U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–876 2002

‘‘THE TRI LEAD RULE: COSTS, COMPLIANCE AND

SCIENCE’’

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY REFORM 

AND OVERSIGHT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 13, 2002

Serial No. 107–62

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DONALD MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman 

LARRY COMBEST, Texas 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SUE W. KELLY, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota 

MICHAEL PENCE, Indiana 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia 

GELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York 

TODD W. AKIN, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

DAVID D. PHELPS, Illinois 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma 

ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, Puerto Rico 

DOUG THOMAS, Staff Director 

PHIL ESKELAND, Deputy Staff Director 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Chairman 

LARRY COMBEST, Texas 

SUE KELLY, New York 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT BRADY, Pennsylvania 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas 

DAVID D. PHELPS, Illinois 

JAMES P. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, Puerto Rico 

ROSARIO PALMIERI, Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 13, 2002 ............................................................................... 1

WITNESSES

Nelson, Hon. Kim T., Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................. 4

McGuirk, Dennis, President, IPC, Association Connecting Electronics Industries ....................................................................................................................... 15

Mallory, James, Executive Director, Non-Ferrous Founders’ Society ................. 17

Klinefelter, Nancy, President of Baltimore Glassware Decorators representing 

the Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators .................................................... 18

Morrow, Hugh, President, North American Office, International Cadmium 

Association ............................................................................................................ 20

APPENDIX

Opening statements: 

Pence, Hon. Mike .............................................................................................. 27

Prepared statements: 

Nelson, Hon. Kim T .......................................................................................... 31

McGuirk, Dennis .............................................................................................. 44

Mallory, James ................................................................................................. 60

Klinefelter, Nancy ............................................................................................ 73

Morrow, Hugh ................................................................................................... 77

Additional Information: 

Submission by Thomas Sullivan, Office of Advocacy, SBA ........................... 83

Post Hearing Question and Answer submission ............................................ 101

(1)

HEARING ON THE TRI LEAD RULE: COSTS, 

COMPLIANCE, AND SCIENCE 

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2002 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m. in room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Pence [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Chairman PENCE. This Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and 

Oversight of the House Committee on Small Business hearing entitled ‘‘The TRI Lead Rule: Costs, Compliance, and Science’’, is convened. 

The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 

some brief opening remarks after a few remarks of my own. 

I wish to thank all of our witnesses for their attendance today, 

but, most especially, the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

representative who joins us here today, with apologies for my tardiness. I am the victim this morning of having one too many Subcommittees in my life and appreciate the forbearance of our witnesses and my colleague from Pennsylvania. 

I want to begin by giving the EPA my congratulations this morning. The threat of lead poisoning, especially to children, has been 

dramatically reduced in our country. Much of that, I would offer 

today, is due to the work of the good men and women at the EPA 

and other agencies of the federal government. 

Former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala 

said in announcing the 1997 CDC results, ‘‘These lower lead levels 

for America’s children constitute a public health achievement of the 

first importance. For our children as a whole, we have achieved average blood lead levels which would have been considered impossible just a few decades ago.’’

Governor Whitman’s predecessor at the EPA had this to say. 

‘‘The ongoing reduction in blood lead levels is a great American 

success story of environmental and public health protection. Years 

of aggressive action against lead exposure, particularly EPA’s banning of lead in gasoline two decades ago, are yielding a brighter future for our children,’’ and indeed they are. 

The Center for Disease Control, in the same document, did go on 

to note that the job of lead exposure reduction is not complete, saying, ‘‘There are still close to one million children with a blood lead 

level that is associated with adverse effects on children. In addition, the survey showed that more than one-fifth of non-Hispanic 

2

black children living in older homes had elevated blood lead levels. 

This pattern reflects the most serious remaining sources of lead exposure; deteriorating paint in older housing, dust and soil contaminated by paint and residues from past emissions of leaded gasoline.’’ Beyond those accolades and the kind of affection that this Chairman developed for the EPA when they spent three months decontaminating my anthrax-contaminated office with great professionalism and alacrity, I am disappointed today, though, that we 

are not maximizing the benefits of this great achievement. It seems 

we are not taking these results as a lesson for further progress on 

this public health issue. 

Today, we are not talking about further reductions of children’s 

exposure to lead in paint or other major remaining sources of concern that have been identified. Today, we are talking in this hearing about a paperwork regulation that will at best provide some 

new information about the uses of lead that present no real risk 

for human health at a significant cost to small businesses and to 

the EPA. At worst, one could argue, this rule will provide inaccurate information about lead usage and divert important resources 

away from more pressing public health and environmental needs. 

I wish I had already completed a listing of the problems with this 

rule. In addition to it not addressing the most important public 

health aspects of lead and potentially providing no public right-toknow benefit, this rule, for instance, as we may well hear today, 

is based on questionable science and lacks independent peer review. 

It eliminates burden reduction measures meant to make TRI reporting easier for small businesses, and it is the first retroactively 

applied TRI reporting rule, which will require companies to desperately search for data about lead usage prior to when the rule 

was promulgated and became effective. 

It suffers from an EPA guidance document that was not available 

until 13 months after the retroactive date for data collection and 

was 200 plus pages that, candidly, no small business person, let 

alone any congressman, could decipher. It subjects upwards of 

10,000 new filers to burdensome reporting obligations under an 

EPA rule that many may not even know about yet. 

It is virtually guaranteed to produce poor quality data that will 

not well serve the public’s right-to-know, creates a risk of enforcement actions or citizen suits against small businesses that may 

simply be unable to comply with the rule, despite doing their best, 

and, finally, I assume, in recognition of the questionable science 

underpinning this rule, the EPA has decided to submit to a Science 

Advisory Board review of the biggest questions, but is waiting 

three years after the final rule is published for a final report on 

some of these issues. 

This is not the EPA’s finest hour, I would argue, after a great 

and I think colossal achievement in the reduction of lead exposure 

to children in this country. It stands in stark contrast to those reductions. This paperwork rule is also estimated to cost businesses 

between $70 and $100 million in the first year of implementation. 

When our economy is hardly at its peak and small businesses account for a majority of job growth in this country, it is not time 

3

right now for substantial new regulatory costs of questionable benefits to be imposed. 

Now is the time to prioritize, time to focus all of our efforts on 

the environmental regulations which will provide us with the most 

bang for our buck, as we say in Indiana, with the greatest impact 

on human health and the environment. This Chair believes that 

this rule does not pass this test. 

This hearing has garnered quite a bit of interest. In addition to 

the witnesses gathered today, we also have testimony submitted by 

the U.S. Small Business Administration, the National Association 

of Manufacturers and the Meractus Center. We look forward to the 

testimony of all of our witnesses. 

I would like to now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Brady, for his opening statement. 

[Mr. Pence’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to submit my 

statement for the record rather than read it all, but I would just 

like to also chime in and join in with your remarks about the EPA 

and what they have done with their paint and the safety of our 

children.

I come from the City of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania, which it is a great city, but it is an old city. It has a lot of 

old houses and a lot of lead paint in a lot of our areas, and they 

have done an excellent job. It has been extremely helpful, and our 

children have been allowed to grow up in some much better environments and better safety. 

I also was thrilled to find that the Honorable Kim Nelson is from 

the State of Pennsylvania, has been there for all her life, and now 

in the City of Washington. Do not worry about that. If you are from 

Pennsylvania, you have a great background. You will do fine here. 

I look forward to hearing your statement. 

Thank you. 

Chairman PENCE. Before we begin receiving testimony from witnesses, I want to remind everyone that we would like each witness 

to keep their oral testimony to just five minutes, and then in order 

the Chair and the Ranking Member and any other Members that 

arrive will be given an opportunity to pose questions thereafter. 

As our first witness and no doubt veteran of Capitol Hill knows, 

but our other witnesses may not be as aware, you have a series of 

lights in front of you, and they mean just what traffic lights mean. 

The Chair will allow a certain amount of latitude once the red light 

appears, but then the gavel will eventually arrive. 

You should know that your entire written statement will, without objection, be added to the record, so you might use the opportunity of your remarks here to amplify points in your written statement. 

In our first panel we will hear from a single witness, the Honorable Kim T. Nelson, who is the Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Having just had a private meeting in my congressional office 

with Secretary Whitman, I am grateful, despite our frustrations 

with this rule, for the EPA’s willingness to attend this hearing, to 

participate in a dialogue with the Small Business Subcommittee 

4

and am grateful for your participation, even though you are from 

Pennsylvania. 

Ms. Nelson is recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KIM T. NELSON, ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. NELSON. Thank you. I am struggling for some connection I 

have with Indiana, but it is not coming to me at the moment. 

Good morning, Congressman Pence and Congressman Brady. 

First, Chairman Pence, let me apologize since I was not at that 

meeting you had with Governor Whitman as I was out of town that 

day, but I am glad it went well. 

