0001 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 LEAD BASED PAINT HEARING 3 MARCH 27, 2006 4 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0002 1 MS. GUERRIERO: Good afternoon again and 2 welcome to Chicago for those of you that are not 3 from here. I'm going to start the meeting today 4 by introducing the panel here, and I should maybe 5 start by introducing myself. 6 I am Margaret Guerriero. I'm the 7 Division Director for the Waste, Pesticides and 8 Toxics Division here in Region 5 EPA. 9 On my far left is Julie Simpson, who 10 will have a placard in a few minutes, she's the 11 Chief of the Lead, Heavy Metals and Inorganics 12 Branch in the Office of Pesticides, Pollution 13 Prevention and Toxics at EPA Headquarters in 14 Washington. 15 To my immediate left is Christine 16 Dustin, our guest from Region 7. She's the 17 Lead Coordinator in the Kansas City Office of 18 EPA. 19 To my immediate right, Mardi Klevs. 20 She's the Branch Chief here in Region 5 for the 21 Pesticides, Toxics Branch in the Division of 22 Waste, Pesticides and Toxics, which houses the 0003 1 Lead Program. 2 And to my far right, Bharat Mathur. 3 He's the Deputy Region Administrator here in 4 Region 5, and I think Bharat is going to begin. 5 MR. MATHUR: Good afternoon. I'm here also 6 to add my welcome to you all for attending this 7 very important public meeting. 8 First, I want to thank Julie for 9 including Chicago as one of your five cities to 10 have such a meeting. As you could see, Julie, 11 from the attendance today, this is a very 12 important topic for us in Region 5. I also want 13 to welcome Christine from Region 7. Hi. 14 Region 7 and 5 are working very closely on the 15 issue of lead poisoning, and I'm very pleased to 16 see Christine here. 17 I just wanted to share a few thoughts 18 regarding lead poisoning with you. And actually, 19 I also wanted the opportunity to meet some of 20 you. I was looking at the roster and several of 21 you are not only in Chicago, but within the 22 bounds of Region 5, and it's kind of nice to know 0004 1 all the good people who are working on this 2 subject. 3 I particularly wanted to welcome some 4 of the folks from Naperville, Illinois. Are they 5 here? 6 ( No response.) 7 MR. MATHUR: Okay. They're not here yet. 8 It's one of my favorite suburbs in Chicago and 9 that's simply because I live there. 10 ( Laughter.) 11 MR. MATHUR: As you know, Region 5 has the 12 largest incidence of childhood lead poisoning in 13 the country. The latest statistics suggest that 14 39 percent of all the children under six, the 15 lead poisoning incidence is in Region 5. It's 16 not a statistic that we are proud of, but it 17 certainly encourages us to do as much as we can 18 to combat lead poisoning. 19 We have made progress in the last 20 several years. In fact, the latest numbers, I 21 guess, from CDC suggest that the number of 22 children with lead poisoning has reduced from 0005 1 almost 22,000 in 2003 to about 17,000 in 2004. 2 So we have a long way to go to meet our objective 3 of no children with lead poisoning by 2010. 4 This is one of the highest priorities 5 in our region, combatting lead poisoning in 6 children. And we are doing our work in not only 7 enforcing and implementing EPA mandates, but also 8 working in a voluntary fashion in partnerships 9 and trying to be innovative and providing 10 whatever technical assistance we can. 11 So in our view, the subject of today's 12 meeting is very critical. It's very important 13 that not only we listen to you, but that with 14 your assistance, we finalize this rule quickly so 15 we can take advantage of it and further attack 16 the problem of childhood lead poisoning. 17 So let me, again, welcome you. Let me 18 close by saying that Margaret and Mardi and I, in 19 particular, in Region 5 look forward to working 20 with all of you over the next several months and 21 years and hope that together we can meet our 22 objective. Thank you. Thanks, Margaret. 0006 1 MS. GUERRIERO: Thank you, Bharat. Next, I 2 wanted to introduce Julie Simpson, again, and 3 give you a little bit more background before she 4 begins her remarks. 5 As I mentioned, she is the Chief of 6 the Lead, Heavy Metals and Inorganics Branch. 7 This branch administers the regulatory and policy 8 aspects of the EPA's Lead Based Paint Program. 9 She also has served in EPA's Office of General 10 Counsel for several years prior to coming to her 11 current position. Julie? 12 MS. SIMPSON: Thanks, Margaret, and thanks 13 to all of you for coming today. As Bharat said, 14 we're doing several meetings around the country 15 to get comments from the public on the Proposed 16 Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule. 17 This is the first of five that we're 18 doing in the next two weeks, and we've had by far 19 the greatest turnout for the meeting in Chicago 20 so far. So I'm very glad to see you all here and 21 we're very interested in hearing what you all 22 have to say. 0007 1 As you may know, there is a public 2 docket for the meeting where we're accepting 3 written comments. There's a one pager that was 4 available at the front desk that will tell you 5 how to get to our Web site and the various 6 Web sites where you can go to if you want to 7 submit written comments. But we're also going to 8 be transcribing everything that's said here today 9 and the transcript of the meeting will go into 10 the docket and be treated as any other written 11 comment, and we will consider all of this 12 material when we're deliberating and deciding 13 which way to go when we do the final rule. So 14 all of your input is very important and we really 15 appreciate your coming to give it to us. 16 We have a lot of people who have 17 signed up to speak. We are offering everyone ten 18 minutes to speak. If you kind of talk fast like 19 me and you don't need your ten minutes, that's 20 fine because I think we have more people who 21 would like to talk than may have the opportunity 22 to. We've only got the room for four hours. 0008 1 We have two people from ICF Consulting 2 who you may have seen out front. Pooja is taking 3 names, and if you haven't registered, please do 4 so. She's sitting at the back. And Amy is 5 sitting near the podium, and she'll be calling 6 the speakers in the order in which they signed 7 up, and she will be our enforcer on the 8 ten minute rule. So if she suggests to you that 9 it's time to wrap up, please do so, so we can 10 keep things moving. 11 Any questions? Anything else from the 12 panel? 13 ( No response.) 14 MS. SIMPSON: Thanks a lot. Let's get 15 going. 16 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. We're going to start 17 with folks who pre registered, and then those of 18 you who came in and registered today, we'll get 19 to you at the end. 20 So the first person on my list, though 21 I don't know if she's signed in, is Cassandra 22 Alexander. 0009 1 ( No response.) 2 MS. MORTIMER: Not here. Okay. John 3 Bartlett is up then, and after John, Steve 4 Brooks. 5 MR. BARTLETT: Good afternoon. My name is 6 John Bartlett, and I'm the Executive Director of 7 the Metropolitan Tenants Organization. I'd just 8 first like to thank the EPA for holding this 9 hearing here in Chicago. Appreciate that. 10 The Metropolitan Tenants Organization 11 is the largest organizer of tenants and tenant 12 organizations in Chicago. Our tenants rights 13 hotline annually answers 10,000 calls. The 14 majority of these calls come from tenants who are 15 living in older buildings, pre 1978, which have 16 lead paint in them. So the elimination of 17 childhood lead poisoning is an issue of great 18 importance to both our members and our 19 constituents. 20 On that note, I want to thank the 21 Environmental Protection Agency for its proposal 22 to require lead  the use of lead safe work 0010 1 practices in all older buildings unless paint 2 samples come back as free of lead. 3 From a tenant perspective, we believe 4 this rule will help prevent the poisoning of 5 tenants. All too often we receive calls from 6 tenants whose landlords come in and use unskilled 7 laborers to replace walls, ceilings, windows. 8 You name it, they come in, and they do it without 9 giving tenants notice and certainly without 10 telling them of any  how it will impact their 11 health, though we do have several suggestions 12 that we believe that will significantly increase 13 the effectiveness of the rule with little 14 additional cost. 15 First is, we receive many calls from 16 tenants where the landlord has entered their unit 17 to make reservations about the notice. And first 18 off, we believe that the brochures that the EPA 19 has is far too long for most tenants. You know, 20 it's geared more towards homeowners than it is 21 towards tenants. We feel a two page summary of 22 what the laws and what the lead safe practices 0011 1 are and who to call. I think that is the most 2 important thing for tenants is they notice 3 something going wrong, who do they call, and what 4 can they do. 5 Secondly, just we want to make sure 6 that the notice is  the enforcement of the 7 notice actually  that notice goes out because 8 all too often  you know, I've been working in 9 tenant rights for, you know, 20 years  well, 10 20 years counting here and in Seattle, and I have 11 never seen a notice to tenants they're  you 12 know, that they're required now to tell them that 13 there's lead when they're doing renovation. 14 So if we're actually going to think 15 that this will work, then I think that there 16 needs to make sure that tenants get this and that 17 it needs to be an enforcement policy somehow. 18 You either need to give the city or the local 19 governments authority to enforce this or you need 20 to give tenants some way to say, oh, you're not 21 doing this right, and that we can then do 22 something or that. Or else, otherwise, you know, 0012 1 I'm just concerned that this  even though you 2 have this great rule, that it's not going to be 3 enforced  or how is it going to be enforced? 4 I guess the next thing that I would 5 also just like to talk about is, is who gets this 6 notice. And, you know, I think it's been 7 proposed it just be done by posting. We would 8 actually suggest that it actually be given to 9 every tenant that would be possibly impacted. Be 10 slid  you know, either put on their door, under 11 their door, or in their mailbox or something 12 because most posting does not always work for 13 several reasons. There's oftentimes multiple 14 entrances and tenants use different ones. They 15 may not see where it's posted. Sometimes they 16 get taken down or other times there's just 17 several  four or five postings up and people 18 just kind of walk through. So if we really want 19 to get that to tenants, we need to get it to them 20 in their unit. 21 And then I guess we also just want to 22 make sure that it is given to any units that 0013 1 could possibly be impacted. As I said, 2 oftentimes we see landlords that are just open up 3 the windows, take out the walls, and throw the 4 debris out of the window. That certainly 5 shouldn't be allowable, but that's what happens. 6 So any time that  the tenants and all the units 7 around there should be notified of what the law 8 is and just of the potential impact to their 9 children. 10 We would also like to see that  that 11 just the EPA  let me just  sorry here. That 12 the disclosure forms  also that the  that 13 after the landlords  we just want to  I guess 14 to suggest that the way that the disclosure forms 15 for the lead has actually been very successful 16 and we've actually noticed a much higher 17 disclosure rate now since you've been prosecuting 18 landlords for failing to do this. We think that 19 something like that would be both useful for the 20 disclosure now of the lead when they're going to 21 be doing the lead work and also for making sure 22 that they comply to the rule and they're 0014 1 following it. So that there needs to be some, 2 you know, teeth to this, and we really want to 3 see that. 4 Lastly, we want to make sure that 5 the  like the sandblasting or other kind of 6 things like this are not used. That we don't 7 really feel especially in an occupied building 8 that they can be done safely. That it's going to 9 either get on the floor. It could be tracked on. 10 It could just get all around in a unit that's 11 occupied. So, you know, if they're going to be 12 using these kind of heat burning or things to get 13 rid of the lead or any type of sandblasting or 14 anything like that, that, you know, certainly we 15 would say that certainly not in an occupied 16 building. 17 And lastly, we just wanted to talk a 18 little bit or mention that we don't feel that a 19 white glove test is sufficient to be used. That 20 we believe that you can come up with a cost 21 efficient way that the contractor can actually 22 perform a dust wipe. You know, I've seen the 0015 1 little boxes, and you can get them for $ 25.00, 2 and we don't feel like that is an overly 3 exorbitant test to be done before allowing 4 tenants back into a unit or to say that it's 5 ready to be inhabited. 6 So anyway, I'd just like to close by, 7 once again, saying that we feel that this is a 8 very positive step toward, and that with just a 9 few changes we believe that it will be an 10 effective measure in preventing lead poisoning. 11 Thank you. 12 MS. SIMPSON: I just wanted to say that 13 we've got a separate Federal Register Notice out 14 for comments besides the rule that publishes this 15 revised brochure that kind of goes with the 16 rules, " Protect Your Family From Lead During 17 Renovation, Repair and Painting." Mr. Bartlett's 18 comments reminded me of that. Both of the 19 comment periods close on April 10th and you can get 20 to both of them through the Web site. 21 MS. MORTIMER: I should also say, if you 22 brought written versions of your comments, you 0016 1 can give those to me and I'll keep them. 2 Next up is Steve Brooks. And while 3 Steve is coming here, let me check. Did John 4 Bieg arrive or Susana Borrero or John Casey? 5 ( No response.) 6 MS. MORTIMER: All right. So Steve is up 7 and then John after him. 8 MR. BROOKS: Good afternoon, ladies and 9 gentlemen. My name is Steve Brooks, and I am a 10 Sanitarian with the Macon County Health 11 Department in Decatur, Illinois. I am a licensed 12 lead inspector/ risk assessor with IDPH and have 13 been working with the lead poisoned children for 14 the last ten years. 15 My experience also includes working 16 with the Chicago Task Force for Lead Safe Housing 17 since its inception, which was started by 18 Children and Youth 2000. This task force has 19 been a real driving force for lowering the number 20 of lead poisoned children in Chicago. And 21 congratulations to Loyola Child Law Center's 22 Lead Safe Housing Initiatives for being selected 0017 1 by the USEPA for 2006 Children's Environmental 2 Health Excellence Award. They deserve it. 3 I also just served on the Governor's 4 Advisory Council for Lead Safe Housing in 5 Illinois, and I am so happy to see so many of my 6 colleagues here. 7 Last night at about 9: 30, I tore up 8 the speech that I had prepared for today. My 9 speech was pointing out the areas that I 10 disagreed with on this proposal, and I decided 11 that there are going to be many more eloquent 12 speakers here than myself. So I decided to make 13 my speech more about examples of what I have to 14 deal with. 15 Everybody can point out problems with 16 this proposal, but not many people can speak 17 about their experiences in the trenches for the 18 last ten years as an inspector. I agree 19 wholeheartedly that we need to streamline this 20 process and make it economically cheaper to do 21 lead safe work. 22 I've been working on a master degree 0018 1 at the U of I in Springfield. I did a risk 2 assessment for the City of Decatur. At the pace 3 that we are moving in Decatur, we will have all 4 of our homes lead safe in about 800 years. 