August 10, 2009 

Lisa Jackson, Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: Citizen Petition to EPA Regarding the Paint and Dust Lead Standards 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that about 250,000 children 

aged 1-5 years have a blood lead level of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood 

(μg/dL) or greater based on a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

survey conducted from 2001-2004.1

 This is great progress from the 4.7 million children 

with lead levels above 10 μg/dL in 1978, but the recent trend line has flattened and the 

nation is already unlikely to achieve the Healthy People 2010 goal of eliminating lead 

poisoning as a public health issue. In addition, the research has demonstrated that blood 

lead levels in children above 5 μg/dL and possibly lower result in deleterious effects. No 

safe level of exposure to lead has ever been established. Lead poisoning of young 

children results in cognitive impairment that can never be regained and is associated with 

behavioral disorders. Federal agencies should examine their programs and standards to be 

sure they are doing all that they can within their authority to address this preventable 

environmental tragedy. 

Already, EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s (CASAC), has determined 

that “outdated residual surface contamination standards (i.e., dust lead cleanup levels of 

40 μg/ft2 for floors and 250 μg/ft2 for window sills) are being used that are insufficiently 

protective of children’s health, as indicated by recent epidemiological studies.” (Lanphear 

et al., 2005; Lanphear et al., 2002, Lanphear et al., 1998, Lanphear et al., 1996, and 

Malcoe et al., 2002).2

Pursuant to Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the National Center for 

Healthy Housing (NCHH), Alliance for Healthy Homes, Sierra Club and the undersigned 

petition EPA to use its authority under Section 6 of the Toxics Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) to more adequately protect these children from the dangers of lead-based paint 

and leaded dust by lowering the levels in the current standards. Specifically: 

 

1

 http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/fastfacts.htm 

2

 http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-07-006.pdf 
1. Lower dust lead hazard standards at 40 CFR 745.65(b), 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), 

and 40 CFR 745.227(h)(3)(i) from 40 micrograms of lead per square foot of surface 

area (μg/ft2

) to 10 μg/ft2 or less for floors and from 250 μg/ft2 to 100 μg /ft2 or less 

for window sills. 

2. Modify the definition of lead-based paint in 40 CFR745.103 and 745.223 for 

previously applied paint or other surface coatings in housing, child-occupied 

facilities, public building and commercial buildings to reduce the lead levels from 0.5 

percent by weight (5,000 parts per million (ppm)) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 

ppm) with a corresponding reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter 

standard. 

If EPA determines that Section 6 is the not the most appropriate basis for the revising the 

standards, the petitioners request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) that EPA revise the 

standards as described above using its authority under other provisions of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act. 

Justification for Request #1 

On January 5, 2001, EPA established a hazardous level of lead in dust in three sections of 

40 CFR Part 745.3

• At 40 CFR 745.65(b) which states that “A dust-lead hazard is surface dust in a 

residential dwelling or child-occupied facility that contains a mass-per-area 

concentration of lead equal to or exceeding 40 μg/ft2

 on floors or 250 μg/ft2 on 

interior window sills based on wipe samples.” 

• At 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii) which states that “The clearance levels for lead in dust 

are 40 μg/ft2 for floors, 250 μg/ft2 for interior window sills, and 400 μg/ft2 for 

window troughs.” 

• At 40 CFR 745.227(h)(3)(i), which states that “In a residential dwelling on floors and 

interior window sills when the weighted arithmetic mean lead loading for all single 

surface or composite samples of floors and interior window sills are equal to or 

greater than 40 μg/ft2 for floors and 250 μg/ft2 for interior window sills, 

respectively.” 

EPA determined these standards by establishing a range of candidate health-based 

standards and conducting an economic impact analysis of the range. On the most 

protective side, EPA stated that it “adopts as the basis determining the lowest candidate 

standards for the final dust and soil lead hazards the same policy basis used in the 

proposal for choosing dust and soil lead contamination levels--a 1 to 5% probability of a 

child’s developing a blood lead level of 10 μg/dL.”4

 

“At the other end of the range considered by EPA was an exceedence probability of 10%. 

