FR 2020-28693

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) concerning the regulation of hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), a chemical identified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. This rule aims to minimize the manufacturing, processing, and distribution of HCBD and products containing it, with few exceptions. Notably, HCBD production as an unintentional byproduct during the creation of chlorinated solvents and its distribution for waste incineration remains permitted. This regulatory step intends to mitigate HCBD exposure, thus safeguarding human health and the environment.

General Overview

This regulatory action follows EPA's determination that HCBD poses significant environmental and health risks, prompting the agency to address its obligations under TSCA. Although the rule primarily aims to cease most industrial activities involving HCBD, allowances for the unavoidable generation of HCBD as a byproduct reflect a balanced approach focused on reducing practical exposure without disrupting essential industrial processes. The rule becomes enforceable on March 8, 2021, and includes basic recordkeeping requirements for affected entities.

Notable Issues and Concerns

One of the key concerns with this regulation is the lack of benefit quantification. While the rule specifies expected social costs, it does not clearly articulate how these expensive regulations might translate into tangible health or environmental gains. This gap in information hampers the public's understanding of the rule's overall effectiveness.

Additionally, the document's reliance on the term "practicable" without clear definition within TSCA introduces ambiguity. This vagueness extends to the broader implementation and oversight of the rule, presenting potential challenges in maintaining consistent and enforceable standards, particularly when considering state-level variations in enforcement.

Moreover, while the rule prohibits HCBD manufacturing, an allowance for its byproduct production remains, raising questions about this seeming contradiction. The justification offered, that such production aligns with existing regulatory frameworks, may not satisfy stakeholders seeking more stringent environmental controls.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

On a broad scale, the regulation signals a robust effort by the EPA to address chemical safety comprehensively. The rule's focus on restricting HCBD can lead to long-term health and environmental benefits, potentially reducing healthcare costs and environmental cleanup expenditures. However, these benefits remain unquantified in economic terms, limiting the public's grasp of the regulation's potential long-term value.

For industry stakeholders, particularly those involved in chlorinated solvents production, the rule presents a double-edged sword. While preserving industrial viability by permitting HCBD's incidental byproduct production, compliance costs—although minor in this rule—could still strain small businesses or lead to operational adjustments. Conversely, companies potentially gain from a regulatory framework that maintains a level playing field by setting shared compliance expectations.

Ultimately, the regulation highlights a critical push towards minimizing the environmental footprint of industrial chemicals deemed harmful while ensuring the sustainable continuity of indispensable industrial activities. This balance reflects an ongoing negotiation between environmental priorities and industrial capabilities.

The document outlines the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation concerning hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), which introduces several financial implications and references related to the costs of implementing this final rule.

The Total Quantified Annualized Social Costs estimated for implementing this rule are approximately $77,900. This amount is stated to be consistent at both a 3% and 7% discount rate over 25 years. The social costs refer to the collective economic impact on society that can arise from regulating industries involved with HCBD. While these costs are clearly detailed, the document does not provide a similar quantification of the expected benefits. This could pose a limitation in understanding the rule’s overall effectiveness, as it might obscure the potential savings from reduced health or environmental cleanup costs.

From the industrial perspective, annualized industry costs are pointedly itemized at $354. This amount suggests a modest direct impact on the industry, although it is coupled with associated Agency costs of $77,576 per year to cover the expenses of implementing this regulatory action. One might interpret this as a financial burden predominantly on the government, ensuring that regulations are enforced without imposing significant expenditures on industries.

In broader financial considerations, the rule references the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), clarifying that this action will not impose an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more. It suggests that regulatory expenses won't surpass the adjusted threshold of $160 million annually, signifying that the rule should not cause significant financial strain on state, local, and tribal governments, nor on the private sector at large.

There are some insightful reflections on how these financial references relate to the issues surrounding the rule, particularly the assumed compliance with disposal and air release laws. The financial implications surrounding the control and prevention of HCBD exposure potentially overlook indirect cost savings, such as improved public health outcomes or environmental remediation costs, due to the complexities in quantifying such benefits without risk assessment.

The document emphasizes the need for financial diligence without preparing a full-fledged risk evaluation, allowing for a more expedited regulatory process. However, without such evaluation, the benefits remain discussed only qualitatively, though economic insights are generally necessary to weigh the financial burden against anticipated health and safety improvements.

In conclusion, the financial references within this rule highlight a substantive commitment to regulating HCBD with clear annualized costs. Yet, the absence of quantifiable benefits in this documentation may not furnish a complete picture of cost-effectiveness, leaving potential financial advantages of the regulation obscured for the general public.