Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 1 EPA Conference Call With Industry Representatives About Possible LBP Activities Framework ( May 9, 2003)

1. Summary Discussion and Qs & As on " Background and Rationale" Document Summary Discussion:

Mike Wilson from EPA introduced the " Background and Rationale" document. Briefly, he:

° Reviewed EPA's statutory obligations and the background about the decisions leading to the current regulatory structure and requirements; ° Highlighted the key issues that EPA has encountered in implementing the current regulatory structure and activities; and ° Emphasized that EPA's goal is to reduce the burden of the rule that regulates lead based paint activities while still achieving the agency's statutory responsibilities, and also to broaden the scope of the rule to include renovation activities.

Questions & Answers:

Q: A number of small businesses previously participated as representatives to EPA's Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) workgroup. How did that work inform EPA's thinking in developing this potential updated framework? ( Paul) A: Yes, a number of participants on this call provided input to EPA's SBREFA process. EPA, with SBA and OMB, looked at SBREFA workgroup outputs and options under consideration and developed a final report, which is now with the EPA Administrator. Since this report is part of the regulatory process, it is EPA policy not to make such reports publically available until proposal of the rule. Note, however, that EPA is using SBREFA inputs as well as input from these new rounds of workgroup calls in thinking about potential revisions to the existing framework. Nothing from the SBREFA process has been discarded in favor of a new approach. ( Mike)

Q: To clarify, previously the world was divided into separate " paths"   interim controls, abatement, and renovation. Is it EPA's intent now to put all three groupings on a combined path? ( Brandt) A: Yes, EPA's intent is to have a consolidated framework. Firms will require certification; a single certification will allow a firm to conduct interim controls, abatement, or renovation. ( Mike)

Q: Was the SBREFA process utilized as part of EPA's rationale for joining the three paths ( e. g., interim controls, abatement, renovation) into one? ( Brandt) A: The SBREFA process significantly impacted and changed EPA's thinking in terms of all three categories of activities. In focusing on renovation activities during the SBREFA Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 2 process, EPA realized that renovators often performed the same jobs, using the same methods as abatement contractors ( e. g., so with the same " assurances" of safety) but in a less costly manner. With abatement, contractors were also providing assurances of safety but at a much higher cost. So EPA is now focusing on a way to reduce the difference between abatement ( and interim controls) and renovation so as to ensure safety but at a lower cost. ( Mike)

Q: Renovation Program under Section 402( c)( 3) states that " large amount of lead dust may be produced by many renovation activities..." He disagrees; it's either: ( 1) " some" amount of lead dust may be produced by " many" activities; or ( 2) a " large" amount of lead dust may be produced from a " few" renovations. Can EPA provide statistics from the R& R studies to back up its characterization of " most" or " many" activities? ( Bob) A: EPA's Phase I study focused on work conducted by a contractor on a typical business day. The vast majority of these cases exceeded the hazard standard, which at the time was 100 mg/ sq. ft. Now that the standard has been reduced to 40 mg/ sq. ft., even more cases would exceed the standard. ( Mike)

Q: Did EPA's Phase I study also include tests in Philadelphia, where carpenters did not use lead safe work practices ( LSWP)? ( Brandt) A: The Phase I study included standard work activities, e. g., sawing, sanding, etc. Phase I did not include the Philadelphia work; that was performed in Phase III. ( Mike)

Q: Is it possible to email the results of those studies so members can review them before the next conference call on May 22? ( Dave) A: Certain Executive Summaries are available electronically through EPA's Web; see Section 4 of this document for links/ information on EPA's studies. Additionally, the full reports and appendices are available through the National Lead Information Center ( National Lead Information Center at 1 800 424 LEAD( 5323)) or the National Technical Information Service ( NTIS). Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 3 2. Summary Discussion, Qs & As, and Comments on " Summary Table" & " Discussion" Documents Summary Discussion:

Mike Wilson from EPA then introduced the " Summary Table" and " Summary Table Discussion" documents, which describe the key elements of a possible updated framework. Briefly, he:

° Described the key types of changes that would occur across 10 key components of the current regulatory structure if the updated framework were adopted; ° Noted that the framework would apply to all pre 1978 housing; ° Highlighted that the framework emphasizes performance based standards for work practices and the same basic standards would be applied to hazard reduction and renovation; ° Emphasized that the framework seeks to reduce training and other costs to firms doing these types of work; and ° Emphasized the importance of pending results of several current research efforts in understanding the updated framework ( see Mike's explanation in the next Section 3 of these notes).