With this distribution of risk, a child would have approximately a 2% chance of having a 

blood-lead concentration exceeding 15 μg/dL and a less than 1% chance of having a 

blood-lead concentration exceeding 20 μg/dL, the level at which CDC recommends 

medical intervention. In the proposal’s discussion of the contamination standard, the 

 

3

 66 Fed. Reg 1205 (January 5, 2001) 4

 Id at page 1215. 

2
Agency rejected this probability as presenting exceedingly high risks. For determination 

of a hazard level, they would also be excessively high. EPA believes it is inconsistent 

with the statute to establish a hazard standard at which significant numbers of children 

would need medical treatment.”5

EPA concluded that “floor dust levels at 40 μg/ft2

 correspond to 5% and less probability 

of blood lead levels exceeding 10 μg/dL.”6

 Through its regulatory impact analysis of lead 

dust standards based on this range of 5% to 10% probability, EPA determined that 40 

μg/ft2

 on the floor was achievable and “when considered in terms of its cost-benefit 

analysis, EPA found that indeed positive net benefits resulted for the 40 μg/ft2

 hazard 

standard.”7

NCHH examined studies that have become available since the current dust lead standards 

were promulgated in 2001 and has found solid evidence supporting a need to reduce dust 

lead levels classified as hazardous in order to protect children from elevated blood lead 

levels. Among the studies examined include the: 

• National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (“NHANES”); 

• US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Risk Assessment Study (“HUD Risk 

Assessment Study”); and 

• HOME Study. 

NCHH and partners analyzed data from NHANES from 1999-2004.8

 During these years, 

dust lead samples were collected from the homes of certain NHANES participants. They 

found that after controlling for other factors: 

• 4.6% of children with an average age of 33 months living in pre-1978 homes would 

have a blood lead level of 10 μg/dL or greater when their floor dust lead loading was 

12 μg/ft2

. 

• At a floor dust lead loading of 12 μg/ft2, there is 95% confidence that no more than 

7.9% of children would have a blood lead level of 10 μg/dL or greater. 

• 5.1% of children would have a blood lead level of 10 μg /dL or greater when their 

window sill dust lead loading was 100 μg/ft2

.

9

 

Using EPA’s criteria of protecting 95% of children from an elevated blood lead level 

(currently defined as 10 μg/dL or greater), dust standards of 10 μg/ft2

 for floors and 100 

μg/ft2

 for window sills should be adopted. 

NCHH’s results of the NHANES study are similar to findings observed from a pooled 

analysis of twelve epidemiologic studies conducted in 1998.10 The Pooled Analysis 

 

5

 Id. 

6

 Id at 1217. 

7

 Id at page 1221. 

8

 Dixon SL, Gaitens JM, Jacobs DE et al. (2009) Exposure of U.S. children to residential dust lead, 1999-

2004: II: The contribution of lead-contaminated dust to children’s blood lead levels. Environmental Health 

Perspectives 117(3):468-474. 

9 Wilson, Jonathan. (2008) Should the EPA Lead Dust Standards be Lowered? (accessed 5-8-2009: 

www.healthyhomestraining.org/Research/Translational_Research_11-17_PbDust_Standard_r2.1.pdf)

3
determined that the actual risk is 18% (not 1% to 5% as predicted by EPA in 2001) at a 

floor dust level of 40 μg/ft2

. The Pooled Study found that after controlling for other 

factors and setting the exterior lead exposure to the national median (72 ppm), 7.4% of 

children with an average age of 16 months would have a blood lead level of 10 μg/dL or 

greater when their floor dust lead loading was 10 μg/ft2

. EPA reviewed the Pooled Study 

as part of the issuance of the final rule establishing the current levels of 40 μg/ft2 on the 

floor and 250 μg/ft2

 on the window sill, but it was discounted because it was said to lack 

soil or paint lead data. The Pooled Study did in fact include paint and exterior dust/soil 

lead levels and included those variables in the modeling used to predict the outcome 

presented above. Specifically, EPA should examine the raw data analysis, not just the 

final journal article in understanding how the Pooled Study included paint, soil, water and 

other variables 

NCHH also believes that the HUD Risk Assessment Study offers further support for 

lowering the levels in the standards. In 2003, NCHH completed the Study of HUD’s Risk 