I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss with 

you EPA’s recent rule to expand the reporting on lead and lead 

compounds under EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory Program. As you 

may recall, the new TRI lead rule was carefully reviewed by this 

Administration upon entering office and was eventually endorsed 

by the President and Governor Whitman and became effective, as 

you stated, in April of 2001. 

The new rule requires any facility which is already subject to the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act reporting 

provisions that also manufactures, processes or uses more than 100 

pounds of lead or lead compounds annually to report to EPA their 

lead releases. This rule significantly expands the information available to the public about the presence and releases of lead in their 

communities. 

Since its implementation in 1987, the TRI has been the centerpiece of EPA’s right-to-know programs and has proven to be a very 

powerful tool for assisting communities in protecting their own environment and for making businesses more aware of their chemical 

releases. The basis of the TRI lead rule is EPA’s determination 

that lead and lead compounds are persistent, bioaccumulative and 

toxic chemicals. These are also known as PBT chemicals. 

These chemicals are of particular concern because they remain in 

the environment for long periods of time, they build up in the environment, and they accumulate in plants, animals and humans and 

may cause a range of very serious toxic effects. 

In assessing the persistence of lead, EPA concluded that lead 

meets the PBT criterion for classification as highly persistent. Because lead is a PBT chemical and it is highly persistent, there is 

a greater potential for exposure to lead. 

In assessing the bioaccumulation of lead, EPA considered bioaccumulation data in aquatic plants, animals and humans. In addition to the plant and animal data, there are extensive peer reviewed human data demonstrating that repeated exposure to low 

levels of lead results in a build up of lead in the bones of the 

human body where it can remain for many years. Numerous studies have shown that lead that has accumulated in bone can later 

move from the bone to blood, especially during pregnancy, breast 

feeding, menopause, old age, and serve as a source of exposure. 

The toxicity of lead to humans is well documented and undisputed. Of particular concern is the effect lead has on fetuses, infants and children because they tend to be more susceptible to exVerDate Aug 2, 2002 01:38 Aug 21, 2002 Jkt 080876 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A876.XXX pfrm17 PsN: A876
5

posures of lead and are more sensitive to the toxicity it causes. 

Their exposure to lead can cause permanent brain damage. Even 

at the very low dose levels, exposure can result in diminished IQ 

levels, impaired neurobehavioral development, decreased stature 

and growth and impaired hearing. 

During the public comment period for the proposed rule, questions were raised challenging the sufficiency of the aquatic data to 

support the conclusion that lead and lead compounds are highly 

bioaccumulative. In addition, EPA recognized that it did not clearly 

indicate in the proposed TRI rule how the human data would be 

used to distinguish between bioaccumulative and highly bioaccumulative categories. Consequently, EPA determined that the 

data clearly supported a finding that lead and lead compounds are 

bioaccumulative and deferred on its determination as to whether 

lead and lead compounds are highly bioaccumulative. 

In the final lead rule, EPA stated that before determining whether lead and lead compounds are bioaccumulative, EPA believes that 

it would be appropriate to seek external scientific peer review from 

its Science Advisory Board, and EPA, as you mentioned, intends to 

do so. The date proposed for the peer review of the highly bioaccumulative issues pertaining to the lead rules is November, 2003. 

This Administration believes that the preferred approach to 

achieving compliance with new rules is emphasizing compliance assistance during the first year rather than direct enforcement. EPA 

has worked hard in providing compliance assistance and outreach, 

especially for small businesses, for this first reporting year deadline. 

For example, EPA issued a technical guidance document to assist 

facilities, as you mentioned, in complying with the new lead rule. 

Also, in the fall of 2001, EPA sponsored nine workshops specifically 

on the new lead rule. Both the workshops and the availability of 

the draft and final versions of the guidance document were extensively publicized.

In addition to these specific efforts, EPA continues to work hard 

to provide compliance assistance for facilities generally. For example, this spring EPA held more than 40 workshops. Also, EPA has 

many more TRI compliance assistance resources and tools available 

through the internet and telephone hotlines. 

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate EPA’s strong commitment 

to providing public access to environmental information and our 

firm belief that public access contributes positively to our citizens’

ability to understand environmental issues and to make better decisions in their daily lives. An informed public can hold government 

and industry accountable for pollution control efforts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Brady. I 

would be happy to take any questions. 

[Ms. Nelson’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman PENCE. Thank you for that presentation. You mentioned a couple of different areas, and I may hit a few areas and 

then yield to Mr. Brady out of sensitivity to his schedule this morning. 

First, I want to reiterate that you are here speaking for all of the 

EPA, including the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, according to our information. 

6

Ms. NELSON. That is correct. 

Chairman PENCE. You have described the EPA’s policy as stressing compliance rather than enforcement in the first year. What 

does that specifically mean to a small business that is covered 

under this rule? 

Ms. NELSON. Let me say I am new to EPA. I have been here 

since the fall, but I have spent 15 years in an environmental protection agency in Pennsylvania. 

Like the experience I had in Pennsylvania, I believe EPA has a 

history, and particularly so now such as sensitivity, that the agency has the ability to exercise complete discretion over its enforcement actions. 

What that means particularly when you are dealing with a new 

program is that we recognize that the first year of a program, even 

a second year, enforcement actions for a program that is new tend 

to be very low on the enforcement priority list. 

Our emphasis is to bring facilities in compliance. I know of no 

one in this agency who is planning on taking enforcement actions 

against a facility where we show general goodwill in terms of complying with the requirements of the law and the regulations. 

Chairman PENCE. Does that mean zero enforcement actions in 

the first year? If not, then when specifically would you choose to 

use enforcement? 

Ms. NELSON. Let me say, you know, we all understand absolutes 

are something that can create problems in the long run. It is clearly a low enforcement priority. This is, as you mentioned, a paper 

reporting exercise. 

Through this program, we are not asking people to implement 

new control technologies. We are not asking people to change effluent discharges or to limit effluent discharges in any way. This is 

a reporting exercise which is geared towards providing the agency 

and the American public with information. 

Our goal will be to insure the highest quality of information, and 

that is where we want to focus our resources. I know of no one at 

this point in time that would see it appropriate to take what we 

would consider an ‘‘enforcement action’’ against someone who has 

filed inappropriately or incorrectly or incorrect data. 

Chairman PENCE. The President has asked the EPA to provide 

special assistance to small businesses—— Ms. NELSON. Yes. 

Chairman PENCE [continuing]. On this rule, tacitly recognizing 

the burden that it imposes on business. 

Ms. NELSON. Right. 

Chairman PENCE. What specifically did the EPA do to help prepare small businesses to comply with this rule? 

Ms. NELSON. The agency first last summer held nine sessions 

throughout the country. Ten were scheduled, and, frankly, we canceled the one session that was scheduled in Region 2 because of the 

aftermath of September 11, but nine sessions were held across the 

country with over 700 people attending. 

Seven hundred people does not sound like a lot when you talk 

about the numbers of facilities, potentially 5,000 facilities, give or 

take, that might be affected, but those sessions are really assigned 

to be a train the trainer session, to bring in the industry representVerDate Aug 2, 2002 01:38 Aug 21, 2002 Jkt 080876 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A876.XXX pfrm17 PsN: A876
7

atives, the consultants and the others who actually provide support 

to industry. Seven hundred people attended those sessions. 

In addition to that, we held a number of public meetings last 

summer on the guidance document. As you mentioned, it was 

EPA’s plan to get the guidance document out in October. The meeting was held on September 10. We know we did not meet that 

deadline because of the aftermath of the events on September 11. 

We extended the deadline, however, because of those events and 

because of certain concerns about the rule, which was one of the 

reasons the guidance document got out late. We provided more opportunity for public comment on the document. We could have gotten it out earlier, but we would have shortened the public comment 

input period. 

This fall, we held our normal TRI sessions that had a special 

focus, as they normally do, on the new reporting requirements. 

Those sessions I believe totaled more than 40 throughout the country and were attended by thousands of people, in excess of maybe 

3,000 people. 

We also have our hotline that is available for people to call in 

any day on the document itself and the Q&As. It is, from my perspective, one of the most aggressive outreach programs EPA has 

ever done in the TRI program. 

Chairman PENCE. This is the first TRI rule to be applied retroactively. I will say procedurally I want to see if I can get an answer 

to this question, and then we will recess while Mr. Brady and I go 

for what apparently will be about 20 minutes of votes and be back. 

The final rule was not effective until April, 2001. The businesses 

are required to report releases starting January, 2001. EPA did not 

provide a final guidance document until the end of January of this 

year. What is the justification for applying this rule retroactively? 

Ms. NELSON. Well, I guess we have to understand that the rule 

became effective on April, 2001, but the reports are not actually 

due until approximately 15 months later. 

