1

1

2

LEAD TEST KIT STAKEHOLDER MEETING AND WEBINAR 3

4

5

Thursday, June 4, 2015 6

10:00 a.m. 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 18

William Jefferson Clinton East Building 19

Room 4225 20

1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 21

Washington, D.C. 20004 22

232

SPEAKERS 1

TOIYA GOODLOW , EPA 2

CHRISTINA WADLINGTON , EPA 3

TANYA MOTTLEY , EPA 4

GENE PINZER , HUD 5

DAVID COX , Ph.D., Quantech 6

DARLENE LEONARD , EPA 7

BOB HANBURY , CGR, NAHB 8

KEVIN MCKENNEY , WDMA 9

TAMARA RUBIN (via telephone) , LeadSafe America 10

LEAH PILCONIS , Associated General Contractors of 11

America 12

TOM NETTNER , EDF 13

LEE WASSERMAN , LEW Corporation 14

BEN GANN , NLBMDA 15

PERRY GOTTESFE L D , Occupation Knowledge International 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

233

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

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

the technical contact for Lead Test Kit in the National 3

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

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

start with webinar instructions from Christina 6

Wadlington. 7

MS. WADLINGTON: Good morning, everybody on the 8

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

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

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

us here in the room. 12

So if you would like to comment during the comment 13

period, please send me a not e via the chat that 14

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

queue so you guys can have time allotted for your 16

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

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

of that. 19

If you have a question during the presentation, 20

please virtually raise your hand using the raising hand 21

button. If you can't find that button, just also send 224

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sp ecifically. That way not too many people are 8

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

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

well as on the phone. 11

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

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

any questions. 14

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

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

National Program Chemicals Division. 17

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

has said, I'm the director of t he National Program 19

Chemicals Division. We have responsibility in this 20

division for implementing the Lead Program. So 21

anything involving lead

- based paint we work on. 225

I wanted to thank you all for attending the 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

