Re: SIGN-ON LETTER COMMENTING ON EPA'S PROPOSED LEAD RULE

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

A formatted version of the letter below may be found at:
http://www.cpeo.org/action/pbf98.html

SIGN-ON LETTER COMMENTING ON EPA'S PROPOSED LEAD RULE

ARC Ecology, the Urban Habitat Program, and other San Francisco Bay Area
activists are seeking signatures for the following letter to U.S. EPA on
the proposed Lead Rule being developed under the Toxic Substances
Control Act Section 403.

Please send all endorsements - name and affiliation (and whether listed
for identification purposes only) - to the Center for Public
Environmental Oversight by December 22, 1998.

TO: EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
FROM: The Undersigned Organizations
SUBJECT: EPA's Proposed Lead Rule
DATE: December 23, 1998.

We, the undersigned, believe that U.S. EPA's proposed rule, "Lead;
Identification of Danger Levels of Lead," 40 CFR Part 745 (as published
in the Federal Register, June 3, 1998) is DANGEROUSLY INADEQUATE. If
implemented as proposed, the Lead Rule will leave tens of thousands of
children, disproportionately from poor and minority inner city homes, at
risk for lead poisoning. The rule will undermine the purposes of Title X
(the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992) unless
the proposed rule is modified to:

* SET HEALTH-BASED STANDARDS. The rule should establish uniform national
health-based standards for allowable concentrations of lead paint in
soil and in dust. Raising allowable levels to reduce theoretical
aggregate remediation costs would understate the magnitude of the nation's
lead problem and would leave tens of thousands of children unprotected. EPA
should recognize that most lead abatement in this country is likely to
take place on a voluntary basis. Any standards set forth, therefore,
should encourage disclosure of potential health hazards - not hide the risk
in a regulatory definition of "danger levels of lead."

* CONSIDER COST ONLY AS PART OF RISK MANAGEMENT. EPA should identify a
clear process of considering remediation cost in determining responses on
a site-specific basis. Under the proposed rule, remediation would not be
required or recommended at many places where the achievement of
health-protective levels of lead would be cost effective.

* ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. The rule should establish mechanisms
for targeting responses at communities where children are
disproportionately at risk from exposures to lead from paint as well as
other sources.

* DESCRIBE THE ENTIRE PROBLEM. The rule should present aggregate cost
data in a way that EDUCATES the public, encourages the development of
more effective abatement TECHNOLOGIES, and highlights the need to program
RESOURCES to address lead contamination from all sources on all
properties.

We recognize that EPA cannot solve the entire lead problem, or even the
lead paint problem, in this rule, due to the statutory limitations of
the Toxic Substances Control Act. However, the proposed rule already
makes many recommendations that are beyond the authority of the Act, so we
believe the rule can serve as a vehicle to frame a national program
designed to reduce permanently the risk to the nation's children. That is,
the rule should be as protective as the law allows, and where it is not
protective it should make clear what additional measures are required to
meet public health goals.

(Center for Public Environmental Oversight, SFSU Downtown Center, 425
Market Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, voice: 415/904-7750,
fax: 415/904-7765; e-mail: cpeo@cpeo.org)
November 12, 1998)