0001 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 LEAD BASED PAINT HEARING 3 March 29th, 2006 4 Washington, D. C. 5 * * * * * 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0002 1 MS. DOA: Good afternoon. I think we're about 2 ready to get started. My name is Maria Doa. I'm 3 the Director of EPA National Program Chemical 4 Solution which is the lead division for EPA's Lead 5 Paint Program and here with me today starting at my 6 right is Aquanetta Dickens who's the Chief of Toxics 7 Programs and enforcement in region three. Demian 8 Ellis who's the region three Regional Coordinator 9 and Julie Simpson who's the Chief of the Lead Heavy 10 Metal and Inorganic branch here at EPA. 11 I'd like to welcome you to the public 12 meeting on EPA's Lead Renovation/ Repair Painting 13 Program Proposed Rule. This is the second in four 14 public meetings we're holding around the country and 15 we look forward to hearing your comments on the 16 proposed rule. 17 Your comments are critical in ensuring 18 that we develop a good final rule that's both 19 protective and practical. This rule is an important 20 component of the federal government's strategy in 21 getting to our goal and as important maintaining the 22 goal once we get there of eliminating childhood lead 0003 1 poisoning. 2 The comment period closes on April 10th. 3 We've received a number of requests to extend the 4 comment period and one comment that the comment 5 period should not be extended. The EPA is in the 6 process of reviewing these. If it decides the 7 comment period is to be extended, we will announce 8 that in a Federal Register notice on or before April the 10th. 9 And we'll also post it on our website. 10 Again, I'd like to thank you for taking 11 the time to come and participate in the public 12 meeting and we do really look forward to hearing 13 your comments. I'll turn it over to Julie Simpson. 14 MS. SIMPSON: Just for the benefit of anyone who 15 isn't familiar with the federal rule making process, 16 after we publish a proposed rule we have a period 17 when we take public comment, we have a docket that's 18 open where people can submit written comment. 19 In addition, the remarks of everyone who 20 is speaking today are being prescribed by a court 21 reporter and the transcript will go into the written 22 record. So also if you have any written materials 0004 1 with you that you want to submit to the docket you 2 can give them to Amy Mortimer or to Pujan at the 3 back. They're helping us today, they're with ICF 4 Consulting and they're taking care of the logistics 5 for us. In order to make sure that we allow 6 everyone time to speak, we've asked that everyone 7 limit their remarks to a maximum of 10 minutes. Amy 8 will be calling the speakers who have registered and 9 she'll be there to let you know if you start to 10 exceed your time limit. Pujan in the back can 11 direct you to any facilities you may need to locate 12 in the building. Any questions from the room? 13 Let's get started. 14 MS. MORTIMER: The first person up is Olivia 15 Farrow. After that Dennis Livingston. 16 MS. FARROW: Good afternoon. I am Olivia Farrow 17 Assistant Commissioner of the Environmental Health 18 Division with the Baltimore City Health Department. 19 I welcome this opportunity to support strong 20 mandated federal regulations to reduce exposure to 21 lead hazards created by renovation, repair or 22 painting activities that disturb lead based paint. 0005 1 With 20 million remodels each year in housing with 2 lead hazard conditions, the nation's children are in 3 need of further protection from this environmental 4 hazard. 5 We are well aware that childhood lead 6 poisoning is the most common environmental hazard 7 facing American children. We are also aware that 8 lead based paint within the home has long been 9 recognized as the leading cause of lead poisoning in 10 our children. Therefore, removing lead based paint 11 hazards from the home is an essential measure to 12 prevent further poising. Lead hazard reduction 13 properly completed is extremely beneficial and may 14 reduce exposure. 15 However, if the lead hazard reduction is 16 improperly carried out the repair and remodeling can 17 cause a significant elevation of blood lead levels 18 in children. One case reported that got national 19 attention regarding the hazards of remodeling and 20 renovation in lead hazard homes is the Marino case 21 named after the physician who treated the family. 22 Workers used rotary power sanders, hand sanders, 0006 1 scrapers, torches, heat guns and chemical paint 2 strippers to compete the renovation of this house. 3 Dust was prevalent throughout all rooms. As a 4 result four cases of childhood lead poisoning and 5 two cases of adult lead toxicity were identified. 6 Initial blood lead levels in the children ranged 7 from 56 to 87 micrograms per deciliter. All four 8 required chelation therapy. The Marino case is just 9 one of the many cases of serious lead poisoning 10 still occurring throughout the country. 11 In Baltimore City a family was referred to 12 the Baltimore City Health Department's Childhood 13 Lead Poisoning Program in September 2004 after 14 significant home renovations in 2000 had resulted in 15 a child's blood lead level of 18 micrograms per 16 deciliter. In another example a couple moved to 17 Baltimore City with their one year old child in 18 2005. The couple had their home tested for lead by 19 a private contract and educated themselves on proper 20 renovation procedures for an affected home. A 21 contract was hired to do the renovations which 22 included removing walls and window replacement. The 0007 1 family remained in the property while the renovation 2 was being completed. By the time the child was 3 referred to the Baltimore City Health Department's 4 Childhood Lead Poisoning and Prevention Program on 5 September 16th, 2005 the child had a blood lead 6 level of 19 micrograms per deciliter. 7 In another example, a family that rented 8 an apartment in the Fells Point area found their 9 child had a blood lead level of 25 micrograms per 10 deciliter after the landlord replaced the windows 11 one month prior to the family's arrival. The 12 landlord had not insured that proper precautions 13 were taken to protect the family against lead dust. 14 The combined efforts of the City Health Department 15 and the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning 16 resulted in relocating the family to lead safe 17 housing. As of February 17th, 2006 the child's 18 blood lead level decreased to 12 micrograms per 19 deciliter from the initial 25. These are just three 20 cases out of many in one American city. 21 Surveys conducted by HUD estimated that in 22 2000 38 million homes had lead paint and 25 million 0008 1 had hazardous conditions. Furthermore, substantial 2 evidence proves lead paint removal be conducted on 3 the 30 million homes the danger of a child being 4 becoming lead poisoned is alarming. One study found 5 that refinishing activity performed in dwellings 6 with lead based paint was associated with an average 7 of 69 percent increase in the blood lead level of 8 the 249 infants living there. Another study of 370 9 recently lead poisoned children found a significant 10 association between renovation activity and elevated 11 blood lead level existed. 12 The Centers for Disease Control reported 13 that findings from a study in New York state 14 suggested that home renovation and remodeling was an 15 important source of lead exposure among children in 16 New York during 1993 to 1994. 17 The majority of Baltimore City homes were 18 built prior to 1950. As Baltimore City continues to 19 experience an explosion in residential 20 redevelopment, the risk of lead poisoning of small 21 children becomes even greater. Federal leadership 22 in regulating renovation and repair work in affected 0009 1 properties would help stop preventable lead 2 poisoning. 3 While the EPA is taking greater steps in 4 providing protection to children and homes under 5 renovation, the Baltimore City Health Department 6 would like to see the proposed rule go even further. 7 We strongly urge that EPA, number one, make the 8 proposed rule applicable to all homes whether a 9 child resides in the property or not. The proposed 10 rule would initially only impact homes where 11 children have been identified with elevated blood 12 lead levels. We think that proposal is wrong and 13 allows the continuation of the poisoning of our 14 children. We have seen the evidence in the City of 15 Baltimore that many young children spend several 16 hours each day with family, friends. At any point a 17 property not currently occupied by a child may 18 become so for a variety of reasons. Number two, we 19 strongly urge that EPA eliminate the waiver whereby 20 a renovator can seek a signed statement from the 21 owner stating that a child does not reside at the 22 property thus avoiding the obligation to comply with 0010 1 the proposed rule. We must make all the homes safe 2 for all children whether residing or visiting in a 3 property. A home while not a permanent residence 4 for a child may serve as a secondary residence. And 5 thirdly, we strongly urge that EPA impose stiff 6 penalties for renovators who failed to comply with 7 the new rule and direct those penalties or a portion 8 thereof into the recognized lead abatement programs 9 of the jurisdiction in which the violation occurred. 10 The need for financial assistance with lead 11 abatement is a continuing need for many struggling 12 homeowners who own old and historic housing in 13 cities like Baltimore. I would like to concluded by 14 saying that this country has made tremendous 15 progress in the fight to eliminate childhood lead 16 poisoning, but we still have much to do to eliminate 17 this problem by 2010. 18 Promulgating strong federal regulations 19 regarding renovating and repairing affected homes is 20 a key step. On behalf of Baltimore City's Health 21 Department I thank you for the opportunity to 22 present our comments to the Agency. 0011 1 MS. DOA: Thank you. 2 MS. MORTIMER: Next, Jane Malone. 3 MS. MALONE: Good afternoon. My name is Jane Malone. 4 I work for the Alliance for Healthy Homes. The 5 alliance is submitting for the record four reports 6 from work groups of advocates, researchers and 7 others covering proposed rules, deficiencies 8 regarding clearance, dangerous work practices, 9 qualifications and training and enforcement. These 10 important views reflect thoughtful deliberations by 11 many persons over the past few months. We urge EPA 12 serious consideration of these recommendations. I'm 13 going to just give copies to you. 14 Secondly, the Alliance is the party that 15 submitted the comments asking EPA to not 16 extend the rule making period and I just want to 17 clarify that our interest is in seeing this rule 18 move forward and we really believe that no further 19 amount of study by outside parties is going to add 20 to the factual record here and really make a case 21 for changes in the rule that we don't already know 22 need to be changed. So I'd just like to reiterate 0012 1 we would ask EPA to stick to the schedule and not 2 extend the deadline. 3 Let's consider all the lost IQ points and 4 the missed teachable moments experienced by young 5 children denied the opportunity to thrive in school, 6 in the workplace, in life because they were 7 needlessly exposed to excessive amounts of lead, 8 after sloppy renovation work and paint jobs that 9 were left room clean. Hopefully the final 10 renovation and remodeling rule will help the U. S. 11 render childhood lead poisoning history. The 12 Alliance for Healthy Homes is the preeminent voice 13 for advocacy to prevent childhood lead poisoning. 14 Our work enabled the passage of the 1992 legislation 15 that crystalized the bi partisan consensus 16 commitment to mandate lead safety across the U. S. 17 including the prevention of exposure to lead fro 18 renovation and remodeling work. 19 The Alliance commends the EPA for the 20 development and proposal of a rule that requires 21 trained personnel to adhere to containment and clean 22 work practices in renovation and repair of pre 1970 0013 1 housing. However, the Alliance is deeply 2 disappointed that EPA's proposed rule that, One, 3 fails to require adherence to proven health 4 protective performance standards which are 5 refraining from the use of extremely dangerous work 6 practices and collecting dust wipe samples for lab 7 analysis to check for lead safety at the end of the 8 job; Two, is a poor match with how most painting 9 and renovation work is conducted and particularly 10 supervised; and, Three, promotes unproven cleaning, 11 quote, verification procedures that add incremental 12 costs better invested in clearance, mislead 13 consumers by creating false sense of security and 14 add not a whit of protection from exposure to lead 15 whatsoever. 16 We believe that the flaws in the proposed 17 rule are not indicative of EPA's misapprehension of 18 the science or unawareness of proven practices or 19 overall vacation from reality, but rather political 20 imperative to accommodate the Executive Branch's 21 consultation with and deference to proponents of the 22 renovation industry. It's now time for 0014 1 scientifically proven approaches, common sense and 2 principles of public health to prevail, otherwise 3 painting and renovation work will indeed become more 4 expensive as the painters and renovators fear but 5 the way they conduct business will fail to protect 6 children. And federal policy will have failed to 7 protect the painters and renovators from liability 8 problems. This is a lose lose proposition. 9 Concerns about costs have always been a 10 factor of advocacy of lead poisoning prevention. 11 Health and housing advocates care deeply about 12 housing affordability and completely agree with 13 construction and real estate interests that the 14 incremental cost of lead safety must be kept to an 15 absolute minimum. The feasibility of adoption of new 16 requirements depends whether the approach is 17 workable and practical. Yet we're not convinced of 18 the relative merits of the proposed approach by the theoretical 19 estimates of cost for selected approaches that have 20 been presented in the economic analysis. 21 Because the administration prematurely 22 dismissed consideration of alternatives there are no 0015 1 estimates documented in the docket for the 2 incremental cost of refraining from uncontrolled 3 power sanding or picking up dust wipes and sending 4 them to a lab. Instead the proposal promotes a 5 white glove test characterized as cleaning 6 verification and estimates that performing this test 7 costs around seven dollars. 