Questions & Answers and Comments:

Q: Re. supervisors training   is EPA aiming for 16 hours or 8 hours of accredited training? ( Bob) A: EPA is first working through the framework. Once a decision is made on the proposed approach to take, EPA will make a decision on training. In general, EPA's current thinking is to reduce supervisors training and increase project designers ( PDs) training. Specifically, the idea is to remove from the supervisors training all elements of PD and to focus the course on containment, dust minimization, and cleanup. EPA anticipates a revised supervisors course lasting between 8 and 16 hours. The current PD course is a day long; it could be expanded to 2 days. ( Mike)

Q: How available will these courses be? ( Andy) A: The courses will be readily available. Training may be provided through accredited training providers and through NETI. Additionally, EPA will provide training and tools on the Web to help employers provide training at low cost. ( Mike)

Q: Is EPA looking to dismantle current training for abatement and merge requirements in terms of one training curriculum? ( Richard) A: No, EPA is looking to modify, not dismantle, the current training program. EPA does not want to implement standards that are unique and separate for a number of different programs; EPA wants to simplify matters and provide abatement like protection during Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 4 renovation activities. ( Mike) Q: EPA's approach makes good sense, but why the lead sampling technician ( LST) discipline and training? ( Bob) A: Issues associated with potential LST training requirements were also brought up by members of the State, Local, and Tribal Stakeholders Workgroup in their call last week. If industry stakeholders also have comments on the LST designation, EPA would appreciate receiving them. ( Mike)

Q: Is EPA taking off the table all the discussions that came out of the SBREFA meetings, including all the information previously provided by the painting industry? He's been heavily involved in SBREFA, PDCA activities, etc., over the past few years. While it may seem logical on paper to combine the abatement, interim controls, and renovation programs, it seems that the possible updated framework is very much at the expense of renovators. It does not simply ease the abatement burden. Renovators want to stay away from abatement industry. ( Brandt) A: No, nothing is off the table. EPA typically talks with stakeholders over the course of any rulemaking process and will consider all comments and information   old and new   in its deliberations. This possible updated framework is in line with the SBREFA process, since it recognizes similar work practices while reducing burdens. ( Mike)

Comment: Brandt disagrees very much with Mike's characterization of this framework as being in keeping with SBREFA and previous discussions, and in reducing burden.

Q: How does this regulatory framework link to the voluntary program described at the March PDCA meeting? It seems the 2 approaches  regulatory and voluntary  are incongruous. ( Kevin) A: The rulemaking and voluntary approaches are proceeding on two separate but parallel tracks. There is a statutory requirement, enacted by Congress in the original Title X legislation, which directed EPA to promulgate a rule to address lead based paint ( LBP) hazards and, based on research findings, to extend coverage of the rule to R& R should that be warranted. The research discussed earlier in the call indicated that R& R activities did, in fact, create significant amounts of lead dust. At the same time, EPA recognizes that a voluntary approach may be effective in helping to create a market for LSWP. The final decision on whether to proceed with one or the other, or both approaches will be made by the leadership at EPA. ( Mike)

Q: Are these 2 approaches related? Will one win out? ( Kevin) A: There is the potential for EPA to look at how successful the voluntary initiative is, and then consider that in terms of what a regulatory program would look like. ( Mike)

Q: Re. Rule Component 1, Applicability, does the 2 sq. foot deminimis trigger for renovation apply to the total surface area as well as to a perimeter cut? Electrical contractors need to place a lot of electrical outlets, etc., which means they cut into dry wall that may have Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 5 LBP. They are only disturbing the surface area that is physically being cut   the hole could be larger than 2 sq. ft. but not really disturb more than 1/ 16 or 1/ 8 of an inch times the length of the cut, which is much less than 2 sq. ft. Would these perimeter cuts also be restricted to 2 sq. ft? ( Dave) A: The original 2 sq. foot trigger was developed in the context of sanding and preparing a surface, such as a wall, for painting. EPA would like feedback on this issue with respect to cutting a hole in the wall. ( Mike)

