Arc Exec. Comments on Lead Rule and Addl Resources

[Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@cpeo.org>]

Thursday, 29 October 1998

To: The Readers of the CPEO List Serve
Fm: Arc Ecology <arc@igc.org>
Re: Arc Ecology's Preliminary Comments on The EPA's proposed standard for 
lead

As readers of the CPEO list serve will recall, the EPA has proposed a lead
hazard standard that is significantly higher than current guidelines. On
September 30th, after receiving numerous requests, the EPA extended its
deadline for public comments to November 30th.

The following is the introductory letter to Arc Ecology's comments on the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed new standard for lead hazard. The
full text comment is 21 pages in length and is available on the Site2C
web-site listed below.

If you have not yet forwarded your comments to the EPA on this very
important issue, we urge you to do so right away. We invite you to use our
letter and comment as a guide in the preparation of your own statement. We
particularly want to encourage RAB, SSAB and other citizen advisory
committee community members to take the issue before your committee and
develop a group comment.

The websites and journal listed below contain documents related to the EPA's
proposed rule on lead hazards. The information will help you prepare your
comments.

The full text of the proposed rule: http://www.epa.gov/docs/lead/leadtpbf.htm
The risk assessment on lead hazards: http://www.epa.gov/docs/lead/leadhaz.htm
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, September 10, 1998,
"Criticism of Federal Policy Regarding Lead Exposure and Children's Health":
http://www.newswise.com/articles/LEAD.CCH.html
American Academy of Pediatrics, Press Release, June 1, 1998, "AAP Recommends
Targeted Lead Screening, Universal Screening in High Risk Areas":
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/pediatrics,page/junpol.htm
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Policy Statement,
"Screening Children for Lead: Guidelines for Child and Adolescent
Psychiatrists" March, 1995: http://www.aacap.org/publications/policy/ps32.htm
American Nurses Association, Position Statements, "Lead Poisoning &
Screening", April 1994: 
http://www.ana.org/readroom/position/social/sclead.htm

The American Public Health Association, American Journal of Public Health,
Volume 88, Number 3, March 1998, "9704: Responsibilities of the Lead Pigment
Industry and Others to Support Efforts to Address the National Child Lead
Poisoning Problem - Available through public and academic libraries

TO ACCESS THE FULL TEXT OF ARC ECOLOGY'S COMMENTS GO TO:
http://www.site2c.com/leadrule
OR CALL ARC AT: 415-495-1786 TO HAVE A COPY MAILED

Arc Ecology is developing an alternative proposal which we will upload
shortly for your consideration.

Thank you

------------------------------

Arc Ecology
833 Market Street, San Francisco California 94103
Phone 415.495.1786 Fax 415.495.1787 E-mail Arc@igc.org

October 22, 1998

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

RE: TSCA Section 403 Rulemaking (Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead)
 OPPTS Control Number 62156

Dear Sir or Madam:

Arc Ecology submits these comments on EPA's proposed rulemaking under TSCA
Section 403 (Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead).

Arc Ecology is a non-profit public-interest environmental organization. We
monitor cleanup of military bases and offer technical support to community
representatives serving on Restoration Advisory Boards, Site-specific
Advisory Boards, and other venues for citizen participation across the
nation. In this capacity we are familiar not only with the process of
remediation and transfer of BRAC military bases, but also with the
requirements of CERCLA, RCRA, CWA, TSCA, and other Federal, state, and local
environmental regulations.

Arc Ecology believes EPA's proposed Lead 403 Rule to be seriously flawed.
EPA seems to have forgotten that one of the purposes of Title X is to,
"encourage effective action to prevent childhood lead poisoning." The
proposed rule will not prevent lead poisoning in most exposed children. It
will not help to elevate the issue in the public mind. To the contrary,
EPA's proposed rule will serve only to legitimate levels of lead that cause
poisoning, since there is a substantial range where the potential for harm
is present but there are no incentives or requirements to disclose the risk
or abate.