5 Please keep in mind that I work downstate. We do 6 not have the money, the courts, the enforcement, 7 et cetera, that the Chicago area enjoys. The 8 lead program is at a much more primitive level 9 than it is here. That is one of the reasons I 10 have been looking forward to a proposal from the 11 EPA, something that I can hang my hat on, as the 12 old saying goes. 13 Unfortunately, this proposal looks 14 like it was put together in a hurry without much 15 forethought. I would like to address some of 16 these issues, such as dangerous practices, 17 enforcement, training on the job site, and 18 clearance testing with dust wipes. 19 Let's start with dangerous or 20 restricted work practices. This would only take 21 one paragraph to include in the proposal. We 22 still have contractors, the guy with the pickup 0019 1 truck and a paint brush, landlords, and 2 do it yourselfers who are still using dangerous 3 work practices when working with lead paint. We 4 even have one licensed lead abatement contractor 5 who is still waterblasting his own rental 6 properties, blasting chips everywhere on 7 boulevards, other people's properties, streets, 8 sidewalks, et cetera, and he was trained not to 9 do that. 10 I get calls every year from people 11 upset that somebody next store is scattering 12 chips onto their property. That is why I had 13 developed the art of gentle persuasion. I tell 14 them they could work with me or I will call the 15 EPA and they can deal with them. Of course, I 16 tell them they would rather work with me, and 17 this works about 90 percent of the time. 18 Of course, for every violation I see, 19 there are dozens of violations going on that I do 20 not see or hear about. Then there is always the 21 few who don't care what I say and they tell me 22 where I can go. I had one gentleman who was 0020 1 using an illegal heat gun to remove lead paint. 2 He told me you're not going to stop me, I'm 3 getting paid to do this, and I'm almost done. 4 We've also had cases where the parents 5 accidentally poisoned their children during the 6 process of remodeling or repainting. I had one 7 case where the new father bought a house in the 8 older part of the city and decided to burn the 9 paint off with an open torch. He got 10 three fourths of the way done when he found out 11 he had poisoned his six month old son. This 12 caused real hardships for the newly married 13 couple. 14 I read in a book years ago where 15 Millie, one of the dogs at the White House, was 16 poisoned by unsafe lead work practices during a 17 remodeling of the White House. 18 Please add restricted or dangerous 19 work practices to this proposal along with some 20 type of enforcement. People are always looking 21 for the gray areas and enforcement is in these 22 areas. People figure that out in a hurry. 0021 1 Another problem I see with this proposal is that 2 there may be nobody on the job site that knows 3 what " lead safe work practices" really means. If 4 workers are trained on the job and the certified 5 renovator only has to be as close as a telephone, 6 who is doing the training? 7 From my experience, when the cat is 8 away, the mice will play. I saw two contractors 9 and the workers go through training. One 10 contractor bought all the equipment, hired an 11 industrial hygienist to tell him all his workers 12 needed PPE, dedicated vehicles and tools through 13 lead only work. Bought nice materials to do the 14 job, did all the safety requirements, and he 15 couldn't get any bids. The other contractor did 16 it as cheaply as possible, used cheap materials, 17 cut every corner he could, didn't do all the 18 safety stuff, and he survived. He was also the 19 one I mentioned that was waterblasting his own 20 properties. 21 There needs to be a good training 22 program with enforcement. This proposal also 0022 1 says that the certified renovator may use an 2 acceptable test kit to determine whether 3 lead based paint is present in affected areas. 4 Is there an acceptable test kit on the market 5 that is accurate enough? Not according to HUD. 6 Which brings me to what I think is the 7 most important issue in this proposal. According 8 to this new proposal, a certified renovator may 9 verify the cleanliness of the work area using a 10 procedure involving disposable cleaning clothes. 11 In all the jobs that I have worked on, 12 it is rare for all the dust wipes to past 13 clearance, which means we have to make the 14 contractor go back and clean again. Since lead 15 dust is mostly invisible to the eye, they see no 16 reason to do any more cleaning. Letting the 17 contractor do clearance is like letting the fox 18 watch the chickens. There may be more hazardous 19 dust there now than there was before he started. 20 After work is completed, will people 21 have a false sense of security and not have their 22 children tested anymore? If it is grandma or 0023 1 grandpa's house that has been renovated, is it 2 safe for the grandkids to come over and play? 3 Especially when common areas, pregnant women, or 4 women of child bearing age are not taken into 5 consideration for targeting. 6 This proposal is not a prevention 7 policy. This proposal puts us back to square 8 one. With this proposal, to only do lead safe 9 work practices where children under six live, the 10 diminimous of two square feet per component, not 11 using lead safe work practices, the system of 12 trying to conduct a thorough cleanup and a way to 13 verify that cleanup was effective leaves our 14 children exactly where they were before. We will 15 be using our children as canaries to tell us when 16 jobs have been botched. 17 Thank you for listening today. And by 18 the way, I have some handouts back on the table 19 back there that I use to teach people what 20 deteriorating lead paint looks like and people 21 are welcome to pick one up there. Thank you. 22 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 0024 1 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. We've got John Casey 2 and Samuel Churchill after him. 3 MR. CASEY: Good afternoon. My name is 4 John Casey. I'm President and CEO of 5 Greentree Environmental Services, offices in 6 Portage, Indiana and Indianapolis, Indiana. I 7 thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 8 USEPA's Proposed Renovation, Repair and Painting 9 Rule. 10 Greentree is a major lead contractor 11 throughout the midwest with 12 multistate license 12 risk assessors. We're a licensed abatement 13 contractor in Indiana as well as offer 14 supervisory services including lead stabilization 15 crews doing work in several states for like VA 16 and different organizations. 17 Personally, I'm a licensed risk 18 assessor/ approved trainer for all lead and 19 asbestos disciplines and an audited safe work 20 practice trainer. I sit on several lead 21 elimination committees, the Indiana Governor's 22 Task Force as well as work hand in hand with the 0025 1 Indiana State Department of Health in an effort 2 to identify lead poisoned children. 3 We do the EBL investigations for about 4 65 of the counties in Indiana. I really hope EPA 5 in this instance will put their ear to the ground 6 and listen to the gentlemen who preceded me as 7 well as the ones to come. I have some other 8 comments to make, but my most important point 9 here is that I'm one of the ones out there 10 speaking with the contractors when we force them 11 to come through the door for this training. And 12 when I say, " force," that's literal. The only 13 time  if you can get them to bid because lead 14 scares them. They don't know what to do with it. 15 We find that the only reason that they're even 16 there is to be able to bid on the city projects 17 or the grants that are coming out available or 18 whatever. 19 The most comments that I get from 20 these contractors are, number one, how am I going 21 to compete? There's no way that I can do 22 everything that I'm supposed to do lead safe and 0026 1 compete with Joe Blow Contractor across the 2 street who does absolutely nothing. One of them 3 commented to me that on his way to the class, and 4 this was in Fort Wayne, Indiana, he watched two 5 gentlemen take a tarp from the side of the house, 6 as he was at a stoplight, with paint chips on it, 7 walk it out to the street and flip it into the 8 street. This is a common practice. When asking 9 these contractors how many of them give 10 disclosure for pre' 78 homes, in almost 1,000 11 students, I have never had one tell me that 12 they've been doing it or know any other 13 contractor who's doing it. 14 As this rule is set, I think it would 15 have been  one of my colleagues commented that 16 when we started this ten years ago, and we've 17 been in business since ' 96, that this would have 18 been a great start because then we really had no 19 direction until lead safe rule came out. Now in 20 the state of Indiana, we've been working for ten 21 years to get to the point to where we're at. You 22 have the Attorney General willing to prosecute 0027 1 landlords, but in order to fight and get this 2 legislation passed and all the things that we've 3 done with the rule makings that we have done, it 4 takes legislative support. 5 When the EPA comes out in direct 6 conflict with their initial direction when all 7 this started, and the states have promulgated 8 laws and rules to support those, and then you 9 come back in and say, oh, that's okay, this isn't 10 needed anymore, that kind of sets us back. I 11 mean, we're lost pups. 12 I really think that a lot of thought 13 went into your proposal, but I think what you 14 missed is  not so much missed, but I think you 15 went into it with the expectation of a contractor 16 performing due diligence. With the turnover of 17 contractors, their workers, I have to tell you 18 that I don't know  other than mine, of course, 19 I don't know any contracting company that 20 performs due diligence when it comes to lead 21 work. I seldom  I've had contractors take the 22 course, as it stands, go back to their office, 0028 1 tell their girls to go out and clean the house 2 with no training, no nothing, and on a $ 999 job, 3 one instance by Terra Haute, the man had to get 4 six clearances. Now  actually seven, and I 5 helped him with one, didn't charge him, and he 6 called the head of VA to report me because I 7 popped a paint bubble and told him that was 8 wrong. 9 So  but my point is, is that seldom 10 ever, as the gentleman said before, do clearances 11 pass. A white glove, it would be great if we 12 were clearing dirt, but we're clearing lead, and 13 I mean, some of that can't be seen. I can't tell 14 you how many surfaces I've seen that looked clean 15 and did not pass clearance. You get to a 16 basement floor, you know, unless you paint that 17 basement floor, it's not going to pass. There 18 are several instances, bathtub  and to put this 19 on the contractor to say, sure, go ahead. And I 20 mean, you know, I'm kind of torn with this 21 because as a contractor it would be real easy for 22 me, a white glove test. So that means I could 0029 1 have my guys clean wherever I'm going to sample 2 and make sure that area is cleaned where I can 3 hold up the card and white glove and say, gee, 4 we're good to go. And that's what's going to 5 happen, if they even do that. 6 To hear these guys cry about having to 7 do this stuff  and understand, when I do the 8 class, I was one of the ones to do hands on. 9 They called me to D. C. because of it years ago. 10 And so with that, I try to instill in these 11 contractors that it will save them money, cleanup 12 time, and everything else. But what the bottom 13 line is, is they have another job and they're 14 going to rip and run just as quickly as they can. 15 And if it's up to them to pass clearance, they're 16 going to pass it, and I'm afraid it will severely 17 affect our children. 18 I'd like to note, supplemental 19 information based on EPA studies that are cited 20 in the proposed rule does not appear to be 21 followed. Federal Register 1595 1597 40 CFR 22 Part 745 III C. 1., Renovation and remodeling 0030 1 study, EPA identified that where lead based paint 2 was present, activities that are routinely 3 performed as part of renovation and remodeling 4 can create significant amounts of leaded dust, 5 which would not effectively contain and clean up 6 the proposed hazards to the occupant. 7 Phase III of the study found a 8 statistically significant link between activities 9 that are routinely performed as part of the 10 renovation and remodeling projects and may 11 increase risk of elevated blood lead levels in 12 children. 13 All the information that we've got, 14 everything that EPA has published and HUD has 15 published has told us that the prohibited 16 practices need to be prohibited. That the 17 contractors leave places dirty, which in essence 18 are at risk for children. 19 SBA and OMB recommend that EPA not 20 prohibit work practices relying, again, instead 21 on the effectiveness of containment and cleanup 22 work practice requirements. I believe this 0031 1 recommendation would be based, again, on the 2 due diligent contractor that's supposed to be 3 following the rule. 4 A State of Maryland study evaluating 5 the effectiveness of visual clearances showed 6 that dust levels remain in hazard levels above 7 clearance levels established by EPA dust hazard 8 guidelines. R and R panel report for analysis of 9 Phase III data indicates the general residential 10 R and R, remodeling and rehab, is associated with 11 an increased risk of elevated blood lead levels 12 in children, specifically a child living in a 13 residence where R and R was conducted in the last 14 12 months was 30 percent more likely to have an 15 elevated blood lead level. Phase III also shows 16 that some R and R activities, paint removed by 17 heat gun, open flame, chemical stripper, and 18 surface prep were specifically associated with 19 higher frequencies of elevated blood lead levels 20 in children. 21 The agency concluded from the study 22 that many work activities can produce or release 0032 1 large quantities of lead that may be associated 2 with elevated blood lead levels. The study goes 3 on to say any work activity that produces dust 4 and debris may create a lead exposure problem. 5 The geometric mean blood lead level for R and R 6 professionals was significantly greater than for 7 homeowners. 8 The agency concluded from this study 9 that many R and R work activities can produce and 10 release large quantities of lead and may be 11 associated with elevated blood lead levels. 12 These activities include but are not limited to 13 sanding, cutting, window replacement, and 14 demolition. Lead exposure to R and R workers 15 appears to be less of a problem than to building 16 occupants, especially young children. Some 17 workers and homeowners are occasionally exposed 18 to high levels of lead. Any work activity that 19 produces dust and debris may create a lead 20 exposure problem. 21 And, you know, to that, I was really 22 hopeful when I saw the proposed final rule come 0033 1 out. And now I'm almost beginning to feel like 2 I've worked ten years for nothing. Everything 3 that Greentree has done, I mean, granted finally 4 there started being some lead work and that was 5 because, again, it was forced. No cities could 6 do work with federal money unless it was  7 unless there was safe work practices being used 8 and risk assessments being done. 9 We were hoping for five years before 10 we ever really started doing any business off of 11 the lead industry. And now  and that was only 12 because the government forced the issue. And for 13 the government to back off like it is now, and 14 that's how everybody sees this, has got people 15 infuriated from coast to coast. My phone hasn't 16 stopped ringing and people complaining as we go. 17 Now contractors, again, I really think 18 that there should be a refresher course and 19 state applied safe work practice courses. I 20 think pregnant women should be included in the 21 rule because they're not now. And as far as the 22 chemical test, it's my understanding from the 0034 1 industry that there is nothing and probably will 2 be nothing that will go down to those levels. 