Assessment Methodology in Three U.S. Communities for HUD.11 The study explored 

factors that predicted whether a child has a blood level above or below 10 μg/dL in two 

communities: Milwaukee, WI and New York, NY. Environmental factors were 

significantly related to the blood lead levels in Milwaukee. NCHH’s further analysis of 

the Milwaukee data found that setting standards of 10 μg/ft2 on floors and 400 ppm in 

play area soil would optimize the performance (positive and negative predictive values) 

of the risk assessment. These analyses considered a spectrum of environmental lead 

sources including dust, soil, paint and water. The need for a lower floor dust lead level is 

further supported by work conducted in Milwaukee to evaluate the city’s lead ordinance. 

The study found that children living in homes with floor dust lead levels under 20 μg/ft2

had proportionally fewer elevated blood lead levels than children living in homes where 

the floor dust lead loading exceeded 20 μg/ft2. 

NCHH has found that the lower dust standards are achievable. The Six-Year Follow-up 

Study to the HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant Evaluation demonstrated that average floor 

dust lead loadings were 14 μg/ft2 at clearance and those levels continued to fall to 5 μg/ft2

six years after clearance with only routine maintenance. Average window sill dust lead 

loadings were 239 μg/ft2

 before remediation, 45 μg/ft2 at clearance, then increased 

slightly before declining from 105 μg/ft2

 to 73 μg/ft2 six years after clearance. The 

grantees were required to achieve clearance dust lead levels at 100 μg/ft2 on floors and 

500 μg/ft2 on window sills, levels that were well below the clearance requirements in 

place at that time. 

In the past year, the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) completed 

data collection for its HOME Study, which examined the efficiency of lead primary 

prevention in homes of expectant mothers. Although CCHMC’s data analysis is on-

 10 Lanphear BP, Matte TD, Rogers J et al., (1998) The contribution of lead-contaminated house dust and 

residential soil to children’s blood lead levels. Environmental Research. 79(1):51-68. 11 National Center for Healthy Housing (rev. 2006) Study of HUDs Risk Assessment Methodology in Three 

U.S. Communities: Final Report, Columbia, MD (accessed 5-13-2009: 

www.nchh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HZUenslvU/0=&tabid=217) 

4
going, early results demonstrate that contractors using standard lead hazard control 

treatments cleared 99% of 143 units to below 5 μg/ft2

 on floors and all units cleared 

below 50 μg/ft2 on window sills.12 Nine-six percent of floors remained below 10 μg/ft2

on floors one year later and 91% were below 100 μg/ft2

 on window sills a year later. 

The lab technology exists to analyze samples at the levels stated in this petition, although 

some current lab practices may need to be modified to achieve EPA’s quality control 

requirements under the National Lead Lab Accreditation Program (NLLAP). 

The economic consequences of a rule based on the standards recommended in this 

petition will be less than EPA originally estimated when it adopted the current standards. 

In the January 5, 2001 Final rule, EPA estimated that 22 million homes would have lead 

dust hazards based on a standard of 10 μg/ft2

.

13 NCHH’s review of the Six-Year FollowUp Study and the HOME Study demonstrated that current lead hazard control practices 

are adequate to reduce dust lead below the levels recommended in the petition. In 

addition, NHANES data suggest that less than 15% of pre-1978 homes – 9.8 million 

homes – would be classified as having a dust lead hazard. This total is far less than EPA’s 

original estimate. 

Based on this analysis, Petitioners believe that EPA must lower its dust lead hazard 

standards at 40 CFR 745.65(b) from 40 micrograms of lead per square foot of surface 

area (μg/ft2

) to 10 μg/ft2 or less for floors and from 250 μg/ft2 to 100 μg /ft2 or less for 

window sills. It must also lower its clearance levels for lead in dust at 40 CFR 

745.227(e)(8)(viii) and 40 CFR 745.227(h)(3)(i) from 40 μg/ft2 to 10 μg/ft2 or less for 

floors and from 250 μg/ft2 to 100 μg /ft2 or less for window sills. Petitioners believe that 

there is more than a reasonable basis to conclude that this change is necessary to prevent 

an unreasonable risk of injury to children’s health. 

While the Petitioners make this request based on the methodology EPA used to adopt the 

existing dust lead standards, Petitioners also believe that the methodology should be 

improved. EPA should use a risk-based approach that recognizes that there is no safe 

level of exposure to lead and that the research shows a strong association between blood 

lead levels in children of 5 μg/dL to 10 μg/dL and learning disabilities and possibly 

lower. This approach would establish lead dust standards based on the risk to children 

and the feasibility of achieving these standards. 

If EPA determines that it is not appropriate to use its authority under Section 6 of TSCA 

to make this change, EPA should use its authority under Sections 402 and 403 of TSCA 

to take this action to protect children from lead poisoning. 

Justification for Request #2 

In Section 401 of TSCA, Congress defined Lead-Based Paint to mean “paint or other 

surface coatings that contain lead in excess of 1.0 milligrams per centimeter squared or 

 

12 Wilson, Jonathan. (2008) Should the EPA Lead Dust Standards be Lowered? (accessed 5-8-2009: 

www.healthyhomestraining.org/Research/Translational_Research_11-17_PbDust_Standard_r2.1.pdf) 

13 66 Fed. Reg. 1221 (January 5, 2001). 

5
0.5 percent by weight or (A) in the case of paint or other surface coatings on target 

housing, such lower level as may be established by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Development, as defined in section 302(c) of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention 

Act, or (B) in the case of any other paint or surface coatings, such other level as may be 

established by the Administrator.”14 

EPA adopted these numbers in the statutory definition without modification at 40 CFR 

745.103 and 745.223 stating that “Lead-based paint means paint or other surface coatings 

that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter or more 

than 0.5 percent by weight.” HUD used the same definition in its Lead-Safe Housing 

Rule.15

The petitioners believe that the standards are insufficient to protect children from lead 

poisoning. Since 1992 when the paint lead levels were established in statute, Petitioners 

know of no formal review of the standards or consideration of alternative levels by EPA 

or HUD. During this time, capacity to check paint for lead through X-ray fluorescence 

technology and the nation’s knowledge of the hazards to children of deteriorated leaded 

paint/leaded dust have dramatically improved. 

Under the current standards, paint that contains less than 5,000 ppm of lead would not be 

considered lead-based paint. As a result, when a lead inspector or lead risk assessor 

documents levels of 4,500 ppm of lead in the paint, the buyer or tenant would be told that 

lead-based paint is not present. The buyer or tenant would be unaware of the potential 

dangers of disturbing the paint. The buyer may contract with a renovator and authorize 

the use of work practices such as open-flame burning or torching of this paint or use of a 

machine that removes or disturbs this paint through high speed operation such as sanding, 

grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting on this paint. 

These work practices produce tremendous levels of dust; where paint contains lead, the 

dispersed dust’s lead levels would be far in excess of the lead dust hazard standard of 40 

μg/ft2 let alone a reduced standard of 10 μg/ft2

. While these work practices are prohibited 

under EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule if the paint were lead-based 

paint, they could be used without restriction in cases where a certified lead inspector or 

risk assessor determined that the paint has 4,500 ppm of lead. 

Therefore, the petitioners believe that EPA should exercise its under Section 6 of TSCA 

and modify the definition of lead-based paint in 40 CFR 745.103 and 745.223 for 

previously applied paint or other surface coatings in housing, child-occupied facilities, 

public building and commercial buildings must be reduced from 5,000 ppm to 600 ppm 

with a corresponding reduction in the 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter standard. 

Petitioners believe 600 ppm is appropriate since it was the standard for lead in newly 

manufactured paint used from 1978 to 2008. 

 

14 15 U.S.C. 2681(9) 

15 24 CFR 35.110. “Lead-based paint means paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or 

exceeding 1.0 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 percent by weight or 5,000 parts per million (ppm) by 

weight.