Q: Under Rule Component 8, Prohibited Practices, the list of work practice restrictions indicates that machine sanding, grinding, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting of LBP is prohibited unless there is a HEPA exhaust control. Is water blasting included? What about chemical strippers? ( Richard) A: Under Section 1012, HUD's federal abatement program addresses chemical strippers, but chemical strippers were never in the TSCA Section 402 requirements. ( Mike)

Q: What about water blasting under Section 745? ( Richard) A: I believe we were attempting to summarize all abrasive blasting, so we will have to review the original language and get back to you on whether it specifically includes water blasting. [ In followup, as shown in Section 4, hydroblasting is not included in the rule at this time.] ( Mike)

Q: Re. Rule Component 7, Work Practice Standards, there are six possible examples under consideration listed in the Summary Table Discussion document. Is it's EPA intent to have approximately 6 standards, or to have 50, or even 100, of such standards? ( Bob) A: Any component of the potential framework is open to future modification. Items could be added or deleted. But EPA's overarching goal is to simply the program. ( Mike)

Q: Re. Rule Component 10, Exterior Clearance, could a supervisor provide visual clearance/ inspection of their own work? ( Richard) A: Yes. ( Mike)

Q: Why would EPA allow a possible conflict of interest ( COI) on an issue like this? ( Richard) A: Please provide comments on COI. ( Mike)

Q: Why is clearance testing voluntary for renovation? ( Richard) A: EPA believes that where cleanup is done in compliance with specific requirements, the results will be below the hazard standard. Requiring clearance testing would be costly. ( Mike)

Q: What's the group's " homework" in preparing for the second call? Does EPA want the group to provide data ( e. g., impacts, costs, etc.) per the list of questions on page 3 of the invitation memorandum? ( Bob) A: Today's call was to communicate EPA's understanding of the issues involved and the Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 6 rationale behind a potential updated framework. The next call will be to provide feedback on specific issues, including those listed in the memorandum. So yes, EPA appreciates all data that stakeholders may have on these questions. ( Mike)

Q: When are written comments due? ( Amy) A: EPA would appreciate receiving written comments by May 23, which is right after the May 22 call. EPA recognizes that some participants may require a little additional time, but is still hoping to receive comments as expeditiously as possible, no later than the week of May 26. EPA will use these comments to brief management during internal lead meetings the week of June 9. Send your comments to Mike Wilson at wilson. mike@ epa. gov. ( Mike)

Q: What's the anticipated timeframe for the rulemaking? ( Richard) A: That's difficult to say, since EPA is still in the process of deliberating options. To proceed to proposal, EPA needs to have concurrence from senior officials in the Agency, who are aware of the program but have not bought in to any one approach. After that, it may take 10 months for proposal. ( Mike)

Q: So, a goal of 4 to 5 years? ( Richard) A: In the Regulatory Agenda it says 2004 for proposal, but that's subject to change. ( Mike)

Q: Who will make the final decision about whether to proceed with a rule? ( Brandt) A: The political leadership at EPA will do what is called an " options selection" process. Once they have selected an option, if the option is to proceed with a rule, then OMB would be involved in reviewing the rule. ( Mike)

Q: Does that mean that EPA's political leadership has not yet bought in to a rulemaking? ( Brandt) A: EPA has not yet held its internal options selection meeting, since the lead program is still accumulating information and debating the framework. ( Mike)

Q: By options in the framework, do you mean voluntary versus regulatory? ( Amy) A: No, the options selection process refers only to selection of a regulatory option. The framework discussed today is only one approach within the regulatory construct. There are a variety of options for each component of the framework. EPA is trying to come up with a single approach that best addresses all the various issues under consideration. ( Mike)

Q: Can participants get names, addresses, etc. of other participants on the call? ( Dave) A: Yes, see Section 5. ( Mike) Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 7 3. Summary Discussion, Qs & As, and Comments on Research Projects Underway Colorimetric Swab Test Kits HUD is now conducting a study of the ability of colorimetric swab tests to identify the presence of lead based paint ( LBP) by changing color. Should it be determined that swab tests are effective, homeowners may test on disturbed surfaces at low cost. It would be very easy to evaluate the results of such tests. If swab tests are found not to be effective, then the only ways to determine the presence of LBP remain the higher cost methods of XRF testing or laboratory analysis of paint samples.

