>>> ATTENTION: HUMAN HEALTH RISK ALERT! <<<

[Center for Public Environmental Oversight <cpeo@cpeo.org>]

>>> ATTENTION: HUMAN HEALTH RISK ALERT! <<<

THE EPA PROPOSES TO LEAVE DANGEROUS LEVELS OF LEAD IN YOUR BACKYARD

o Please write the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
right
away!
o Tell them you want a sixty day extension to the public comment period
so you
can have the opportunity to review the EPA's proposed degradation of
lead
cleanup standards.

THE ISSUE: A NEW DEFINITION OF LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARDS

The EPA proposes to change threshold above which the concentration of
lead
in the soil is considered to be hazardous. EPA proposes to set the soil
lead concentration hazard at 2,000 parts per million (ppm). THIS IS
FIVE
TIMES HIGHER THAN THE CURRENT EPA ACTION LEVEL OF 400 PPM. California
EPA
recommends action at 130 ppm. 1,000 is a high amount of lead in soil,
and
is defined as HAZARDOUS WASTE in California

This change in threshold is up for public comment as a proposed
rulemaking
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 403
(Identification of
Dangerous Levels of Lead). Section 403 requires EPA to define the
phrase
"lead-based paint hazard." Changes in what is considered to be a lead
based
paint hazard will have far-reaching consequences on housing and
environmental regulations which use this definition to trigger actions
that
in theory protect the public and the environment. Property owners, for
example, would only be required to disclose lead-based paint hazards,
not
the presence of lead in soil
even if it is twice the California hazardous waste levels.

The Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) would not be required to disclose or cleanup soil that
exceeds 2000 ppm before selling property. This new standard affects
every
closing military base and HUD public housing project in the nation.

Arc Ecology suspects that both the Federal Government and industry have
strong
financial interests in changing the level of lead contamination
allowable
under the law. We are concerned that economic interest rather than the
protection of public health are driving EPA's effort to change the law.

EPA SAYS ITS TOO EXPENSIVE TO PREVENT CHILDHOOD BRAIN DAMAGE.

EPA knows that its proposed 2,000 ppm will not adequately protect public
health. In the surprisingly honest preamble to the proposed rule EPA
admitted
that, "there could be substantial risk below 2,000 ppm." Which means
that
when EPA concluded it is "not appropriate to set a more stringent
uniform
national soil-lead hazard standard because costs may not be commensurate
with risk reduction," it was because financial interests were placed
ahead
of public health.

In fact, EPA set the new hazard standard largely because of an economic
cost/benefit analysis that pegged the value of a lost IQ point at
$8,346.
This significantly departs from EPA's traditional health-based approach
to
standard setting. In setting the soil-lead hazard standard, EPA
actually
abandoned their health risk assessment which suggested that human health
effects are likely even at soil-lead concentrations below 400 ppm.

LOW-INCOME AND MINORITY CHILDREN EXPECTED TO BEAR THE BURDEN.

The EPA admitted that the proposed standard would be especially
difficult on
the health of poor children and people of color. EPA's environmental
justice
analysis for this proposal (which does not comply with Executive Order
12898--
Environmental Justice) does not address the disproportionately high
adverse
human health effects of its proposal on minority populations and
low-income
populations.

The EPA's inadequate and mean-spirited environmental justice analysis
for this
proposed rule concludes, "non-white households are more likely to live
in
housing with lead-paint hazards, and their children are expected to
realize
greater reductions in blood-lead if these hazards are mitigated. As a
result,
non-white households are expected to bear more of the costs of
responding to
403 standards but also receive more of the benefits. Lower- and
upper-income households face roughly the same response costs and are
expected to receive the same blood-lead reductions. Lower-income
households
would have to forego a larger share of their income to respond to
section
403 standards"

Environmental Justice guidelines suggest that mitigation should take
place
when the cost burdens become disproportionate for poor communities and
communities of color. Instead the EPA proposal increases the toxic
burden
on poor communities and communities of color because instead of
providing
funding for implementing safe levels it's only solution is to allow a
very
high level of lead in the environment.

EPA also does not address Executive Order 13045 -- Protection of
Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This requires each Federal
Agency to ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards
address disproportionate risks to children that result from
environmental
health risks or safety risks. The Order asks that agencies explain in
their
regulatory actions why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. The EPA's
proposed rule doesn't address Executive Order 13045 at all. The only
standard proposed is a standard known to have significant health
consequences for children.

IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NEEDED - THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD EXPIRES IN LESS
THAN
TWO WEEKS!!!!

WRITE, CALL, EMAIL, OR FAX EPA BEFORE SEPTEMBER 22.
REQUEST A 60 DAY EXTENSION TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

The public comment period for this proposed rule ends on October 1,
1998. Yet
very few people are aware of it and its wide-reaching implications. The
press
has not covered it. The Department of Defense (who will significantly
benefit
from this rule as written) and EPA have not, to our knowledge, mentioned
this
significant change in military base cleanup requirements to any of the
250
plus Restoration Advisory Boards, Site Specific Advisory Boards, Cleanup
Advisory Boards or Technical Review Committees in the United States.
The
military situation is particularly irksome as most RABs at closing bases
have been discussing lead issues and have been told that the matter was
going through a dispute resolution between the DoD and EPA. Now it
appears
that all along the EPA was working to dramatically change what has been
the
guidance on lead without informing the interested public of its
intentions.
Limiting the public notice of such a far reaching proposal to the
Federal
Register has clearly failed to provide the interested public with
adequate
notice. More time is essential to provide the public with an honest
opportunity to participate in this very important decision.

If, in addition to requesting an extension to the public comment period,
you
would like to submit comments, Arc Ecology has attached to this alert a
sample
letter . Arc Ecology will be preparing more detailed comments during the
next couple of weeks and we will be happy to share these with anyone who
calls.

Written comments must be received on or before October 1, 1998. Written
comments must be submitted in triplicate. Each page must contain the
OPPTS
control number: 62156.

Mail comments to:

OPPT Document Control Officer (7407)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW,
Room G099, East Tower
Washington D.C. 20460

Call: Jonathon Jacobson at (202) 260-3779
email (no attachments): oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov
fax: (202) 260-9555

FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT ARC ECOLOGY'S CONCERNS CALL
Chris Shirley or Ken Kloc at Arc Ecology: (415) 495-1786

THANK YOU FOR WRITING OR CALLING EPA ASAP!!
PASS THIS MESSAGE ALONG!

Sample Letter:

OPPT Document Control Officer (7407)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW,
Room G099, East Tower
Washington D.C. 20460

RE: OPPTS control number 62156; TSCA Section 403 Rulemaking

(Identification
of Dangerous Levels of Lead)

Dear Sirs:

I am writing in reference to EPA's proposed rulemaking under TSCA
Section 403
(Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead). I represent (describe
your
organization's constituents)

As this rule is highly complex and controversial, and as it has come to
my
attention that important stakeholders are not yet aware of this
rulemaking, we
request that EPA extend the comment period by 60 days to December 1,
1998.

Let the record reflect that (your organization) is alarmed at and
opposed to
EPA's approach to defining "lead-based paint hazards" as explained in
the
Federal Register, Volume 63, No. 106, dated June 2, 1998. EPA must not
rely
on cost/benefit analysis to set lead hazard standards. In so doing EPA
has
seriously mixed risk assessment with risk management, to the detriment
of
low-income people across the United States.

EPA must do more to protect the children, poor, and minority communities
who
are most debilitated by lead exposure. Health-based lead-paint hazard
standards must be developed and initially targeted to these
disproportionately
affected communities, as required by Executive Order 12898 --
Environmental
Justice. EPA also must address the requirements of Executive Order
13045 --
Protection of Children From Environmental Health or Safety Risks, which
requires EPA to consider alternative approaches to proposed rules when
children face disproportionate risks.

On a more detailed level, we are concerned that EPA missed an important
opportunity with respect to reducing lead hazards associated with
carpeting.
By excluding carpet dust from the definition of a "lead-based paint
hazard"
EPA will cause carpets to be ignored during dust-lead control
activities.
This is because proposed HUD rules state that HEPA vacuuming is required
only
for "attached carpets that are identified as hazards." EPA should
state in
the rule that if a risk assessor finds a lead hazard anywhere in the
unit or
in adjacent outdoor soil that any carpets also must be considered a
hazard.

Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment. We will be
submitting
more detailed comments at a later date. In the meantime, we urge you to
act
on our request to extend the public comment period by 60 days. We need
this
time to reach out to our local communities, who are largely unaware of
this
proposal.

Sincerely,

CC: YOUR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES