Date: May 25, 1999

To: Don Arbuckle, Acting Administrator, OIRA
       Susan Wayland, Acting Assistant Administrator, OPPTS

From: Jere Glover, Chief Counsel, SBA Office of Advocacy

Subject: Addition of Lead to PBT Proposed Rule

This is a short note informing you of the Office of
Advocacy's position regarding EPA's plans to expedite the
normal rulemaking review schedule in order to propose the
addition of lead as a "highly" persistent bioaccumulative
toxic in the near future.  The Office is firmly opposed to
expedited consideration of this rule that would roughly
double the cost of PBT reporting, and strongly prefers that
EPA follow standard rulemaking practice, and wait until all
the PBT-related issues are resolved in the central PBT rule.
Lastly, we conclude that lead doesn't qualify as a PBT.
Even if it did, there is considerable doubt that additional
lead reporting would contribute to the right-to-know.

When TRI was last expanded, the President and Vice President
both pledged that the agency would be sensitive to business
costs in implementing right-to-know rules.  Since that time,
the Administration has come under increased scrutiny
regarding its failure to adhere to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act in Congressional hearings and
reports.  Instead, the agency is proposing to double the
paperwork costs, and assumes that valuable information will
be conveyed without any analysis of how this additional data
would inform the community about environmental effects.
Indeed, a preliminary analysis by my office reveals that
only a small fraction of the volume of current air releases
would be added to the current total of releases.  It appears
that lead is not like the the other PBTs proposed earlier,
where there is substantial underreporting under TRI today.

EPA is proposing to approximately double the costs of PBT
reporting by adding lead as a "highly bioaccumulative" PBT.
We have reviewed the available evidence, and have concluded
that it is more likely that the addition of new lead reports
would contribute more to public alarm than public right-to-
know.  Based on EPA analyses, we expect thousands of new
reports of air releases on the order of 0 to 30 pounds per
day, which would represent a small fraction of the
approximately one million pounds per year of lead air
emissions now reported under TRI.  After extensive study of
lead over many years, it is quite apparent that the lead
environmental hazard is primarily from lead in paint and
lead in soil from historic lead emissions.  It is hardly
plausible that the addition of thousands of de minimis
reports -- at a cost exceeding $100 million in the first
year -- would contribute to the right-to-know.  Indeed,
there are only a handful of locations in the United States
where the lead air standard is exceeded today.

Furthermore, DOE has outlined a substantial case
demonstrating that EPA has improperly classified lead as
"highly bioaccumulative" (BCF exceeding 5000).  In our view,
industry commenters made very convincing arguments
supporting the inappropriateness of classifying chemicals
(which would include lead) with BCF factors under 5000 as
PBTs.  There is no good reason to hastily issue this
rulemaking until this very basic issue has been settled.  In
a RCRA proposal, last fall, the agency classified lead with
a BCF of 1700, which EPA fails to mention at all in its
preamble.  This undermines EPA's new determination of
"highly bioaccumulative" (BCF over 5000).

At a minimum, it would be an efficient use of government
resources, and keeping with the President's and Vice
President's commitment to paperwork reduction, for the
agency to delay action until the many issues involved in the
PBT rule itself were resolved. Lastly, with all the
resources EPA has directed towards lead and the vast store
of air emissions data, the agency has declined to point to a
single instance of where the additional lead reporting would
yield significant information about increased risks in our
country.


Cc:  Jim Laity
       David Moses
       Debra Littleton