Methylene Chloride Comment

• Published in: New solutions Vol. 33; no. 2-3; pp. 174 - 184
• Main Authors: Goodwin, James, Holm, Federico
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.11.2023; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Chloride; Chlorides; Cost benefit analysis; Criticism; Dichloromethane; Environmental protection; Humans; Management; Methylene Chloride; Reforms; Toxic substances; United States; United States Environmental Protection Agency; Workers; United States; cost–benefit analysis; toxic chemicals; regulation; worker protections
• ISSN: 1048-2911; 1541-3772; 1541-3772
• DOI: 10.1177/10482911231198148

Last May 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule to restrict the production and use of a dangerous chemical called methylene chloride pursuant to its authority under the Toxic Substance Control Act—the first such measure since Congress significantly overhauled that law in 2016. Methylene chloride presents a variety of health and safety risks, particularly for workers in industries in which the chemical is still widely used. In support of the proposed rule, the EPA prepared a document called a cost–benefit analysis, which purports to evaluate the rule by calculating its net benefits—that is, the rule's likely benefits over and above its likely costs. Cost–benefit analysis has been the subject of substantial criticism in recent decades, and the Biden administration is pursuing significant reforms for how these analyses are performed. Together with my colleague Dr. Federico Holm, I submitted comments to the EPA criticizing the cost–benefit analysis for the proposed methylene chloride rule. In these comments, we criticize the agency for continuing to employ an overly formalistic approach to cost–benefit analysis, which both systematically undervalues the benefits of regulations and ignores impact issues like worker justice. We also criticize several specific aspects of the agency's analytical methodology, including its failure to follow the proposed reforms now being developed by the Biden administration.