I'm not sure how following the law is partisan. Also your claim that the intent/spirit of the law is to not have the EPA perform a cost-benefit analysis before

I'm not sure how following the law is partisan. Also your claim that the intent/spirit of the law is to not have the EPA perform a cost-benefit analysis before regulating these processes is wrong in any event. There is no way to claim that something explicitly written in the law is against its own spirit. I'm not familiar with European law but I bet even they would not accept that claim. If we could really decide all environmental laws based only on if they meet the goal of "regulating harmful materials for the benefit of public health and the environment" then congress would have just written that one line and be done with it. Instead they wrote that a cost-benefit analysis must be performed. That is the intent of the law because that is what it says. That is, if we can remove any statute based on some unwritten goal of what the statute should achieve, even if it is explicitly contradictory, then there is no point of the law at all.