Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 1 LEAD PROGRAMS MEETING MEETING SUMMARY September 25 26, 2000 OVERVIEW On Monday and Tuesday, September 25 and 26, staff from EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics hosted a meeting with state representatives from EPA regional lead programs to obtain input on drafting a proposed rule for renovation and remodeling as it relates to lead based paint. Attendees and their affiliation are provided in Appendix A to this meeting summary.

Additionally, Appendices B F are all documents that were distributed during the meeting. They are:

C Appendix B Meeting Agenda C Appendix C Session Highlights ° Appendix D Lead Renovation and Remodeling Proposed Rule Pros & Cons of Potential Options and Appendices ( Pros & Cons paper)

C Appendix E Renovation and Remodeling Sample Options Under Consideration ( Options Table)

C Appendix F Handouts for the " 402 Present and Future" Discussion ° Appendix G Regulatory Status of waste Generated by Contractors and Residents from Lead Based Paint Activities Conducted in Households This meeting summary has been prepared in a narrative format and reflects key discussion points in the order that they arose. These notes are not a meeting transcript, however, and some comments have been summarized and paraphrased.

DAY 1 INTRODUCTION ( 10: 00 a. m.  10: 30 a. m.)   Lin Moos Lin Moos opened the meeting by providing a brief background, communicating the goals of the meeting, and walking the participants through the two day agenda.

Ms. Moos began the background to the meeting with a quick overview of the difficulties posed by the 402 regulations. When the 402 regulations were developed there was very little involvement of either the regions or the states. The result was some problematic regulations. The framework had no provision to effectively and clearly separate renovation work, interim controls, and abatement. Consequently, the regulations encountered tremendous issues in the field. States and regions found it difficult to match these regulations with dissimilar programs nationwide. Additionally, HUD and the National Center issued a letter which led to considerable confusion. ( EPA offered to write a letter of clarification to any state which may require interpretation.) Ms. Moos said this meeting was intended to help prevent similar difficulties with new legislation. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 2 Ms. Moos explained the goal of the meeting as to achieve an increased understanding of the various positions of the states and EPA related to the new regulation. Ms. Moos said she recognized that the states have many different, and potentially contradictory, needs; however, she hoped the dialogue would help craft a workable and effective rule. Ms. Moos noted that even though EPA will eventually propose a set of regulations with the normal comment period to follow, this meeting is intended to help ensure that all options that need to be considered are articulated before anything is proposed. She also said that the political implications of any action must be considered. HUD has had significant trouble with its program, in particular maintaining congruity with different state programs, and any regulations developed must consider small business interests, state interests, and the OMB review process.

SESSION 1 ( 10: 30 a. m.  11: 15 a. m.): Identifying the Key Elements of a Successful Program Lin Moos began the session by outlining three components necessary to identifying the key elements of a successful program. The key elements include identifying important descriptors of a successful program, key pitfalls to avoid, and key constituencies to include. In response, participants made the following comments:

Important Descriptors of a Successful Program Ernie Kelly: In order to consider the success of a program, the program must be judged by the goals it establishes.

Vern Dander: To be successful the regulations must have unambiguous requirements, as much as that is possible.

Larrie Lance: There is rife confusion in the states, particularly over how different programs interface. There must be an effort to put everybody on the same page.

Lin Moos: The primary difficulty is that HUD programs interface with EPA programs which interface with the states.

Larrie Lance: Training needs to be better publicized. When training is going on everybody needs to know. Often important groups are not aware of the necessity of training and/ or opportunities for training.

Barry Brooks: The importance of publicity, getting the information out cannot be understated at this point. Notifying contractors is difficult but necessary for success. This is particularly important and correspondingly difficult in small states.

Ernie Kelley: Priority must be given to creating some consistency between EPA and HUD regulations. Often a great deal of confusion is created directly at the agency level. Any program proposed should be simple.

Cathy Atkins: There must be an adequate time for adaptation to any new regulations. In the case of HUD, regulations have been introduced too quickly and compliance with the regulations has been mandated too soon after adoption and notification.

Perry Manor: Flexibility is an important part of any program that might be proposed. It must be understood that any federal program will have diverse effects in the states. Many people are confused about which Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 3 regulation applies when confronted by HUD, the state, EPA, etc. The most stringent standard from each applies. Wisconsin has been developing a training program which integrates all programs. Any new rule should not cause conflicts with other programs.

Ernie Kelley: HUD and EPA need to work together to create consistency, with concern about how their regulations will be implemented in the states.

Lin Moos: The group seems to be focusing on HUD problems, are there more EPA specific issues?

Larrie Lance: I don't think we are focusing on HUD problems it is important that the EPA not make the same mistakes.

Ellie Clark: The HUD regulations are already out. Does the EPA need to follow the HUD framework to maintain consistency?

Lin Moos: Consistency is difficult because of the many differences in state programs. HUD has tried to adopt one federal standard regardless of locality there are no delegated HUD programs.

Mike Wilson: EPA has been thinking a lot about the purpose of any program. The focus is on urban, low income, and minority populations.

Pat Curran: The housing community is used to HUD regulations, but environmental regulations are something new and different. Any EPA regulation must be simple and easy to implement.

Vern Dander: Some distinctions need to be made between trainings. For example, what is the difference between a technician and an inspector? Such differences are not always clear to all people. Additionally, there needs to be some clarity about which qualifications ( and training) are necessary for which activities and similarly, what some activities may require for qualifications.

Perry Manor: Changing liability requirements have created difficulties for defining " lead safe." This has caused a review of training requirements. Wisconsin has worked hard to minimize requirements and training time by developing a series of modular courses. Each course is developed to build upon another, leading to greater levels of knowledge and certification. The program is organized to create a common standard by incorporating regulations from various jurisdictions.

One big problem is that there no common understanding of the difference between abatement and interim controls. This differentiation should be focused around risk  high risk versus low risk activities. Lower risk activities could be conducted by minimally trained personnel while higher risk activities would require greater training.

Lin Moos: What is an example of the difference between high risk and low risk activities?

Perry Manor: Low risk activities would be something like covering over a painted floor ( lead based paint) with linoleum. Low risk activities typically involve enclosure or encapsulation as opposed to removal.

Karen Crampton: The problem in Vermont is that contractors are not regulated by any agency. Most contractors are small operations making them hard to reach.

Mike Wilson: Please explain what Vermont does in its lead program. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 4 Karen Crampton: Vermont relies upon owners and landlord associations to spread the message. The Vermont EMP ( Essential Maintenance Practices) training program has recently been certified by HUD. It is less extensive than other courses but it requires a test. New EPA training requirements will create a big political problem now that our program is operating.

Ernie Kelley: Getting back to the elements of a successful program, any program would be most successful if it was based upon risk. There is currently a big problem with distinctions between different agency regulations.

Pat Curran: There should be some agreement between all agencies on common terminology. Terms like " inspector" and " interim controls" need to be clearer.

Key Pitfalls to Avoid Perry Manor: There is a big problem when the regulations of a granting agency are different from other agencies. Just because the granting agency says everything is okay does not mean that all requirements have necessarily been fulfilled. What happens with a person working on a HUD funded project that follows an EPA approved state program? The other requirements are often overlooked or assumed to be redundant and completely the same.

John Sikes: The most important thing is to keep everything simple. It may be necessary to go back to the state legislatures to amend state legislation.

Larrie Lance: This might be assumed, but buy in from contractors is absolutely necessary.

Dan Chatfield: It should be explicitly stated what bad could happen if these contractors are not regulated.

Ernie Kelley: Contractors are an established constituency. They have used the same practices for many years and will be extremely resistant to change. If there is to be a change in work practices, the changes should be phased in incrementally. Otherwise there will be an industry uproar. A large scale education program is going to be needed to change the knowledge and attitude of industry. Something like the seatbelt or smoking programs might be necessary.

Mike Wilson: In Vermont, do you ask homeowners to look for lead safe contractors?

Karen Crampton: Yes, we are spending time on public outreach.

Barry Brooks: The blame cannot be placed upon all contractors. I have found that EBL children ( elevated blood lead level) is not often caused by the work of contractors. A bigger problem is homeowners doing their own work.

If certain practices are banned, there must be some other viable options offered. These options must be both safe and economical. Additionally, particularly in small states, most work is done by small operators who are difficult to reach  your typical " Bubbas."

Keith Alexander: I would like to echo Barry. A big pitfall is not to justify the need for a state program to state legislatures. Also, for legislators to understand the requirements they should be simple and easily understood standards. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 5 Ernie Kelley: A question to be addressed is, what fundamentally distinguishes de leading from renovation? What are the concrete differences in knowledge and training?

Larrie Lance: Buy in will be difficult to achieve. Big states rely a lot upon local elements. Legislatures need to hear the necessity from the EPA.

John Sikes: It is not feasible to certify all contractors in the U. S. There are something like 300,000 contractors with 1.3 million workers ( Mike Wilson). The initiative will need to come from owners.

Ernie Kelley: HUD has helped in a way. They have primed the pump for training and spread the message.

Perry Manor: The risk between renovators and abaters can be the same. We need to look at activities, not persons.

Ernie Kelley: We have been looking at risk in Massachusetts.

Keith Alexander: I think it may be too late to change. There are already a lot of regulations in place that do not acknowledge this difference. In Texas, HUD grantees will simply call their work abatement to qualify for the money.

Key Constituencies to Include Kerra Roudebush: The landlord must be considered in Section 8 housing.

Dan Chatfield: Metropolitan housing authorities that receive HUD money.

Perry Manor: Training providers need to be involved in the process very early.

Mazzie Talley: With energy efficiency, DOE.

Pat Curran: DoD, same reason.

Dan Chatfield: FAA funds some window replacement as a part of noise abatement around airports.

Joe Younger: Municipal agencies and schools must be informed.

Perry Manor: The involvement of associations is necessary.

Dan Chatfield: Daycare providers seem to be almost sacred but they can have serious problems.

Dave Combs: Head Start programs.

Cathy Atkins: State legislatures must be throughly educated.

Session 2 ( 11: 30 a. m.   1: 00 p. m.): R & R options evaluated, review of approach presented at national meeting, potential new options Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 6 Mr. Wilson began the session by introducing the two resources he would use during his presentation: " Lead Renovation and Remodeling Proposed Rule Pros and Cons of Potential Options and Approaches," ( Appendix D) and the second a table entitled, " Renovation and Remodeling Sample Options Under Consideration" ( Appendix E). Audience members had many questions and often interjected comments during the presentation.

Mr. Wilson began with the pros and cons paper ( Appendix D). He mentioned that most participants are probably aware about what's been done with the renovation and remodeling statute, and that it calls to modify the 402 abatement regulations. EPA extrapolated the structure from the abatement regulations and are applying renovation specific components to it. He reviewed these in the order they were presented in the document.

The applicability section discussed renovation specifically, and how housing is affected by renovation and remodeling rules. It presented three options: Should it affect all pre 1978 housing, pre 1960 housing or rental housing only? Mr. Wilson stated that one of the interesting things to look at is how the data appears to be changing. EPA does not have final figures yet, but has learned that the numbers from the HUD data may be reduced. The original survey showed that 75% had lead based paint and now that figure may be as low as 25%. Mr. Wilson noted it is difficult to regulate the housing stock if such a low percentage of houses are truly at risk.

Mr. Wilson continued to walk the group through the paper. He next discussed two potential exemptions: Exemptions one: Minor repair or maintenance and Exemption two: Emergency renovation projects.

