National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING OF 

RENOVATION, REPAIR AND PAINTING PROGRAM 

Washington, D.C. 

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 PUBLIC MEETING SPEAKERS

Page 2 

2 Karen Penafiel Building Owners Managers International 

3 Harold Huggins National Association of Realtors 

4 Ben Gann Window Door Manufacturers Association 

5 Rich Walker American Architectural Manufacturers 

6 Jane C. Luxton Pepper Hamilton, LLP 

7 Patrick Connor National Multifamily Housing Council 

8 Leah F. Pilconis Associated General Contractors 

9 Bill Gibson Overhead Door Company of Lexington 

10 Rick Vandegraft Finishing Contractors of North America 

11 Thomas Neltner Self 

12 Stephen Masek Masek Consulting Services, Inc 

13 Christine Gertz National Apartment Association 

14 Jim Brewer International Union Painters Allied 

15 Mark Casale Painting and Decorating Contractors 

16 Michael Nagel National Association of Home Builders 

17 Jane Malone National Center for Healthy Housing 

18 Duane Desiderio Real Estate Roundtable 

19 Michael T. Oscar Finishing Contractors Association 

20 Michael McKnight Coalition to End Childhood Lead 

21 Warren Friedman Office of Healthy Homes 

22 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

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

2 MS. CLELAND-HAMNETT: I'd like to welcome you

Page 3 

3 all this morning to this public meeting, and I thank you 

4 all for spending the time not only to be here this 

5 morning, but to prepare for this meeting, and to be 

6 preparing information for us. 

7 As I suspect you all know, Congress directed

8 us to look at potential hazards that might be created by 

9 activities that affect lead-based paint in public and

10 commercial buildings. We are somewhat behind schedule 

11 in addressing the task that Congress gave us, so we are 

12 now moving ahead. This is a very important and high 

13 priority activity within our office. 

14 We want to make the decisions about whether 

15 activities affected with lead-based paint in public and 

16 commercial buildings presents a lead-based paint hazard. 

17 And if it does present a lead-based paint hazard, 

18 address those hazards as Congress directed us. We want 

19 to base those decisions on the best available 

20 information and science. And that is why we are having 

21 this meeting today, to hear from those who have 

22 information on those very important questions as we move 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 forward with this activity. 

2 So, again, I thank you for being here, and I 

3 thank you for all the work that you've put into 

4 preparing for today's meeting.

Page 4 

5 I will at this point introduce Tala Henry, who 

6 is the director of our National Program Chemicals 

7 Division within my office. That's the division that has 

8 the lead responsibility for this activity. We have

9 folks from across the office involved, on the risk

10 assessment side of this as well as on the economic side 

11 of it. There are a number of people from across my 

12 office who were engaged in this activity. 

13 And then I'd also like to introduce David 

14 Piantanida, who will be our moderator for the session 

15 today. Thank you for doing that. He'll be talking with 

16 you some more about how the session will run and how to 

17 organize things and so forth. 

18 But, again, I want to thank everyone who is 

19 involved in this. I will be looking forward to hearing 

20 from Tala. Tala will be here all morning, as well as 

21 many of our staff who are working on this, and other 

22 staff in the office who are engaged. I will look 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 forward to hearing from them about what we learned this 

2 morning and what we hear from all of you as we move 

3 forward on this activity. 

4 Again, thank you for coming. Look forward to 

5 the results of this and working with those of you have 

6 interest in this issue. I'll turn it over to David.

7 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Wendy. 

8 Good morning. As Wendy mentioned, I'm with 

9 the EPA. I'll be the moderator for this morning's 

10 session. I work in the Office of Research and 

11 Development. It will be my job to get us through this 

12 morning. We'll hear comments and presentations from 

13 various stakeholders and other groups. 

14 EPA is here to listen this morning. We will 

15 not be providing comments on what we hear. It's 

16 strictly a listening session. That's why to my left 

17 here we have management as well as staff who will be 

18 here for the entirety of the morning. 

19 We are set to end at around 12:30 or so. I 

20 have a flight to catch this afternoon, so I'm hoping we 

21 can finish by 1:00. I think we will. We have about 20 

22 presentations, and then we have some extras as well in 

Page 5 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 addition to that 20. 

2 We have a court reporter. It's the lady here 

3 to my right. She will be the court reporter for this 

4 morning's session, capturing everything. 

5 There's a Post-It note over there. I can't

Page 6 

6 see it from over here. Basically what it is on there is

7 docket information. The docket is open through July

8 12th. So if for some reason, you don't have the 

9 opportunity this morning to share your comments, there's

10 always the docket. We encourage that throughout July 

11 12th. 

12 I will cover some of the ground rules, but not right 

13 now. I'm going to turn it over to Hans Scheifele, who works 

14 in the National Program Chemicals Division. He's the 

15 technical program contact for this proposed rule. Hans 

16 is going to cover some of the background. He's going to 

17 prepare a presentation here, and he'll spend five or ten 

18 minutes covering some of the background, some of which I 

19 think many of you are familiar with. But this is an 

20 opportunity for you to learn more about the proposed 

21 rule. 

22 With that, I'll turn it over to Hans. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 MR. SCHEIFELE: Thank you, David. As David

Page 7 

2 said, my name is Hans Scheifele. I am the lead for this

3 project. I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank

4 everybody for coming today. I'm going to try to be as

5 brief as possible as I go through this presentation 

6 because we have a significant number of people speaking

7 today. 

8 So just some basic logistics: I'm going to go

9 through a brief presentation, and then those attendees

10 that pre-registered to speak today will be speaking. 

11 The order that they will be speaking in was randomly 

12 assigned. It's in your folder, so you can see the order 

13 that people will be speaking in. We ask that those 

14 comments be limited to ten minutes. And we do encourage 

15 people to keep them as brief as possible. There's no 

16 need to speak for a full ten minutes. 

17 After those people have finished speaking -- I 

18 mean, you will see an agenda in the folder as well. You 

19 will see there's a break I believe at 10:30. 

20 After those pre-registered speakers have 

21 finished, there's an opportunity for other people that 

22 are here that did not pre-register to speak. We do have 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 a sign-up sheet in the front for those names. So if

Page 8 

2 anyone is interested in doing that, we just ask that you 

3 sign up. 

4 The presentation I'm going through now, the

5 PowerPoint is also in your folder, along with a 

6 discussion guide, which is some background that we 

7 developed for the public meeting. That is also posted 

8 on our Web site and the docket. 

9 So all comments and presentations provided 

10 today will be placed in the docket. All comments made 

11 today will be recorded and transcribed. I think as 

12 David alluded to, this rulemaking is a deliberative 

13 process. We're in the very early stages. We have not 

14 made a decision about the statutory findings or 

15 regulatory approaches; and therefore, we're not in a 

16 position to address specific questions today. Again, 

17 this is a listening session. 

18 So we have some background information here. 

19 Again, as Wendy alluded to, the statute directed EPA to 

20 revise the regulations that apply to renovation and 

21 remodeling activities that create lead-based paint 

22 hazards. The deadline that Congress impoposed has past. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 They directed us to do this for target housing, public 

2 buildings built before 1978 and commercial buildings. 

3 As many people I'm sure are aware, the target

Page 9 

4 housing regulations went into effect in 2010. The other 

5 two items, public and commercial buildings, are what we 

6 are discussing here today. 

7 So EPA was tasked with making a determination 

8 as to whether those renovation activities create a 

9 lead-based paint hazard. For those that do, we were 

10 directed to promulgate work practice, training and 

11 certification requirements. 

12 So shortly after the 2008 rule, the target 

13 housing rule, the Agency was sued by a group of 

14 litigants, housing advocates, environmental groups. The 

15 Agency entered into a settlement agreement in 2009, and 

16 that established among other things a timeline for 

17 addressing renovations in public and commercial 

18 buildings. 

19 So, again, some more background, we amended 

20 that original settlement agreement most recently in 

21 September of 2012, and we -- that established a deadline 

22 of July 1st, 2015, for the Agency to promulgate a 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 proposal or to make a determination that hazards are 

not created. 

2 If the Agency determines that a hazard is 

3 created, there's also a deadline, 18 months after the

Page 10 

4 rule, which is roughly January 2017, to publish a final 

5 rule. 

6 So there's other notable milestones. We did

7 publish an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in

8 2010. We got a fair number of comments from a lot of

9 people in this room on that, and then we published two

10 notices this year announcing this meeting, and the types 

11 of information we're looking for. 

12 So moving on to slide six. Again, we are in 

13 the process of analyzing whether these renovation 

14 activities create hazards. We are seeking information 

15 that would help us make the determination as well as 

16 help us determine what types of regulatory requirements 

17 we might put into place. So the comments we receive 

18 today can inform EPA's finding of hazard or no hazard, 

19 reduce the number of buildings that are to be regulated 

20 by a potential proposal, and inform the EPA's proposed 

21 work practice requirements. 

22 So, again, a little bit of background on the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 task. Hazards could be created on the interior public

Page 11 

2 commercial building from interior renovations. Exterior 

3 renovations could impact the same public commercial 

4 building or nearby target housing facilities. 

5 Populations of concern are children and adults, 

6 including women that may be pregnant. Durations that we 

7 will consider, temporary or regular visitor or full or 

8 part-time worker. 

9 The next slide we have some examples of 

10 potential work practice requirements. Again, this is -- 

11 many people will be familiar with these from the 2008 target 

12 housing rule. Occupant protection, such as posting warning 

13 signs. Containing the work area, so containing dust and 

14 debris with plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

15 materials. Prohibited practices such as torching or high 

16 heat gun, as well as the use of high dust generating 

17 equipment without HEPA vacuum attached. 

18 Requirements for safe collection storage and 

19 transportation of waste and cleaning requirements. 

20 As I mentioned, the statute directs us to have 

21 certain training requirements as well, training and 

22 certification. So, you know, as we mentioned we are 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 still in the early stages of this rule. So, you know, 

2 we feel that the training requirements will be 

3 proportional to the regulatory requirements. In other 

4 words, to the extent that the regulatory requirements

Page 12 

5 are more complex, more training might be needed. To the 

6 extent that the regulatory requirements are more simple, 

7 there will be less training required. 

8 And in designing the training and 

9 certification requirements, we are interested in ways

10 to -- these requirements will take into account the 

11 existing regulations, particularly for firms that work 

12 both in residential and commercial renovation. 

13 The statute does require that the firm 

14 certification fees recoup the cost of administering and 

15 enforcing the program. 

16 So on slide ten we talk a little bit about the 

17 types of information we're looking for, information on 

18 the manufacturer sale and uses of lead-based paint, 

19 particularly after 1978; the use of lead-based paint on 

20 public and commercial buildings; frequency and extent of 

21 renovations in public and commercial buildings, work 

22 practices typically used in the renovation of those 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 buildings, and information on dust generation and 

2 transport from those renovations. 

3 So on slide 11, we have a little bit of a 

4 brief overview of some of the information that we have 

5 today. The docket contains a lot of supporting

Page 13 

6 information for this rule that was placed in the docket, 

7 for instance, when we published the ANPR in 2010, as

8 well as all the comments that we received to date. 

9 So some of the information is evidence of

10 guide specifications for the use of lead-based paint on 

11 public and commercial building. Some indications of 

12 lead-based paint was in use after 1978. Cleaning and 

13 re-painting frequencies for some public and commercial 

14 buildings, particularly GSA buildings. 

15 Information indicating work area containment, 

16 work practices may be consistent or not, not always used 

17 in all public and commercial building renovations. And 

18 some studies indicating that renovation activities on 

19 public and commercial buildings can create a significant 

20 amount of dust, for instance, the dust study. 

21 Information from the dust study that exceedances of the 

22 residential and child-occupied facilities hazards standard 

could 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 occur as a result of the renovation of nearby 

2 public and commercial buildings. There is two 

3 environmental field sampling studies, and there are 

4 several studies from NIOSH, on public and commercial 

5 buildings, as well as the residential buildings.

Page 14 

6 On slide 12, I just, again, talk a little bit

7 about the purpose of the meeting. As David said, it's a

8 listening session for us to gather comments, and to 

9 collect additional data and information to inform the

10 agency's decisions. And we identify specific topic 

11 areas in some of the notices that we've published, as 

12 well as in the discussion guide, which is in the folders 

13 that you all have, which I think is about, I'm not sure, 

14 12 or 16 pages of background and some data that we have 

15 today. 

16 And then, you know, I think as was mentioned 

17 previously, the EPA is a science-based agency. We are 

18 required to make decisions based on science. So to the 

19 extent that you can support your comments that you make 

20 today with any kind of data information or studies, that 

21 makes your comments that much more useful to the Agency. 

22 There is no need to present that information 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 today. We have the docket. If you want to submit 

2 additional information, we ask that you please do that

Page 15 

3 before July 12th. The docket information is on the last 

4 slide of my presentation. We posted it up on the wall. 

5 Just be aware of that opportunity. 

6 So on the last slide, I think I pretty much

7 covered everything. Again, the docket information is

8 here, my contact information, my phone number, my e-mail 

9 is there, as well as Ryan Schmit, who is sitting up 

10 here. Again, we welcome and we encourage people to 

11 submit additional information to the docket. Thank you. 

12 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thanks, Hans. 

13 I'm going to just quickly cover some of the 

14 logistics, some of the ground rules. If you've been to 

15 a public hearing before, public meeting, you'll be 

16 familiar with some of these ground rules. But some of 

17 the basic logistics: Rest rooms, we will be here for 

18 about four hours or so. Around here, you walk towards 

19 the guard's desk, there's a men's room immediately on 

20 your left. There's the women's room all the way down 

21 the hall. There's also a women's room all the way 

22 around the other side, and there's probably a men's 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 room.

Page 16 

2 I tried the water fountains yesterday, and it 

3 didn't work. So if you want water, during the break,

4 Ryan will take you up to our fifth-floor snack room,

5 literally a room, because you could get lost. We do

6 have about a ten-minute break. Ryan will escort those

7 that are interested in getting something during the 

8 break. 

9 We covered some of the very basic ground 

10 rules. Blackberrys and Iphones, any sort of PDA you 

11 might have, if you could put that on silent. 

12 As your moderator today, it will be my job to 

13 stay on time. As Hans mentioned, the maximum amount of 

14 time to speak is ten minutes. We shouldn't feel like 

15 you need to take up the full ten minutes. In fact, 

16 Ron -- raise your hand, Ron. 

17 Ron, is sitting directly in front of the 

18 podium. Ron is going to be raising the yellow card in 

19 about nine minutes for those few that go that long. He 

20 will be raising the card in nine minutes. At about nine 

21 minutes fifty seconds, for that maybe one person that 

22 goes that long, I will warn the speaker that they have 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 17

1 ten seconds, and then right at ten minutes, I will thank 

2 the speaker, and at that point they are to be seated. 

3 To help speed up the process from one speaker 

4 to the next speaker, I ask that everyone -- the 

5 pre-registered speakers have been assigned a number. I 

6 ask that you literally start to make your way up to the 

7 front as you sense the previous speaker concluding their 

8 remarks. That will speed up the process. Literally, we 

9 only have 15 to 20 seconds in between each speaker. 

10 We only have three PowerPoint presentations. 

11 So that will also make it pretty easy. We talked about 

12 the timing. We've already mentioned about the ten 

13 minutes. 

14 Hans mentioned this: Please keep statements 

15 and discussions focused on point. We are a science, 

16 based agency, and we ask that you keep that in mind as 

17 you present your facts, your data this morning. 

18 We already talked about the docket. That's up 

19 there as well as Hans' presentation, and that remains 

20 open until July 12th. 

21 We will not respond to commentary this 

22 morning. We mentioned that earlier. We are only here 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 18

1 to listen. You will hear that a few times from me this 

2 morning. We are simply here to listen. There is a zero 

3 tolerance policy for unruly behavior of any kind. You 

4 look like a pretty reasonable group, so I'm pretty happy 

5 with that. It makes my job a lot easier. 

6 I've already mentioned the breaks. That's it. 

7 I've covered it. 

8 With that I think we can get started. Five 

9 minutes to 9:00. We are doing pretty well here. 

10 I'm going to do my best with the last names. 

11 This is Karen Penafiel. She's with the Building Owners 

12 and Managers International Organization. You're up. 

13 MS. PENAFIEL: I did submit a couple of 

14 slides. 

15 MR. PIANTANIDA: I'm looking at Hans. I don't 

16 think we have them. 