directive that was in the Fiscal Year 2015 8

appropriations bill, and it directs the Agency to 9

prioritize efforts with stakeholders and identify 10

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

criteria within the 2008 Lead Renovation
, Repair and 12

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

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

the 2008 rule and solicit public comments on 15

alternatives. So this meeting today is really our 16

first step in addressing this Fiscal Year 20 15 17

appropriations language, and thank you all for your 18

participation. 19

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

giving us a brief presentation on the current status on 21

the lead test kits and the work that we've done thus 226

far to foster the developmen t of a lead test kit that 1

meets the criteria that was promulgated in our lead 2

regulations back from 2008. HUD is then going to 3

follow with a brief presentation to talk about work 4

that they have underway related to the development of a 5

lead test kit that m eets both the criteria. 6

We're requesting that you as our key stakeholders 7

share your input and help us to understand the current 8

state of the science for the lead test kits and lead

9

based paint fielding testing alternatives. We also 10

want to learn more abo ut the existing market and 11

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

hoping to hear some more information along those lines. 13

You have two options for providing information to 14

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

phone at thi s meeting today. You also have the option 16

of providing written comments to us in a docket that 17

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

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

the opportunity to provide written comments should you 20

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

I wanted to stress that we're viewing this 227

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

currently at the information gathering stage of this 2

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

we've had a n opportunity to consider and digest the 4

information that we hear here today, to review the 5

materials that are added to the docket, and consider 6

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

to collect additional information. 8

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

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

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

some background information. Thank you. 12

MS. GOO D LOW: Thank you, Tanya. Like Tanya said, 13

I'll be providing the bac kground presentation on behalf 14

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

the meeting objectives, statutory authority, lead test 16

kit background, as Tanya mentioned, the Fiscal Year 17

2015 appropriations bill language, our key questions to 18

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

The goal of this meeting today is to solicit 20

information from you our stakeholders, in particular, 21

those of you who develop, manufacture, or sell lead 228

test kits for other lead

- based paint field testing 1

inst ruments, as well as those of you who use lead test 2

kits to determine if lead safe work practices are 3

required under the RRP rule. We're specifically 4

seeking information related to the existing market for 5

the lead test kits as referenced in the 2008 Lead 6

R enovation
, Repair and Painting Rule, also known as 7

RRP , the development or modification of lead test kits 8

that may meet RRP criteria, or other alternatives for 9

lead

- based paint field testing. 10

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

Act requires E PA to regulate renovation or remodeling 12

activities in target housing create lead

- based paint 13

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

a final rule, the RRP rule, to addressed lead

- based 15

paint hazards created by these activities, and target 16

ho using and child

- occupied facilities buil t before 17

1978. Child

- occupied facilities are buildings or parts 18

of buildings where children under the age of six spend 19

a significant amount of time, and examples of those 20

buildings include daycare centers, preschoo ls, and 21

kindergarten classrooms. 229

RRP requires contractors to use lead

- safe work 1

practices during renovation and repair and painting 2

activities that disturb lead

- based paint, unless a 3

determination can be made that no lead

- based paint will 4

be disturbed duri ng the renovation or repair. And 5

certified renovators are allowed to use EPA recognized 6

lead test kits to make this determination if lead

- based 7

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

milligram per centimeter squared or .05 percent lead by 9

weight. If there is no lead

- based paint present, then 10

there is no need to employ lead

- safe work practices 11

under RRP. 12

The rule also established lead test kit 13

performance criteria for EPA recognition. Lead test 14

kits recognize prior to September 30th, 2010 are 15

required to meet the negative response criteria of no 16

more than five percent false negatives with a 95 17

percent confidence level at the regulated level. Our 18

recognition of these kits will last until EPA approves 19

and publicizes its recognition of a lea d test kit that 20

is able to meet both the negative response and positive 21

response criteria included in the RRP rule. 2210

Lead test kits recognized after September 30th are 1

required to meet both of these criteria, the negative 2

response and positive response crit eria of no more than 3

10 percent false positives with a 95 percent confidence 4

level as related to the regulated level of one 5

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

test kit has been developed that meets this criteria, 7

the positive response criteria. Other considerations 8

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

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

easy to perform option for lead

- based paint testing in 11

the field. 12

In an effort to recognize a test kit that can m eet 13

both criteria, EPA fostered the development of new lead 14

test kit technology to meet both criteria, the false 15

negative and false positive criteria. The ETV Program 16

provided initial technical R&D resources to interested 17

manufacturers, and four manufactu rers submitted lead 18

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

Program is the Environmental Technical Verification 20

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

program. Unfortunately, no lead test kit was found to 2211

meet both criteria. Howe ver, one test, the D

- L ead test 1

kit, did meet the negative criteria. 2

At this time, there are three recognized test kits 3

by EPA for the negative response criteria. They 4

include 3M Leadcheck, which is commercially available, 5

D

- Lead, which is also commerci ally available, as I 6

mentioned before, and the State of Massachusetts lead 7

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

of Massachusetts to state

- certified lead inspectors and 9

risk assessors only. I should note that the 10

Massachusetts lead test kit is not available to 11

renovators. 12

The report accompanying the 2015 appropriations 13

bill included a policy rider that directs EPA to 14

prioritize efforts with stakeholders to identify 15