Using the Integrated Environmental Uptake and Biokenetic (IEUBK) model, EPA
estimates that 9 to 30 percent of children exposed to soils contaminated at
the proposed hazard standard of 2000 ppm would have blood-lead
concentrations of 20 ug/dl -- the level at which the Centers for Disease
Control recommends medical intervention. This translates into 8,000 to
26,000 children who every year would require medical attention as a result
of high levels of lead in their bloodstreams. Children are affected at
lower blood-lead concentrations, too. At 10 ug/dl, 48,000 to 68,000
children, every year, would likely suffer brain damage, manifest as IQ loss,
attention deficits, problems with fine motor coordination, hearing loss, and
other central nervous system problems. Epidemiological data corroborate
IEUBK estimates. EPA's first focus needs to be on creating lead hazard
standards that actually protect the nation's children.

According to EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, IEUBK is
the best tool available for predicting blood-lead concentrations in children
who are exposed to lead in their environment. It takes as input childhood
lead exposure from a variety of sources including soil, dust, air, water,
and food. IEUBK reports a range of probabilities of effects to account for
variability in children's physiology, behavior, and household conditions.
This model has been extensively peer-reviewed and validated. IEUBK recently
was used to set air quality standards for lead.

Unfortunately EPA did not perform an IEUBK-based risk assessment to set the
lead-based paint hazard standards. Instead the Agency carried out a
cost-benefit analysis using an improvised statistical exposure model, which
has not been peer reviewed or validated. This approach distracted attention
from the Agency's decision to greatly increase tolerance for lead poisoning.
Shifting focus from health protection to economics allowed EPA to justify
standards that appear to have been selected prior to the analysis --
standards that will not protect public health.

Current guidelines are more health-protective than the proposed standards.
This is particularly true for lead in soil. Current soil guidelines have
the potential to reduce lead exposure for 400,000 children per year.
Proposed standards can only protect 86,000 children at best. Although the
proposed dust standards are more stringent than current guidelines, other
aspects of the proposal negate any gains made in this area.

EPA's argument for the degraded level of protection is that costs must be
kept low because poor families will have to bear them. It's tragic that the
Agency's solution to this very real problem is to degrade standards for
everyone. The health-protective solution is for EPA to set standards that
protect children in the context of a program that helps to spread costs.

We recommend that EPA:

* refrain from setting hazards standards using cost-benefit analysis.
Hazard standards must be based upon results of a health-focused,
peer-reviewed model, with cost balancing be left to the implementing
agencies. EPA can address the issue of costs by developing guidelines
designed to help implementing agencies prioritize hazard screening and risk
assessment. EPA could also develop guidelines to help prioritize actions on
properties found to contain lead-based paint hazards.

* define 10 ug/dl as the blood-lead concentration hazard, and develop
definitions of lead-based paint hazards, lead-contaminated dust, and
lead-contaminated soil that flow from this primary, and well-documented,
determination of harm.

* use the peer-reviewed IEUBK model to develop hazard standards for
household dust and soil. Any deviation from IEUBK must first be discussed
with EPA's Science Advisory Board and Lead-Sites Consultation Group. Any
model used for the purpose of standard setting needs to be peer reviewed.

* modify Title 40 Section 745.227(c) and related rules so that
briefly-trained building contractors and skilled workers can perform
lead-hazard screening. This may require EPA to develop a set of more
conservative screening-level hazard standards.

* propose a hazard standard for carpet. Delaying this leaves a significant
gap in lead clearance work practices and cause thousands of people to be
unnecessarily exposed to an avoidable hazard.

* propose health-protective soil hazard levels and work practice standards
that specifically apply to children's play areas, vegetable gardens, areas
where pets play, and other areas where high rates of soil contact can be
anticipated.

* develop emergency standards so that hazardous situations can be dealt with
in a timely manner. EPA should develop regulatory action levels that would
mandate when a child must be tested for lead poisoning. EPA needs to
require that private landlords perform risk assessment whenever a tenant
reports that a child living in the building has an elevated blood-lead
concentration.