The justification for allowing a rule to go into effect in April 

when reports are not due for another 15 months is the fact that 

the TRI program has always allowed filers to estimate their releases. It is not like other programs, our NPDS program, for instance, where facilities have to submit monthly discharge monitoring reports where those reports are based on real monitoring of 

actual occurrences. 

The TRI program has always allowed facilities to estimate, so it 

is easy or it is possible, based on formulas, for a facility to estimate 

their usage back for a period of a year. 

Chairman PENCE. The Chair will ask the assistant administrator——

Ms. NELSON. Yes.

Chairman PENCE [continuing]. If she can stay here. We will return, I presume, by about ten minutes before the hour after a series of votes. 

With that, we are in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman PENCE. Kim Nelson, the Assistant Administrator for 

Environmental Information at the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, is still with us. We are grateful for your patience and evVerDate Aug 2, 2002 01:38 Aug 21, 2002 Jkt 080876 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A876.XXX pfrm17 PsN: A876
8

eryone else’s patience. We do not anticipate another interruption 

prior to the end of the hearing. 

The Chair has a great number of questions, but, in the interest 

of his time and schedule, wanted to yield to the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania, the Ranking Member, for any questions that he 

might have for our witness. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one that I do 

not understand. 

What is the difference between the TRI Form A as to the one 

that we have now that is less burdensome? Do you know? 

Ms. NELSON. The TRI Form A was a burden reduction effort that 

requires less information to be filed by a facility versus the full 

Form R. 

Mr. BRADY. Was there a problem with that one, I mean, that it 

had to be changed to make it more burdensome? I mean, we are 

trying to make things less burdensome for small business. 

Ms. NELSON. The Form A came after I believe the Form R. but 

I was not here at that particular time. I can get back to you on 

that particular sequence of events. 

Mr. BRADY. Okay. Thanks. 

No more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PENCE. Ms. Nelson, let me take a little different tact 

with the questions for the moment. I am going to read some statements from your confirmation hearing for the record and then ask 

you a couple of specific questions. 

In your confirmation hearing, you said, quoting now, ‘‘The information that we provide must be of exceptional quality, supported 

with analytical tools which facilitate its use for assessing and managing risk and measuring environmental improvements.’’ You also said that it would be your intention to assist Administrator Whitman by helping to ‘‘sharpen the focus of the EPA’s environmental information strategies, reduce burden on industries, promote intergovernmental cooperation and apply best practices to 

achieve internal efficiencies.’’

You also said, ‘‘I believe these activities will contribute significantly toward burden reduction, improved data quality and security, more informed environmental decision making and greater 

flexibility to manage environmental programs.’’

In light of the extensive evidence that without more time to get 

it right implementing this rule on June 30, 2002, will result, to put 

it bluntly, in extremely poor quality data, does this rule meet the 

goals expressed in your confirmation hearing for data quality and 

the right relationship between the EPA and small business America? 

Ms. NELSON. I still believe everything I said on that day when 

I testified, which was October 17 of last fall. 

This program I think has to be treated a little bit differently, as 

I mentioned before, from other programs in EPA. This program is 

not one where we are making individual, site specific risk assessment kinds of decisions. 

What is important about the TRI program is that it provides the 

agency with an opportunity to collect information that it and others 

in the community and businesses can use hopefully to make better 

environmental decisions. We recognize that I think in any program 

9

the first year is not going to be the highest performing year; that 

it always takes some experience under our belts to get to the level 

of high performance we would all like to see. 

I think there are a number of things we are doing in the TRI program that can help improve the quality of the data, which is the 

ultimate goal that we all have, and reduce the burden. For instance, my primary focus with the TRI program is to focus on improved electronic reporting. The one thing we know as we move towards e-government is that the more we can get facilities and others to report electronically, the higher the quality of the data will 

be. 

I do not know if you have used something like Turbo Tax before, 

but you know a software program like that, as we have with the 

newest versions of the TRI report, can help you calculate your answers and insure that the data submitted are accurate. It actually 

prevents you sometimes from putting in incorrect data, which often 

happens on the paper forms. Somebody gets a factor wrong by ten 

or more. We see an outlier way out here, and we recognize that 

cannot possibly be correct. 

The more you can do electronic reporting, the more you can prevent that from happening, so that is my focus. With my goals of 

higher quality data and burden reduction, we can actually reduce 

that burden on companies if they begin to submit electronically because we can make it easier for them to submit, and we can get 

higher quality data. 

Chairman PENCE. Let me change gears, if I can, to the whole 

issue of science and ask you first to maybe express what is your 

view of science at the EPA? Maybe more accurately, how should 

science inform policy at the EPA? Should it be controlling? Is it a 

factor in the development of environmental policy? 

Ms. NELSON. As we look to new issues, there is one thing that 

I clearly have recognized the last couple years, and that is the 

issues we are going to face from an environmental protection perspective, regardless of where we sit in an organization, are issues 

that are getting far more complex. 

The low hanging fruit, I think we can all agree, has been picked, 

so the issue we are faced with in the future will be of incredible 

complexity for many different reasons—impacts on communities, 

impacts on the regulated community, on people, as well as the 

science. 

Governor Whitman I think has elevated in terms of stature within the organization the Office of Research and Development. Paul 

Gilman, Dr. Gilman, who is the assistant administrator for that 

particular office, has recently been named by her as her science advisor for the organization, and I think any good policy coming out 

of EPA is a policy that has to be based on teamwork across the organization. That teamwork includes the Office of Research and Development to insure that all of our decisions are based on sound 

science. 

Chairman PENCE. So your view would be that all policy has to 

be based on teamwork and that essentially the researchers are part 

of that team. The science is a factor in the development of policy, 

but is it fair to say it should be the dominant factor in the development of policy? 

10

Ms. NELSON. I do not think it can be because we have statutory 

and legislative requirements, so I do not think in any given situation or across the board you can make a statement that science has 

to be the dominant factor. I would not say that now. 

I think in any given situation we have to balance and we have 

to look at all the particular drivers in any given situation. Some 

of them are statutory. Some of them are economic. Some of them 

are social. Some of them are science. It is our job as appointees 

there and as employees of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

balance those issues. 

Chairman PENCE. Let me read you a quote from Governor Whitman in her confirmation hearing, which may be at odds with your 

prior statement. She said, ‘‘Scientific analysis should drive policy. 

Neither policy nor politics should drive scientific results. Good 

science is the basis for all the decisions that are made at the agency that is critical to the credibility of the agency and the implementation of the decisions made by the agency.’’

Again, her initial statement is there. ‘‘Scientific analysis should 

drive policy.’’ Do you think that is a practice at the EPA, in your 

judgment? 

Ms. NELSON. Well, that is what the governor said, and that is 

what I said in my first statement that the governor believes strongly in sound science. I believe she had heightened the visibility of 

the Office of Research and Development in appointing Dr. Gilman 

as her science advisor, and I believe we all within the organization 

have to make decisions based on sound science. 

I do think that is the practice, yes, that we are all expected to 

abide by, but it is not the only one. We have to take other things 

into consideration. 

Chairman PENCE. Let me see if I can get a quick yes or no on 

a series of questions, and then we can wrap up at least the Chair’s 

portion of questions. 

Number one, are you aware the EPA co-sponsored a workshop in 

January of 2000 on whether it was appropriate for metals to be 

considered as PBTs? 

Ms. NELSON. I was not here at the time. I am aware that that 

did occur, yes. 

Chairman PENCE. Okay. Are you aware that questions at that 

time were raised about the very characterization of lead as a PBT 

chemical in interagency reviews? 

Ms. NELSON. I am aware there was discussion of that issue. 

Chairman PENCE. Are you aware that the Small Business Administration, in its search, has yet to find any peer reviewed literature, journals or reports or scientists from government, industry 

or academia to support EPA’s characterization of lead as a PBT? 

Ms. NELSON. I am not aware of that. 

Chairman PENCE. How about the fact that bipartisan leadership 

on the House Science Committee has requested SAB review of this 

issue and that the Committee has statutory authority to require 

SAB review? 

Ms. NELSON. I am sorry. Could you repeat that? 

Chairman PENCE. Are you aware that the House Science Committee has requested an SAB review of this issue in particular? 

11

Ms. NELSON. I know prior to my coming here there was dialogue 

and discussion between various Members of Congress, but I am not 

sure of what you are specifically referring to. 

If it is an earlier request that came out of the VA HUD appropriation a year or so ago, my understanding was we were urged to 

look at the issue and that as a result of some dialogue and discussion there was an agreement on an approach. 

Chairman PENCE. Are you aware that the Small Business Administration, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office 

of Management and Budget and the Department of Energy are all 

on record supporting peer review on the fundamental science question behind EPA’s rule? 