3 There's nothing in the rule about the interim 4 time until that happens. What do we do until 5 then on the chemical test? At worst case, I 6 would like to  best case, I'm sorry, I would 7 like to see the XRF used in clearances. That's 8 been approved, it has to be checked, but I think 9 the studies are there and the numbers are there 10 to show that that can be and done safely. 11 Thank you for your time. 12 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you, John. 13 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. Samuel Churchill is 14 up. Is Monica Dillon here yet? 15 ( No response.) 16 MS. MORTIMER: Doug Hanrahan? 17 ( No response.) 18 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. You're up next. 19 MR. CHURCHILL: Good afternoon. My name is 20 Sam Churchill. I'm the Environmental Lead 21 Program Manager for the Illinois Department of 22 Public Health, specifically the Division of 0035 1 Environmental Health. 2 I'd like to echo some of my cohorts it 3 sounds like. We're all on the same page at least 4 when it comes to some of these. Specifically, 5 let me just quickly state, I've been involved in 6 the environmental side of lead poisoning since 7 about the mid 1970s, so I've seen a vast 8 progression from  to where we wouldn't even go 9 out on a child unless the child had a blood lead 10 level up to 45, 50, 60 micrograms per deciliter 11 to where we are now. And we applaud them 12 literally, the EPA's effort, with putting forth 13 this rule and regulation, but we strongly feel 14 that, in fact, there are some areas that may  15 in fact, could use a little bit extra work. 16 Specifically those are Item IV. E., Cleaning 17 Verification, which is on Page 1614. We feel 18 that the use of a visual test in comparing a 19 wiping cloth to a cleaning verification card to 20 determine whether or not the surface passes 21 clearance prior to reoccupancy is insufficient in 22 determining acceptable levels of lead dust and 0036 1 thereby not protective literally of the public's 2 health. 3 The current methodology of dust 4 sampling used in an accredited lead testing 5 laboratory to quantifiably determine the level of 6 lead dust should be utilized. When testing 7 measurements such as nanotechnology and wiping 8 cloths become available, then, in fact, the 9 procedures can be changed to reflect that 10 particular type of technology. But let's not put 11 that in effect in the rules until it becomes 12 available for use. 13 The department believes that a better 14 alternative would be for a third party to conduct 15 a sampling to determine compliance with the 16 clearance standards rather than a certified 17 renovator determining compliance with the rule on 18 work that he, in fact, was involved in. 19 Hopefully that would reduce any potential 20 conflict of interest. 21 Another item that we have comments on 22 is Item IV. B., and the Scope of Proposed 0037 1 Regulations, Pages 1598 through 1599. We're 2 specifically concerned about the two phased 3 approach in this particular activity. Literally, 4 since I can remember at least, 1978 has kind of 5 been our standard. A lot of the literature 6 points to 1978 and, of course, we know why with 7 the lead being removed. In fact, maybe a little 8 bit before 1978, but 1978 is a good, safe area to 9 go into. A two phased approach, we feel, is 10 going to be confusing. Number one, it's going to 11 be difficult to follow, and number two, there may 12 not be a lot of individuals that know 13 specifically when their house was built. 14 In fact, is a 1970 house that much 15 more of a detriment than a 1978 versus a 1950 16 house? Sometimes it's real difficult, in fact, 17 unless the individuals actually built the house 18 and have lived in it ever since. So we feel that 19 literally to abandon this benchmark would be 20 detrimental to our program, especially since all 21 information and literature identified pre' 78 22 housing as reason for concern for a child with 0038 1 possible lead poisoning. 2 We're also concerned in allowing the 3 use of currently available test kits to determine 4 the presence of lead based paint. It was stated 5 in the proposal that NIST research found that 6 false positive rates are as high as 78 percent. 7 So, therefore, there could be a large amount of 8 work that was done with lead safe work practices, 9 of course, when, in fact, it wasn't needed, 10 thereby adding the cost of the renovation. 11 This department agrees with EPA that 12 with improved technology, these tests can be 13 reliable. However, we believe it would be 14 prudent to develop and test the technology, then 15 include it in the rule. 16 My last item concerns Item D, and I 17 think I'm echoing it from my previous speakers, 18 and that's prohibited practices. The department 19 is concerned that allowing practices that are 20 currently prohibited in lead based paint 21 abatement activities would be detrimental and 22 could possibly cause new lead based paint 0039 1 hazards. Using prohibited practices such as open 2 flame burning, machine sanding, abrasive blast, 3 and grinding can expose the occupants and the 4 renovators to additional hazards. We feel that 5 literally that would be a step backward. 6 We would suggest that if a prohibited 7 practice must be utilized  and, again, there 8 are times when, in fact, it could be appropriate 9 to utilize that versus historical housing. There 10 will be a specific activity in that renovation. 11 A variance mechanism should be put forth, thereby 12 allowing the renovator to approach agencies such 13 as mine and ask for a variance on the particular 14 type of work practices. I think there should be 15 a compromise that could be worked out between the 16 renovator and the enforcing agency and/ or the 17 follow up with it and with maybe additional 18 cleaning procedures to be utilized prior to 19 reoccupancy. 20 Again, I applaud the USEPA on putting 21 forth these rules and regulations. We will look 22 forward to working with you in the future on 0040 1 these rules. In fact, with these particular 2 rules, I think I could honestly say that at least 3 something is better than nothing, so go forth 4 from that. Thank you. 5 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 6 MS. MORTIMER: Doug is up. Is Mike Heuser 7 here from NARI? Okay. So Doug, then Mike. 8 MR. HANRAHAN: Hi. My name is Doug 9 Hanrahan. I'm a property manager with Wirtz 10 Realty in Chicago. I'm a member of the Chicago 11 Association of Realtors and the National 12 Association of Realtors. I'd like to thank you 13 for the opportunity to provide comments on the 14 proposed rule. 15 We have a number of concerns about the 16 proposal. First, our concern has to do with 17 enforcement of the rule. Even if this rule 18 becomes delegable to state government, it's 19 completely unknown how this would be enforced 20 given the fact that in Illinois, for example, 21 most renovators contractors, painters, carpenters 22 are not licensed or regulated by the state. It's 0041 1 unclear how the renovators will be even aware 2 that they're required to be certified in these 3 work practice standards. 4 If the states do create a new 5 regulatory structure to ensure that renovators 6 are certified, the cost of that regulation would 7 be passed to the renovators who, in turn, pass it 8 on to the property owners. That cost would be in 9 addition to the cost related to the actual 10 compliance with specific components of the rule. 11 The proposed rule requires that a 12 certified renovator supervise each and every 13 renovation defined as activity that disturbs more 14 than two square feet of paint. The Association 15 of Realtors believes that such a requirement will 16 result in a potential disincentive for property 17 owners to conduct regular maintenance of their 18 properties. This could result in deferred 19 maintenance of the target housing, possibly 20 creating greater lead hazards. Due to the 21 increased expense, administrative burden, and 22 time involved in complying with the rule, some 0042 1 owners may be forced to defer small maintenance 2 activities until they are forced to deal with 3 larger problems. 4 EPA has also requested comment on 5 whether or not the rule should apply when housing 6 is unoccupied, for example, during the turnover 7 of a unit. We would argue that requiring such a 8 practice in a vacant unit be unnecessary unless 9 the unit is going to be immediately occupied 10 right after the work is completed. 11 The proposed rule requires that a 12 certified renovator be present at the work site 13 on a regular basis to oversee the work practices, 14 but EPA requests comment on whether or not this 15 individual should be physically present at the 16 work site at all times. Comments were also 17 requested about whether this individual should be 18 prohibited from being assigned to more than one 19 job site at a time. We believe that such a 20 requirement would be unnecessary. Providing 21 oversight by a certified renovator on a regular 22 basis would be sufficient for quality control 0043 1 over the project. Furthermore, the rules state 2 that all persons performing renovation activities 3 must have on the job training by a certified 4 renovator. This is sufficient for ensuring that 5 the practices are used. 6 We are opposed to the possible 7 requirement that EPA is  be notified prior to 8 the start of all renovation jobs. As a practical 9 matter, this would be infeasible and may result 10 in property owners deferring all maintenance 11 until such time that they could take care of all 12 their jobs at the same time in order to 13 consolidate notification. We urge EPA to stick 14 to their proposal not  their proposal not to 15 require such notification. 16 The proposed rule does not require 17 dust clearance sampling after each renovation 18 project. We fully support the reasoning the EPA 19 has used in not requiring this testing. Dust 20 sampling is expensive and time consuming. While 21 waiting for test results, the renovation area 22 would require  would have to remain unoccupied 0044 1 and this could create tremendous burden on the 2 property owners and residents. Such a 3 requirement would result in deferred maintenance 4 and deteriorating properties. In order to gain 5 the most possible compliance, the EPA should stay 6 away from requirements that make  that would 7 make the use of lead safe practices more 8 difficult. We are urging the EPA to stand by 9 their decision not to require dust clearance 10 sampling for job renovations. 11 Lastly, the proposed rule requires  12 excuse me, the proposed rules makes several 13 mentions of fees, fees for applications, fees for 14 trainings. The Association of Realtors urges the 15 EPA to make the training for certified renovators 16 free for a period of time in order to help 17 facilitate the creation of this kind of 18 workforce. EPA and HUD have  they've provided 19 this kind of free training period for other rules 20 that have been helpful in gaining compliance. We 21 urge the EPA to do the same with this rule. 22 Thank you for the opportunity and good 0045 1 luck. 2 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 3 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. Mike, and then John 4 Hoose. 5 MR. HEUSER: Good afternoon. I come to 6 comment a little different than some of the other 7 speakers. I'm here as a contractor from 8 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, also Government Affair 9 Chair for the National Association Remodeling 10 Industry. 11 I'm here not to talk about tenant and 12 landlord situations. I'm here more to talk about 13 remodeling and renovation in homes, private 14 homes, condos, and churches. One of the things 15 that we did not see addressed was the additional 16 insurance cost to contractors. This subject was 17 brought up and we had a meeting in Madison with 18 Wisconsin State Bureau of Occupational Health and 19 Family Services, contractors, insurance 20 companies, and lead training abatement 21 contractors. The State of Wisconsin was not 22 concerned about the additional cost of insurance 0046 1 for contractors, but the insurance companies and 2 the contractors are concerned. 3 The President of Tower Specialty 4 Facilities is concerned about lead liability 5 insurance. He said it would be available, but 6 the policies would cost anywhere from $ 2,500 to 7 $ 3,000 a year for a contractor doing only a 8 quarter of a million dollars of gross receipts. 9 You could also write a combined 10 general liability and lead liability policy for a 11 higher premium. I'm figuring this would probably 12 cost our company about $ 75,000 additional per 13 year to cover our people in the dollar volume of 14 work we do. Their feeling also was if a current 15 contractor becomes certified and his general 16 liability carrier finds out, they may not renew 17 his policy. Even though general liability has a 18 lead contamination exclusion, carriers do not 19 want to be drawn into lead claims or lawsuits 20 from a defense standpoint. Contractors might be 21 hard pressed to obtain general liability coverage 22 at reasonable prices when they become certified 0047 1 for lead work. 2 The cost of doing business will 3 increase. The training of employees, which 4 someone just brought up, will run about $ 250 per 5 person with additional cost of wages and 6 additional cost of insurance. Having  the way 7 we do our work, we would almost have to train 8 every one of our people and it would become very 9 costly. We also feel the cost of doing simple 10 projects, a simple bathroom, could run 15 percent 11 higher than it does without using the lead safe 12 practices. And on larger projects where we have 13 multiple contractors it would be even more. 14 We're also concerned about the 15 enforcement of the new regulations. Who will 16 enforce this regulation? Will an additional 17 layer of state employees to permit, enforce, and 18 inspect projects be needed? The documentation of 19 certifying contractors and paperwork will also 20 add costs for government and contractors. 21 If we put this responsibility on 22 building inspection departments that are already 0048 1 overworked, we will add to their cost and extend 2 the time frame of projects. At this time, 3 getting timely permits and inspections is already 4 an issue in the building trade. Add to this the 5 inspectors obtaining permits and inspections will 6 become a larger problem. Although the 7 regulation, if this does go through, will not 8 work if it is not enforced. The additional costs 9 for enforcing this will be an issue that will 10 need to be looked at. 11 As I see it, if it's done on the state 12 level, it's going to be passed on to all 13 taxpayers and the additional costs of remodeling 14 and renovation will be passed on to everyone, not 15 just those who fall under the regulation. The 16 contractors who do spend the money, time, and 17 additional insurance costs will be at a 18 disadvantage over those who do no work, who 19 decide to do the work without being certified 20 without permits. The regulation will promote 21 additional unpermitted remodeling and a wider gap 22 between professional contractors and contractors 0049 1 who do not carry liability and workmen's comp. 2 We already have a problem with this 3 type of work. We have an underground society 4 that does work for cash, that does  has no 5 insurance and does not take permits. The 6 regulation does not also address homeowners doing 7 their own remodeling. Many young families with 8 children buy older homes, fix them up, then move 9 on to another home leaving lead contaminated 10 homes for the next owner. The responsibility of 11 lead paint should be the homeowner's 12 responsibility, not contractors. 