Q: Is EPA's goal to require every house pre 1978 to require testing prior to renovation ( e. g., is EPA trying to establish a baseline so as not to make problems worse)? ( Jeff) A: EPA will consider whether these tests could be incorporated into the regulatory program. ° If so, if lead were found to be present, then the regulations would apply; if lead were found not to be present, then the regulations would not apply; if no test were conducted, then one would have to assume that lead was present. ° Without a swab test, EPA may focus applicability of the rule based on the age of the home. There are several indications that lead levels have dropped over time: ° HUD's 2000 National Survey showed that incidence of LBP in pre 78 housing dropped from 67 percent to 40 percent; in housing built between 1960 and 1978, incidence dropped from about 62 percent to 24 percent. ° An estimated 50 percent of pre 1978 homes were built before 1960 and 1978; approximately 90 percent of homes pre 1940 contain some LBP. ° An estimated 18 percent of these homes had kids under age 6  so 18 percent of 24 percent is less than 5 percent ( i. e., very low percent). So, EPA's overarching issue is, if the swabs are not effective, should the framework discussed be applied only to pre 50/ 60 housing or to multi family dwellings ( i. e, where there is still a greater likelihood of LBP)? ( Mike)

Use of Electrostatic Cleaning Clothes ( ECCs)

EPA is very concerned about costs of LSWP, particularly on the testing side. A single clearance test, for example, can cost $ 150. EPA wants to ensure safety of renovation jobs ( e. g., ensure that clearance standards are met), but contain the costs.

With this in mind, EPA is currently studying whether electrostatic cleaning clothes, such as " swiffer" like products that you find in a grocery store, could be used for cleaning and determining if a job clears and passes the lead hazard standard. ECCS cost $ 1 or less per pad. The research is not complete, but there is some preliminary evidence that ECCs perform better than dust wipe sampling in picking up lead dust, and may be more effective in cleaning surfaces to a level under the 40 micrograms/ sq. ft. standard. [ Also, a dust wipe sample is limited to 1 sq. ft. surfaces, while an ECC would be used over the whole work area, so greater assurance that the Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 8 levels would be less than 40 micrograms.] An ECC test could reinforce the idea of renovation with voluntary dust sampling  so not only cleanup, but also clearance. The overarching question is, how clean should the ECC be after covering the entire work area? ( Mike) Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 9 4. Further Information as Requested in Advance of May 22, 2003, Follow up Call Data from EPA's Studies under TSCA Section 402( c)( 3) of LBP Hazards Specifically Created by R& R Activities The following EPA Phase I, II, III, and IV studies of lead exposure associated with R& R activities are available through the Web, the National Lead Information Center ( National Lead Information Center at 1 800 424 LEAD( 5323)) and/ or the National Technical Information Service ( NTIS).

° [ NIC. # 404] Lead Exposure Associated with Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling Study, Volume I: Technical Report, May 1997 ( EPA 747R96007); Executive Summary HTML format.

° [ NIC. # 405] Lead Exposure Associated with Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling Study, Volume II: Appendices, May 1997 ( EPA 747 R 96 008).

° [ NIC. # 403] Lead Exposure Associated with Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Phase II, Worker Characterization and Blood Lead Study, May 1997 ( EPA 747 R 96 006); Executive Summary HTML format.

° Lead Exposure Associated with Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Summary Report, May 1997 ( EPA 747 R 96 005). This report is no longer available from the NIC. To obtain a copy, contact NTIS and request NTIS document # PB97 185953. Executive Summary HTML format.

° [ NIC. # 407] Lead Exposure Associated with Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood Blood Lead Study, March 1999 ( EPA 747 R 99 002).

° [ NIC. # 408] Lead Exposure Associated with Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Phase IV, Worker Characterization and Blood Lead Study of R& R Workers Who Specialize in Renovation of Old or Historic Homes, March 1999 ( EPA 747 R 99 001).

Water Blasting under Section 745 § 745.227 Work practice standards for conducting lead based paint activities: target housing and child occupied facilities.

a) Effective date, applicability, and terms. ( 1) Beginning on March 1, 2000, all lead based paint activities shall be performed pursuant to the work practice standards contained in this section.