8 Further, public health tradeoffs have 9 resulted from the Agency's failure during its 10 deliberations and consultations subsequent to the 11 2000 panel report to transparently communicate about 12 its plans with experts in the health effects of lead 13 exposure, despite statutory requirement for 14 consultation with those knowledgeable about health 15 effects. As a result the rule falls far short of 16 protecting children as well as the progeny of 17 pregnant women and other females of child bearing 18 age from needless exposure to lead. Instead, 19 there's a checkoff form encouraging homeowners to 20 save money by declaring no child under six is 21 present. Any exemption from these requirements as 22 our colleague said is dangerous because future 0016 1 occupants and visitors may include vulnerable 2 persons. If there is to be no exemption under the 3 theory that new owners friends, neighbors and 4 relatives are invulnerable the exemption should be 5 expanded to cover women of child bearing age. 6 Ideally there would be no exemption whatsoever. 7 Similarly, the scope of the rule misses 8 the obvious opportunity to protect children in child 9 occupied facilities, let alone begin to address 10 other public and commercial buildings by covering their 11 exterior renovation. 12 We are encouraged the EPA responded to 13 advocacy by expediting this rule and are hopeful a 14 final rule will be promulgated by the end of 15 calendar 2006, but the decision to expedite a rule 16 that is nine years overdue does not obviate EPA's 17 obligation to consult with parties in the regulated 18 industry. There's still time to meet the statutory 19 requirement in deliberations prior to final rule 20 making. 21 The Agency completes due diligence by 22 giving full attention to the responses of those not 0017 1 thoroughly consulted heretofore, the public health 2 community, community based organizations and other 3 advocates, full accountability to meet statutory 4 requirement demands health experts views be fully 5 considered, since proponents of the remodeling and 6 abatement industries have already had their say. I 7 will be submitting further comments through the 8 docket. Thank you. 9 MS. MORTIMER: Dennis Livingston is on and Tom 10 Neltner's up after him. 11 MR. LIVINGSTON: Thank you for the opportunity to make this 12 presentation. I'm presenting from the point of view 13 of a contractor. I've been a contractor my whole 14 life. And one of the criticisms of this rule has 15 been that this will make a burden on contractors and 16 I wanted to speak to the fact that this will be the 17 exact opposite. This will be a tremendous benefit 18 to contractors, particularly to the small 19 contractors. The vast majority of work that's done 20 in this country on old houses, as far as maintenance 21 goes, is not done by large, above ground, certified 22 insured contractors. The vast majority of the 0018 1 maintenance work, the painting work and the rehab 2 has been work that is done by small neighborhood 3 based contractors. It's those contractors that we 4 want to put at an advantage. We want to give them 5 the knowledge and the skills and the marketing 6 capacity to be able to compete in the field, do the 7 work right and do the work safely both for occupants 8 and for the workers. 9 I'm author of the book that HUD 10 distributed to every main library in the country and 11 the major author to the book distributed by HUD 12 around lead. So as a contractor I've been very 13 interested in translating trade information into 14 comprehensible words that contractors can really 15 understand and the workers can. 16 As a small contractor what I want  I 17 don't mind if I'm told to do something like send my 18 workers to one day training, as long as my 19 competition is required to do the same. I don't 20 like to compete on price. I don't want to undercut 21 my competition because those low prices hurt me. 22 What I want is to be able to go into a house and say 0019 1 here is my certificate that says that my company is 2 certified. Here are the names of the workers who 3 will be working in the house and record that they 4 have been trained. I'm not telling you I'm going to 5 be low bidder but I am telling you make sure anybody 6 bidding against me has these pieces of paper or your 7 house is in jeopardy and your children are in 8 jeopardy. 9 Now, I use that marketing strategy for 10 years and I can tell you I was able to get jobs with 11 high bid over and over and over again because my 12 competition came in and they didn't know what the 13 customer was talking about. Now, eventually my 14 competition began to get that training because this 15 hurts them after awhile of not having this 16 information. So this is a wonderful opportunity for 17 small contractors to be trained to do the work right 18 and to be competitive in their field. This is not a 19 burden. 20 Secondly, there isn't such a thing as 21 supervisors. Whoever is running that job that day 22 is the supervisor. For small companies if I walked 0020 1 in and saw somebody standing around and just giving 2 orders and not using their tools they'd be fired. 3 This is only large corporations that have these 4 large crews that have supervisors. Where you do 5 have them they may be working four and five jobs, 6 that means the vast majority of the time they're not 7 on a job site. Every single worker in small 8 contracting companies is the supervisor of 9 themselves. There is no system you could create 10 that substitutes conscious trained workers with the 11 right tools and equipment. You can't do that. You 12 can do that on large jobs. On those jobs you can 13 have a supervisor who's breathing down your neck 14 every minute. That works. That's not where 15 children are being poisoned. Children are being 16 poisoned in these small jobs where workers all of 17 whom need to know what to do. 18 The other thing is these workers go from 19 job to job. When I hire a worker I don't want to 20 give a lesson on how to use a hammer, I expect when 21 they come to the job site that they know this 22 information. So we need an initial training. But 0021 1 workers go from company to company to company. I 2 want them to carry a card with them that doesn't 3 need to be a certification, but basically says they 4 have the training. I can then use that as a 5 criteria for hiring whether I'm hiring somebody for 6 one job or a long term job. For most small 7 contractors they don't keep on a large crew. 8 Majority of jobs they're bringing people on and off 9 and I want all the workers out there to not only 10 have the skills but to basically not poison the 11 people I'm working for. 12 The notion that this mythical supervisor 13 is going to train these mythical workers that they 14 have steadily for one hour is based on unbelievable 15 ignorance of conveying information. It is 16 absolutely totally impossible to convey this 17 information in an hour. I've done this training my 18 entire life. That's not training, that's 19 harassment. Training means they engage with 20 discussion, they talk with their experience, bring 21 their skills to the table, they demonstrate things, 22 they do things, they put the plastic up, they look 0022 1 at how to do the window, they work on the door. The 2 way that I learned how to do things is with my 3 hands. If I was good academically I wouldn't have 4 become a carpenter and it's true for a lot of 5 tradespeople. We learn by doing things. I can do 6 something in 10 minutes and remember it forever or 7 you can tell me about it for two hours and I'll 8 forget it the next day. 9 So the crucial thing is to give enough 10 time in this training. Six hours is the time 11 because I want an hour for taking a break and for 12 lunch and so forth, much more than that I'm not 13 going to be able to focus. I want three hours, 14 lunch, and another three hours. And then some spare 15 time on both ends of that. So the hourly thing is 16 very, very critical. 17 So let me just go through the key points 18 one at a time. Number one, we don't want to create 19 the myth of formal supervisors. Whoever is the 20 senior person on that job with the most skill for 21 that particular, on one job I'm the carpenter, I'm 22 in charge. On another job I'm working where the 0023 1 painters are working and I'm prepping the wood the 2 painters in charge. Whoever is the senior skilled 3 person on that job's in charge. We don't have 4 " supervisors" for the most part, other than the 5 person that owns the company and we rarely see them. 6 Number two, I want evidence  as a 7 contractor I want evidence people that I'm hiring 8 have these skills, I would absolutely guarantee you 9 that there is not a single person in this room that 10 would allow somebody to work with lead in their 11 house who's had one hour training. Nobody in this 12 room would permit that. So if nobody would permit 13 that for their own house, then the EPA shouldn't 14 create a rule that permits it for other people's 15 house. 16 Number three, as I said, five hours plus 17 an hour of eating is good because we have to include 18 how to protect a house, how to protect the 19 environment, how to protect the workers, how to 20 protect the occupant of the training is critical. I 21 did training for HUD a year and a half ago where we 22 did substantial lead work in some rooms where the 0024 1 family was still in the house. And my crew had been 2 trained to create no dust, zero dust. As a matter 3 of fact we went in and cleaned the house and during 4 the course of the training the dust levels dropped. 5 At the end of our jobs the houses are cleaner than 6 they were when we got there and they're cleaner than 7 they were when we got there during the job except in 8 the areas we're working which are isolated from the 9 other areas. That is a valuable skill for 10 tradespeople. That is something that all of the 11 trade associations should be ecstatic about is 12 having crews to do this. So the certification is 13 very important. 14 I want the company certified because if 15 the company acts incompetent I want the ability to 16 remove the certification. I need to give them 17 something I can take away. There's no reason for 18 the workers to be certified, they just need a little 19 picture card that says they completed the training 20 that they can take with them from job to job. That 21 should be centralized in some database someplace. 22 Five, obviously the way the rule is 0025 1 written it makes courses given in a second language 2 more difficult, obviously the EPA should do the 3 exact opposite and make courses given in 4 particularly in Spanish extremely easy. We want to 5 make translation, we want to train bilingual people 6 to be able to give these courses and we want to make 7 it as inexpensive and simple as possible because at 8 this point in history an enormous amount of the 9 tradespeople who are working within the trades, 10 particularly the renovation trades, are Spanish as a 11 first language. 12 And, finally, testing. If these courses 13 are designed right there's no reason for any 14 tradespeople to ever fail them because what you're 15 doing is you are doing this stuff and the test is 16 doing this stuff. It shouldn't be an academic test, 17 it should prove that you are able to do these 18 things. You can't do it in an hour but in a six 19 hour training and so we have the opportunity for 20 people not just to know that they know which is the 21 true or false answer but they're able to put plastic 22 containment on a door, they're able to use this tool 0026 1 and obviously this training would include those 2 measures which we are positive poison children, such 3 as using sanders and burning paint and using toxic 4 materials that are able to dissolve paint and so 5 forth. 6 So it is crucial that no contractor ever 7 uses those methods ever again because they're 8 disastrous aside from the fact that they create lead 9 poisoning. The key thing is here is that small, 10 regardless of what the large trade associations say, 11 small tradespeople can put this to their advantage. 12 This particularly is helpful for small minority 13 contractors that tend to be locked out of the field 14 because the large suburban contractors are able to 15 have all this large certification training. We want 16 this training given to every single trades person 17 and every contractor that works in an old house 18 particularly when children are present. Thank you. 19 MS. MORTIMER: Tom Neltner. 20 MR. NELTNER: Thank you for the opportunity to come and 21 talk to you. My name is Tom Neltner. I represent 22 the National Center for Healthy Housing and while 0027 1 you've had many very eloquent people talking about 2 the rule, I just want to focus on a very narrow 3 piece of it. 4 There are 4.3 million events that will be 5 using lead safe work practices under this rule. 6 There are 10 million regulated events that are going 7 to come under scrutiny under this rule. Unless EPA 8 is planning a tremendous investment of resources 9 that it doesn't have, most of those projects are 10 going to go unmonitored. I doubt that the states 11 and locals are going to have the resources to step 12 up and even visit a fraction of those. 13 What's missing in this rule is the 14 opportunity to deal with the two or three parties 15 that are present at each and every one of the jobs, 16 obviously the renovator, the owner and the occupant. 17 This rule continues the shortcomings of the 18 pre renovation education rule by just giving the 19 owner and the occupant a generic brochure, but it 20 just gives them the booklet and assumes that that's 21 education. In fact, the rule's been called 22 pre renovation education. That is not education. 0028 1 EPA's own definition of environmental education by 2 the Office of Environmental Education says 3 environmental education increases public awareness 4 and knowledge about environmental issues and 5 provides the skills necessary to make informed 6 decisions and take responsible actions. It is based 7 on objective and scientifically sound information. 8 It does not advocate a particular viewpoint or 9 course of action, it teaches individuals how to 10 weigh various sides of an issue through critical 11 thinking and enhancing their own problem solving and 12 decision making skills. Nothing in this rule forces 13 the renovator to communicate to the owner and the 14 occupant the key information they need like did the 15 renovator decide that lead based paint wasn't 16 present based on a spot test kit. That's an 17 incredible bit of information. If a contractor came 18 in and says I don't need to do it because it passed 19 the spot test kit, I'd like to know that. I'd like 20 to have a right to know that presumption's is being 21 made so I can second guess it, I can ask questions, 22 I can make critical decision, I can be informed. 