17 MS. PENAFIEL: That's okay. 

18 Good morning, everybody. My name is Karen 

19 Penafiel. I am vice president of advocacy, codes and 

20 standards for the Building Owners and Managers 

21 Association International. Thank you very much for the 

22 opportunity to speak today. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 BOMA International is an international 

2 federation of more than 100 local associations and

Page 19 

3 affiliated organizations. We were founded in 1907, and

4 are 18,000 members, own and manage more than 9 billion

5 square feet of commercial properties. 

6 BOMA represents a large number of small 

7 businesses, owners and managers of commercial buildings, 

8 which will be affected by any regulations that EPA may

9 implement in regard to renovation, repair, and painting

10 activities for public and commercial buildings. 

11 BOMA has many concerns that the EPA is moving 

12 forward without first establishing a clear need for 

13 regulatory action or that renovation, repair, and 

14 painting activities create health hazards in public and 

15 commercial buildings. 

16 We believe that EPA must demonstrate an 

17 understanding of the diversity and complexity of public 

18 and commercial building types - including age, size, use 

19 and occupancy. Next, EPA must thoroughly assess the 

20 types of potential lead hazards in these structures and 

21 the dangers they may pose to the public. 

22 It is well documented that since 1978, lead 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 has been virtually absent from standard wall paints; 

2 however, there appears to be no documentation on the

Page 20 

3 prevalence of lead-based painting coatings that continue 

4 to be manufactured for use on structural steel, steel

5 doors and windows, and maintenance coatings used on 

6 commercial and industrial buildings, nor on the extent

7 of any potential hazard they may present. 

8 BOMA just concluded our annual conference.

9 When I was -- I was preparing my comments when I was on 

10 the plane, and I happened to be sitting behind one the 

11 group chairman, so I kept tapping him on the shoulder 

12 and asking him questions, and I asked him whether his 

13 buildings had lead-based paint, and his first response 

14 was, oh, yeah, we do do our due diligence when we 

15 purchase the properties, we know which walls have those 

16 surfaces, and I said, well, do you know which window 

17 casings have it, which stairwells have it, which 

18 mechanical equipment has it, and he just gave me a blank 

19 look and said, no. And this was a very prominent owner 

20 of Class A properties. If they don't know this 

21 information, Class B and Class C building owners do not 

22 know either. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 21

1 So my point there is there has to be a lot of 

2 work done to figure where the stuff is, educate building 

3 owners on what the proper maintenance practices are and 

4 to do the research on how that might impact health 

5 hazards in a building. 

6 The slide that I had hoped to have is 

7 information from Energy Information Administration, 

8 CBECS, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 

9 showing that there are more than 100 specific 

10 activities, aggregated into 14 principal building 

11 activities which are then broken down into numerous 

12 sub-types based on the primary business, commerce or 

13 function conducted within each structure. 

14 The point of the slide is there are 14 

15 different building types ranging from industrial to 

16 commercial to food service to everything else. There 

17 are many different uses to these buildings, many 

18 different occupants in these building. A "one size fits 

19 all" regulatory structure is not appropriate for many of 

20 those properties. 

21 The next slide would have been talking about 

22 the age of buildings. U.S. buildings vary by age. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 Based on the 2003 CBECS data, 42 percent of the 

2 commercial buildings were built in 1980 or later. And 

3 therefore, presumably contains no lead-based paint in 

4 the interior or exterior surfaces. The percentage has 

5 obviously grown since 2003 as many new buildings have 

6 been constructed. Unless there is clear evidence that

Page 22 

7 lead is found elsewhere in these buildings and that this 

8 prevalence of lead creates a health hazard, commercial

9 buildings constructed after 1978 should be exempt from

10 any rulemaking. 

11 BOMA members utilize a high standard of care. 

12 The commercial real estate industry is incredibly 

13 competitive. Over the years, as building technologies 

14 have advanced, the technologies have advanced, the 

15 definition of what is a "Class A" building has changed. 

16 It's no longer just about the plush lobby and the 

17 impeccable marble. It's about the sustainability, the 

18 safety and security as well. Our members do not want to 

19 be in the business of operating unsafe buildings, and 

20 the fear of obsolescence is a very powerful driver. If 

21 lead is present in our buildings, and there is a clear 

22 health hazard, we want to know, and we want to know the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 best ways to eradicate it.

Page 23 

2 More and more building owners are voluntarily

3 adopting stringent building certifications, such as the

4 U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and

5 Environmental Design on lead standards or BOMA's own 360 

6 Performance Program. Both of these programs emphasize a 

7 standard of excellence. 

8 EPA needs to conduct credible research on the

9 potential health hazards of the remaining uses of 

10 lead-based paint and coatings that remain in use 

11 subsequent to the 1978 ban. Without this knowledge, 

12 there's no way to assess a remedy. 

13 We caution EPA to use flexibility in its 

14 rulemaking. Any new regulations will merely be another 

15 regulatory layer on top of existing OSHA rules and many 

16 state/local regulations that are already in place. EPA 

17 should keep in mind that every layer of regulation adds 

18 more costs for small businesses and may eventually drive 

19 those small entities out of business. Even if the 

20 building owner is not directly regulated, and the burden 

21 falls upon the contractors that perform the work, any 

22 resulting cost increases will be paid by the building 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 owner. This will adversely affect small business 

2 building owners. However, most building owners, large

Page 24 

3 or small, will pass some or all of these cost increases 

4 on to the tenant or end-user, which in turn affects even 

5 a larger population of small businesses. It is not the 

6 contractor that bears the burden, but the building 

7 tenants, our nation's small businesses. 

8 In addition, creating overly burdensome and 

9 overly costly regulations may well result in delaying 

10 much needed renovations or repairs to buildings. 

11 Deferred maintenance may also mean that much needed 

12 repairs, potentially impacting the safety of the 

13 building, are also deferred. 

14 For example, one of our members in San Diego, 

15 where lead-based paint is already highly regulated, 

16 reported that the cost of repainting the exterior of his 

17 12-story building increased from $96,000 to over 

18 $300,000 due to overly burdensome regulations. Even the 

19 largest companies will not be able to absorb those cost 

20 increases. Small business owners will struggle with 

21 that. 

22 I mentioned I just returned from our annual 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 conference, and we discussed this issue. One of the 

2 members said, well, isn't this going to be asbestos

Page 25 

3 regulations where the regulations only kick in if we're 

4 disturbing the surface. I said, yes, that is what is 

5 being discussed. But the surface they're talking about, 

6 the survey is 6 square feet. I had 100 people at that 

7 meeting going like this (indicating), trying to 

8 visualize what 6 square feet looked like and started 

9 laughing, and I said, you do this daily; don't you? And 

10 their response was at least. 

11 So we caution EPA to keep in mind how often 

12 these triggers, if that is the threshold, how often this 

13 type of activity takes place in a commercial building, 

14 and be very careful to make sure that we are not 

15 creating unnecessary regulations. 

16 That concludes my remarks. Thank you again 

17 for the opportunity to speak today. 

18 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you. 

19 We do have three PowerPoint presentations. 

20 That's what we have on the laptop. We have Rich Walker 

21 giving a PowerPoint; we have Leah Pilconis, and then 

22 lastly, Jane Malone. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 Is there anyone else expected to give a 

2 PowerPoint? 

3 UNIDENTIFIED: I have it on a thumb drive. 

4 MR. PIANTANIDA: Okay. That's fine. 

5 This is Harold Huggins with the National 

6 Association of Realtors.

Page 26 

7 MR. HUGGINS: Good morning. My name is Harold 

8 Huggins. I've been a real estate professional for 50

9 years, engaged in both residential and commercial sales, 

10 leasing, investment, advising, and property management, 

11 and appraisals. I'm speaking on behalf of the National 

12 Association of Realtors, The Institute of Real Estate 

13 Management, and the CCIM Institute. 

14 Members of these three organizations are 

15 involved in all aspects of real estate and property 

16 management, including buying, selling, managing 

17 commercial and residential properties. Our members take 

18 the responsibility to ensure the health of their 

19 clients, tenants, and owners with the utmost 

20 seriousness, particularly as it relates to lead hazards 

21 and the impact on children's health. 

22 We support public policies that are effective 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 27

1 in solving the problem of lead paint and want to work in 

2 a collaborative manner with EPA to implement these 

3 policies and activities that protect our clients from 

4 lead paint hazards while ensuring a vibrant and growing 

5 real estate property management industry. 

6 We thank you for allowing us this opportunity 

7 to testify and respond to your request regarding lead 

8 hazards in public and commercial buildings. 

9 My testimony will focus on three specific 

10 points. One, EPA has not conclusively determined the 

11 degree to which lead hazards exist in public and 

12 commercial buildings. Two, residential buildings are 

13 definitely different than public and commercial 

14 buildings, in tenancy, construction, operation, and 

15 maintenance. Three, EPA does not have sufficient 

16 research in lead hazards in public and commercial 

17 buildings, and has not conducted adequate outreach with 

18 governmental entities who own and lease a significant 

19 portion of commercial and public buildings. 

20 Determination of a hazard: Prior to beginning 

21 any rulemaking it is essential EPA determine if and to 

22 what extent there is any lead hazard posed by public and 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 commercial properties. EPA admitted in the advance

Page 28 

2 notice of the proposed rulemaking published on May 6th, 

3 2010, that it does not have enough information to 

4 conclude that specific renovation, remodeling, and

5 painting, RRP, activities in commercial and public

6 buildings create a lead-based paint hazard. (See 75 

7 Fed.Reg at 24857 and 24859). 

8 In fact, in a scan of relevant literature 

9 there are no studies that demonstrate a lead hazard in 

10 public and commercial buildings, and several studies 

11 that demonstrate that most RRP activities either 

12 eliminate lead hazards or reduce the potential for 

13 future hazards. 

14 For EPA to proceed, the agency's current 

15 information collection efforts would need to demonstrate 

16 specific hazards created by the RRP activities in public 

17 and commercial buildings. As we will discuss next, 

18 residential studies cannot be used to replicate the 

19 behavior or activities of public and commercial 

20 buildings. 

21 We also must insist that the EPA complete the 

22 congressionally mandated Study of Certification to 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 determine which renovation and remodeling activities 

2 disturb lead paint and create hazards. 

3 Residential buildings are not a proxy for

Page 29 

4 commercial buildings. Residential buildings are simply 

5 not appropriate proxy for public and commercial 

6 facilities. Children do not reside in public or 

7 commercial buildings, nor do they spend significant time 

8 there. If they do, such as in the case of a child care 

9 facility in a commercial property, those buildings are 

10 already regulated as a child-occupied facility, and 

11 subject to the existing RRP rules. 

12 This rule protects the most vulnerable 

13 population for lead paint hazards where they are 

14 present. Children are not simply present in commercial 

15 properties that do not contain a child-occupied 

16 facility. Lead dust is generally the largest lead 

17 contaminating problem, but neither children nor 

18 vulnerable adults spend significant periods of their 

19 time on the floor of public or commercial buildings, 

20 where the majority of lead dust in residential 

21 properties are found. 

22 Furthermore, the scope of the commercial 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 buildings is significantly broader than residential 

2 properties. There are many building types, uses, and 

3 occupancies that make up commercial buildings. It is 

4 estimated that there are more than 4.9 million

Page 30 

5 commercial buildings in the United States. There are 14 

6 principal building activity types, including retail,

7 lodging, office, public assembly, religious worship 

8 service, and warehouse. Each of these buildings have a

9 very different tenancy, use, and operation. Creating a

10 single across-the-board standard would inappropriately 

11 ignore these differences. We believe RRP activities and 

12 practices may differ greatly among building types, and 

13 EPA should not assume that it is correct to treat all 

14 buildings the same. 

15 In EPA's Approach For Developing Lead Dust 

16 Hazard Standards For Public And Commercial Buildings 

17 published on November 5, 2010, the Agency acknowledges 

18 that residential properties differ greatly from public 

19 to commercial buildings. That notice says, and I quote: 

20 The validity of the empirical models in predicting 

21 children's blood lead impacts depends crucially on the 

22 assumption that physical and behavioral determinants of 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 exposure are the same or very similar to in public and 

2 commercial buildings as in residences there is very

Page 31 

3 little empirical evidence in support of this assumption, 

4 which adds to the inherent statistical uncertainty in

5 these models, unquote. 

6 Yet the May 6, 2010 ANPR seems to suggest that 

7 existing research on residential properties can be used

8 to develop commercial and public building regulations.

9 It should be noted that commercial buildings

10 are renovated and remodeled much more frequently than 

11 residential properties. For example, as tenants in 

12 retail or office buildings change, the space is refitted 

13 to the needs of the next tenant. This is most often 

14 done while the space is vacant and substantial changes 

15 to the layout of the floor plan can be made. Likewise, 

16 cleaning is typically more routine and rigorous in 

17 commercial buildings than in many residences. Instead 

18 of relying on the cleaning habits of the individual 

19 tenants as is the case in multifamily property, 

20 commercial spaces are most often professionally cleaned 

21 on a regular schedule. Cleaning often happens nightly 

22 five days a week by professional cleaning services. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 This routinely includes dusting, vacuuming, 

2 sweeping following each workday. This common practice 

3 alone greatly cuts down on any potential lead dust 

4 hazards. 

5 Research on public and commercial buildings

Page 32 

6 and the federal government. In April of this year, the

7 National Institutes of Building Sciences, responding to

8 a set of inquiries said that, and I quote: 

9 Science-based information applicable to the presence of

10 occupant exposure, and the mitigation of lead-based 

11 paint in commercial and public buildings is woefully 

12 inadequate, end quote. 

13 We would argue that the EPA has a vast 

14 resource with which to collect data on public and 

15 commercial buildings, their sister agencies and 

16 organizations within the federal government. 

17 The General Services Administration owns and 

18 leases over 354 million square feet of space in 9,600 

19 buildings in more than 2,200 communities nationwide. In 

20 addition to office buildings, GSA properties include 

21 ports of entry, courthouses, laboratories, post offices, 

22 and data processing centers. The branches of military 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 such as NAVFAC and other agencies control additional 

2 millions of square feet of space. Even a relatively 

3 small federal entity, the Architect of the Capitol,

Page 33 

4 controls 17.4 million square feet in the Capitol complex 

5 and surrounding buildings. Each of these agencies 

6 should and could be compelled to share information with

7 the EPA that would help in this effort. 

8 In addition, we believe the EPA needs to work

9 with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,

10 which already regulates renovation in commercial 

11 properties. 

12 CFR 1926.62 deals with construction as well as 

13 repairs and improvements. Many procedures in the OSHA 

14 regulations protect the public as well as workers. EPA 

15 should carefully evaluate the OSHA regulations and 

16 consider any necessary recommendations before creating a 

17 new EPA regulation. Redundant regulations require 

18 additional training and may be expensive to implement 

19 for small business construction contractors. 

20 Thank you again for this opportunity to 

21 testify. We would also like to note that the majority 

22 of real estate professionals are small business people. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 According to the 2012 National Association of Realtors

Page 34 

2 member profile, the typical realtor works in a firm that 

3 employs 23 agents and brokers and more than 85 percent

4 of the time is an independent company. The average and

5 commercial property manager manages 30 properties. We

6 urge EPA to consider small business before proceeding.

7 We believe the EPA has much work to do before

8 continuing with this effort. Most importantly we don't

9 believe EPA has demonstrated a hazard caused by RRP in

10 commercial facilities. Last month, more than 50 members 

11 of the House of Representatives to EPA stating many 

12 similar concerns. So we urge EPA to not continue with 

13 this rulemaking. EPA is only required to regulate 

14 against hazards, and since none is proved, no regulation 

15 is permitted. 

16 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Harold. 

17 I'd ask that you speak a little closer to the 

18 microphone. The next speaker is Ben Gann. 

19 MR. GANN: Good morning, my name is Ben Gann. 

20 I'm the director of Legislative Affairs for the Window 

21 and Door Manufacturers Association or WDNA. 

22 WDNA was founded in 1927. It's a premier 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 trade association representing manufacturers of 

2 residential, commercial, window, door, and skylight

Page 35 

3 awnings. WDNA members are leading America's efforts to 

4 develop energy efficient windows as well as skylights 

5 for both new and replacement construction. 

6 WDNA appreciates the opportunity to share its 

7 perspective about the lead renovation repair and 

8 painting rule for residential buildings and the 

9 possibility for expanding the rule to regulate the same 

10 activities for public and commercial buildings. 