Ms. NELSON. I am aware this issue has been discussed by a number of organizations. 

Chairman PENCE. Okay. Well, then let me ask. Is the question 

of whether or not lead or other metals are appropriately characterized as PBTs under this rule currently before the SAB, or will it 

be? 

Ms. NELSON. The issue that we are putting before the SAB is 

whether lead and lead compounds are highly bioaccumulative. The 

agency has already made the decision that lead is considered a 

PBT, so that issue is not before the SAB. The issue before the SAB 

is whether lead should be considered and lead compounds highly 

bioaccumulative. 

Chairman PENCE. So again, and I appreciate your clarity——

Ms. NELSON. Let me just say this. My understanding is also that 

issue is not before the SAB right now, but will be submitted to the 

SAB once the SAB reviews the action plan and the ultimate framework. 

Once that framework has been reviewed by the SAB, then it is 

the intent to put the question before the SAB as to the highly bioaccumulative nature of lead and lead compounds. 

Chairman PENCE. Maybe that explains it. In your written testimony you quote from the Federal Register notice of the final TRI 

lead rule in saying that, ‘‘The external peer review would address 

the question of whether lead or lead compounds should be classified as highly bioaccumulative.’’ ‘‘The external peer review,’’ and I 

am reading your testimony now, ‘‘would address the issue of how 

lead and other as yet unclassified metals such as cadmium should 

be evaluated using the PBT chemical framework, including the 

types of data and which species are most suitable for those determinations.’’

It is the last sentence I want to focus on. What is your understanding of that last sentence, and when will that question be before the Science Advisory Board? 

Ms. NELSON. The schedule for the Science Advisory Board is that 

they will have the draft framework to review by June of 2003. 

The draft guidance and issues based on that framework regarding the TRI lead rule and the highly bioaccumulative nature, 

whether lead and lead compounds are highly bioaccumulative, 

would be presented to the SAB in November of 2003 with the expectation that the SAB would release a report in March of 2004. 

That is based on the action plan that was recently published. 

12

Chairman PENCE. Would that not represent the underpinning of 

this rule? It seems like, as we say in Indiana, we are putting the 

cart before the horse. 

Ms. NELSON. I think at that point in time it would certainly be 

incumbent, based on the answers that come out of the SAB, for the 

program to evaluate the decisions and the implications on all of our 

current programs. I think it is also premature to change anything 

we are doing without that recommendation coming from the SAB. 

Chairman PENCE. The Small Business Administration, and 

maybe we could have staff get this to you. The Small Business Administration has submitted written testimony——

Ms. NELSON. Okay. 

Chairman PENCE [continuing]. For this hearing. They have 

shared with us some statements by scientists and other organizations that contradict your evaluation of the rule. 

I am going to read to you some of these statements and try and 

get a reaction from you, and then we will wrap up and allow the 

Ranking Member to ask any follow up questions, and then we will 

move to our second panel. I will ask you to tell me if you think they 

support EPA’s case or if they do not support EPA’s case on the 

science behind this rule would be my main focus. 

March 23, 1995, Great Lakes Water Quality Guidelines, ‘‘EPA’s 

final rule establishing water quality guidelines for the Great Lakes 

examined whether ten metals, including lead, were bioaccumulative substances and found that none exceeded the BCF of 1,000, 

which is used as a cutoff. EPA is now apparently using the same 

set of pre–1995 data and found that BCF for lead exceeds at least 

1,000.’’

Do you think that supports the EPA’s case or does not support 

their case on the science behind the rule?

Ms. NELSON. Well, I think you have to be careful when you take 

a statement like this out of context that was intended for a specific 

situation. 

The data that were used here are different data than we use for 

TRI, so I think it is inappropriate for me to suggest that it does 

or does not support our case. It is a completely different set of data 

for a different purpose and used in a different context. 

Chairman PENCE. The Science Advisory Board report in May of 

2000 was a draft case study analysis of the residual risk of secondary lead smelters. The quote is, ‘‘The classification of metals as 

PBTs is problematic since their environmental fate in transport 

cannot be adequately described using models for organic contaminants.’’

Without again confronting you with the same repetitive question 

about whether it supports EPA’s case or not, and this is where I 

want to go with the next panel, but is there a sense within the 

EPA that this whole business of PBT chemicals was established 

around the idea of chemical agents like pesticides that are introduced into the environment, and now it seems like this classification has grown into even natural minerals like lead. 

We can go through all of these, but all of them consistently challenge the very classification of lead and certain metallurgical natural minerals as PBTs. Is there any willingness at the EPA to 

13

deeply rethink the whole move into minerals like lead as PBT 

chemicals? 

Ms. NELSON. I think when we take issues like this in sort of 

chronological order and look at the history of PBT, we can see that 

these issues were dealt with, as the first one with the Great Lakes, 

for different purposes, for smaller audiences. 

The most recent one you referred to with the Science Advisory 

Board and the lead smelters, my recollection is that analysis by the 

SAB was dealing primarily with different models that the agency 

uses and different risk assessment methods. 

Again I would go back to the purpose of the TRI program. The 

TRI program is not a site specific program. The TRI program is not 

a risk assessment program. The TRI program is one in which we 

collect information that we can all use in government and outside 

of government hopefully in the future to make sounder decisions. 

The PBT criteria that EPA published back in 1999 and the methodology was published as a rule, and we did receive comment on 

that rule. It became final. That methodology for applying the PBT 

criteria to chemicals was published as a rule. In that rule making, 

EPA did clearly state that it would apply to chemicals, not just certain chemicals, and in fact made a statement that it would apply 

to metals. This is an issue that EPA clearly stated several years 

ago. 

While, like many issues, I believe there are different opinions, we 

have some statements here where people disagree with the use of 

PBT criteria. I think we could find an equal number of statements 

where people believe it is indeed very appropriate to apply the PBT 

criteria to metals. 

One of the things we will all learn when the framework goes to 

the SAB is what they have to say about the issue. EPA believes 

it is entirely appropriate to apply PBT criteria to metals. What I 

think is important about the approach we are taking now is that 

with the administrator and with Linda Fisher we have leadership 

in the organization that recognizes you can often have what appear 

to be inconsistencies because every program has a different set of 

regulatory and statutory requirements. 

I have been in government for 22 years. I have yet to find organizations that tend to be more diverse than environmental agencies 

with air programs, water programs, hazardous waste programs, 

radon programs. What I think we all know is that those individual 

silos often cause concern to people who are on the outside because 

they look at each individual program taking different actions. 

The framework that we are looking for under Governor Whitman’s leadership will help provide an overall framework for programs within EPA to take that framework and apply it to their individual situations because they still will have very different needs 

and situations as a result of their statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Chairman PENCE. I am sure we cannot resolve this here today, 

but it seems to me that by your testimony today that the larger 

question is before the SAB, that it seems to me that this rule 

should be delayed until questions are answered from the science, 

from the people who are charged with determining the appropriate 

science. 

14

Candidly, and I would ask you to convey back to Governor Whitman and to your colleagues at the EPA, I am just not prepared to 

sacrifice small businesses on a hunch that the EPA might be correct on major scientific questions related to this area. 

There are conflicting facts, and we will hear more testimony 

today, but it appears that there is from my perspective overwhelming scientific consensus against EPA’s view of this rule. If 

this qualifies as an occasion where, as Governor Whitman said, 

science should drive policy and not the other way around, then I 

am convinced that we will have a different outcome at the end of 

this process, and I am certainly convinced that we should. 

Let me say, Ms. Nelson, we want to thank you for your testimony 

today. We are going to leave the record open so that we can submit 

some additional questions to you in writing and would appreciate 

if you can respond before the implementation date of this rule. 

Ms. NELSON. Sure. 

Chairman PENCE. Of course, any additional comments from you 

will be added to the record without objection. 

With that, I will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania if 

he has additional questions. 

Mr. BRADY. I am fine. Thank you. 

Chairman PENCE. If there is nothing further, the witness is dismissed with our gratitude. 

Ms. NELSON. Thank you very much. 

Chairman PENCE. This hearing on the TRI Lead Rule: Costs, 

Compliance, and Science, will continue. Next, the Subcommittee 

will hear from a very distinguished panel. 

Having heard from the EPA, and I believe most of you were in 

the room for most of that testimony, and, candidly, this panel I 

know would be grateful if you were to illuminate or respond to 

things you may have heard today. If our records are correct, things 

the EPA may have said for the first time on this issue were said 

in this hearing today. We would be anxious to know your reaction 

to those. 

First, the Subcommittee will hear from Dennis McGuirk. Before 

I introduce him, I will remind you of the lights. Do not feel married 

to your written testimony. Those of you that are experienced at 

doing this know that we will enter your written testimony into the 

record without objection, and it is often more helpful for the Members if you will amplify the points that you want to make sure we 

make, as well as the requests that are made. 