0029 1 That's what this rule doesn't do. 2 Similarly, I think there's some option to 3 the white glove test, but if that does get into the 4 final rule there's nothing that documents to the consumer what 5 happened. It seems reasonable that either a 6 photograph of the actual wipe should be shown to the 7 owner and occupant to say, look, this is what we 8 did, we passed, let them see it, make their own 9 decisions. If they don't like it they can go in and 10 second guess it. They can go in and check the work. 11 They can say to the contractor you didn't do it 12 right. I can rub my own wipe there and get all this 13 dirt that you missed. If we do go with the 14 clearance test which I think is the much better 15 approach there's no requirements that you tell the 16 consumer what happened as a result of the test. It 17 seems to me imperative that the consumer get told 18 what happened, give them the lab results, the 19 clearance exams. HUD does that. The HUD rule 20 requires that this basic information go through. 21 What I'm calling for is that EPA set up 22 the opportunity for environmental education by 0030 1 enhancing the pre renovation education so it's more 2 than just a notice to give the consumer basic 3 information. We'll submit written comments on what 4 that information is, but it's the spot test kit. 5 It's which rooms are covered by the work areas. 6 Where's the entrance and the exit. So if I'm a 7 homeowner and I see work being done and people are 8 going out the wrong door I've got a question. 9 Another one would be how do I contact the 10 certified renovator. They're not required in this 11 rule to be on site. It certainly makes sense if I'm 12 the occupant and I see something going on that's 13 wrong I should be able to have a phone number to 14 call. Again, if you do the white glove test I may 15 want to if I'm a homeowner or consumer or occupant I 16 need to know who I can call on to get an independent 17 clearance exam to double check the work if I've got 18 questions about it. 19 What I'm encouraging in this 20 pre renovation is that EPA provide basic information 21 about the job, it's a fill in the blank and make 22 sure that that gets filled out. You heard Dennis 0031 1 talk about the contractors wanting to take advantage 2 of this rule. I feel that unless there's a level 3 playing field where the contractors who are going to 4 cut the corners have to say what's going on, those 5 contractors that are doing the job right are going 6 to be at a disadvantage. By making the consumer 7 educated by actually doing what EPA's own definition 8 of environmental education calls for you level the 9 playing field, then you engage the owner and the 10 occupant in overseeing the project to being an extra 11 eyes and ears watching the project. 12 You also need to add post renovation or 13 post renovation repair and painting notice, which is 14 the results. How many times were the wipes done, how 15 many times do I have to re clean, did I fail the 16 dust wipe test, did I pass, what's the lab results. 17 That's important because that information should be 18 disclosed and if you don't require it going to the 19 owner and occupant it'll never require the 20 disclosure requirements that HUD has. 21 Recordkeeping. EPA's got in their 22 requirements recordkeeping. I actually tried to 0032 1 fill out that recordkeeping and EPA estimates six 2 minutes, is how I calculated out five hours, 51 3 events per year, you can't do it if you're taking 4 those requirements seriously in six minutes. It 5 took me 25 minutes. What I'm suggesting is rather 6 than require that contractor to write up a lot of 7 information and then put it in a file drawer 4.3 8 million times a year that no one is going to look 9 at, let's narrow the recordkeeping to just the core 10 elements and make sure that that information gets 11 communicated to the owner and occupant. So rather 12 than  I think you can reduce, make clear actually, 13 the recordkeeping requirement so the rule's more 14 enforceable and get that communicated to the owner 15 and occupant. 16 EPA's only planning 12 people to enforce 17 this rule, while you may be able to engage some 18 resources from state and locals who care about it, 19 that's not going to be enough to handle the 20 questions and concerns that come up. What I believe 21 is that if EPA, no matter what, unless EPA requires 22 an independent clearance exam for each project, if 0033 1 the consumer, if the owner and occupant have 2 questions about what happened and they can show 3 things happened wrong like the plastic wasn't put 4 down, like they used dry methods and there was no 5 ventilation, like they left the door open, like they 6 went out the wrong door and may have tracked it in 7 the bedroom, that the consumer needs to be able to 8 in the rule be authorized to be able to tell the 9 contractor you pay for an independent clearance exam 10 to resolve the questions. Provide a limited remedy, 11 not exclusive of the oversight that EPA has to do, 12 but to supplement it to say that if there's not an 13 independent clearance exam done that we make sure 14 that that gets done where there's questions about 15 it. You can write the rule but I think the simpler 16 remedy to make sure you can resolve problems by 17 checking the job instead of having it rise to EPA's 18 attention would make the rule much more enforceable, 19 effective and you're going to have a shot at 20 reaching the 75 compliance rate that's in the rule. 21 Thank you. 22 MS. MORTIMER: Katrina Korfmacher is up and 0034 1 Dave Jacobs after that. 2 MS. KORFMACHER: I'm Katrina Korfmacher. I'm Assistant 3 Professor of Environmental Medicine at the 4 University of Rochester. I want to tell you very 5 briefly how I got into the business of lead. I 6 started out life as an environmental policy 7 scientist. When I moved to Rochester, my best 8 friend is a doctor. She lives in the city of 9 Rochester. She had children eight, six, four, she 10 was going to have their porch repainted and I came 11 over one day and saw that there was dust all over 12 the place and the porch was getting remodeled and I 13 said, Lindsey, is there any lead there. She said, 14 oh, no, I got one of those lead check swabs that you 15 told me about and I checked three layers of paint 16 and I said that's nice, why don't you have your kids 17 checked. All of them had elevated blood lead 18 levels, all the way up to age nine. This is a 19 doctor doing a renovation on her own home and if she 20 could feel reassured by a lead check swab and 21 poisoning her own children I really caution you 22 about incorporating that into a federal regulation. 0035 1 I realized shortly that my friend's story 2 was not typical of lead poisoning in Rochester, 3 however. This is a very poor community with 38 4 percent of the children living in poverty, 87 5 percent of housing was built before 1970 and as a 6 result not surprisingly we have a 25 percent child 7 lead poisoning rate, some of the neighborhoods it's 8 over 40 percent. 9 As people in Rochester became increasingly 10 concerned about this, they realized we have a very 11 weak framework for preventing lead poisoning in New 12 York state. We became convinced we had to take 13 local action. So several years ago we began talking 14 about how we could develop a law to prevent lead 15 poisoning in high risk housing in the city. This is 16 a city that has 3000 abandoned houses that the city 17 can't tear down fast enough and an ongoing and 18 strong debate and fear about adding any regulatory 19 burden or cost to the housing providers here. 20 Even still, when we started considering 21 how we were going to effectively prevent lead 22 poisoning in Rochester there was universal agreement 0036 1 that all rental housing was going to be targeted, 2 not just childhood housing. That was for several 3 reasons. A lot of people have multiple homes, they 4 move frequently or there may be in home daycares. 5 The second was fear of discrimination 6 against families with children. If you only 7 focused on housing with children people would be 8 less inclined to rent or lie about the presence of a 9 child in that unit. 10 Second, we agreed very strongly that homes 11 with hazards must be fixed by workers who have the 12 training. That training's going to be required by 13 the City and required by anyone doing that work 14 whether it be the owner or contractor for the owner. 15 And, third, there was strong agreement that after 16 that work is done all homes must have a clearance 17 done in accordance with existing federal standards. 18 There was really very little debate about 19 this. The property owners and the realtors and the 20 builders who were very concerned about the cost of 21 this law they did not argue one bit about clearance. 22 Part of it's because I ran a direct action project 0037 1 called Get The Lead Out. We found a number of homes 2 that would have easily passed any white glove test. 3 They looked perfectly clean. The parents were 4 excellent housekeepers. You could have eaten off 5 the floor but if you did you would have gotten lead 6 poisoned because lead is sticky, it's invisible and 7 you can't see it. 8 We also had recently move to town Reverend 9 Marlow Washington whose child was poisoned in a 10 parsonage in Rhode Island and that child ended up 11 having to be chelated. A white glove test would not 12 have protected that child. These anecdotes combined 13 with the scientific study showing the effectiveness 14 of clearance combined with the fact that it's 15 already a federal regulation means the property 16 owners, contractors, all strongly supported 17 clearance because they knew that's what would 18 protect kids and them from liability in the case of 19 inadvertently poisoning a child. In a housing market 20 like Rochester it's widely agreed that we can 21 sustain a universal clearance test, other 22 communities can do it too. 0038 1 If Rochester is willing to go out on a 2 limb to require clearance, please don't undermine 3 this by a weaker federal standard that is going to 4 leave us out there as a community that's tried to do 5 the brave thing and the right thing and the 6 scientifically proven thing by saying that a 7 national standard does not require clearance test. 8 Finally, after years of debate and lots of 9 study and a thorough environmental impact statement, 10 testimony from property owners, from scientists, 11 from educators, the City Council in Rochester was 12 flooded with cards from the Greater Rochester 13 Realtors Association asking them to delay the vote. 14 They said we just haven't studied this enough. We 15 need more time. 16 Now, the cover letter to that message that 17 asked the members to submit that plea for more time 18 said, look, folks, we have to balance children's 19 health against costs, you got to stop this 20 ordinance. Don't be fooled by a request for an 21 extension. Our City Council saw right through that 22 request and said, look, our community is committed 0039 1 to the federal goal of ending childhood lead 2 poisoning by 2010. The science we have been 3 presented is clear the approach is based on federal 4 standards and it's fiscally responsible. If we 5 delay another day we are not going to meet that goal 6 of ending lead poisoning by 2010. I'd say the same 7 principle applies here in order to meet the federal 8 government's own goal of ending childhood lead 9 poisoning by 2010 you must adopt a stronger rule 10 now. Thank you. 11 MS. MORTIMER: Dave Jacobs, after him Ruth Ann 12 Norton. 13 MR. JACOBS: Good afternoon. My name is Dave Jacobs. 14 I'm currently the Research Director at the National 15 Center for Healthy Housing. I've been doing 16 research in this field for I guess over 20 years 17 now. Previously served on the faculty of Georgia 18 Tech. I currently hold faculty appointments at 19 Johns Hopkins University and the University of 20 Illinois at Chicago. 21 I want to step back from the minutia of 22 this rule and basically say, first of all, it's 0040 1 great to see this rule finally come out. We've 2 known for a long time that this demarcation that we 3 have in this country between formal hazard control 4 processes and renovation and housing repair is 5 flawed. Title 10 basically required us to use 6 intent as the means of determining which was which 7 and not really so much that the risks that were 8 posed by the work. So this rule holds promise for 9 breaking down that subjective intent problem and 10 basically allowing the country to make sure that 11 work practices that actually pose substantial risks 12 are properly regulated. 13 My overall response is positive. This is 14 one of the final rules to come out under Title 10. 15 I assumed that we would use much of the knowledge 16 and the infrastructure and the science that's been 17 generated over the last period of time, that is we 18 would build on the previous work that's been done, 19 but in many respects it seems to me this rule is 20 almost as if we're starting all over again from 21 scratch. The citizens of this country and EPA and 22 other agencies have made a large investment to get a 0041 1 lot of the systems in place to make sure this works 2 well. My basic message here is let's use what we've 3 learned. Let's use that system and not start over 4 from scratch. 5 The clearance process is now pretty well 6 validated. In fact, EPA itself set up a major 7 testing program to make sure the results would be 8 accurate. We know that wipe sampling correlates 9 with blood lead level. We know it teaches 10 contractors to clean up the dust they can't see 11 that's most biologically relevant, that is that 12 poses that greatest risks to children. It's a 13 simple procedure and costs have plummeted 14 dramatically. In the ' 80s it could cause from 35 to 15 50 dollars per sample, to do a dust sample. Now 16 it's down to about five. But instead EPA has 17 proposed a new test method which I think is likely 18 to be much more subjective and, furthermore, no one 19 in this field has really been trained to implement 20 it. It's essentially a visual examination. The 21 National Center did a study in Maryland that looked 22 at the quality of advice you can get from a visual 0042 1 examination and we found that 54 percent of the 2 units passed a visual examination but they failed 3 the clearance wipe test. 4 Furthermore, EPA proposed absolutely no 5 clearance testing process visual or wipe sampling 6 for carpeted floors. And how do we protect children 7 who live in houses that have wall to wall carpeting. 8 It also conflicts with other federal 9 agencies which will cause confusion in the market 10 place. And clearance process has been around well 11 before Title 10, used substantially in public 12 housing and the economic analysis submitted by the 13 agency did not even present as an option a monetized 14 estimate of the cost of clearance test. If there's 15 a cheaper way of doing this I'm all in favor of it. 16 But we can't just decree a new analytical method by 17 regulation. It has to be based on sound science. 