13 For contractors, there's a problem of 14 preexisting conditions. Lead testing will become 15 the norm if these regulations pass. Contractors 16 have to document, document, and document in order 17 to cover themselves in case of lawsuits. The 18 money to enact and enforce these regs might be 19 better spent on outreach education, awareness, 20 and grants to fix up homes for homeowners in the 21 lower income brackets. 22 NARI and the National Association of 0050 1 Home Builders have worked with the EPA in the 2 past in educating contractors in lead safe 3 practices. Many professional contractors work to 4 have lead safe practices. We are concerned about 5 contaminated sites, and as professional 6 remodelers, we feel we take the necessary 7 training and the necessary projects to try and 8 maintain lead safe sites. 9 As we see it, there will be several 10 ways for contractors to be in compliance with the 11 new regulations. One is contractors will not do 12 any projects that fall under the regulations. 13 This will put homeowners at a disadvantage as 14 they will not have as many contractors to bid on 15 their project. The contractors who are certified 16 and follow the regs will charge more to do their 17 project than a contractor that does not  or, 18 I'm sorry, that will follow the regs will charge 19 more to do their project than a project that does 20 not fall under the regulations. The contractors 21 will have to cover their costs for all the 22 additional. The second avenue that they might 0051 1 take is they might hire lead abatement 2 contractors to do all the work that is required, 3 again, resulting in a higher cost to homeowners. 4 We have a mold remediation division in 5 our company. I'm familiar with the costs of 6 insurance to run that division. I'm also 7 familiar with the work and time it takes to train 8 the employees, the work that is involved in 9 setting up the containment, the additional safety 10 items, the respirators, the Tyvek suits, the 11 medical evaluations, the whole cleaning process 12 and time frame that it takes to do the job 13 properly. Again, with mold we have to go through 14 clearance testing by a third party, so the work 15 needs to be done properly, and it is. We use 16 these measures in our renovation and remodeling, 17 and I believe the use of safe lead practices in 18 remodeling and restoration are an important issue 19 and most professional contractors should be 20 trained and should do it. 21 I would like to say I'm in support of 22 voluntary lead safe practices. I'm in support of 0052 1 homeowner education and grants to support low 2 income housing and similar education. EPA needs 3 to involve the trade associations, NARI, NAHB, 4 the architects, designers, big box stores, 5 realtors, to work together to accomplish a goal 6 in eliminating lead. We should not overlook the 7 responsibility and power of the trade groups and 8 associations. The EPA needs to look at these 9 groups of partners and work with them to achieve 10 your goal. 11 I would also like to ask for an 12 additional 90 day extension. Not enough time has 13 been allowed to review all the economic data that 14 has been put on the Web site. So I would just 15 like to go on record and say that I, of 16 National  NARI, is requesting a 90 day 17 extension. 18 And, again, I'm talking again from the 19 remodeler's side, from private, not from a 20 landlord tenant. It seems that the remodelers 21 will be overburdened with the rules, with 22 certifications, with lead samplings. Under the 0053 1 rules, it seems that we won't be covered unless 2 we go to third party clearance testing and test, 3 test, test for preexisting conditions, and I 4 think I'm done. Thank you very much. 5 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 6 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. John Hoose is up and 7 Cassandra Alexander after him. 8 MR. HOOSE: Good afternoon. My name is John 9 Hoose. I am the CoChair of the Greater Cleveland 10 Lead Advisory Council's Workforce Subcommittee. 11 This committee aims to assist contractors and to 12 increase their capacity to remediate and abate 13 housing units as well as empower traditionally 14 underemployed populations to work in lead related 15 fields. 16 While the committee believes that the 17 R and R Rule represents a critical step forward 18 in preventing lead poisoning, the rule has a 19 number of blindspots that could prove 20 problematic. The committee believes the rule 21 does not have an adequate enforcement mechanism. 22 In addition, the rule does not adequately address 0054 1 the need for lead safe work practice training in 2 the renovation and remodeling industry. 3 Recently, the committee commissioned a 4 survey of local contractors which revealed that 5 pending  providing lead safe work practice 6 training is a minimal burden, proving additional 7 through comments would not affect capacity to 8 complete renovations in a timely manner. In 9 addition, the survey revealed that contractors 10 had difficult time attracting workers familiar 11 with lead safe work practices, affecting the 12 overall quality of abatement work and renovation. 13 Additional training requirements could provide 14 the spark needed to increase the pool of 15 qualified lead workers. 16 The committee is also concerned that 17 the R and R Rule does not include prohibited work 18 practices language. The general feeling of the 19 committee was that techniques such as scraping, 20 sanding, torching are more likely to expose 21 children to lead poisoning. Overall, the 22 committee felt that the R and R Rule would have 0055 1 more of an impact if the rule mirrored the lead 2 guidelines set forth by HUD. 3 In closing, I would like to applaud 4 the EPA's effort in drafting this proposed rule 5 and would like to thank you for the opportunity 6 to provide input on such an important issue. 7 Thank you. 8 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 9 MS. MORTIMER: Cassandra Alexander, and then 10 is Joniaya Ladd here? 11 ( No response.) 12 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. So after Cassandra, 13 we'll have Patrick MacRoy. 14 MS. ALEXANDER: Good afternoon and hello. 15 My name is Cassandra Alexander, and I'm a lead 16 poisoning prevention advocate and the mother of a 17 lead poisoned child. I am testifying on behalf 18 of the Austin Lead Task Force and the parents of 19 lead poisoned children. 20 For the past four years, I have worked 21 to raise awareness of childhood lead poisoning 22 and the importance of residing in a healthy home. 0056 1 As part of our work, we have spoken with families 2 of lead poisoned children, property owners, and 3 home repair workers in an effort to find 4 practical solutions to eliminate childhood lead 5 poisoning and to increase the availability of low 6 income lead safe housing. 7 Chicago has especially high rates of 8 childhood lead poisoning due in part to the 9 prevalence of old housing containing lead based 10 paint. Fifty nine percent of Chicago's housing 11 stock, which is over 660,000 housing units, was 12 built prior to 1950. Almost three times more 13 than the national average, which has 23 percent 14 of the housing stock built prior to 1950. 15 In March 1996, my son became lead 16 poisoned when we relocated from Atlanta, Georgia, 17 to the Austin area of Chicago, Illinois. At the 18 age of three, his lead level went from zero to 19 seven. Even at this low level, lead damages his 20 central nervous system resulting in reduced 21 intelligence, shortened attention spans, and 22 behavioral problems including aggression. 0057 1 At the time we moved to our apartment, 2 there were some renovations occurring in the 3 building. Our building was built in 1916. The 4 wood was being stripped. The workers not only 5 used a hot gun, but also used chemical compounds 6 to remove the paint from the woodwork. Also, 7 there was no dust containment, so the dry wall 8 was removed as there was electrical work 9 performed on the building which created more 10 dust. At that time, I was not aware of the 11 presence of lead based paint. 12 During the four years I worked as a 13 Healthy Homes advocate, we had worked with 14 neighborhood contractors, painters, handymen, 15 et cetera, in an effort to have them properly 16 trained in lead safe work practices and to the 17 dangers and effects of lead exposure to 18 themselves and their families. 19 Due to the recent rise in renovation 20 and remodeling in the Austin area, it is a common 21 sight to see no visible dust containment. The 22 workers were not wearing protective clothing and 0058 1 workers covered in dust were socializing with 2 pedestrians on the street. This is a recipe for 3 disaster. The dust from a work site is settling 4 on adjacent buildings, pedestrians, and in some 5 cases, classrooms where the windows are open. 6 With regard to the proposed 7 regulations, I feel that the following are some 8 important concerns: Work must be done correctly 9 so that current and future child occupants will 10 not become poisoned from lead dust created during 11 renovation and remodeling. Renovation and 12 remodeling workers must be trained and certified. 13 Consideration should be given to smaller 14 contracts such as mom and pop businesses who may 15 not have the operation budget to pay for 16 training, however they should not be exempt from 17 training and certification. 18 Consideration must also be given to 19 the property owners who are first time buyers and 20 who are on a fixed income. The cost of work must 21 be regulated so they can afford to have the work 22 done and performed by trained and certified 0059 1 workers. Laboratory documented dust clearance 2 testing should be normative. The lead dust wipe 3 testing is the only proven method for verifying 4 lead dust levels. Dangerous work practices then 5 in HUD regulations should likewise be banned in 6 these regulations. It is well documented in 7 scientific studies that the practices HUD deems 8 aren't safe to use, powersanding, sandblasting, 9 powerwashing, and the use of heat guns above 10 1,100 degrees all create high levels of toxic 11 dust, which are  that are extremely difficult 12 to clean up. Thank you. 13 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. Patrick is up, and 14 then Janet McCabe. 15 MR. MacROY: Good afternoon. My name is 16 Patrick MacRoy, and I'm an epidemiologist with 17 the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program 18 at the Chicago Department of Public Health. I'm 19 here this afternoon on behalf of the City of 20 Chicago. 21 Let me begin my comments by thanking 22 the EPA for holding public hearings on this 0060 1 important issue and especially for choosing 2 Chicago as one of the locations. We're glad to 3 have you here. 4 While Chicago is a great city, we are 5 not without significant problems. One of them is 6 childhood lead poisoning. We have the dubious 7 distinction of having the most lead poisoned 8 children of any city in the country. Based upon 9 the most recent estimates available, upwards of 10 12 percent of all lead poisoned children in the 11 country reside in the city of Chicago. 12 Nearly all lead poisoning in Chicago 13 is attributable to lead based paint. As we 14 strive to eliminated lead poisoning as a public 15 health program in Chicago, we must move from a 16 strategy of responding to lead poisoning to the 17 prevention of lead poisoning. We firmly believe 18 that a primary prevention strategy must 19 incorporate the regulation of renovation and 20 remodeling activity in pre 1978 buildings. We 21 were pleased to hear that the EPA issued the long 22 overdue regulations to achieve just that. 0061 1 The existing regulatory framework 2 around lead is broken. I would also suggest that 3 it is inherently illogical. Rather than 4 encouraging property owners to identify and 5 correct hazards, it rewards ignorance. Rather 6 than base the intensity of intervention and 7 regulation on the extent of risks present or the 8 danger posed by conducting the work, the current 9 framework bases everything on the presence of a 10 poisoned child. 11 As a way of example, you can have two 12 identical housing units, both of which may 13 require window replacement. In one house, a lead 14 poisoned child has been identified, and as a 15 result, a lead inspection has been performed. 16 Since lead was identified, the windows in this 17 house are going to have to be replaced according 18 to strict lead safety standard, utilizing only 19 licensed workers and under the strictest of 20 government oversight. In the second house, there 21 may also reside a young child, but because he was 22 never tested for lead and knowing the potential 0062 1 for additional costs, the owner has never tested 2 the house for lead. Therefore, these windows are 3 going to be replaced by largely untrained, 4 unlicensed persons without government oversight. 5 Nothing is different about the work being 6 performed in the two houses. The act of ripping 7 out a window is the same in both. There's 8 nothing about the windows and nothing different 9 about the amount of lead debris and dust that 10 could be released. And there is no difference in 11 the risk that this dust poses to the occupants 12 and the workers. Yet because one house was 13 caught with a lead poisoned child and the other 14 one wasn't, they are regulated in vastly 15 different ways. 16 Requiring the use of lead safe work 17 practices during renovation and remodeling goes a 18 long way towards fixing the illogical nature of 19 the current system. The goal of the EPA should 20 be to move the concept of lead work from being a 21 niche market, a subsector of the construction 22 industry, and into the mainstream. Thinking 0063 1 about lead and taking simple low cost measures to 2 work safely with lead based paint should be part 3 of standard practices, even a force of habit, 4 amongst anyone who works in the renovation 5 industry. 6 Some folks are likely to tell you that 7 this is an impossible task. It will be too hard 8 or too costly to implement. They'll put an end 9 to the renovation industry. These views, 10 however, are not supported by facts. We have an 11 excellent historical example to prove the 12 feasibility of this rule, and that is the 13 implementation of HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule. 14 This rule requires everything EPA is proposing 15 and much more in federally assisted housing. 16 When this rule is proposed, many naysayers said 17 it would be impossible to comply with and drive 18 local housing authorities into bankruptcy. 19 Although many here were nervous, Chicago dove 20 headfirst into implementing those rule's 21 requirements. A task force including 22 representatives of my department, housing, and 0064 1 budget came together to make the process work. 2 Contractors obtained training, a process for 3 clearance was established, and as a result, the 4 use of lead safe work practices is now just part 5 of the routine in the City's housing programs. 6 Although Chicago is supportive of the 7 EPA's efforts to require lead safe work 8 practices, several aspects of the proposal 9 concern us. Our primary interest and one that we 10 hope is shared by the EPA is the health and 11 safety of those doing the renovation work and the 12 occupants, especially children who are exposed to 13 the result of the work. In several key areas, we 14 fear that the EPA's proposal is inadequate to 15 protect the health and safety of both workers and 16 occupants. 17 First and foremost, we are deeply 18 troubled by the substitution of traditional dust 19 clearing tests with a clearing verification 20 process also known as the white glove test. 21 While we will provide written comments that go 22 into greater detail, suffice it to say that dust 0065 1 clearance has been a cornerstone of lead 2 abatement for well over a decade. The 3 relationship between renovation activities and 4 the generation of leaded dust is clear, as is the 5 relationship between leaded dust and childhood 6 lead poisoning. Ensuring that lead dust is 7 eliminated is essential to ensuring that job site 8 is safe for children. Measuring the lead dust 9 upon completion is the only practical check to 10 ensure that the work practice and cleaning steps 11 were followed correctly. 