Mr. Wilson next reviewed the range of options for certification of firms and employees of firms, including training and certification of individuals, which Mr. Wilson mentioned was similar to the abatement regulations. At this point in the presentation, Mr. Wilson asked a question of the audience: " What is your impression of the need for certifications? How important is it to certify workers and supervisors?"

Bob Ford: Certify supervisors. Enforcement actions go after supervisors, not workers. Don't certify workers.

Larrie Lance: I agree with Bob's sentiments. There is a need for financial incentives to certify people.

Barry Brooks: Certify supervisors, not workers.

Keith Alexander: Don't certify workers.

Perry Manor: Supervisors direct and control the project, therefore there is a need to grasp the supervisors.

Mr. Wilson continued presenting the pros and cons position paper. He next discussed the options for:

· Accreditation of Training Providers; · Work Practice Standards; and · Prohibited Practices.

Regarding prohibited practices, Mr. Wilson instructed the audience to look at the data used to establish the restrictions limited. He mentioned this was only created because the work caused disruption of more dust. He further reminded participants that this rule is not in place to protect workers, but to protect families. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 7 The final two components and the options that Mr. Wilson discussed were exterior and interior clearance. Regarding the latter, Mr. Wilson mentioned it is a highly charged issue, and some public health people think clearance is the only way for a unit to be safe enough for re occupancy. He stated that contractors are concerned about standards because of the costs. Mr. Wilson provided an example if you have to clear each room, and you are performing work on four rooms with clearance tests at $ 160/ room, that is an extra $ 600 cost to the project.

At this point in the discussion, Larrie Lance informed the group of a study she heard about in California.

Larrie Lance: I heard that vacuum cleaners with new bags are being tested in California and some results have shown you have the same clearance testing levels as using a HEPA vacuum.

Mike Wilson: That is great that new tests are being performed, but until enough data is collected, remember EPA must comply with the OSHA regulations and use HEPA vacuums.

Larrie Lance: OSHA regulations apply to firms with less than ten employees?

Mike Wilson: Yes, any time there is an employee employer relationship, OSHA requirements kick in.

Mr. Wilson continued to summarize the position paper. He informed the audience that the paper was completed in March and will have a significant impact on small businesses. He explained where EPA was today on these options. He informed the audience that the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) Association provided good feedback on the paper. Their feedback helped EPA get a good sense of how other Federal agencies might react to the proposed rule.

EPA thought about other options to follow. Mr. Wilson talked about the previous discussions and concerns people had about the HUD 1012 training for interim controls work. He stated that people wanted to know when work needs to be done, and who does what. Mr. Wilson stated that the preamble of the HUD Regulations needed to establish a definition for training because EPA did not define training. HUD acknowledged that EPA might have regulations regarding training in the future.

Mr. Wilson stated it will be at least 18 months, and perhaps two years, before this new proposed renovator and remodeler rule could take effect.

Next, Mr. Wilson began to review the Table, " Renovation and Remodeling Sample Options Under Consideration" ( Appendix B) presented in June. Mr. Wilson stated that the table has the same issues as the paper. He began speaking about applicability. He said EPA is treating abatement and interim controls together.

At this point in the presentation, Mr. Wilson asked a question to the audience: " Is there a need for a specific group of lead hazard control folks? Is it necessary? Two to three levels or possibly one level of training that applies over interim controls and abatement?"

Ernie Kelley: It depends on the condition of the unit, and the condition of the paint when the work is complete. It is hard because there is no consistency for job completion after abatement and what abatement completion should be.

Perry Manor: I think that one standard should be implemented and that it should be the highest level. But not everyone in our state ( Wisconsin) wants the highest level to be implemented. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 8 John Sikes: I think multiple levels should be implemented. But the levels should be more targeted to activities, such as people who perform window replacements.

Bob Ford: Some do and some don't. Ninety five percent of the workers trained will be performing renovation and remodeling activities, while only five percent will perform abatement projects. Utah currently offers five different trainings with their rule. Now we are talking about adding new training requirements for renovation and remodeling and this will be problematic for our training providers. I do not see the abatement training in high demand in five years, so if we move to one training which is separate from the state training, it might be good for the training providers. I support one kind of training to help the training providers buy into the program.

Mike Wilson: If we implemented modular training, it would have two levels. Level one would be the basics, level two would train on interim controls and abatement specific work.

Bob Ford: This option is viable, but participants from the classes are mostly from out of state, but I support modular training.

Larrie Lance: I would like to see standard training for workers no matter what they do. Have the supervisors responsible for making sure the workers did what was right when doing the abatement work.

Mike Wilson: One problem with your idea is we don't require supervisors to be on site. How would you address that?

Larrie Lance: Maybe the rules will change.

Perry Manor: I would like to re emphasize my idea that EPA should move towards activity based classification. I think you should avoid the word " intent." If you look at the activity, it doesn't matter what industry you are working in. You could arrange training as high and low risk activities. It is easier to build up the modular training if you think of the base as activities.

Barry Brooks: In discussing the different classifications of training, Kansas will not recognize the clearance technician classification. Everything will be done by an inspector or risk assessor. We started having conversations with HUD about a year ago about these issues. Kansas only has five training providers. Three train supervisors and two perform all the trainings. Kansas has had a lot of trouble finding enough business for them. I support the supervisor training and also wanted to tell you that Kansas requires 40 hours for their supervisor training.

Pat Curran: In response to Perry's comments, follow intent. When the rule came out it talked about hazard reduction and how it is not applicable under renovation. We need to have simple terminology. In response to Barry's comments, with the level one and level two training, we are concerned about how we'd get our training providers up to level two.

Lin Moos: How many have been certified?

Pat Curran: Four hundred and sixty.

Lin Moos: How many would there be if they have formal requirements required by the regulations? Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 9 Pat Curran: Several thousand.

Mike Wilson: I want to address the comments on intent and to see consistent standards on interim controls and abatement. Yes, the intent will stay. As far as the renovation and remodeling rule is concerned, the rule will be based on intent. What the grouping of interim controls does is eliminate what we have now as permanent and temporary fixes. It provides a consistent standard among abatement and interim controls. In our proposal we will require training for maintenance workers. I think we are in agreement that as far as abatement jobs are being done today, the majority of those are being performed with Federal funds. We also think that the majority of future interim control work will be done under the 1012 rule with Federal funds.

Any time an EBL child is involved there will be special considerations and requirements involved. In New York they have the local 138 regulation that states that lead hazard reduction work will be done in response to an EBL child. That work would be covered under hazard reduction work, not renovation.

In other activities, or at least those covered by renovation, the renovation requirements are suggesting the same; containment, safe work practices, and requirement for cleanup. These are the same requirements as the lead hazard reduction activity level. There is a level of safety involved.

Perry Manor: Intent for me is problematic, especially with the 1012/ 1013 regulations. I asked HUD if their 1012/ 1013 activities' intent is for lead hazard reduction. Their reply was no, their intent is rehabilitation. It is problematic for me because it is the same issue and they are using different terminology and avoiding the issue by using the term rehabilitation.

Mike Wilson: HUD clearly states their purpose in their preamble as the reason for the new regulation. The preamble states that the new regulation establishes procedures that eliminate the hazards of lead based paint in residential properties.

Lin Moos: HUD probably calls it rehab because it has always been called rehab, even before EPA. They are not dodging the issue by renaming it, they've called it rehab for a long time.

Perry Manor: My point is intent. Because 1012/ 1013 intent is lead hazard reduction, it should meet the EPA abatement definition.

Mike Wilson: The way the preamble is worded now could establish the argument that intent of performing lead reduction work is present and require all certified workers to be used. 1012/ 1013 requires risk assessment to be done in all housing. They allow one contractor to address the recommendations of the risk assessment. They have to have two licenses to perform the work.

John Sikes: When talking about the HUD rule, people on the local level are confused.

Following this discussion, Mr. Wilson directed the participants back to the tables and certification of firms and how the worker training is different.

Mr. Wilson stated that the requirements for the workers will be different for renovation than they are for lead hazard reduction activities. For renovation, certification will not necessary for the worker. He informed the audience that training will be required, but not certification. Some other informal training such as an informal course or something held by the employer will also be required for workers. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 10 He stated that hazard reduction will require training of workers by an accredited training provider. EPA would receive notification of who has been trained and create a database of workers.

Mr. Wilson continued to present the table discussing supervisors, sampling technicians and work practice standards. He commented that the nice thing about the HUD guidelines is that abatement requires clearance.

Continuing with the table under the interior renovation section, Mr. Wilson stated that EPA would recommend that clearance be obtained. If the homeowner requests clearance, the certified personnel would have to conduct the clearance. That person could be employed by the person doing the work in house.

A number of people in the audience had comments on clearance and wanted to share them with Mr. Wilson and the group.

Bob Ford: The same person doing the work and the clearance have to be different under the HUD regulations.

Mike Wilson: Yes, HUD requires the sampling and the work to be done by different parties.

Bob Ford: If they don't intermingle, it should be okay under EPA rules.

Mike Wilson: HUD's definition is similar. They do allow workers from the same organization as long as the person doing the clearance is not actively involved in performing the work. HUD has more restrictive requirements than EPA.

Bob Ford: I think the intent was that the same person was not performing the work and the clearance.

Mike Wilson: We will discuss more tomorrow when we discuss whether a third party should be involved in the clearance.

Mr. Wilson continued presenting the section about interior clearance provided in the table. He noted that EPA has grouped the abatement and interim controls together in response to a request from Congress. Congress also asked that the work be cleared by a sampling technician.

After finishing presenting the section on interior clearance, Mr. Wilson began presenting the section on exterior clearance. He stated that sampling technicians could also do the clearance. A specific individual at the job site with a supervisor and homeowner is required to perform the clearance. Mr. Wilson completed presenting the table and informed the audience that both the table and paper were completed in June.

Mr. Wilson next gave a brief history outlining why EPA is motivated to talk about new options. The motivation is mainly driven by the fact that the HUD housing figures might be as low as 25%. He stated that the focus should be on pre 1960 housing and maybe pre 1950 housing. They are waiting for the final report this fall.

Mr. Wilson said EPA has also heard rumors that NHANES data for children with EBL could be as low as 350,000 to 400,000. He noted this a large decrease from the previous year's numbers of 890,000. Therefore, EPA needs to determine if it is necessary for them to control the contractors in order to provide safety for children. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 11 Mr. Wilson stated EPA also talked to contractors who are licensed, bonded, and have 25 30 employees. They found that these contractors are all using HEPA vacuums and other lead safe standards and approximately 10 15 % of the renovation contractors are willing to get certification. He noted that contractors find the certification gives them justification for being more expensive. Mr. Wilson informed the group that most of the work these contractors performed is upper end rehab. These contractors are not working in targeted low income neighborhoods.

Mr. Wilson next informed the audience that EPA did a training video in Philadelphia, which will be included in a training course expected to be completed at the end of this month. A film crew was able to capture a renovator performing work at a job site.

Mr. Wilson posed a rhetorical question to the group and provided an answer: " Will lower income housing benefit from this kind of certification? Of the kind of contractors we just mentioned? Probably not because they are not working in low end neighborhoods. They are all working on high income housing. We have also found that in low income housing the work is being done by the owner or a friend of the owner. There is a higher risk of creating lead hazards when the owner or a friend completes the work."

