1

1

2

3 LEAD TEST KIT STAKEHOLDER MEETING AND WEBINAR

4

5

6 Thursday, June 4, 2015

7 10:00 a.m.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

19 William Jefferson Clinton East Building

20 Room 4225

21 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

22 Washington, D.C. 20004

23
2

1 SPEAKERS

2 TOIYA GOODLOW, EPA

3 CHRISTINA WADLINGTON, EPA

4 TANYA MOTTLEY, EPA

5 GENE PINZER, HUD

6 DAVID COX, Ph.D., Quantech

7 DARLENE LEONARD, EPA

8 BOB HANBURY, CGR, NAHB

9 KEVIN MCKENNEY, WDMA

10 TAMARA RUBIN (via telephone), LeadSafe America

11 LEAH PILCONIS, Associated General Contractors of 

12 America

13 TOM NETTNER, EDF

14 LEE WASSERMAN, LEW Corporation

15 BEN GANN, NLBMDA

16 PERRY GOTTESFELD, Occupation Knowledge International

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
3

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 MS. GOODLOW: My name is Toiya Goodlow, and I'm 

3 the technical contact for Lead Test Kit in the National

4 Programs Chemical Division. We're going to begin our 

5 meeting and webinar at this time, and we're going to 

6 start with webinar instructions from Christina 

7 Wadlington.

8 MS. WADLINGTON: Good morning, everybody on the 

9 phone and those of you who are joining us virtually. I

10 just wanted to go over a few logistical notes for those

11 on the phone so you guys would be able to interact with

12 us here in the room.

13 So if you would like to comment during the comment

14 period, please send me a note via the chat that 

15 everyone has been using. I will put your name in the 

16 queue so you guys can have time allotted for your 

17 comments this session at the same time as the people in

18 the room. So please let me know, and I can take care 

19 of that.

20 If you have a question during the presentation, 

21 please virtually raise your hand using the raising hand

22 button. If you can't find that button, just also send 
4

1 me a chat. So for those of you who have a question, 

2 please let me know. You can either type me your 

3 question and I will read it out for you, or you can ask

4 your question and I will unmute the line and open the 

5 floor. We do ask that you mute your lines, and if you 

6 do have a question, please wait until you are called 

7 on. We will take your name and call on you 

8 specifically. That way not too many people are 

9 speaking all at the same time. So it's just a matter 

10 to make the flow work with the people in the room as 

11 well as on the phone.

12 If you have any questions, I'm available all 

13 meeting via the chat, so please let me know if you have

14 any questions.

15 MS. GOODLOW: Thank you, Christina. Next we will 

16 have our welcome by Tanya Mottley, the director of the 

17 National Program Chemicals Division.

18 MS. MOTTLEY: Good morning, everyone. As Toiya 

19 has said, I'm the director of the National Program 

20 Chemicals Division. We have responsibility in this 

21 division for implementing the Lead Program. So 

22 anything involving lead-based paint we work on.
5

1 I wanted to thank you all for attending the 

2 meeting today and this webinar. I'm pleased that we 

3 have such a great turnout, and we're anxious to hear 

4 what you have to say, so I thank you all for being here

5 to provide your input. We value what you have to say 

6 as well, so we'll be listening very carefully.

7 The main reason why we're here is to address a 

8 directive that was in the Fiscal Year 2015 

9 appropriations bill, and it directs the Agency to 

10 prioritize efforts with stakeholders and identify 

11 solutions that would allow for a test kit to meet the 

12 criteria within the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair and 

13 Painting Rule. If no solution is reached by the end of

14 the Fiscal Year, we should revisit the test criteria in

15 the 2008 rule and solicit public comments on 

16 alternatives. So this meeting today is really our 

17 first step in addressing this Fiscal Year 2015 

18 appropriations language, and thank you all for your 

19 participation.

20 At today's meeting we're going to start by Toiya 

21 giving us a brief presentation on the current status on

22 the lead test kits and the work that we've done thus 
6

1 far to foster the development of a lead test kit that 

2 meets the criteria that was promulgated in our lead 

3 regulations back from 2008. HUD is then going to 

4 follow with a brief presentation to talk about work 

5 that they have underway related to the development of a

6 lead test kit that meets both the criteria.

7 We're requesting that you as our key stakeholders 

8 share your input and help us to understand the current 

9 state of the science for the lead test kits and lead10 based paint fielding testing alternatives. We also 

11 want to learn more about the existing market and 

12 potential for availability of lead test kits, so we're 

13 hoping to hear some more information along those lines.

14 You have two options for providing information to 

15 us. Of course there's the option to do so orally or by

16 phone at this meeting today. You also have the option 

17 of providing written comments to us in a docket that 

18 we've established for this purpose. You have until 

19 July 6th, so there's another month for which you have 

20 the opportunity to provide written comments should you

21 care to do so. We welcome that as well.

22 I wanted to stress that we're viewing this 
7

1 primarily as a listening session for EPA, so we are 

2 currently at the information gathering stage of this 

3 process. We will be sharing our next steps later once 

4 we've had an opportunity to consider and digest the 

5 information that we hear here today, to review the 

6 materials that are added to the docket, and consider 

7 whether or not we may need to have any future meetings 

8 to collect additional information.

9 So I wanted to again thank you for your time, your

10 consideration on this issue. And I'm going to turn it 

11 over now to Toiya, who will go into a presentation for 

12 some background information. Thank you.

13 MS. GOODLOW: Thank you, Tanya. Like Tanya said, 

14 I'll be providing the background presentation on behalf

15 of EPA. We'll start with our overview. We'll provide 

16 the meeting objectives, statutory authority, lead test 

17 kit background, as Tanya mentioned, the Fiscal Year 

18 2015 appropriations bill language, our key questions to

19 you, our stakeholders, and next steps on behalf of EPA.

20 The goal of this meeting today is to solicit 

21 information from you our stakeholders, in particular, 

22 those of you who develop, manufacture, or sell lead 
8

1 test kits for other lead-based paint field testing 

2 instruments, as well as those of you who use lead test 

3 kits to determine if lead safe work practices are 

4 required under the RRP rule. We're specifically 

5 seeking information related to the existing market for 

6 the lead test kits as referenced in the 2008 Lead 

7 Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule, also known as 

8 RRP, the development or modification of lead test kits 

9 that may meet RRP criteria, or other alternatives for 

10 lead-based paint field testing.

11 Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control 

12 Act requires EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling 

13 activities in target housing create lead-based paint 

14 hazards. As a result, on April 22nd, 2008, EPA issued 

15 a final rule, the RRP rule, to addressed lead-based 

16 paint hazards created by these activities, and target 

17 housing and child-occupied facilities built before 

18 1978. Child-occupied facilities are buildings or parts

19 of buildings where children under the age of six spend 

20 a significant amount of time, and examples of those 

21 buildings include daycare centers, preschools, and 

22 kindergarten classrooms.
9

1 RRP requires contractors to use lead-safe work 

2 practices during renovation and repair and painting 

3 activities that disturb lead-based paint, unless a 

4 determination can be made that no lead-based paint will

5 be disturbed during the renovation or repair. And 

6 certified renovators are allowed to use EPA recognized 

7 lead test kits to make this determination if lead-based

8 paint is present at or above the regulated level of one

9 milligram per centimeter squared or .05 percent lead by

10 weight. If there is no lead-based paint present, then 

11 there is no need to employ lead-safe work practices 

12 under RRP.