6
The economic consequences of this change in the definition of lead-based paint would 

primarily impact those buildings that already have been tested for the presence of leadbased paint by a certified lead risk assessor or lead inspector and found to have levels of 

lead in the paint between 600 ppm and 5,000 ppm (and the equivalent in mg/cm2

). 

Specifically: 

1. Under the Section 1018 lead disclosure rule, the properties owners are already 

required to provide the report to buyers and tenants. They would need to put a cover 

note to the report. If the report showed lead in the paint between 600 ppm and 5,000 

ppm, the owners who took advantage of the exemption from disclosure to tenants 

would need to make the required disclosure and attach the report to the disclosure. 

2. Under the HUD Lead-Safe Housing Rule, assuming HUD revises its definition of 

lead-based paint to 600 ppm and the equivalent in mg/cm2

, the recipient of the federal 

subsidy who used the report to avoid the need to use HUD lead-safe work practices 

and achieve clearance levels, would be required to use the HUD lead-safe work 

practices and achieve clearance levels. NCHH is unaware of any information on the 

number of properties that might be impacted. NCHH does understand that HUD 

funded a lead inspection program for Section 8 properties. 

3. Under the EPA RRP Rule, the impact would be similar to the impact under the HUD 

Lead-Safe Housing Rule. NCHH believes that the majority of properties impacted by 

the RRP rule will rely on the presumption of lead-based paint in properties that do not 

have a lead inspection report. For these properties, EPA estimates that the RRP work 

practice requirements will add only $35 to each regulated event. 

If EPA determines that it is not appropriate to use its authority under Section 6 of TSCA 

to make this change, EPA should use its authority under Sections 401 of TSCA and 

coordinate the change with HUD to protect children from lead poisoning. 

Note 

The petitioners recognize that the standards must be updated in the context of other 

scientific advice and rulemaking to achieve full compliance with 403(b) in public and 

commercial buildings. While EPA decisions pursuant to the petition could involve 

consultation with the SAB to determine the benefit and feasibility of decreasing 

environmental exposures below the aforementioned standards, as well as coordination 

with other rulemaking, and petitioners support these approaches, petitioners believe that 

the evidence and demand for updating the standards are sufficiently compelling for EPA 

to expedite rulemaking without delay inspired by either concern. 

Summary 

EPA should begin rulemaking to lower the Federal dust lead and paint lead levels from 

the current standards and expand the scope of those standards as required by statute. The 

data demonstrate that dust lead levels must be reduced to protect the nation’s children; 

current work practices can achieve these reductions; and the reductions are sustainable. 

EPA, in concert with HUD, must lower the paint lead levels in the current standards to 

prevent the generation of dust lead hazards from paint that is currently considered “nonhazardous.” The current standards do not provide the protections that all children deserve 

and Federal law requires. 

7
Respectively submitted, 

8

Rebecca Morley Patrick MacRoy 

Executive Director Executive Director 

National Center for Healthy Housing Alliance for Healthy Homes 

Tom Neltner, Colleen McCauley 

Co-Chair, Toxics Committee Health Policy Director 

Sierra Club Public Citizens for Children and Youth 

 

Zakia Rafiqa Shabazz Roberta Hazen Aaronson 

Founder/Director Executive Director 

United Parents Against Lead National, Inc Childhood Lead Action Project 

Stuart Greenberg Linda Kite 

Executive Director Director 

Environmental Health Watch Healthy Homes Collaborative 

Phyllis Salowe-Kaye Davida Andelman 

Executive Director Director, Lead Action Collaborative 

New Jersey Citizen Action Health Resources in Action 

Janet McCabe Kara Eastman 

Executive Director Executive Director 

Improving Kids’ Environment Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance 

Jerome A. Paulson, MD, FAAP† 

Associate Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health, George Washington University 

Medical Director for National & Global Affairs, Child Health Advocacy Institute, 

Children's National Medical Center 

Co-Director, Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health & the Environment 

†On behalf of himself, affiliations for identification purposes only