When you see the red light, try and wrap up your comments as 

quickly as possible. We will await questions until all of you have 

given your testimony and opening statements. 

Dennis McGuirk is president of the IPC, the Association Connecting Electronics Industries. Mr. McGuirk’s previous service includes over 24 years of active duty service in the United States Air 

Force. He holds degrees in Western European Affairs from the U.S. 

Air Force Academy and a Master’s in Public Administration from 

the University of Colorado and is recognized for five minutes.

15

STATEMENT OF DENNIS MCGUIRK, PRESIDENT, IPC, 

ASSOCIATION CONNECTING ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES 

Mr. MCGUIRK. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Pence 

and Congressman Brady. I am the president of IPC, a trade association representing the electronic interconnection industries. 

IPC’s 2,500 members manufacture and assemble printed circuit 

boards, the backbone of our nation’s high tech industries, including 

consumer, industrial and defense electronics. While some of our 

members are very large corporations, 60 percent of IPC members 

are small businesses. On behalf of the IPC and our member companies, I would like to thank you and your staff for organizing this 

important hearing. 

As we have heard, EPA’s TRI rule lowered the reporting threshold for lead and lead compounds from 25,000 pounds—that is over 

12 tons of lead—down to just 100 pounds. The regulation took effect on April 17, 2001, and included the unprecedented retroactive 

application of the reporting requirements to January 1, 2001. 

IPC members, along with many other industries, are concerned 

that the burden of this rule upon business has been significantly 

underestimated, and EPA has failed to provide effective compliance 

assistance, thereby further increasing the burdens on those least 

able to bear it. 

During the development of the rule, EPA chose not to convene 

an advocacy review panel as required under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act, deciding instead to certify the proposed and final rules as having no significant economic 

impacts on businesses. Early outreach to small businesses could 

have helped EPA determine the number of small companies that 

would be significantly impacted by this rule. 

Compliance with the lower reporting threshold also imposes a 

significant burden on IPC members. For a small business, the job 

of interpreting, and complying with the agency’s instructions and 

guidance for TRI is substantial. To give you an idea of what I am 

talking about, we have already alluded to the mass amount of documents required. Before me I have the 746 pages of reporting 

forms, instructions and guidelines needed to fill out the TRI forms. 

EPA’s own estimates shows the cost of the compliance for the 

new reporters under TRI would be about $7,000 for the first year 

alone. We believe this grossly underestimates the actual cost, but, 

in any event, it is a significant amount for an industry that is 

going through decreasing consumer prices. 

During the time the rule was under consideration and after its 

adoption, many concerns were raised about the enormous burdens 

it would impose. We were pleased back in April of 2001 when 

President Bush recognized this problem and directed EPA to help 

small businesses. In a May, 2001 letter to 71 concerned trade associations, EPA reiterated this point by promising to help reduce the 

burdens imposed on small businesses by developing final guidance 

by October, 2001. 

As we have said, unfortunately EPA did not finalize the guidance 

until January of 2002, after the entire first reporting year had 

passed. The guidance is long, it is confusing, and often times it is 

conflicting. 

16

In February of this year, IPC e-mailed 17 questions about the 

guidance document to EPA so that we could provide accurate assistance to our members. EPA took four months to respond to our 

e-mails, leaving IPC less than three weeks to respond back to our 

members with their appropriate guidance. The deadline, as I am 

sure you have heard, is June 30 of this year. 

On February 22, 2002, 43 trade associations wrote the EPA asking for a one year delay of the reporting requirements so that they 

could work with them to insure the collection of accurate data 

without undue burden on small businesses. The need for this delay 

is supported by EPA’s own words. 

In response to a comment pointing out the confusion generated 

by EPA’s inaccurate, out-of-date question and answer document, 

EPA states, ‘‘The TRI program can only update this guidance document once every several years.’’ If EPA is unable to update the key 

guidance documents for such a significant rule, it should also delay 

the implementation until it is able to provide accurate guidance 

and compliance assistance. 

Last month, a group of 30 trade associations met with EPA to 

further discuss concerns regarding the implementation of the rule 

and the need for the one year reporting delay. During the meeting, 

EPA acknowledged that there had been problems with the implementation, but noted that the first year, as we have heard, always 

serves as a road test. That may be EPA’s perspective on the problem, but it is not shared by thousands of small businesses that will 

become the accident victims as EPA takes its test drive. 

Moreover, such a cavalier disregard of major problems identified 

by small business suggest that they are at the risk of becoming the 

road kill of EPA’s road test. This is in direct conflict with the intentions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness 

Act. 

Mr. Chairman, IPC members take their responsibility to environmental stewardship seriously. As small business owners, they and 

their families live, work and play in the communities where their 

businesses operate. Unfortunately, many of them are unable to fulfill their obligations to provide accurate information under the TRI 

program due to the lack of available information, inadequate outreach and assistance, and the impossibility of compiling data retroactively. 

The environment and our public health depend upon good environmental information. America’s families cannot benefit from the 

TRI program if EPA does not insure that small businesses have the 

tools to provide accurate information. 

In conclusion, I ask you to consider whether it is reasonable to 

require thousands of small businesses to incur substantial regulatory burdens when EPA currently has underway a peer review of 

the very scientific framework upon which this expensive and burdensome regulation is based. 

We believe that in the interest of good science and good data, 

EPA should suspend or otherwise delay the reporting thresholds 

for lead until small business concerns can be addressed properly 

and the results of EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s review can be 

completed and assessed. 

17

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving IPC and its members the 

opportunity to express our concerns, and I will await questions at 

the conclusion of this panel. 

[Mr. McGuirk’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman PENCE. Thank you, Mr. McGuirk. 

The Subcommittee will now hear from Jim Mallory, the Executive Director of the Non-Ferrous Founder’s Society. He is a board 

member of the American Metal Casting Consortium and serves on 

an EPA compliance assistance advisory committee. 

We are grateful for his time and attendance. Mr. Mallory is recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES MALLORY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NON-FERROUS FOUNDERS’ SOCIETY

Mr. MALLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and 

good morning, Congressman Brady. I am very pleased to appear 

here this morning representing aluminum and brass and bronze 

foundries. 

I will let the importance of my industry be noted in the written 

comments that I have submitted, but let me just say that most of 

the people I am here to represent this morning are in fact small 

businesses. More than 50 percent of the non-ferrous foundry industry employs fewer than 50 people. Most are family run businesses. 

Almost all of them are privately held, and in most cases in most 

foundries the person who is responsible for EPA reporting compliance is not a specialist or consultant, but is in fact the owner of 

the company, a family member or another principal executive of 

the company. 

Non-ferrous foundries have several specific problems in compliance with the new TRI reporting requirements. If I can, I would 

like to use my time this morning to just summarize briefly the 

written comments that delineate those problems. 

First of all, EPA’s new TRI reporting rule has eliminated the de 

minimis exemption for TRI reporting. This fact alone will subject 

a number of non-ferrous foundries to the burdens of TRI reporting 

for the first time. Under the previous TRI rules, many of those 

companies fell within the purview of the de minimis exemption 

and, therefore, were exempt from the reporting requirement, but 

the burden and the elimination of the de minimis exemption occurs 

in that many foundries hold other state and federal permits that 

do not or shall I say that impose additional requirements once a 

company becomes subject to TRI reporting. 

For example, NPDES storm water permitting requires companies 

that are subject to TRI reporting to do the actual outflow of source 

reporting under their storm water permitting rules, so if you can 

imagine for a moment that you are a small business owner, it is 

Saturday night, it is raining and you are standing in your parking 

lot measuring the outflow of rainwater only because you have now 

become subject to the TRI reporting rule for lead. 

I think EPA ignored the domino effect that requiring a number 

of small businesses who have not previously been required to report to do so would have on the burdens that would be imposed. 

Secondly, TRI is not supposed to require facilities to generate 

new data or to do additional research. We have heard this morning 

18

that TRI allows people to use an estimate. The problem that most 

non-ferrous foundries have, and a lot of them aluminum foundries, 

is that there is no reliable source of data for the content of lead 

in the materials that they use, particularly in aluminum. I do not 

know if EPA was even aware that commercial aluminum alloys 

contain lead. 

I have brought with me this morning a publication that we produced that lists all of the chemical specifications for aluminum alloys. There are 80 pages with two alloys on a page. Not one of 

those alloys indicates the amount of lead present in an aluminum 

alloy, typically only in trace elements, but the TRI reporting rule 

is going to require foundries to estimate the amount of lead in 

those alloys. Most aluminum foundries do not just pour one alloy. 

They may pour several dozen different alloys depending upon customer requirements. 