12 Current lead dust sampling methods 13 have been rigorously evaluated over the last 14 decade. We know how to interpret the results, 15 and studies have shown us that the results 16 actually correlate to the most important outcome: 17 Preventing increases in children's lead levels. 18 The white glove test, on the other hand, has 19 little more than a single flawed study behind it. 20 This study was not based on real world 21 conditions. It used highly skilled testers 22 working in a few locations in potentially cleaner 0066 1 units and using protocols substantially different 2 than what the EPA is proposing in the rule. The 3 " result" of the white glove test, the visual 4 comparison of a wipe to a reference card, is so 5 inherently subjective that it's meaningless for 6 the purposes of liability relief or enforcement 7 action. 8 We emphatically recommend that the EPA 9 find a solution that incorporates traditional 10 dust sampling and clearance into the final rule. 11 Secondly, we are troubled by the EPA's decision 12 to explicitly allow a number of highly dangerous 13 work practices currently banned in lead abatement 14 activities, including open flame burning, 15 uncontained powersanding and sandblasting. These 16 activities generate large quantities of lead dust 17 or even lead vapor and distribute them over a 18 large area. 19 EPA's rationale for allowing these 20 practices does not stand up to reason. The 21 notion that a minimal containment procedure as 22 outlined in the rule that was just clearly 0067 1 intended for low risk activities is adequate to 2 contain the lead release during open flame 3 burning has no basis in science. By allowing and 4 even endorsing these activities, EPA is also 5 setting up contractors to violate not only the 6 rules in many states and localities, but also 7 Federal OSHA standard. 8 Although we doubt the veracity of such 9 claims, should the EPA determine that there are 10 situations when unsafe work practices are the 11 only methods available, then it needs to 12 establish separate and more protective 13 requirements for doing that work. These 14 requirements would include the use of negative 15 pressure containment, personal protective 16 equipment, training, and oversight, which are all 17 necessary to protect worker and occupant safety 18 and health when using such high risk methods. 19 We're also concerned by the EPA's 20 reliance on the use of spot test kits to exempt 21 renovation activities from the rule. In the 22 background, EPA frets greatly over the false 0068 1 positives of these kits. The greater problem 2 from a health perspective is the false negatives, 3 which are largely glossed over in the rule. 4 Using EPA's own estimates on the prevalence of 5 lead paint, the number of renovation events and 6 applying this to the five percent false negative 7 rate allowed by EPA's specifications, we 8 calculated an estimate 88,000 times a year that 9 lead based paint will be incorrectly exempted 10 from the requirements of this rule. That's 11 88,000 opportunities to cause lead poisoning, the 12 liability for which may fall upon the contractor. 13 These figures also presume the correct use of the 14 test kit, which we consider to be a rather large 15 leap given the common failure to expose all 16 layers of paint prior to testing. 17 Given the risks with allowing this 18 test and the benefit that would come from 19 institutionalizing lead safe work practices as 20 part of the renovation routine, we suggest that 21 the EPA only allow the results of a licensed lead 22 inspector to be used for the purpose of granting 0069 1 exemptions. 2 Although time does not allow me to go 3 into detail, we were also disappointed by the 4 rule's failure to include pregnant women and 5 regulate child occupied nonresidential properties 6 such as day care facilities. Issues of training 7 and licensing also need to be further addressed 8 and strategies for enforcement improved, 9 especially in terms of how EPA entices states to 10 integrate enforcement into existing construction 11 regulation programs. We'll provide additional 12 suggestions on these areas and others in written 13 comment. 14 In summation, the City of Chicago 15 supports EPA's efforts to require the use of lead 16 safe work practices in renovation and remodeling, 17 and we hope you will utilize our suggestions to 18 improve the rule to better protect the health of 19 our children. Together, lead poisoning is a 20 problem we can eliminate. 21 Thank you for your time. 22 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 0070 1 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. We've got Janet, and 2 Mike Nagel is up next. 3 MS. McCABE: Good afternoon. My name is 4 Janet McCabe. I'm the Executive Director of an 5 organization called Improving Kids' Environments 6 in Indianapolis. It's a nonprofit advocacy group 7 that has worked on lead poisoning issues since 8 its founding in 1999. We've pushed for 9 legislation in Indiana that now prohibits the use 10 of the some of the dangerous work practices that 11 you heard about today. We've supported the 12 creation of lead safe coalitions around the state 13 of Indiana, worked actively with landlords and 14 tenants to improve compliance with the current 15 federal programs, and have undertaken projects to 16 identify at risk housing. 17 I'm relatively new to the advocacy 18 side of things. For eight years before I joined 19 IKE, I was the Air Director for the State of 20 Indiana and had responsibility for the lead 21 licensing and training provider programs that are 22 implemented by the Indiana Department of 0071 1 Environmental Management, so I have a few 2 perspectives on this rule. 3 In 2004, in Indiana, 1.25 percent of 4 the children whose blood was tested, and that's a 5 small percentage of the children under six in 6 Indiana, 1.25 percent had a confirmed elevated 7 blood lead level. Statewide, 28.3 percent of 8 Indiana's housing stock was built before 1950. 9 And according to the 2000 census, 14.4 of 10 Indiana's children are considered to be in 11 poverty, which is the highest risk for lead 12 poisoning. All these statistics pulled together 13 means that a lot of children in Indiana are at 14 risk of lead poisoning from their very own homes. 15 We urge EPA to consider carefully all 16 the comments that you receive both today and in 17 writing  we will be providing more detailed 18 comments in writing  from groups that have real 19 world practical experience on these issues. 20 Groups such as the ones that you've heard today, 21 national groups such as the National Center for 22 Healthy Housing and the Alliance for Healthy 0072 1 Homes, which will be providing thoroughly 2 documented recommendations based on studies that 3 show the clear linkage between renovation and 4 repair activities, the presence of lead dust and 5 high blood lead levels in our young children. 6 These organizations, as I say, have real world 7 experience and their suggestions really must be 8 considered seriously because they will greatly 9 improve the effectiveness of this rule. We're 10 very pleased that EPA is moving forward with the 11 rule. Lead hazards which are created by 12 well intentioned home improvement or home 13 maintenance projects are a tragedy and should not 14 be. However, we are concerned that in a variety 15 of ways, the rule has  falls short and will not 16 prevent the creation of lead dust hazards or 17 ensure property cleanup or ensure protection of 18 our children. 19 I've been a regulator myself. I know 20 that when you develop rules, you're trying to 21 strike balances and evaluate costs and benefits. 22 I know that and you have to do that. One thing 0073 1 that I will observe about the issue of lead 2 poisoning is that unlike some of the other air 3 pollution issues that we deal with, the link 4 between the environmental pollutant and the 5 health effect is completely well understood. 6 This is not like something that might cause 7 cancer 20 years from now. It's very well 8 documented. Moreover, the health effects that 9 are the result of lead poisoning are crystal 10 clear, are permanent, and are devastating. This 11 makes it a lot easier in some ways to understand 12 the costs and the benefits on the health side and 13 makes, I think, EPA's job easier to draw those  14 to make those decisions. I think that the 15 concern about this rule is that in many different 16 places, EPA has struck a balance that in many 17 people's view will not sufficiently protect 18 children. And when you put them all together, it 19 creates a real problem. 20 And I'll just touch on some examples, 21 most of which you've heard already today. 22 Applicability, the fact that housing can be 0074 1 exempted if the current owner says that there are 2 no children under six living there, when the 3 house may operate as a day care, the house may 4 have grandchildren coming to visit, the house may 5 be sold a week after the renovation is done to a 6 family with young children, or the house may have 7 a pregnant woman living in it. Not including 8 public and commercial buildings is also a 9 problem. The white glove test, which I won't go 10 into because you've heard about that. Lack of 11 meaningful training for the workers who will 12 actually be disturbing the paint, not only 13 creating lead hazards potentially for the 14 occupants but for themselves and their family 15 when they go home with lead dust on their 16 clothes. And I want to emphasize what you've 17 heard already today, the failure to prohibit work 18 practices which are known to be dangerous. The 19 best way to prevent lead dust is not to create 20 lead dust. And by allowing certain activities to 21 be used, that's what you do. You create lead 22 dust. 0075 1 As a last point, I want to emphasize 2 how important outreach and enforcement are going 3 to be on this rule. John Casey mentioned that he 4 polls his students to see whether any of them 5 have had a contractor give them the lead 6 pamphlet. Since I learned about the requirement 7 that renovators provide pamphlets, which I didn't 8 know about until I got to do this work, I've 9 informally surveyed friends and relatives and 10 people that I know and not once have I ever had 11 anybody tell me that a contractor or remodeler 12 gave them this information. And I have been 13 asking contractors over the last nine months and 14 only one has told  has even known that this 15 federal requirement which has been around for ten 16 years even existed. What that tells us is that 17 the industry does not understand, does not know 18 about this issue, and when you think about the 19 vastness of the types of projects and the number 20 of projects that this rule is intended to cover, 21 it's going to be a huge, huge effort. 22 Having been on the state regulator 0076 1 side, I don't know how a state agency is going to 2 manage trying to oversee this, particularly since 3 the rule as its written now doesn't include any 4 sort of notification or reporting requirements. 5 State agencies are often essentially prohibited 6 from hiring new staff, even if there's money to 7 do so because there's reluctance in state 8 government to add state workers. So this will be 9 a real, real challenge to the state agencies, 10 which tells me that EPA will need to put more 11 resources into outreach and enforcement than it 12 appears that they are thinking they will need to 13 do. 14 So let me just emphasize how important 15 this program is to go forward. You have the 16 opportunity to benefit from vast experience of 17 people who have worked in this field in much more 18 practical ways than I have over the last ten 19 years and I hope that you will take that input 20 into consideration as you consider the comments. 21 Thank you. 22 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 0077 1 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. Mike Nagel is up, then 2 Leslie Nickels, and then I propose we take a 3 short break. How's that? 4 MR. NAGEL: Good afternoon. I'd like to 5 thank the EPA for allowing us to speak our piece 6 at this hearing. My name is Mike Nagel, CGR. I 7 am the President of Remodel One, Inc. We're a 8 design build remodeling firm in Roselle, 9 Illinois, which is a western suburb of Chicago. 10 Let me just say as a professional 11 remodeler, we are all for addressing the lead 12 issue in protecting our children. Just to show 13 you how involved we are, NAHB, or the National 14 Association of Home Builders, a 225,000 member 15 organization has budgeted $ 228,000 just late last 16 year to do 200 test case studies to determine 17 what is a safe work practice. These are 18 currently underway. We began them in January. 19 We ran the first six test kit case studies in 20 Roselle back in January. We are trying to do as 21 many as possible. It's a daunting task. 22 As the NARI member said previously, we 0078 1 would like to plead for a 90 day extension to 2 July 10th to allow us to achieve these 200 test 3 case studies, so that when the ruling finally 4 comes out it has some real data as to how lead 5 safe work practices should be achieved. Because 6 of our active involvement, we would like to  I 7 already said that. Okay. Let's move on. 8 The rule as proposed is not likely to 9 succeed in significantly reducing lead poisoning 10 in children. Since a proposed rule only applies 11 to remodelers or other people doing renovation 12 for compensation, they do not apply to the 13 homeowners, do it yourselfers, DIY market, who 14 already do their own home remodeling themselves 15 more than half the time. 16 According to the Harvard University's 17 Joint Center for Housing Studies, more than half 18 the kitchen and bath remodeling projects are 19 conducted by do it yourself homeowners and they 20 are not subject to the requirements of this 21 proposed rule. Even if remodeling were a 22 contributing factor to children's lead poisoning, 0079 1 the proposed rules exemption of over half of all 2 the remodeling work done nationwide would seem to 3 prevent accomplishing EPA's stated goal for the 4 rule, to eliminate childhood lead poisoning by 5 2010. 6 The possible approach for EPA would be 7 to develop a voluntary lead safe work practice 8 for both remodelers and homeowners. NAHB has 9 long supported the development of voluntary lead 10 safe work practices which would protect occupants 11 and workers from risks of disturbing lead based 12 paint. NAHB had, in fact, worked with the EPA 13 for five years developing a voluntary program 14 that focused on educating both the remodeler and 15 the homeowner on how to safely conduct remodeling 16 activities. 17 Another advantage of the voluntary 18 program are the potential legal conflicts between 19 existing state laws and the EPA proposed rule. 20 For example, EPA's proposed clearance test is 21 inconsistent with existing state regulations in 22 many states, which already define state certified 0080 1 lead based paint testing firms. These are not 2 remodeling firms. EPA abruptly ceased work on 3 the voluntary program last spring. NAHB urges 4 the EPA to return to a voluntary program 5 approach. 6 This rule as proposed will likely 7 drive more homeowners into the unregulated 8 segment of the market. More rules mean more 9 costs, which will lead to higher prices for 10 remodeling work. Increased compliance costs will 11 lead to increased remodeling costs, which means 12 fewer homeowners will be able to afford to use a 13 qualified remodeler. Driving homeowners into the 14 unregulated segment of the market due to 15 increased costs as the result of more stringent 16 rules will not only have them using contractors, 17 who in most case will not even draw a permit, but 18 will also have them using contractors who will 19 not even be aware of these new lead rulings, or 20 if they are will be willing to take the risk of 21 being caught just to secure a job. In either 22 case, the lead safe work practices as proposed 0081 1 would not be followed. 