18 Another example is permitting the 19 dangerous methods of removing lead paint. As you 20 know this is also already banned in federally 21 assisted housing across the country. I'm a little 22 perplexed that there's even a controversy. I 0043 1 couldn't find a single study anywhere in the 2 literature that showed that these methods could be 3 done safely. My very first study in this field was 4 in the public housing development where they were 5 burning off lead poisoning and power sanding it. It 6 was done with an asbestos like negative air 7 containment system. It didn't work. The levels of 8 exposure were enormous. It was very difficult to 9 clean it up. 10 There's a estimate in the record that 11 states that this is the only method that can be used 12 in historic housing. But HUD has never reported a 13 single waiver request and HUD probably does more 14 work in historic properties than any other entity in 15 the country. In our comments for the docket that 16 we've submitted we show the temperatures produced by 17 propane torches are well above those levels that are 18 likely to produce lead fumes. So better 19 alternatives exist. Let's use them. Let's not 20 create confusion. I want to point out there is an 21 OSHA regulation that prohibits, it's not the lead 22 regulation, it's another part of the OSHA regs, that 0044 1 prohibits heating of painted metal. 2 In general I find that the economic 3 analysis overestimates the cost and underestimates 4 the benefits. Again the cost of paint testing was 5 not even monetized as a formal option. It didn't 6 consider the fact that most paint even in older 7 housing is not in fact lead paint. There is no 8 analysis done of how much it would cost to use 9 laboratory or x ray flourescence analyzers and so 10 forth. 11 So we shouldn't  there are assumptions 12 in the economic analysis that I think are flawed. 13 For example, all pipe replacement is assumed to 14 disturb painted surfaces. That's not a good 15 assumption. We know that is not true. I wouldn't 16 use the prevalence of lead paint anywhere in a room 17 to trigger cost estimates. Let's use the specific 18 surfaces. There are concrete estimates of the 19 prevalence of lead paint by the surface type. We 20 should use those data to inform a better economic 21 analysis. Those data are contained in the appendix 22 of the president's task force report. 0045 1 Finally, the benefits should include the 2 new slope estimate of the relationship between blood 3 lead and IQ. EPA is currently using the 1994 4 Schwartz estimate. The new estimate is between .6 5 and .7 IQ points per one microgram per deciliter. 6 The Schwartz estimate was .25 IQ points. So this 7 new estimate which is based on a much more 8 representative blood lead distribution and also 9 based on an international pooled analysis that is much 10 more robust. Your new final economic analysis 11 should use those blood lead estimates so you can 12 properly characterize the benefits. 13 Finally, because this is an 14 inter generational transfer issue, that is parents 15 are making investments to protect their children, I 16 believe the literature supports a discount rate of 17 one percent, not the three or seven percent that is 18 typically used in these sorts of regulations, 19 especially over the long time horizon that is used 20 in the economic analysis. 21 In closing, I know maybe more than any 22 other witness that will appear before you today how 0046 1 very difficult it is to get these regulations out. 2 This is one of those regulations that probably 3 should have come out decades ago. So in closing I 4 want to salute those of you in the Agency for doing 5 the hard work that's necessary to get this 6 regulation out so that the children of this great 7 country can be properly protected. Thank you. 8 MS. MORTIMER: Ruth Ann Norton and Don Ryan. 9 MS. NORTON: Good afternoon. I'm Ruth Ann Norton. I 10 am the Executive Director of the Coalition to End 11 Childhood Lead Poisoning located in Baltimore, 12 Maryland and market seven states throughout the 13 country. We do applaud the EPA for putting forth 14 regulations that are long overdue, but we have very 15 serious concerns. 16 Our first concern comes for the protection 17 of pregnant women. As drafted we're concerned the 18 rule does not adequately protect persons at risk, 19 including pregnant women. It's most concerning the 20 proposed rule talks about children under the age of 21 six and leaves pregnant women out while pregnant 22 women are classified at risk for lead hazards under 0047 1 all medical standards. We believe they must receive 2 protection. Our recommendation is to include 3 pregnant women along with children under the age of 4 six as the group to receive highest levels of 5 protection under this program. 6 Secondly, we're concerned about the 7 housing units as they would be covered by the rule. 8 The bifurcated phase in of the rule we think is 9 unnecessary and we think it will cause confusion. 10 In phase one the rule would apply to renovations for 11 compensation in all pre' 78 housing where the 12 renovation company receives documentation that a 13 child under six lives in the housing and has an 14 elevated level above 10 micrograms per deciliter or 15 set by state authority. Then also all pre' 60 owner 16 occupied rental housing properties are under the 17 phase in. In the case of owner occupied housing the 18 rule will not apply if the renovation receives a 19 waiver by the owner that no child under six resides 20 in the house. This is counter productive. The 21 child under six can visit the owner's property, can 22 get poisoned through that process if they're 0048 1 spending considerable time on a weekly basis 2 visiting an aunt's house or friend's house and 3 that property will not have come under 4 your rule. 5 Our recommendation is to eliminate the 6 distinction for owner occupied housing and do not 7 permit waivers even if an owner proves a child under 8 six doesn't reside in the property. In Maryland 9 under our law we require all units to be treated and 10 we did not zero in on units where children under six 11 or residing because we do think that there are a 12 number of children that are poisoned every year in 13 the hundreds if not thousands in our state alone 14 where they're visitors to properties. 15 Also phase two would apply to all rental 16 target housing pre' 78 and owner occupied housing, 17 unless a waiver is mentioned. The phasing is 18 problematic because it ignores the fact that at 19 least a quarter of the housing units between ' 60 and 20 ' 78 contains lead based paint. Our recommendation 21 is to eliminate the phase in process and require 22 renovation procedures for all pre' 78 houses. 0049 1 Our third area of concern is training, 2 certification and accreditation. We just simply 3 find this inadequate. We do not find the training 4 adequate to protect residents of 5 target housings where renovations are taking place. 6 Our major concern is that as written the proposed 7 rule does not require the on site workers receive 8 any third party training before renovation 9 activities. We think this is a dangerous path to 10 take. 11 Under the rule the EPA is only requiring 12 that the renovation company doing the work have one 13 person trained as a renovator to act as supervisor 14 during the project but does not require this 15 training renovator to be on site continuously while 16 the work is being undertaken. The workers are not 17 required to complete a training course but are 18 permitted to receive on the job training from the 19 renovation company's supervisor on lead safe work 20 practices. We think this is wide open to having 21 faulty training. Under the proposed rule one 22 renovator can supervisor multiple jobs so they're 0050 1 not even really assuring on a full time basis the 2 safety of any job. 3 Unsafe work practices can create more of a 4 hazard than just leaving lead based paint in place 5 and if you don't have proper training you can create 6 a greater hazard. And the current reality that we 7 face in the states we work and throughout the 8 country is that a substantial number of home 9 improvement work is completed by non English 10 speaking workers and the proposal to only require 11 on the job training we believe will overlook the 12 language barrier and health and safety of those 13 workers and families. We'll often see in reality 14 the projects that are happening in our neighborhoods 15 and communities where we work that Spanish workers 16 are often trained by English speaking only people 17 and therefore they're really left I think to serious 18 harm for themselves, their children and the work 19 they're doing. 20 Additional concern with the training of 21 the renovator who has to receive third party training. 22 There's no test or evaluation at the end of this 0051 1 training. This is a concern for us because not 2 requiring any testing to receive the certification 3 compromises the quality of training and provides no 4 incentive for the renovator to take the training 5 seriously. Our recommendation is that all workers 6 involved in the renovation receive a least a one day 7 third party training not provided by the supervisor 8 and pass an examination to be certified as meeting 9 the law's basic requirements. The method of that 10 examination should take into account people's 11 different languages. 12 Our third concern with the training 13 certification and accreditation scheme is that there 14 are no proposed renewals for supervisors or workers 15 beyond the initial training. There's no refresher 16 training put out in your proposed regulations. The 17 lack of such training does not give an opportunity 18 for the renovator, worker or contractor to keep 19 current with any potential changes that may occur in 20 the field. EPA's lack of emphasis on renewing 21 training conveys lead hazard reduction methods are 22 not evolving and we believe they still are. Our 0052 1 recommendation would be to require that all workers 2 and supervisors conduct renewed training after 3 initial training every year or two years to update 4 and inform them on changes in lead hazard reduction 5 and remind them of safety practices that are 6 critical to keeping children and families safe. 7 Our fourth area of concern is in the 8 pre intervention testing and clearance wipes at the 9 conclusion of renovations. The proposed rule 10 provides pre intervention verification of lead based 11 paint utilizing a new unknown EPA approved lead 12 testing kit and a post intervention testing by 13 the renovator utilizing a new swab test to determine 14 if unsafe levels of lead dust remain in the 15 property. Dave Jacobs addressed this. There is 16 great data out there and knowledge based on lead 17 dust clearance testing and we believe that that is 18 what should be used here. Pre intervention lead 19 based testing kit is not an approved product. The 20 on site swab testing which the proposed rule 21 recommends is also not really available or shown to 22 have a proven track record. In fact EPA has been 0053 1 critical of home testing kits and stated data retrieved 2 from such kits are not reliable. So we're putting 3 forth a rule that appears to ignore EPA's on 4 standards and research for home testing kits. 5 In addition we're concerned that that test 6 and the swab wipe clearance test are not currently 7 available and this will serve as a method for 8 further delay and potential inaction if they're 9 delayed in reaching the market. The rule does 10 not provide for any type of third party clearance at 11 the end of the renovations or any method of 12 independently verifying lead safe work practices, 13 that they are actually employed. The failure to use 14 lead safe work practices can create a greater hazard 15 than if no work is undertaken in some circumstances. 16 Having contractors verify the safety of 17 their own work, we feel, is not a protective 18 standard for children. So we recommend the law's 19 implementation not be contingent upon the 20 development or approval of new testing methods but 21 to implement lead dust clearance testing and have 22 testing where possible to be done on an independent 0054 1 third party basis. 2 We also have concerns for hazardous work 3 practices. The rule is proposing to permit unsafe 4 work practices such as open flame burning, machine 5 blasting and sand blasting. We actually think this 6 is terribly wrong. The rule would also create an 7 exemption in emergency situations involving 8 properties occupied by a child with an elevated 9 blood level. Using these dangerous practices is 10 wrong to begin with and create a hazard and will 11 exacerbate the situation when there's a poisoned 12 child. 13 By allowing practices that are prohibited 14 during lead abatement to be used during renovation 15 activities the rule is not prohibiting or restricting 16 renovation work practices that are known to generate 17 lead dust, debris and cause poisoning. While we 18 understand the need to expedite actions and hazard 19 reduction projects and properties occupied by 20 children with elevated levels, the exception 21 condones clearly unsafe practices in the most 22 at risk properties where lead poisoned children 0055 1 reside. Poisoning properties already contain 2 significant hazards and permitting unsafe work 3 practices will only exacerbate those hazards and we 4 recommend that the practices that are prohibited 5 under 40 CFR 745 also be prohibited for renovation 6 work in pre' 78 properties. We recommend that no 7 exception to the rule be established for properties 8 occupied by lead poisoned children or children and 9 pregnant women in general. Those are our comments. 10 We do commend you in getting this rule and 11 regulation out. We hope you will take our concerns 12 seriously and address them. Thank you. 13 MR. RYAN: Good afternoon. I'm Don Ryan, a home 14 builder in Arlington, Virginia. I participated back 15 in ' 92 when Congress was shaping Title 10 and 16 wrestling with all these issues and I directed the 17 Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning. 18 I want to say for the record I'm one home 19 builder that urges EPA to go forward under your 20 originally announced schedule in bringing this rule 21 to closure. The rule in fact is now 10 years late 22 and I urge you with all dispatch to go forward with 0056 1 your process. I think the process has had every 2 opportunity for all sides to be heard. 3 I want to commend you for proposing the 4 rule and for holding hearings in Washington and 5 around the country to get real feedback. I want to 6 empathize with the tough job that the Agency has 7 had, salute the hard work of all the staff over the 8 passed decade who have worked on this. 9 I want urge EPA to simplify this rule and 10 to cutout some of the unnecessary red tape. I think 11 there's an opportunity for this rule to take a giant 12 step forward for the country to make lead safe 13 housing the national norm and the 2010 goal 14 achievable. I want to begin my comments by 15 acknowledging a reality that's a little bit painful, 16 but I think it needs to be put front and center and 17 that is that this rule will never be broadly 18 monitored and enforced in any meaningful way. 19 There's four million or more renovation events each 20 year and no matter how hard EPA's 12 staff work with your 21 counterparts in state and local agencies enforcement 22 and monitoring of the rule is not going to be 0057 1 effective. 