Energy Dept. criticizes EPA’s chemical ban, claims it hampers WMD detection.

EPA proposal​ would jeopardize ‘complex’ national defense research, Energy Department argues

The ⁤Department of Energy is strongly opposing a proposal from President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban ‌methylene chloride, a widely used chemical. The Energy Department argues that such a ban would ‍hinder its ability to detect weapons of ‌mass destruction and conduct “complex” national defense ‌research.

The EPA proposed a rule in April to ban‍ the commercial use and ‌production​ of methylene chloride, which‌ is commonly​ found in commercial-grade cleaning products. However, it⁢ is ⁤also an ‍essential component in the manufacturing of military equipment and pharmaceuticals. While the proposal includes national security-related exemptions for the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy​ is not granted any such exemption.

Now, the Savannah River National Laboratory, which specializes in “complex” ‌national defense research related to the detection of weapons of mass destruction, is raising concerns. In a letter to the​ EPA, the lab’s ⁢principal industrial hygienist emphasized that America’s ability ‌to⁢ detect weapons of mass destruction would be compromised if​ methylene chloride is no longer available‍ for their research.

“Like DOD and NASA, these DOE missions support national security interests as‌ well as critical infrastructure,” the lab stated in its June‌ 28 ​letter. “[The laboratory] is concerned that the availability ⁣of methylene chloride from vendors and distributors for‌ these ⁣important‌ DOE mission research purposes will be limited​ or non-existent.”

This clash‍ between ‌two Biden administration departments is a rare occurrence. It also puts Biden’s Energy Department at odds with the climate groups that‍ typically support the ⁤administration’s environmental proposals. While environmental law firm Earthjustice hailed the proposed chemical ban as a “win⁢ for public health,” it argued for fewer exemptions in the final rule.

“Exemptions in the rule would allow certain uses of methylene‌ chloride to continue for a decade or ‌more, leaving workers, service members, and communities at risk,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, senior attorney at ⁤Earthjustice.

A spokesperson for the Savannah River National Laboratory expressed appreciation for the opportunity to provide comment during the EPA rulemaking process and looks forward ​to the outcome. The ‍EPA also stated that it will consider the Energy Department’s ⁤response and anticipates⁤ continued collaboration ⁤with federal partners during the development of the⁢ final rule.

This ‌is not the first time that Biden’s EPA and other regulatory agencies have proposed bans on essential materials. The EPA previously proposed a ban on a chemical used in many dry cleaning ⁣businesses, despite admitting ⁣uncertainty about the potential closures it may cause. The administration has also advanced regulations that could effectively ban large‌ segments of the⁤ gas stove and ​portable gas‍ generator markets.

While the administration has generally presented a united front⁢ in⁣ support of these measures, the‌ EPA’s proposed ban on ​methylene⁤ chloride has raised concerns within the administration that Biden’s ‌regulatory agenda may have gone too far.

“If research and development uses are not specifically addressed‍ in the proposed regulatory language‌ as an allowable use, the current wording could allow interpretation that ⁤ [research and development] ‌uses are⁤ prohibited,” warned⁢ the Energy Department ‍laboratory in its⁣ letter.

In addition ⁤to the Department of Energy, ⁤a bipartisan ‌group of senators, including⁤ Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.),‍ and J.D. Vance (R., Ohio), have urged Biden’s EPA to ⁢reconsider its methylene chloride proposal. They argued in a September letter ​that the ban would harm America’s military.

“Methylene chloride is a critical​ compound either used‌ in or used to manufacture products​ that we rely on every day, including military equipment,” ⁢the senators wrote. “While⁤ we wholeheartedly endorse ​commonsense ⁤regulation, we are⁤ apprehensive with EPA’s seemingly arbitrary evaluation that deems ​no level of risk acceptable for manufacturers.”