In proposed regulations published May 3, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposes to ban the use of dichloromethane, also known as dichloromethane, a common solvent and processing aid. It is used in a variety of consumer and commercial applications, including adhesives and sealants, automotive products, and paint and coating removers. The chemical is produced in high volumes – between £100 million and £500 million from 2016 to 2019, according to the Chemical Data Report (CDR) – so the ban, if passed, would have a major impact on many industries.
The EPA proposal addresses “the unreasonable risk to human health that dichloromethane poses under conditions of use, as documented in EPA risk definitions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)”. TSCA risk assessment and application of requirements to the extent necessary to ensure that the chemical no longer poses an unreasonable risk.
In addition, the EPA’s proposed rule requires a Chemical Workplace Protection Plan (WCPP), which includes compliance requirements for inhalation exposure limits and exposure monitoring for certain continuous methylene chloride uses. It will also impose record keeping and downstream notification requirements for several terms of use and provide certain time-limited exemptions to use requirements that could cause serious harm to national security and critical infrastructure.
Companies that manufacture, import, process, commercially distribute, use or dispose of methylene chloride or products containing methylene chloride could potentially be affected by the proposed rule. The proposed rule lists more than 40 different categories of industries that could be covered by the law, including: wholesale of chemicals, oil terminals and terminals, production of basic organic and inorganic chemicals, hazardous waste disposal, material recycling, paint and paint . manufacturers; plumbing and air conditioning contractors; painting and wallpapering contractors; auto parts and accessories stores; production of electrical equipment and components; production of soldering equipment; dealers of new and used cars; dry cleaning and laundry services; making dolls, toys and games.
The proposed rule does state that “Approximately 35 percent of the annual production of methylene chloride is used for pharmaceutical purposes that are not subject to the TSCA and are not subject to this rule.” excluded from the definition of “chemical” in subsections (B)(ii) to (vi). These exemptions “include … any food, dietary supplement, drug, cosmetic, or device, as defined in Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, when manufactured, processed, or distributed commercially for use in as drugs. , cosmetics or devices…”
For those industries that will be affected by this ban, it is important to start looking for alternatives. EPA’s evaluation of alternatives to methylene chloride identified alternatives for a variety of applications such as adhesives, sealants, degreasers, paint and coating removers, sealants, and lubricants and greases. However, it is worth noting that no substitutes for processing aids (among other things) have been found. The evaluation of alternatives “does not recommend products to be used in place of methylene chloride; rather, its purpose is to provide a representative list of alternative products and chemical ingredients and their methylene chloride hazards to ensure that screening results are considered potential alternatives. Considered as part of TSCA Section 6(a) rules for methylene chloride.” subordination.
Disclaimer: Due to the general nature of this update, the information provided here may not apply in all situations, and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on your particular situation.
© Goldberg Segalla var today = new Date();var yyyy = today.getFullYear();document.write(yyyy + ” “);
Copyright © var today = new Date(); var yyyy = today.getFullYear();document.write(yyyy + ” “); JD Ditto LLC