2 I think the rule still holds a tremendous 3 potential for making a difference. So I want to 4 suggest the ways that it will make a difference and 5 urge you to consider the rule as you finalize it 6 from that context. I see four opportunities. The 7 first is reinforcing the industry norm, the emerging 8 industry norm over lead safe work practices. We are 9 in a place right now far down the road far ahead of 10 where we were a decade ago and we're reaching the 11 tipping point in terms of lead safe practices being 12 standard. In addition to what's legally required 13 what really matters out there is this is the way 14 it's done. The norms that govern practice in the 15 industry and the National paint and Coatings 16 Association acknowledgment a few years ago of the 17 dangers of lead dust, their sponsorship of the 18 HUD/ EPA training course in lead safe work practices, 19 all of these things have helped to establish a norm 20 and this rule needs to reinforce that norm. 21 Second, I think it's important for this 22 rule to clarify the standard of care in terms of 0058 1 just what practices do remodelers need to follow in 2 order to demonstrate due care, in order to persuade 3 a judge and jury that they have done the right 4 thing. It's important that rule send clear messages 5 that help reduce the confusion rather than split 6 hairs. I think it's extremely important to look at 7 the role of consumers, property owners and 8 occupants, because this rule has the opportunity as 9 Tom addressed to empower consumers to give them 10 information, to help them make better decisions, to 11 give them leverage points in that process. 12 And finally I think this rule is important 13 because it holds the opportunity to encourage state 14 and local agencies to make needed reforms. The 15 truth is we still have a lot of lead paint poisoning 16 prevention programs around the country that don't 17 appreciate the danger of unsafe practices, that 18 don't appreciate the importance of adequate 19 verification at the end of jobs. So the best thing 20 to do is ban unsafe work practices. The proposed 21 rule made a real effort to justify why you weren't 22 banning unsafe work practices and the truth is that 0059 1 you just fell short, you failed to make that case. 2 The emerging norm across the country recognizes the 3 danger of unsafe work practices and EPA needs to say 4 in a clear and crisp voice that is the reality. We 5 keep hearing concerns about historic preservation, 6 there are some narrow situations where dangerous 7 work practices need to be used. Personally I'm 8 unconvinced that is the case. But if that is the 9 case, I would urge you not to take that concern and 10 apply it across the board. Ban unsafe work 11 practices. If you need to  a relief valve create 12 a little pocket and say, well, if you just must use 13 unsafe work practices and then set up a special set 14 of requirements and additional safeguards over 15 there. But the clear and simple message across the 16 board needs to be ban unsafe work practices. If EPA 17 misses this opportunity it really is going to be a 18 tragedy, if you put out a rule that allows open 19 flame burning it's clouding the waters. It's going 20 to confuse everyone. Let's just reinforce the clear 21 messages that are out there. 22 It's extremely important that the 0060 1 individuals doing the work receive training. The 2 workers need to be trained. I think the one hour  3 the supervisor doing one hour training for workers 4 is just a fig leaf. It's not real. It's not going 5 to happen. Just on my own job I've got to see how 6 teams of people work, I've got to see how 7 supervisors and day laborers and different people 8 work. The folks who are actually doing the work 9 need this training. 10 We have a wonderful training course, the 11 EPA/ HUD five and a half hour training course. There 12 are resources out there are for that course's 13 delivery. The macro view of the world is our goal 14 needs to be everybody out there doing this work 15 needs this training and we're at the tipping point 16 where that reality is within our grasp. There's 17 some cities that are now offering training in lead 18 safe work practices for day laborers for migrant 19 workers. This is a way for those individuals to get 20 trained, get qualified, to get some certification, 21 find their way into the work force. So this 22 training of workers is really critical. 0061 1 I would urge you not to set up complicated 2 certification programs for the workers. I would 3 urge you to drop the certification program for 4 supervisors. The training, that knowledge, is what 5 is important. It needs to be conveyed and you can 6 rely on the firm, the certification of firms, to 7 ensure that workers they use in fact have that 8 training. 9 In terms of verification, we would all 10 love to find the silver bullet, quick, inexpensive 11 realtime way to verify that lead dust hazards aren't 12 left behind. I think you made a good a case as you 13 could for the white glove test. The truth is it's 14 not ready for prime time. The white glove test is 15 not scientifically sound. It doesn't deserve to be 16 in a federal regulation. It is not proven. It's 17 not reliable. 18 When I read the rule I was struck by the 19 rule this part of it seems like Alice in Wonderland 20 to me, that we start with a  this test which is 21 unproven and build this whole house of cards of 22 reporting and recordkeeping and all of this around 0062 1 the swiffer test. So I would urge you, there is a 2 reliable method, it is affordable, it is widely 3 recognized, it's recognized by state and local 4 agencies and that's clearance dust testing. This 5 rule really needs to embrace clearance dust testing. 6 It needs to inform consumers and arm consumers with 7 that. My personal view is that the rule need not 8 require clearance testing in each and every 9 situation, but the rule needs to identify the 10 utility and the reliability of this tool, require it 11 in the highest risk situations and arm consumers to 12 use this, again, I think it's very important that we 13 give consumers full credit for making the right 14 decisions. 15 I want to strongly urge you to abandon 16 the owner occupied exemption. I guess you were 17 doing it to try to save costs. There's a right way 18 to do things and a wrong way to do things. And the 19 EPA rule needs to be very clear that this is the way 20 things get done, they need to do it the right way 21 and need to avoid unsafe work practices and workers 22 need to be trained. 0063 1 So that's  finally, that's about child 2 care centers. Congress charged EPA with regulating 3 commercial and public buildings and this rule ducked 4 that pitch completely. Again, I don't think one 5 size necessarily has to fit all. But by any 6 measure, the highest priority among commercial 7 buildings is child care centers and, again, just for 8 consistency this rule needs to reach out and embrace 9 and offer protections to children in day care as 10 well. Thank you. 11 MS. SHABAZZ: Good afternoon. I'm Zakia Shabazz, mother 12 of a lead poisoned son, founder and National 13 Director of United Parents Against Lead, 14 headquartered in Richmond, Virginia with 18 chapters 15 around the country. I testify today on behalf of 16 lead poisoned children and their families and I 17 bring with me 375 voices of those families 18 supporters and children advocates via signed 19 petitions. 20 They sent me here to remind you that we 21 demand zero tolerance when it comes to the 22 protection of our children. There are no safe lead 0064 1 levels in children. I bring with me photographic 2 evidence of dangerous work practices. These are 3 relatives of the paint chips that poisoned my son in 4 1996 giving him a blood lead level of 30 at the age 5 of one and a half. These were left after unlicensed 6 painters were hired to conduct the lead hazard 7 control. These other photographs were taken 8 September 20th, 2005 on Lee Street in Richmond, 9 Virginia, where as I drove along the street I was 10 compelled to stop and speak to the young man who was 11 using an open flame and scraping paint off of the 12 columns onto the grass and porch below. When I 13 voiced to him the dangers of what he was doing he 14 said I've been doing this for years and it's okay as 15 long as I'm not inside. He wore no mask or other 16 protective gear. And I wondered how many children 17 would become poisoned by the hazardous way he left 18 it on the ground. I gave him a brochure and 19 promptly reported to DPOR, our regulatory authority. 20 There must be meaningful enforcement and penalties 21 for non compliance, especially for slumlords and 22 repeat offenders who own the toxic dwellings that 0065 1 poison our children. It is no longer acceptable for 2 us to have laws on the books without proper 3 enforcement and inconsequential sanctions. 4 We were all saddened to hear about the 5 lead poisoning death of a four year old child in 6 Wisconsin and although Reebok voluntarily recalled 7 their tainted bracelets, I can attest that the CPSC 8 does nothing to enforce the recalls. These rings 9 were readily available to children at our dentists 10 office at MCV Pedestrian Dentistry. My daughter 11 received one in September 2004. These rings were 12 part of a recall issued earlier that year in July. 13 We have available for you a news article that 14 contains statements made by CPSC representatives. 15 These rings had also been associated with a child's 16 death. So we have a problem with the lack of 17 enforcement. Our health director called me up and 18 said we don't want people to get alarmed, although a 19 child had once again died from lead poisoning. She 20 said we don't want to take the focus off lead in 21 paint dust. Well, I want everyone to be alarmed. I 22 think our children should be protected regardless of 0066 1 the source of lead poisoning. And even the death of 2 one child is cause enough for alarm. How many more 3 children have to die before we take action and do 4 what is right. One child is one too many and thus 5 our call for zero tolerance. 6 I'd like to share with you the six items 7 that we posted to the public comment docket back in 8 February that there are no safe blood lead levels in 9 children. EPA must review and adjust its lead air 10 standard and not bow to industry pressure. EPA's 11 revision should incorporate the latest scientific 12 knowledge and must be sufficient to protect public 13 health especially the health and well being of our 14 most valuable resources, our children. 15 When CDC and EPA failed to do the right 16 thing by lowering the lead poisoning action level 17 they sent a loud and clear message that they do not 18 care about our children's health and safety. Air 19 monitoring should be required and instituted at and 20 around all race tracks, leaded gasoline should be 21 banned from use in racing cars immediately. 22 Finally, I urge federal agencies, namely 0067 1 the EPA, HUD and CDC, to continue funding beyond 2 2010 because we all know that lead poisoning will 3 not vanish by the year 2010, nor should any of our 4 efforts or funding to prevent lead poisoning. Lead 5 poisoning remains the number one environmental 6 health threat to children. Don't let our children 7 continue to die from this preventable disease. 8 Thank you and I'd like to leave information packets 9 for the panel and I also have additional ones for 10 members of the audience. 11 MR. SUSKAUER: Good afternoon on behalf of the National 12 Association of Home Builders I just wanted to make 13 some brief comments about EPA's proposed rule for 14 renovation of repair in the painting industries. 15 NAHB is a Washington, D. C. based trade association 16 representing more than 225,000 member firms involved 17 in home building, remodeling, multi family 18 construction, property management and other aspects 19 of residential and light commercial construction. 20 More than 14,000 of our member firms identify 21 themselves as being involved primarily in remodeling 22 or renovation work and that's about one fifth of the 0068 1 marketplace. We very much sympathize with the issue 2 of lead poisoning in children and believe that this 3 is an issue that needs to be addressed. However, we 4 think that this rule is not suited to achieve those 5 goals. 6 First and foremost the rule is not 7 effective in significantly reducing lead poisoning 8 in children. Unfortunately the rule will only 9 regulate professional remodelers, the 10 do it yourselfers who work on their own homes 11 conduct about half of the  more than half of the 12 jobs nationally and these do it yourself homeowners 13 will remain unregulated. According to Harvard 14 University's Joint Center of Housing Studies more 15 than half of the kitchen and bathroom remodeling 16 jobs are conducted by these people. The substantial 17 exclusion of over half the marketplace subverts the 18 stated intent of the rule of eliminating childhood 19 lead poisoning by 2010. Furthermore, the rule will 20 drive homeowners into the unregulated segment of the 21 market. The increased compliance costs that will be 22 imposed on the professional sector will be passed 0069 1 along meaning that fewer homeowners will be able to 2 afford to use a qualified remodeler. These additional 3 rules mean more costs and, therefore, the higher 4 prices will result for remodeling work. The 5 increased compliance costs will then lead to fewer 6 homeowners able to afford a qualified remodeler. As 7 a result, the increase in do it yourself activities 8 will occur and unfortunately homeowners who did it 9 themselves are more likely to lack experience with 10 typical renovation and remodeling jobs and 11 additionally tend to work in their free time being 12 evenings, weekends, so that the project can take 13 more days and weeks to complete. These increased 14 timeframes prolong potential exposures to lead 15 dust. A professional remodeling firm would more 16 clearly have the experience and expertise in 17 completing jobs quickly and safely. 18 Furthermore, remodeling jobs should be 19 encouraged and not discouraged. Renovating and 20 remodeling activities are what help improve the 21 condition of surfaces coated with lead based paint. 22 Lead based paint causes a lead exposure problem when 0070 1 it is deteriorated, Poorly maintained paint is 2 most likely the culprit. This proposed rule will 3 make maintenance more expensive causing some 4 homeowners to defer necessary maintenance which would 5 create even more deteriorated surfaces in the 6 future. 7 As currently proposed these rules will 8 cause many remodeling firms to elect only to work in 9 post 1978 housing, thus limiting further the amount 10 of professionals available and increasing costs, 11 thus further undermining the intention of the rule. 12 Another important point is that remodeling 13 and abatement are very different activities with 14 different purposes and different methods. Because 15 remodelers are not hired to remove lead they should 16 only be required to avoid making lead exposures 17 worse. The only test necessary for a typical 18 renovation job should be the simple standard of no 19 visible dust and debris. If there is no visible 20 dust or debris the job site is probably at least as 21 clean as it was before the job with no more lead 22 present. In that case the remodeler has done no 0071 1 harm. 2 As EPA has clearly stated there is a big 3 difference between abatement and remodeling. 