Aluminum foundries are also, I think, somewhat arbitrarily subjected to this reporting requirement because within the TRI rule 

brass and bronze alloys and stainless steel alloys are exempt from 

inclusion in determining the threshold limit of the lead that they 

contain, even though the lead in those alloys exists in far higher 

quantities than it does in aluminum. 

I think EPA was ignorant of the fact that aluminum alloys contain lead, and I think that at a minimum the aluminum alloys 

should have received the same exemption that was accorded to 

brass and bronze and stainless steel. 

Lastly, to summarize my industry’s problems with the rule, is 

the question of outreach. Most aluminum foundries, as I said before, have never had to file TRI reporting forms previously. Most 

were not sent copies of EPA’s reports, were not informed of the 

hearings or the workshops that were being held on TRI reporting, 

did not receive copies of the guidance document and, frankly, even 

at this late date may be largely unaware of the fact that they are 

now subject to the reporting requirements for lead under the new 

TRI rule. 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Congressman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning, and I await questions at the conclusion of this panel. 

[Mr. Mallory’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman PENCE. The Chair will now recognize a small business 

owner from Baltimore, Maryland, Nancy Klinefelter. 

Ms. KLINEFELTER. Correct. 

Chairman PENCE. Ms. Klinefelter is president of Baltimore 

Glassware Decorators and also serves as a member of the board of 

the Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators. 

As in the case of our last witness, we are especially grateful to 

be hearing from, for lack of a better term, ground zero of this type 

of a rule where it hits. I appreciated the passion of our last witness 

and recognize you for five minutes hopefully of the same. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY KLINEFELTER, PRESIDENT, BALTIMORE GLASSWARE DECORATORS, FOR THE SOCIETY OF 

GLASS AND CERAMIC DECORATORS 

Ms. KLINEFELTER. Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity 

to be here today. Of course, you understand I am president of BalVerDate Aug 2, 2002 01:38 Aug 21, 2002 Jkt 080876 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A876.XXX pfrm17 PsN: A876
19

timore Glassware Decorators, and it is a family operated business. 

Actually, my father has helped in growing the business, and he has 

been in this business for over 50 years. 

We are a wholesale decorator, and we specialize in printing small 

quantities of custom glass and ceramic ware for special events, restaurants and for souvenir and novelty stores. As you see here in 

front of me, we do a number of glass and ceramic items for different government agencies. 

When we print mugs or glasses for our customers, we sometimes 

use lead bearing colors on outside surfaces. These colors become 

part of the glass after they are fired. These colors are expensive, 

and we only use what is needed to print each job, so very little 

ends up as waste. 

I am testifying today to point out major problems with EPA’s 

new toxic release inventory lead rule. The greatest problem for my 

company, as well as other decorators, is the fact that EPA issued 

the rule April 17, 2001, and yet we are required to accurately report or account for lead usage from January 1, 2001. 

For my company, it is impossible to compile precise lead use 

records as required by EPA unless we track our color use on a daily 

basis. Since every color contains a different amount of lead, we 

must make different calculations for each color used. 

Companies such as mine cannot simply throw a switch and start 

to comply with the major environmental reporting rule overnight. 

Even when we were notified by SGCD that the rule had been imposed, we had no idea what it meant for the company. By the time 

we were able to review the reporting requirements and attend an 

SGCD seminar on the subject, half the reporting year had passed. 

As we began to compile the data, problems emerged. We buy decals from small decal printers. They have fewer than ten employees, yet these companies have to provide me with lead content information so we can put it on the TRI report. These decal printers 

have no way of telling us how much lead is in each decal. We are 

still wrestling with this one, and the deadline is looming. 

We have no experience at all with TRI. Our lead usage is minimal. We were never anywhere near the previous 10,000 pound annual reporting threshold. Now we do estimate that we exceed the 

new 100 pound threshold, although just barely. Please note that 

this is a usage threshold, not an emissions threshold, as many in 

the media and others have indicated. We almost have zero emissions. 

For my company and every other small decorating shop, the most 

critical part of TRI compliance is tracking the lead usage. I do not 

know why EPA felt the need to make this a retroactive rule. It 

would seem only reasonable to issue rules in advance of when they 

must be applied, and that should have meant a January 1, 2002, 

start date. That would have given us adequate time to put a color 

tracking system in place. Would EPA not rather have accurate data 

than my best guess? 

It is not as though EPA usually issues rules this way. This is the 

first time in the history of the TRI program that EPA has imposed 

a retroactive reporting requirement, which we heard earlier. I 

know that EPA publishes estimates that say it will take 124 hours 

20

to track lead usage and complete TRI paperwork. That is already 

quite a large number, but it is a gross underestimate. 

I have spent already 95 hours trying to understand and read the 

TRI forms and requirements. I am still nowhere near the point 

where I can complete the forms with confidence. In addition, I have 

spent an additional 60 hours or more trying to reconstruct retroactive color usage data. We are now spending about four to five 

hours a week tracking lead usage. Like I said, we only have 15 employees. I do not have any environmental engineers, and I do not 

employ any, so the responsibility is mine. 

The time taken to reconstruct color usage data is time that is not 

spent managing my company or looking for new business. As we 

know, EPA has scads of paperwork you have to read. It is confusing. It provides little help in defining the calculations to determine the lead content of each color. The Try-Me software has been 

equally disappointing. 

In conclusion, I urge the Committee to ask EPA to postpone the 

TRI lead rule for one year to enable me and other small businesses 

to provide reliable and accurate information on our lead use. There 

is no other way for EPA to address my problems short of using a 

time machine to take us back to January 1, 2001. 

I thank you for your interest and the concerns of a small business such as mine and for the opportunity to testify here before you 

today. 

[Ms. Klinefelter’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman PENCE. Thank you, Ms. Klinefelter. 

Our final witness is Hugh Morrow, president of the North American office of the International Cadmium Association. His previous 

services includes time at the Westinghouse Bettis Atomic Power 

Laboratory in Pittsburgh, IIT Research Institute in Chicago and 

the Zinc Institute. 

He holds five patents related to high temperature alloys and cutting tool materials, has authored approximately 100 publications 

and presentations mostly on cadmium zinc, received his undergraduate and graduate degrees in Metallurgy and Materials 

Sciences from MIT. 

We are grateful to have his expertise to close our panel today. 

Mr. Morrow is recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HUGH MORROW, PRESIDENT, NORTH 

AMERICAN OFFICE, INTERNATIONAL CADMIUM ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MORROW. Thank you, Chairman Pence and Congressman 

Brady. As the Chairman mentioned, I am the president of the 

North American office of the International Cadmium Association, 

which is an association of organizations and companies producing, 

using and recycling cadmium, both here in the United States and 

throughout the world. 

Cadmium is a key component of a number of important commercial and consumer products, including rechargeable and recyclable 

nickel cadmium batteries, which are used in cordless power tools 

and telephones, aircraft and railway applications, emergency lighting, and in remote area telecommunications. 

I appreciate the opportunity this morning to testify on the 

science aspects of the TRI lead rule that is the subject of this hearVerDate Aug 2, 2002 01:38 Aug 21, 2002 Jkt 080876 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A876.XXX pfrm17 PsN: A876
21

ing. The scientific premise for this rule is that metals generally and 

lead and lead compounds in particular can appropriately be classified as persistent bioaccumulative and toxic or PBT chemicals 

using a methodology that was developed for application to pesticides and other synthetic organic compounds. 

For more than three years, I have been involved, along with numerous academics and representatives of all the major metal sectors, including copper, zinc, nickel and lead, as well as cadmium, 

in expressing scientific concerns with EPA’s plan to apply its PBT 

methodology to metals. 

Those concerns are grounded in a solid body of peer reviewed scientific literature and the conclusions of international scientific experts that it is scientifically inappropriate to use the PBT criteria 

relied upon by EPA in order to asses the potential health and environmental hazards of metals. 

Enough concerns had been expressed, as the Chairman previous 

mentioned, by January of 2000 that EPA co-sponsored with industry an experts’ workshop entitled ‘‘Review of the State-of-theScience Regarding PBT Concepts and Metals and Metal Compounds.’’ The sessions of the workshop highlighted fundamental 

scientific problems with EPA’s approach which industry hoped EPA 

would reconsider in the context of the TRI lead rule. 

It also became clear at the experts’ workshop that no independent scientific peer review had been conducted of EPA’s plan to 

apply the PBT criteria to metals, a serious deficiency that should 

not have been allowed to occur. 

These issues led the House Science Committee in a bipartisan 

letter signed by both the Committee and Subcommittee Chairmen 

and Ranking Members to write to EPA in July of 2000 noting that, 

‘‘Questions have arisen regarding the scientific validity of applying 

the PBT criteria to metals and inorganic metal compounds and 

that this specific issue has not received the benefit of Science Advisory Board or other independent scientific peer review.’’