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

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

test kit criteria in the 2008 rule and solicit public 18

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

Fiscal Year. 20

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

stakeholders in an effort to understand the sta te of 2212

the science for lead test kits and lead

- based paint 1

field testing alternatives, as well as the existing 2

market and potential availability of additional test 3

kits. 4

We would specifically like your comments on the 5

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

Questions related to the lead test kit market include 7

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

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

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

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

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

compares to lead

- based paint as present, and 13

automatically employing lead

- safe work practices. We 14

would also like to know if

-- how your use of lead test 15

kits compares to X

- ra y fluorescence testing for a lead

16

based paint determination, and your use of lead test 17

kits compared to sending a paint sample to a national 18

lead laboratory accreditation program lab for testing. 19

Our questions on the state of the science include s 20

if you ar e aware of any lead test kits in development 21

besides what you hear today, and if you are aware of 2213

any challenges that have been encountered when 1

developing new lead test kits. For testing lead test 2

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

aware of other field technologies that could be used in 4

lieu of lead test kits, including portable a tomic 5

stripping voltammetry or any other c olorimetric 6

methods. 7

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

addition to providing oral comments here, if you have 9

any additional information that you would like the EPA 10

to consider to please submit those written comments to 11

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

docket identification number on the slide here, and 13

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

individual meetings with lead test kit developers and 15

manufacturers to further lead test kit development 16

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

to digest this information and review everything you've 18

submitted, we will det ermine our next steps based on 19

the input of the stakeholders. 20

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

As I said, I am the technical contact for lead test 2214

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

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

move directly to a presentation from Gene Pinzer on 3

behalf of the U.S. Housing

-- sorry

-- U.S. Department 4

of Housing and Urban Development. 5

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

the HUD Office of Healthy Home s

-- Office of Lead 7

Ha zard Control and Healthy Homes. Let me put this in 8

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

HUD have different statutory responsibilities. HUD has 10

a closer financial connection to assisted target 11

housing, and, therefore, Congress directed HU D to 12

establish more stringent lead requirements than it did 13

for EPA. 14

HUD likes the RRP rule because it helps us get 15

qualified contractors, supervisors, and workers for the 16

lead hazard control grants that are issued from my 17

office, and for target housing co vered by HUD's lead

18

safe housing rule because of housing assistance that 19

comes from other HUD offices. HUD does have 20

difficulties with the spot test kit requirements, but 21

they are not conceptual. They are empirical. If spot 2215

test kits were to perform wel l, HUD would be happy to 1

approve their use in assisted target housing. 2

If spot test kits were shown to have a significant 3

rate of false negative results, we would be concerned 4

because a lead health hazard would not be detected as 5

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

because existing EPA

- recognized spot test kits produce 7

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

produced a significant rate of false positive results, 9

following those results would entail costs for work to 10

be done by RRP certified firms and supervisors using 11

lead

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

that way. 13

HUD would not be honoring its fiduciary 14

responsibilities to taxpayers regarding the housing 15

assistance that we provide on their behalf. HUD thin k s 16

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

happy with better spot test kits that meet the RRP 18

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

guidelines for lead to make the applicable changes. 20

HUD funded lead technical studies grants to 21

Quantech, who will present later. Thank you. 2216

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

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

for commenters from our stakeholders. But before that 3

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

A gain, today's meeting will serve as a listening 5

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

share your thoughts related to the lead test kit 7

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

And also please consider that many of our partic ipants 9

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

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

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

best audio quality possible. 13

And each commenter will have five minutes to speak 14

to allow the maximum number of commenters to 15

participate in the meeting. Christina, do you have 16

something? 17

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

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

false positives do not meet the EPA criteria. Does 20

any one in the room know how far off are the results 21

from that criteria currently?" 2217

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

MS. GOODLOW: And please introduce yourself as 2

well. 3

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

question is how far off are th e false positive rates 5

for the currently

- recognized kits. Is that

-- 6

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

results from the criteria. 8

DR. COX: Well, there are two commercially

9

available EPA

- recognized kits that meet the false 10

negative criteria. O ne of them had estimates false 11

positive rates of over 99 percent in an evaluation 12

conducted for EPA, and the other had false positive 13

rates between 66 and 97 percent depending on the 14

operator using the kit, the substra te , and the color of 15

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

estimates are very off. 17

MS. WADLINGTON: Denise, does that answer your 18

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

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

DR. COX: Okay. 21

MS. GOODLOW: Also EPA would like to add that the 2218

false positive rate for the test kits that meet the 1

negative response criteria are indeed lower than 99 2

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

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

percent for the second lead test kit th at's currently 5

recognized. 6

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

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

The second speaker was Toiya Goodlow from EPA. 9

MS. GOODLOW: Are there any additional questions 10

at this time? 11

MS. WADLING TON: Toiya, could you clarify what 12

that second percentage was that you just gave? 13

MS. GOO D LOW: Twenty

- two percent false positive 14

rate. 15

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

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

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

here because you'll be our first commenter. 19

DR. COX: Okay. 20

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

have five minutes to speak to allow for the maximum 2219

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

Leonard, our moderator

-- right here

-- will indicate 2

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

and then again when you have one minute remaining for 4

your comments. 5

Commenters will be called upon from our sign

- up 6

sheet. Those of you attending in per son, please come 7

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

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

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

all

-- the individuals except the one who was called 11

upon to speak to please m ute your lines individually so 12

we can minimize all background noise and audio 13

feedback. 14

And lastly, if you have questions about the 15

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

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

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

for the ground rules. 19

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

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

comment on some research that we're doing under HUD 2220

sponsorship to reduce the false positive rate s of 1

existing test kits so that they can potentially meet 2

the positive response criterion that EPA has 3

established. 4

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

clear that the positive response criterion is far 6

harder to meet than the negative response criterion, at 7

least for the current technology of test kits, which 8

are based either sodium sul fid e technology or sodium 9

rhodizonate chemistry. And the reason is that the 10

existing kits are actually too sensitive in that they 11

can detect lead in paint at lev els way below the 12

regulatory limit, which results in a high rate of 13

positive test results when you don't actually have 14

lead

- based paint present. 15

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

method to reduce the sensitivity of the kits by 17

quantitativel y diluting the lead in a paint sample so 18

that the transition from negative to positive test 19

results occurs around the regulatory limit of one 20

milligram per centimeter squared of the paint instead 21

of at the much lower lead levels typical of existing 2221

kits. And the method involves dry dilution by grinding 1

the paint sample with commonly available materials, 2

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

And in preliminary testing on a small set of 4

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

we go t pretty promising results. We got empirical 6

false positive rates of about four percent and false 7

negative rates of z ero percent with the sodium sulf ide 8

chemistry. 9

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

rhodizonate chemistry and also to reduce variability in 11

detection of the color change that indicates a positive 12

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

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

from clear or light pink to somewhat darker pink. 15

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

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

the two currently recognized kits. 18

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

the implications of EPA's positive response criterion. 20

Now, in its evaluation testing, EP A has 21

operationalized the criterion by requiring a kit to 2222

have no more than 10 percent false positive results for 1

paint at or below 0.8 milligrams per centimeter squared 2

of lead. When this criterion was included in the 3

proposed RRP rule, no comments whate ver were received 4

on it. However, because of the statistical methods 5

that are typically used to analyze test data, the 6

criterion imposes extremely stringent requirements on 7

any test kit. 8

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

slightly lower lead le vel of about .6 milligrams per 10

centimeter squared, the kit can have a positive result 11

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

questionable whether any simple, inexpensive field 13

tests could achieve this kind of performance. 14

However, I believe tha t EPA could significantly 15

relax the positive response criterion while still 16

meeting the fundamental objective of the criterion, 17

which is to prevent false positive results that require 18

the use of less safe work practices when lead

- based 19

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

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

that are in the range from .5 to one milligram per 2223

centimeter squared, so that a kit that avoids positive 1

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

.5, will ra rely give false positives in actual housing. 3

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

we used data from the American Healthy Homes Survey, 5

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

to determine lead levels in paint in homes nationwide. 7

And in homes potentially subject to the bar up here

-- 8

those are ones built before 1978

-- we found that a kit 9

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

would give positive test results for a kitchen 11

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

seems like I believe that the positive response 13

criterion could be relaxed somewhat and still result in 14

actual false positive rates in housing that were 15

acceptably low. 16

It also appears to me that the requirement of 10 17

percent positive result s at 0.8 is not actually part of 18

the RRP rule itself. So it could be relaxed 19

potentially without amending the rule itself. 20

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

DR. COX: Thank you. 2224

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

Hanbury. 2

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

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

build contractor serving the greater Hartford, 5

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

housing stock is pre

- 78. I'm speaking today on behalf 7

of the National A ssociation of Home Builders, NAHB. I 8

am a member of the National Association of Home 9

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

and also served on numerous NAHB committees, task 11

forces , and as chair. 12

In addition to my work as a practitioner i n the 13

field, I have previously served on the SBREFA Panel 14

convened to examine the RRP regulation, and was 15

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

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

and EPA regarding lead rules and regulatio ns over the 18

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

the RRP regulations specifically addressing the issues 20

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

NAHB is a licensed and D.C.

- based trade 2225

association representing over 140,000 builder a nd 1

member, associate member firms that are organized in 2

approximately 800 affiliated state and local 3

associations in all 50 states, District of Columbia, 4

and Puerto Rico. And the organizational membership 5

includes those who design, construct, and supply s ingle 6

family homes, build and manage multifamily

- like 7

commercial and industrial structures, develop land, and 8

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

members are classified as small businesses as defined 10

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

of NAHB members indicate they're involved in 12

remodeling. Collectively, NAHB's members employ over 13

3.4 million people nationwide and will construct about 14

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

NAHB appreciates the opportunity to provide 16

testimony at today's stakeholder meeting and plans to 17

submit additional written comments for the docket prior 18

to the July 6th deadline. 19

As EPA outlined in the Federal Register notice 20

announcing this meeting, the intent of the 21

commercially

- availa ble
, reliable, affordable lead test 2226

kit was that

-- when used by a trained professional 1

renovator, the test kit could be used to determine 2

whether lead was present at federally

- regulated 3

amounts. There's no requirement to employ lead

- safe 4

practices under RRP rule if lead

- based paint is not 5

present. 6

To ensure the accuracy of the results from these 7

test kits, the RRP regulation established both negative 8

response and positive response criteria. While there 9

are affordable commercially

- available test kits 10

avai lable on the market, they are by no means accurate, 11

and EPA has repeatedly acknowledged the fact on their 12

website that to date no test has met all performance 13

criteria outlined in the RRP rule. 14

The current recognition of test kits meeting only 15

the negative response criteria was only supposed to 16

last until EPA publicized its recognition of the first 17

test kit to meet both the negative response and the 18

positive response criteria outlined in the rule, or 19

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

date , no commercially

- available lead

- based paint test 21

kit has met the positive criteria, and as of 2013 EPA 2227

has stopped any research into the development of a test 1

kit to meet the positive response criteria. 2

This fact is something that has concerned NAHB for 3

m any years as the economic analysis of the RRP rule 4

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

amendments were predicated on the fact that a reliable, 6

affordable test

-- field test kit would be available on 7

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

confident that this would be the case that in the 9

preamble to the final rule in 2008, the Agency 10

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

commercially available by September 2010, EPA will 12

initiate a rulemaking to extend the effect of the date 13

of the final rule for one year with respect to owner

14

occupied target housing built after 1960." 15

Quite obviously that time has come and gone, and 16

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

years the opportunity exists through these stak eholder 18

meetings such as this to examine what the real world 19

implications of this failure have been and to look back 20

and look toward practical fixes to reform the program 21

moving forward. NAHB acknowledges that two additional 2228

testing methods currently exis t and existed at the time 1

of the rule when it was first adopted, mainly hand

- held 2

XRF and also submitting the paint chip sample for 3

subsequent chemical analysis by an EPA

- ac credit ed 4

laboratory. 5

However, NAHB continues to believe that neither of 6

these two e xisting lead

- based paint testing methods 7

serves as a substitute for the reliable, affordable 8

lead

- based paint test kit that was

-- that the rule was 9

predicated. EPA evaluated and dismissed both of these 10

other options for lead

- based paint testing as both 11

i nfeasible and too expensive during development of the 12

original RRP rule for compliance with the rule. Both 13

have subsequently been approved for use in the absence 14

of a reliable test kit. 15

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

highlight for you just a few of the issues renovators 17

in our industry face when contemplating the use of

-- 18

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

-- 19

MR. HANBURY: We're done? 20

MS. LEONARD: Yes. 21

MR. HANBURY: See, I didn’t give a shortened 2229

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

was the five already? 2

MS. LEONARD: That was the five. 3

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

(Laughter.) 5

MS. LEONARD: Did you need to take a couple

-- 6

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

minutes. 8

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

of it. 10

MS. LEONARD: Maybe if we could just

-- 11

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

MS. WADLINGTON: Thank you. 13

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

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

sent off to a certified laboratory for analysis, 16

costing the renovator time and money resulting in 17

project delays that impact both them and the homeowner 18

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

in the field, there are additional costs and 20

regulations gov erning who can do the assessment, which 21

result in the need to bring in additional outside 2230

professionals to perform the testing, again costing the 1

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

as Illinois, it is illegal for the RRP certified 3

renovat or to be the one testing for the presence of 4

lead using either of those two methods. 5

The resulting quagmire that a practitioner faces 6

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

competitive alternative, the most reasonable choice 8

available has been to act under the presumptive 9

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

child

- occupied facility built before 1978, the 11

renovator chooses to apply the requirements of the rule 12

despite the possibility that no lead

- based paint is 13

present. 14

As a re sult, the certified renovators are over 15

applying the rule, increasing the number of RRP events 16

beyond any reasonable lessons for the program, creating 17

an unnecessary financial burden on their businesses and 18

their clients. According to EPA, 24 percent of t he 19

homes built between 1960 and '77 contain lead

- based 20

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

presumptive presence of lead in dealing with this 2231

segment of housing stock, 76 percent of the time 1

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

covered by the rule. 3

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

to provide the desired health benefits, or mitigate a 5

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

beyond the scope and intent of the statute or the 7

regulation. In fact, the op t

- out was originally 8

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

the concern of over application of the rule. 10

Given the practical reality of the program's 11

implementation, increasing likelihood that a test kit 12

that meets the regulatory criterion wi ll not be brought 13

to the market, NAHB recommends that EPA review the 14

regulation for opportunities to reduce the burden on 15

the regulated community. NAHB urges the EPA to 16

consider the adoption of measures that limit the scope 17

of coverage and ensure that the estimated number of RRP 18

events is more reflective of the goals than defense of 19

the problem. 20

For example, EPA can limit the scope of housing 21

stock covered by the regulations to homes built before 2232

1960, which a greater likelihood of containing lead

1

based pa int. Furthermore, EPA could revisit the issue 2

of opt

- out or other regulatory alternatives to ensure 3

that the rule is effectively targeting the at

- risk 4

population present in target housing or child

- occupied 5

facilities. 6

Furthermore, NAHB has repeatedly urge d EPA to 7

revisit the Agency's original economic analysis for the 8

RRP rule given the absence of that commercially

9

available, reliable, and affordable lead

- based test kit 10

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

Ultimately , the lack of a reli able test kit which 12

meets both positive and negative criterion as outlined 13

in the 2008 regulation calls into question EPA's 14

original economic analysis, upon which the requirements 15

for the rule were based. 16

NAHB strongly believes that the EPA should revisit 17

and revise the original economic analysis to reflect 18

the actual experience implementing the program. EPA's 19

original RRP rule's economic analysis estimated that 20

once reliable lead

- based paint test kits were available 21

by that second year of the rule's imple mentation, the 2233

number of worksites covered would be cut in half. 1

Given the significant impact, the lack of a 2

commercially

- available, reliable, and afford lead

- based 3

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

NAHB urges the EPA to initiate a revi ew as 5

expeditiously as possible, and an economic analysis of 6

the resident RRP regulation should be conducted and 7

should be done separate from the actions the EPA is 8

undertaking in other rulemaking proceedings. 9

Thank you for your time and the extra time. N AHB 10

staff and its members stand ready to work with EPA 11

during the entirety of this stakeholder outreach 12

process as with any regulation. Perhaps a prospective 13

review of the program following implementation is key 14

to identifying opportunities to improve the program, 15

reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, and eliminate 16

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

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

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

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

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

McKenney. I'm here representing the Window and Door 2234

Manufacturers Association, or WDMA. In the interest of 1

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

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

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

in the interest of time. 5

WDMA is a national trade association representing 6

the leading producers of commercial and residential 7

doors, windows, and skylights for domestic and exp ort 8

markets. Our members sell to distributors, dealers, 9

builders, remodelers, homeowners, architects, 10

contractors, and other specifiers in the residential, 11

commercial, and institutional construction markets. 12

WDMA is concerned with EPA's comments regarding 13

their commitment to the development of a fully 14

compliant test kit. Specifically, Acting Assistant 15

Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution 16

Prevention James Jones stated in a July of 2013 letter 17

that the EPA has no plans to sponsor additional testi ng 18

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

Program. We believe that EPA has recognized the 20

inability to comply with the standard, but has been 21

unwilling to alter the rule to facilitate compliance in 2235

the past. 1

We have also indicated that t he added cost of 2

complying with the rule on a window replacement job is 3

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

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

At $6 0 per window, that means for an average eight

6

window replacement jo b, the additional cost to comply 7

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

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

While those greatly underestimated costs on which 10

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

even more concer ning when those are incurred to address 12

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

fully supports the R RP rule and protecting pregnant 14

women and children from the dangers of lead exposure. 15

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

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

the opportunity to provide our comments today. 18

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

Pilconis. 20

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

and submit written comments. 2236

MS. LEONARD: Ok ay. And on the phone we have 1

Tamara Rubin. Tamara Rubin? 2

MS. WADLINGTON: Tamara, are you there? 3

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

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

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

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

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

music. 9

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

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

can identify the person. 12

MS. LEONARD: It sounds like they put thems elves 13

on hold. 14

MS. WADLINGTON: Unfortunately I can only mute the 15

entire group and not individuals. 16

MS. RUBIN: Okay. 17

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

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

chat. Sorry about the backgroun d noise. 20

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

their hold, so if they could turn it off. 2237

MS. WADLINGTON: Yes. 1

MS. RUBIN: Wow. Okay. 2

(Laughter.) 3

MS. RUBIN: Can you hear me? 4

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

MS. RUBIN: Okay. I just w ould

-- in listening to 6

those other presentations, I'm a little bit

-- oh, I'm 7

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

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

children have permanent brain damage from lead 10

poisoning. My children were poisoned by our home 11

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

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

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

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

things differently. 16

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

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

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

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

the cost of unnecessary testing

-- I mean, unnec essary 21

RRP intervention. Those RRP interventions are being 2238

done on pre

- 1970 homes and most likely are homes with 1

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

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

is the HUD standard needs to be r evised. The HUD 4

standard is not strong enough to protect children from 5

lead in their homes. A one milligram per centimeter 6

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

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

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

million is considered unsafe for a child. 10

What happens is HUD inspectors go into homes, and 11

actually I'm going to tell you

-- I'll just tell you 12

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

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

poisoned four days ago

-- four or five days ago. And 15

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

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

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

the pla ce. She used them properly. And then a county 19

employed HUD

- certified inspector came in with an XRF 20

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

You don't need to do anything on the interior. Those 2239

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

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

million is not safe for a child. 3

While I see this all over the country

-- I'm the 4

executive director of the LeadSafe America Foundation, 5

which I founded in 2011 as a non

- profit for lead 6

poisoning prevention. I have a support group with over 7

300 parents of lead poisoned children on Facebook, and 8

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

building inspector tells them that their house is 10

negative when they got a positive with a lead ch eck 11

kit. 12

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

instrument

-- some of the XRFs

-- I have a nice one 14

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

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

the XRFs done by housing inspectors only give a low 17

reading of less than one milligram per centimeter 18

squared. And that less than one milligram per 19

centimeter squared leaves children poisoned, continue 20

to poison children and continues to put children at 21

risk. 2240

And the other problem with thi s is when a

-- it's 1

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

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

house has over one milligram per centimeter squared. 4

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

HUD funds who are fin ding out that their home is like 6

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

equally dangerous. But those inspectors are still 8

telling them that their home is negative when they 9

tested with a swab kit and found it positive. 10

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

need to lower the HUD standard so that the standard 12

like in Wisconsin for determining whether or not a 13

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

than one milligram per centimeter squared. The false 15

positive that every one keeps talking about are not 16

false positives. They are the presence of lead. 17

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

who were speaking earlier, if you brought your baby 19

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

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

If that room was sanded and you didn’t do proper 2241

cleanup afterwards so it was technically a negative for 1

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

the tests are sensitive is the most ridiculous comment 3

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

efficacy of one of the most, most effective pieces 5

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

contractors, homeowners, landlords? 7

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

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

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

Again, Dr. Leonard Kasondes' environmental impact 11

report shows that the cost of all environmental 12

toxicity in the United States is $76.6 billion 13

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

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

our children. 16

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

what? We are past our time. Is there

-- can you wrap 18

it up a little bit and just

-- so that we can give the 19

other f olks a chance to talk? 20

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

I've given away or used over 16,000 lead check test 2242

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

recontextualize and make sure the HUD standards 2

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

worry about whether or not test kits are giving false 4

positives. 5

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

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

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

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

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

room Tom Nettner from the Environmental Defense Fund. 11

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

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

is Tom Nettner with the E nvironmental Defense Fund. 14

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

involved in lead

- based paint for about 18 years now, 16

including when I was an assistant commissioner with the 17

State of Indiana. Environmental Defense Fund was 18

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

involved in weighing in on that. 20

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

set the definition of "lead

- based paint." They set it 2243

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

gap in what we knew ab out lead

- based paint. There 2

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

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

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

gives HUD the ability to change that number to protect 6

health for residential housing and EPA to do it in non

7

residential housing. 8

So clearly Congress anticipated that this could 9

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

more dangerous than we thought, that it causes problems 11

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

measuring lead at lower levels than this arbitrary 13

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

concern. The question is do those paint disturbances 15

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

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

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

whether there should be a lower definition for lead

19

based paint and use that authority in coordination with 20

HUD looking at it in residential. While I was 21

mentioning HUD, it woul d be good to see if HUD could 2244

revise its rules to sort of synchronize a little bit 1

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

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

whole rule is built around the importance of this 4

number that doesn't hav e specific health significance 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

many renovation companies. 12

Now, I am not suggesting that a small renovation 13

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

but when you talk about the windows, the do ors, some of 15

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

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

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

EPA asking the question why do we need all that 19

certification for those people doin g it? Why do we 20

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

equipment? 2245

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be asking is are there ways to make this technology 9

accurate and usable to measure the lead hazard, to 10

measure the risks of lead

- based paint if we're sticking 11

with the current definition. 12

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

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

do have windows, finding ways to encourage window 15

replacement is good for preventing lead poisoning. The 16

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

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

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

making sure that the rule is enforced, that people 20

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

the renovators can follow it. And I think an XRF is a 2246

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

the rule. 2

Thank you. 3

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

time to spare. Okay. Lee Wasserman? 5

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

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

appropriate that I do. So I'm thinking back t o when 8

the original proposed was put out, and I specifically 9

remember my comments, making a comment to EPA asking 10

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

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

today, are we going to change motor v ehicle laws based 13

on Jetson cars that don't exist. 14

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

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

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

give Quantech or anyone else who claims or believe s 18

they can have a bidirectional test kit that meets the 19

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

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

tests of the Consumer Product Safety Commission that 2247

all said the kits were not as accurat e as they were 1

proposed to be or meeting the criteria that they needed 2

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

the past, such as paint chip sampling with laboratory 4

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

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

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

common sense approach here. 8

If you have one component

-- I'm taking a single 9

door off or a window out

-- use a chemical test kit, 10

maybe relax the standards after we give Quantech the 11

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

substantial program, the average lead inspection about 13

300, 350 bucks. The average major renovation is 14

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

feel that a $350 lead XRF in spection is that monumental 16

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

construction 20 percent override. That's pretty 18

accepted amongst the community when you have 19

renovations, bathrooms and kitchens, done. 20

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

talking about lead test kits. There's really two 2248

types, and I think we need to decip h er between them. 1

There are chemical test kits, the sodium rhodizonates
, 2

the sodium sulfides that Gary and David were talking 3

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

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

You can buy a lead paint test k it that can analyze via 6

the NL L AP E LPAT accreditation. Maybe it's a little bit 7

more expensive than an individual packaged test kit, 8

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

gotten it down pretty inexpensively. 10

Obviously there's issues, though, and I 11

appreciate, with destructive sampling, what have you. 12

I do concern myself with whether or not the general 13

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

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

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

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

challenge for this group to answer because my suspicion 18

is other tha n myself and maybe one or maybe two other 19

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

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

then question is, if not, what could you use instead of 2249

the lead test kits. 1

XRF, laboratory analysis. I w as a big fan of 2

a tomic stripping vo lt a mmetry, ASV technology, in the 3

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

worked very well. Unfortunately, the hurdle at the 5

time was getting them to be an NL L AP accredited lab in 6

the field where you need a mobile statistician and also 7

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

could work in reality. 9

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

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

consider the economic cost and, as Tamara a nd others 12

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

being said, I thank you for your time. 14

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

much. 16

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

you were with. 18

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

Corporation. 20

MS. LEONARD: LEW Corporation. 21

MR. WASSERMAN: I am here on behalf of myself to 2250

see what's going on. 1

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

Barry Gann. 3

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

MS. LEONARD: Ben? 5

MR. GANN: NLB

-- National L umber Building 6

Material Dealers Association. Sorry. I should write 7

that down. 8

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

National Lumber and Building Material Dealers 10

Association. We represent over 6,000 lumber yard 11

across the country, many of wh ich do some type of 12

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

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

install them either by employing a certified contractor 15

or working through a third party who has a RRP 16

certified contractor to perfo rm the work. 17

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

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

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

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

well documented that there is e ssentially no safe level 2251

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

part in that process very seriously. 2

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

the National Association of Home Builders, with the 4

Window and Door Manufacturers Associatio n in expressing 5

our concerns that the rule is able to protect our 6

population while at the same time making it cost 7

effective for homeowners and for the regulating. 8

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

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

currently available by 3M, by D

- Lead meet that false 11

positive standard and by a wide margin, in particular 12

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

1960 and 1977. 14

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

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

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

balance the very serious issue

-- public health issue 18

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

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

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

do would be to reexamine the cost of the rule, right? 2252

There were assumptions made about the rule based on 1

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

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

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

simple thing we do, ask firms to supply the 5

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

nice to know that information. 7

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

collect, what alternatives might w e look at, right? I 9

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

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

about some are more cost

- effective than others. I 12

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

testing. 14

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

record, they do

-- they are willing to reconsider 16

things. You look at the clearance testing provision. 17

You look at what they're doing

-- what you guys are 18

doing now on contract and recertification. There is a 19

track record of in some instances where there appears 20

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

reexamine some. 2253

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

there

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

especially for the housing stock between 19 60 and 1978, 3

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

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

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

the compliance would be for that part of the housing

. 7

So just in conclusion, N LBMDA looks forward to 8

continuing to work with the Agency in coming up with 9

the rule and making sure we're protecting pregnant 10

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

still making it cost effective for remodelers and for 12

homeowners. Thank you. 13

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

-- 14

MS. WADLINGTON: So Peter Faulkner sent

-- 15

MS. LEONARD: Peter Faulkner, uh

- huh. 16

MS. WADLINGTON:

-- sent me a comment to read to 17

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

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

to the commentary. Test kits provide only qualitative. 20

The use of certain XRF lead

- based paint analyzers 21

( thermo scientific niton), which are quantitative 2254

devices, ensures no false negative or no false 1

positives to any substra te , and in most cases expensive 2

per test

-- per measure that any test kits, including 3

capital depreciation. 4

The XRF device special level may adjusted to any 5

level. It also provides the consumer with a more 6

reliable result and subsequent costs involved in 7

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

may wish to review the requirements for RRP and use 9

relaxed regulatory requirements for XRF analyzers and 10

operators." That is Peter Faulkner. 11

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

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

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

alternate between anyone in the room and folks on the 15

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

speaking time, please come on up. We'll start with t he 17

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

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

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

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

with LEW Corporation. My only comment is, and I 2255

certainly can appreciate in light of the chemical test 1

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

that there is an economic change to the original 3

economic analysis. 4

I think, though, if one is to consider re

- looking 5

at the economic analysis, one also needs to 6

simultaneously look at the current level of compliance. 7

So I would certainly put that to the record and 8

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

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

one should also look at the cu rrent level of compliance 11

with the rule. 12

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

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

this point, Christina? 15

MS. WADLINGTON: No one has identified themselves 16

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

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

MS. LEONARD: Okay. So we'll

-- oh, no, we're 19

back to that again. 20

(Laughter.) 21

MS. LEONARD: So we'll

-- 2256

MS. WADLINGTON: One second. 1

MS. LEONARD: Wait just a second. 2

MS. WADLINGTON: I believe Perry Gottesfeld just 3

requested a comment. 4

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

MS. WADLINGTON: Perry Gottesfeld. 6

MS. LEONARD: Spell it, please. 7

MS. WADLINGTON: G

- O

- T

- T

- E

- S

- F

- E

- L

- D. Perry, I'm 8

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

to comment in one quick second. 10

MS. LEONARD: And please state your association, 11

Perry. 12

MS. WADLINGTON: Perry, are you available? 13

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

Gottesfeld with Occupational Knowledge International, a 15

non

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

comment

-- 17

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

bit, please? 19

MS. LEONARD: Yes, we're

-- 20

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

regarding the communication around lead test kits that 2257

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

that there have been a lot of communication regarding 2

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

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

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

these test kits have been communicated by EPA through 6

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

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

approval of these test kits in a limited capacity. 9

Part of this is that there is a contradiction that 10

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

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

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

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

lead standard. So you have three Fe deral agencies 15

providing three very different kinds of advice in 16

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

have no single agency responsible to communicate to the 18

public and to contractors the limitations of these 19

methods and the proper use of t hese lead test kit 20

methods. 21

So I would urge EPA to take their time in revising 2258

their current website in terms of how these test kits 1

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

public and to contractors, and to include information 3

about th e healt h implication of low

- level lead exposure 4

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

cetera, residing in homes where renovation takes place. 6

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

the health information that is available on EPA's 8

webs ite and the information regarding the proper use of 9

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

for EPA to step up and to improve the communication 11

around it. Thank you. 12

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

like to just before we contin ue, for the folks on the 14

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

the

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

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

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

the phone on m ute instead on hold. Please take in that 19

consideration so that we don't hear

-- the music is 20

lovely, but it's a little distractive. 21

(Laughter.) 2259

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

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

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

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

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

you. 6

(No response.) 7

MS. LEONARD: Anyone else in the room? 8

(No response.) 9

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

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

instructions were to indicate to Christina by typing 12

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

have a chance to speak. 14

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

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

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

savvy. 18

MS. WADLINGTON: We're done. 19

MS. LEONARD: Okay. 20

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

all the commenters. At this time, we've concluded the 2260

comment session . I have put my contact information on 1

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

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

again, and you can contact me with any additional 4

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

wr itten comments you have to the docket. 6

Thank you for your time. 7

MS. LEONARD: Okay. 8

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

concluded. ) 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22