C&EN: EPA proposes to delay methylene chloride rule implementation by 18 months

Via C&EN's Krystal Vasquez: 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 20 proposed to extend the deadline for laboratories to comply with its methylene chloride rule by 18 months. The rule, finalized in May 2024, bans nearly all uses of methylene chloride, a popular solvent that has been linked to adverse health effects and 85 workplace and consumer deaths.

The regulation carves out an exception for the solvent’s use as a laboratory chemical. But it requires all nonfederal labs still using the compound to implement strict workplace safety measures between May and October of this year. The first deadline, which passed on May 5, requires labs to measure workers’ initial exposure levels.

Under the May 20 proposal, labs would instead need to implement these requirements between November 2026 and May 2027.

Shortly after the initial rule was finalized, several lab safety professionals told C&EN that the short timeline could pose considerable challenges, particularly to smaller institutions with fewer resources. In its announcement of the possible extension, the EPA says it heard similar concerns from labs associated with universities and local governments.

“EPA’s proposal would avoid disrupting important environmental monitoring and associated activities, while these non-federal labs work to comply with the rule’s new requirements,” the agency says.

Having watched how the government works a little more closely over the last four years or so, this is not that surprising. Nevertheless (as one of the academics says), chemical academia is mostly ready, but I am guessing individual laboratories are not. This will be interesting to see what the Zeldin-directed EPA decides to do. 

C&EN: "What does the new EPA methylene chloride rule mean for academic labs?"

In this week's C&EN, a good overview and summary on the EPA's prohibitions on methylene chloride and their impact on academic groups (article by Krystal Vasquez): 

On April 30, the US Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule that prohibits nearly all uses of methylene chloride. To the relief of many academic chemists, the EPA carved out a number of exceptions to the ban, including the solvent’s use as a laboratory chemical.

But upon closer inspection of the regulation, researchers in the US are realizing that to keep using methylene chloride in their labs, they will need to conduct baseline monitoring and implement strict workplace safety measures—all in about a year.

At the time of the writing of the article, this EPA guidance document was not available, but now it is. It's thorough and clear, as the article notes, I think the practical effect will be the creation of a lot of poorly done EH&S compliance by overworked EH&S workers, grad students and PIs and a lot of regrettable substitution (get ready for a run on 1,2-dichloroethane). Maybe this will all work out for the better, but I don't think so.

The impacts of the new EPA rule on methylene chloride to laboratories in the United States

I have been making nervous noises about the EPA ban on methylene chloride, and I believe that my thoughts are confirmed (unbeknownst to me) by the American Chemical Society's comment on the (then proposed) rule (opens PDF, via ACS' Will Hartwig):

ACS appreciates the current proposed rule’s goal of protecting public health. However, ACS is concerned that the current proposal to regulate methylene chloride, also known as dichloromethane (DCM), fails to account for its use in small scale and particularly academic teaching and research laboratories.

Both the EPA (with 40 CFR 262 Subpart K) and OSHA (with 29 CFR 1910.1450) have recognized that regulations aimed at protecting workers in industry do not translate to academic laboratories. As currently structured, the rule would be extremely challenging for academic institutions to implement and would negatively impact research and teaching. The proposed rule is not appropriate for academic laboratories because exposures are low, infrequent, and well managed using existing regulations and engineering controls (e.g. chemical fume hoods)

From my analysis of the new rule, any workplace that uses methylene chloride must:

1. determine and document who uses DCM
2. document and monitor the exposure during usage, which
3. means getting a monitoring device (likely a PID, is my guess, which is a $4000 instrument)*
4. determining and documenting TWAs for each usage and user

(I've read enough comments from industry to understand that the PIDs that are available aren't particularly well suited for this usage, so that's another problem. (page 6, PDF)

I'm not a chemical safety professional, so I could be wrong. But that's my basic read of the new rule, and I think it is matched by the ACS. No professor is going to this - instead, they're going to either 1) ignore the new rule or 2) ban the use of DCM in their labs. Hard to know which one they will choose.

I'd love people's opinions.

EPA bans most uses of methylene chloride

Via C&EN, this news: 

The US Environmental Protection Agency has banned most uses of methylene chloride, a solvent that has been linked to a number of adverse health effects and some deaths.

Since 1980, at least 88 people have died from acute exposure to methylene chloride, the agency says. Longer-term exposure can also lead to liver damage and the development of at least six different types of cancers, it adds.

Methylene chloride is the second compound, after asbestos, to be banned under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act. The ban, which follows a risk assessment and an April 2023 proposal, will phase out all consumer uses within a year and most industrial and commercial uses within the next 2 years.

Uses of methylene chloride that are exempt from the ban include as a raw material for producing electric-vehicle batteries and climate-friendly refrigerant chemicals. And methylene chloride can continue to be used as a laboratory chemical.

“For each use of the chemical that will continue, EPA has developed a first-of-its-kind worker protection program, so that the workers who are helping make and use the chemical . . . are protected, as they deserve to be,” Michal Freedhoff, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said during a press briefing. Workplaces that are exempt from the ban will have 18 months to put worker protections in place.

Pharmaceutical use isn't covered by TSCA. Here's the finalized rule. I have strong suspicions that the workplace safety requirements are pretty strict, but I'm going to withhold judgment until I read the whole thing, which I haven't.