They went on to say, ‘‘We strongly encourage EPA as soon as 

possible to refer for SAB review the issue of the scientific soundness of applying PBT concepts to metals,’’ and a copy of that letter 

from the Science Committee is attached. 

Again, in November of 2000 when EPA had still not sought peer 

review, these concerns were echoed by the new Chairman of the 

Committee, Congressman Sherry Boehlert, who urged EPA, ‘‘To 

charge the SAB to undertake a broad review of the use of PBT, 

which would include the applicability of PBT to all metals and inorganic metal compounds as to which questions have arisen.’’

Again, a copy of that letter is attached to my testimony. 

The reasons for these concerns stem from the fact that PBT concepts were developed to assess hazard in synthetic organic compounds and do not work well, if at all, when applied to metals and 

inorganic metals compounds. In critical ways, metals are fundamentally different from organics. 

Persistence, for example, may be a useful criterion for distinguishing among organic chemicals in terms of hazard, but all metals are deemed infinitely persistent under EPA’s approach because, 

as naturally occurring elements, they cannot be destroyed. As we 

22

all learned in high school chemistry, elements are neither created 

nor destroyed and, therefore, are infinitely persistent. 

But, unless they are in a bioavailable form, this so-called ‘‘persistence’’ is not an indicator of environmental hazard. As applied 

by EPA, it is not a meaningful measure of hazard in metals. Moreover, since all metals are considered equally persistent under 

EPA’s approach, persistence provides no basis for distinguishing 

among metals in terms of hazard. 

In the same way, unlike the situation with organic chemicals, 

bioaccumulation or bioconcentration factors, which are commonly 

known as BAFs or BCFs, are not intrinsic properties of metals and 

do not provide useful indicators of hazard for them. 

In fact, there is strong evidence that a high BAF or BCF value 

for a metal would most likely indicate a lower risk of toxicity, the 

very opposite result from what EPA’s PBT methodology assumes 

for organic chemicals and a very good reason why we would not 

want to use this approach to try and identify metals of greater concern. 

I am now happy to report that EPA has recognized the importance of these issues. In February, 2002, they announced that they 

were embarking on the development of a comprehensive crossagency guidance for assessing the hazards and risks of metals and 

metals compounds and that the goal of this cross-agency guidance 

will be to articulate a consistent approach for assessing the hazards and risks of metals and metal compounds based on application 

of all available data to a uniform and expanded characterization 

framework. 

Since February, the work has moved forward, and an SAB review 

schedule was recently announced that is expected to conclude by 

the end of 2003. Just last week, in a June 6 notice, the SAB reiterated the connection between this development of metals assessment guidance and the questions raised during the TRI lead rule 

making. 

‘‘Discussions between the agency and external stakeholders, as 

well as concerns expressed formally as part of the Toxics Release 

Inventory lead rule making, have demonstrated the need for a 

more comprehensive cross-agency approach to metals assessments 

that can be applied to human health and ecological assessments.’’

EPA expects to release for public comment this week its draft action plan—I have already seen it on the internet; it is available 

now—for the development of this metals assessment framework. I, 

along with my colleagues in the metals industry, will be involved 

in submitting comments on this action plan. 

We applaud EPA’s efforts to develop a scientifically sound metals 

assessment framework. We see this as a fulfillment of the commitment the agency made in the preamble to the final TRI lead rule 

in which it promised to ‘‘seek external peer review from its Science 

Advisory Board’’ on two issues. One, the question of whether lead 

and lead compounds should be classified as highly bioaccumulative, 

and, two, the issue of how lead and other as yet unclassified metals, such as cadmium, should be evaluated using the PBT chemical 

framework, including which types of data and which species are 

most suitable for these determinations. 

23

I might add here that to me the first question of the highly bioaccumulative nature of lead is really a subset of the second question. The second question is the one which should be logically answered first, and then you consider the second question. 

All of us who are interested in a sound, scientific approach to 

hazard assessment of metals and inorganic metal compounds look 

forward to EPA’s and the SAB’s responses to both these questions 

as the initiative to develop a cross-agency metals assessment 

framework review goes forward. 

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to answering 

any questions you may have. 

[Mr. Morrow’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Morrow. 

The Chair will yield to the Ranking Member for the first questions for our panel. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McGuirk, those forms are the forms that you now have to fill 

out? 

Mr. MCGUIRK. No. These are the reporting instructions, the guidance on what we need to fill out the forms. This is the clarification 

of how to fill out the forms. 

Mr. BRADY. That is going to clarify something? 

Mr. MCGUIRK. Well, apparently. 

Mr. BRADY. Do you know what the forms look like? I mean, do 

you have forms now that you have to fill out? 

Mr. MCGUIRK. There are TRI forms that have to be filled out, 

but the concern we have now is so many more have come under 

this TRI rule, and they have had no exposure to this whatsoever. 

As the lady was pointing out, they did not even know the rule 

existed until probably someone mentioned it to them and got their 

attention. Now they are trying to scramble to figure out how do we 

comply with this? 

Mr. BRADY. Does anybody know what the TRI Form A is? 

Ms. KLINEFELTER. Yes. It is actually TRI Form R, which is for 

lead reporting. The actual form is not long at all. It is actually 

short, but it is what goes behind it that you have to have all these 

calculations upon calculations upon calculations in order to put 

down a number in a certain spot. 

The form itself is very unassuming. It is all the work that you 

have to do behind it. 

Mr. BRADY. I just think that we want to protect everybody. We 

want to protect people, but I guess sometimes people make decisions that do not realize maybe the impact. The last thing we want 

to do is make a decision that does not protect people. I would like 

to make a decision that protects everybody. 

There are people out there that could get hurt by the lead or 

whatever toxic could come out of it. We also want to keep people 

in business. I can appreciate what you said that you do not have 

an engineer and would have to hire an engineer just to fill out 

forms or find out whether you are complying, you know. 

That is the only thing I am kind of concerned about and interested in and ready to follow my Chairman to track and find out 

where we are going to get to to try and solve this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

24

Chairman PENCE. Thank you. I would like to just ask one question of each member of the panel. It is this Subcommittee’s intention to have listened to what we hear today, particularly from our 

colleague from the EPA, and then we would make a decision as to 

whether there is much more to be done here. 

Candidly, I think our minds are racing now with inherent contradictions built into this and the illogic of it. What the panel has 

said here has just been an extremely helpful commencement for 

what I can assure you the Subcommittee is going to be taking on 

in a very aggressive posture leaning forward.

It strikes me that from our testimony that we have heard today 

even from the administrator from the EPA, the assistant administrator, that this was truly a ready-fire-aim situation. I intend to go 

back over the written testimony, but it seems to me that we heard 

from the EPA that well, we do not have the science. We are pretty 

sure it will be good. It might not. 

I guess I would just like a candid assessment from any of you. 

What did you think of Ms. Nelson’s testimony today? Were you encouraged? Discouraged? Were there any aspects of her testimony 

that this Subcommittee should particularly focus on or representatives of the media that are in the room should be interested in? 

I will begin with Dr. Morrow. 

Mr. MORROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was a little bit concerned in her testimony about EPA and the SAB just considering 

the question of lead being highly bioaccumulative and being a little 

bit vague about considering the question of whether metals should 

be considered at all, and PBTs that is why I tried to emphasize the 

point in my testimony. 

To me, we should not even be considering the first question if the 

answer to the second question is no. If lead and other metals cannot be considered as PBTs, then there is no question. Why consider 

lead as a PBT if the PBT concept is inapplicable to metals? It is 

a metal. To me, that was the most disturbing part of EPA’s testimony. 

Chairman PENCE. Pardon me for interrupting, Doctor, but according to her testimony today I thought she averred that they are 

considering whether or not minerals should even be classified in 

this way; that that is a part of the potential new framework. 

Mr. MORROW. Yes. I got two sets of answers there. I felt a little 

ambiguous about exactly what she was saying. I know they are 

convening the SAB and that is going to move forward, but at the 

same time the TRI lead rule is moving forward, and it seems to me 

that it really should not be in place if its basis is in fact the concept 

that lead is a PBT. 

If lead is not a PBT, then clearly if they want to establish a different basis for the lead TRI rule that is another matter, or if they 

want to change the level and so forth that is another matter. The 

premise right now is lead is a PBT, and it seems to me that that 

is a fairly indefensible position. 

Chairman PENCE. But unless the testimony suggests otherwise, 

it seems to me that question is being considered now, which was 

unclear prior to this Subcommittee hearing as to whether or not 

that was an issue being considered by the SAB at this time. It is 

being considered and is being reviewed. 

25

Ms. Klinefelter? Same question. 

Ms. KLINEFELTER. Thank you. I wanted to ask a question. If the 

EPA, and I forget her name. I am sorry. I am nervous. 

Chairman PENCE. That is all right. Nelson. 

