69–010 

Calendar No. 1097 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–515 

PROTECT PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM 

DANGEROUS LEAD EXPOSURES ACT 

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany the Protect Pregnant Women and Children from Dangerous Lead 

Exposures Act of 2008] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works considered an 

original bill to protect pregnant women and children from dangerous lead exposures. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

The purpose of the Protect Pregnant Women and Children from 

Dangerous Lead Exposures Act of 2008 is to protect pregnant 

women and children from lead exposures during or after lead-based 

paint cleanups in housing. 

The Act would require that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use the best available science to 

revise the lead-based paint standard, clearance methodology, workplace practices, and training program that the Agency created in 

a recent rulemaking (73 Fed. Reg. 21692 (April 22, 2008)). 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Lead is a highly toxic substance that can harm the nervous system, reproductive system, cardiovascular system, immune system, 

and physical development. Lead is particularly harmful to pregVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:55 Oct 01, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR515.XXX SR515

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

nant women, infants and children. The federal Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention and the Administrator have determined 

that children in general, and children in low socioeconomic conditions in particular, are at increased risk of lead exposure and adverse health impacts from that exposure. The Census Bureau estimates that in 2006 more than 12,800,000 children under the age 

of 18 lived in poverty. 

In 1992, the federal Centers for Disease Control recognized that 

10 micrograms per deciliter of lead in blood should prompt public 

health actions, but that harmful impacts may occur at blood lead 

levels below this threshold. 

In 2001, the Administrator created lead-based paint hazard regulations required under section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (15 U.S.C. 2683), which identified dangerous levels of lead dust 

on floors at 40 micrograms per square foot or greater. For window 

sills, the EPA set the standard at 250 micrograms per square foot 

or greater. In promulgating the standards, the EPA stated that the: 

Standards [were] based on the best science available to 

the Agency. The Environmental Protection Agency recognizes, however, that the science is constantly developing 

. . . If new data become available (e.g., empirical data 

showing that very small amounts of deteriorated paint 

pose a serious health risk or data showing that hazard 

control activities are more effective at reducing long-term 

dust-lead level than assumed by the Environmental Protection Agency), the Agency will consider changing the 

standards to reflect these data. 

In January, 2006, the Administrator proposed its lead-based 

paint repair and renovation rule (71 Fed. Reg. 1588). That same 

month the Agency issued a study on the threats of lead dust during 

renovation and remodeling activities, which the agency used as a 

basis for judging the protectiveness of its rule. The EPA’s Clean Air 

Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) criticized certain key aspects 

of the study, including the agency’s use the 2001 standards and inadequate cleaning procedures. In particular, the Committee recommended that the ‘‘[s]tandards need to be strengthened in view 

of recent epidemiological data indicating that children are more 

susceptible to effects from lead than was previously thought.’’ However, the Administrator issued a final rule without incorporating 

many of the CASAC recommendations. 

The Committee believes that lead poisoning is a very serious 

public health threat, especially for children’s health. Lead-based 

paint dust is one of the most serious routes of lead exposure, including for children. It is also a very preventable route of exposure. 

The Committee believes that EPA should use the best available 

science to establish a lead-based paint standard, as well as related 

regulatory programs. Specifically, the bill finds that ‘‘the revised 

lead-based paint renovation, repair, and painting rule of the Environmental Protection Agency fails . . . to use the best available 

science on the adverse impacts of lead on children’s health; . . . 

[fails] to adequately protect the health of pregnant women and children from lead poisoning; and . . . [fails] to contain enforceable 

methods of verifying that lead levels in homes and other facilities 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
3 

are safe following lead-based paint renovation, repair, and painting 

activities.’’ 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

The purpose of the Protect Pregnant Women and Children from 

Dangerous Lead Exposures Act of 2008, is to protect pregnant 

women and children from dangerous lead exposures. 

The legislation require that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use the best available science to 

revise the lead-based paint standard, clearance methodology, workplace practices, and training program that the Agency created in 

a recent rulemaking (73 Fed. Reg. 21692 (April 22, 2008)). 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section designates the title of the bill as the ‘‘Protect Pregnant Women and Children from Dangerous Lead Exposures Act of 

2008’’. 

Section 2. Findings 

Section (a) contains detailed findings regarding lead toxicity, exposure, and EPA’s activities with respect to lead renovation rules. 

