EPA’s proposed TSCA rule on carbon tetrachloride (CTC) is drawing heavy criticism from environmentalists, with one key advocate saying the plan is fatally flawed because it proposes only worker protections rather than banning uses of the solvent, meaning it fails to protect fenceline communities whose exposures may increase under some safety measures.
November 15, 2026
Maria Hegstad
Maria Hegstad is managing editor of Inside EPA’s Risk Policy Report, where she has been writing about all things chemicals, risk assessment policy and toxicology since 2008. Before joining Inside EPA, Maria reported for local newspapers in Manassas, VA, and D.C., covering courts and local government. Maria is a proud native of the “other” Washington, raised in Tacoma. She earned her BA from the College of William & Mary and her MSJ from Medill.
Major unions are criticizing EPA for excluding organized labor from stakeholder discussions on its pending TSCA methylene chloride rule, warning that the failure to consult them led to significant omissions in the proposal’s workplace protections compared with OSHA standards -- even as they praise the agency’s strict occupational exposure limits for the solvent.
Trade groups and chemical firms used recent meetings with White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials to raise in-depth scientific critiques of the occupational exposure limit EPA floated last year for carbon tetrachloride (CCl4 or CTC), just days before OMB cleared the agency to propose a TSCA risk management rule for the solvent.
EPA officials are hoping to sign an agreement with OSHA ahead of final action on their slate of pending TSCA chemical-safety rules that would set terms for the two agencies to coordinate on enforcement of the toxics program’s planned workplace protections, including exposure limits that observers say EPA would struggle to implement on its own.
An industry attorney says EPA has used recent TSCA risk management proposals to translate “unreasonable risk” -- a key term in the statute that neither Congress nor the agency has defined -- into strict workplace exposure limits, creating for the first time a “bright line” standard that employers and others could question in comments on the new rules.
Stakeholders on both sides are raising doubts on worker safeguards in EPA’s newly proposed TSCA rule for perchloroethylene (PCE), with one environmentalist querying its focus on protective gear over engineering controls while trade groups say the agency has not shown a need for an exposure limit much stricter than OSHA’s existing level.
Trade association officials, attorneys and individual business owners are warning EPA of “massive” complications from its proposal to phase out methylene chloride or mandate strict worker protections for its use, saying that many firms or entire sectors see no ready substitute for the solvent, and others have no way to separate uses subject to the rule from exempt ones.
EPA is proposing new workplace exposure limits for the solvent perchloroethylene (PCE) in several sectors that would be over 100 times stricter than OSHA’s current standard, but would allow employers in some sectors to continue using it indefinitely, including those who use the chemical to manufacture alternatives to climate-warming refrigerants.
EPA chemicals chief Michal Freedhoff used the launch of the agency’s landmark TSCA risk-management proposal for methylene chloride to temper top officials’ prior statements that cast the rule and its worker-protection standards as a model for future chemical regulations under the law, saying key elements of the draft rest on case-specific factors.
EPA’s newly proposed TSCA rule for methylene chloride would require a quick phaseout of most uses of the solvent but allows others to continue under a strict workplace exposure limit with monitoring and protective-gear mandates based on OSHA standards -- a line the agency’s chemicals chief says her office drew based on its “trust” in those sectors to adopt its safeguards.