Ms. KLINEFELTER. Ms. Nelson. She mentioned something about 

the reporting for small businesses like mine. They are not looking 

for accurate data. Well, then my question is why file a report? I 

mean, if EPA does not want accurate data, then it is not worth the 

paper it is written on. I assume that that is what I got from her 

testimony or what she spoke about. I hope I am right. 

Right now, just to give you one for instance, when we screen 

print mugs or glassware we keep paint in the screen, and it is 

done, you know, by hand on a machine. They use rags to wipe out 

the screen, to clean it out for imprints. I use regular Scot rags in 

a box that you buy from Home Depot, any place like that. 

I am to a point right now where I had to weigh a rag with nothing on and weigh a rag that had some of the paint that they 

cleaned off, but I had to wait for the solvent to dissipate because 

that weighs part of it. Then I have to figure out what percentage 

in that rag is lead. 

I have to know this information, or I feel that I have to know 

this information, in order to make my numbers correct. I cannot 

guess. I am really between a rock and a hard place at the moment. 

Chairman PENCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Mallory. 

Mr. MALLORY. Yes. A couple of things came to mind as I was listening to the assistant administrator this morning. First of all, I 

heard her say on several occasions that this new TRI reporting rule 

would provide better information and more valid information to the 

local communities, to businesses and to the EPA. 

I really have a question as to how that can happen when the rule 

says that if you do not have actual numbers make one up. Use an 

estimate. Come up with your own presumptive quantity of how 

much lead is going to be in the alloys that we are using and the 

reporting, how to use that in our calculations and just document 

where you got the numbers from. 

Well, in the case of one of the alloys that we have tried to look 

at, we found that it can range anywhere from .1 percent lead to .5 

percent lead in a range. Pick a number. Whatever number you are 

going to pick is going to be a supposition at best, and yet within 

the TRI rule it says that facilities are required to report their emissions to a level of accuracy of one-tenth of one pound. 

Now, I cannot correlate the two statements. One, if you do not 

have a good number, make one up. Two, report your levels of emission to a level of accuracy of one-tenth of one pound. Those two just 

do not gel in any assessment that I have been able to make of the 

reporting requirements. 

The second question that came to mind as I listened to the assistant administrator was when she was talking about the road 

test and the ‘‘non-enforcement’’ of the reporting for the first year 

that the rule is in effect, she made a statement this morning that 

said she was sure that no one within EPA was intending to seek 

enforcement actions against someone for erroneous reporting. 

26

I have a question of EPA. What about the people who still do not 

get it that they are required to report and in fact may not file a 

report because they are not aware of the reporting requirement? If 

an EPA inspector is on premise doing an inspection and finds that 

this facility should have filed a TRI report and did not, do they intend to waive enforcement in that case, as well as for inaccuracy 

reporting? 

I did not hear that from the administrator this morning, and 

that is a question that I think is one that needs to be answered. 

Chairman PENCE. Mr. McGuirk? 

Mr. MCGUIRK. Thank you, sir. I agree with the comments of my 

colleagues here on the panel, and I would just like to sum up by 

saying that we believe that, you know, sound scientific data would 

be absolutely necessary before you are going to go out and collect 

information from small businesses. They need to have the information. They need to have the guidance on how to do this. 

For those who have not been exposed to it before, this is a significant burden to them. To make a rule that is retroactive where 

you are estimating or guesstimating or just filling in the blanks is 

absurd, so we would heartily recommend gathering the information 

on a sound scientific basis. 

Thank you. 

Chairman PENCE. Thank you. To Mr. McGuirk and Mr. Mallory, 

thank you very much for your broad expertise. To Dr. Morrow, it 

is enormously helpful to have your authoritative voice here in the 

wake of some weird science. To Ms. Klinefelter, you did not seem 

nervous at all. 

Ms. KLINEFELTER. I was. 

Chairman PENCE. I am very grateful for a very clear presentation——

Ms. KLINEFELTER. Thank you. 

Chairman PENCE [continuing]. Of what you are dealing with as 

a successful entrepreneur. It is really about businesses like yours, 

a family business of 50 years, that we are thinking now as we go 

through this process. 

Having only been in Congress a short period of time, I am growing more and more of the belief that we pay lip service to the people that employ America. We do not often put ourselves in your 

shoes and recognize what you are dealing with. This whole panel 

today has helped us on this Subcommittee now be able to do that 

more effectively. 

You can anticipate that this will be the first of a series of hearings and actions that we will take, and we urge you to keep this 

Subcommittee informed as this issue develops and alert us of ways 

that we can be helpful. 

It is our objective to either change the outcome, change the classifications or reorganize the timetable for enforcement here so that 

it simply has the least negative impact on small business America 

as possible, which is the broad mission of the Committee on Small 

Business in the House of Representatives. 

This meeting of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and 

Oversight is adjourned, and we thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

27


Insert offset folio 28 80876A.001
28


Insert offset folio 29 80876A.002
29


Insert offset folio 30 80876A.003
30


Insert offset folio 31 80876A.004
31


Insert offset folio 32 80876A.005
32


Insert offset folio 33 80876A.006
33


Insert offset folio 34 80876A.007
34


Insert offset folio 35 80876A.008
35


Insert offset folio 36 80876A.009
36


Insert offset folio 37 80876A.010
37


Insert offset folio 38 80876A.011
38


Insert offset folio 39 80876A.012
39


Insert offset folio 40 80876A.013
40


Insert offset folio 41 80876A.014
41


Insert offset folio 42 80876A.015
42


Insert offset folio 43 80876A.016
43


Insert offset folio 44 80876A.017
44


Insert offset folio 45 80876A.018
45


Insert offset folio 46 80876A.019
46


Insert offset folio 47 80876A.020
47


Insert offset folio 48 80876A.021
48


Insert offset folio 49 80876A.022
49


Insert offset folio 50 80876A.023
50


Insert offset folio 51 80876A.024
51


Insert offset folio 52 80876A.025
52


Insert offset folio 53 80876A.026
53


Insert offset folio 54 80876A.027
54


Insert offset folio 55 80876A.028
55


Insert offset folio 56 80876A.029
56


Insert offset folio 57 80876A.030
57


Insert offset folio 58 80876A.031
58


Insert offset folio 59 80876A.032
59


Insert offset folio 60 80876A.033
60


Insert offset folio 61 80876A.034
61


Insert offset folio 62 80876A.035
62


Insert offset folio 63 80876A.036
63


Insert offset folio 64 80876A.037
64


Insert offset folio 65 80876A.038
65


Insert offset folio 66 80876A.039
66


Insert offset folio 67 80876A.040
67


Insert offset folio 68 80876A.041
68


Insert offset folio 69 80876A.042
69


Insert offset folio 70 80876A.043
70


Insert offset folio 71 80876A.044
71


Insert offset folio 72 80876A.045
72


Insert offset folio 73 80876A.046
73


Insert offset folio 74 80876A.047
74


Insert offset folio 75 80876A.048
75


Insert offset folio 76 80876A.049
76


Insert offset folio 77 80876A.050
77


Insert offset folio 78 80876A.051
78


Insert offset folio 79 80876A.052
79


Insert offset folio 80 80876A.053
80


Insert offset folio 81 80876A.054
81


Insert offset folio 82 80876A.055
82


Insert offset folio 83 80876A.056
83


Insert offset folio 84 80876A.057
84


Insert offset folio 85 80876A.058
85


Insert offset folio 86 80876A.059
86


Insert offset folio 87 80876A.060
87


Insert offset folio 88 80876A.061
88


Insert offset folio 89 80876A.062
89


Insert offset folio 90 80876A.063
90


Insert offset folio 91 80876A.064
91


Insert offset folio 92 80876A.065
92


Insert offset folio 93 80876A.066
93


Insert offset folio 94 80876A.067
94


Insert offset folio 95 80876A.068
95


Insert offset folio 96 80876A.069
96


Insert offset folio 97 80876A.070
97


Insert offset folio 98 80876A.071
98


Insert offset folio 99 80876A.072
99


Insert offset folio 100 80876A.073
100


Insert offset folio 101 80876A.074
101


Insert offset folio 102 80876A.075
102


Insert offset folio 103 80876A.076
103


Insert offset folio 104 80876A.077
104


Insert offset folio 105 80876A.078
105


Insert offset folio 106 80876A.079
106


Insert offset folio 107 80876A.080
107


Insert offset folio 108 80876A.081
108


Insert offset folio 109 80876A.082
109


Insert offset folio 110 80876A.083
110


Insert offset folio 111 80876A.084
111


Insert offset folio 112 80876A.085
112


Insert offset folio 113 80876A.086
113


Insert offset folio 114 80876A.087
114


Insert offset folio 115 80876A.088
115


Insert offset folio 116/250 80876A.089