Section 3. Definitions 

Section 3(1) defines the ‘‘Administrator’’. 

Section 3(2) defines the ‘‘Best Available Science’’ to include scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals since the Administrator last updated the lead-based paint hazard standard. In 

particular, the Committee directs the Administrator to consider scientific studies indicating that blood lead levels below 10 micrograms per deciliter pose a threat to children’s health. 

Section 4. Protection of pregnant women and children 

Section 4(a) directs the Administrator to use the best available 

science to create a more protective lead-based point hazard standard to safeguard the health of pregnant women and children and 

to require a clearance methodology that ensure lead dust levels 

meet that standard. It also requires the Clean Air Science Advisory 

Committee to review the Agency’s work. 

Section 4(b) establishes a deadline for integrating these requirements into the lead-based paint repair and renovation rule. 

Section 4(c) requires a periodic reevaluation of the standard and 

clearance methodology using the best available science. 

Section 5. Regulations relating to lead-based paint hazards, leadcontaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil 

Section 5(a) contains definitions for the terms ‘‘Final Rule’’ and 

‘‘Independent Clearance’’. 

Section 5(b) establishes deadlines for the Administrator to update the final rule to include requirements concerning independent 

clearance work by a certified risk assessor or certified sampling 

technician to ensure compliance with lead hazard standards. This 

section also describes the methodology to be used in this assessment; the reporting requirements for the work; applicable workVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:55 Oct 01, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR515.XXX SR515

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
4 

place practices; and a requirement for trained personnel to be onsite at all times that on-site work is undertaken. 

Section 5(c) creates a grant program to expand training opportunities related to lead-based paint repair and renovation work, establishes criteria for this program, authorizes funds, and creates a 

reporting requirement to assess the program and make recommendations for expanding and better coordinating opportunities. 

Section 6. No effect on other effective dates 

Section 6 clarifies that nothing in this Act modifies or otherwise 

affects any effective date described in the final rule. The Committee expects the Agency to meet all existing deadlines that it has 

already announced. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND VOTES

Votes 

On September 17, 2008, the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works held a business meeting to consider S. 3495, among 

other pieces of legislation. The Committee on Environment and 

Public Works approved an amendment from Senator Clinton to include the requirements for independence clearance and a training 

program, which the Committee accepted by voice vote. The Committee then favorably adopted the amended bill by a voice vote. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that the Congressional 

Budget Office found that ‘‘The bill would impose private-sector and 

intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) on firms certified by EPA to renovate certain 

properties containing lead-based paint. CBO estimates that the 

cost of the private-sector mandates would likely exceed the annual 

threshold established in UMRA ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).’’ 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4), the Committee noted that the Congressional 

Budget Office has found that ‘‘The bill would impose private-sector 

and intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) on firms certified by EPA to renovate 

certain properties containing lead-based paint. CBO estimates that 

the cost of the private-sector mandates would likely exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). Because of the small number of public entities that would be directly affected by the bill’s requirements, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandates to state, local, 

and tribal governments would fall below the annual threshold for 

intergovernmental mandates ($68 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).’’ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
5 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

SEPTEMBER 26, 2008. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for the Protect Pregnant 

Women and Children from Dangerous Lead Exposures Act of 2008. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. Mehlman. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

Protect Pregnant Women and Children from Dangerous Lead Exposures Act of 2008 

Summary: This legislation would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise regulations relating to the hazards 

of lead-based paint, and lead-contaminated dust and soil. CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost about $20 million 

over the 2009–2013 period assuming appropriation of the necessary 

amounts. Enacting this legislation would not affect direct spending 

or revenues. 

The bill would impose private-sector and intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

on firms certified by EPA to renovate certain properties containing 

lead-based paint. CBO estimates that the cost of the private-sector 

mandates would likely exceed the annual threshold established in 

UMRA ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). Because of the small number of public entities that would be directly 

affected by the bill’s requirements, CBO estimates that the cost of 

the mandates to state, local, and tribal governments would fall 

below the annual threshold for intergovernmental mandates ($68 

million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of this legislation is shown in the following table. The 

costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009– 

2013 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Grant Program to Expand Training Opportunities: 

Authorization Level .......................................................................... 2 2 2 1 0 7 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 1 1 2 2 1 7 