( 2) When performing any lead based paint activity described by the certified individual as an Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 10 inspection, lead hazard screen, risk assessment or abatement, a certified individual must perform that activity in compliance with the appropriate requirements below.

( 3) Documented methodologies that are appropriate for this section are found in the following: The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead Based Paint Hazards in Housing; the EPA Guidance on Residential Lead Based Paint, Lead Contaminated Dust, and Lead Contaminated Soil; the EPA Residential Sampling for Lead: Protocols for Dust and Soil Sampling ( EPA report number 7474 R 95 001); Regulations, guidance, methods or protocols issued by States and Indian Tribes that have been authorized by EPA; and other equivalent methods and quidelines.

( 4) Clearance levels are appropriate for the purposes of this section may be found in the EPA Guidance on Residential Lead Based Paint, Lead Contaminated Dust, and Lead Contaminiated Soil or other equivalent guidelines.

e) Abatement.

( 6) The work practices listed below shall be restricted during an abatement as follows:

( i) Open flame burning or torching of lead based paint is prohibited;

( ii) Machine sanding or grinding or abrasive blasting or sandblasting of lead based paint is prohibited unless used with High Efficiency Particulate Air ( HEPA) exhaust control which removes particles of 0.3 microns or larger from the air at 99.97 percent or greater efficiency;

( iii) Dry scraping of lead based paint is permitted only in conjunction with heat guns or around electrical outlets or when treating defective paint spots totaling no more than 2 square feet in any one room, hallway or stairwell or totaling no more than 20 square feet on exterior surfaces; and ( iv) Operating a heat gun on lead based paint is permitted only at temperatures below 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.

http:// a257. g. akamaitech. net/ 7/ 257/ 2422/ 14mar20010800/ edocket. access. gpo. gov/ cfr_ 2002/ julqtr/ pdf/ 40 cfr745.227. pdf 45796 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 169 / Thursday, August 29, 1996 / Rules and Regulations In regard to the establishment of restrictions for hydroblasting and highpressure washing, the Agency does not have enough data to demonstrate that these practices may pose a lead based paint hazard in target housing or childoccupied facilities. Nor is there sufficient data to support specific restrictions on how to effectively control or limit these practices to reduce any hazards they might pose. Consequently, the rule does not establish restrictions Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 11 for hydroblasting and high pressure washing. However, the Agency recommends that controls be used to contain any debris or wastewater that may be generated when hydroblasting and high pressure washing are employed as abatement techniques. Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 12 5. Workgroup Participants on the May 9, 2003, Industry Stakeholder Group Call Richard Baker Baker Environmental Consulting 7941 Westgate Street Lexana, KS 66215 2636 ph: 913 541 0220 fax: 913 541 0457 Paul Corey Paul J. Corey Painting and Decorating 769 East Street Dedham, MA 02026 ph: 781 326 4225 fax: 781 320 9062 Lake Coulson National Association of Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling Contractors 180 S. Washington St. Falls Church, VA 22046 ph: 1 800 533 7694 fax: 703 273 7442 Brandt Domas Domas & Associates, Inc. 1344 West Cedar Avenue Denver, CO 80233 1731 ph: 303 733 7186 fax: 303 733 2802 Amy Erickson National Association of Home Builders 1201 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 ph: 202 822 0328 fax: 202 822 0390 Bob Hanbury House of Hanbury Builders 109 Stamm Road Newington, CT 06111 ph: 860 666 1537 Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 16, 2003   Page 13 fax: 860 665 7815 Jeff Hurst Hurst Total Home, Inc. 2852 Haig Avenue Kettering, OH 45419 ph: 937 296 1133 fax: 937 296 1134 Eileen Lee National Multi Housing Council 1850 M Street, NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20036 ph: 202 659 3381 fax: 202 775 0112 Andy Moelk JEFFCO Painting and Coating, Inc. 1260 Railroad Ave., Bldg. 750 Vallejo, CA 94592 ph: 707 556 1900 fax: 707 556 1907 Kevin Nolan Nolan Painting, Inc. 118 West Hillcrest Avenue Havertown, PA 19083 ph: 610 642 1415 fax: 610 642 7856 Dave Potts National Electrical Contractors Association 3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1100 Bethesda, MD 20814 ph: 301 657 3110 fax: 301 215 4500