4 Abatement jobs are designed to eliminate all lead 5 from a structure while the primary intent of 6 renovation and remodeling is to change the 7 structure, function or appearance of a room or 8 building. As a by product some remodeling 9 activities may actually result in reduction of 10 lead based hazards through the replacement of old 11 windows with new ones that have no lead based paint 12 on them. This important distinction provides 13 further illustration why clearance testing should 14 not be required. Requiring renovation contractors 15 to clean up to an abatement standard effectively 16 makes the contractor responsible for all the lead 17 that was in the home prior to when the remodeling 18 work commenced. That means that a remodeler would 19 have to remove any lead that had no relationship to 20 the activity that was being conducted in the home. 21 An unintended consequence of this requirement will 22 be that many certified renovators will become 0072 1 excellent at judging the level of cleanliness in a 2 home when giving an estimate. If a home looks dirty 3 or poorly maintained, in short, if it looks like 4 there may be lead dust present, the remodeler is 5 likely to refuse the work or to charge a high price 6 to cover the increased cost of compliance. 7 A possible approach for EPA would be to 8 develop a voluntary lead safe work practice and 9 program for both for remodelers and homeowners. 10 NAHB has supported the development of voluntary lead 11 safe work practices which would protect occupants 12 and workers from the risks of disturbing lead based 13 paint. We have worked with EPA for five years 14 developing voluntary lead safe pilot program which 15 focussed on the remodeler and homeowner on how to 16 safety conduct remodelling activities. A voluntary 17 program allows appropriate flexibility for both 18 homeowners and remodelers to choose which practices 19 best suit unique jobs. Another advantage of a 20 voluntary program is the avoidance of potential 21 legal conflicts between existing state laws and 22 EPA's proposed rule. 0073 1 For example, EPA's proposed clearance test 2 is inconsistent with the existing state requirements 3 which already define state certified lead based 4 paint testing firms and these are not remodeling 5 firms. EPA abruptly ceased work on the voluntary 6 program last Spring and NAHB encourages EPA to 7 return to a voluntary program approach. And we'll 8 be filing more complete comments before the end of 9 the comment period, thank you. 10 MS. MORTIMER: Let's take a five minute break. 11 ( Off the record) 12 MS. MORTIMER: Next up is Bruce Campbell and 13 then Andrew Langer. 14 MR. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon, my name is Bruce Campbell. 15 I'm a certified property manager, member of the 16 Institute of Real State Management and the National 17 Association of Realtors. I'm here on behalf of 18 myself as well as those organizations. 19 I was appointed by then Governer Donald 20 Schaefer of the state of Maryland in 1994 as a 21 member of the Lead Paint Poisoning Prevention 22 Program that was developed over two years to bring 0074 1 about a change in the problem with children being 2 poisoned, particularly in older housing. It was a 3 well balanced commission. I think we addressed most 4 of the areas that we could possibly address and we 5 tried to make it fair and phased it in. 6 This past February we completed our 10 7 year phase in which required that all pre 1950 8 houses be at least dust tested and pass a dust test 9 or a modified risk reduction standard. That means 10 one hundred percent of the units to be in 11 compliance. The biggest problem we have had is 12 getting everyone to comply. I think the responsible 13 owners, the responsible landlords, the responsible 14 managers, in all cases certify their units, register 15 their units, continue to do the work that is 16 necessary and every year our state legislature looks 17 at improving that law and is currently going through 18 some additional recommendations to tighten it up a 19 little bit and come into compliance with some of the 20 changes that EPA has adopted, and the CDC has 21 adopted. 22 That being said, I would hope that EPA 0075 1 could consider some type of exemption for those 2 states that already have a very significant program 3 in place that they would have an exemption if 4 they're in compliance with the regs within the 5 state. This would be some benefit to those who have 6 already gone through a very extension program in our 7 state of certifying workers, certifying inspectors 8 and certifying our units. 9 When we started there were thousands of 10 young children who had elevated levels above 15 to 11 25, some were seriously poisoned. I believe our 12 2004 statistics had less than 250 cases throughout 13 the entire state, most of which, as you can well 14 imagine, are in certain census tracts in Baltimore 15 City. Of those units, unfortunately, I believe 70 16 percent were owner occupied units which were not 17 under our regulations. 18 In addition, in the remaining 30 percent, 19 the vast majority of those were non compliant 20 owners. And therefore had not even gone into the 21 program to get the exemption. That left a handful 22 of compliant owners who unfortunately had a case of 0076 1 a poisoned child. Maryland also in addition to the 2 stick, that is fines for non compliance and others, 3 offers a carrot and I think the EPA should consider 4 some type of carrot to get more compliance. I think 5 it has worked in Maryland for the vast majority. I 6 don't care how strong a rule you put into effect you 7 will not get one hundred percent compliance. There 8 are bad landlords as there are bad everything else. 9 If they can't comply with 1018 and others, how are 10 we going to get them to do it. I would like to say 11 having a carrot out there for compliance would be 12 quite helpful. The compliance carrot in Maryland is 13 a tort limit. The tort limit is $ 17,000 per child 14 and it includes basically moving the poisoned 15 individual out of the home and possibly some medical 16 remediation for that child. And I believe it has 17 worked in nearly all cases and been very effective. 18 Number of states have come to us, I've spoken with a 19 number throughout the country to try to encourage 20 them to bring these rules for adoption in other 21 jurisdictions. 22 One of the problems is if you have workers 0077 1 in multiple states they would have to get certified 2 on a state by state basis, if there's uniform 3 regulations for approved training courses I would 4 hope that it would be overlapping and allow 5 reciprocity from one state to the next. 6 Number two, we would urge that the EPA 7 also allow the use of ASTM approved dust testing 8 cloths. I don't think we have a problem with the 9 testing process. I think it's important that that's 10 done so they know that they've cleaned these 11 surfaces when there's been significant renovation. 12 The results of the cleaning verification 13 be kept for three years. We are concerned about 14 that with respect to the 1018 disclosure 15 requirements. Would we now have to make a complete 16 list every time we renovate or paint a unit, to add 17 that to the list that we would have to have 18 available for tenants, particularly in large 19 multi family communities. 20 The docket for the rule is voluminous and 21 additional sources have been added since the rule 22 was proposed. Due to the sheer volume of reports 0078 1 and studies we have asked the EPA for an extension 2 to the comment period to provide sufficient time to 3 review all those materials. This is a critical 4 things. It's going to affect obviously the lives of 5 children, but it's also going to affect the 6 availability of affordable housing, the availability 7 of more and more homes we're seeing in a very hot 8 real estate market and I believe here in the 9 Washington area more and more apartment projects 10 converting to condominium and there's less and less 11 product available for those who need rental housing. 12 I did have one question and that is the 13 rule on the two square foot rule. I don't know 14 whether this would 15 continue to be on a component basis? I would 16 agree with that because a lot of our renovations 17 particularly in large multi family community is 18 merely painting. There's very little has to be 19 done, but you're not tearing out and sanding and 20 doing a lot of heavy work. So I accept that nod. 21 As I said, the Maryland plan has worked. 22 It's worked because there's been buy in by the 0079 1 industry, a buy in by the proponents for prevention 2 and all the people that do the work out there. It's 3 an interesting process. It's worked in Maryland and 4 hope you consider that exemption as I've requested, 5 thank you. 6 MS. MORTIMER: Next up is Andrew Langer. 7 MR. LANGER: I'll be brief. It's a pleasure for me to 8 be here today. My name is Andrew Langer. I'm the 9 manager of regulatory policy for the National 10 Federation of Independent Business. NFIB is the 11 largest small business trade association with six 12 hundred thousand members nationwide. 13 By way of background, up until a few years 14 ago I also served as an adjunct policy analyst with 15 the environmental scientists laboratory at Brooklyn 16 College and spent a considerable amount of time 17 dealing with environmental regulations and their 18 impacts and regulations as an academic subject. 19 Who are NFIB members? We have six hundred 20 thousand members nationwide, not just in 21 construction trades but in all manner of trade. 22 This rule will impact all of our members. Our 0080 1 average member size is five employees. And I want 2 to inject a little bit about the small business 3 reality here. It's refreshing for me to come to a 4 place like this because you get a sense of the 5 parochial nature of certain research areas, and how 6 folks get so focussed on one particular area of 7 expertise or one particular issue of study that they 8 tend to forget that there are a lot of other things 9 that are out there. And I want to talk a little bit 10 about that from our perspective. 11 Being a small business owner means you are 12 responsible for doing every job that's related to 13 your business. With five employees our average 14 member doesn't have a full time regulatory affairs 15 person on staff to ferret out every regulation that 16 applies to them. We know regulations impact small 17 businesses differently than large businesses. We 18 know that once a business gets above 20 employees 19 regulatory costs drop by a third, we now know the 20 regulation costs to average small business is seven 21 thousand six hundred per employee per year. If our 22 average member who brings in about $ 350,000 annually 0081 1 you're facing a $ 40,000 regulatory cost right off 2 the bat. Really what the problem is when you get 3 down to new regulations that produce new burdens, as 4 this rule undoubtedly will, is that it is incredibly 5 difficult for our members to figure out exactly what 6 they need to do to comply. 7 I want to talk briefly are the good actors 8 out there. The folks who have every intention of 9 abiding by the law but for whom the way that our 10 federal regulatory regime has been created it's 11 almost impossible for them. We're looking at 40 CFR 12 part 745, and if you think about what the code of 13 federal regulations look like I don't have a copy of 14 the fed reg on my wall, I now use a computer, but 15 the paper copy would stretch back to that wall 14 to 16 20 feet in length and my average NFIB member is 17 responsible for knowing every regulation within the 18 code, within the 14 to 20 feet, that applies to him 19 or her. 20 So as we move forward talking about this 21 and talking about adding these new requirements I 22 want you to consider that, consider that you're 0082 1 going to be adding to a burden that many small 2 businesses ill understand right now and making it 3 more complex and confusing. 4 Lead is a lighting rod. You think about 5 lead, you hear about lead and it conjures all sorts 6 of negative images in your mind and when we consider 7 lead regulation we consider it from the standpoint 8 of things like zero tolerance and the standpoint of 9 not poisoning children. We use a lot of rhetorical 10 arguments. Lead is a bad thing. There's no denying 11 that. But we have to look at lead versus other 12 risks as well and not be pursuing lead at an ad 13 infinitum level. Why is that? Because once you 14 start prioritizing things that may not be as risky, 15 other public policy priorities fall by the wayside, 16 other negative health consequences are downgraded at 17 the sacrifice of something that may not be as risky 18 which is why I really wish we'd be doing this after 19 the new OMB IRA guidelines on comparative risk 20 assessment had been completed. I think a new 21 regulation like this would have benefited from some 22 scientific understanding of how that risk compares 0083 1 with other risk. Like a lot of my colleagues today 2 I believe in science, I believe in pursuing science 3 and I believe there are some fundamental flaws 4 scientifically with this new regulation. I believe 5 this new regulation will produce very marginal 6 benefits in terms of protecting health of children 7 while producing some very high costs. And what do I 8 mean by lack of science. One of the things that was 9 mentioned just before me, this two foot square rule. 10 This is two square feet. It's not a large number. 11 It's not a large amount of space. And yet we're 12 talking about kicking in hugely burdensome 13 regulations for that, for this. 14 I question that. I can't find any 15 scientists that I've talked to so far, I've talked 16 to a number of them about lead, who can justify or 17 find some justification for setting a limit of two 18 square feet for the kick in for this regulation. 19 Mr. Ryan, I have to appreciate the comments, I don't 20 agree with all of them, but I do agree that this are 21 needlessly confusing, as many regulations are. One 22 of the things we talk about is trying to make 0084 1 regulations conform to other existing standards that 2 are out there. I think we need to cut the red tape 3 in this regulation, especially when you consider who 4 is doing the work, folks who are not sophisticated 5 when it comes to regulatory policy, not highly 6 educated but doing some unskilled labor who can be 7 trained to do that labor but nevertheless not 8 trained scientists and any time EPA engages in 9 situations where they prescribe behavior to a minute 10 level of detail is a very bad thing. 