EPA Administrative Support: 

Estimated Authorization Level ......................................................... 3 3 3 2 2 13 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 3 3 3 2 2 13 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................................ 5 5 5 3 2 20 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 4 4 5 4 3 20 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that this legislation will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2009 and that 

the necessary amounts will be appropriated each year. Estimated 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
6 

outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar programs. This legislation would authorize the appropriation of $7 million 

over the 2009–2012 period for EPA to provide grants to entities to 

support training concerning the hazards of lead-based paint. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates 

that implementing that provision would cost $7 million over the 

2009–2013 period. Based on information from EPA, CBO also estimates that enacting this legislation would cost about $13 million 

over the 2009–2013 period to support EPA’s efforts to revise existing lead regulations. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: The bill contains 

private-sector and intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

UMRA. The bill would require firms that are certified through EPA 

to renovate properties containing lead-based paint to: • Comply with a more restrictive standard for the presence 

of lead in buildings; • Conduct a final test (referred to in the bill as a clearance) 

after completing renovations to ensure compliance with existing lead standards; • Abide by new standards for workplace practices related to 

lead; • Provide a report to the owners and occupants of the renovated property, detailing the measures taken to reduce lead 

hazards during the renovation work and disclosing any test results for lead contamination at the work site; and • Ensure that an individual who has completed a training 

and certification program for handling surfaces with lead-based 

paint is present at the work site at all times during the renovation work. 

CBO expects that the most significant costs of the mandates in 

the bill would be related to requirements for clearances. Based on 

estimates of the number of renovations expected per year and the 

cost of conducting a clearance, CBO estimates that the aggregate 

cost of the mandates would likely exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($136 million in 

2008, adjusted annually for inflation). Because of the small number 

of public entities that would be directly affected by the bill’s requirements, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandates to state, 

local, and tribal governments would fall below the annual threshold 

established in UMRA for intergovernmental mandates ($68 million 

in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Burke Doherty. Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
(7) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR INHOFE 

After much public and scientific debate, EPA this year released 

regulations aimed at further reducing lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb 

paint in many structures occupied by children. In issuing the rule, 

EPA also factored in private-sector concerns relating to practicality, 

feasibility and cost of compliance. 

I believe that EPA exercised proper discretion in issuing the recent lead-based paint standards, especially given the scope of activities affected. EPA estimates that this rule impacts 11.4 million 

repairs and renovations every year—almost one million separate 

construction activities a month. Under the new regulations, the average cost of cleanup is estimated to be $35 per job—if there are 

11.4 million jobs, that represents a substantial cleanup cost burden 

of nearly $38 million a year. 

I believe that EPA properly balanced the need for protective 

standards with the need to issue a rule that would be practical and 

understandable for contractors and their clients. The work practices required by the EPA rule have been shown to be effective at 

protecting children from lead-based paint hazards generated by 

renovation activities. Further, the rule’s ‘‘safe work’’ practice standards are understandable and can be effectively implemented. 

This bill’s requirement for ‘‘dust clearance’’ sampling would add 

significant cost and delay to private-sector renovation projects with 

no significant increase in health protection. The bill’s ‘‘clearance’’ 

requirement would mean contractors would have to delay by several days most projects’ completion while waiting for a certified 

sampler to collect a dust sample, then await the return of sample’s 

laboratory results. I believe this is an unreasonable, unjustified 

burden to place on contractors and renovation professionals. Moreover, the cost is prohibitive—some have suggested that ‘‘clearance 

sampling’’ costs could be a high as $200 per project, which would 

mean this requirement would cost contractors and their clients 

nearly $2.2 billion per year. 

This bill also would mandate that EPA issue a revised final lead 

standard and regulations by April 2009—about 6 months from now. 

Restructuring the rule based on this legislation’s new requirements, then taking that proposal through scientific review and public process is simply not feasible in that short time frame. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
8 

As Ranking Member, I reiterate my concern that this Committee 

is again improperly attempting to impose its political judgment to 

undermine EPA’s regulatory expertise and process. I oppose passage of this bill because I believe that EPA properly balanced 

human health concerns with private-sector burden, and, most importantly, the rule’s requirements have been shown to be effective 

at protecting children from lead-based paint hazards generated by 

renovation activities. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
(9) 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made by 

the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no changes to 

existing law. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS