{"id":7828,"date":"2018-05-15T10:25:17","date_gmt":"2018-05-15T15:25:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=7828"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:09","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:09","slug":"methylene-chloride-in-paint-strippers-a-ban-is-the-only-health-protective-path-forward","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2018\/05\/15\/methylene-chloride-in-paint-strippers-a-ban-is-the-only-health-protective-path-forward\/","title":{"rendered":"Methylene chloride in paint strippers: A ban is the only health-protective path forward"},"content":{"rendered":"

Lindsay McCormick<\/em><\/a>\u00a0is a\u00a0Project Manager and\u00a0Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0<\/em>is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

Last week, EPA signaled<\/a> it will advance a delayed rule regulating consumer and worker use of methylene chloride-based paint strippers.\u00a0 Numerous details of EPA\u2019s announcement remain to be filled in, and we caution EPA<\/a> to avoid approaches short of the ban that was proposed.<\/p>\n

The record for EPA\u2019s proposed ban is clear:\u00a0 Allowing such products to stay on the market based on reliance on such factors as increased labeling, protective equipment, or training requirements simply will not protect the public\u2019s or workers\u2019 health.<\/p>\n

Sadly, the companies that make the chemical and paint strippers containing it are already seeking to resurrect those old arguments.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Those companies once again are pointing to the Consumer Product Safety Commission\u2019s (CPSC) update earlier this year of its 1987 policy statement warning consumers of acute hazards posed by certain methylene chloride-containing household products, including paint strippers.<\/p>\n

CPSC updated its policy by providing non-binding guidance<\/a> recommending additional labeling.\u00a0 It did so in response to a petition from the Halogenated Solvents Industry Association (HSIA), which has expressly stated that it petitioned CPSC for a new label in an effort to stymie finalization<\/a> of EPA\u2019s proposal to ban such uses of methylene chloride.<\/p>\n

A recent Inside EPA article<\/a> [subscription required] cites industry sources suggesting that the CPSC guidance might give EPA an alternative to banning such products.\u00a0 The article asserts that the guidance \u201ccould provide fodder for EPA to weaken the Obama-era proposed ban.\u201d<\/p>\n

To set the record straight:\u00a0 CPSC itself has repeatedly indicated that its guidance in no way<\/em><\/strong> eliminates or reduces the need for EPA to finalize its proposed ban on methylene chloride in paint and coating removal products:\u00a0 When issuing its guidance, CPSC clearly stated<\/a> that the guidance \u201cwould not replace the EPA\u2019s rulemaking and instead, would be an interim measure<\/em><\/strong> until the EPA may issue a regulation.\u201d (emphasis added).\u00a0 CPSC reiterated this in the guidance<\/a> itself: \u00a0\u201c[b]y updating the 1987 Statement, we do not suggest that labeling will address all hazards EPA identified in its proposed rulemaking.\u201d<\/p>\n

Last year, in preparing the Commission to consider the HSIA petition, CPSC staff stated<\/a>:\u00a0 \u201cThe Commission is aware of activities being undertaken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, California\u2019s Department for Toxic Substances Control, and ASTM International concerning certain products containing DCM, and staff supports their efforts to address the risks associated with DCM-containing products<\/em>.\u201d (emphasis added)<\/p>\n

The CPSC guidance falls far short of what is needed for several additional reasons:<\/p>\n