Many members of the audience were intrigued by the information gained from the discussions between EPA and the contractors. Many had questions and comments.

Ernie Kelley: What do these contractors say about sampling?

Mike Wilson: They don't want to do it. It's no longer renovation work when they do sampling  it turns into lead hazard reduction work. They don't want to be liable for the results. They don't want to be liable for existing dust that was there before they did the work.

Some studies show that if you do clean up with detergent and HEPA vacuum, you reach standards at or below the standards. The guidelines state how cleanup would be done. They would rather leave it up to the owner to decide how clearance should be completed.

A modification that may be necessary is to the 406 program. We need a new pamphlet for the homeowner that tells them what to look for when the contractor is doing work, such as have them look for a HEPA vacuum, or inform them how to better protect their family.

Keith Alexander: Where does the cost for the dust sampling test come from? The swipes and lab tests are fairly cheap.

Mike Wilson: The cost comes from someone coming out to the house or site. And because of the certifications of the person performing the tests. The contractor would have to re evaluate costs.

Keith Alexander: Test would be built into the costs.

Mike Wilson: True.

Keith Alexander: I understand that costs will also be an opposition thrown at EPA.

After the brief discussion about the contractors, Mr. Wilson directed the attention back to the table again. He instructed everyone to look at the last two columns. He suggested they remember the basics when thinking about lead hazard reduction work. He reminded people that when 402 was created, the intent of Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 12 abatement standards was abatement. He mentioned the same standards apply for hazard reduction work: if someone is looking for a firm to perform hazard reduction work, they can find a certified firm to conduct such work. Mr. Wilson stated that the same is true for lead safe renovation. EPA would make the leadsafe renovation program voluntary.

Mr. Wilson believes that 406 came too early. He mentions that 406 makes the homeowners think about risk and not require anything from the contractor. Mr. Wilson does not agree with HUD's options and believes EPA would provide different options. Mr. Wilson informed the group that EPA would also receive notification from training providers about contact information for those trained. EPA would create a database using this information.

Larrie Lance had a comment about 406.

Larrie Lance: The training certificate terminology is confusing.

Mr. Wilson continued summarizing the tables. He mentioned they wanted to add required language that would state " when doing exterior work, dust can't migrate to adjacent properties." A number of people in the audience had comments for Mr. Wilson's last statement.

Larrie Lance: It is a good idea, but only if is tied to something enforceable.

Lin Moos: By certified firms, do you mean voluntarily have certified firms do the work?

Mike Wilson: Yes. When you look at the applicability, that is where I inserted voluntary. You can have a firm who voluntarily received certification perform the work.

Ernie Kelley: If the idea is to get as many renovators certified as possible, not require the certification, but you want them to obtain it how do you do that? You need to offer them some financial incentive. Give them a piece of the " de lead" pie. Let them do window replacements in a lead job. The owners like this because the lead trained renovators are the carpenters, etc., not the " de leaders." The de leaders are not the skilled craftsmen, they know how to remove lead.

Mr. Wilson wrapped up his session by stating he wasn't sure if the incentive Ernie mentioned is one we'd all want to implement, but he definitely thinks that in a voluntary certification scenario, incentives are important. He stated that EPA needs to think about ways to bring contractors into a voluntary lead certification program. Mr. Wilson stated that education and outreach to the public and incentives to contractors are just some of the many ways. Mr. Wilson reminded the group that they would discuss other options in the later sessions. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 13 SESSION 3 ( 2: 00 p. m.   5: 30 p. m.) Discussion on Options The discussion for this session focused on two documents covered by Mr. Wilson before lunch: Lead Renovation and Remodeling Proposed Rule Pros and Cons of Potential Options and Approaches ( Appendix D) and Renovation and Remodeling Sample Options Under Consideration ( Appendix E). The goal of the session was to focus on the different options presented in the two documents. Mr. Casey organized the discussion around several key questions.

What is R& R and what part of it should be regulated?

Pat Curran: I listened to Mike and Lin and I am worried about enforcement. How do we enforce this rule without notification? At least with HUD we have strings attached such as money. With this we don't have any strings attached. What is renovation versus hazard reduction? What do you do if a homeowner hires a non certified contractor? Do you go after the homeowner or the contractor?

John Sikes: I agree. We are able to enforce abatement because of notification. How would you enforce without notification? Maybe limiting the applicability to certain age housing or certain age requirements for children or with certain regulatory requirements... I don't know. Without notification I do not know.

Ernie Kelley: This is an after the fact issue. 406 says what R& R is.

Mike Wilson: That's right. We are carrying forward the definition of R& R as it is defined by 406. This definition is included in one of your handouts.

Lin Moos: We have received lots of comments on R& R versus maintenance, and many find it difficult to differentiate between the two. A lot of commenters thought that a lot of things that were general maintenance should not be considered R& R.

Larrie Lance: I am concerned about enforcement before we get to definitions too. Not only do we have no notification with these options, but how do you " yank" someone's certification? What do you do? In California we have a complex database that attempts to show who has certificates but without notification it is very difficult. We do not require a written copy of the certification. We are able to cross check for who is certified.

Mike Wilson: What are your thoughts about a certified firm? In other words, you could take action against the firm for the work done by a supervisor who is employed there. That would have ramifications for that supervisor. Of course, the supervisor can turn around and go work for somebody else without anything really happening to make sure a hazardous situation is not created again.

Perry Manor: I think an activity based definition is needed. That goes back to what Lin said. It does not matter if it is maintenance or R& R. Consistency must be built into what people are doing. If they are doing a certain level of work they must have a certain amount of training. Then it does not matter who is doing it but what is being done. I think on site supervision is absolutely necessary. Classroom instruction is no place to learn  there needs to be a certified supervisor on site to supervise workers. That makes a big difference. At worst you need to have direct supervision until a supervisor is ready to say that they are competent. They learn 90% of these effective work techniques on the job. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 14 Barry Brooks: In Kansas we have 406( b). We sent letters to contractors throughout the state about the rule, telling them about the notification and the requirements, and 60% came back " out of business." We do not differentiate between R& R and maintenance  if you disturb more than two square feet and you receive money ( federal money), you are under the regulation. Enforcement is tough. We are looking at building permits and records but we hope to have a color coded permit program in place. Color coded permits would work by requiring green permits to be visibly posted for post 1978 work and red permits for pre 1978 work. This way we could have local citizens report when and where hopefully. We are also considering the " narc" concept of having contractors " narc" on one another. We are thinking along the same lines for R& R.

Perry Manor: Regarding the new NHANES study, if the numbers drop, where would you anticipate the new numbers coming from? In other words, where was the group of pre 1960s housing stock that does not have the lead based paint that the survey is counting to come up with the new numbers? Where are the houses that are counted in the survey?

Lin Moos: I worked on the task force and most of the kids being poisoned are coming from: ( 1) poor, substandard housing, and this is why federal money is so important; and, ( 2) parents doing work on their own homes. The " do it yourselfers." The NHANES data won't give sources.

Ernie Kelley: How is a child's blood lead level affected by incidental exposure from one event such as a renovation versus living in an old house with deteriorating lead paint for years? What is the half life, 2 3 months? What is the potential harm of an incidental spike? The spike could affect the percentage of houses with lead and may make the housing data inaccurate.

Barry Brooks: There was a GAO study on blood lead data and we came up with about the same numbers as that study.

Larrie Lance: We also came up with the same numbers as that GAO study in California.

Bob Ford: There is not a real significant difference between the work of an R& R contractor and a " do ityourselfer in terms of work being done. The homeowner must be doing something significantly worse, even though the contractors have power tools and can really generate dust. The do it yourselfer takes longer to do the job.

Mike Wilson: Most likely the " do it yourselfer" is working while the children are at home.

Bob Ford: We receive lots of complaints about the mess that is left behind after the contractor's work is complete. So the kids could have access after the job to lead contaminated materials. I just don't see a huge difference in the work being done between these two groups, homeowners and contractors.

Lin Moos: Is there is a difference between who hires a contractor and who is a " do it yourselfer?"

Bob Ford: No, the poor do not do it ( renovation or fix up) at all. The rich either hire the best they can find or do it themselves. It is really an upper middle class, upper class thing as far as people coming to us with poisoned kids, it seems.

John Sikes: Rental units are a big concern for me. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 15 Pat Curran: Regarding the data, I see all pre 1978 and all pre 1960 in the options. Are there any figures prior to 1950 and between 1950 and 1978? You get to a point of diminishing returns as far as target housing. You know where I am going with this.

Mike Wilson: That data is coming. We may indeed find that pre 1950 is the target housing.

Ernie Kelley: We all have a habit of assuming that deteriorated housing is the most serious problem and risk. With regard to renovation is this true?

Mike Wilson: There is some data out there. There are limitations to these options, one of which is that we based these options on data based on chronic, not episodic lead poisonings. We are talking about episodic lead exposures. So there are some limitations.

Ernie Kelley: As for the options, I think the newer options that group abatement with interim controls is the right approach. It simplifies things considerably. Putting these together is a natural progression  hazard reduction and renovation are not separated all the time. To allow R& R contractors to do some deleading would be helpful and is probably going to occur anyway. One big complaint we get is that deleaders are not skilled carpenters and you get the landlords and others who want a skilled carpenter in there to do the work. We need skilled R& R contractors to be able to do some de leading.

Perry Manor: When the HUD regulations came along we had a major increase in interest in the required training and lots more people are doing training now. We must not set expectations too low. In many of these options I see very few expectations there. Do not set expectations too low.

Bob Ford: Greater than two square feet and 20 square feet for interior and exterior surfaces; are we still considering the option of 10% or more on smaller surfaces for the de minimus issue?

Mike Wilson: We received a lot of criticism on the 10% de minimus option.

Bob Ford: I worry there could be a threat of exposure with current de minimus levels. The de minimus issue should be handled with existing regulations. I would be apprehensive to create new standards.

Ernie Kelley: The 10% option is large  especially if you consider a room such as this or larger. That is quite a bit of paint. On the other hand, when you look at many components at one time or in one situation you can get into trouble.

Bob Ford: It is broken down I think between large walls, two square feet and small components, 10% or more.

Ernie Kelley: The two square feet per component is bad.

What are interim controls and what part of them should be regulated?

Perry Manor: Who's defining interim controls? There is no consistency in use and therefore no consistency in applying these rules. Applying these terms, even " abatement," is out of hand and is largely a matter of convenience. This is one of the problems with the 1012 and 1013 rule. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 16 Larrie Lance: Maybe we should redefine some terms such as " highest level risk" and " low level risk" or, on the other hand maybe we should be more activity based. You can sand the wall to paint it or you can sand the wall to do an interim control.

Ernie Kelley: Regardless of variability of interim controls concerning abatement, interim controls are temporary and renovations are more focused on process than condition and are thought to be more permanent. The controls on renovation are controls on process. With abatement and interim control you are trying to get to an end point that reflects the condition of the paint.

John Sikes: Look at activities. Two square feet, 20 square feet, 10%, components versus walls, etc. This won't go anywhere. A lot of the hazards don't even have anything to do with the component but what is behind the component. This does not make sense. Is it even flexible?

Mike Wilson: We looked at different jobs to see different types of work. Where do you make the cut? What is a high or low hazard when it comes to renovation? A job such as window replacement for example can be very hazardous but disturb very little space. We are considering all these issues.

Should there be de minimus levels for hazard reduction and renovation activities?

