical.
        As the EPA continues to assess the risks associated with methylene chloride, we continue to push for the protection of all uses of this chemical. When the EPA released its risk assessment in 2020, it determined that 47 of 53 uses were “unreasonably risky.” Even more encouraging, the new government has reassessed that PPE should not be considered as a means of protecting workers and found that all but one of the 53 uses considered constituted an unreasonable risk.
       We met many times with EPA and White House officials who developed the risk assessment and final rules, gave critiques to the EPA Scientific Advisory Committee, and told the stories of those who were unable to attend.
       We’re not done yet – once a rule is published in the Federal Register, there will be a 60-day comment period, after which federal agencies will review those comments in alphabetical order before they can finally go into effect.
        We urge the EPA to quickly issue a strong rule that protects all workers, consumers, and communities so they can do their jobs. Please make sure your voice is heard through our online petition during the comment period.