11 In the few minutes I have today, I would like 

12 to talk about the window manufacturing industry's 

13 experience with the residential rule and the industry's 

14 concerns with what the EPA considers its standing rule 

15 to cover renovation, repair, and painting of public and 

16 commercial buildings. 

17 Public exposure is an issue that WDNA members 

18 take very serious. However, poor development 

19 implementation of renovation, repair, and paint for 

20 residential buildings resulted in underestimating 

21 compliance costs to regulate the community, using 

22 limited data to justify the cost and benefits of the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 rule. 

2 Removing the opt-out provision, which more 

3 than doubled the number of homes subject to the rule, 

4 and proving lead paint tests that said do not meet the 

5 rule of standard for false positives producing 

6 unnecessary compliance costs for homeowners and 

7 remodelers.

Page 36 

8 EPA's estimate of the rules compliance process

9 is exceedingly low in window manufacturing. The Agency

10 has stated that for typical remodeling projects, the 

11 single-family homes, the average compliance cost, 

12 depending on the size and type of job ranges from 35,000 

13 to 376,000; moreover, for a project where 12 windows 

14 were replaced, a single-family home, EPA estimates the 

15 average cost ranges $124 for contractors that use some 

16 of the required work practices to $376 for contractors 

17 who do not use any of the required work practices. 

18 In the experience of WDNA member companies, 

19 however, compliance costs are much higher, by our 

20 estimates, complying with the residential rule, was 

21 between $90 and $160 per window opening, easily adding 

22 more than $1,000 to each project. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 In July of 2012, the EPA Office of Inspector

Page 37 

2 General found the Agency had limited data to develop its 

3 cost and benefits for both the 2008 rule and the 2010 

4 amendment. 

5 In addition, the Office of Inspector General 

6 represented that the EPA re-examine the cost and 

7 benefits to determine whether the rule and the amendment 

8 should be modified, streamlined, expanded. In its 

9 report, the Office of Inspector General found the EPA's 

10 data from only nine firms to estimate the rule's 

11 compliance cost, even though the Agency acknowledged 

12 that over 300,000 firms would be affected by the rule. 

13 Despite the Office of Inspector General's 

14 recommendation that he gave, he examined the cost and 

15 benefits of both the 2008 rule and the 2010 amendment 

16 removing the opt-out provision. The Agency ignored this 

17 recommendation. 

18 The final rule in 2008 contained an opt-out 

19 provision allowing the owners of the homes built before 

20 1978 to waive the rules and requirements if there was 

21 not a pregnant woman or a child under the age of six 

22 living there. The rule took effect on April 22nd of 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 2010, but exactly two weeks after the rule's effective 

2 date, EPA announced that it was removing the opt-out 

3 provision starting on July 6th, 2010. Removing the

Page 38 

4 opt-out provision more than doubled the number of homes

5 subject to the rule, from 38 million to 79 million. By

6 EPA's own estimates removing the opt-out provision 

7 increases the annual compliance cost by $336 million to

8 the regulated community. 

9 In the view of WDMA, the opt-out provision was 

10 critical to lower the rule's compliance cost, and 

11 removing it took away the choice from some homeowners to 

12 forego the extra cost associated with the rule's 

13 compliance on top of the expensive renovations. 

14 EPA also increased compliance cost by failing 

15 to identify test data that fully meets the rule's 

16 standard. Although the Agency has passed three lead 

17 test kits to use in complying with the residential rule, 

18 none of the approved test kits meet the rule standard 

19 for false positives. As a result, in some cases 

20 consumers are paying for work practices that are 

21 unnecessary and provide no benefit, but must be 

22 appointed because of false positive test results. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 EPA initially estimated that the three test 

2 kits would reduce the rule's cost by $400 million

Page 39 

3 annually. In addition, EPA stated in the 2008 rule that 

4 if there were no commercially available test kits 

5 meeting the standard by September of 2010, the agents 

6 would initiate a rulemaking to extend the effective date 

7 of the final rule. 

8 However, despite not approving the test kit 

9 that met the rule standard for false positive, they did 

10 not issue rulemaking based on the data. Based on the 

11 window manufacturing industry's experience with the 

12 residential rule and the EPA's flawed approach to 

13 implement, the WDNA may strongly encourage the Agency to 

14 use sound data and to conduct extensive analysis to 

15 determine the true compliance cost for both public and 

16 commercial rule. 

17 In addition, the EPA should avoid relying on 

18 young study analysis and use the justified residential 

19 rule as the basis for creating a similar rule for public 

20 and commercial buildings. 

21 WDNA looks forward to continue working with 

22 the EPA as it gathers information toward a final 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 decision in proposing the renovation for public and 

2 commercial buildings or determining that these 

3 activities do not create lead-based paint as is 

4 warranting additional rulemaking. 

5 Thank you again for giving the WDNA the 

6 opportunity today to share the window manufacturing 

7 industry's perspective on the issue. 

8 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Ben. 

9 Our next speaker is Rich Walker. He is with 

10 the American Architectural Manufacturers Association.

11 He does have a PowerPoint presentation.

Page 40 

12 MR. WALKER: My name is Rich Walker. I'm the 

13 president and CEO for American Architectural 

14 Manufacturers Association, which is along with the 

15 windows, doors, skylight, curtain wall, we represent 

16 both residential and architectural commercial segments. 

17 There's about 260 members nationwide. We have roughly 

18 80 percent of the commercial market representing a 

19 number of organizations. So we've got a fair amount of 

20 feedback in our proposal to expand RRP. 

21 The release of the 1999-2011 Centers for 

22 Disease Control blood levels surveillance reports 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 confirms that CBL, childhood blood levels, achieved a

Page 41 

2 dramatic drop, 87 percent for children between 1999 and 

3 2007. At the same time, prior to this -- this is all 

4 prior to the 2008 limitation and the 2009 opt-out 

5 amendment, despite one trillion spent in residential 

6 repair in homes, remodeling and repair. 

7 This shows a brief graph. It's a little bit

8 dark. I'm sorry about that. It shows the home 

9 renovation expenditures from 1995 to 2010 and '11, and

10 corresponding drop in childhood blood levels. 

11 This is kind of busy, and I don't expect you 

12 to read it all. But it shows an analysis of the 

13 renovations and repairs. And if you'll look at the 

14 right-hand column there, that box is "do it yourself," 

15 and obviously do it yourself is somewhat of a problem to 

16 this rule, because most homeowners aren't aware of the 

17 rule or having to do it properly. 

18 If you add up the windows for the internal 

19 paint activity here, the projects total about 9.3 

20 million. This is 2007 alone. 

21 Now turning our attention over to the 

22 commercial segment, 450 billion was spent for commercial 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 building improvements and repairs between the period 

2 between '95 and 2005. Again, childhood blood levels 

3 dropped from 5 percent to .65 percent during that time 

4 period.

Page 42 

5 According to CDC, Centers for Disease Control, 

6 statistics, those levels were relatively unchanged 

7 despite 4 billion in cost to LRRP rules. 

8 According to EPA's estimates, 10.3 billion

9 will be spent on residential LRRP and opt-out compliance 

10 by 2016. 10.3 billion, that's a pretty significant 

11 expenditure. 

12 The opt-out amendment, you've heard a little 

13 bit about that already. The analysis indicates that 

14 residents in older housing, poverty, the non-Hispanics 

15 and Blacks, are still major risk factors of high levels. 

16 EPA is concerned that exposures may be ineffective with 

17 respect to the populations. The key here is that this 

18 is the segment of population that's not being reached. 

19 Significantly increasing renovation costs has 

20 placed children in low income homes at greater risk of 

21 continued exposure. 

22 I think Ben just covered this, so I'm going to 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 go to the next one.

Page 43 

2 One thing I think was mentioned with the Clean 

3 Air Scientific Committee, EPA could not endorse the 

4 specific steps and procedures and data analysis 

5 contained in the Agency's methodology. They also say 

6 the limited data included in the dust study most likely 

7 rendered a study not statistically valid or 

8 representative on a national basis. 

9 This was covered. Again, the Inspector 

10 General review available at the time of the rulemaking, 

11 seems like the rulemaking was somewhat of an accelerated 

12 implementation and could not take into account all facts 

13 available. So the EPA Science Advisory Committee or EPA 

14 still went forward with the rule. 

15 Again, I think this was touched on earlier. 

16 It suggests that the EPA re-examine the benefits and 

17 costs. 

18 This is 24 million housing units have a period 

19 of paint -- lead paint -- elevated levels of lead 

20 contaminants. 4 million of those dwellings are homes 

21 with one or more young children. They're really exposed 

22 daily with no renovation activity planned and can't 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 afford it or don't have the means. When I say "the 

2 means," you heard the cost. The cost is not 

3 insignificant. It's probably around $100 an opening, 

4 which is a fairly significant additional cost for a 

5 renovation for someone in a lower income bracket. 

6 We really feel based on the data presented 

7 that the commercial rules will not result in reducing 

8 the blood levels for this segment of the population.

Page 44 

9 We think a really hard look at an analysis of

10 the foundation for -- or justification of cost estimates 

11 for the residential cases ought to be conducted. And 

12 waiting for anything is considered before looking into 

13 the commercial building segment. 

14 Our recommendation is to educate. We think 

15 that's one way to reach these at-risk populations. 

16 I want to say one more thing. We think by 

17 education through public exposure on PSAs, outreach to 

18 pediatricians, family doctors, conducted with the 

19 assistance of the nation's elementary schools, industry, 

20 and the associations representing manufacturers and 

21 remodelers are ready and willing to help. We have a 

22 great deal of expertise in our association. We would be 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 very much willing to provide anyone with information 

2 that asks for it. 

3 On behalf of the members of my association, 

4 thank you for listening. 

5 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Rich.

Page 45 

6 Our next speaker is Jane Luxton. She is with

7 Pepper Hamilton. 

8 MS. LUXTON: Good morning. Thank you for the

9 opportunity to present oral comments this morning. 

10 I filed written comments on behalf of the 

11 Commercial Properties Coalition. And I'm here today on 

12 their account. I will focus my comments, since I'm a 

13 lawyer, on the legal aspects of what the EPA case is in 

14 considering this ruling. 

15 As many of you have already seen in some of 

16 the slides and the discussion, EPA's statutory authority 

17 is limited to only those "renovation or remodeling 

18 activities in target housing, public buildings 

19 constructed before 1978, and commercial buildings that 

20 create lead-based paint hazards." This is from section 

21 402 TSCA. 

22 The Agency's December 31st, 2012, request for 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 information that announced this meeting and set it in 

2 motion acknowledges this limited authority. It 

3 discusses the settlement agreement it reached with 

4 advocacy groups saying, rulemaking will address 

5 renovations in public and commercial buildings, other 

6 than child-occupied facilities, to the extent such 

7 renovations create lead-based paint hazards.

Page 46 

8 The notice, and again today, we heard that the

9 "EPA is still in the process of trying to determine what

10 is the lead-based paint hazards from public and 

11 commercial renovations." 

12 Section 403, the one that follows the TSCA 

13 section I referred to previously sets forth a sequence 

14 of events that EPA followed in developing the 

15 residential rule. Under 403, EPA is given 180 months to 

16 develop regulations identifying lead-based paint 

17 hazards. Section 402, the one we're at now we're 

18 looking at, with respect to public and commercial 

19 regulations, EPA gives a four-year time period, and we 

20 know those deadlines have long past. The point is that 

21 there is a sequence in which EPA was first directed to 

22 develop a rulemaking on what constituted a hazard, and 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 that was done. That process was followed with respect

2 to the residential rule. And in that case full public

3 comments were taken and considered and the rule

4 finalized on what constituted a hazard. Only then did a

5 proceeding to apply those standards to the residential

6 start. Only then did a proceeding to apply those

7 standards to the residential start. That process does

8 not seem to have been followed yet. That initial

9 determination of what constitutes a lead-based paint

10 hazard has yet to be done.

11 Aside from its significance in terms of the

12 sequencing, that 2001 final rule included an explicit

13 caveat, saying: It's also important to emphasize that

14 these standards, the ones developed for the residential

15 rule, apply only to the pre-1978 target housing and

16 certain child-occupied facilities. And these standards

17 were not intended to identify potential hazards in other

18 settings. So though there has been some talk and

19 comments that those definitions standards should just be

20 dropped into a commercial setting, the rule itself makes

21 it clear that it cannot be done.

Page 47 

22 As the Coalition's comments are made clear in
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 review of the documents EPA indicated are relevant to 

2 public and commercial lead-based paint hazard reveals 

3 standard reference to anything that is a public or 

4 commercial building, much less anything close to a 

5 complete study on those structures. In fact, just as 

6 with the EPA's 2001 lead-based paint hazard 

7 identification rule, some of those studies, EPA put 

8 forward state on their face that they provide no basis 

9 upon which to draw conclusions about lead-based paint 

10 hazards to public and commercial structures. 

11 The Coalition has provided substantial 

12 evidence of the differences between residential 

13 buildings on the one hand and public and commercial 

14 structures on the other.

Page 48 

15 In the comments that have come in so far, one 

16 advocate claims that if there is no evidence of 

17 lead-based paint hazards in public commercial buildings 

18 or a possibility, EPA, quote, unquote, must conclude 

19 there is no reason to believe public and commercial 

20 buildings are different from residential structures; and 

21 further, that if others cannot disprove a hazard, some 

22 sort of default determination should apply. The 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 49

1 discussion guide refers to this contention as some sort 

2 of obligation to seek any quote, unquote, exemption from 

3 regulation as though such regulation was already imposed 

4 or preordained. That's not a correct statement of the 

5 law. It's also not a correct statement of what would 

6 constitute a legally support rule imposing vast, 

7 enforceable obligations on huge stock in public and 

8 commercial buildings. Instead EPA cannot promulgate a 

9 rule unless there is credible, scientific record 

10 evidence that its regulation addresses an actual 

11 lead-based paint hazard and satisfies all requirements 

12 under the Administrative Procedure Act. Those 

13 requirements include a supportable determination that 

14 any such rule will confer benefits that outweigh the 

15 cost of imposing these far-reaching obligations on a 

16 huge, just vast supply of number of public and 

17 commercial buildings. The analysis must also take into 

18 account the impact on small businesses. Several 

19 speakers have already referred to that. 

20 There is no question that we all agree that it 

21 is important to reduce sources of lead exposure that 

22 create hazardous health effects. But especially in an 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 50

1 era of scarce governmental and private resources, it is 

2 important to focus on scientifically credible and real, 

3 not speculative, risks, sources of risk. 

4 As Hans emphasized, the Agency must base any 

5 proposed rule on science that establishes a lead-based 

6 paint hazard warranting regulation if it is to meet 

7 statutory obligations. 

8 Thank you. 

9 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Jane. 

10 Our next speaker is Patrick Connor. He's 

11 with the National Multifamily Housing Council. 

12 MR. CONNOR: Good morning. My name is Patrick 

13 Connor. I'm the president of Connor, which is an 

14 environmental engineering consulting group. I have been 

15 a long-term member of the National Multifamily Housing 

16 Council. And I appreciate the opportunity to offer my 

17 comments today on behalf of the National Multifamily 

18 Housing Council. 

19 I have personally been involved with the 

20 evolution of regulatory guidelines, procedures involving 

21 lead-based paint housing since 1986. 

22 I was chosen by then Secretary Cisneros to 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 participate on the Federal Task Force on lead-based 

2 paint, which was convening as part of the Housing

Page 51 

3 Community Development Act in 1992, formerly or generally 

4 referred to as Title 10. 

5 I've worked closely with the EPA and the 

6 discussion groups related to Section 403, 406, 

7 rulemaking. I've been appointed by Governors Erlich and 

8 O'Malley in the Maryland Lead Poisoning Commission. We

9 are actively involved in the lead-based paint issue. 

10 Connor has provided regulatory agencies, 

11 housing authorities, private and public property owners, 

12 managers and homeowners with lead-based paint 

13 inspections, risk assessments, treatment designs, 

14 negative exposures, assessments, under the Occupational 

15 Safety and Health Administration training services. 

16 In way of background, our experience, we've 

17 performed over 50,000 inspections in risk assessments. 

18 We've performed negative exposure assessments for 

19 contractors, property owners, tradesmen for OSHA. We've 

20 trained over 20,000 certified renovators. We've trained 

21 over 3,000 real estate professionals. We've managed 

22 lead mitigation in over 50,000 units. We've managed the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 treatment sought out by the facilities. 