Ernie Kelley: Of course there should be de minimus levels. A threshold for level of regulation may not take into account all hazards below the de minimus level  why do we have the numbers we have; two square feet or 20 square feet? These numbers are the result of educated guesses.

Keith Bates: I disagree  there is no need for de minimus levels. Keep it simple, keep it plain. How are you going to enforce such levels? Someone with a ruler going out to the site? De minimus levels sound great but do not work.

Perry Manor: Not having de minimus levels would be political suicide. It would be easier to not have them but it will not work that way. When you look at a total way to approach work, how do you ensure the occupants will be living in a safe residence? We need something. Who do you let do clearance? What are you trying to accomplish?

Ernie Kelley: I agree, even from a de leading stance because there is no uniformity to the amount of lead left after work is done. There must be a guarantee that lead has not been added to the work site. To say you want renovation to ensure that there is a safe environment in that house is going way beyond what renovation is. You should only be able to assure that you have not added to the lead that may have already been there.

Sean Casey then asked if Ms. Moos and Mr. Wilson had any questions for the group.

Lin Moos: How much of a role does public education of the homeowner play? As opposed to focusing just on regulating the contractor.

Jeff Robinson: In our part of the country, it may be different in other parts, people do not have a very good knowledge of lead problems. Especially in the New Orleans area, people are interested in getting the best contractor they can get. The poor do not have the choice. One question I have is whether we make it mandatory that landlords comply. If it is voluntary no one will care or comply. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 17 Mike Wilson: Some of the landlords we heard from were very concerned about liability and would hire certified contractors and even go a step beyond and do clearance sampling. We are aware that the landlords we heard from were at the top of the socio economic spectrum.

Karen Crampton: Education is great, but cost rules. If you put requirements in, that is great, but the dollar is what decides.

Perry Manor: If you have money, fine. But in many cases landlords have no money and must put up notices. In Wisconsin there is a program we are implementing to limit liability in regard to level of cleanup, but it took a definition of liability that was clear to landlords to make them act.

Larrie Lance: There is no consensus, at least on a national level, on what " safe" means. It would help if we could all agree on what " lead safe" means. I am also concerned about all the discussion on cost. Cleaning up is not that expensive. Also, education in California has been a failure, I think. We don't know what works and what doesn't. Until people think of lead like they think of seat belts, we have a lot to do.

Mazzie Talley: I worry about the " slum lords." They are different from the landlords you all heard from during SBREFA. There is a huge population of slum lords out there. Think about the 1018 situation. Many of these people have never heard anything about lead safety and liability or any of these issues. How do you reach these people? These people do not understand liability.

Mike Wilson: You are exactly right. We'll never be able to reach 100% of the contractors or landlords. We are going to miss some of the people out there. We acknowledge that during SBREFA we only heard from the top 10 15% ( financially), the cream of the crop, of the landlords. We tried to use this to our advantage in setting options that they would accept and hope that others less well off would also accept such options. We know we will never reach 100% of the population.

John Sikes: I agree with Mazzie. Low level rentals  poor people  do not have the options or the access to the legal options. We have to get at the low income rental properties.

Lin Moos: How do we get at that lower end? Are the lowest of the low even doing any R& R? Probably not. They probably just have lead in the homes that has been there for ever.

Vern Dander: Contractors are looking for a level playing field. If you require notification and clearance, then who cares about certification or accreditation. Notification and clearance are the most important.

Ernie Kelley: I do not think notification is feasible. And in some instances neither is clearance, for that matter.

Vern Dander: Clearance gets at liability.

Ernie Kelley: Changing contractors' behavior is the goal and we need a concerted effort that combines many of the issues we have discussed today.

Lin Moos: I think the HUD regulations just gave us a $ 3 billion advertising campaign. The people doing that are most at risk and are the ones we want. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 18 Ernie Kelley: In our state, licensing has occurred in " dribs and drabs." Three months ago training providers were worried about 1012 and 1013 and asking, " Are we certified?". With 1012 and 1013 there is a lot more incentive.

Who needs to be certified and who doesn't?

Perry Manor: If you want to regulate individuals, it helps to have certifications. If there is no certification, they are untouchable.

Ernie Kelley: It boils down to having supervisors on site at all times if there is no certification of workers. If a supervisor can't be on site at all times, the workers should be certified. If the supervisor is on site at all times, it is unnecessary to certify workers.

Karen Crampton: There should be a change in the rule to have a supervisor on site at all times.

Perry Manor: In Wisconsin, supervisors are required to be on site at all times. We have something like 100 workers, and everybody else is a supervisor. With mostly small renovation operations, you find that if you mandate supervisors on site at all times, everybody trains to that level.

Larrie Lance: Is this for abatement or remodeling?

Perry Manor: We still have the Renovation and Remodeling rule, and can be more strict on it than EPA. We try to do modular training, and like HUD, do it all at once.

Keith Alexander: We talk about requiring supervisors on site at all times and who to certify. They are two different questions. Workers in renovation and remodeling shouldn't have to be certified other than for the financial reasons for the states. The supervisors and the firms should be certified.

John Odisio: Oregon has certification for supervisors and firms. It comes down to whether we can fund it without EPA dollars.

Lin Moos: Think about certifying 1.2 million workers. It's a lot of people if that's what you want.

Mike Wilson: We guesstimate that with just firms and supervisors we could be certifying 300,000 firms and at least that many supervisors, as opposed to only 6,000 for abatement.

Lin Moos. So instead of twofold or threefold, we'd have an increase of twentyfold. It won't work if you can't handle all of the training. Another issue is whether you give the money to the general fund or keep it.

John Sikes: We don't have the enforcement. If you don't certify, how can you get people to do the training and collect without an external motivations for why these folks would get a certification?

Mike Wilson and Lin Moos: There are a large number of people getting certifications.

John Sikes: We need to redefine " interim controls" and " renovation and remodeling" and then determine how we're going to get at people.

Mike Wilson and Lin Moos: That would be 24 million notifications annually. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 19 Bob Ford: What if you cut that to pre 1950s to reduce the numbers?

Mike Wilson: You'd still have 12 million annually, since the older houses are more common. No matter how you do it, you'd still have a large number of notifications for hazard reductions.

Pat Curran: What I want to ask is, " How do you sell certifications to state legislatures?" Every time a house requires renovated we'd require certification. In that case, training is the key   it has to be good and the $ 3 billion from HUD is a shot in the arm.

Michael Brandt: Change the rule for supervisors and have them pay money for each worker to certify supervisors and get revenue without having to certify workers. If we have 2,500 licenses and the number rises we can interface training with HUD and renovation and remodeling. If it's approved, we go ahead because or regulations are permissive and we can go with what comes out.

Ernie Kelley: Whether you perform based upon a standard, responsibility should be on the supervisor to make choices to achieve the standard. They need skill to choose. When you're dealing with transient workers, they aren't expected to have the level of expertise. There's no point in certifying them.

Larrie Lance: What about permits for buildings? Has EPA made up its mind on certifying?

Mike Wilson: No. We are just noting states concerned by the numbers of notifications.

Pat Curran: Are we allowing certification for abatement supervisors to do interim controls and remodeling and renovation?

Mike Wilson: Yes. Hazard reduction includes R& R. Abaters are more than capable based upon their training. Hazard reduction is interim controls plus abatement.

Kerra Roudebush: Is training the same now to abate as for R& R?

Mike Wilson: The current course is 32 hours. It covers abatement plus interim controls. We'd like to improve the quality while reducing the time, and include worker training.

Kerra Roudebush: Keep in mind abatement workers often don't take renewal. It would be more costeffective to cut worker training to one day for renewal.

Mike Wilson: We could shoot for eight hours instead of 16 hours. The R& R supervisor course is one day.

Perry Manor: The concept of merging abatement and interim controls is exactly what Wisconsin does and it works better. We shrunk supervisor training to a three day course. It's two days of work practices with one day of " paperwork" training. You cannot shrink worker training to one day . The first day is low risk work, the second is high risk, and the third is supervisory. It reduces redundancy.

Mike Wilson: What we are thinking of is containment, work practices and cleanup. The second day is abatement techniques and the third day is supervisor.

Perry Manor: You can't shrink that down because of the hands on for workers, HUD, R& R and maintenance training. One day can do all the maintenance plus the low risk abatement such as putting down flooring or stair treads and window sashes. That meets virtually all HUD and R& R requirements Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 20 and is very efficient. We have a proposal for similar training for excluding XRF for " investigators", our term for " risk assessor." You add XRF for a risk assessor. The first day is the sampling technician, the second day is the risk assessor, and day three, XRF. This allows you to mix and match plus retain current certification. We have a series of combinations matching the five disciplines in programs. You can stop and get certified up to the level of training for HUD and R& R. The current rule includes OSHA.

Michael Brandt: Would you consider hazard reduction apprenticeships?

Mike Wilson: We want to present the EPA manual in a more professional manner with improved graphics. Becoming a supervisor requires experience. The worker can build toward that with experience along with modular training.

Ernie Kelley: I'm partial to risk based certification training. Contractors want to satisfy all of the regulations through training all at one time. Does that still include OSHA? States may want an OSHA Competent Person training on top. They want three to four day maximum and be done with it.

John Sikes: We have a problem with availability of training. It's more doable with modular training. The large attendance at the front end covers for the small number left at the back end of the training.

Perry Manor: If you need OSHA, it's offered on the first day by the training provider. If they don't need it they skip that Monday.

Karen Crampton: Getting back to certification, some proof is necessary   not just a training certificate. Will the homeowner recognize an expiration date? Are people keeping up? Training providers should provide a photo ID.

Ellie Clark: Do you have graduated requirements for each level of training?

Perry Manor: Take current 402 standards. You can't move on until they are fulfilled.

What Should be the Certification and Training Requirements for Workers?

Perry Manor: You'll never have people just deciding to train workers for lead work, because there isn't the incentive. You need an incentive to train the workers   otherwise there is no spontaneous move to training. Even if they are ignorant of the regulation, how do you establish liability? This throws out civil liability. If you're interested in protecting the public, you need some sort of standard for all workers. In my opinion, informal training is nothing   like the OSHA regulation. It won't work. You must have formal training.

Lin Moos: I'd like to ask the states if they think informal training works?

John Sikes: I did asbestos and taught certification course with OSHA components. Workers had been trained but had not heard of basic rules. Informal training doesn't work.

Lin Moos: OSHA training regulations are ignored. That's why state legislatures require it. Contractors don't know because it's never checked. Voluntary training doesn't happen.

Mike Wilson: If supervisors are held responsible and liable, does it help?

Dave Combs: We have a self study manual. We found it a good tool. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 21 Karen Crampton: in Vermont, OSHA is not enforced and people don't follow it.

John Sikes: OSHA, even if enforced, doesn't work. They will accept anything.

Perry Manor: We don't require it but we check supervisors on basic knowledge.

Jeff Robinson: OSHA compliance is in the industrial sector. They only worry about things like steel plants.

Mike Wilson: Contractors do their best to avoid OSHA. They claim good faith to do some monitoring but there is widespread non compliance. As an example, they don't encourage personal protective equipment.

Ernie Kelley: In our state, self study is for low risk exclusively. We don't have a problem because a lowrisk job is low risk. And OSHA doesn't kick in. There is not a lot of attention necessary.

What Should Be the Certification and Training Requirements for Sampling Technicians?

John Sikes: We've seen the R& R materials. The materials are good but they can't be done in eight hours. The sampling technician materials are not doable in five hours. These materials need to be taught to the lowest common denominator   the person who hasn't graduated high school.

Larrie Lance: There has been no demonstration of the Internet course. We need skills assessment of the hands on, and think through a number of scenarios  stuff like moving from site to site. There are components but no test.

Mike Wilson: We ask trainers to provide a blueprint of the exam.

John Sikes: It takes time   a full day course   to make sure they have the knowledge.

Mike Wilson: It does take a full day. The five hours are designed for a full day   not straight through.

John Sikes: That wasn't communicated that it meant a full day when it says five hours.

Mike Wilson: I was disappointed in the HUD test. They asked providers to include more hours of training without additional funding. I'm surprised that training providers didn't walk out of the room.

John Odisio: Look at the status quo and the three day inspector course. No experience or education is required. I feel unsure about it and capacity. Why is the additional classification needed?

Mike Wilson: There is a shift from identification and removal to identification and handling. Less time is spent on the XRF.

John Odisio: Many trained risk assessors can't get hired.

Keith Alexander: What do we expect and require sampling technicians to do now?

Mike Wilson: Today, it's dust wiping for clearance. In the way regulations are framed, it's clearance for activities. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 22 Keith Alexander: With 402 , that should be okay, unless we ask or allow sampling technicians to do more than clearance. One day is enough for dust wiping.

Perry Manor: There are questions besides the curriculum. Students must have the qualifications and ability to understand and the instructor must have the ability to teach. There is a shortage and lack of quality trainers. They also didn't use accredited trainers.

Lin Moos and Mike Wilson: It's only offered by accredited providers. HUD did this well, and introduced the exam at the end. EPA can't do that until regulations are in place.

Perry Manor: It depends on the students they let in. They need some education to learn   having wideopen credentials to enter is dangerous. Are they allowed to do independent study? If this is the basis for clearance, it's risky.

John Sikes: This is a big issue in Alabama. HUD would be reviewed, but it's up to the states on some issues. Can a person with no qualifications learn dust sampling in one day? That's frightening. Politically, if HUD doesn't, it's difficult for the States.

Lin Moos: Are education requirements the biggest problem?

John Sikes: You need more training or more experience.

John Odisio: It's hard to have background and training in one day or inspectors in three days.

Larrie Lance: Housing wants people on the street fast. We use XRF for dust wipes in California for a screening tool when you have lead poisoned children. It's easy to use. We provide extensive hands on training. Environmental neighborhood groups are expected to do sampling. If you start at that level, what does it take to get them up to speed? Do people have to be trained by the State accredited trainers? HUD will reimburse only accredited training.

John Bevilacqua: It has to come from accredited training providers.

Mike Wilson: HUD does pre qualification screening of who is in.

All: The number trained is up to 5,000 slots. How do they decide who gets in?

Lin Moos: They talked about apportionment along the lines of electoral votes. They should base it upon a formula of pre 1978 housing with children in poverty. An extra $ 4.5 million may move through colleges.

Larrie Lance: We do need to think about scope. Do you just wipe? It requires judgment and insight. California might require work permanently under someone with more training. Over time one can work up to a risk assessor.

Ernie Kelley: The National Center For Lead Safe Housing envisions grass roots activists, but the opportunity to be a professional discipline will attract all types of persons looking to bust into the profession. There is high potential for failure with this discipline. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 23 Dan Chatfield: There is a shift between " how we do training to do lead hazards" into " hinging everything on clearance." Insurance agencies want third party inspection and people with college degrees. It's a bad public policy to hinge everything on people with no qualifications.

Pat Curran: Why not have the person work under a supervisor and get a signature? It would make the risk assessor responsible for what the sampling technician does.

Barry Brooks: It's possible they may have the inspector checking with dust wipes. That's a little dangerous. In Kansas, we keep it simple   there is no added requirement to work under a supervisor.

Kerra Roudebush: In a few years the sampling technician takes the sample, but the risk assessor won't review it for free. It may reduce demand for sampling technicians because risk assessors may not want to use their insurance for other persons work.

Barry Brooks: We did an internal dialogue in Kansas before going to HUD at the regional level.

Lin Moos: Have other states done so internally with a dialogue?

Dan Chatfield: Ohio has done so for the past nine or ten months due to federal pressure with the assumption that we would save federal money. There is a need for legislation.

Karen Crampton: Vermont is planning to go through the process next month, initiated by the public health folks.

Keith Alexander: We started a dialogue by administering an exam. The dialogue goes like this: " I flunked?" " Yes, you did."

John Sikes: We have for several months. Some are progressive. Other housing authorities look to get by with the minimum of what is required. It was initiated by the public health folks, trying to figure out what to do with the sampling technician.

Bob Ford: Utah has two types. Some get direct funding because they are so large, and others get funding through the state. In September 1999, the state was unaware of HUD. We contracted with ICF to take HUD 10 12 and 10 13 to Utah. There are 78 small agencies. We don't want to do sampling/ clearance technicians, but can't change regulations for that.

Keith Alexander: I agree with Pat. Housing authorities flunk exams and blame trainers, even though they have no background and don't study. We're worried   the requirements are tough. We're worried about certifying people without the background.

Bob Ford: The housing people scared people and only three of 64 didn't pass on the first try, and have on the second go around.

Perry Manor: Wisconsin was never excited by the sampling technician. We deal with training with handson by limiting the student/ instructor ratio. There are two areas where the sampling technician is useful: for clearance and landlords who do maintenance and want training to see if it is clean enough to pass clearance. This pre clearance function is still useful.

Lin Moos: Do they use pre clearance as a maintenance monitor? Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 24 Perry Manor: OSHA has required that they don't expose workers to undue risk, and the sampling technician may be useful for following on some of these requirements, such as with pre job and preclearing tests. You may want to consider advertising the dual uses.

Larrie Lance: Nick Farr at the National Center for Lead Safe Housing sees it as sampling, not clearance. The activists would go to the landlord and say, " Hey   clean it." It has an element of environmental justice.

Lin Moos: The alliance sees it as a community activist role and not necessarily in terms of the HUD regulation.

John Sikes: As long as the grass roots get high results, it's okay. False reports of, " It's safe," is a big problem.

Jeff Besougloff: I know you all have concerns, but these are people that give market penetration at the low end. The alternative is $ 800 per house instead of a less expensive person who is from the community and more accessible.

DAY 2 SESSION 4 ( 8: 30 a. m.   11: 50 a. m.) Review of Components 5 through 8 Session 4 sought participant input on four of the eight elements identified in the paper Lead Renovation and Remodeling Proposed Rule Pros and Cons of Potential Options and Approaches( Appendix D), specifically:

° Work Practice Standards ° Prohibited Practices ° Exterior Clearance ° Interior Clearance Following the organization of the pros & cons paper, which identified multiple options for each of the components, participants were asked to base their discussions around three questions:

° Which of these options meet the needs of a successful program? ° Is there a viable missing option? ° Do any of the options listed need tweaking?

Work Practice Standards: Prescriptive or performance based?

Barry Brooks: Some of these might not be needed for two reasons. Sears now carries HEPA filters and attachments for their Shop Vacs for $ 29.95. If you believe what California has, that shouldn't be in there anymore.

Perry Manor: You can't look at these options singularly without seeing how they all fit together. You don't want to stifle technology, but you need some checks and balances. Keep in mind that there are many changes in technology taking place. Doing nothing would not be a viable option. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 25 Mike Wilson and Ellie Clark: We still have to cost it out ( the " none" option) as part of the regulatory process. We're just showing what we have to do as part of the regulatory drill. With these eight different areas we need to break it down. There are thousands of options possible, but we need to discuss pairing options with another option from other categories.

Vern Dander: One technique we use is to have a model contingency plan. Contractors want specifics such as what performance can go into a contract. And you can show, this is what performance means. The model doesn't stay fixed  we can change the model as technology changes and we can also use this with a performance based option.

Perry Manor: People are liable for damages because of their participation, and you can look at the work practices standards. If you give a prescriptive regulation, it reduces liability for the contractor, because a lot of that comes from making judgements. And they like that, but they don't recognize that it ties their hands and the customer can take a beating because it drives costs up. Creativity spurs the industry, but it opens the door up to contractors to getting sued when they do nonstandard things. There is not an easy answer to this kind of problem. Ideally, you have critical prescriptive tasks and leave the rest of the decisions to the contractor. You identify a few key things that have to be done on every job, and let them handle the rest of the decision making process.

Mike Wilson: These are just work practices. We broke a few things, like prohibited practices and clearance, out separately. Is there anything else you can think of where more prescriptive rules are necessary?

Perry Manor: I like to have more open options, and I think most people do. We're a civilian society and this is not the military way. Many of these things are so interrelated. It is a difficult call. We've been going through work practices and housing standards definitions with our own legislation. It's a very difficult practice.

Gerallyn Valls: With 402 we took a model for Federal programs and it became the lowest common denominator or an example to follow. There are two options  something like 402 as a model than can be adopted or not adopted and as a preamble for the various things.

Barry Brooks: GSA has a shopping list of options, some required and some optional. But people want to know what to expect from regulations and how to follow them. And a manager can go through that list, and depending on the work, they can change it a little. A number of tests may be blank there and you fill that in. This levels the contractor playing field to bid on and gives the contractor something to go on. They may add money to services, some which are required and some are optional. And there is a framework, and customers can say, " That guy's doing this and tell me why you're not."

Gerallyn Valls: Not all are enforceable.

John Sikes: With the training materials for renovation, contractor input was in favor of performance based wherever possible.

Pat Curran: Abatement contractors in our state are trying to follow HUD regulations and they're not doing a good job. We're looking at enforcing some. Prescriptive regulations give you somewhere to go on enforcement. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 26 Ernie Kelley: There is a lot of diversity out there  there are many different jobs, and so many different levels of work and workers, so there are very few common work practices that are used. How can it be anything other than performance based? Cleanup can be prescriptive, however.

Perry Manor: One other component is providing the literature. That should give the customer a better idea of what to expect. It could explain the work, including prohibited practices to let the customer know what to expect of the job. I also mentioned the sampling technician working with the contractor to pre clear. It also helps if contractors can do a sampling to see if they are clearable. They are concerned: " What if I'm at the end and I don't clear?" They can do a less expensive self test to see that they are ready to clear.

Ellie Clark: We have been contacted by people about using XRF for clearing. We only cover the final samples that are taken for clearance and go to the labs. I guess we need to make that clear. We don't cover pre clearance so anyone can pre clear. Our regulations don't cover that. We talk about what our regulations cover, not what they don't.

Perry Manor: That may not be clear at the state level. If somebody does something in our state, they need a certain level of training.

Ellie Clark: If states want to do it differently, they can include it in their own regulations. This is only for Federal regulations. You can point out that state regulations may be more stringent than Federal, and the Federal regulations advise people to check with your state if they have different regulations.

Perry Manor: You can put in the interpretive guidance that states may have more stringent rules.

Ernie Kelley: With regard to work practices, the toughest nut to crack is interior dry scraping.

Larrie Lance: I'd also like to address exterior power washing.

Lin Moos: Is this an issue for target housing or for commercial buildings?

All: Target housing.

Keith Alexander: I favor prescriptive regulations and in detail, in black and white, what to do. It's much easier to enforce. Some states unfortunately can't be more restrictive than the Federal government. When it gets down to the final regulations, the states have to enforce it. You must be specific in how to address these when a neighbor complains. In the South, we have Historical Societies renovating old homes and they don't know or don't care about lead until something like this comes out. And they are going to look to the government on how to do it. If we say do the best you can, I can't enforce that.

Ernie Kelley: Just consider how dissimilar painting and plumbing are. Is it practical to write prescriptive regulations that cover all of these different tasks? It is not too difficult to enforce performance based regulations. If we use prescriptive regulations, we'd wind up disallowing things that we aren't aware of, but that we'd like to see in use if we knew about it. It requires a different mind set.

John Sikes: Contractors talk about doing things we don't know about, like using landscaping cloth for external sheeting on the ground to catch paint chips. If we are too prescriptive, you would disallow things we wouldn't want to prohibit if we knew about it. You don't want to be too prescriptive about the way this industry does its work. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 27 Pat Curran: If performance based regulations are enforced, do you have to wait until after they don't pass clearance?

Ernie Kelley: You can write it to be enforceable. If you have a regulation that says to restrict dust, then you can go in to a site and look to see if there is dust that has contaminated a room, you can look to see if they have taken proper steps to isolate things or if there is dust all over the place. You can take a picture.

Barry Brooks: We talk about remodelers, bricklayers, the whole gamut of phases of R& R, and the whole scope of work from one wall to renovating an entire apartment complex. You have to take into consideration that this has to apply to people who have expertise, and renovators that have no expertise at all. It's a whole different animal to talk about these different things, and I'm not smart enough to give an answer  I just think we ought to think about it.

Lin Moos: There is a tension between performance based and prescriptive. Can a rewriting of the exemption by letter be useful to have prescriptive regulations that aren't too binding? Is this something where there can be more flexibility at the state level? Is it for a whole process or for guidelines?

Lisa Schutzenhofer: It takes us a long time to make changes in the regulations.

John Sikes: The amount of flexibility will vary across the board.

Barry Brooks: We have a technology statute in Kansas but it's not used.

Perry Manor: It depends upon how you do the definitions, for example, " Control the spread.." You need to be general enough to have some variability. The example is for, " Cover the ground and remove paint chips" vs. " Use 6ml plastic lining." The first gives the contractor flexibility. Too often we seem to have views that are, to borrow from political terminology, too far to the left and too far right. Either we regulate to the extreme or we are too far in favor of the contractors and consumers.

Ernie Kelley: There is a lot of variability. We have liberal authority to revise our regulations. The problem of the exemption clause is the allowance of the request. It works at the state level, but not the Federal, and it allows us at the state level to be responsive.

Karen Crampton: I was going to agree with what Ernie said.

Pat Curran: It takes us two years to make changes. I want to change my position and go with Massachusetts and support performance based regulations.

Keith Alexander: We can't. In Texas, if it's not in the rule, it won't go anywhere. Take a poll of the states on changing rules. Changing the rules in Texas is hard. We need prescriptive regulations. For example, you can tell someone to cover the ground, and they might just put some plywood down and say it's covered  to me that's not covered.

Larrie Lance: I don't want the exemption request  we'd get too many letters to go through. It takes six months to three years to change rules.

Ernie Kelley: Asbestos rules were more formalized. Many political forces are involved with renovation and remodeling, such as rental organizations. If there is no flexibility and prescriptive regulations, then that will get many powerful interests mad. There should be sufficient wiggle room. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 28 Prohibited Practices Mike Wilson: ( Referring to the pros and cons paper) Think of the middle two options ( adopt abatement prohibitions but allow exterior open flames and eliminate restrictions on dry scraping; and to adopt abatement prohibitions but allow exterior open flames and eliminate restrictions on dry scraping but require clearance when they are used) as variations on some policies. Think about prohibitions from abatement that should be allowed for R& R. What about clearance?

Dan Chatfield: We have different rules than HUD. Are there two sets of rules to follow? We shouldn't add unrestricted hydro blasting. Someone could innovate a process to do that in a cleaner way, blasting but catching all the paint chips.

John Sikes: I like the current prohibited practices. You could allow OSHA to exempt them if data shows that it doesn't create problems.

Mike Wilson and Lin Moos: That would bring in letters again.

Larrie Lance: Our small business wouldn't know to apply for the exemptions.

Ernie Kelley: Some contractors argue for the open flame burn. How do they justify it, other than having no alternatives?

Mike Wilson: This is often used for ornate woodwork. The higher end customer will ask for it, and contractors say there is no alternative that will get the high quality. This not unusual for historic homes.

Ernie Kelley: Are there any protections for the occupants?

Mike Wilson: We have cleanup and containment. They claim that if containment and cleanup is done properly, they can do anything.

John Sikes: There would need to be cleanup with dry sanding.

Mike Wilson: We weren't concerned with that. There is more about dry sanding and scraping.

Ellie Clark: A dust test can be added to prove it is cleaned up.

Mike Wilson: The expectation is that with these historic homes, they can afford the extra cost.

Gerallyn Valls: Maryland may have a lower requirement on heat guns.

Mike Wilson: The HUD specification is 1,100oF.

Gerallyn Valls: They could reduce the temperature. . Ernie Kelley: The higher end market won't object to dust tests on dry scraping. Large numbers of small firms will be affected and might not comply. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 29 Mike Wilson: We won't require clearance after sanding and scraping because it's too common. What about requiring clearance for other tasks?

Ernie Kelley: Some tests showed window replacement had low air levels but a high floor level. It's hard to avoid a threshold that doesn't include some risk.

Dan Chatfield: Is there some prior notification process?

Mike Wilson: We use tips and complaints after the fact. There would be 24 million activities subject to notification.

Ernie Kelley: Use can be made of the 406B process. The state level could handle the call back. That way the number of calls would be spread among the states rather than concentrated at the Federal level. They should call local offices, not the EPA.

Gerallyn Valls: Where the local authority issues permits, they are stakeholders.

Larrie Lance: Enforcement would take a long time to put in place. Our building and housing folks haven't bought in yet.

Lin Moos: You've talked to the building and housing people. Would a national push getting the information down help?

Larrie Lance: We tried many approaches including the " poor children" sob story and none of them were successful. They don't want to enforce it. After HUD 1012 they are asking. If it were more simple, they'd buy in.

Barry Brooks: We work with housing code officials. In rural Kansas, there are few or no building codes. They are reluctant and won't do anything without getting funding. They want it quick and easy. You only have sympathy for this in university towns when you have larger number of people in smaller places.

Pat Curran: We have had no luck with the building code people. A group within the agency works on new technology. If we had a simple way for an easy to use field test for lead that didn't require a trip to the lab, that would make the program easier.

Ernie Kelley: In our state, we have a range of attitudes. We ask for tips about renovation jobs with big risks and hazards and use this as a lever. You need to educate contractors to bring them into compliance. They can be useful for notification.

Barry Brooks: The 1999 building code does not mention lead.

Joe Younger: In DC we have had help from the agencies. We have an environmental review checklist for renovation.

Ernie Kelley: Even those who think it is nothing, they pay attention if people complain.

Kerra Roudebush: Consider making certification voluntary. If they don't get certified, they have to have clearance after any project. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 30 Exterior Clearance Barry Brooks: If the clearance tests positive, 1018 requirements are triggered. There is a great hesitation to test so as to avoid 1018.

Jeff Robinson: Should pre testing be required to validate potential sources of contamination on the interior, the exterior, or both?

Mike Wilson: Contractors have been very concerned about becoming responsible for pre existing conditions. It is very unlikely that we will require any pretesting. However, pretesting may be useful to avoid some liability. Some have proposed taking a sample and not testing it until a problem arises.

Larrie Lance: Has the EPA done any studies to see how many houses with lead do not have pre existing conditions on the exterior? Soil testing is very complicated because it is difficult to root out other sources of contamination.

Pat Curran: Are you supporting visual or no clearance?

Larrie Lance: Visual.

Mike Wilson: The requirement is unlikely to be soil testing. It would be very difficult because abatement does not require soil testing. The standard is likely to be visual.

Kerra Roudebush: There needs to be better homeowner awareness. Complete reliance on the supervisor is not feasible.

Mike Wilson: Better information is likely to be provided in a revised 406 publication.

Barry Brooks: In Kansas, clearance must be conducted by a risk assessor or other trained and certified person unless conducted independently by the homeowner.

Pat Curran: How much compliance is there with 406?

John Odisio: In Oregon, it is very low. Several notices have been put out which have elicited some response, but few actually comply.

Barry Brooks: We have been in the 406 business for about 18 months. There is a very different perception of 406  people take it less seriously.

Dan Chatfield: We do not apply 406. Instead we send out mass mailings and try other approaches to get the word out. Enforcement in the region is minimal.

Shea Jones: Soil sampling is impractical but soil is a documented exposure pathway. The public needs to be alerted to this danger.

Ernie Kelley: While 406 compliance is presently very low it is not a useless endeavor. Persistence could easily yield higher levels of compliance and education. More contractors will comply over time. The 406 requirement was not ill conceives and should continue. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 31 Barry Brooks: 406 is a useful education tool. It is a good program and should be a part of any future proposals.

Dan Chatfield: The EPA needs to conduct better enforcement of 406. Contractors need to be aware of the necessity to comply.

Interior Clearance Larrie Lance: Dust testing? Does this mean testing or clearance?

Mike Wilson: Clearance.

Perry Manor: I still think that the type of activity needs to be considered. What is being done is more important than who does it. There is little effective difference between remodeling and renovation and lead reduction in many activities. These activities create great hazards no matter who does them. The differentiation in hazard should include whether there is a child present or not. A child should require a higher standard.

Ernie Kelley: The problem of preexisting conditions can not be avoided. Dust testing gives only limited assurance that the unit is safe. It only clears the work area at the time the sample is taken. The only thing that dust sampling may be able to prove is that no additional hazard was contributed by the work. The rest of the house could still be grossly contaminated by preexisting problems.

Lin Moos: Should clearance be necessary for lead hazard control but not for renovation?

Larrie Lance: There is a possibility for an expanded role for the sampling technician with respect to renovation.

Lin Moos: The basis for the sampling technician was to support HUD regulations.

Vern Dander: There seems to be little functional difference between an inspector and a sampling technician except for the length of training ( one day versus three days). There will be little incentive to train inspectors if sampling technicians can do the same job and be trained in less time costing less money.

Jeff Robinson: We may have to mandate clearance for certain activities such as machine grinding or large scale power sanding. The risk and the cost savings need to be balanced. Some techniques that may be useful for a contractor because they save time should be held to a higher standard when they create large potential risks.

Pat Curran: I am just worried about compliance with dust testing  will people comply?

Ernie Kelley: Jeff raises an important distinction  there are some activities that have the potential to cause massive contamination. Clearance should certainly be required for these activities.

Larrie Lance: A particular problem is that there is no effort to educate people who buy the tools. There are no warnings on packages or literature provided with the tools.

Perry Manor: Does the target population restrict to whom these regulations should apply? Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 32 Lin Moos: No, the regulations cover all housing, which is why activity based regulation would be such a tough sell.

Perry Manor: Renovation standards should be focused at the target population  a higher standard for units with children under six  this is where it is easy to show that harm may be done. Clearance should be required.

Mike Wilson: It is difficult to set aside children and consider them specially.

Lin Moos: In a letter to Congressmen, it was noted that the regulations apply to all  not just homes with a child.

Mazzie Talley: What about landlords that renovate with no renters present but then rent to a family with a small child?

Gerallyn Valls: The renovator may not be aware of any children present.

Barry Brooks: This has the potential to make a big impact. The worst public relations fear is a photo of a worker with full moon suits but residents nearby wearing no protection. People will quickly question the validity of the problem. Also, this would prevent church groups and the like from working on the homes of the elderly  something they have probably been doing for years.

Larrie Lance: In CA, once school superintendents were educated about lead in the schools, parents were banned from summer painting and the like.

Keith Alexander: For me, clearance is important but I do not know about Option 1 or Option 2.

Ernie Kelley: The impact of clearance has the potential to be very disruptive. Clearance should probably be required for some activities but not all.

Mazzie Talley: There could be an options package associated with enforcement. The first step could be a letter of non compliance, the second step a civil penalty, and the third criminal action. With a child present  direct harm  criminal action could be brought more quickly.

Bob Ford: Another option would be to make sampling optional for all owners.

Barry Brooks: The problem of focusing around risk is that it is difficult to define. High risk and low risk depend a lot upon the techniques used and the circumstances.

Jeff Robinson: I have not received many requests from the public but every so often there are a few phone calls. These mostly come from expectant mothers or women of childbearing age.

Ernie Kelley: Clearance is very difficult to pass without abatement like procedures such as securing large portions of the house.

Perry Manor: The necessity and level of clearance required is related to the education, training, and certification of supervisors and workers. Anything proposed needs to be looked at as a package. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 33 Ernie Kelley: Something like machine grinding will be easier to mandate clearance than something like manual scraping which is so widely used.

Gerallyn Valls: We need to look at incentives for compliance.

Larrie Lance: Clearance is an incentive.

This session concluding with the participants examining the first few components in the. Because the key issues with the components were covered in the paper Lead Renovation and Remodeling Proposed Rule Pros and Cons of Potential Options and Approaches( Appendix D) the previous day in Session 3, participants were asked to limit their comments to:

° Is there a viable missing option? ° Do any of the options listed need tweaking?

Applicability Vern Dander: Abated property should be exempted.

Perry Manor: Would this violate the Section 10 definition of target housing?

Mike Wilson: No, there is flexibility given to define the regulatory scheme.

Certification of Firms Perry Manor: What would large scale mean?

Mike Wilson: There is no real clear delineation. It is a concept that is largely impracticable because large can not be identified as contributing a different or greater hazard.

Lin Moos: The differentiation would be difficult to justify. Small projects done by a small firm can cause big problems.

Perry Manor: Risk is quite different from size.

Barry Brooks: At the state level certification is important to tracking firms and mandating enforcement.

Gerallyn Valls: Another option would be voluntary certification. But what qualifies as a firm?

Ellie Clark: Even sole proprietorships qualify as firms.

Training and Certification No further comments.

Accreditation of Training Providers Perry Manor: All or nothing seems to be too polar  there are intermediate options. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 34 Mike Wilson: To clarify, formal sit down training was envisioned to be accredited while informal training, like training by a supervisor, was not.

John Sikes: Ideally accreditation is needed for verification.

SESSION 5 ( 12: 00 noon  1: 45 p. m.) Potential 402 Amendments During this session, Ellie Clark, of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, presented suggested changes to the 402 regulations. Ms. Clark began the session by referring to four handouts that were distributed to the group. These four pages can be found in Appendix F, and are listed below:

1. Suggested changes to 402 reg text 2. Sampling 3. Sampling ( continued) 4. Risk Assessment Ms. Clark stated the purpose of making the changes to the 402 rule is to eliminate problems in the text that led to implementation problems. Ms. Clark began by giving a brief history of her beliefs of prescriptive vs performance measures. She stated she always believed in prescriptive until she tried to implement the lead rules. Now she is leaning towards performance standard measures rather than prescriptive measures.

Ms. Clark informed the group she would first run through the changes to 402 and then staff from the Office of Solid Waste ( OSW) would discuss changes made about the debris rule. Ms. Clark began reviewing items on the " Suggested changes to 402 reg text" page. After reading through parts A C ( General, Scope, and Definitions) she asked that if the participants had any other feedback they could send her an email.

Returning to the first page of the hand out, part D ( Accreditation), Ms. Clark stated this is only for 402. She said it will not accommodate renovation and remodeling rules. Continuing down the page, Ms. Clark informed participants that part F ( Work Practice Standards) is explained in more detail on the following pages.

After completing the presentation of the first page, Ms. Clark introduced David Topping and Rajani Joglekar from EPA's Office of Solid Waste ( OSW) to discuss changes in solid waste management. Mr. Topping and Ms. Joglekar described recent changes in EPA policy regarding the management of certain land wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA). In his introductory remarks, Mr. Topping said it is EPA's desire to move some lead wastes out of the RCRA system and manage them completely in a TSCA context.

Ms. Joglekar next reviewed key elements in this policy change which are documented in " Regulatory Status of Waste Generated by Contractors and Residents from Lead Based Paint Activities Conducted in Households" ( Appendix G).

The participants had several comments and questions about this EPA policy.

Jeff Besougloff: How is lead debris to be regulated under RCRA?

Rajani Joglekar: As household waste. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 35 Jeff Besougloff: There could be a problem because tribes don't have authority under RCRA. Who has the authority to move the lead debris from the household to the edge of the reservation?

Rajani Joglekar: Tribes can make this determination and the waste can be disposed of in localities that have municipal landfills.

Jeff Besougloff: We can't do RCRA. Tribes can't make this determination, they don't have the authority.

Mazzie Talley: I believe it reverts to a Federal program. It's just like Iowa. Iowa did not accept the RCRA Program. So Region VII runs the RCRA Program in Iowa. They also run the tribal RCRA program.

Jeff Besougloff: So then EPA runs the waste disposal?

Mazzie Talley: We work with the tribes to run the program.

Jeff Besougloff: Okay, we'll see how it works out, but I think there is a major jurisdiction problem here.

Gerallyn Valls: I know it includes architectural debris, but does it include sludges?

Rajani Joglekar: Yes, unfortunately it does because it is considered household waste. See page two in the middle of the page of the memo. " Certain LBP waste ( such as large quantities of concentrated lead paint waste   paint chips, dust, or sludges) from residential de leading activities may be subject to more stringent requirements of state, local, and/ or tribal authorities".

Gerallyn Valls: Are all states authorized to this RCRA program at this time?

Rajani Joglekar: Most states are. Some states are more lenient than RCRA and include such debris as batteries and pesticides as household wastes.

After Mr. Topping and Ms. Joglekar had finished highlighting the policy changes, Ms. Clark informed the audience that she has attempted to add on site access standards to the work practice standards in 745.27 in a new section called waste handling. The audience was also informed they may contact Sue Nogs at ( 703) 308 7251 if they had any questions or comments about the Lead Based Paint waste. Staff from OSW will also inform Lin Moos who the Indian contact person is and Ms. Moos will distribute the information to the group.

Members of the audience had more comments and questions they wanted answered about the policy changes.

Bob Ford: What about public and municipal buildings? TSCA, not RCRA?

Ellie Clark: Yes.

Bob Ford: Because of the new section .227?

Ellie Clark: The new section in .227 will only deal with five LBP activities plus renovation and remodeling in target housing, while the proposal deals with waste handling at the time. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 36 Vern Dander: I want to make sure I can give this memo to our training providers.

Rajani Joglekar: Yes, the memo can be distributed.

After the questions on the new lead waste policy changes were answered, Ms. Clark continued with her presentation of the 402 amendments. Ms. Clark posed this question to the audience: " Does anyone have any comments on the first page?"

Larrie Lance: Did you talk about Hazard Levels?

Ellie Clark: No, we will be following the 403 standards. The final rule is scheduled to be published in December and will be available for comment at the same time.

Karen Crampton: I have an issue about people being able to work on an interim basis after they take their courses and before they become certified. We didn't adopt that part. I'm surprised it is still in there ( that you don't require certification before people work, before the 3rd party exam is valid).

Ellie Clark: We never had anyone suggest not to allow the interim certification until today. It was already in the regulatory text and we left it there because no one ever suggested to take it out. No one from I. G. ever thought to bring it up.

Bob Ford: Maybe it is better to have representatives from the states review it than I. G.

Ellie Clark: That's why its good for you to give feedback and send me e mails about the parts you question or are concerned about.

Ms. Clark then posed another set of questions to the audience: " Who doesn't like the " interim basis" section of the regulation? Who doesn't think EPA should continue to support the " interim basis" and why?"

( About 15 hands were raised.)

John Sikes: I thought it was in there because there wasn't an exam when EPA first came out with the certification.

Ellie Clark: The reason it was in the regulatory text is because it is for first time certifications, not people re certifying, or already in the system. It was a way for people to start working. People who had state certification could still work until they received their Federal certification. Those of you who have been around for a while, was there a desire to let people work by waiting for the certification process? Given the current lag time for the program, I don't think we are in the position yet to remove the interim period.

Bob Ford: It is my understanding it helps EPA get through the lag time. It is tough to have someone go through the training and let them work and then tell them it will take six months to process their paperwork.

Utah is facilitating that and giving people the opportunity to take the exam on the last day of the course. It is a 3rd party exam they take. We come down to the training and oversee it. Then we reduce our process time to 24 48 hours once we receive a complete application. Now 95% of the applications we receive are not complete, but once we receive a complete application, we can mail them a card in one to two days. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 37 We are looking at, in our upcoming rulemaking, taking the interim section away because it becomes problematic for enforcement issues when you don't know who is out there working.

Larrie Lance: When California started the program, there was no certified infrastructure in place. The interim was a jumpstart mechanism. I see no reason at all for California to keep it in their regulations.

Ernie Kelley: There is no interim in Massachusetts. People have to take the exam before do any work.

Ellie Clark: What is your lag time?

Ernie Kelley: One day. We offer the exam on site the day after the course.

Kerra Roudebush: We have gotten statements from our industry that it is expensive to train and set up medical monitoring for workers and get them certified for them to leave two weeks later because they don't like the conditions.

Interim certification could serve a purpose to see if a person would work out as an employee. But on the other hand, if you are thinking of eliminating certification for abatement workers, it would eliminate the need for an interim period.

Ellie Clark: We are not eliminating certification for abatement workers.

Lin Moos: It is one of the options in the paper.

Perry Manor: It is my understanding that certification exams are for higher level disciplines to qualify someone; for example, to demonstrate recollection and knowledge of subject matter regarding what they were taught to be a supervisor. In Wisconsin we do use interim certifications. It is not being used in a way I'm comfortable with. We give the interim as a supervisor before they pass the exam. It is not the best way to do it because theoretically before they pass the exam, the best they could be is a worker. They can work, but not as a supervisor until they pass the exam. In my mind the interim certification should equal worker as opposed to an actual supervisor.

Ellie Clark: It would not work for a risk assessor or inspector.

Perry Manor: No, but they could work as a sampling technician.

Vern Dander: We often get certification requests from people working for a state, but are not yet EPA certified. It seems inequitable that these people who are probably qualified can't work in the region until they are EPA certified.

Bob Ford: Doesn't the process of the application go faster when the application is accompanied by a state card? Or is that not true?

Ellie Clark: It is all relative.