2 According to HUD, the most significant 3 source for lead hazards are poorly maintained 4 homes. The higher prices will mean homeowners 5 have an even bigger incentive to work themselves. 6 The regulations don't apply to DIY activity as 7 previously mentioned. Homeowners are more likely 8 to lack experience with typical renovation and 9 remodeling projects and tend to work in their 10 free time on evening or weekends so the project 11 could take more days and weeks to complete. This 12 increases and prolongs potential exposure to lead 13 dust. 14 Professional remodeling firms clearly 15 have the experience and expertise in completing 16 projects quickly and safely. Remodeling jobs 17 should be encouraged not discouraged. Renovation 18 and remodeling activities are what help improve 19 the condition of services coated with lead based 20 paint. If lead based paint causes a lead 21 exposure problem, it is deteriorated, 22 poorly maintained paint that is most likely the 0082 1 culprit. This proposed rule will make 2 maintenance more expensive causing more 3 homeowners to defer necessary maintenance, which 4 would create an even more deteriorated surface in 5 the future. 6 As currently proposed, these rules 7 will cause many remodeling firms to elect to only 8 work in post 1978 housing, thus limiting the 9 amount of professionals available and, therefore, 10 further undermining the intention of the rule: 11 To keep children safe. Even if this rule could 12 result in lower lead exposure for some children, 13 the rule will cause other children to face higher 14 probability of exposure. How will this law be 15 enforced? 16 Remodeling and abatement are different 17 activities with different purposes and methods. 18 Because remodelers are not hired to remove lead, 19 they should only be required to avoid making lead 20 exposure worse. 21 The only clearance test necessary for 22 typical renovation and remodeling jobs should be 0083 1 a simple standard of no visible dust and debris. 2 If there is no visible dust and debris, the job 3 site is probably at least as clean as it was 4 before with no more lead. In that case, the 5 remodeler has done no harm. 6 As EPA has clearly stated, there's a 7 big difference between abatement and remodeling. 8 The abatement jobs are designed to eliminate all 9 lead from a structure, but the primary intent of 10 renovation and remodeling is to change a 11 structure, function, or appearance of a room or 12 building. As a by product, some remodeling 13 activities may actually result in a reduction in 14 lead based hazards through the replacement of old 15 windows, for example, with new ones that have no 16 lead based paint on them. This important 17 distinction provides further illustration of why 18 clearance testing should not be required. 19 Requiring renovation and remodeling 20 contractors to clean up to an abatement standard 21 effectively makes a contractor responsible for 22 all lead that was in the home prior to the 0084 1 remodeling work commencing. That means lead that 2 had no relationship to the remodeler's jobs. 3 An unintended consequence of this 4 requirement will be that many certified 5 renovators will become good at judging the level 6 of cleanliness in the home when giving an 7 estimate. If a home looks dirty or poorly 8 maintained, in short, if it looks like there may 9 be lead dust present, a remodeler is likely to 10 refuse the work or charge a very high price to 11 cover the increased costs of compliance. 12 In conclusion, a law is only as good 13 as its enforcement. If we make this law so 14 restrictive that costs, both direct and indirect, 15 insurance, training, et cetera, raise the cost of 16 remodeling beyond of means of a higher percentage 17 of homeowners, the economic impact could be 18 devastating. No matter what the outcome, if 19 there's a restrictive law put in place, we have 20 to level the playing field and require that every 21 permit to list the year the house was built to 22 allow the EPA to be informed of the project. 0085 1 I agree with everything the fellow 2 from NARI said in addition to other items I 3 brough forth and agree with the epidemiologist 4 that something needs to be done, but to compare 5 private work to HUD work is a far stretch. As 6 far as the lady before me speaking about the lead 7 pamphlet, we've handed out lead pamphlets to 8 every customer of ours for the last five years. 9 To say that there aren't many contractors doing 10 it means that they're not dealing with a 11 professional contractor. 12 As an association member, I'm involved 13 politically on a national, state, and local 14 level. I'm currently National Vice Chairman of 15 the Remodelers Council of NAHB. We push these 16 regulations constantly. There's also an act in 17 Illinois called the Illinois Fraud Act. You 18 won't find a lot of unlicensed contractors or 19 contractors that are not involved in an industry 20 putting that out either. It's a matter of 21 dealing with a professional. 22 Again, thank you for your time. 0086 1 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 2 MS. MORTIMER: Leslie Nickels, and then 3 we're about halfway done, so we'll take a short 4 break. 5 MS. NICKELS: Thank you. Good afternoon. 6 I'm Leslie Nickels. I'm Associate Director of 7 the Great Lakes Centers for Occupational and 8 Environmental Safety and Health at the University 9 of Illinois at Chicago's School of Public Health. 10 I'm testifying on behalf of the Great Lakes 11 Centers. 12 Based at the University of Illinois' 13 School of Public Health, the Great Lakes Centers 14 are multidisciplinary and multi institutional and 15 include programs at the University of Illinois at 16 Chicago, the University of Illinois at 17 Urbana Champaign, John H. Stroger, Jr. 18 Hospital of Cook County. The centers include a 19 NIOSH Education and Research Center, an 20 ATSDR/ USEPA Center for Children's Environmental 21 Health, Fogarty  an NIH Fogarty funded Center 22 on Global Environmental and Occupational Health, 0087 1 a CDC funded program, the Center of Excellence 2 for Environmental Health, and the Occupational 3 Health Services Institute. We have cross 4 training programs within the Great Lakes Center 5 that includes continuing education and outreach, 6 research, and health hazard evaluation. 7 The Great Lakes Centers have been 8 working on community environmental health issues 9 for over 25 years and provide education, 10 outreach, and training to over 2,000 people per 11 year on environmental and occupational health 12 issues. The continuing education and outreach 13 program offers both classroom and distance based 14 courses in air pollution, asbestos and lead, 15 hazardous waste, housing and urban development, 16 safety, agriculture, radon, industrial hygiene, 17 chemical safety, integrated pest management, and 18 other community based interests. Additionally, 19 the Great Lakes Center has been an approved 20 provider of lead and asbestos training and is 21 currently an approved provider of radon 22 qualifying and continuing education courses in 0088 1 Illinois. 2 I'd like to speak to the training 3 requirements under Section C, Training, 4 Certification and Accreditation. Our primary 5 interest at Great Lakes Center is in the health 6 and safety of those doing renovation work and the 7 occupants and especially children. In several 8 key areas, we fear that the EPA's proposal will 9 be inadequate in protecting the health and safety 10 of both workers and the occupants. I would like 11 to address limitations. One, the limitations to 12 protecting workers and children's health of the 13 proposed certification renovator training, and 14 two, the lack of training for workers. 15 While contractors may be in the best 16 position to make decisions about managing 17 projects, they do not generally engage in health 18 training. Therefore, two of the responsibilities 19 of the certified renovator under the proposed 20 ruled are seriously flawed. As stated in the 21 proposed rule, they are to provide training to 22 uncertified workers and be available either 0089 1 on site or by telephone. Under the proposed 2 rule, contractor as a certified renovator is 3 provided extensive latitude in making decisions 4 about the organization of work. This latitude is 5 extended even further when there is more than one 6 contractor on site. For example, the proposed 7 rule states renovation firms may find it 8 advantageous to decide among themselves which 9 firm will be responsible for providing 10 pre renovation education to the workers and 11 occupants, which firm will establish containment, 12 and which firm will perform post renovation 13 cleaning and cleaning verification. In many 14 situations, having the general contractor 15 discharge the obligations of the pre renovation 16 education rule is likely to be the most efficient 17 approach since this only needs to be done once. 18 That's what's stated in the proposed rule. The 19 focus of this is on efficiency. Requiring the 20 certified renovator to become the trainer on the 21 issue of lead safe work practices is 22 irresponsible. From my experience conducting 0090 1 lead abatement worker, supervisor, risk assessor, 2 and inspector training, I believe that 3 contractors do not generally have the background 4 or the experience to be effective trainers on 5 health issues. Neither do they have the 6 knowledge or experience in understanding the risk 7 to health from exposure to environmental 8 chemicals. Additionally, the proposed rule does 9 not provide the certified renovator to learn 10 about work practices that should be prohibited 11 during renovation. The lack of training on safe 12 work practices will leave a gaping hole in the 13 knowledge that certified renovators have for 14 planning and managing renovation and for training 15 workers. 16 Next, decisions about how to perform a 17 job are made all the time by supervisors and 18 workers. Often the plans for completing a job 19 change as the job progresses. If training is 20 required for only one person involved in a 21 project, that person is not required to be at the 22 job site. Those performing the work may make 0091 1 decisions that result in the generation of lead. 2 Everyone on the work site needs to understand why 3 decisions are made so that the integrity of the 4 work site is not comprised. While supervisors 5 are ultimately responsible for the safety at any 6 job site, cooperation and compliance by workers 7 is essential. Everyone on a job site should be 8 trained in the principles of lead safe work 9 practices both in the classroom and on job 10 training. On the job training, while an 11 important part of training programs, should not 12 be the only training workers receive. Training 13 needs to be multifaceted and include health 14 effects to workers and children, hazard awareness 15 and recognition, and control strategies for 16 reducing generation and exposure to lead dust and 17 dealing with take home lead. Knowledgeable and 18 educated workers need to become part of the 19 solution to safe renovation. Since the proposed 20 rule does not require that the certified 21 renovator have this training, workers will not 22 receive this training. 0092 1 I will look to my colleagues to 2 address the other important training issues, 3 including the lack of third party licensure, lack 4 of requirements for certified renovators to be 5 on site at all times, especially given that 6 workers do not have specified  specific 7 training, certified dust sampling technician 8 training, how those who will have already taken 9 the HUD training will be affected, and the 10 duration and renewal of training. 11 In summation, the Great Lakes Center 12 supports EPA's effort to require the use of lead 13 safe work practices in renovation and remodeling 14 and we hope that you will utilize our suggestions 15 to improve the rule to better protect the health 16 of our children. 17 Thank you very much. 18 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 19 MS. MORTIMER: After the break, Lara 20 Nochomovitz. She's there. Okay. Let's take a 21 five minute break. It is 2: 10 by my watch. So 22 at 2: 15, Lara will be up. 0093 1 ( WHEREUPON, a recess was had.) 2 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. Lara Nochomovitz, and 3 then after that, Nick Peneff from Public Health 4 and Safety. 5 MR. PENEFF: I'm here. 6 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. 7 MS. NOCHOMOVITZ: Hi. Good afternoon. My 8 name is Lara Nochomovitz, and I'm employed as the 9 Advocacy Associate at the Lutheran Metropolitan 10 Ministry, or LMM, in Cleveland, Ohio. I've been 11 employed in this capacity since February of 2004, 12 and my primary job responsibility is to 13 coordinate the Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. 14 My tasks in this role are diverse and 15 include coordinating training for  lead related 16 training for individuals who have been formerly 17 involved in the criminal justice system and 18 assisting these individuals with job placement. 19 Additionally, I served as the secretary to the 20 Greater Cleveland Lead Advisory Council and its 21 five subcommittees, including a Work Force 22 Development Subcommittee. The GCLAC as the 0094 1 council is known is a collaboration spearheaded 2 by LMM, the City of Cleveland, Department of 3 Public Health, and the Cuyahoga County Board of 4 Health. Our primary objective is to 5 eliminate lead poisoning in greater Cleveland 6 where 11 percent of children under six continue 7 to be affected by lead poisoning every year. 8 Having reviewed the EPA's proposed 9 rule, I would like to begin by applauding your 10 efforts to encourage lead safe renovation and 11 repair. The proposal will be beneficial to 12 ongoing efforts to eliminate lead poisoning 13 through preventive rather than reactionary 14 measures. 15 That said, I have some concerns about 16 four major areas of the draft. First, I do not 17 believe that the proposal requires sufficient 18 training for renovation workers nor does it 19 create a universal training system or any written 20 verification for training. By providing a 21 universal training system as well as written 22 verification, training would be more efficient, 0095 1 there would be less confusion, and it would be 2 easy to verify from job to job which workers had 3 been trained and to ensure that there was 4 consistent training. Without universal training 5 or some sort of written verification, there's a 6 chance that there's inconsistencies  there are 7 inconsistencies, different trainers by different 8 measures, so we feel that this is very important. 9 We don't think that providing  that requiring 10 training will be a barrier to completing lead 11 work. 12 As I believe you've already heard 13 today, the Work Force Development 14 Subcommittee of the GCLAC completed a survey of 15 over 30 contractors, and those contractors 16 indicated that there were not enough qualified 17 lead workers. So by requiring an additional 18 training you may actually help to eliminate this 19 barrier rather than creating an additional 20 barrier to completing lead work. 21 Secondly, the proposal as you've 22 already heard does not prohibit practices that we 0096 1 have  that have been shown to increase risk of 2 lead exposure to workers and to children such as 3 dry scraping and sanding or torching lead based 4 paint. Prohibiting these practices upfront 5 rather than having to clean up a mess after using 6 these practices would probably be more cost 7 efficient. I think that's really all I'm going 8 to say about that issue. There's science that 9 shows that we can  that we can avoid these 10 practices quite easily. 