Court vacates EPA ban on most methylene chloride uses

A federal appellate court overturned an Environmental Protection Agency final rule that banned most uses of methylene chloride on Sept. 15. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the EPA issued its ban based on a scientific analysis that discounted relevant human studies, assumed workers are not using personal protective equipment despite OSHA requirements, and relied on a rat study with extreme exposures. Methylene chloride is widely used for bathtub refinishing as well as in paint strippers, cleaners, adhesives and sealants. According to Safety+Health Magazine, OSHA states that workers exposed to methylene chloride are at increased risk of developing cancer, adverse effects on the heart, central nervous system and liver, and skin or eye irritation.

EPA rule and risk determination

EPA established the ban under a May 2024 final rule. A final revised risk determination published in November 2022 stated that methylene chloride posed unreasonable risk to workers under 52 of the 53 conditions of use studied. Those conditions included electrical equipment, appliance and component manufacturing, oil and gas drilling, extraction and support activities, adhesive and caulk removal, cold pipe insulation, and aerosol and non-aerosol degreasing and cleaning. The May 2024 rule stated that methylene chloride had contributed to the deaths of 88 workers since 1980.

Judicial rejection of whole chemical approach

The panel of Judges Edith Jones, Patrick Higginbotham and Leslie Southwick rejected EPA’s whole chemical approach to chemical risk evaluation. Under that approach, the risk evaluations of all conditions of the substance’s use culminate in a single determination of whether the chemical presents unreasonable risk. In September 2025 the agency published a proposal that would eliminate the approach in favor of making separate risk determinations for each condition of use. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amended the Toxic Substances Control Act and requires EPA to address chemical risks by proposing regulatory actions such as training, certification, restricted access and/or ban of commercial use within one year of a chemical review’s release.

Industry and advocacy responses

The American Chemistry Council supports the court’s decision. The council stated that TSCA requires EPA to evaluate and manage risk based on individual conditions of use and the best available science, including consideration of existing workplace protections and real-world exposure information. In a separate release Liz Hitchcock, director of federal policy at Toxic-Free Future, cautioned that the ruling will put workers at greater risk. Hitchcock stated that methylene chloride exposures can cause cancer, neurological and liver effects and can be deadly for consumers and workers. According to Safety+Health Magazine, the ruling rejected EPA’s improper whole chemical approach and affirmed that risk determinations must consider individual conditions of use.