Vern Dander: But the important thing in this scenario is the person has a prospect for a job. Someone has approached him and wants to do work out West. They want to know how long it will be before they can do the work. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 38 Sean Casey: Bringing the group back to Ms. Clark's original question, are there any more comments on page one? ( Page one of Appendix F, " Suggested changes to 402 reg text").

Pat Curran: Look at the definitions. Why doesn't the abatement definition change?

Ellie Clark: We will probably add hazard reduction, abatement and interim controls and remove references to temporary and permanent. We will fix various definitions; they are not all listed on this sheet.

Larrie Lance: I suggest that under the certification section, you change the language so people may only apply to EPA after they pass the exam. California has removed the section that they apply before the exam in their grant regulations. It eliminates a lot of extra paperwork. You don't send in an application until you've passed the exam.

Lin Moos: We are in a different situation from you, someone pays a fee and it goes to the treasury.

Larrie Lance: We don't get the money. It doesn't matter, it still eliminates a lot of the paperwork.

Ellie Clark: This has been the center issue of many discussions, we will take your suggestion, but I'd like to move on to another topic.

After the questions were answered, Ms. Clark began discussing page two of her handouts ( Sampling). She briefly described the current sampling requirements, implications for the sampling technician today, and future implications. Ms. Clark next walked the group through pages three and four ( Sampling, continued and Risk Assessment). She stated this is an example of the simplification of the regulatory text. After presenting the rest of the paper, Ms. Clark solicited the audience for other comments.

Larrie Lance: In California, there is no distinction between an inspector and risk assessor. We have one category and anyone doing evaluations must fit the requirements for this category. Anyone performing evaluations for compensation fall under our certification requirements.

Ellie Clark: What do you do for state agencies doing EBL investigations?

Larrie Lance: They must be certified under our regulations.

Shea Jones: It is important to clarify a line between inspectors and risk assessors. I have seen in the field where inspectors have written up evaluations and provided recommendations and they were not following the work practice standards. They were testing paint and dust. This is dangerous to do without the proper certifications.

Bob Ford: Was the person not certified as a risk assessor? Shea Jones: No, they were not. They were an inspector.

John Sikes: If they don't make recommendations, then they are an inspector.

Ellie Clark: So if they don't make recommendations, it is not a risk assessment?

John Sikes: That is correct. You have to make a distinction because data collection is just one step. The danger is when people are collecting data but are not certified to do it. They are collecting the data and Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 39 misinterpreting it   that could get into a dangerous situation.

Ellie Clark: What do other people think? Do you agree with John?

Perry Manor: What you are looking at is a couple phases of a risk assessment. If you are doing a risk assessment for EBL case you are looking at every possible source of lead, not just lead based paint.

Ellie Clark: Right.

Perry Manor: My understanding is that these regulations pretty much focus on lead based paint.

Ellie Clark: No, with a risk assessment, you are looking at paint and soil samples.

Perry Manor: But not water?

Ellie Clark: It is not required.

Perry Manor: There are differences. By not making recommendations to me is equivalent to a risk identification and that may be sufficient in some cases. A person comes in and identifies the risk areas and leaves it up to the property owner how they manage these risks. While a risk assessor typically offers recommendations but may not be as important to make the recommendations as it is to identify the risks.

Barry Brooks: In Kansas they have an Elevated Blood Lead Level Investigator. This requires four more hours of training. First they have to be certified as an inspector and a risk assessor. If they obtain the Elevated Lead Blood Level inspector certification they don't have to pay the fees. They must pass the risk assessor 3rd party exam. This usually goes to health department nurses. If you are making recommendations you are a risk assessor.

Ellie Clark: What if you are just collecting data and give the report to the homeowner and not certified in anything. as Jeff Robinson had told me about earlier. Does this break your rules?

Barry Brooks: Not certified in anything?

Ellie Clark: No certifications. Is that right, Jeff?

Jeff Robinson: That happens in many situations. They give a report in an analytical sense and walk away from the home. We call it a lead survey.

Barry Brooks: In Kansas if you are doing any data collection and writing up reports and you're being compensated, you must be certified as an inspector or a risk assessor.

Bob Ford: Looking at this from an enforcement perspective, I would encourage EPA to follow what is in the regulation as well as add language to include any fraction thereof. We have a situation in Utah where people are going out under the HUD regulations taking samples and calling them partial inspections. Enforcement problems occur because for certified risk assessors if they are not following points on 227 they are out of compliance. There seems to be a disconnect between the two. Utah will include language in their modification to the regulation to include language for inspection and any fraction thereof. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 40 Lin Moos: Are there any states where if you take samples other than for your own use, you must be certified?

( Representatives from the states of Kansas, Utah, and California raised their hands.)

Lin Moos: How many states require risk assessor certification if being compensated for the sampling?

Representatives from the following states raised their hands:

California North Carolina Virginia Illinois Ohio Wisconsin Kansas Oklahoma Massachusetts Tennessee Missouri Vermont Lin Moos: How many states do not require a risk assessor to perform sampling?

( Representatives from the states of Utah and Alabama raised their hands.)

John Sikes: I would like to see anyone taking samples to be certified.

John Odisio: Oregon requires counties to be certified for inspections, especially if they are giving services to other agencies. The only time certification is not needed is for EBL cases in rural areas. These areas don't have enough funding and are allowing people to go out and do dust sampling. This may be a liability issue if we are sending people out to perform tests without proper training.

Karen Crampton: I have an issue with definition of surface by surface. I asked our attorney if we could do less than the definition. The attorney declared it was not an inspection if we did less. In Vermont, If you are collecting one sample you don't need certification, for more than one sample you need to be certified.

Perry Manor: If the test is used in the decision making for property, the person obtaining the samples must be certified.

Ellie Clark: We realize what we wrote doesn't work. We have no interim guidance. I want to expand the questions. We see problems with the risk assessment definition. We are thinking of reshuffling the sampling roles. An inspector doesn't have to fill a role any more. We'd like to shuffle disciplines and think about some of the comments made by other states.

Mike Wilson: I liked combining the risk assessor and inspector. But if we only have risk assessors, what happens to the XRF testing and identification of paint?

John Stiles: I think it is a good idea to look at the disciplines. We still need inspections. I also like the modular training idea.

Pat Curran: I like getting rid of inspections, but I don't know what to do about the XRF.

Barry Brooks: We will need to change the educational requirements for the risk assessor if we get rid of the inspector. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 41 Ernie Kelley: Sample reports are complex. If the sampling technician only receives one day of training, this is not enough time for them to understand or learn about the XRF.

Perry Manor: I'm concerned that if we collapse the risk assessor and inspector certifications, the building inspectors in Wisconsin would not want to become lead investigators. They have no interest in learning about the XRF.

Ellie Clark: But under the Federal program the risk assessor would have to take the inspector course first.

Mike Wilson: For the inspection course, two of the three days are spent on training on the XRF. They discuss safety of use of equipment and licensing, etc. Isn't that training sufficient? Could use the XRF to test the whole house for paint.

John Stiles: Manufacturer training could be good enough, depending on who does it. These people are not from accredited training institutions.

Mike Wilson: Is the manufacturer training not enough?

John Stiles: The radiation training is not long enough. It needs to be done correctly by an accredited training provider.

Mike Wilson: There is some duplication in the training provider review of XRF and the manufacturer training.

John Oslo: I went to a manufacturer training and people were using the guns in unsafe ways. The person conducting the training allowed people to use them unsafely.

SESSION 6 ( 1: 45 p. m.  1: 55 p. m.) Seeking Comments Since Sessions 4 and 5 ran over the time allotted, audience members did not have an opportunity to provide comments or questions about information to seek in the preamble of the upcoming rule. To extract this information from the participants, Sean Casey had everyone perform an exercise. Audience members were asked to write the following on their papers:

Mike and Lin, In the preamble to the proposed rule, you should seek comment on, or information on:

Barry Brooks:   input on non profit community groups on projects.

Kerra Roudebush:   the current usefulness of certified inspectors.

Lisa Schutzenhofer:   the effects of including interim controls in the definition of abatement on EBL investigations.

Michael Brandt:   if it is necessary to be consistent with the new HUD rule for R& R.

Mazzie Talley:   requiring anyone who takes a lead sample to be certified.

Ernie Kelley:   where dust clearance should be required following an interior renovation involving dry scraping of lead paint. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 42 Karen Crampton:   when to conduct clearance sampling. Prescriptive vs. performance based work standards. Provide info for where/ what type of emergency would fall under an exception.

Bob Ford:   expand regulation requirements to include partial LBP inspections and LBP risk assessments.

Pat Curran:   anything to do with: costs, risks, certifications.

John Sikes:   which R& R activity produce the greatest hazards with the idea of developing a consensus opinion if possible.

Barbara Ross:   certification requirements. Who should be required to be certified and why.

Dave Combs:   the type of and extent of performance or prescriptive work practices.

Lou Bevilacqua:   eliminating interim certification for both lead hazard reduction and renovations.

Molly Magoon:   certification of inspectors, technicians and risk assessors.

Cathy Atkins:   housing affordability, both HUD's definition and broader definition of " affordable".

John Odisio:   existing inspector and risk assessor capacity in state programs.

David Turpin:   quality control.

Perry Manor:   modularized training, certification, clearance accreditation, etc as based in risk activities categories.

Daniel Chatfield:   uncontained hydro blasting practices as a surface preparation of painting  how widespread, how often?

Jeff Robinson:   mandatory clearance sampling for interior when unsafe paint removal methods are used ( i. e. power tools, torching).

Joe Younger:   priority of foreign language for certification training courses.

Rose Anne Rudd:   scope of applicability of rule, i. e., pre 1950 housing vs. pre 1978 housing, rental housing vs all target housing.

Keith Bates:   the cost savings on using sampling technician workers under inspector/ risk assessors as opposed to using certified inspectors/ risk assessors only.

Gerallyn Valls:   including partial risk assessments with the definition of risk assessments.

Larrie Lance:   necessity of containment for power washing/ blasting.

Shea Jones:   studies related to lead based paint renovation activities and the effects on bare soil exposure.

Name not given:   houses which are renovated prior to occupancy ( which includes dry scraping sanding) should clearance testing be done given that house may be sold to a family with children.

MEETING WRAP UP ( 1: 55 p. m.  2: 00 p. m.)

Lin Moos wrapped up the session by highlighting a few of her notes she took during the session. Draft R& R Meeting Summary 9/ 29/ 2000 43 1. Think of lead like seatbelts. 2. Successful programs should be simple and flexible 3. HUD's 1012, 1013 program moves us in the right direction, $ 3 billion dollar advertising campaign. 4. Have state reps in the south write an article on lead safe restoration of historic homes. 5. Applicability, issue of pre 60 housing as a comment in the preamble. 6. Certification  revenues generator, liked Michael's idea of assessing fees by the number of workers in the firm. 7. Request comment on activity based work. 8. Blood lead level inspector 9. OSHA  informal training not a viable option 10. Modular training 11. Sampling technician, concerns about education 12. Cost of sampling technicians 13. See how works with HUD Rule 14. Work practices general performance accepted. 15. 406B adjusted pamphlets for homeowner to know hazards 16. Enforcement for work in thinking of future use of the property Ms. Moos concluded by noting that they ( Ms. Moos, Mr. Wilson and Ms. Clark) do not have an easy job ahead of them, but they have a better understanding that will assist them in writing the preamble. She stated they had collected good ideas during this session and thanked everyone for attending.