* suggest mitigations for disproportionate effects on poor and minority
communities, and for children.

We present our concerns and recommendations in more detail in our attached
comments.

Thank you for providing us this opportunity to comment. Please feel free to
call us if you need any clarification.

Yours truly,

Saul Bloom Christine Shirley
Executive Director Staff Scientist

Ken Kloc Eve Bach
Staff Scientist Staff Economist/Planner

attachment: Comments

The following is the Table of Contents of Arc's Comments:

Comments on EPA's Proposed TSCA Section 403
Lead-Based Paint Hazards

1. CONGRESSIONAL INTENT MISINTERPRETED
2. EPA SHOULD TREAT BLOOD CONCENTRATIONS OF 10 UG/DL AS THE HAZARD LEVEL
3. EPA SHOULD DEVELOP SCREENING LEVEL STANDARDS
4. ECONOMIC COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS MUST NOT BE USED TO SET HEALTH STANDARDS
5. RULEMAKING BY REVERSE ENGINEERING
6. EPA MUST SET STANDARDS BASED UPON PEER-REVIEWED MODELS
7. SOIL "LEVELS OF CONCERN" SHOULD BE DROPPED
8. EPA INAPPROPRIATELY PARTICIPATES IN RISK MANAGEMENT
9. PROTECTIVE STANDARDS WOULD ENCOURAGE INNOVATION
10. WE SUPPORT EPA'S INCLUSION OF CHILD-OCCUPIED FACILITIES
11. EPA MISSED IMPORTANT POTENTIAL HAZARDS
11.1. Carpet Standards
11.2. Air Ducts
11.3. Repairs or Remodeling
11.4. Vegetable Gardens
11.5. Hot- Spots
12. MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO COMMUNICATE RISK
13. INVALID PRESUMPTION THAT LEAD-CONTAMINATED SOIL PLAYS A MINOR ROLE IN
CHILDHOOD LEAD UPTAKE
14. RISK FROM SILLS, FLOORS, AND SOIL NEED TO BE BALANCED
15. SAMPLING COVERED SOIL SHOULD BE DISCUSSED
16. NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SAMPLING MID-YARD VERSUS EXTERIOR PLAY AREAS
17. UNPROTECTIVE DUST STANDARDS
18. EMERGENCY STANDARDS MUST BE PROMULGATED
19. EFFECTS ON OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IGNORED
20. RULE WOULD ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO TRANSFER CONTAMINATED 
PROPERTY
21. EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OR SAFETY RISKS IGNORED
22. CONVOLUTED LOGIC MARS PROPOSAL
23. EPA DID NOT ENCOURAGE PUBLIC SCRUTINY
24. REFERENCES
Appendix A
Comments on the Economic Analysis
1. A 5-STEP PROCESS OF REVERSE ENGINEERING
1.1. Step 1: Replace risk analysis with cost benefit analysis
1.2. Step 2: Ignore uncertainty
1.3. Step 3: Jettison the validated mathematical model if it gives the wrong
answer
1.4. Step 4: Put the results into a black box
TABLE 1: Comparison of Economic Analysis and Federal Register
1.5. Step 5: Keep the numbers big
2. DEFECTS OF THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS2.1. The Economic Analysis
systematically undercounts benefits.
2.1.1. The cost benefit analysis considers only investment benefits of lead
remedies.
2.1.2. The model does not account for health benefits beyond averted IQ loss
2.1.3. The Economic Analysis incorrectly values an IQ point
2.1.4. The Economic Analysis uses inconsistent methodology to project
medical benefits
2.1.5. The Economic Analysis ignores benefits in the form of increased
property values
2.2. The Economic Analysis overestimates costs
2.3. The Economic Analysis fails to differentiate the costs and benefits
that will result from different applications of the hazard standard
2.4. The projections in the Economic Analysis exaggerate the scale of
remedial actions that will occur