13 The rule also established lead test kit 

14 performance criteria for EPA recognition. Lead test 

15 kits recognize prior to September 30th, 2010 are 

16 required to meet the negative response criteria of no 

17 more than five percent false negatives with a 95 

18 percent confidence level at the regulated level. Our 

19 recognition of these kits will last until EPA approves 

20 and publicizes its recognition of a lead test kit that 

21 is able to meet both the negative response and positive

22 response criteria included in the RRP rule.
10

1 Lead test kits recognized after September 30th are

2 required to meet both of these criteria, the negative 

3 response and positive response criteria of no more than

4 10 percent false positives with a 95 percent confidence

5 level as related to the regulated level of one 

6 milligram per centimeter squared. And to date, no lead

7 test kit has been developed that meets this criteria, 

8 the positive response criteria. Other considerations 

9 for lead test kits recognized by EPA. These test kits 

10 should serve as a quick, inexpensive, reliable, and an 

11 easy to perform option for lead-based paint testing in 

12 the field.

13 In an effort to recognize a test kit that can meet

14 both criteria, EPA fostered the development of new lead

15 test kit technology to meet both criteria, the false 

16 negative and false positive criteria. The ETV Program 

17 provided initial technical R&D resources to interested 

18 manufacturers, and four manufacturers submitted lead 

19 test kits to EPA's ETV Program. I'm sorry. The ETV 

20 Program is the Environmental Technical Verification 

21 Program. And EPA paid for these test kits for the 

22 program. Unfortunately, no lead test kit was found to 
11

1 meet both criteria. However, one test, the D-Lead test

2 kit, did meet the negative criteria.

3 At this time, there are three recognized test kits

4 by EPA for the negative response criteria. They 

5 include 3M Leadcheck, which is commercially available, 

6 D-Lead, which is also commercially available, as I 

7 mentioned before, and the State of Massachusetts lead 

8 test kit. This test kit is available through the State

9 of Massachusetts to state-certified lead inspectors and

10 risk assessors only. I should note that the 

11 Massachusetts lead test kit is not available to 

12 renovators.

13 The report accompanying the 2015 appropriations 

14 bill included a policy rider that directs EPA to 

15 prioritize efforts with stakeholders to identify 

16 solutions that would allow for a test kit to meet both 

17 criteria. And also, it directed us to revisit the lead

18 test kit criteria in the 2008 rule and solicit public 

19 comments if no solution is reached by the end of this 

20 Fiscal Year.

21 As a result, we are soliciting your input from our

22 stakeholders in an effort to understand the state of 
12

1 the science for lead test kits and lead-based paint 

2 field testing alternatives, as well as the existing 

3 market and potential availability of additional test 

4 kits.

5 We would specifically like your comments on the 

6 key questions we'll provide in the next slides. 

7 Questions related to the lead test kit market include 

8 if you use test kits, and if so, approximately how many

9 test kits do you use per year. If you do not use test 

10 kits, what prevents you from doing so, and what would 

11 cause you to use lead test kits in the future. We 

12 would also like to know how your use of lead test kits 

13 compares to lead-based paint as present, and 

14 automatically employing lead-safe work practices. We 

15 would also like to know if -- how your use of lead test

16 kits compares to X-ray fluorescence testing for a lead17 based paint determination, and your use of lead test 

18 kits compared to sending a paint sample to a national 

19 lead laboratory accreditation program lab for testing.

20 Our questions on the state of the science includes

21 if you are aware of any lead test kits in development 

22 besides what you hear today, and if you are aware of 
13

1 any challenges that have been encountered when 

2 developing new lead test kits. For testing lead test 

3 kit alternatives, we would like to know if you are 

4 aware of other field technologies that could be used in

5 lieu of lead test kits, including portable atomic

6 stripping voltammetry or any other colorimetric 

7 methods.

8 Our next steps for EPA, we would ask that you, in 

9 addition to providing oral comments here, if you have 

10 any additional information that you would like the EPA 

11 to consider to please submit those written comments to 

12 the docket by July 6th, 2015. And we have put the 

13 docket identification number on the slide here, and 

14 it's also in the FR notice. EPA may also schedule 

15 individual meetings with lead test kit developers and 

16 manufacturers to further lead test kit development 

17 alternatives as appropriate. And after we've had time 

18 to digest this information and review everything you've

19 submitted, we will determine our next steps based on 

20 the input of the stakeholders.

21 So here's my contact information on the screen. 

22 As I said, I am the technical contact for lead test 
14

1 kits. I will also put this up again at the end of the 

2 meeting. If there are no questions for me, we will 

3 move directly to a presentation from Gene Pinzer on 

4 behalf of the U.S. Housing -- sorry -- U.S. Department 

5 of Housing and Urban Development.

6 MR. PINZER: Good morning. I'm Gene Pinzer with 

7 the HUD Office of Healthy Homes -- Office of Lead 

8 Hazard Control and Healthy Homes. Let me put this in 

9 perspective from HUD's point of view. First, EPA and 

10 HUD have different statutory responsibilities. HUD has

11 a closer financial connection to assisted target 

12 housing, and, therefore, Congress directed HUD to 

13 establish more stringent lead requirements than it did 

14 for EPA.

15 HUD likes the RRP rule because it helps us get 

16 qualified contractors, supervisors, and workers for the

17 lead hazard control grants that are issued from my 

18 office, and for target housing covered by HUD's lead19 safe housing rule because of housing assistance that 

20 comes from other HUD offices. HUD does have 

21 difficulties with the spot test kit requirements, but 

22 they are not conceptual. They are empirical. If spot 
15

1 test kits were to perform well, HUD would be happy to 

2 approve their use in assisted target housing.

3 If spot test kits were shown to have a significant

4 rate of false negative results, we would be concerned 

5 because a lead health hazard would not be detected as 

6 often as it should be. But this is the not the case 

7 because existing EPA-recognized spot test kits produce 

8 very few false negative results. But if spot test kits

9 produced a significant rate of false positive results, 

10 following those results would entail costs for work to 

11 be done by RRP certified firms and supervisors using 

12 lead-safe work practices that did not need to be done 

13 that way.

14 HUD would not be honoring its fiduciary 

15 responsibilities to taxpayers regarding the housing 

16 assistance that we provide on their behalf. HUD thinks

17 that the science is just not there yet. HUD would be 

18 happy with better spot test kits that meet the RRP 

19 criteria. Then we could go back and look at the HUD 

20 guidelines for lead to make the applicable changes.

21 HUD funded lead technical studies grants to 

22 Quantech, who will present later. Thank you.
16

1 MS. GOODLOW: Thank you, Gene. So we are now at 

2 the point of the meeting where we will open the session

3 for commenters from our stakeholders. But before that 

4 time, I would like to provide some ground rules. 

5 Again, today's meeting will serve as a listening 

6 session for EPA. We're here for your input, so please 

7 share your thoughts related to the lead test kit 

8 questions that I'll have up on the screen momentarily. 

9 And also please consider that many of our participants

10 are attending remotely, so we ask that those of you in 

11 the room because come to this seat to my right when 

12 you're providing your comments so we can provide the 

13 best audio quality possible.

14 And each commenter will have five minutes to speak

15 to allow the maximum number of commenters to 

16 participate in the meeting. Christina, do you have 

17 something?

18 MS. WADLINGTON: I do. I have a question from 

19 Denise on the phone. Denise asks "Lead test kits with 

20 false positives do not meet the EPA criteria. Does 

21 anyone in the room know how far off are the results 

22 from that criteria currently?"
17

1 DR. COX: I can answer that very briefly. Okay.

2 MS. GOODLOW: And please introduce yourself as 

3 well.

4 DR. COX: I'm David Cox with Quantech. The 

5 question is how far off are the false positive rates 

6 for the currently-recognized kits. Is that --

7 MS. WADLINGTON: It says how far off are the 

8 results from the criteria.

9 DR. COX: Well, there are two commercially10 available EPA-recognized kits that meet the false 

11 negative criteria. One of them had estimates false 

12 positive rates of over 99 percent in an evaluation 

13 conducted for EPA, and the other had false positive 

14 rates between 66 and 97 percent depending on the 

15 operator using the kit, the substrate, and the color of

16 the paint. So the simple answer is that the current 

17 estimates are very off.

18 MS. WADLINGTON: Denise, does that answer your 

19 question? If you could type the response, that would 

20 be great. She said, yes, thank you.

21 DR. COX: Okay.

22 MS. GOODLOW: Also EPA would like to add that the 
18

1 false positive rate for the test kits that meet the 

2 negative response criteria are indeed lower than 99 

3 percent. I have records that show they're between 60 

4 and 84 percent for one test kit and as low as 22 

5 percent for the second lead test kit that's currently 

6 recognized.

7 MS. WADLINGTON: So just to clarify those, for the

8 webinar, the first speaker was David Cox from Quantech.

9 The second speaker was Toiya Goodlow from EPA.

10 MS. GOODLOW: Are there any additional questions 

11 at this time?

12 MS. WADLINGTON: Toiya, could you clarify what 

13 that second percentage was that you just gave?

14 MS. GOODLOW: Twenty-two percent false positive 

15 rate.

16 MS. WADLINGTON: That's all I have from here.

17 MS. GOODLOW: Okay. So I'll continue with the 

18 ground rules, and, David, I'll ask that you stay right 

19 here because you'll be our first commenter.

20 DR. COX: Okay.

21 MS. GOODLOW: So where was I? Each presenter will

22 have five minutes to speak to allow for the maximum 
19

1 number of participants at today's meeting. And Darlene

2 Leonard, our moderator -- right here -- will indicate 

3 when you have two and a half minutes left in your time,

4 and then again when you have one minute remaining for 

5 your comments.

6 Commenters will be called upon from our sign-up 

7 sheet. Those of you attending in person, please come 

8 to the seat that David is sitting in currently. And 

9 then for those of you on the phone, our phone will be 

10 unmuted for all web participants, and we ask that you 

11 all -- the individuals except the one who was called 

12 upon to speak to please mute your lines individually so

13 we can minimize all background noise and audio 

14 feedback.

15 And lastly, if you have questions about the 

16 meeting while a commenter is speaking, we ask that you 

17 use the chat feature of the webinar and type those into

18 Christina while your phone is muted. That's all I have

19 for the ground rules.

20 We'll start with Dr. David Cox from Quantech.

21 DR. COX: Thank you, Toiya. First, I’d like to 

22 comment on some research that we're doing under HUD 
20

1 sponsorship to reduce the false positive rates of 

2 existing test kits so that they can potentially meet 

3 the positive response criterion that EPA has 

4 established.

5 I think from the discussion so far, it's pretty 

6 clear that the positive response criterion is far 

7 harder to meet than the negative response criterion, at

8 least for the current technology of test kits, which 

9 are based either sodium sulfide technology or sodium 

10 rhodizonate chemistry. And the reason is that the 

11 existing kits are actually too sensitive in that they 

12 can detect lead in paint at levels way below the 

13 regulatory limit, which results in a high rate of 

14 positive test results when you don't actually have 

15 lead-based paint present.

16 So with grant funding from HUD, we've developed a 

17 method to reduce the sensitivity of the kits by 

18 quantitatively diluting the lead in a paint sample so 

19 that the transition from negative to positive test 

20 results occurs around the regulatory limit of one 

21 milligram per centimeter squared of the paint instead 

22 of at the much lower lead levels typical of existing 
21

1 kits. And the method involves dry dilution by grinding

2 the paint sample with commonly available materials, 

3 such as sugar, salt, or some other food products.

4 And in preliminary testing on a small set of 

5 samples left over from a NIST evaluation of test kits, 

6 we got pretty promising results. We got empirical 

7 false positive rates of about four percent and false 

8 negative rates of zero percent with the sodium sulfide 

9 chemistry.

10 So we're currently working to extend the method to

11 rhodizonate chemistry and also to reduce variability in

12 detection of the color change that indicates a positive

13 result. In the sulfide kits, the color changes from 

14 light gray to darker gray. In rhodizonate kits, it's 

15 from clear or light pink to somewhat darker pink. 

16 Ultimately, we plan to test the method on a large set 

17 of samples such as those used in EPA's evaluation of 

18 the two currently recognized kits.

19 The second comment I’d like to make is on some of 

20 the implications of EPA's positive response criterion. 

21 Now, in its evaluation testing, EPA has 

22 operationalized the criterion by requiring a kit to 
22

1 have no more than 10 percent false positive results for

2 paint at or below 0.8 milligrams per centimeter squared

3 of lead. When this criterion was included in the 

4 proposed RRP rule, no comments whatever were received 

5 on it. However, because of the statistical methods 

6 that are typically used to analyze test data, the 

7 criterion imposes extremely stringent requirements on 

8 any test kit.

9 For example, it implies that if you look at a 

10 slightly lower lead level of about .6 milligrams per 

11 centimeter squared, the kit can have a positive result 

12 only about one time in 400 tests. And it's really 

13 questionable whether any simple, inexpensive field 

14 tests could achieve this kind of performance.

15 However, I believe that EPA could significantly 

16 relax the positive response criterion while still 

17 meeting the fundamental objective of the criterion, 

18 which is to prevent false positive results that require

19 the use of less safe work practices when lead-based 

20 paint is not present. And the reason is that in 

21 practice, few homes in the real world have lead levels 

22 that are in the range from .5 to one milligram per 
23

1 centimeter squared, so that a kit that avoids positive 

2 results for paint at, say, a lower level of lead, like 

3 .5, will rarely give false positives in actual housing.

4 And we did some analysis to test this theory, and 

5 we used data from the American Healthy Homes Survey, 

6 which was a national survey sponsored by HUD and EPA, 

7 to determine lead levels in paint in homes nationwide.

8 And in homes potentially subject to the bar up here --

9 those are ones built before 1978 -- we found that a kit

10 with a 10 percent positive rate has 0.5 rather than .8,

11 would give positive test results for a kitchen 

12 renovation in less than seven percent of homes. So it 

13 seems like I believe that the positive response 

14 criterion could be relaxed somewhat and still result in

15 actual false positive rates in housing that were 

16 acceptably low.

17 It also appears to me that the requirement of 10 

18 percent positive results at 0.8 is not actually part of

19 the RRP rule itself. So it could be relaxed 

20 potentially without amending the rule itself.

21 MS. GOODLOW: Okay. Thank you, David.

22 DR. COX: Thank you.
24

1 MS. GOODLOW: Okay. Our next speaker is Bob 

2 Hanbury.

3 MR. HANBURY: Good morning. My name is Bob 

4 Hanbury, and I'm a third generation residential design 

5 build contractor serving the greater Hartford, 

6 Connecticut area. And in my housing, 70 percent of the

7 housing stock is pre-78. I'm speaking today on behalf 

8 of the National Association of Home Builders, NAHB. I 

9 am a member of the National Association of Home 

10 Builders, and have served as the NAHB Remodelers Chair,

11 and also served on numerous NAHB committees, task

12 forces, and as chair.

13 In addition to my work as a practitioner in the 

14 field, I have previously served on the SBREFA Panel 

15 convened to examine the RRP regulation, and was 

16 appointed to the HUD Title 10 Task Force, too, on Lead 

17 Paint Hazards. In addition to that, with HUD, OSHA, 

18 and EPA regarding lead rules and regulations over the 

19 years, and met with OMB recently to request review of 

20 the RRP regulations specifically addressing the issues 

21 of test kits, and course materials, and design.

22 NAHB is a licensed and D.C.-based trade 
25

1 association representing over 140,000 builder and 

2 member, associate member firms that are organized in 

3 approximately 800 affiliated state and local 

4 associations in all 50 states, District of Columbia, 

5 and Puerto Rico. And the organizational membership 

6 includes those who design, construct, and supply single

7 family homes, build and manage multifamily-like 

8 commercial and industrial structures, develop land, and

9 remodel existing homes. Over 80 percent of NAHB's 

10 members are classified as small businesses as defined 

11 by the U.S. Small Business Administration, and 55,000 

12 of NAHB members indicate they're involved in 

13 remodeling. Collectively, NAHB's members employ over 

14 3.4 million people nationwide and will construct about 

15 80 percent of the new housing units projected for 2015.

16 NAHB appreciates the opportunity to provide 

17 testimony at today's stakeholder meeting and plans to 

18 submit additional written comments for the docket prior

19 to the July 6th deadline.

20 As EPA outlined in the Federal Register notice 

21 announcing this meeting, the intent of the 

22 commercially-available, reliable, affordable lead test 
26

1 kit was that -- when used by a trained professional 

2 renovator, the test kit could be used to determine 

3 whether lead was present at federally-regulated 

4 amounts. There's no requirement to employ lead-safe 

5 practices under RRP rule if lead-based paint is not 

6 present.

7 To ensure the accuracy of the results from these 

8 test kits, the RRP regulation established both negative

9 response and positive response criteria. While there 

10 are affordable commercially-available test kits 

11 available on the market, they are by no means accurate,

12 and EPA has repeatedly acknowledged the fact on their 

13 website that to date no test has met all performance 

14 criteria outlined in the RRP rule.

15 The current recognition of test kits meeting only 

16 the negative response criteria was only supposed to 

17 last until EPA publicized its recognition of the first 

18 test kit to meet both the negative response and the 

19 positive response criteria outlined in the rule, or 

20 until September 1st, 2010, whichever came first. To 

21 date, no commercially-available lead-based paint test 

22 kit has met the positive criteria, and as of 2013 EPA 
27

1 has stopped any research into the development of a test

2 kit to meet the positive response criteria.

3 This fact is something that has concerned NAHB for

4 many years as the economic analysis of the RRP rule 

5 conducted in 2008 for the final rule and for the 2010 

6 amendments were predicated on the fact that a reliable,

7 affordable test -- field test kit would be available on

8 the market in year two of the program. EPA was so 

9 confident that this would be the case that in the 

10 preamble to the final rule in 2008, the Agency 

11 committed that, "If the improved test kits are not 

12 commercially available by September 2010, EPA will 

13 initiate a rulemaking to extend the effect of the date 

14 of the final rule for one year with respect to owner15 occupied target housing built after 1960."

16 Quite obviously that time has come and gone, and 

17 EPA has failed to hold its commitment. However, five 

18 years the opportunity exists through these stakeholder 

19 meetings such as this to examine what the real world 

20 implications of this failure have been and to look back

21 and look toward practical fixes to reform the program 

22 moving forward. NAHB acknowledges that two additional 
28

1 testing methods currently exist and existed at the time

2 of the rule when it was first adopted, mainly hand-held

3 XRF and also submitting the paint chip sample for 

4 subsequent chemical analysis by an EPA-accredited

5 laboratory.

6 However, NAHB continues to believe that neither of

7 these two existing lead-based paint testing methods 

8 serves as a substitute for the reliable, affordable 

9 lead-based paint test kit that was -- that the rule was

10 predicated. EPA evaluated and dismissed both of these 

11 other options for lead-based paint testing as both 

12 infeasible and too expensive during development of the 

13 original RRP rule for compliance with the rule. Both 

14 have subsequently been approved for use in the absence 

15 of a reliable test kit.

16 As a practitioner in the field, I want to take 

17 highlight for you just a few of the issues renovators 

18 in our industry face when contemplating the use of --

19 MS. LEONARD: I think we're at the point --

20 MR. HANBURY: We're done?

21 MS. LEONARD: Yes.

22 MR. HANBURY: See, I didn’t give a shortened 
29

1 analysis. Okay. That was at two and a half, or that 

2 was the five already?

3 MS. LEONARD: That was the five.

4 MR. HANBURY: I should've practiced more.

5 (Laughter.)

6 MS. LEONARD: Did you need to take a couple --

7 MR. HANBURY: I've got a page. It's probably two 

8 minutes.

9 MALE SPEAKER: It would be nice to hear the rest 

10 of it.

11 MS. LEONARD: Maybe if we could just --

12 MR. HANBURY: Okay, I can do it fast.

13 MS. WADLINGTON: Thank you.

14 MR. HANBURY: Thank you. Paint chip analysis is 

15 not a field test. Once collected, the samples must be 

16 sent off to a certified laboratory for analysis, 

17 costing the renovator time and money resulting in 

18 project delays that impact both them and the homeowner 

19 they are working with. While the XRF analysis is done 

20 in the field, there are additional costs and 

21 regulations governing who can do the assessment, which 

22 result in the need to bring in additional outside 
30

1 professionals to perform the testing, again costing the

2 renovator time and money. In fact, some states, such 

3 as Illinois, it is illegal for the RRP certified 

4 renovator to be the one testing for the presence of 

5 lead using either of those two methods.

6 The resulting quagmire that a practitioner faces 

7 without a reliable, affordable field test kit or a cost

8 competitive alternative, the most reasonable choice 

9 available has been to act under the presumptive 

10 presence of lead. In other words, for any home or 

11 child-occupied facility built before 1978, the 

12 renovator chooses to apply the requirements of the rule

13 despite the possibility that no lead-based paint is 

14 present.

15 As a result, the certified renovators are over 

16 applying the rule, increasing the number of RRP events 

17 beyond any reasonable lessons for the program, creating

18 an unnecessary financial burden on their businesses and

19 their clients. According to EPA, 24 percent of the 

20 homes built between 1960 and '77 contain lead-based 

21 paint. As a result, when renovators act under the 

22 presumptive presence of lead in dealing with this 
31

1 segment of housing stock, 76 percent of the time 

2 they're being applied in a home never intended to be 

3 covered by the rule.

4 Applying this rule in such a manner doesn't serve 

5 to provide the desired health benefits, or mitigate a 

6 hazard to a pregnant woman or child. It goes well 

7 beyond the scope and intent of the statute or the 

8 regulation. In fact, the opt-out was originally 

9 included by the EPA in the 2008 rule to help address 

10 the concern of over application of the rule.

11 Given the practical reality of the program's 

12 implementation, increasing likelihood that a test kit 

13 that meets the regulatory criterion will not be brought

14 to the market, NAHB recommends that EPA review the 

15 regulation for opportunities to reduce the burden on 

16 the regulated community. NAHB urges the EPA to 

17 consider the adoption of measures that limit the scope 

18 of coverage and ensure that the estimated number of RRP

19 events is more reflective of the goals than defense of 

20 the problem.

21 For example, EPA can limit the scope of housing 

22 stock covered by the regulations to homes built before 
32

1 1960, which a greater likelihood of containing lead2 based paint. Furthermore, EPA could revisit the issue 

3 of opt-out or other regulatory alternatives to ensure 

4 that the rule is effectively targeting the at-risk 

5 population present in target housing or child-occupied 

6 facilities.

7 Furthermore, NAHB has repeatedly urged EPA to 

8 revisit the Agency's original economic analysis for the

9 RRP rule given the absence of that commercially10 available, reliable, and affordable lead-based test kit

11 that was part of its regulatory criterion for the rule.

12 Ultimately, the lack of a reliable test kit which 

13 meets both positive and negative criterion as outlined 

14 in the 2008 regulation calls into question EPA's 

15 original economic analysis, upon which the requirements

16 for the rule were based.

17 NAHB strongly believes that the EPA should revisit

18 and revise the original economic analysis to reflect 

19 the actual experience implementing the program. EPA's 

20 original RRP rule's economic analysis estimated that 

21 once reliable lead-based paint test kits were available

22 by that second year of the rule's implementation, the 
33

1 number of worksites covered would be cut in half. 

2 Given the significant impact, the lack of a 

3 commercially-available, reliable, and afford lead-based

4 test kit has had on the application of the RRP rule, 

5 NAHB urges the EPA to initiate a review as 

6 expeditiously as possible, and an economic analysis of 

7 the resident RRP regulation should be conducted and 

8 should be done separate from the actions the EPA is 

9 undertaking in other rulemaking proceedings.

10 Thank you for your time and the extra time. NAHB 

11 staff and its members stand ready to work with EPA 

12 during the entirety of this stakeholder outreach 

13 process as with any regulation. Perhaps a prospective 

14 review of the program following implementation is key 

15 to identifying opportunities to improve the program, 

16 reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, and eliminate 

17 unintended consequences. And now I can take a breath.

18 MS. LEONARD: Okay. Thank you so much. Thank 

19 you. Okay. Let's move on to Kevin McKenney. And 

20 let's see if we can try to keep our time perspective.

21 MR. MCKENNEY: Good morning. My name is Kevin 

22 McKenney. I'm here representing the Window and Door 
34

1 Manufacturers Association, or WDMA. In the interest of

2 time, we will just say that we agree with much of what 

3 NAHB has just stated, so most of our remarks echo that.

4 So just I'll add a couple of points and sit back down 

5 in the interest of time.

6 WDMA is a national trade association representing 

7 the leading producers of commercial and residential 

8 doors, windows, and skylights for domestic and export 

9 markets. Our members sell to distributors, dealers, 

10 builders, remodelers, homeowners, architects, 

11 contractors, and other specifiers in the residential, 

12 commercial, and institutional construction markets.

13 WDMA is concerned with EPA's comments regarding

14 their commitment to the development of a fully 

15 compliant test kit. Specifically, Acting Assistant 

16 Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution 

17 Prevention James Jones stated in a July of 2013 letter 

18 that the EPA has no plans to sponsor additional testing

19 of kits as was done previously through the Agency's ETV

20 Program. We believe that EPA has recognized the 

21 inability to comply with the standard, but has been 

22 unwilling to alter the rule to facilitate compliance in
35

1 the past.

2 We have also indicated that the added cost of 

3 complying with the rule on a window replacement job is 

4 approximately a minimum $60 per window opening, but can

5 also be greater depending on the specific of each job. 

6 At $60 per window, that means for an average eight7 window replacement job, the additional cost to comply 

8 with the rule is in the neighborhood of $500, which is 

9 far costlier than EPA's estimate of $35 per job.

10 While those greatly underestimated costs on which 

11 the original rule was based remains a concern, it is 

12 even more concerning when those are incurred to address

13 a hazard that does not exist. And so, to clarify, WDMA

14 fully supports the RRP rule and protecting pregnant 

15 women and children from the dangers of lead exposure.

16 And so, that concludes our remarks. And so, once

17 again we mirror the comments of NAHB, and thank you for

18 the opportunity to provide our comments today.

19 MS. LEONARD: Okay. Thank you. Next we have Leah

20 Pilconis.

21 MS. PILCONIS: Oh, that's me. I'm going to wait 

22 and submit written comments.
36

1 MS. LEONARD: Okay. And on the phone we have 

2 Tamara Rubin. Tamara Rubin?

3 MS. WADLINGTON: Tamara, are you there?

4 MS. RUBIN: Yes. Can you hear me?

5 MS. WADLINGTON: Yes, you have a background noise.

6 If you could turn that down, that would be great.

7 MS. RUBIN: I don't have any background noise. It

8 might be from other people on the phone like with their

9 music.

10 MS. LEONARD: Okay. Hang on a second.

11 MS. WADLINGTON: Give me one second to see if I 

12 can identify the person.

13 MS. LEONARD: It sounds like they put themselves 

14 on hold.

15 MS. WADLINGTON: Unfortunately I can only mute the

16 entire group and not individuals.

17 MS. RUBIN: Okay.

18 MS. WADLINGTON: So if you could speak up, Tamara,

19 and I'll try to get that person identified through the 

20 chat. Sorry about the background noise.

21 MS. RUBIN: Yes, I guess someone has got music on 

22 their hold, so if they could turn it off.
37

1 MS. WADLINGTON: Yes.

2 MS. RUBIN: Wow. Okay.

3 (Laughter.)

4 MS. RUBIN: Can you hear me?

5 MS. LEONARD: Yes, we can hear you fine.

6 MS. RUBIN: Okay. I just would -- in listening to

7 those other presentations, I'm a little bit -- oh, I'm 

8 beside myself. I'll start by introducing myself for 

9 those who don't me. My name is Tamara Rubin, and my 

10 children have permanent brain damage from lead 

11 poisoning. My children were poisoned by our home 

12 remodel in 2005. Had I known about test kits that I 

13 could've used as a consumer or that my contractor 

14 could've used that would have made me aware of the 

15 extent of the lead issues in my home, I would've done 

16 things differently.

17 And there are so many points to make here. One is

18 I just wanted to respond to a couple of things that 

19 were said back with the previous speakers. There's 

20 talk about, you know, the cost on the RRP community of 

21 the cost of unnecessary testing -- I mean, unnecessary 

22 RRP intervention. Those RRP interventions are being 
38

1 done on pre-1970 homes and most likely are homes with 

2 lead paint hazards. But the problem is not the test 

3 kits. The problem is not false positives. The problem

4 is the HUD standard needs to be revised. The HUD 

5 standard is not strong enough to protect children from 

6 lead in their homes. A one milligram per centimeter 

7 squared reading on an XRF can often translate to 5,000 

8 parts per million or more. And we all know that, for 

9 example, a toy is 100 parts per million, 90 parts per 

10 million is considered unsafe for a child.

11 What happens is HUD inspectors go into homes, and 

12 actually I'm going to tell you -- I'll just tell you 

13 about a story that happened this past week with a mom 

14 in Upstate New York. She just found out her baby was 

15 poisoned four days ago -- four or five days ago. And 

16 her baby had a blood level 14, and then she went in for

17 a retest and it was an 18. And she used the lead check

18 test swab to test her house. She found lead all over 

19 the place. She used them properly. And then a county 

20 employed HUD-certified inspector came in with an XRF 

21 and said, oh, no, you're safe. This house is safe. 

22 You don't need to do anything on the interior. Those 
39

1 walls, they're negative. They were, you know, .3, .4, 

2 .5, way over 600 parts per million, and 600 parts per 

3 million is not safe for a child.

4 While I see this all over the country -- I'm the 

5 executive director of the LeadSafe America Foundation, 

6 which I founded in 2011 as a non-profit for lead 

7 poisoning prevention. I have a support group with over

8 300 parents of lead poisoned children on Facebook, and 

9 this story is repeated over and over again where an XRF

10 building inspector tells them that their house is 

11 negative when they got a positive with a lead check 

12 kit.

13 And I point out to them, the parents, that the XRF

14 instrument -- some of the XRFs -- I have a nice one 

15 that I'm trained and certified in using that million 

16 parts per million, and it's very accurate. But most of

17 the XRFs done by housing inspectors only give a low 

18 reading of less than one milligram per centimeter 

19 squared. And that less than one milligram per 

20 centimeter squared leaves children poisoned, continue 

21 to poison children and continues to put children at 

22 risk.
40

1 And the other problem with this is when a -- it's 

2 based on funding, you know. So basically HUD's funding

3 says, well, we don't want to interventions unless a 

4 house has over one milligram per centimeter squared. 

5 Then we have private party families who aren't using 

6 HUD funds who are finding out that their home is like 

7 .9, .8 milligram per centimeter squared, which is 

8 equally dangerous. But those inspectors are still 

9 telling them that their home is negative when they 

10 tested with a swab kit and found it positive.

11 So I think fundamentally what we need to do is we 

12 need to lower the HUD standard so that the standard 

13 like in Wisconsin for determining whether or not a 

14 child is at risk is 600 parts per million and not less 

15 than one milligram per centimeter squared. The false 

16 positive that everyone keeps talking about are not 

17 false positives. They are the presence of lead.

18 This is me, my emotional side. But to those men 

19 who were speaking earlier, if you brought your baby 

20 into a room and that paint tested, you know, .5, would 

21 you want that room being sanded while you were there? 

22 If that room was sanded and you didn’t do proper 
41

1 cleanup afterwards so it was technically a negative for

2 HUD? I don't think so. I think that to comment that 

3 the tests are sensitive is the most ridiculous comment 

4 I've ever heard. Why would you want to reduce the 

5 efficacy of one of the most, most effective pieces 

6 that's available, test kits we have for parents, 

7 contractors, homeowners, landlords?

8 You know, "too sensitive" is not something that 

9 can be possible when we're talking about the amount of 

10 lead that it takes to poison a child and the cost. 

11 Again, Dr. Leonard Kasondes' environmental impact 

12 report shows that the cost of all environmental 

13 toxicity in the United States is $76.6 billion 

14 annually. And of that, $6.9 billion was lead, and 

15 that's a cost on the brain damage and disabilities of 

16 our children.

17 MS. LEONARD: Tamara, thank you. Tamara, you know

18 what? We are past our time. Is there -- can you wrap 

19 it up a little bit and just -- so that we can give the 

20 other folks a chance to talk?

21 MS. RUBIN: Yes. Sure. I just want to say that 

22 I've given away or used over 16,000 lead check test 
42

1 kits in the past year, and, you know, we just need to 

2 recontextualize and make sure the HUD standards 

3 actually protect children. And then we won't have to 

4 worry about whether or not test kits are giving false 

5 positives.

6 MS. LEONARD: Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

7 MS. WADLINGTON: To the folks on the line, I'm 

8 going to put you guys back on mute, so when you're 

9 called on again I'll unmute again. Thank you.

10 MS. LEONARD: Okay. The next speaker up is in the

11 room Tom Nettner from the Environmental Defense Fund. 

12 If you would care to step up to the seat there.

13 MR. NETTNER: Well, good morning. Again, my name 

14 is Tom Nettner with the Environmental Defense Fund. 

15 I've had numerous hats on on over the years. I've been

16 involved in lead-based paint for about 18 years now, 

17 including when I was an assistant commissioner with the

18 State of Indiana. Environmental Defense Fund was 

19 active in the original law that brings us today and was

20 involved in weighing in on that.

21 Tamara hit on a good point, and that is Congress 

22 set the definition of "lead-based paint." They set it 
43

1 because, as David pointed out, it's where there was a 

2 gap in what we knew about lead-based paint. There 

3 wasn't any science. There wasn't any health analysis 

4 on it. It was a number that was put there as a marker 

5 to get the process going. And, in fact, the statute 

6 gives HUD the ability to change that number to protect 

7 health for residential housing and EPA to do it in non8 residential housing.

9 So clearly Congress anticipated that this could 

10 change, and we've learned over the years that lead is 

11 more dangerous than we thought, that it causes problems

12 at lower levels. So the fact that the test kits are 

13 measuring lead at lower levels than this arbitrary 

14 point that Congress set isn't the biggest cause for 

15 concern. The question is do those paint disturbances 

16 on lead that's maybe lower than that create lead 

17 hazards. And EPA has the authority to look at that, 

18 and frankly if it is opening up this rule, should ask 

19 whether there should be a lower definition for lead20 based paint and use that authority in coordination with

21 HUD looking at it in residential. While I was 

22 mentioning HUD, it would be good to see if HUD could 
44

1 revise its rules to sort of synchronize a little bit 

2 more with the RRP because there's a disconnect there.

3 So I think we've got to be realizing that the 

4 whole rule is built around the importance of this 

5 number that doesn't have specific health significance 

6 to it. The other one is I think we've been very 

7 focused on test kits that don't reflect the best 

8 technology that's out there, and that's an XRF. The 

9 XRF can be used as a spot test kit. The problem is 

10 we've burdened it down by saying you have to be an 

11 accredited inspector to do it, which is a barrier to 

12 many renovation companies.

13 Now, I am not suggesting that a small renovation 

14 firm who does a few big ones a year is going to do it, 

15 but when you talk about the windows, the doors, some of

16 those production items, to be able to take an XRF and 

17 to be able to use it to say yes or no, it would have 

18 the reliability we're talking about. But this takes 

19 EPA asking the question why do we need all that 

20 certification for those people doing it? Why do we 

21 need to put all those barriers of access to a piece of 

22 equipment?
45

1 And I can tell you having been around for a while 

2 that XRFs in the early days, we had a lot of questions 

3 about it. There was not the technology on it. Now 

4 they've become much more refined. They can be much 

5 more useful, and frankly I think a renovator could use 

6 them and get good results. I don't think EPA needs to 

7 be burden itself with the idea of it being inexpensive.

8 That is a company's decision. The question EPA should

9 be asking is are there ways to make this technology 

10 accurate and usable to measure the lead hazard, to 

11 measure the risks of lead-based paint if we're sticking

12 with the current definition.

13 The last point I want to make is that the science 

14 is pretty clear. Window replacement helps. So if we 

15 do have windows, finding ways to encourage window 

16 replacement is good for preventing lead poisoning. The

17 trick is we have to make sure it's done well, and there

18 are plenty of cases where it's not done right. So when

19 we talk about this, it really all does come down to 

20 making sure that the rule is enforced, that people 

21 comply with it, and that we've made it easy enough that

22 the renovators can follow it. And I think an XRF is a 
46

1 viable tool for that, but it would take a rewriting of 

2 the rule.

3 Thank you.

4 MS. LEONARD: Thank you very much, and you had 

5 time to spare. Okay. Lee Wasserman?

6 MR. WASSERMAN: Yes, right here. So I wasn't 

7 necessarily going to speak, but I think it's 

8 appropriate that I do. So I'm thinking back to when 

9 the original proposed was put out, and I specifically 

10 remember my comments, making a comment to EPA asking 

11 the question how can you propose a rule based on a 

12 technology that does not exist. So I'm asking myself 

13 today, are we going to change motor vehicle laws based 

14 on Jetson cars that don't exist.

15 Well, here it is many years later now, and we're 

16 stuck with what we've got, and we're revisiting the 

17 issue. I think at a minimum EPA has no choice but to 

18 give Quantech or anyone else who claims or believes 

19 they can have a bidirectional test kit that meets the 

20 criteria, they have to have that opportunity. If they 

21 don't have that opportunity, I agree based on the four 

22 tests of the Consumer Product Safety Commission that 
47

1 all said the kits were not as accurate as they were 

2 proposed to be or meeting the criteria that they needed

3 to, that other technologies exist. They worked well in

4 the past, such as paint chip sampling with laboratory 

5 analysis, XRF as Tom certainly mentioned. The cost of 

6 XRF is not certainly as, I think, as expensive as maybe

7 the builders were perceiving it, and I think there's a 

8 common sense approach here.

9 If you have one component -- I'm taking a single 

10 door off or a window out -- use a chemical test kit, 

11 maybe relax the standards after we give Quantech the 

12 opportunity if you can't find it. If you're doing a 

13 substantial program, the average lead inspection about 

14 300, 350 bucks. The average major renovation is 

15 probably $50, $60, $70, $100,000. So I don't really 

16 feel that a $350 lead XRF inspection is that monumental

17 when we've all heard there's always the typical cost of

18 construction 20 percent override. That's pretty 

19 accepted amongst the community when you have 

20 renovations, bathrooms and kitchens, done.

21 So looking at that, I also am asking myself you're

22 talking about lead test kits. There's really two 
48

1 types, and I think we need to decipher between them. 

2 There are chemical test kits, the sodium rhodizonates, 

3 the sodium sulfides that Gary and David were talking 

4 about. And then there is a laboratory test kit. There

5 are a lot of labs that actually send out in the mail. 

6 You can buy a lead paint test kit that can analyze via 

7 the NLLAP ELPAT accreditation. Maybe it's a little bit

8 more expensive than an individual packaged test kit, 

9 but they're not very expensive either. Labs now have 

10 gotten it down pretty inexpensively.

11 Obviously there's issues, though, and I 

12 appreciate, with destructive sampling, what have you. 

13 I do concern myself with whether or not the general 

14 presumption out there is that we're all assuming it's 

15 lead paint and we're all treating it accordingly. So 

16 when I look at the questions in the paper here, "Do you

17 use lead test kits," I think this is going to be a 

18 challenge for this group to answer because my suspicion

19 is other than myself and maybe one or maybe two other 

20 people in this room, not too many of us use lead test 

21 kits. And if you don't use lead test kits, why. And 

22 then question is, if not, what could you use instead of
49

1 the lead test kits.

2 XRF, laboratory analysis. I was a big fan of 

3 atomic stripping voltammetry, ASV technology, in the 

4 days of paint scan and the palate test systems. They 

5 worked very well. Unfortunately, the hurdle at the 

6 time was getting them to be an NLLAP accredited lab in 

7 the field where you need a mobile statistician and also

8 other challenges. The technology is good. I think it 

9 could work in reality.

10 With that being said, I think this is a very 

11 serious issue for EPA. I don't think we should just 

12 consider the economic cost and, as Tamara and others 

13 are saying, put the children at risk. So with that 

14 being said, I thank you for your time.

15 MS. LEONARD: Great. Thank you. Thank you very 

16 much.

17 MS. WADLINGTON: I'm sorry. You didn't say who 

18 you were with.

19 MR. WASSERMAN: I'm Lee Wasserman, the LEW 

20 Corporation.

21 MS. LEONARD: LEW Corporation.

22 MR. WASSERMAN: I am here on behalf of myself to 
50

1 see what's going on.

2 MS. LEONARD: Gotcha. Okay. The next person is 

3 Barry Gann.

4 MR. GANN: Ben, that's fine.

5 MS. LEONARD: Ben?

6 MR. GANN: NLB -- National Lumber Building 

7 Material Dealers Association. Sorry. I should write 

8 that down.

9 Okay. My name is Ben Gann. I'm representing the 

10 National Lumber and Building Material Dealers 

11 Association. We represent over 6,000 lumber yard 

12 across the country, many of which do some type of 

13 installed sales, meaning they don't just sell the 

14 building products. They also go to the home and help 

15 install them either by employing a certified contractor

16 or working through a third party who has a RRP 

17 certified contractor to perform the work.

18 Let me first, you know, in addition to that say 

19 our first concern is safety just like everybody else's 

20 is here. The issue of lead paint and lead exposure to 

21 children and pregnant women is well documented. It's 

22 well documented that there is essentially no safe level
51

1 of lead exposure for children. And so, we take our 

2 part in that process very seriously.

3 However, coming up with this rule, we worked with 

4 the National Association of Home Builders, with the 

5 Window and Door Manufacturers Association in expressing

6 our concerns that the rule is able to protect our 

7 population while at the same time making it cost 

8 effective for homeowners and for the regulating. 

9 However, right, as has been stated I think repeatedly 

10 throughout this meeting so far, none of the test kits 

11 currently available by 3M, by D-Lead meet that false 

12 positive standard and by a wide margin, in particular 

13 in cases where we're testing on homes built between 

14 1960 and 1977.

15 So I think what we need to do, at least need to be

16 thinking about, and I don't envy the Agency here. I 

17 think you guys have a very difficult task of having to 

18 balance the very serious issue -- public health issue 

19 of lead paint lead exposure, and then versus, okay, but

20 we've got to make sure this is cost effective.

21 Now, what can we do? I think the easiest thing to

22 do would be to reexamine the cost of the rule, right? 
52

1 There were assumptions made about the rule based on 

2 certain criteria, some of which are still, some of 

3 which are not, right? And we have five years of 

4 retrospective data we can look at, right? That's a 

5 simple thing we do, ask firms to supply the 

6 information. How much did it cost you? It would be 

7 nice to know that information.

8 In addition to that, if based on the data we 

9 collect, what alternatives might we look at, right? I 

10 mean, people have mentioned, look, there are other ways

11 to test for lead paint. There's questions, I think, 

12 about some are more cost-effective than others. I 

13 think time is also an issue when you talk about EPA lab

14 testing.

15 So, you know, if you look at the Agency's track 

16 record, they do -- they are willing to reconsider 

17 things. You look at the clearance testing provision. 

18 You look at what they're doing -- what you guys are 

19 doing now on contract and recertification. There is a 

20 track record of in some instances where there appears 

21 to be enough evidence to support it to go back and 

22 reexamine some.
53

1 So I think let's go back and look at it again. Is

2 there -- I think, you know, my opinion may be, 

3 especially for the housing stock between 1960 and 1978,

4 where we look at is there something we can do in terms 

5 of making sure that part of the target housing, right, 

6 76 percent of which does not have lead paint, and what 

7 the compliance would be for that part of the housing.

8 So just in conclusion, NLBMDA looks forward to 

9 continuing to work with the Agency in coming up with 

10 the rule and making sure we're protecting pregnant 

11 women, we're protecting children under 72 months, while

12 still making it cost effective for remodelers and for 

13 homeowners. Thank you.

14 MS. LEONARD: Thank you. Now, we've got --

15 MS. WADLINGTON: So Peter Faulkner sent --

16 MS. LEONARD: Peter Faulkner, uh-huh.

17 MS. WADLINGTON: -- sent me a comment to read to 

18 the room, so I'm just going to read what he said 

19 verbatim. Peter Faulkner states, "I want to add this 

20 to the commentary. Test kits provide only qualitative.

21 The use of certain XRF lead-based paint analyzers 

22 (thermo scientific niton), which are quantitative 
54

1 devices, ensures no false negative or no false 

2 positives to any substrate, and in most cases expensive

3 per test -- per measure that any test kits, including 

4 capital depreciation.

5 The XRF device special level may adjusted to any 

6 level. It also provides the consumer with a more 

7 reliable result and subsequent costs involved in 

8 remediation. XRF is also already approved by HUD. EPA

9 may wish to review the requirements for RRP and use 

10 relaxed regulatory requirements for XRF analyzers and 

11 operators." That is Peter Faulkner.

12 MS. LEONARD: Okay. So at this point in the 

13 meeting, we have exhausted our list of folks who have 

14 signed up to speak. And what we'll do now is we'll 

15 alternate between anyone in the room and folks on the 

16 telephone. If you'd like to have your five minutes of 

17 speaking time, please come on up. We'll start with the

18 room. Please come on up to the seat, and please 

19 address the questions that we've presented to you at 

20 that point. And state your name and your association.

21 MR. WASSERMAN: My name is Lee Wasserman. I'm 

22 with LEW Corporation. My only comment is, and I 
55

1 certainly can appreciate in light of the chemical test 

2 kits not being as effective as we would've liked then 

3 that there is an economic change to the original 

4 economic analysis.

5 I think, though, if one is to consider re-looking 

6 at the economic analysis, one also needs to 

7 simultaneously look at the current level of compliance.

8 So I would certainly put that to the record and 

9 request that if we're going to look at the economic 

10 analysis and review that again, that at the same time 

11 one should also look at the current level of compliance

12 with the rule.

13 MS. LEONARD: Okay. Now, do we have anyone on the

14 phone who'd like to have an opportunity to speak at 

15 this point, Christina?

16 MS. WADLINGTON: No one has identified themselves 

17 on the chat. I believe there's a few people typing 

18 right now, but I don't have anyone in the queue.

19 MS. LEONARD: Okay. So we'll -- oh, no, we're 

20 back to that again.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MS. LEONARD: So we'll --
56

1 MS. WADLINGTON: One second.

2 MS. LEONARD: Wait just a second.

3 MS. WADLINGTON: I believe Perry Gottesfeld just 

4 requested a comment.

5 MS. LEONARD: Would you say that name again?

6 MS. WADLINGTON: Perry Gottesfeld.

7 MS. LEONARD: Spell it, please.

8 MS. WADLINGTON: G-O-T-T-E-S-F-E-L-D. Perry, I'm 

9 going to unmute the line right now, and I'll allow you 

10 to comment in one quick second.

11 MS. LEONARD: And please state your association, 

12 Perry.

13 MS. WADLINGTON: Perry, are you available?

14 MR. GOTTESFELD: Yes, hello. This is Perry 

15 Gottesfeld with Occupational Knowledge International, a

16 non-profit based in San Francisco. I would like to 

17 comment --

18 MS. GOODLOW: Perry, can you speak up a little 

19 bit, please?

20 MS. LEONARD: Yes, we're --

21 MR. GOTTESFELD: Yes. I would like to comment 

22 regarding the communication around lead test kits that 
57

1 has been forwarded by HUD and EPA to date. I think 

2 that there have been a lot of communication regarding 

3 the use of these test kits. Some of those issues have 

4 come up from previous comments today. And I would like

5 to add to that that there has been a very poor way that

6 these test kits have been communicated by EPA through 

7 its website, which has led to much confusion around the

8 purpose of these test kits and what is meant by the EPA

9 approval of these test kits in a limited capacity.

10 Part of this is that there is a contradiction that

11 has been pointed out between the way HUD and EPA look 

12 at test kits. And to add to that, of course, OSHA has 

13 a lead limit that has now lower bounds. In other 

14 words, any amount of lead is of concern under the OSHA 

15 lead standard. So you have three Federal agencies 

16 providing three very different kinds of advice in 

17 regards to the use of these test kits. And then you 

18 have no single agency responsible to communicate to the

19 public and to contractors the limitations of these 

20 methods and the proper use of these lead test kit 

21 methods.

22 So I would urge EPA to take their time in revising
58

1 their current website in terms of how these test kits 

2 are used to do a better job in explaining this to the 

3 public and to contractors, and to include information 

4 about the health implication of low-level lead exposure

5 both to workers and to children, pregnant women, et 

6 cetera, residing in homes where renovation takes place.

7 I think right now there's a huge disconnect between 

8 the health information that is available on EPA's 

9 website and the information regarding the proper use of

10 these test kits. And I think this is an opportunity 

11 for EPA to step up and to improve the communication 

12 around it. Thank you.

13 MS. LEONARD: Okay. Thank you very much. I’d 

14 like to just before we continue, for the folks on the 

15 phone, I’d just like to ask if you would kindly remove 

16 the -- if you have your phone on hold and it has music,

17 this is disruptive to us when the folks on the phone 

18 speak. So you may need to make an adjustment to put 

19 the phone on mute instead on hold. Please take in that

20 consideration so that we don't hear -- the music is 

21 lovely, but it's a little distractive.

22 (Laughter.)
59

1 MS. LEONARD: So that would be helpful. So now 

2 we'll turn back to the room here to see if we have 

3 anyone in the room who'd like to make any additional 

4 comments at this point. Please feel free to step up to

5 the chair and speak into it so that everyone can hear 

6 you.

7 (No response.)

8 MS. LEONARD: Anyone else in the room?

9 (No response.)

10 MS. LEONARD: Okay. We'll go back to the phone 

11 and see if there is anyone on the phone. The 

12 instructions were to indicate to Christina by typing 

13 in, raising your hand, to let us know if you'd like to 

14 have a chance to speak.

15 MS. WADLINGTON: We don't have anyone.

16 MS. LEONARD: We have nothing from the phone. 

17 Just to make sure in case they're not technologically 

18 savvy.

19 MS. WADLINGTON: We're done.

20 MS. LEONARD: Okay.

21 MS. GOODLOW: Thank you, Darlene, and thank you to

22 all the commenters. At this time, we've concluded the 
60

1 comment session. I have put my contact information on 

2 the screen. Again, you can contact me. It's coming. 

3 I added my contact information. That's on the screen 

4 again, and you can contact me with any additional 

5 questions. And, please, I encourage you to submit any 

6 written comments you have to the docket.

7 Thank you for your time.

8 MS. LEONARD: Okay.

9 (Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the meeting was 

10 concluded.)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22