To: Susan Wayland, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
From: Jere Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy
Subject: Lead NPRM TRI Review – Significance of the New Information
Thank you for your recent letter responding to my note. In both letters responding to me and to OMB, you chose the identical sentence, which highlights a critical issue for consideration before issuance of a proposed rule on lead:
"As you know, the Agency believes that TRI reporting for lead at a lower reporting threshold does indeed provide the public with significant and valuable information on the releases of that toxic chemical at the local community level, and that this information does contribute to a communities ability to assess, and address the potential risks within their local community." (emphasis added).
Based on what we know, none of these new reports will yield significant information about the hazards of lead. It is our understanding that lead hazards stem almost entirely from lead in paint and historic lead air emissions, which were much more voluminous than today. Neither of these hazards are affected by the minute releases subject to reporting under the draft proposed reporting thresholds. EPA has not identified one example of "significant" or "valuable information" that would shed light on the impact of lead releases (below current thresholds) at the "local community level" or nationally. We do not know the basis of EPA’s surmise. How would the local community interpret these new data, or act upon them in any informed way? Before committing over $100 million of the Nation’s resources to this rule in the first year of implementation, it would be extremely helpful to have this information for the interagency review.
Cc: Mark Mazur, DOE
Don Arbuckle, OMB