2 In addition, looking at hazards, we have 

3 continued to sample the environment for lead, both in

Page 52 

4 the form of soil and dust. These samplings continue to

5 illustrate the significant levels of lead in our 

6 environment outside of the properties. 

7 My comments today will address EPA's request

8 for information to support the rulemaking, to address

9 potential lead-based paint hazards in or emanating from

10 renovations and repairs in public and commercial 

11 buildings. 

12 The first topic I'd like to discuss is merely 

13 lead in paint identification or determination. As a 

14 very first step it is essential that EPA conduct data on 

15 the incident and conditions of lead-based paint in the 

16 public and commercial buildings, work practices that may 

17 disturb lead in paint and work practices that disturb 

18 lead in paint surfaces. 

19 Many years of research went into defining the 

20 residential rules. National surveys were conducted to 

21 understand the nature and extent of the issue, and from 

22 that effort, regulations were developed. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 An important part of the regulatory equation

Page 53 

2 is to determine who falls within the scope. Since 1980, 

3 the process of determining lead in paint had been 

4 largely driven by initially the manufacturers, and then 

5 we evolved, and we had HUD guidelines. We developed 

6 performance characteristic sheets. And we have ASTM 

7 standards, and ultimately EPA regulations. 

8 The HUD task force developed, with the advice 

9 of sampling experts, a protocol for sampling for 

10 lead-based paint in residential properties. These 

11 protocols, now more commonly referred to collectively as 

12 documented methodologies, are the standards that 

13 inspectors and risk assessors follow when they evaluate 

14 residential buildings or job-occupied facilities for 

15 potential lead-based paint. 

16 Simply these documented methodologies 

17 determine the presence or absence of lead-based paint or 

18 the presence or absence of lead-based paint hazard. 

19 Currently, there is no documented methodology 

20 for public and commercial buildings. This is the 

21 challenge that will be facing property owners and 

22 commercial tenants who will need reliable and valid 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 protocols for determining whether or not lead-based

Page 54 

2 paint or lead-based paint hazards exist and/or on their 

3 properties. 

4 As for clear regulatory direction or a 

5 revised, possibly, expanded set of document 

6 methodologies compliant with this rulemaking may be 

7 virtually impossible. We need to take our decades of 

8 research and provide this to the new regulated community 

9 for standards, a set of rules to follow, a set of rules 

10 by which inspectors and risk assessors can adequately 

11 quote and provide the same level of service with the 

12 same set of rules to their client. That way the client 

13 can expect the rules to be followed, and they will be 

14 empowered with the tools and information that are needed 

15 to protect their occupants. 

16 Without clear and proven methodologies, lead 

17 in paint determination in most public and commercial 

18 buildings may be forced to follow the single-family 

19 housing rules. This being simply a room-by-room, 

20 surface-by-surface determination. 

21 The documented methodologies that we've had 

22 for years has enabled multifamily properties to perform 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 statistical sampling. 

2 Public and commercial properties and their

Page 55 

3 tenants may not have the benefit of statistical sampling 

4 since there is not a common paint history. You've heard 

5 two speakers mention about how commercial properties 

6 change differently than residential. 

7 Public and commercial buildings, I believe, 

8 provide a challenge to the existing statistical 

9 strategy. Some of these strategies, including property 

10 owners, may not be the ones performing the alterations; 

11 therefore, this understanding of a paint history for an 

12 inspector/risk assessor may not exist. 

13 Commercial space is renovated based on 

14 different needs in the residential space. Some 

15 commercial spaces are expanded as well as contracted 

16 based on business needs. Typically, apartments do not 

17 change as rapidly or erratically as commercial space; 

18 again, an alteration in paint history. 

19 Paints, stains, shellac, and varnish are 

20 generally driven by individual tenant or resident needs. 

21 They are partially driven by architectural and cosmetic 

22 requirements. Typically, the apartment finishes are 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 driven by the owner or managing agent, not the tenant; 

2 again, different paint issues. 

3 All of these alterations and paint histories

Page 56 

4 to me suggest commercial and public buildings with floor 

5 spaces, ranging from a few hundred square feet to 

6 hundreds of thousands of square feet, will require

7 lead-based paint inspections on a room-by-room basis. 

8 While we have the technology to accomplish the 

9 test, it is a question if the property owner or the 

10 tenant will be able to afford this level of service. 

11 Furthermore, absence of regulatory testing effort, how 

12 will the property owner know or the resident know they 

13 did it right? 

14 Lead-based paint determination associated with 

15 the commercial and public buildings may cost a few 

16 hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars. Today, 

17 multi-tenant residential property owners or management 

18 agencies invest in the neighborhood of about 10 to 

19 $20,000 per property for these lead-based paint 

20 inspection services. Even today, the residential 

21 testing community, and this is with the benefit of 

22 documented methodologies and EPA regulations, owners and 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 managers still wonder, have I done enough; am I 

2 protected; do I know the right answer. 

3 Without EPA providing clear, documented 

4 methodologies for the commercial market, inspection 

5 services will cost property owners or the tenants a 

6 significant amount of money without producing a clear 

7 document. 

8 An option is to presume the painting surface 

9 is regulated based on data, construction or some other

Page 57 

10 external information. This is also problematic because 

11 it will drive up the cost. 

12 So in closing I would ask that EPA in 

13 conjunction with this discussion determine the 

14 requirements for testing and determine how the rules are 

15 going to be followed for public and commercial 

16 buildings. 

17 Thank you. 

18 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you. Just an FYI, the 

19 press are here. Maybe one or two folks. Molly Hooven 

20 is here, and her colleague, Dillon. Molly is going to 

21 be here for about an hour or slightly less than an hour. 

22 Dillon is going to stick around. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 Our next speaker is Leah Pilconis. She is 

2 with the Associated General Contractors. 

3 MS. PILCONIS: Thank you. Good morning. 

4 I'm Leah Pilconis. I'm an environmental 

5 advisor to the Associated General Contractors of 

6 America. AGC is a full-service national trade 

7 association. We operate through a network of 

8 approximately 100 chapters and have presence in every 

9 state. Our membership is comprised of 33,000 member

Page 58 

10 companies, all engaged in or associated with commercial 

11 construction. 

12 So our members build all of the vertical 

13 structures out there, all of the public and commercial 

14 buildings. Our members do not build single-family 

15 homes. 

16 In the next ten minutes, I'm going to share 

17 some economic information. I'm going to highlight just 

18 very briefly AGC's environmental program. I'm going to 

19 offer some perspective and information on why general 

20 contractors feel that it is very important for EPA to 

21 have greater and more consistent and broad outreach to 

22 the federal, state, and local building owners that are 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 59

1 out there, and stress the importance to the industry of 

2 avoiding duplication of existing requirements, mainly 

3 OSHA's lead in construction standard and HUD's lead safe 

4 housing rules. 

5 So let's start with some construction 

6 economics. So if you look at this slide, our economist 

7 has provided for me some totals on construction 

8 spending. In 2012, a total of 854 billion. We've 

9 broken that out by public/private non-residential and 

10 private residential. But to dig a little deeper, 

11 non-residential building construction in 2012 averaged 

12 about 337 billion. 

13 And to look at construction starts where we're 

14 dealing with additions and alterations. We were able to 

15 determine that additions are about 6 percent of that and 

16 alterations are about 27 percent. 

17 So now looking specifically at the industry, 

18 it's important to remember construction contractors and 

19 where industry is. And unemployment is still extremely 

20 high. In May of 2013, it was 10.8 percent. That's more 

21 than 3 percent higher than all the industry rate. And 

22 construction is predominantly small businesses. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 60

1 Out of all of the construction firms that are 

2 out there, 740,000, 92 percent are small businesses with 

3 fewer than 20 employees. So it's critically important 

4 to AGC that regulations are not overly burdensome or

5 duplicative, because that would bring unnecessary costs 

6 and confusion to small businesses. 

7 We have a very robust, inexpensive 

8 environmental program. We work closely with staff and 

9 EPA to help them better understand the construction 

10 process, and in turn make sure that rules that are 

11 written are capable of being implemented on a 

12 construction job site, and that they actually achieve 

13 some measurable results. We do a lot of education and 

14 outreach, both on our own and in coordinating with EPA 

15 staff. So we talked a lot to our membership about the 

16 current rules that are in place, current LRRP rules. 

17 On my next slide, I reference the need for 

18 more coordinated and extensive outreach to other federal 

19 agencies that own and operate buildings. We actually 

20 have a division within our association that is devoted 

21 exclusively to representing the interest of federal 

22 contractors, so general contractors who work for the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 federal government. 

2 To the extent the EPA further regulates the

Page 61 

3 renovation and repair of the nation's existing building

4 stock, it will be the responsibility of AGC's 

5 contractors, our federal contractors to meet these 

6 requirements or face potential fines and penalties under 

7 TSCA. 

8 So we really want to ensure that federal 

9 owners, the federal owners that are members work for,

10 understand and weigh in on EPA's rulemaking effort. And 

11 if there is information or data available to help shape 

12 and inform this rulemaking, our members have a very 

13 great interest in making sure that the information is 

14 shared, because the more buildings that are regulated, 

15 the more that it's going to cost general contractors. 

16 They're going to be facing more liability for 

17 making sure that requirements are in place. But what is 

18 very important is that the owners need to understand the 

19 requirements to make sure that they're a factor in the 

20 bidding process, that these requirements are biddable 

21 items, become part of the construction plans and 

22 specifications, because without that there is an unlevel 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 playing field, and some contractors may include these 

2 costs in their bids while others may not. 

3 So we've done some initial outreach to our 

4 contacts within DOD, Army, Navy, GSA, Veterans 

5 Administration. And unfortunately, we have not on our

Page 62 

6 own been able to garner any good data, but we've passed 

7 our contacts along to EPA, and hope that the Agency will 

8 continue with this outreach effort. 

9 So now let's talk specifically about OSHA's

10 lead in construction standard. The advance notice of 

11 proposed rulemaking does recognize that extensive OSHA 

12 regulations already exist governing lead-based paint in 

13 the construction setting, but it doesn't include a 

14 discussion of the effectiveness of these standards in 

15 addressing any lead-based paint hazards that may result 

16 for renovation or repair activities in public and 

17 commercial buildings. 

18 There is actually a memorandum of 

19 understanding between EPA and the Department of Labor 

20 dating back to 1991. And it says: To the extent that 

21 these agencies, OSHA and EPA, are focused on similar 

22 issues, they need to coordinate and delineate areas of 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 responsibility.

Page 63 

2 So the OSHA lead in construction standard has 

3 been out there 20 years. It is well entrenched within

4 the industry. It covers any work related to 

5 construction, so anything at all. If there's any 

6 disturbance of in-place lead-containing materials, 

7 OSHA's lead in construction standard kicks in. There is 

8 no minimum level of lead paint. Any presence at all, 

9 even .1 or .01 percent, OSHA's lead in construction 

10 standards will kick in. There is no minimum amount of 

11 disturbance. Even if it's 2 square feet of work area, 

12 where there's any presence of lead paint, OSHA kicks in. 

13 So if there is any detectable lead in solid 

14 form, then our contractors have to do an exposure 

15 assessment, which means they're going to start testing 

16 the air. 

17 OSHA only accepts a laboratory analysis. So 

18 the air samples need to be analyzed in a laboratory. 

19 The tests that are allowed by the EPA are not allowed by 

20 OSHA. So if OSHA lead in construction standards apply, 

21 there are some baseline requirements for any single 

22 building. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 One thing that I want to call to your 

2 attention to are the housekeeping requirements, which

Page 64 

3 I'm going to discuss in more detail. Also, the HAZCOM.

4 So construction companies where OSHA lead in 

5 construction standards kicks in are going to be training 

6 all employees before they start the job on the hazards

7 of lead, warning signs, and all the requirements under

8 OSHA. 

9 But as a baseline, these housekeeping 

10 requirements are saying in OSHA regulations that these 

11 construction companies need to maintain surfaces as free 

12 of lead and lead dust as is feasible. That means that 

13 they need to clean surfaces with a vacuum equipped with 

14 HEPA filters. Only if you are not able to vacuum with 

15 the HEPA filter, would you come in and do wet sweeping. 

16 So, again, these are baseline requirements, 

17 regardless of the levels of lead, with any lead. In 

18 addition, there are interim protections pending the test 

19 results. And these are always, always going to be in 

20 place for all projects if you're doing what OSHA has 

21 defined as lead-related tests. And that really covers 

22 everything from manual scraping or sanding to pulling 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 down drywall to using power tools. With those 

2 lead-related tasks, there are more things that need to 

3 be done, more training, and more safety education.

Page 65 

4 So limits on lead and air; there is an action

5 level of 30 micrograms of lead per cubic meter. And if

6 you're over the action level, you have to do even more.

7 And then there is the permissible exposure level of 50

8 micrograms of lead per cubic meter. And if you're over

9 that, you have to do even more. 

10 So moving to the next slide, if you're after 

11 30 micrograms per cubic meter, even more in-depth 

12 training and education, in addition you're going to have 

13 to do medical surveillance, monitoring, a lot more 

14 requirements are in place. 

15 So what I'd like to stress is that I have 

16 talked to many, many of our construction contractors, 

17 and the focus of the industry is that if you don't want 

18 to have to continually monitor the exposures and do a 

19 lot more costly procedures, you're going to stay below 

20 the action level. And if you don't want to have to wear 

21 full respirator suits and gloves, you're going to make 

22 sure you always stay below the permissible exposure 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 level. 

2 So we believe that what is being done in the 

3 construction job site now is really preventing any 

4 hazard of lead paint. 

5 Thank you. 

6 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Leah. 

7 Thanks everyone for staying within the ten 

8 minutes. We're pretty much right on time. 

9 The next speaker is Bill Gibson. He's with 

10 the Overhead Door Company of Lexington. 

11 MR. GIBSON: Good morning, I am Bill Gibson. 

12 Besides being the owner of Overhead Door Company of 

13 Lexington, I'm also the president of the International 

14 Door Association, a trade group comprised of nearly 

15 2,000 companies that manufacture, sell, install and 

16 service commercial door products. Of the 10,058,000 

17 commercial, institutional and industrial buildings in 

18 the United States, our membership is involved with the

Page 66 

19 majority. Overall, the garage door industry represented 

20 $4.48 billion in construction in 2012. 

21 Since the RRP rules were promulgated for 

22 residential properties, the IDA has taken an active role 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 67

1 in educating members and recommending to them that they 

2 should obtain proper certification and comply with all 

3 work requirements. The association believes in the 

4 goals of the RRP rules, and strongly supports reasonable 

5 regulations that lead to the avoidance of lead poisoning 

6 among the general public. 

7 However, following a recent survey of the IDA 

8 membership, the vast majority have been greatly 

9 disappointed by the failure of the EPA to issue 

10 regulations that adequately and clearly describe the 

11 obligations of renovators. Two examples are: One, by 

12 nature, a garage door is both an interior and exterior 

13 component, but there is no clear recognition of this 

14 dual nature in the regulations; two, we have received 

15 conflicting guidance as whether or not the removal of a 

16 single, intact section of a garage door would require 

17 the door dealer to follow the work safety practices. 

18 The members of IDA have reported observing 

19 that the additional costs from the RRP program have 

20 discouraged homeowners from hiring an RRP-certified 

21 garage door company. Instead, they have turned to 

22 non-certified companies or decided to perform services 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 involving a potentially dangerous spring-loaded door 

2 creating an increased health and safety risk to the 

3 public.

Page 68 

4 Regarding the proposed expansion of the RRP to 

5 public and commercial buildings, the IDA believes that

6 the risk of affecting children or pregnant women through 

7 their work is minimal. Unlike other types of renovation 

8 work, the disturbance of door surfaces being removed is

9 probably less substantial then the regular operation of

10 the door. 

11 Of utmost importance, the IDA does not object 

12 to a requirement that any removed door section be 

13 adequately wrapped or contained to prevent subsequent 

14 deterioration of the painted surface. The IDA would 

15 request that the EPA remove the requirement to fully 

16 contain the area around a garage door when the only work 

17 being performed is the removal and replacement of the 

18 door. In its place, we would support a requirement to 

19 fully wrap and properly dispose of the garage door 

20 sections with lead-painted surfaces. 