11 I'd like to use the example of OSHA coming 12 out with hazardous communications guidance standards 13 a couple years ago. They came out with a 14 communications guidance that was this thick, 15 literally, about a telephone book of a major city. 16 That's a useless standard and why is that because 17 your average small business owner is going to look 18 at a standard like that and is going to blanch. 19 He's going to say there's no possible way given all 20 the other requirements that I have for me to 21 understand that. So any time you get to that level 22 of detail it's a bad thing. 0085 1 As a student of regulatory policy over the 2 last decade I've noticed that when we start 3 prescribing these behaviors it creates perverse 4 disincentives. As we heard from the folks of the 5 home builders, this sort of a rule by increasing 6 costs for individuals by 20 to 30 percent, I've 7 heard varying estimates, it is going to lead to 8 more self renovations and who's doing this 9 self renovations, it's not retirees at home, folks 10 with no children in the home, it is going to be 11 parents with young children. We don't want that 12 happening. This is not the outcome that we want to 13 have happen. It means more exposures for children. 14 It's going to mean greater exposure times as was 15 pointed out as we do our projects, they are going to 16 be left out and exposures are going to be allowed to 17 happen for greater durations of time and there will 18 be fewer renovations of pre 1970 homes as those 19 costs get driven up. Folks would be much more 20 inclined to leave things alone as to seeing those 21 renovations done. 22 We've been hearing from our members about 0086 1 this. We are continuing to hear from our members 2 about this, real small businesses with real 3 experiences with regulation. And because we're 4 continuing to get those reports in we feel that we 5 would be able to make more valuable comments if the 6 comment period were extended between 30 and 60 days. 7 So I would ask you to do that. Thank you very much. 8 MS. MORTIMER: Steve Sides followed Amy 9 McDonald. 10 MR. SIDES: Thank you. Steve Sides from the National 11 Paint and Coatings Association. The members of the 12 National Paint and Coatings Association have 13 supported EPA's efforts to implement all aspects of 14 the Title 10 legislation and particularly we're 15 engaged in considerable voluntary efforts to promote 16 the lead free renovation education rule and the lead 17 information hotline. NPCA also helped launch the 18 CLEAR CORE which has a progressive 10 year history 19 of assisting at risk communities with their proven 20 approach to lead hazard reduction. 21 In 2003 we forged a cooperative agreement 22 with 46 of 50 State Attorneys General taking on the 0087 1 development and implementation of a nationwide 2 community education and training program on 3 lead based paint hazards and that involved 4 distribution of the EPA brochures at retail points 5 of sale. This program which is currently in year 6 three of the original four year agreement has 7 provided our industry with really a unique level of 8 insight on the promotion and training on lead safe 9 work practices. 10 Now that you have decided to move out this 11 rule, we really feel it's important that you work 12 hard to provide uniformity. States should not be 13 allowed arbitrarily deviate from the program 14 elements that you're trying to put in place and 15 eventually will have put in place. Certainly take 16 the states concerns or issues or experience into 17 account as part of the rule making process, but once 18 you've decided on the best approach to go try and 19 contrive in that final rule a consensus that does not 20 allow the states to move out of it and others have 21 mentioned reasons why. 22 We've been promoting in the paint industry 0088 1 lead safe practice training in 2 English and Spanish using the HUD/ EPA curriculum 3 that was developed at the time. Sponsoring over 400 4 free classes and training over 10,000 individuals. 5 They're not just contractors. We've had homeowners. 6 We've had property managers, code officials and the 7 like. The training's open to anyone and we promote 8 it in that way. 9 This is a significant investment on the 10 part of our industry in fact all the people we 11 partner with to put this training on out in the 50 12 states of the U. S. the curriculum, as you know, does 13 not include the clean up verification aspect that 14 are covered in this proposed rule but the training 15 does alert homeowners, residents, property managers, 16 to the concept of the HUD type clearance testing. 17 What is stressed in the curriculum is that strict 18 adherence to lead safe work practices including 19 careful clean up keeps the work area free from 20 lead based paint hazards and this should be the goal 21 for the rule as well. The white glove test as it's 22 been characterized will remain controversial and 0089 1 many advocates will stress for the clearance 2 type testing as defined by HUD but we strongly 3 believe that contractors who have the training in 4 the lead safe work practices curriculum but not 5 necessarily the white glove test or clearance 6 testing techniques should be acknowledged by EPA in 7 the final rule as having met the proficiency level 8 desired. In short, don't require retraining people 9 just to promote a white glove test. And in our 10 instance we've put 10,000 potentially certified 11 people out in the marketplace to help provide 12 lead safe housing. We'd hate to see a final rule 13 preclude those folks from continuing to operate or 14 having to come back for some arbitrary additional 15 training. 16 Revising the brochure, Protect Your Family 17 brochure, while helpful in creating a consistent 18 message really is not a priority in our opinion. 19 There are literally hundreds if not thousands of 20 brochures on lead based paint hazards in circulation 21 throughout the country and while the brochure you 22 create would have the benefit of a regulatory 0090 1 blessing, if you will, across the nation, it 2 shouldn't be viewed as the exclusive source of 3 information in our opinion. The purpose of that 4 brochure is to inform. The past versions of Protect 5 Your family have served well. And let's say the 6 contractors who have been distributing those 7 brochures have been fully prepared to take on the 8 follow up questions that come from their customers 9 when they put that brochure in their hands. It's 10 important that the contractors be trained to handle 11 those questions to do lead safe projects. I don't 12 want to see a compliance issue centered around an 13 arbitrary change in that brochure. 14 Lastly, with filed comments you are likely 15 to get a considerable amount of data on worker 16 exposure and dust contamination levels associated 17 with typical renovation and remodeling tasks. If 18 this data shows in a statistically reliable manner 19 that undertaking such tasks does not result in 20 appreciable exposure to the worker and does not 21 create workplace or residence contamination we would 22 expect you to acknowledge that in any final rule for 0091 1 the beneficial reliance of all contractors and their 2 customers who will be dealing with this rule. 3 While we have been fully prepared and 4 engaged to submit comments by the close of the 5 comment period on April 10th, we have filed for an 6 extension to better integrate what we believe will 7 be particularly useful information and content 8 derived from our national training program 9 participants who we maintain contact with. So we 10 support an extension for good and valid reasons, not 11 arbitrary reasons at this point. Thank you for the 12 chance to talk. 13 MS. MORTIMER: Amy McDonald. 14 MS. MCDONALD: Good afternoon. I'm Amy McDonald. I'm 15 with the District of Columbia Attorney General's 16 Office and my comments are on behalf of the 17 Department of Health in D. C. with the Lead based 18 Paint Management Program. 19 In general, the District does support the 20 EPA's renovation and repair rule. We feel as the 21 rule is written right now there are several issues. 22 I'll briefly point out a few of the issues. 0092 1 The first issue we have is with the 2 phase in system. As it stands right now we feel the 3 phase in system is very confusing and we feel that 4 it will inhibit trying to enforce the regulation 5 because people are obviously going to be confused 6 what they have to do. The department will be 7 spending more of their time trying to explain who 8 this involves instead of spending time trying to 9 find out who's doing it correctly. 10 Also with the phase in system the goal 11 right now is to eliminate childhood lead poisoning 12 by 2010. The phase in system there's no way that 13 this can efficiently eliminate lead poisoning by the 14 deadline of 2010. We also feel that the rule should 15 include all housing regardless of whether or not a 16 child lives there. Other people have stated today 17 that they feel because of the fact that children can 18 visit because of the fact that eventually a child 19 can move in at a later date all housing should be 20 covered. 21 The second issue with the dust sampling 22 technicians. We feel that this is a good idea to 0093 1 have this new category of worker, the problem 2 becomes that they're trained a little bit less than 3 everybody else and because of that lack of training 4 we feel that maybe they should be required to work 5 under a certified risk assessor or certified 6 inspector so that somebody with a little more 7 training can kind of make sure they're doing their 8 job correctly. 9 We have a problem with the test kits. 10 There's no way to verify that these test kits would 11 be used properly and they are very rampant for 12 abuse. There's no way to determine whether or not a 13 person is going to actually test the correct 14 surfaces, whether they're just going to pick a place 15 where there's no lead and use that to say there's no 16 lead components, therefore we don't need to comply 17 with everything. So we think that if these test 18 kits will be used they should be required to be 19 completed by a disinterested third party. 20 We have a problem with the notification 21 requirement. EPA needs to promulgate some form of 22 notification requirements under this renovation and 0094 1 repair rule. Without a notification requirement 2 there is absolutely no way you can enforce this 3 rule. If there's no notification requirement, the 4 states have no way of knowing what projects are 5 occurring and when they can go inspect those 6 projects to make sure that they're being done 7 correctly and safely. 8 We also have the problem with the cleaning 9 verification. Why not clearance sampling? Why 10 should there be less of a standard for a renovation 11 than an abatement when they create the exact same 12 hazards. So we feel that since you're creating the 13 same hazards you should have the same standard and 14 simply taking a sample and comparing it to a card 15 that the EPA says it should look like this is way 16 too subjective and there's no way to ensure it's 17 done properly. 18 Perhaps most importantly the biggest issue 19 is with the prohibited activities, such as heat guns 20 over 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. These should remain 21 prohibited. Renovation and repair creates the same 22 lead dust that an abatement does and because of that 0095 1 those prohibited acts should not be allowed here 2 just as they're not allowed in abatement. 3 In fact, renovation and repair can create 4 even more hazards because of the lack of containment 5 and other precautions that may be required as 6 they're required in abatement and, therefore, they 7 really have to be prohibited. 8 There's an issue with enforcement. As I 9 stated, there's a problem with each and every one of 10 these issues of enforcing them. If EPA promulgates 11 the rule as it is written now, states will have a 12 very difficult time enforcing the rule. 13 I'll leave you with one question. We 14 understand that EPA is concerned for the renovators 15 and trying to decrease their costs to comply with 16 these issues, but shouldn't the ultimate goal be to 17 ensure that there's no children that are lead 18 poisoned no matter what the cost. Thank you. 19 MS. MORTIMER: Pat McLaine is up. 20 MS. MCLAINE: My name is Pat McLaine. I'm a doctoral 21 student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Public Health 22 in Baltimore. I'm also an appointed member to 0096 1 Maryland's Lead Commission and have been involved in 2 lead research for more than 13 years. My comments 3 are my own. 4 I remain concerned about EPA's failure to 5 enact requirements to protect families from the 6 dangers of renovation remodeling before this date in 7 accordance with Title 10 requirements. I think the 8 proposed rule and requirements fall far short of the 9 effort that we need to protect children and their 10 families from being lead poisoned. In addition, the 11 failure to propose any solid recommendations to 12 protect families that renovate and remodel their own 13 homes rather than and in addition to hiring a 14 contractor increases the risk for many children who 15 are being lead poisoned throughout this country 16 because they think what they're doing is safe. 17 EPA's estimated that 4.4 to 4.8 million 18 paid renovations are completed every year in 19 pre 1978 housing. I suspect the number of 20 do it yourself repair and renovation work far 21 exceeds this number. Do it yourself home 22 improvements are part of the lifestyle of many 0097 1 American families, even those who can afford to hire 2 a contractor, certainly for work considered easy to 3 do such as painting interior walls and woodwork or 4 exterior siding, trim and porches. Many families 5 look forward to this work often done to accommodate 6 new members or older family members or make new use 7 of old space. They save up money, take out loans to 8 do this work. Families wouldn't dream that 9 repairing a ceiling that incurred a water leak might 10 put their children at risk, particularly at risk for 11 something as terrible as lead poisoning but because 12 many individuals don't use lead safe work practice 13 when they do repair work in all their homes whether 14 they're contractors or do it yourselfers children 15 are being poisoned. What's the evidence of this. 16 You presented some evidence in the proposed rule but 17 I want to share some more evidence. 18 In the national evaluation a HUD funded 19 study of the experience of more than 3000 homes in 20 14 locations that were abated using HUD funds in the 21 late 1990' s there was follow up with 2375 families, 22 more than 35 percent of these families indicated 0098 1 that in their initial interview that remodeling and 2 repair work had been done on their home in the 3 previous six months. Between grantees, the percentage 4 of families whose homes had remodeling and repair 5 work varied between 10 and 59 percent, a very high 6 percentage. A HUD funded risk assessment study of 7 229 families in Baltimore County Milwaukee and New 8 York City conducted in 1998 found that 41.2 percent 9 of participating families had been involved with 10 home maintenance in the 12 months preceding the 11 study. This included remodeling, repairing and 12 renovating their home 32.3 percent, removing 13 paint from furniture 12.9 percent, and soldering 14 pipes or metal 8.3 percent. 15 In this risk assessment study a number of 16 variables are found to predict the risk that a child 17 would have an elevated blood lead level. This was 18 done in two cities in New York. In New York City, the 19 odds of a child having an elevated blood lead level 20 were 8.3 times higher if the family reported 21 that paint had been sanded from the exterior of a 22 neighboring building. 0099 1 In Milwaukee the odds of a child having an 2 elevated blood lead level were 38.9 times higher if 3 the family reported that a household resident worked 4 in construction and significantly higher dust lead 5 levels were identified in these homes where 6 construction workers lived. This suggests that 7 there's a hazard to the workers, there's a hazard to 8 the families who live with the workers and there's 9 probably a hazard again to a family where renovation 10 work is being done. 11 A third study randomized community trial 12 of comprehensive education and home visiting by 13 registered nurses to 151 families with blood lead 14 levels living in Rhode Island funded by CDC 15 documented the results of family carpet removal on 16 dust and blood lead levels. One of the families lived 17 in a rental property built in 1780 in structurally 18 sound condition. They moved into the home in August 19 after removing some paint from the exterior. They 20 stripped wallpaper, removed rugs and repainted 21 windows and window wells in a parent's bedroom and 22 an office. One month later they did interior paint 0100 1 repair but no structural renovations. Floors 2 throughout the home had been cleaned several times 3 before their 14 month old child had an elevated 4 blood lead level. During routine testing later that 5 month all dust lead levels in the home were found to 6 be above federal standards ranging from 40.4 7 micrograms per foot in the play room to 1,866 8 micrograms per square foot in the office where this 9 kind of work had been done. 10 Special cleaning with TSP multiple times 11 enabled the family to decrease these levels to 852 12 micrograms per square foot and bring the living room 13 levels below standards but it took six months of 14 repeated cleaning to bring the child's bedroom floor 15 levels to a 27.3 microgram per square foot and the 16 family was unable to significantly reduce floor dust 17 lead levels in the office or parents' bedroom for 18 nine and a half months until the floors were 19 completely refinished, even then floor dust lead 20 levels remained above the current clearance 21 standard. A second family removed carpeting in 22 their rental home built in the early 1900s this 0101 1 resulted in an elevation of dust lead levels from an 2 average of 10 micrograms per square foot to an 3 average of 376 micrograms per square foot, with a 4 794 microgram per square foot in the play room and 5 228 on the bedroom floor. These are floor dust lead 6 levels, not sill or well. 7 The levels returned to federal standard 8 after new vinyl tile was installed throughout the 9 home, but not before a three year old's blood lead 10 jumped from a 12 to 24 microgram per deciliter after 11 the carpeting had been removed. 12 This winter I managed a community health 13 rotation for eight BSN students from Johns Hopkins 14 School of Nursing located in Baltimore City Lead 15 Poisoning Prevention Program. The students visited 16 10 children with elevated blood leads who had been 17 reported to Baltimore City's Program with elevated 18 blood lead levels. Three of the 10 reported 19 exposure to remodeling and renovation work in the period 20 before their children became poisoned. Two reported 21 ongoing remodeling work for the family by the family 22 in their owner occupied home, but the third whose 0102 1 elevated blood lead level was reported seven months 2 after the fact noted that the houses on either side 3 of their rental property were renovated top to 4 bottom with extensive removal of paint and painted 5 components. The family reported dust was everywhere 6 in their home despite measures that that family took 7 to keep the house clean, and the windows closed 8 during the July heat in Baltimore. The family 9 noticed they had a change in their 18 month old 10 child's behavior at that time, a change that only 11 intensified after a bedroom ceiling collapsed in 12 their home two months before the child was tested. 13 These studies and these scenarios 14 suggested efforts to control renovation and remodeling 15 contractor work should follow established practices 16 for keeping homes safe when work is ongoing that 17 we've learned from lead abatement. If these 18 standards are followed and enacted this will be the 19 industry standard and I think do it yourselfers will 20 soon follow these practices. 21 We should see requirements to prohibit 22 work practices known to create lead dust hazards, 0103 1 including open flame burning, heat guns burning over 2 1100 degrees, volatile chemical strippers, machine 3 power sanding, power blasting, dry sanding, dry 4 scraping. We don't need to relearn the lesson and 5 less hazardous alternatives are already proven. 6 Make clearance lead dust testing a requirement 7 following renovation and remodeling work to achieve 8 EPA/ HUD standards in all rooms where renovation took 9 place, regardless of whether the floors are 10 carpeted. Visual assessment isn't good enough. 11 In another study where children were 12 relocated to housing identified as safe by visual 13 inspection 53 percent of the homes actually had lead 14 dust levels above the current federal standards. 15 Visual inspection is unlikely based on research to 16 be good enough to protect a child. Renovators 17 should be required to report clearance test results 18 to the owner and occupant. The diminimous 19 requirements should be looked at closely. HUD 20 guidelines indicate that removing one square foot of 21 lead based paint in a room could result in lead dust 22 levels of 9300 micrograms per square foot and would 0104 1 be very unlikely to be able to clean that to 2 clearance standards. 3 Standards should be followed in all older 4 homes regardless of whether or not a child under six 5 is living there. Children visit families, they go 6 in and out, they move and stay with families for 7 various reasons. This standard will not protect 8 families unless it applies to all homes. I feel 9 that local and state public health authorities 10 should be notified immediately in situations that 11 are deemed to be an emergency to help the contractor 12 determine what should be done to protect the health 13 of the public because emergency requirements are 14 mentioned in this standard. 15 We also need to provide for meaningful 16 enforcement and penalties for non compliance and 17 ensure that all persons working on the renovation and 18 remodeling jobs, not just supervisors, receive 19 effective training in lead safety. Safeguards are 20 urgently needed to protect children and I hope that 21 you will consider this in enacting a rule that will 22 be sufficiently strong to help us meet our goal of 0105 1 eliminating childhood lead poisoning by 2010. 2 MS. MAYBERRY: Good afternoon. My name is Astrid 3 Mayberry. I'm a certified property manager 4 candidate, direct of education for the Greater 5 Metropolitan Washington IRA Chapter 8. The 6 Institute of Real Estate Management is an affiliate 7 of the National Association of Realtors. The 8 Institute is the only professional real estate 9 management association serving both multi family 10 commercial real estate sectors. With 81 U. S. 11 chapters and eight international chapters IRA is the 12 international organization that serves as an 13 advocate on issues affecting the real estate 14 management industry. IRA members manage more than 15 6.5 billion square feet of commercial space. I have 16 a background in both commercial and residential and 17 retail property management. I'm here to speak about 18 the proposed lead based paint rule. The proposed 19 rule requires that a certified renovator supervise 20 each and every renovation defined as any activity 21 that disturbs more than two square feet of paint. 22 IRA believes that such a requirement will result in 0106 1 a disincentive for property owners to conduct 2 regular maintenance on their properties. This could 3 result in deferred maintenance of target housing 4 possibly creating greater lead hazards. Due to 5 increased expense, administrative burden and time 6 involved in complying with the rule owners may be 7 forced to defer small maintenance until they are 8 forced to deal with the bigger problem. 9 The proposed rule would require that 10 signed and dated records be kept describing the work 11 practices, containment, 12 and cleaning for every job. EPA expects its 13 recordkeeping burden to take no more than five hours 14 per year. IRA would strongly argue this 15 recordkeeping will be far more time consuming than 16 the EPA believes. The proposed rule requires that a 17 certified renovator be present at the work site on a 18 regular basis to oversee work practices but EPA 19 requests comment on whether this individual should 20 be physically present at the work site at all times 21 and whether they should prohibit this individual 22 from being assigned to more than one job at a time. 0107 1 IRA would argue that such a requirement would be 2 unnecessary. Providing oversight by the certified 3 renovator on a regular basis would be sufficient for 4 quality control over the project. 5 The proposed rule does not require EPA be 6 notified prior to beginning all renovation jobs but 7 requests comment about whether or not they should 8 be. IRA strongly argues that requiring EPA 9 notification prior to all disturbances of paint over 10 two square feet would be infeasible and result in 11 property owners deferring all maintenance until such 12 time they could take care of all their jobs at the 13 same time to consolidate notification. We urge EPA 14 to stick with the proposal to not require such 15 notification. 16 The proposed rule talks a lot of fees for 17 applicants' training. IRA urges the EPA to make the 18 training for certified renovators free for some 19 period of time to help with the creation of this 20 type of worker. EPA and HUD have provided free 21 training for many of their other rules which have 22 been helpful in gaining compliance. IRA urges the 0108 1 EPA to do the same with this rule. The proposed 2 rule does not require dust clearance sampling after 3 each renovation project. IRA fully supports the 4 reason EPA has used not to require this testing. 5 Dust sampling is very expensive and time consuming. 6 While waiting for test results the renovation area 7 would have to remain unoccupied creating a 8 tremendous burden on property owners and residents. 9 Such requirement would absolutely result in deferred 10 maintenance and deteriorating properties. We 11 strongly urge EPA to stand by their decision to not 12 require dust clearance sampling on renovation jobs. 13 Thank you for your time. 14 MR. LIVINGSTON: I'd just like to make a minute of comments 15 just to clarify some things. We're not talking 16 about abatement. We're talking about maintenance 17 practices. Abatement is a different subject. If we 18 are talking about abatement, abatement means 19 removing all of the lead paint. What we're talking 20 about is maintenance. It is not true by any 21 measurement that doing lead safe work practices 22 increase the cost of a job by 20 or 30 percent. 0109 1 It's absolutely not true. I've done hundreds and 2 hundreds of jobs and what I'm doing is exactly what 3 I did before using different tools and creating a 4 situation where I have much less clean up at the end 5 because I'm cleaning up as I go and I'm masking 6 areas that will absorb dust, so my clean up costs go 7 down, my safety goes up, and I wind up costing 8 approximately the same thing but maybe four or five 9 percent more, maybe four or five percent less, but I 10 guarantee there's no 20 or 30 percent unless you 11 compare maintenance with abatement and we're not 12 doing that. 13 I wrote the book for the National Parks 14 Service on lead safe historic restoration. There is 15 no historic restoration process that demands burning 16 or unvacuum attached sanding. We don't need to make 17 exceptions. As a matter of fact, there's a bunch of 18 new techniques that include benign strippers, steam 19 stripping, closed planing with vacuums, sanding and 20 infrared removal that are far superior, far safer 21 and far cheaper. So these are not adding a burden 22 of cost and they are very simple and I would plead 0110 1 for you to turn this document you've written into 2 English. It's very simple. Don't burn or machine 3 sand, contain your mess, clean up your mess and 4 measure how well you've cleaned it up. That's what 5 this is about. That's all this is about. 6 Exaggerating these things doesn't serve anybody. 7 And by the way, the people who go to the visual 8 inspector training get more training, more training, 9 by about four fold of doing dust tests than the 10 people who are inspectors because there's so many 11 other things they do. 12 This is a very, very simple way of 13 basically making maintenance of older houses safe 14 for workers and for the occupants and we don't have 15 to move everybody out of every house every time we 16 do this. These are all straw men. This isn't the 17 real world. We just want to train the workers to 18 work more cleanly. This is what your mother would 19 tell you. Thank you. 20 MS. MORTIMER: Anybody else wish to speak at 21 this time? 22 MS. DOA: Well, again, thank you so much for 0111 1 your time and for the comments that you've provided. 2 I think quite a number of issues were brought up for 3 EPA to seriously think about and of course we're 4 going to think about all the comments very 5 seriously. Again, right now please get in your 6 written comments by the 10th of April and if there 7 is an extension there will be a Federal Register 8 notice and check our website and if you have written 9 copies of anything to give it to Amy that would also 10 be great. Thank you very much. 11 ( The meeting was adjourned) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0112 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2 3 I, TEAGUE GIBSON, do hereby certify that I 4 reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the 5 meeting aforesaid, and that the foregoing is a 6 true, complete, and accurate transcript of the 7 proceedings at said meeting as appears from my 8 stenographic notes so taken and transcribed under 9 my personal direction, this 29th day of March, 2006. 10 11 TEAGUE GIBSON, Notary Public in and for 12 the State of Maryland. 13 _____________________________ 14 15 My commission expires: October 1, 2007