11 Thirdly, the proposed rule relies on a 12 visual clearance technique rather than a dust 13 wipe sample, and there's not really enough 14 science to back up the method that's proposed in 15 the rule. The National Center for Healthy 16 Housing completed a study in 2002, which 17 indicated that a visual exam does not always 18 verify the dust levels in a home. They tested 19 121 housing units, and of those that passed a 20 visual clearance exam, 54 percent did not pass a 21 dust wipe test and were not safe for children. 22 The rule also doesn't require disclosure of the 0097 1 results of the visual clearance, and we feel that 2 this would be disempowering to community members 3 who are renting or buying a home because they 4 wouldn't know what they were getting into. Other 5 federal guidelines such as the HUD guidelines do 6 require disclosure, and we would encourage that 7 you would require disclosure of whatever 8 clearance technique you decide on. 9 Fourthly and finally, the proposal 10 doesn't include any enforcement protocol nor does 11 it create any infrastructure for enforcement. We 12 already know the federal agencies are 13 overburdened with enforcement with existing rules 14 such as the Pre Renovation Information Rule, 15 which again, you've already heard about today. 16 And not only is it important to create some 17 mechanism for enforcing the Proposed Renovation 18 Rule, but it's also important to make sure that 19 we can sustain that enforcement so that it's more 20 than writing on paper. 21 We  again, we'd like to applaud your 22 efforts at creating a rule that would contribute 0098 1 to preventive lead poisoning prevention rather 2 than reactionary lead poisoning prevention 3 measures, but we encourage you to take a look at, 4 again, the clearance standards, the worker 5 training standards, and the prohibited practices 6 as well as the enforcement areas, and to look at 7 what exists already in federal guidelines such as 8 those created by HUD in creating the final rule. 9 Thank you for the opportunity to 10 testify 11 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 12 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. I forgot one key 13 announcement, which Lara just did a perfect job. 14 When you speak, especially if you're speaking 15 from your notes, please slow down because we have 16 a court reporter here who's catching every single 17 one of your words, and if you  or trying to, 18 and if you read too fast, she can't catch them 19 all. So please give me your written comments if 20 you've got them and do try to slow down your 21 speech a bit. 22 Next up, we've got Nick Peneff 0099 1 followed by Amy Zimmerman. 2 MR. PENEFF: Good afternoon. I'm Nicholas 3 Peneff, Doctor of Public Health, and Operator of 4 both a nonprofit lead worker training program for 5 the Salvation Army, and a for profit company, 6 Public Health and Safety, performing lead 7 inspections and risk assessments. 8 My first health related job was a 9 chemist analyzing paint chips for lead in 1971 10 while I interned at the Chicago Board of Health. 11 During roughly half the time since then, we have 12 collaborated with others in private sector, 13 governmental, nonprofit, and community based 14 efforts toward Title X goals through an era which 15 I now call " benign neglect" before issuance of 16 this proposed R and R Rule. Fortunately, through 17 the concerted efforts of the lead poisoning 18 prevention community and brought to the forefront 19 by Illinois' own Senator Barack Obama, we stand 20 here today. 21 Unfortunately, we disagree on broad 22 grounds with elements of the proposed rule which 0100 1 eliminates safeguards afforded by the ban and the 2 use of dangerous work methods, clearance testing, 3 and project planning as currently described in 4 the HUD guidelines and federal or state rules. 5 On these topics, the proposed rule does not 6 appear to fulfill Title X's promise of a 7 health based hazard standard nor does it support 8 the Title X notion of a lead safe housing rule 9 from HUD for purposes of providing existing 10 exemplary standards for lead safe work practices 11 and clearance procedures as the nation's largest 12 landlord. 13 It does not support the collaboration 14 of HUD and EPA in the spirit of Title X let alone 15 state or local jurisdictions. Instead it 16 conflicts and confuses those goals, as we see it, 17 and contradicts progress already made toward 18 them. 19 Regarding prohibited work practices, 20 EPA's failure to include prohibited work 21 practices will sow confusion in the housing 22 renovation, painting, remodeling, rehabilitation, 0101 1 and repair industry because there will be two 2 different sets of requirements for the same type 3 of work, depending on whether the work is done in 4 federally or locally assisted housing on one hand 5 or an unassisted housing on the other hand. 6 As a trainer of lead workers, I will 7 testify that presentation of such a double 8 standard for child protection will not ring true 9 and will undermine the public health message that 10 is essential in my experience to alert and 11 motivate new trainees to another more 12 health conscious way of fixing homes. 13 We expect workers to recognize this 14 discrepancy, to discredit the message based on 15 this discrepancy, and worse, to use this 16 discrepancy to invite a standard of work progress 17 that's unfettered by fuzzy public health goals. 18 To create a level playing field as well as to 19 ensure the public health, EPA should conform its 20 requirements to those in the HUD regulation which 21 has now been in place for nearly six years and 22 OSHA regulations which have been in place for 0102 1 decades. It is worth noting that the prohibition 2 against using these work practices is also 3 included in the regulations of housing 4 administered by the Department of Defense, the 5 Department of Veteran Affairs, Department of 6 Agriculture, and others. Also regarding 7 dangerous work methods, we are concerned that 8 previously collected data may not account for 9 different particle size distribution, a factor in 10 both the potential cleaning efficiency of work 11 areas and the toxicology of lead poisoning. 12 Assuming there's no studies which are based on 13 the absence of prohibited work practices may not 14 be valid in renovations where use of open flame 15 burning and widespread machine sanding is 16 permitted. 17 Further, the discussion regarding 18 false negatives with respect to chemical paint 19 testing before disturbance during renovation 20 shows a flaw in its initial premise before 21 renovation or cleaning ever take place. Testing 22 intact paint may not be sufficient to avoid a 0103 1 hazard, especially if the ban of prohibited 2 methods is lifted. Hazard generation in this 3 case rather is a function of the type of work 4 method which would be employed, the area or 5 extent to which it will be employed, the method 6 and extent of containment, and the final 7 conditions of surfaces affecting their ability to 8 be effectively clean. Then comes the cleaning. 9 In short, passing a color test will not 10 necessarily preclude generation of hazard during 11 renovation employing the use of open flame or 12 machine sanding. 13 Consider the following scenario. A 14 chemical spot test or an XRF measurement for that 15 matter shows less than 1.0 milligrams per square 16 centimeter of lead, and as such indicates no 17 lead based paint. To the extent that lead is 18 present, say, in the 0.5 to 0.9 milligram per 19 square centimeter range, open flame burning and 20 machine sanding without a HEPA filter attachment 21 proposed as permitted methods can create dust 22 hazards far in excess of quantitative standards. 0104 1 Permitting practices which produce 2 only large amounts of small particle dust only 3 magnifies the unaccounted false negatives 4 resulting from the most complete disintegration 5 of lead containing paint. In this scenario, no 6 requirements for containment or cleaning 7 verification would apply under the proposed rule. 8 At the least, EPA should assume the presence of 9 regulated lead concentrations where the most 10 dangerous work methods are contemplated or offer 11 a new statutory action level for paint which 12 recognizes the far greater potential for dust 13 generation is aggravated by these work methods. 14 To go forward with the proposed rule 15 in this respect presents the appearance of an 16 OSHA standard more presumptive and, therefore, on 17 this basis more protective of workers and 18 pre renovation planning procedures offered 19 children. On these projects where the 20 presumption of lead is not made or where the 21 presumption can be made and rebutted lies a 22 flawed methodology that fails to evaluate an 0105 1 important class of false negatives. Also on this 2 basis and on the basis of a standard of 3 prevention, there should be no difference between 4 measures taken in a household that is occupied or 5 nonoccupied on the theory that no one better 6 trained in cleaning is likely by design to return 7 preceding occupancy. 8 The prohibition of dangerous methods 9 of paint removal as a type of engineering 10 control. Rather than attempting to control 11 emissions after they have occurred, engineering 12 controls are designed to prevent or minimize 13 emissions from occurring in the first place. 14 Under OSHA Rules, for instance, use of available 15 engineering controls must be exhausted before 16 other controls can be put into place. Under the 17 proposed rule, such controls preventing lead dust 18 hazards will disappear. Subversion of these 19 preventive measures as it may affect children's 20 health gives the appearance of a proposed 21 children's health standard less protective at 22 least in theory than OSHA's standard for 0106 1 protecting workers exposed to lead. 2 Title X's promise, as we understand 3 it, lies in childhood lead poisoning prevention, 4 not in what may be regarded as Pandora's Box 5 approach to indoor lead pollution. EPA needs to 6 restore the protective standards that now define 7 the industry standard for lead hazard control and 8 housing modifications. Failing this, EPA needs 9 to develop a body of peer reviewed studies which 10 support proposed controls in the context of 11 prohibited work practices. 12 Regarding clearance testing, studies 13 show that dust wipe loadings correlate well to 14 blood lead levels, and I think others have talked 15 about this enough, so I'm going to skip that 16 paragraph. 17 Although there's no way to go back 18 into time to field test the new clearance 19 verification, in 1992, cafeteria tables, floors, 20 and window ledges in the Kozkiesko School in 21 Chicago, now Lozano School, failed clearance 22 testing after use of paper towel and produced a 0107 1 white glove look. These findings may be less 2 significant with regards to their similarity or 3 dissimilarity to the proposed white glove method 4 than they are with regards to the opportunity for 5 an unexpected third party evaluation of lead safe 6 work practices. We question the meaning of the 7 term " lead safe," if there is no chance for 8 unexpected independent review built into the 9 proposed rule for purposes of validating the 10 theory of lead safe status at least on some 11 occasion of a quality control basis. We suggest 12 that EPA require program managers to employ 13 independent quality control using traditional 14 wipe sampling protocol at least to qualify work 15 on multifamily projects. 16 Regarding planning for renovation 17 activities, we agree with the EPA's suggestion 18 that renovation firms working in a 19 multicontractor work site decide among themselves 20 which firm will be responsible for providing 21 pre renovation education to the owners and 22 occupants, which firm will establish containment, 0108 1 and which firm will perform the post renovation 2 cleaning and cleaning verification. Further, we 3 believe that such planning should be formalized 4 in training included as part of the curriculum 5 and coordinated as part of both the bid and 6 contract requirements. However, we disagree that 7 the certified contractor with just one day's 8 training is sufficiently equipped to weigh 9 without provision of a specific design format, 10 the variability of such factors as the size and 11 the scope of work, the degree of dust created by 12 once prohibited work methods, whether or not 13 components are removed substantially intact, and 14 the all important condition of horizontal 15 surfaces subject to cleaning verification of 16 so called washable surfaces. We suggest use of 17 EPA's own abatement model for an occupant 18 protection plan to develop site specific work 19 methods with corresponding containment designs 20 for purposes of occupant notification, site 21 posting, renovation bid comparison, and provide 22 written basis for the possible enforcement of the 0109 1 rule. Without this, we don't think that the 2 householder has really much chance to review the 3 work that has been done without a third party. 4 Thank you. 5 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 6 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. We have Amy Zimmerman, 7 and then Frank Spedoske. 8 MS. ZIMMERMAN: Good afternoon. I'm Amy 9 Zimmerman. I am the Children's Policy Advisor to 10 Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and I'm 11 here today to present a statement on her behalf. 12 Each year, Illinois reports the 13 highest number of lead poisoned children in the 14 nation. The Office of the Attorney General has 15 enforcement authority under the Illinois Lead 16 Poisoning Prevention Act to prosecute homeowners 17 who fail to remedy lead hazards after a child has 18 been poisoned. 19 It is understood that children are 20 routinely poisoned through lead dust that 21 generates from both deteriorating lead paint and 22 lead dust generated by renovation and remodeling 0110 1 activities. These activities kick up significant 2 amounts of lead dust that permeates carpets, 3 ductwork, and soil, creating both short and 4 long term exposures to residents. 5 While we applaud the efforts that the 6 EPA is making to establish requirements for the 7 conduct of renovation and remodeling activities 8 that disturb lead based paint, there are several 9 gaps in the proposed regulations that should be 10 addressed. Our office is especially concerned 11 about the children that could be exposed both 12 before and after the renovation process, but we 13 are also concerned about the health and safety of 14 workers involved. 15 We ask that EPA strive to avoid any 16 unintended consequences of the proposal by 17 amending the regulations to cover all homes where 18 exterior renovations that disturb lead based 19 paint are being conducted and not just those with 20 children under age six, as neighborhood children 21 or visitors could still be affected by 22 renovations on the exterior of such a residence; 0111 1 commercial buildings, specifically child occupied 2 facilities such as day care centers and schools; 3 homes with pregnant women to protect children 4 in utero and newborns that are highly susceptible 5 to even small amounts of ingested lead. 6 Furthermore, the regulations do not 7 sufficiently address clearance testing once 8 renovations are completed or dangerous work 9 practices. The Office of the Illinois Attorney 10 General asks that the final regulations include 11 scientific testing  clearance testing methods 12 which should be used to completely ascertain that 13 there is no lead on the surface rather than what 14 is commonly referred to as the white glove test; 15 clearance testing conducted by an impartial party 16 to ensure compliance; licensing for all certified 17 renovators and a requirement that they must be 18 on site at times to supervise the renovation; 19 prohibition of dangerous methods of paint removal 20 or disturbance. Use of these methods will have 21 unintended consequences of hurting children, 22 workers, and others, and will also result in far 0112 1 higher costs associated with cleaning up the 2 widespread contamination that will occur. Indeed 3 such practices may violate existing OSHA 4 regulations. 5 Finally, it is essential that 6 penalties be strict for violators of these 7 regulations. There are no enforcement guidelines 8 in the proposed regulations. States are 9 authorized to administer and enforce these 10 standards and regulations in lieu of a federal 11 program. In order to provide a clear 12 disincentive, the regulations should propose that 13 states adopt stringent required penalties for 14 violators. This will also help ensure uniformity 15 among the states as well; include EPA mandated 16 assessment of compliance by instituting routine 17 audits of all authorized contractors; and provide 18 states with the resources they need to adequately 19 enforce these regulations. 20 The Office of the Attorney General 21 commends the EPA for its efforts. While these 22 regulations are an important step in eliminating 0113 1 lead poisoning among all our children, it is 2 imperative that the regulations be comprehensive 3 and meaningful. We ask that EPA issue final 4 regulations that reflect our recommendations. 5 Thank you. 6 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 7 MS. MORTIMER: Frank is up, and then is 8 Marcelo Tello here? 9 ( No response.) 10 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. So after Frank, it's 11 Beth Lauck from the Illinois Lead Safe Housing 12 Task Force. 13 MR. SPEDOSKE: Good afternoon. My name is 14 Frank Spedoske. I am a Marine Science 15 Technician with the U. S. Coast Guard. I am an 16 instructor in hazardous waste operations and 17 disposal, but I am not here to speak about my job 18 or what I do. I am here speaking on behalf of my 19 lead poisoned son. 20 My family's experience took place 21 while living in a duplex just outside of 22 Buffalo, New York, in 2004. We had been living 0114 1 there  when we moved in, my son was four 2 month's old. And we had been living there about 3 a year, and we noticed a lot of developmental 4 delays and a lot of problems. And so we got him 5 tested, and he came back with a blood lead level 6 count of 47. And he has now  after we found 7 that out, we got in contact with hospitals and we 8 were able to figure out ways to educate ourselves 9 as to minimizing his exposure to the environment 10 in our house we were living in at the time. 11 We got his lead level count down to 12 about 33 within about a month, which we were on 13 our way down. Once the landlord hired some 14 contractors in to come in and replace the 15 windows, first, I asked them if they had been 16 trained or if they  I have a fairly decent 17 background in work  you know, safe work 18 practices. I know what to look for and what not 19 to look for anyway. They said they had been to 20 courses. They know the proper procedures to use 21 with lead based paint and everything. So upon 22 returning to our home after this had been 0115 1 completed, we found our entire house caked in 2 dust. Both my children's rooms were caked in 3 dust, their blankets, their beds, couch, floor, 4 everything. 5 Now, here again, I'm not talking  6 I'm not here just to speak about one particular 7 instance. I'm just trying to show what happens 8 when the  when this situation happens. After 9 that, my son's lead level spiked up to 55. He 10 was then forced to be hospitalized for a week. 11 You have to go through chelation therapy. And to 12 have a two year old go through this for a week 13 was our own hell so to speak. And I apologize 14 ahead of time if I seem too abrupt with certain 15 things, but this has kind of have been a 16 sensitive issue in my family. 17 We  for that week stay in the 18 hospital, it was extremely traumatic for my son. 19 Now he can't go into waiting rooms. He  every 20 time  every month we go in to get his lead 21 level count tested  he's gone down to 12 now 22 and he's doing much better, but I am the only one 0116 1 who could take him in to get his blood tested 2 because I have to physically put him in a 3 headlock, lock my legs around him, and stretch 4 his arm out so that the doctor can take the blood 5 sample out, and it takes every ounce that I have 6 to even hold this kid still. He  it's beyond 7 freaking out so to speak. 8 He now has to go through this all the 9 time, and to hear the dollar and cents arguments 10 really hurts because I want  and let me talk 11 about the dollar and cents. I have to spend as 12 long as my  and my insurance company has to 13 spend on special therapists now for him, special 14 schools for him for God only knows how long. So 15 we have to literally  I had to petition to the 16 Coast Guard to get transferred to this area 17 because I knew that there were a lot of good 18 facilities here for him. We're living in 19 Naperville, and there's a very good school 20 district and some  you know, for him to get 21 proper treatment. 22 But the problem does not end with the 0117 1 house being cleaned. We have to go through this 2 for a longer period of time than just a 3 renovation, and I think one of the biggest 4 problems I have seen is education on all parties. 5 We were a young married couple with a new kid, 6 and I was not aware of any kind of possibility of 7 there being a problem. I found out our place was 8 built in the ' 30s and there was issues with that, 9 but to have people come in and treat our house 10 like that really alarmed me and I didn't even 11 know what I was looking at yet. 12 I just strongly, strongly urge that 13 this become a meeting and a notice for the victim 14 not for  you should be focusing on the people 15 involved, the people who are really traumatized 16 by this not the people who have to make it work. 17 This shouldn't have to cater to the people who 18 have to do the work, but the people who get hurt 19 by it. And the issue with  I'm sorry, the 20 subject of becoming a voluntary program to me 21 does not even seem possible. I mean, the speed 22 limit is mandatory and look at how many people 0118 1 follow that. 2 It's  this should be something that 3 should be so stringently looked at because the 4 families who get affected have to deal with it 5 every day. And something as simple as  my son 6 has a cold right now and the doctor wanted us to 7 come in, just a regular pediatrician, but it is 8 an all out family affair when we have to do that 9 because the second he sees a waiting room, 10 everything goes to the pot so to speak. 11 So I don't want to use up any more 12 time as far as just our own family story, but I 13 want to make sure that everybody is aware that 14 this should be catering to the people who get 15 affected and not to the people who have to make 16 sure that everyone is safe. Thank you. 17 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 18 MS. MORTIMER: Beth Lauck is up next, and 19 then after that, Daniel Lince. 20 MS. LAUCK: I would like to thank you for 21 the opportunity to testify today regarding the 22 EPA's Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting 0119 1 Program. My name is Beth Lauck. I am a staff 2 person to the Illinois Lead Safe Housing Task 3 Force. I am here today with Mary Burns, Director 4 of Community Based Projects for Lead Safe Housing 5 Initiatives based at Loyola University Chicago's 6 School of Law and a member of the task force. 7 The Illinois Lead Safe Housing Task 8 Force was organized in 1997 in an effort to 9 create and maintain public/ private partnerships 10 on child and adolescent health issues in the 11 Chicago metropolitan area. The task force is now 12 focused on the entire state in an effort to 13 implement workable strategies to eliminate 14 childhood lead poisoning. It is made up of 15 representatives from realtor associations, the 16 insurance industry, state and local public health 17 departments, and housing agencies, as well as 18 tenant housing organizers, community based agency 19 representatives, child health advocates, 20 physicians, and parents of lead poisoned 21 children. The task force advocates for policy 22 reform, promotes public awareness, and fosters 0120 1 collaborations to achieve its mission. 2 As part of my work, I have interviewed 3 families who have had children who have been lead 4 poisoned. I have seen the devastating impact 5 that lead poisoning has on these families. One 6 child nearly died and will be prone to seizures 7 all of her life. Many lag behind their younger 8 siblings in the ability to read and concentrate 9 and need special services in school. Families 10 struggle to find ways to deal with their 11 children's academic and social difficulties that 12 stem from being exposed to lead poisoning, all 13 the while knowing that this could have easily 14 been prevented. 15 Based on our work on research findings 16 and on information we have gathered from health 17 professionals and parents, we have seen that 18 children are not becoming poisoned from eating 19 large lead paint chips. Rather the paint from 20 which children are poisoned is often invisible to 21 the naked eye. 22 One family we interviewed whose 0121 1 three year old daughter was poisoned stated that 2 they had recently bought their home and it 3 appeared in excellent condition. There were no 4 visible signs of peeling or chipping paint on the 5 window sills, walls, or stairs. Even a home 6 inspection completed prior to purchasing the home 7 failed to detect any lead hazards. However, 8 during a routine physical exam, their daughter's 9 blood lead level tested in the 30s, three times 10 the level at which the CDC considers children 11 lead poisoned. Upon inspection, the Department 12 of Public Health found that the child was 13 poisoned from lead on the window sills and a 14 railing that led to the basement. This lead was 15 not detectable to the naked eye. 16 Another family conveyed the tragic 17 story of their son's lead level increasing from 18 poor renovation work. After their son was 19 diagnosed with a positive blood lead level, the 20 landlord hired a contractor to remove the lead 21 hazards. The contractor assured the family that 22 he knew how to remove the lead hazards properly, 0122 1 but instead he ripped out the windows spreading 2 lead dust everywhere. The family found the house 3 covered in paint chips and dust. Paint chips had 4 even landed on their lawn and on the neighbors' 5 driveways. They vacuumed and cleaned everything 6 themselves, but even after their thorough 7 cleaning, the house still remained toxic. The 8 new exposure sent their child's lead levels so 9 high that he had to be hospitalized. Two years 10 after the diagnosis, the child's blood lead 11 level still remains elevated. 12 Based on our work, we are very 13 concerned about the following proposed 14 regulations: Work must be done correctly so that 15 future child occupants will not become poisoned 16 from the lead dust created during renovation and 17 remodeling. Owners should not be exempted from 18 the regulations if the renovator obtains a 19 statement from the owner that a child under six 20 does not occupy the dwelling. This exemption 21 does not protect children who come to reside in 22 the unit in the future. This exemption also 0123 1 undermines the goal of protecting workers, 2 pregnant women, and other children, and residents 3 of nearby properties. If proper practices are 4 not performed, renovators may contaminate 5 surrounding soil and blow lead onto adjacent 6 properties affecting children playing outside. 7 There should also not be an exemption 8 as proposed in the regulations for emergency 9 situations including when an elevated blood lead 10 child lives in the unit. The justification of 11 time constraints because of the emergency is not 12 sufficient to warrant foregoing requirements of 13 the rule. When an elevated blood lead child 14 lives in the unit, we understand the need for 15 urgency in remedying the situation, but under the 16 circumstances in which a child has already been 17 poisoned, safety precautions should not be 18 abandoned. Abandoning safety precautions creates 19 a risk that the poisoned child's lead level will 20 climb higher and that other children in the home 21 or children who may come to reside in the home in 22 the future will be poisoned. 0124 1 We agree with the proposed regulation 2 the common areas should be subject to the same 3 safe work practice requirements. Unless the 4 building is reserved primarily or solely for 5 elderly residents, there is a high likelihood 6 that children will be occupying the common areas 7 and can be exposed to the lead hazards. 8 Moving on to our concern about 9 clearance verification, EPA needs to adopt 10 adequate methods for verifying that the renovated 11 area is free of lead. Clearance verification is 12 possibly the most critical part of making sure 13 that a child in the home is not poisoned or 14 further exposed to lead. 15 Laboratory documented dust clearance 16 testing should be normative. The lead dust wipe 17 testing is the only proven method for verifying 18 lead dust levels. Failing to require it removes 19 the final safety net for detecting lead that may 20 only then be discovered when a child becomes 21 poisoned by the lead that was left behind. 22 Therefore, this objective verification test is 0125 1 really critical. 2 Finally, dangerous work practices 3 banned in HUD regulations should likewise be 4 banned in these regulations. It is well 5 documented in scientific studies that the 6 practices HUD deems are unsafe to use 7 powersanding, sandblasting, powerwashing, and the 8 use of heat guns above 1,100 degrees all create 9 high levels of toxic dust that are extremely 10 difficult to clean up. 11 In conclusion, the Illinois Lead Safe 12 Task Force thanks you for the opportunity to 13 testify today. We will also be submitting a 14 written report. We look forward to working with 15 the EPA on further efforts to eliminate childhood 16 lead poisoning. 17 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 18 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. Daniel Lince is up 19 next. I want to just check on a couple people 20 though. John Bieg, are you here? Okay. So 21 you'll be up next. I just have to check on a 22 couple of my pre registered folks. Joniaya Ladd? 0126 1 ( No response.) 2 MS. MORTIMER: No. And Myrts Sullivan? 3 ( No response.) 4 MS. MORTIMER: Okay. So Daniel, and then 5 John. 6 MR. LINCE: Good afternoon. I'm Dan Lince. 7 I'm the Compliance Officer with the State of 8 Michigan's Lead and Healthy Home Section. For 9 ten years, our section has been the State of 10 Michigan's regulatory authority on lead based 11 paint issues. We are  we certify the 12 individuals in the state that perform lead 13 abatement and lead identification activities and 14 disciplines you all know, risk assessor, 15 supervisor, worker. Our current roster is about 16 2,000 people and contractors. We accredit and 17 train  excuse me, accredit and audit the 18 courses of six training providers and we hold 19 exams throughout the state to accredit these 20 professionals. We also run a fully involved 21 housing program of our own which has made more 22 than 1,200 homes lead safe in the last eight 0127 1 years. 2 I say all this to show that our 3 program mirrors in close relation many of the 4 aspects of the proposed rules and I think it can 5 lend a special insight into some of the 6 challenges and solutions that are going to be 7 faced. 8 I'm only going to focus my comments on 9 three areas. The first is notifications. As an 10 enforcement person, I can tell you that  and 11 it's come up in a lot of testimony here today, 12 the need for enforcement. Any successful model 13 of enforcing this law is going to require some 14 form of notification. And I am not here with 15 just an empty recommendation, I have a  I have 16 an idea. 17 Notifications go the farthest in 18 ensuring the compliant mind set among contractors 19 and the knowledge that they have notified of 20 their job is a powerful incentive. The most 21 obvious challenge to notifications are the sheer 22 volume of notifications you can expect. 0128 1 In Michigan a