EPA apparently did not take the time to peer review the relevant regulatory documents in its haste to finalize this regulation for reporting year 2001. When my staff later attempted to verify the EPA scientific findings, we were unable to find any support in the published literature, peer-reviewed or otherwise for these findings. When we checked with other scientists from three different Federal agencies, they provided written statements contrary to the EPA views. The EPA Science Advisory Board and international scientific bodies have indicated that the PBT scheme, derived originally solely for organic compounds, not metals, would not be easily applied to metals. No EPA scientist even attempted to defend its own approach.
All metals are persistent, can accumulate and cause toxic effects.
We are forced to conclude that the position taken by the EPA Office of Environmental Information was driven by policy, and not science, and it is now time to correct this error. EPA expected to send its request for Science Advisory Board review of the science underlying this rule in the near future. This letter does not address the entire list of scientific criticisms, but this list should suffice to demonstrate that the rule should not go forward. Good public policy dictates that the scientific work inform the regulatory decision, and not that the regulatory agenda overwhelm the science. We have seen it work.