Toxic-Free Future is dedicated to creating a healthier future by encouraging the use of safer products, chemicals and practices through cutting-edge research, advocacy, mass organization and consumer engagement.
        Since the 1980s, exposure to methylene chloride has been linked to the death of dozens of consumers and workers. A chemical used in paint thinners and other products that causes instant death from asphyxiation and heart attacks, and has 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 else will die from this deadly chemical.
       The proposed rule would ban any consumer and most industrial and commercial uses of the chemical, including degreasers, stain removers, and paint or coating removers, among others.
        It also includes workplace protection requirements for time-limited critical use permits and notable exemptions for the U.S. 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.” Namely, the rule removes highly toxic chemicals from store shelves and most workplaces.
       Suffice it to say that a dichloromethane ban would certainly not have happened under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, a reform our coalition has been working on for years, no small feat.
        The pace of federal action on toxics remains unacceptably slow. It didn’t help that in January 2017, when the TSCA reforms went into effect, the EPA leadership took an anti-regulatory stance. So here we are, almost seven years after the revised rules were signed, and this is only the second time the EPA has proposed action against “existing” chemicals under its mandate.
        This is an important step forward in protecting public health from toxic chemicals. The timeline of operations to this day shows years of critical work to get to this point.
        Not surprisingly, methylene chloride is on the EPA’s “Top 10″ list of chemicals assessed and regulated by the reformed TSCA. In 1976, three deaths were attributed to acute exposure to the chemical, requiring the EPA to ban its use in paint removers.
        The EPA already had substantial evidence of the dangers of this chemical long before 2016 – indeed, existing evidence prompted then-administrator Gina McCarthy to use the EPA’s powers under the reformed TSCA by proposing that at the end of 2016 the means to remove paints and coatings containing methylene chloride have been banned for consumers and the workplace. use. .
        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. National partners are excited to join our campaign to convince retailers like Lowe’s and The Home Depot to stop selling these products before the ban is fully in place.
       Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency, led by Scott Pruitt, has canceled both the rules and delayed action on a broader chemical assessment.
        Outraged by the EPA’s inaction, the families of young people who died from eating such products traveled to Washington to meet with EPA officials and members of Congress to educate people 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 Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced a ban on sales to consumers, we noted that while the move was popular, it still put workers at risk.
        The mother of two young people who died and our Vermont PIRG partners joined us in a federal court case seeking the same protections for workers that the EPA provides to consumers. (Because our lawsuit is not unique, the court has joined in with petitions from the NRDC, the Latin American Jobs Council, and the Halogenated Solvent Manufacturers Association. The latter argues that the EPA should not ban consumer use.) While the judge rejected the industry trade group’s proposal to strike down the consumer protection rule, we are deeply disappointed that in 2021 the court refused to require the EPA to ban commercial uses that 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. It was somewhat reassuring when the EPA released its risk assessment in 2020 and determined that 47 out of 53 applications posed an “unreasonable risk.” 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 it reviewed represented an unreasonable risk.
       We have repeatedly met with EPA and White House officials who developed risk assessments and policies, gave critical testimony to the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Committee, and told stories of people who could not be there.
       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 analyze the comments before they become a final version.
        We urge the EPA to get the job done by rapidly issuing a strong rule that protects all workers, consumers and communities. Please give your opinion while commenting through our online petition.