21 Thank you for this opportunity and thank you 

22 for your time. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Bill. The next 

2 speaker is Rick Vandegraft, Finishing Contractors 

3 Association. 

4 MR. VANDEGRAFT: I'm going to be very brief. 

5 I promise you won't need the yellow card. 

6 My name is Rick Vandegraft. Mr. Scheifele, 

7 thank you for the opportunity to offer comments during 

8 today's EPA lead, renovation, repair and painting

Page 69 

9 program, public meeting, especially as it relates to the

10 painting contractors within the construction industry. 

11 More importantly it is more strong opinion that this 

12 meeting is critical for the proper review of 

13 Environmental Protection Agency's LRRP rule. 

14 I am here today as the president of R.W. 

15 Vandegraft Painting and Decorating, Inc., located in 

16 Normal, IL, and as a board member of FCA International, 

17 which represents more than 7,000 contractors in North 

18 America. 

19 I witnessed the impact of the EPA's LRRP rule 

20 on contractors within our nation's construction industry 

21 firsthand in both of these capacities. 

22 Established in 1998, R.W. Vandegraft Painting 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 70

1 and Decorating is a small business that averages roughly 

2 $1 million a year in revenue. We have between six and 

3 ten employees, depending on the workload, that focuses 

4 on projects with the universities, school districts, new 

5 commercial, building and commercial remodels. I am a

6 second generation painting contractor working with my

7 two sons and my wife serves as the company's bookkeeper. 

8 I am the contractor that these rules will affect. 

9 Today I strongly intend to provide 

10 constructive comment and information that will assist 

11 the EPA in making regulatory decisions as it relates to 

12 public and commercial building renovations. More 

13 specifically I intend to address your issues of concern, 

14 including the use of lead paint after 1978, the use of 

15 lead-based paint on public and commercial buildings, the 

16 frequency and extent of the renovations of public and 

17 commercial buildings, work practices used to renovate 

18 public and commercial buildings, and the dust generation 

19 and transportation from exterior and interior 

20 renovations of public and commercial buildings. 

21 As of April of 2010, I, along with the FCA 

22 International, who partners with Sherwin Williams and 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 71

1 Benjamin Moore, and the International Union of Painters 

2 and Allied Trades, made a strong commitment to follow 

3 and adhere to the mandate that the LRRP rule required 

4 for lead safe certification for work practices for 

5 contractors performing renovation, repair, and painting 

6 projects that disturb more than 6 square feet of 

7 lead-based paint in most pre 1978 homes, child-care 

8 facilities, and schools. Candidly, we welcome and 

9 support the EPA's additional rules to expand the program 

10 for commercial and public exteriors. 

11 As a painting contractor and a business owner, 

12 I am concerned about the spread of lead poisoning. The 

13 toxic effects of lead are well known for children and 

14 adults. Workers' exposure to lead can damage the 

15 central nervous system, cardiovascular system, 

16 reproductive system, hematological system, and the 

17 kidneys. Workers' lead exposure can also harm the 

18 development of children, and families of construction 

19 workers can be exposed to lead brought home from the 

20 workplace. 

21 Additionally, the National Institute for 

22 Occupational Safety and Health, in coordination with 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 state departments of health, have found a higher

Page 72 

2 percentage of construction workers' children, especially 

3 those younger than six years of age have elevated blood 

4 levels when compared to age specific averages in the

5 United States and the neighbors' children. Fortunately, 

6 the LRRP rule is one of many safety valves to prevent 

7 the harmful effects of this toxic chemical from 

8 affecting our society. 

9 The LRRP ensures workers and contractors are 

10 certified and trained in lead safe work practices in 

11 order to prevent the spread of lead poisoning and 

12 contamination on or off the job site. It applies to 

13 contractors and employees performing all types of 

14 renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb 

15 lead-based paint as a result of their interior and 

16 exterior work. Meaning this applies to all types of 

17 contractors, not just painting contractors; in homes, 

18 child-care facilities, and schools built before 1978. 

19 Without question, lead safe training 

20 certification for employees and employers is a good 

21 policy for the public safety. We wholeheartedly support 

22 and endorse all projects covered by the LRRP rule, and 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 they must be carried out by a lead safe certified firm 

2 and at least one certified renovator to use lead safe

Page 73 

3 work practices themselves or direct fellow employees to 

4 use the same lead safe work practices on a job site. 

5 Per my understanding, to become a lead safe certified 

6 contractor, you must complete a short, two-page 

7 certification form and pay a fee of between 300 and 

8 $550. Fees are dependent on the type of certification

9 needed. 

10 To date, more than 120,000 contractors 

11 throughout the nation have been certified since the LRRP 

12 rule went into effect in April of 2010, and to become a 

13 lead safe certified renovator, they must complete a 

14 one-day training course, accredited training provider 

15 location such as a community college or vocational 

16 training facility or a construction business in the 

17 area. More than 450,000 individuals throughout the 

18 nation have been trained and certified to perform and 

19 train fellow employees in lead safe work practices since 

20 the LRRP went into effect in April of 2010. 

21 The FCA Painting and Wall Covering Contractors 

22 Advisory Committee reviewed EPA's request for comment on 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 the LRRP rule program and submitted their comments on

Page 74 

2 the program. As a trade advisory committee representing 

3 more than 7,000 contractors across the nation, we 

4 followed the current rule regarding the EPA RRP 

5 residential program. Most of our contractors that do 

6 this type of work are already certified and employ a 

7 trained certified workforce. Candidly, we are very 

8 disappointed for the lack of enforcement with the 

9 current laws and feel this puts an unfair burden on most 

10 contractors who are in compliance. Additionally, 

11 protection for whistle-blowers should be part of any 

12 enforcement policy. 

13 In terms of expanding these rules on public 

14 and commercial building renovations, our main concern is 

15 the implementation and enforcement rather than the rule 

16 itself. We believe that the possibility for the initial 

17 testing in a commercial project should fall on the 

18 property owner and the general contractor. The findings 

19 should be part of the bid documents along with a lead 

20 plan showing where is the lead and what needs to be 

21 done, placing all bidders on a level playing field. Our 

22 comments will focus on three points: 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 75

1 One, enforcement of the current rule including 

2 whistle-blower protection. Two, the testing being the 

3 responsibility of the building owner and the general 

4 contractor. Three, the testing results and a lead plan 

5 should be part of our bid documents. 

6 Additionally, we strongly oppose the 

7 legislation that jeopardizes the public health by 

8 dismantling lead paint regulations and laws. To that 

9 end, Senate Bill 484 and its companion House Bill 2093 

10 eliminates the LRRP rule and severely dismantles lead 

11 paint regulations and laws overall. Its passage would 

12 increase lead poisoning infections by creating even 

13 greater public health and safety hazards than what 

14 currently exists for both adult and children populations 

15 who already unknowingly made contact with the toxic 

16 substance throughout their daily lives. Bottom line, 

17 these proposed bills do not provide adequate safeguards 

18 to prevent unsafe disposal of lead, and they do not take 

19 the public's lack of awareness to the dangers of lead 

20 into consideration. 

21 In conclusion, the EPA LRRP rule ensures 

22 workers and contractors are certified and trained in 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 lead safe work practices to prevent the spread of lead

Page 76 

2 poisoning and contamination on or off the job site. The 

3 rule applies to contractors and employers performing all 

4 types of renovation, repairs and painting projects that

5 disturb lead-based paint as a result of their interior 

6 or exterior work. The rule thereby applies to all types 

7 of contractors, not just paint in homes, child care 

8 facilities, schools, public and commercial buildings 

9 before 1978. 

10 Why should we be concerned about lead paint? 

11 The answer is clear and simple. Lead, once in the body, 

12 attacks the red blood cells and starves them of oxygen. 

13 1 gram of lead can poison 80,000 children. 

14 Thank you, Mr. Scheifele, for this opportunity 

15 to offer my comments as a business owner and 

16 representative of contractors on this very important 

17 issue impacting the construction industry that continues 

18 to keep safety a priority. 

19 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Rick. 

20 Our next speaker is Thomas Neltner 

21 representing himself. 

22 MR. NELTNER: I appreciate the opportunity to 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 be here. I appreciate the EPA holding this public 

2 meeting. And I think the dialogue and the questions 

3 that have come up already, the issues and the 

4 suggestions, provide a good way to move forward. We 

5 need to continue talking about this. 

6 I may be the most unpopular person in the

Page 77 

7 room, because I'm one of the two attorneys representing

8 clients that sued the EPA or challenged the EPA under

9 the RRP rule and is part of the settlement aspect that

10 moved forward from the public and commercial building 

11 rule. 

12 That aside, I have to say I'm a little 

13 surprised. I have to agree completely with the General 

14 Contractors Association that the OSHA rule does provide 

15 sound foundation. Everybody in this room has known this 

16 rule would be coming 20 years ago. You should have been 

17 collecting the data that provides EPA now to be able to 

18 make these decisions. I'm a little surprised it hasn't 

19 been collected. But on OSHA, it should have been 

20 collected. 

21 All of those companies that are disturbing 

22 paint, that may -- because as you pointed out, there's 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 no threshold on how much lead -- that could have been 

2 lead-based paint should have been doing an exposure

Page 78 

3 assessment. Those records have to be maintained. Where 

4 are they? Why not tell EPA how many of the exposure 

5 assessments that you did on properties came back 

6 negative? 

7 Give EPA the facts. You've got the data.

8 Don't sit there and say, we don't know if EPA has to 

9 prove. You've got the facts. Get it to the Agency so 

10 it can use it. 

11 On behalf of the people I represented, nobody 

12 wants to impose additional burdens on the industry that 

13 doesn't address the hazards. But lead doesn't go away. 

14 Lead-based paint is out there. And it is more than 

15 children; it's adults. And it's not everyday exposure. 

16 It can be short-term exposure. 

17 And, yes, OSHA works if it's followed. So 

18 let's get that exposure information. Let's get the 

19 testing information that GSA has done, that all of you 

20 have done on your public and commercial buildings as 

21 part of the normal responsibilities in order to protect 

22 your workers, in order to protect your visitors, in 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 order to protect you from lawsuits. 

2 So you've got the data. Give the Agency the 

3 data. I'm guessing that three years ago when EPA put 

4 out this advanced notice for proposed rulemaking, that 

5 was the real, first impetus to start collecting the 

6 data. With three years of information, get it to the 

7 Agency, so we can make the sound fact-based decision 

8 that you all want. 

9 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Thomas. 

10 Next speaker is Stephen Masek. He's with 

11 Masek Consulting Services. And he does have a 

12 presentation. 

13 MR. MASEK: I'll give you little bit of my 

14 background: Steven Masek, President of Environmental

15 Consulting, 23 years of experience with all types of 

16 buildings. I'm also the president of the Asbestos and

Page 79 

17 Lead Poisoning Prevention Association representing lead 

18 professionals, consultants, and contractors. I have 

19 been actively developing standards for environmental 

20 consulting. 

21 The bottom line is that I've also written many 

22 articles on lead, in magazines; the latest in the May 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 80

1 issue of Cleaning and Restoration Magazine. That's the

2 position taken by most owners and contractors. We're 

3 talking about data. Consultants, professional lead 

4 people have been collecting data that amounts to tens of 

5 thousands of many years of experience; thousands since

6 residential RRP went into place. That's what we all 

7 know. 

8 The reasons are simple: Owners hire the 

9 lowest cost contractors. No surprise there. However,

10 the one thing that's a factor, that's important to this 

11 discussion, RRP has no longer responsibilities 

12 beyond disclosure. 

13 So that puts contractors in a horrible 

14 position. They're between a rock of massive fines and 

15 other enforcement actions, and a hard place, losing work 

16 to virtually all of their competitors. 

17 So the real world; this has been talked about. 

18 We all know about the Inspector General's work. 

19 Property owners, property managers, contractors, tell us 

20 it's doubled. That's what the cost really is with RRP. 

21 So in the long term -- and I'm not trying to 

22 be mean here. But the long term RRP is driving the work 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 with the non-practitioner not complying, creating more 

2 lead poisoning. 

3 Two examples from my consulting companies 

4 were: A 40-something-year-old woman in Beverly Hills,

Page 81 

5 California in an apartment with lead poisoning, that in

6 and of itself is very unusual. What happened? The

7 owner hired a contractor after RRP took fully in place.

8 Went nuts when they did some sanding. Totally nuts.

9 Windows wide open, every surface inside and outside the

10 building was covered with lead dust. 

11 Orange County, California, well after RRP, we 

12 inspected a large apartment complex for lead. Don't do 

13 all the units. Came back. The owner said, we've got a 

14 lead-poisoned child in one of the units. Inspect that 

15 unit. All the units, zero. What happened? We see 

16 tools. The father is doing illegal renovation work, 

17 bringing lead home on his tools and clothing, poisoning 

18 his own child. 

19 So it would be far better to focus on 

20 lead-based paint where there actually is lead-based 

21 paint and put the responsibility back on the owners. 

22 I'm also a landowner. Like everyone else, I should be 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 responsible for my buildings.

Page 82 

2 So we do that by requiring inspections of all 

3 residential, public and commercial buildings by a date 

4 certain. They're done with an XRF machine. They're 

5 inexpensive. 

6 EPA has a good history of successfulness.

7 They gave up requiring asbestos inspections of the 

8 schools. We don't hear about asbestos poisoning 

9 problems with exposure of anybody at schools now because 

10 we know where the asbestos is and it's being managed. 

11 I'll focus on inexpensive. Now, over the 

12 years -- consultants have all learned this. It's too 

13 expensive. 50 bucks an apartment is what we're 

14 averaging. Much less for very large buildings or for 

15 small buildings. 

16 The average like that is not possible for 

17 public and commercial buildings. They vary too much. 

18 We do, again, have all of these tens of thousands of 

19 many years of experience. Low hundreds of dollars for 

20 the small buildings. Low thousands of dollars for most 

21 all buildings. 

22 Now, beautiful buildings such as this, I mean, 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 shoot, I almost did it for free. They say they did it

Page 83 

2 for 15,000. So very affordable, one-time expense. And

3 the inspections provide good news. 

4 Now, owners, again, over the years we've all

5 heard this. Half the buildings built in 1960 to 1978,

6 no lead. The other half, very little. That's the real

7 world that is out there. 

8 The good news continues. Buildings older than 

9 1960, the paints that had the most lead are the best 

10 paints. I mentioned Beverly Hills. We find more lead 

11 in Beverly Hills. We find more lead in the military 

12 bases. Where we don't find it is everywhere. Buildings 

13 with lead-based paint everywhere are exceptionally rare. 

14 So we can have a future with fewer lead 

15 poisonings, but we have to change how we do things. We 

16 have to stop wasting time, money, energy, resources, on 

17 bad assumptions that all paint pre '78 is lead-based 

18 paint. 

19 We are at the EPA building, so I'll focus on 

20 two of those. Resources and energy. Imagine if all 

21 contractors just on RRP residential was in place where 

22 actually they're not. Imagine they were. Think of the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 mountains of the polyethylene sheeting made with oil,

Page 84 

2 transported in diesel trucks to landfills where there is 

3 no lead-based paint. Think of all the electricity 

4 generated from coal, running HEPA vacuums to collect 

5 dust, not from lead-based paint. We need to focus on 

6 the lead paint. 

7 So how do we proceed? If we want a future, 

8 which lead poisonings are rare, we have to do these 

9 things. We have to acknowledge that all pre-1978 paint 

10 is not lead-based. We have to admit that lead safe work 

11 practices are very expensive. We have to require 

12 inexpensive XRF lead-based paint inspections. They all 

13 have swabs. Most all consultants would be perfectly 

14 happy looking at it. Thank you. 

15 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thanks, Steve. 

16 We'll do one more speaker, and then we'll have 

17 a break. Next speaker is Christine Young-Gertz. 

18 MS. YOUNG-GERTZ: Well, I'll keep my comments 

19 brief since I'm the one standing between maybe coffee 

20 and a bathroom break. 

21 Thank you for this time to discuss the 

22 concerns of the members of the National Apartment 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 Association regarding EPA's proposed rulemaking for 

2 renovation, repair and painting activities on and in 

3 public and commercial buildings. My name is Christine 

4 Young-Gertz. I am the Government Affairs Director for 

5 the Apartment Association of Pennsylvania, which is an 

6 affiliate of the National Apartment Association. 

7 NAA is a federation of 170 state and local apartment 

8 associations comprised of more than 60,000 members, 

9 representing more than 6.6 million apartment homes 

10 throughout the United States and Canada. Our members

11 engage in all aspects of the apartment industry, 

12 including ownership, development, management and 

13 finance.

Page 85 

14 NAA members are apartment industry leaders who 

15 provide the quality rental housing that is vital to 

16 every community. We stress professionalism and industry 

17 advancement through education and compliance with all 

18 pertinent rules and regulations. NAA members know 

19 delivering a good product, quality rental housing, is 

20 possible only by running their businesses according to 

21 the highest operational and service standards. That 

22 includes providing safe housing and a hazard-free 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 environment for their residents. 

2 Lead exposure to children has been 

3 dramatically reduced through a combination of 

4 responsible government intervention and industry 

5 cooperation. We've eliminated lead in gasoline, 

6 plumbing, food cans, children's toys, household paint, 

7 and from use in many manufacturing processes.

Page 86 

8 NAA's long-standing commitment to educating our members

9 about lead paint regulations pre-dates the RRP rules

10 that took effect in 2010. Several years ago we 

11 developed extensive training for workers in lead safe 

12 practices, and education to meet EPA certification 

13 requirements. We are proud of our enduring partnership 

14 with EPA and will continue our efforts to raise 

15 awareness about lead paint hazards. Going forward, NAA 

16 will continue to be a part of the solution. 

17 Many NAA members throughout the country have a 

18 significant number of mixed-use properties, with both 

19 residential and commercial space. Therefore the EPA 

20 proposal to address renovations in public and commercial 

21 buildings by expanding the RRP rules directly affects 

22 our members. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 87

1 EPA is required to first determine whether RRP 

2 activities in public and commercial buildings create 

3 lead-based paint hazards. According to their settlement

4 agreement in several lawsuits, the EPA must either sign

5 a proposed rule covering RRP activities in public and 

6 commercial buildings by July 1, 2015, or determine that

7 those activities do not create lead-based paint hazards. 

8 Today most reasonable property managers would

9 certainly conclude the latter to be the case, based on

10 their experiences with the prevalent industry practices 

11 for renovation repair and painting in commercial 

12 buildings. OSHA regulations are already in place to 

13 guide renovation activities in these buildings. And a 

14 study of RRP activities, such as contemplated by the 

15 EPA's mandate from Congress, in my opinion, will most 

16 likely support the fact that property owners and 

17 managers follow the OSHA rules. 

18 But my opinion aside, the EPA must start 

19 from the beginning, and devote the necessary time and 

20 resources to conduct such a study. I appreciate the 

21 EPA's efforts to gather information from pertinent 

22 stakeholders, and this important information will surely 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 point them in the right direction. But a well crafted 

2 empirical study to investigate the current presence of 

3 lead paint in commercial buildings, the nature of the 

4 practices used to renovate and repair commercial

Page 88 

5 buildings, and the vast, diverse uses and occupancies of 

6 the country's commercial properties is the kind of 

7 fact-based objective examination Congress contemplated 

8 and mandated as the starting point in any effort to

9 develop regulations. 

10 Commercial is not the same as residential. 

11 That seems rather obvious when simply stated. But it is 

12 a crucial fact. Any regulation contemplated for 

13 commercial structures must be fine-tuned for commercial 

14 structures. Notions about residential settings simply 

15 do not apply to commercial. Their size, use, 

16 occupancies and renovation work practices are vastly 

17 different. EPA must recognize those differences and 

18 collect pertinent data before moving forward with RRP 

19 rules for commercial buildings. 

20 Commercial in itself is not a generic term. It 

21 includes box stores, school buildings, healthcare 

22 facilities, shopping malls, meeting halls, convention 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 centers, churches and other religious buildings, 

2 industrial buildings, warehouses, the list is nearly 

3 endless. And with that nearly endless variety of 

4 buildings is a nearly endless variety and number of 

5 renovation, repair and painting activities that most 

6 assuredly occur routinely and frequently. According to

Page 89 

7 the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Summary from

8 the Energy Information Administration, there are nearly

9 4.9 million commercial buildings in the United States,

10 comprising almost 72 billion square feet of floor space. 

11 Any new RRP rules for commercial buildings must account 

12 for all of it. One size of regulations will simply not 

13 fit all. And we must remember child-occupied facilities 

14 are already covered under current residential rules. So 

15 commercial buildings that house child care facilities, 

16 for example, churches, schools, office buildings, 

17 recreation centers and the like are already covered. 

18 Admittedly, EPA has a herculean task before 

19 them, but you must tailor future proposals for RRP 

20 regulations in commercial buildings to the facts. 

21 The EPA must start with reliable and valid information 

22 about commercial buildings and limit any new regulations 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 so they do not overlap existing rules and industry

Page 90 

2 practices. The EPA must obtain reliable and valid facts 

3 about renovation and repair activities in public and

4 commercial buildings. EPA was directed by Congress to

5 study this issue, and must not simply default to studies 

6 that were performed in older residential housing that

7 have no bearing on public or commercial building 

8 settings. Before proceeding with regulations, the EPA

9 must first see if there is a relationship between RRP

10 activities in public and commercial buildings and the 

11 creation of lead hazards. 

12 There are important differences in maintenance 

13 activities between single-family structures and public 

14 and commercial buildings. There are existing regulatory 

15 programs at the local, state and federal levels that 

16 guide renovation work to protect the general environment 

17 and worker health. 

18 EPA must also account for the huge diversity 

19 among the building types that would be covered by this 

20 potential proposed rule. EPA must give particularized 

21 consideration to each type of building in making its 

22 assessment. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 EPA has indicated that it may use the 

2 definition of commercial building that is contained in

Page 91 

3 the asbestos rule, which includes residential buildings

4 with 10 or more units. 

5 Over 14 million apartments, or roughly 73

6 percent of all apartments in the U.S. are located in 

7 buildings that contain 10 or more apartments. 53 

8 percent of those apartments were built before 1980 and

9 are therefore already subject to highly detailed 

10 regulations regarding the potential presence of 

11 lead-based paint. Over 6.5 million of the apartments in 

12 10+ unit buildings were constructed after 1980. For EPA 

13 to consider including those six-and-a-half million post 

14 1978 constructed apartments in a new lead-based paint 

15 regulatory program without first verifying information 

16 regarding the lead status of those properties strains 

17 credulity. 

18 Including post 1978 apartment buildings in RRP 

19 rules intended to prevent exposure to lead hazards with 

20 no basis for doing so is at odds with HUD's survey data 

21 that has identified a steep decline in the presence of 

22 lead-based paint in housing built after 1960. HUD 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 92

1 relied on this date as a cutoff mark for establishing a

2 tiered approach to addressing lead in federally assisted 

3 housing. Moreover, 1978 is the year that the Consumer 

4 Product Safety Commission banned the sale of leaded 

5 paint for use in residential structures. It makes no 

6 sense to include post 1978 commercial buildings in 

7 expanded RRP rules without clear objective evidence that 

8 a lead hazard exists in these buildings. 

9 Any new rule predicated along these lines will 

10 have a significant negative impact on the cost of rental 

11 housing and exacerbate the current shortage of safe, 

12 affordable and accessible housing without likely 

13 addressing lead from other sources that are present in 

14 the general environment. Any new rule must therefore be 

15 as narrowly crafted as possible, to address any problem 

16 uncovered by proper inquiry without overreaching and 

17 causing more harm than good. 

18 The use of lead-based paint has been 

19 dramatically limited since 1978, and EPA must consider 

20 industry practices in commercial buildings that have 

21 further reduced the chances of exposure to lead hazards. 

22 EPA has acknowledged the prevalence of lead-based paint 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 in commercial and public buildings is an important

2 factor in determining whether RRP activities create a

3 hazard. They must also consider how likely it is that

4 today's commercial buildings have lead-based paint

5 hazards. Office and retail settings are renovated very

6 frequently, and therefore, perhaps, less likely to have

7 lead-based paint, even if the building was built before

8 1978.

9 Part of the work ahead is to gather

10 information on the likelihood of exposure to lead paint

11 or the presence of lead paint in pre-'78 buildings that

12 have undergone repeated renovation through the years.

13 Commercial tenants commonly sign leases with

14 build-out provisions. That is, the tenant is commonly

15 responsible for renovation costs.

Page 93 

16 I'd like to say one thing about something that

17 was mentioned that perhaps the industry has had 20 years

18 of data on this. With all the state and federal

19 regulations, OSHA and the rest that are in place, I

20 don't think it's unreasonable for any fraction of our

21 citizens to expect our government to at least use common

22 sense before adding duplication. And I would only ask
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 that before we guess that there might be a problem and 

2 further guess that there is a solution to a would-be 

3 problem we take some more time to develop studies that 

4 are needed to nail the facts down. 

5 Thank you again for your time. 

6 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Christine. 

7 We are now going to take a ten-minute break. 

8 Before we do that, there is a sign-in sheet as you

Page 94 

9 walked in. It looks like we will probably have about a

10 half hour for people to give two to three-minute 

11 remarks, those that have not spoken. Sign the sheet as 

12 you walk in. As of 8:30, nobody had signed up yet. 

13 We'll check that during the break. 

14 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Christine. 

15 We'll take our break now. 

16 (Brief recess held.) 

17 MR. PIANTANIDA: Our court reporter, Janie, is 

18 doing a terrific job, but she could use our help. If 

19 you could give to Janie a copy of your presentation, if 

20 you happen to have an extra one. She could benefit from 

21 having a hard copy. If you have a hard copy, Janie will 

22 be most appreciative of that. Thank you. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 You could also send them to Hans, who is

Page 95 

2 probably the best contact, and Hans will share them with 

3 Janie. 

4 Right on schedule. We only have one speaker

5 signed up outside. After we conclude with the 20 

6 speakers, here, we'll have it looks like one speaker 

7 unless we get some others that come in the next hour.

8 Our next speaker is Jim Brewer. He is with

9 the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

10 MR. BREWER: Good morning. Thank you for the 

11 opportunity to comment on the EPA's request for 

12 information regarding its lead renovation, repair and 

13 painting regulation for public and commercial buildings. 

14 As I said, my name is Jim Brewer. I'm 

15 representing International Union of Painters and Allied 

16 Trades. Painters and Allied Trades consist of 34 

17 district councils throughout the United States and 

18 Canada, with 160,000 members working in a wide range of 

19 occupations essential to the repair, renovation, and 

20 painting of public and commercial buildings. 

21 These include crafts men and women, finishing 

22 trades, such as painters, drywall finishers, wall 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 coverers, glaziers, glass workers, and floor covering 

2 installers. 

3 In your RFI regarding proposed public and 

4 commercial LRRP, you specifically request comments and 

5 information concerning five discreet issues. The 

6 Painters and Allied Trades certainly have data and 

7 experience relative to these lines of inquiry.

Page 96 

8 One is work practices used to renovate public

9 and commercial buildings. The second is dust

10 degeneration and transportation of exterior and interior 

11 renovations with public and commercial buildings. 

12 In addition, we'd also like to briefly comment 

13 and share some of our observations relevant to the 

14 financial cost of the public and commercial LRRP. 

15 First, with the work practices. The toxic 

16 effects of lead are well known in children and adults. 

17 Workers' exposure to lead can damage the central nervous 

18 system and cardiovascular system, reproductive, 

19 hematological system and kidneys. Workers' lead 

20 exposure can also harm the development of their 

21 children. Families of construction workers can be 

22 exposed to lead all around the workplace, such as 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 clothes through lead paint in the workplace.

Page 97 

2 In fact, as was previously said, and I'd like

3 to reinforce this fact because I think it's very 

4 relevant to not only the fact of having to worry about

5 lead in commercial and public buildings, but also the 

6 fact that construction workers bring this home, and 

7 whether it be on an errand after work, as in the grocery 

8 store, as well as into their home. 

9 So, again, to reinforce: The National 

10 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, in 

11 coordination with the state departments of health found 

12 a higher percentage of constructions workers' children, 

13 especially those -- again, not only the worker, but also 

14 their children -- especially those under six years of 

15 age have elevated blood lead levels when compared to 

16 aged specific averages in the United States overall, and 

17 their neighbors' children as well. 

18 This fact alone should make it indisputable 

19 that it is absolutely necessary to expand and implement 

20 minimum lead abatement standards and proper training for 

21 contractors and the workforce in the construction 

22 industry. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 98

1 But as you know, there are mountains of facts 

2 past this that firmly support an LRRP for the public and 

3 commercial segment. And it's been said in an 

4 environment where disturbances of lead paint are 

5 routine, considering the numerous renovation projects 

6 that constantly occur. 

7 Our members of the finishing trades are 

8 distinct in the overall construction industry because 

9 much of their work does take place on the job site where 

10 other non-construction employees and visitors are 

11 present, such as an office building. Therefore, 

12 training in the best work practices for lead paint is 

13 just as much for their protection as it is for the 

14 non-construction employees or visitors in and around the 

15 job site. 

16 The prime example is a building very close to 

17 here, U.S. Capitol. In the last several years 

18 renovation workers removed over 100 tons of 140-year old 

19 lead-based paint and applied 700 gallons of new paint 

20 all while opened to visitors, such as school groups. So 

21 in that point, I would disagree with the assertion by 

22 the National Association of Realtors that children do 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 not enter commercial or public buildings. Primary 

2 example again being the U.S. Capitol. 

3 While this work is being done up there, 

4 buildings continue to serve as an office building for

Page 99 

5 legislative employees and officials. Furthermore, this

6 was an interior/exterior renovation, so containment of

7 dust particles was highly lethal. Thankfully, a 

8 contractor and the workforce on the project were well

9 trained, skilled, equipped, and knowledgeable. 

10 There is no doubt the project will require 

11 best industry standards for lead abatement, both for the 

12 contractor and the workforce. It was a complex job on a 

13 unique structure. But no matter the complexity or the 

14 building type or even its age, lead is lead. It's a 

15 toxic chemical, and we must have safety measures in 

16 place to prevent its harmful effects both on and off the 

17 job site. 

18 As I mentioned, I would like to briefly note 

19 that our implementing the EPA's minimum standards for 

20 lead abatement has been done in conjunction with 

21 the economic realities of the construction marketplace. 

22 Painters and Allied Trade has partnered with 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 over 7,000 contractors to operate numerous training

Page 100 

2 funds enjoined by managing committees. As a result, we 

3 developed education courses for contractors and workers 

4 on occupational skills, work practices, and related 

5 health and safety standards. 

6 Because of this business and labor 

7 partnership, we've successfully implemented some of the 

8 most advanced health and safety programs in the 

9 construction industry related to the lead paint. And we 

10 have done so in a cost beneficial manner. Our model is 

11 living proof that implementing lead abatement standards 

12 do not raise the cost of doing business. 

13 We thank you so much again for letting us 

14 comment today and in the future. We look forward to 

15 working with all the stakeholders in the business, 

16 environmental groups, and any other stakeholders. 

17 Again, thank you for your time. 

18 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Jim. 

19 Our next speaker is Mark Casale. He's with 

20 Painting and Decorating Contractors Association. 

21 MR. CASALE: Hello. Hi. Good Morning. PDCA 

22 is a nationwide association of commercial and 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 101

1 residential industry. We're headquartered in St. Louis. 

2 I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to comment 

3 today. 

4 PDCA put together a commercial forum RRP work 

5 community to look into each stakeholder in the -- with 

6 the direct interest for the proposed expansion of RRP. 

7 The commercial forum is a group of 

8 professionals that own and manage firms in 

9 non-residential buildings, structures such as public and 

10 commercial buildings. 

11 PDCA represents thousands of companies and 

12 tens of thousands of paint professions. PDCA is known 

13 as the voice of painting and decoration. 

14 In addition to the comments, PDCA would like 

15 to offer to work as a stakeholder with all the groups 

16 present today, share information so that we can be 

17 involved in the process. It is relevant to state for 

18 the record that we have committed to safety best 

19 practices. We specifically promote responsible work 

20 performance, safety and care to customers, coworkers, 

21 public, and the environment. 

22 We especially support and protect our children 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 from potential related work for paint preparation and

Page 102 

2 application risks. Although paint application itself is 

3 going to create a lead paint hazard today. Regardless 

4 of the age or type of building, the activity of applying 

5 paint, does not factor into the risk procedure as far as 

6 the lead-based paint is concerned. 

7 The only potential work involved with paint, 

8 lead-based paint is the lead dust release in 

9 preparation. So today I want to talk about that. 

10 Nobody mentioned typical repaint preparation 

11 may or may not create a hazard; therefore, we 

12 respectively (inaudible) the Agency to become familiar 

13 with the study or conduct a study or a number of studies 

14 that use typical procedures in public and commercial 

15 buildings. 

16 In addition, PDCA is willing to assist in 

17 facilitating such studies through our network. However, 

18 it's important to know that all communication about the 

19 studies' input would be directed through the PDCA's 

20 headquarters. 

21 PDCA is a group of contractors that split into 

22 chapters, councils, and forums. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 We have several concerns. I'd like to talk

Page 103 

2 about them now. The first concern is some time ago the

3 Agency went through the process of putting together a 

4 small business plan through the exterior portion of the

5 proposed RRP. To date, PDCA has not been privileged 

6 with that group's input, particularly -- and 

7 particularly any actions that the Agency is going to 

8 take from that group's input. We haven't seen that as

9 of yet. But we're hopeful that we'll get that input and 

10 any subsequent actions that the Agency may take and what 

11 is going to happen with it. 

12 PDCA was not an advocate of that exterior 

13 draft distributed because of a concept that triggers on 

14 exteriors. The Agency had developed a draft that 

15 dictated different work procedures for different 

16 distances for child-occupied facilities or type of 

17 hazard. PDCA advocates keeping the work procedures and 

18 any dust remnants within that area. A distance of 100 

19 feet shouldn't be affected by the type of work. And 

20 we're going to talk about the different work procedures. 

21 We're also concerned that there is little data 

22 on public visitation, public and commercial building 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 104

1 visitation for children. We would like to look at that

2 data and see the frequency as that was the basis for the 

3 residential child occupancy RRP. As of today, there's,

4 you know, a spectrum of time that triggers the 

5 regulation. We haven't seen that for the public and 

6 commercial proposal yet. 

7 We have a concern that some of the data that

8 has been collected may have been collected -- impacted

9 regarding work procedures. Some of the procedures talk

10 about -- the Agency is talking about common and typical

11 paint preparation procedures. What we have seen listed

12 as common and typical in the original RRP, we would hope

13 that it would be corrected or suggested to be corrected.

14 Grinding paint, heat gun, and open flame all 

15 have been regulated, but those activities are not 

16 typical. Those are removal. Those are not preparation.

17 Those are removal. 

18 Grinding, heat gun, and open flame are not 

19 everyday paint procedures used in public and commercial

20 buildings or in-house target housing. 

21 By using that data as typical work procedures

22 it creates a flawed result in the amount of the lead and
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 dust remnants released. 

2 In further review, those particular work 

3 practices were listed as disturbing lead-based paint. 

4 PDCA would like to note that's more than disturbing.

Page 105 

5 That's removal. Sanding and scraping, trying to loosen

6 stuff off. In addition to those three, the Agency also

7 mentions abrasive blasting machine, and stripping 

8 chemicals, which again are not regular and common 

9 typical paint recommended procedures. These are removal 

10 procedures. 

11 PDCA humbly requests that the Agency look at 

12 this as they go forward and consider public and 

13 commercial RRP. 

14 We would also appreciate if EPA would consider 

15 looking at reconsidering the difference between the 

16 buildings that were prior to 1960 -- excuse me, from 

17 1960 to 1978, which would be a later era, because there 

18 is a less percentage of lead-based paint, and we 

19 strongly feel from our experience through our network of 

20 professionals, that normal, typical common practices, 

21 not paint removal, does not generate a hazard, and 

22 hazards to the extent that the Agency has published. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 We feel that the Agency, from review of some of the 

2 studies (inaudible) information by focusing on the 

3 oldest cite apparent. 

4 Let me just conclude. PDCA was noted in a 

5 study that was put out for this particular effort for 

6 this meeting. We just want to make it clear that the

Page 106 

7 studies were placed on University of California Berkeley

8 in 1999. As I said, we have many chapters, councils, 

9 and forums. They spoke for the whole situation. So we

10 would like the Agency to please correct that. It was 

11 not the PDCA. It was a unit of the PDCA. We would 

12 appreciate if you could make that adjustment. 

13 We are thankful for the ability to participate 

14 today. We look forward to working with all 

15 stakeholders. 

16 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Mark. 

17 Our next speaker is Cathleen Brooks. Is 

18 Catherine here? She's not here. Okay. And Chris Long 

19 is here today, but he's decided not to speak. 

20 Let's keep moving. Michael Nagel, member, 

21 National Association of Home Builders. 

22 MR. NAGEL: Good morning. Thank you for the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 107

1 opportunity to testify at this hearing. My name is Mike 

2 Nagel. I have been in the construction industry for 45 

3 years and owned my own company for the last 27 years.

4 We're a small firm, and we'll do about $4.6 million in

5 sales in both residential and commercial renovations.

6 I'm a member of the National Association of

7 Home Builders and served as a national chairman of the

8 NAHB Remodelers, a 15,000 member organization in 2007,

9 and have been intimately involved in the LRRP ruling

10 process since 2005. 

11 My firm is an EPA registered firm, and I'm a

12 lead safe certified remodeler. We do both residential

13 and commercial work primarily within the city limits of 

14 Chicago where the average age of a home is 65 years; 

15 many being built at the turn of the century, and a good 

16 portion of them being built post World War II in the 

17 late '40s. 

18 Our commercial work is primarily renovation 

19 and exterior wall modifications. The percentage of 

20 residential versus commercial work for us varies 

21 greatly; one business cycle may be 20/80, and the next

22 business cycle may be 80/20, depending on the type of 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 work we have lined up. 

2 As I mentioned we do a lot of work in

Page 108 

3 high-rise buildings. Besides the plethora of logistical 

4 issues with dealing in high-rise buildings, regarding 

5 the LRRP, one of the main components for us is dust 

6 control. The question is, how do I take squares of 

7 cubic yards of debris? Each story is about a 5 by 6 by 

8 7, common elevator, down to 30-foot common hall, down 

9 the ramp to the alley, 90 feet up the alley, and put it 

10 in the truck without contaminating everything in sight 

11 along the way. The answer is: Practically I don't, at 

12 least not in the manner that is economically feasible 

13 for me or the homeowner. 

14 A job with a similar scenario was recently 

15 completed by my firm, and we sold it with an additional 

16 cost of $8,800 to follow the RRP ruling. It was our 

17 first home condo remodel that we used lead safe work 

18 practices on. We were a little concerned about the 

19 estimate of cost. 

20 After the dust settled and the job was 

21 complete, we realized that a direct cost to follow those 

22 practices were closer to $16,000 on a $350,000 project 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 109

1 or approximately 5 percent of the project, which by the

2 way is a number we are using moving forward to determine 

3 our lead-based practice cost. 

4 By the way, this project was for a 40-year-old 

5 single woman with no children. She did not live in the

6 dwelling during the duration of the project. A perfect

7 case for the opt-out rule. I can assure you from a 

8 lead-based working practice, we left the condo more lead 

9 free than when we started the project. 

10 Professional remodelers who are following 

11 regulations are being underbid by the fly-by-night 

12 contractors on a regular basis who are not certified or 

13 properly trained. The recent economic value of the turn 

14 had created thousands of these types of contracts. And 

15 unfortunately, contractors like myself, who are 

16 registered and certified have a target on our back, and 

17 the ones that aren't are not being followed by the EPA. 

18 Consumers, most of whom who are uneducated 

19 regarding RRP, and see the additional cost to follow the 

20 RRP, and typically choose one of three other options: 

21 One, they won't do the project at all because of the 

22 added costs; two, they'll hire a contractor who won't 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 110

1 follow the RRP or probably doesn't even know about it;

2 or worse case scenario they will do it themselves with a 

3 five-year old son hanging on to their dad's back pocket 

4 saying, dad, can I help, and inadvertently placing 

5 themselves and their family at risk of exposure to lead 

6 making it legal to poison your own children and have a

7 negative impact on the original intent of the rule. 

8 The uncertified contractor coupled with the 

9 unaware consumer does not serve the remodelers that are 

10 trying to follow the law, nor does it serve the original 

11 intent of the rule. What is the implication to 

12 commercial RRP? Well, that can include awareness in 

13 uncertified firms who have not been directed under the 

14 residential scope. The problem will likely persist in 

15 the commercial scope. 

16 EPA's elimination of the opt-out provision 

17 from the RRP rule. The rule of the opt-out provision 

18 dismantles everything the EPA included in the original 

19 2008 RRP ruling to ensure that it would not be overly 

20 cost to small contractors. 

21 EPA has stated that the inclusion of the 

22 opt-out provision decreased the number of homes subject 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 to the rule from 78.8 million down to 37.6 million. 

2 Based on the research I have seen, it represents 78 

3 percent of the existing pre '78 housing.

Page 111 

4 EPA also states that the rule of the opt-out

5 cost us 570 million for small businesses in the first 

6 year alone, not to mention the added cost to the 

7 consumer. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, American 

8 Community Survey, approximately 38.3 million 

9 owner-occupied housing built before '78 do not have 

10 children under the age of six living there. This is 

11 roughly 88.5 percent of all housing built before 1978. 

12 Removal of the opt-out provision, those 

13 homeowners no longer have the option for going in 

14 compliance with RRP when hiring a professional remodeler 

15 to work on an older house. For small contractors, the 

16 additional cost have to be passed on to a consumer, 

17 which increases the chance that the consumer will choose 

18 another path as mentioned earlier. 

19 Implication to the commercial RRP? Unless 

20 work is being completed on a school or child-care 

21 facility, the majority of projects that I work on will 

22 have no children or pregnant women present. In fact, 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 112

1 most commercial facilities that I work on are not even 

2 occupied during the construction process, and definitely 

3 not occupied during the demo and initial clean-up phase. 

4 Meaning that the existing residential RRP that 

5 were used to create a commercial RRP, inclusion of the 

6 opt-out would potentially have significant economic 

7 impact on the contractor and his client. 

8 Test kits which were promulgated EPA in 

9 September is a major problem. EPA put a test of a high

10 percentage of false positives. Many projects are being 

11 completed under RRP guidelines is just putting an 

12 additional unnecessary financial burden on the consumer 

13 and contractor. 

14 Also, because of the high percentage of false 

15 positives and the existing state of real estate 

16 disclosure laws, many remodelers are choosing just to 

17 comply with the RRP without even testing to refrain from 

18 proving existence of false positives of lead, and 

19 therefore having to disclose an unknown fact at the 

20 point of sale. 

21 Under this rule, 378 home assessment, there is 

22 no lead-based paint to bypass the RRP compliance. It's 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 113

1 a reasonable component to the rule, but it also hinges

2 on the existence of inaccurate testing. In drafting the 

3 rule, the EPA claims that would be available in 

4 September of 2010. As of this point it has not been 

5 presented to us, and to our knowledge, is no longer --

6 has no intention of being in the near future. 

7 We also know that the false positive rate of

8 the testing kit to be in the range of 47 to 78 percent.

9 Sometimes we feel that if we use enough of the test kit

10 we can find a false negative and move forward. 

11 EPA said they were committed to having a more 

12 accurate kit therefore reducing the number of false 

13 positives. But inaccurate and overly sensitive test 

14 kits gives little opportunity for the relief of 

15 remodelers. The implication is an accurate testing is 

16 necessary for the legitimate rule in both the 

17 residential and commercial settings. 

18 EPA Inspector General published a report that 

19 made the problems with the existing economic analysis 

20 for the RRP rule abundantly clear. In this report, the 

21 review for hotline complaint concerned costs and benefit 

22 estimates to the EPA's lead-based paint rule, report 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 number 12-P-0600, July 25, 2012. The Office of the

Page 114 

2 Inspector General found that the EPA's limited data to 

3 develop this cost benefit estimates for the levels, 

4 specifically OIG found the EPA relied on a non-random

5 set of nine self-reporting responses to estimate the 

6 cost of applying the RRP ruling. 

7 Additionally, the dust study which was part of 

8 the economic analysis was based on data that was 

9 considered to be limited by its own EPA Clean Air Act

10 Scientific Committee, because it was not consistently 

11 valid or nationally represented. 

12 In closing, not only does the EPA need to 

13 reevaluate the existing LRRP rule based on this report, 

14 but it must avoid making the same mistakes in 

15 promulgating another rule to prevent the same flaws. 

16 Einstein once said: We cannot solve our 

17 problems with the same thinking we used when we created 

18 them. 

19 I'm a grandfather of four, and have legal 

20 custody of the two oldest ones, 11 and 8, since birth. 

21 I would never intentionally and knowingly put them in 

22 harm's way. I and NHBR have always taken the high road 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 115

1 in protecting our children, but the rule as it currently 

2 exists is not successful at doing this and may have 

3 actually succeeded in making it worse. 

4 Thank you for the opportunity. 

5 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Michael. 

6 Our next speaker is Jane Malone. She is with 

7 the National Center for Healthy Housing. She does have 

8 a presentation. 

9 MS. MALONE: I expect to be quick. 

10 I am Jane Malone, I'm the director of policy 

11 for the National Center of Healthy Housing. We exist to 

12 protect children from lead in the home environment 

13 through proven practical steps. 

14 The EPA regulation for renovation in general 

15 does use proven practical steps. We hope to see the 

16 rule extended. We hope to see these requirements in 

17 commercial and public buildings. 

18 I'm just going to talk about a couple of 

19 things that haven't been brought up today. The worker 

20 prepares the work site. The one who does the work, the 

21 person that cleans up after the renovation work, the 

22 person who occupies the space after the work, and the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 person who perhaps is occupying it during the work.

Page 116 

2 We've got these several ways that adults can be exposed. 

3 There are adult consequences to lead 

4 poisoning; cardiovascular issues, reproductive health

5 issues. There are actual consequences to adult 

6 exposure. 

7 But furthermore, that adult exposure can lead 

8 to exposure to clothes, the work tools, leading to take 

9 home exposures or take on the bus, for the workers who

10 go home on the bus or the Metro or whatever transit 

11 every day. So you have the possibility of exposure. 

12 The threshold for occupational lead exposure 

13 at this point is 25 micrograms per deciliter. That's a 

14 pretty high level. We know that there are health 

15 effects below 500 per deciliter. Furthermore, if you 

16 are maintaining a work environment, applying to OSHA to 

17 ensure workers to not get exposed to the level -- they 

18 have 25 micrograms at work -- that take home lead to 

19 that child who is developing their brain, their body, 

20 that may just have a severe impact. Take home is well 

21 known and well documented. 

22 Among other things in the studies showing that 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 117

1 workers who have been working in lead construction when 

2 they -- basically the children have been exposed to lead 

3 on the infant car seat. The infant car seat has been

4 found in a number of cases to be the sole source of lead 

5 poisoning. That only happens because that car is where 

6 they work and the exposure happens. 

7 So just generally take-home lead increases 

8 child risk. We need to be concerned about adult 

9 exposure and also about take-home. 

10 Speaking of OSHA, it is imperative that this 

11 rule build on and fit in with what is on paper at OSHA, 

12 as well as what is the reality of OSHA. As we all know 

13 there is lots of work in public commercial buildings, 

14 and for a variety of reasons it is not technically a 

15 subject of OSHA law. So we've got a number of work 

16 situations and enterprises where those protections do 

17 not even apply. 

18 And then we also have compliance issues with 

19 OSHA generally, generally not just lead construction, so 

20 that as we look to build on OSHA, we need to make sure 

21 that reality is factored in. Where is that now in place 

22 so that they're not necessarily having a coordination 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 problem.

Page 118 

2 The other point about OSHA is where is the air 

3 monitoring data. Lead in construction has been in effect

4 for 20 years plus. OSHA doesn't have this data. This

5 is not data with the government. Instead this is 

6 data that should be in the hands of the private sector

7 employer. Were they complying with OSHA all of these 20 

8 years? There could be guided information there about

9 lead exposure. We really could learn some things about

10 risk of exposure in public commercial buildings should 

11 employers come forward with the data, and I hope that 

12 they will. 

13 So a couple of other quick points. Proximity 

14 in public commercial structures. We do have risk 

15 properties here. There was earlier alluded to the fact 

16 that this conversation about public and commercial for a 

17 time was in consideration of doing an exterior rule 

18 only. Exterior work that causes -- causes lead hazards 

19 is going to cause exposure in the different buildings 

20 spaces and mix-use properties. 

21 Finally, just one additional point. There 

22 really is a lot of work to do here. In order to do this 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 well, EPA needs more information. I know that people 

2 provided some, and I think that they need to keep 

3 digging deeper to find more information.

Page 119 

4 Should there be a determination that a study

5 is needed, I would hope that those who expect to have

6 this data will be forthcoming in your advocacy for 

7 appropriations for that study to be funded so that we

8 can have that information. 

9 And then on the test kit point, that's just

10 another opportunity for a private sector leadership. 

11 This text kit activity is a private enterprise activity. 

12 I just encourage those who are engaged in this in the 

13 private sectors to consider encouraging others in the 

14 private sector to come up with this test. EPA can't 

15 check out test data unless someone brings one forward. 

16 Thank you. 

17 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Jane. 

18 Our next speaker is David Merrick with the 

19 National Association of Remodeling. 

20 MR. MERRICK: Thank you for the opportunity to 

21 participate in the Environmental Protection Agency's 

22 public hearing today. This statement is made on behalf 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 120

1 of the National Association of the Remodeling Industry, 

2 NARI, trade group headquarters in Des Plaines, Illinois, 

3 whose core purpose is to advance and promote the 

4 remodeling industry's professionalism, product, and 

5 vital public purpose throughout the nation. 

6 NARI is the only national association 

7 dedicated solely to the remodeling industry. NARI 

8 consists of 58 chapters nationwide representing 

9 companies, most of which are small businesses, that can 

10 significantly be impacted by the EPA's proposed Public 

11 and Commercial LRRP program. 

12 As a representative of these small businesses 

13 and a participant in the federal SBREF, a panel review 

14 process, NARI would like to take this opportunity to 

15 share with the EPA the different types of work practices 

16 used to renovate public and commercial buildings, the 

17 importance of EPA avoiding recurring, confusing, and 

18 duplicative regulatory enforcement with other federal 

19 agencies, namely OSHA; and NARI's commitment to 

20 professionalism and worker and public safety. 

21 In doing so, NARI asks that the EPA's final 

22 rule reflect the realities of our industry, and that the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 rules enforcement plan identify and target those who 

2 fail to comply with even the most basic regulatory 

3 requirements.

Page 121 

4 Let me begin with the type of work practices 

5 used to renovate public and commercial buildings. NARI 

6 members operate businesses that conduct comprehensive 

7 demolition, surgical renovation, and resurfacing 

8 projects. Comprehensive projects generally include

9 demolition of the exterior, but retain the internal

10 structure or skeleton of the building. Surgical 

11 projects are more specific in scope, and could include, 

12 for example, the removal and replacement of the 

13 building's windows and doors. Resurfacing projects 

14 would include removing existing finishes and trim and 

15 repainting of the building's exterior. Of these 

16 projects, comprehensive demolition and resurfacing often 

17 pose the greatest health risks to workers and the 

18 surrounding public, due to the potential exposure to 

19 dust. 

20 Every project site is different. Variables 

21 include urban versus rural environments, surrounding 

22 populations, zoning, building age, site accessibility, 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 122

1 construction type as well as the weather. In addition 

2 to these factors, client's budget often determines the 

3 type of scope of the project and work practices 

4 employed. The scale and level of difficulty also varies 

5 between every project site. No two jobs are of the 

6 same, making any one size fits all regulatory scheme 

7 difficult to apply and generate desired results. 

8 In order to ensure the safety of their workers 

9 and clients, the primary work practice of NARI members 

10 is to continually monitor and maintain each site. This 

11 would include establishing a measure of area 

12 containment, keeping the site free from clutter and dust 

13 and other materials that left unattended could result in 

14 an unsafe work site and work injuries. 

15 NARI members normally require that the waste 

16 from each project be placed into dumpsters or like 

17 receptacles on-site. For multi-story projects, work 

18 practices used to control dust when moving debris to the 

19 dumpsters may include the use of elevators or 

20 transporting the debris down stairways. 

21 In some states, it is required that dumpster 

22 waste is transported from the work site to a transfer 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 123

1 station where workers separate the waste. While a few

2 NARI members may have the option of maintaining 

3 different dumpsters and separating the waste themselves, 

4 the option is time intensive, often contingent on space

5 and subsequently cost prohibitive. Such an option is 

6 not available in urban sites. 

7 NARI members also maintain work practices that 

8 can adapt to changing conditions on site. For instance, 

9 excessive winds limit or suspend work in order to 

10 prevent hazardous dust and debris from spreading beyond 

11 the site. A decision to suspend work will be most 

12 applicable to comprehensive demolition and resurfacing 

13 projects. 

14 To avoid recurring, confusing, and duplicative 

15 regulatory enforcement with other federal agencies, EPA 

16 should carefully consider the Occupational Safety and 

17 Health Administration's lead in construction 

18 regulations. OSHA's requirements in this area are quite 

19 robust and address several issues involving the same 

20 work practices that the EPA may consider in the public 

21 and commercial LRRP program. 

22 NARI believes it is critical that any overlap 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 124

1 or inconsistencies be resolved before the EPA makes its 

2 proposed rule final and effective. In doing so, NARI 

3 specifically asks the EPA to work directly with the 

4 federal and state OSHA, especially Cal OSHA as well as 

5 the Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis to 

6 identify such requirements that could generate confusion 

7 and conflict between the federal agencies, and then 

8 publicly share its findings and methods in the Federal 

9 Register on how the two agencies will be enforcing their 

10 respective requirements. 

11 Finally NARI would like to share with the EPA 

12 the importance it places on worker and client safety 

13 through continuing education and training, professional 

14 contact. NARI requires that certified members to 

15 participate in ongoing education training programs, 

16 which are updated regularly to reflect the latest 

17 requirements and work practices as they became available 

18 or effective. This information includes reference links 

19 to laws and regulations, web training, and access to 

20 certified trainers. For managing lead safety and 

21 health, NARI provides a specific web portal for 

22 compliance, education and training. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 125

1 NARI certification of remodeling contractors

2 serves as the association's recognition of the 

3 remodeling professionals who have met stringent 

4 experience criteria and pledged a commitment to the 

5 highest standards of practice to NARI's code of ethics. 

6 The NARI Certification Board confers with the following 

7 certification: Certified remodeler, specialist, 

8 associate, certified kitchen and bath remodeler, 

9 certified lead carpenter, green certified professional, 

10 certified remodeler project manager, and universal 

11 design certified professional. Enrollment in virtual 

12 study groups, online prep classes, and topical webinars 

13 are made available as part of NARI's certification and 

14 recertification process. 

15 While NARI members abide by the laws and 

16 employ lead safe work practices, the reality is that 

17 unscrupulous and unregistered contractors do not. This 

18 creates unfair competition in the marketplace, and more 

19 importantly elevates safety and risks to workers and 

20 public. 

21 NARI members voluntarily subscribe to NARI's 

22 code of ethics, which are as follows: By promoting in 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 good faith only those products and services which are 

2 known to be functionally and economically sound and 

3 which are known to be consistent with the objective 

4 standards of health and safety.

Page 126 

5 By making all advertising and sales promotion 

6 factually accurate, avoiding those practices which tend 

7 to mislead or deceive the customer. 

8 By writing all contracts and warranties such

9 that they comply with federal, state, and local laws.

10 By promptly acknowledging and taking 

11 appropriate action on all customer complaints. 

12 By refraining from any act intended to 

13 restrain trade or suppress competition. 

14 By obtaining and maintaining insurance as 

15 required by federal, state, and local authorities. 

16 By obtaining and retaining licensing and/or 

17 registration as required by every state and local 

18 authorities. 

19 By taking appropriate action to preserve the 

20 health and safety of employees, trade contractors and 

21 clients. 

22 As the EPA develops an awareness campaign and 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 127

1 enforcement plan for its proposed public and commercial 

2 LRRP program, NARI asks that it identify and target 

3 those who fail to uphold such standards and ethical 

4 practices. Contractors who serve the public in the 

5 absence of such practices not only put their workers at 

6 risk, but their clients and the general public as well. 

7 NARI believes that any final and enforced rule 

8 issued by the EPA should center squarely on the 

9 qualifications and practice of unscrupulous and 

10 non-certified contractors. 

11 In closing, NARI asks the EPA to take into 

12 consideration the different types of work practices used 

13 to renovate public and commercial buildings, the 

14 importance of EPA avoiding recurring, confusing and 

15 duplicative regulatory enforcement with other federal 

16 agencies, and NARI's commitment to worker and client 

17 safety. 

18 In doing so NARI firmly believes that the EPA 

19 final rule will reflect the realities of its industry, 

20 avoid becoming another burdensome federal regulation. 

21 The unscrupulous and non-certified contractors should be 

22 isolated, exposed and removed. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 128

1 Thank you again for the opportunity to share

2 this statement on behalf of NARI. The remodeling 

3 industry is a vital component to our nation's economy.

4 By taking the time to understand our industry, 

5 regulations may reflect the unique challenges facing our 

6 members while still achieving their objective. NARI 

7 stands ready to assist the EPA with any questions. 

8 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you. 

9 Our next speaker is Duane Desiderio, Real 

10 Estate Roundtable. 

11 MR. DESIDERIO: Good morning. Thank you for 

12 the opportunity this morning. I'm Duane Desiderio, vice 

13 president and counsel for the Real Estate Roundtable. 

14 The Real Estate Roundtable represents the owners, 

15 managers, financiers, of the nation's leading commercial 

16 real estate companies. Our members' buildings cover the 

17 full spectrum of commercial properties that are managed 

18 to generate income, offices, stores, industrial parks, 

19 hotels, healthcare facilities, and residential 

20 apartments and condominiums. 

21 (Inaudible) of our members lease space to the 

22 federal government, the largest office in the country. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 129

1 At the outset, I have to emphasize that our members must 

2 own and manage healthy and safe buildings. Their 

3 businesses and reputations depend on it. They take 

4 pride in the certifications they receive from the P.A. 

5 in its Energy Star Program or from organizations. 

6 If toxic or hazardous conditions exist in our

7 members' buildings, which might threaten indoor air 

8 quality or otherwise pose health or safety concerns to 

9 tenants or other occupants, then Roundtable members want 

10 to know where they are and what they need to do to 

11 address them. 

12 Accordingly, I would like to impress upon the 

13 EPA the major responsibilities it has to determine if, 

14 in fact, renovation and remodeling activities in public 

15 and commercial buildings create lead-based paint 

16 hazards. 

17 As EPA has stated before, it cannot create an 

18 LRRP rule for public and commercial buildings unless it 

19 finds that renovation activities create a lead paint 

20 hazard in those structures. That's required by section 

21 403. 

22 Yet, after ANPR in 2010 and another public 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 130

1 comment process in response to an RFI that closed this

2 past April, EPA has assembled infinitesimal if any evidence 

3 of data showing there were lead-based paint hazards in

4 public and commercial buildings. 

5 On several occasions, the Senate Environment

6 and Public Works Committee has asked EPA to identify 

7 what studies or information it has that might have some 

8 relevance to the issue of lead paint hazards 

9 specifically in public and commercial buildings. 

10 EPA provided responses to the committee's 

11 request in letters dated March 7th and April 9th of this 

12 year. In these letters to Congress, EPA referenced in 

13 total by my count ten studies as being relevant to the 

14 issue of lead hazards in commercial buildings. I've had 

15 the opportunity to review them, all of these studies 

16 cited by EPA, and I'd like to take some time this 

17 morning to address them. 

18 The first study is an environmental field 

19 sampling study from 1997, which EPA cited to Congress in 

20 both its March 7th and April 9th letters. Page 4-5 of 

21 the study makes it clear that the focus of the study was 

22 pre 1978 target housing. The study states: There are 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 no data at this time to assess whether environmental

Page 131 

2 exposures monitored in target housing are representative

3 of the environmental exposures in public or commercial

4 buildings. 

5 The next study is May 1997 summary report also

6 cited as a separate report in one of the letters to 

7 Congress. Reading from page 17 of the report: Exposure

8 differences between building environments from a lead 

9 abatement perspective are discussed at EPA's proposed 

10 rule, requirements for lead-based paint activities where 

11 an argument is made that public buildings and target 

12 housing represents similar exposure environments; 

13 however, there are no data at this time to assess 

14 whether environmental exposures monitoring target 

15 housing are representative of environmental exposures in 

16 public or commercial buildings. 

17 This is a report dated January 23rd, 2007. It 

18 is called, draft final report on the characterization of 

19 dust lead levels after renovation, repair, and painting. 

20 Page 6-1 describes the units that were studied. 16 

21 units were listed. 15 of the units were housing, all 

22 built in the year 1925 or earlier. The only non-housing 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 132

1 unit in the study is a school in Columbus, Ohio, built 

2 in 1967. No commercial building was studied. 

3 The next study is a May 1997 report entitled, 

4 environmental field sampling study, Volume 1, technical 

5 report. It was also cited by EPA to Congress. Page 

6 8-26 describes the dwelling units that were assessed for 

7 window replacement renovation. There were four of these 

8 units. There was a two-story house that was more than 

9 100 years old; another two-story house of an 

10 undetermined age; a second-floor apartment over 100 

11 years old; and a one-story business in Richwood, Ohio 

12 well over 150 years old. 

13 This is a 2001 study. Health hazard 

14 evaluation report out of UCAL Berkeley. Page one of the 

15 report states: The project took place at three 

16 unoccupied buildings on the UC Berkeley campus which 

17 were scheduled for demolition. Two, two-story 

18 multifamily residences and an adjacent 1-1/2 story 

19 multi-purpose building known as the day care center. 

20 Day care centers, as we know, are already child-occupied 

21 facilities covered under the current residential rule. 

22 No commercial buildings were identified in that report, 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 133

1 This is a January 2005 summary report entitled 

2 lead exposure associated with renovation remodeling 

3 activities. As far as I can tell in this report, this

4 study assesses risks posed to renovation construction 

5 workers and occupants in housing; only housing. I see

6 no reference to public and commercial buildings in this

7 report. 

8 This is the worker characterization lead study 

9 from May of 1997. As page 2-1 states: The target 

10 population was solely comprised by the union carpenters 

11 and employee independent non-union carpenters. As my 

12 understanding goes, such workers should already be 

13 protected in any event under OSHA's lead in construction 

14 safety standard, which we've heard about today. This 

15 study was not designed to consider possible lead dust 

16 exposures to building occupants as a result of 

17 renovation activities. Rather construction workers 

18 completed a questionnaire and were interviewed generally 

19 about the renovation work activities in both residential 

20 and non-residential buildings. Again, lead hazards in 

21 commercial buildings were not identified and tested. 

22 In short, of all the studies that EPA cited to 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 Congress in March and April of this year as possibly

Page 134 

2 relevant to lead hazards and renovations in public and

3 commercial buildings, the only public and commercial 

4 buildings that were studied were, one, a school built in 

5 1967; and two, a one-story business well over 150 years

6 old. 

7 I would offer that this evidence does not 

8 provide any rational basis for EPA to develop an LRRP

9 rule for public and commercial buildings. Any federal

10 agency under any regulatory program bears the burden to 

11 develop a rulemaking record that serves to justify the 

12 basis or purpose of a regulation. That is a hallmark 

13 principle of the Administrative Procedure Act. 

14 Groups and companies that are the intended 

15 object of the regulation do not have a responsibility to 

16 prove a negative; that is to justify why it should not 

17 be regulated. The burden rests on the Agency posing the 

18 regulation. There is no reason to deviate for those of 

19 us here. 

20 In closing, I'd like to stress that 

21 (inaudible) federal buildings provides a laboratory for 

22 EPA, the private sector, and the public sector to study 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 and assess where the lead paint hazards arise from 

2 renovation and remodeling activities in public and 

3 commercial buildings. 

4 In my review of the record that closed on

Page 135 

5 April 1, for the recent request for information, not a

6 single federal entity that manages buildings submitted a 

7 comment. That should be a great concern to the EPA. 

8 The Roundtable is willing to assist EPA in 

9 coordinating with the agencies and departments, trades,

10 departments, such as the General Services 

11 Administration, the Architect of the Capitol, the 

12 military branches, and the National Institute of 

13 Building Sciences to determine whether dangerous levels 

14 of lead exist or can be found in public and commercial 

15 buildings as TSCA section rule requires. 

16 Thank you very much for the opportunity. 

17 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Duane. 

18 Our next speaker is Michael Oscar. He's with 

19 the Finishing Contractors Association of North America. 

20 At the conclusion of Michael's presentation -- 

21 is Catherine Brooks still around? No. 

22 Michael will be our last speaker that's 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 136

1 registered. And then we have two speakers who signed up 

2 this morning, and that will conclude this morning's 

3 public hearing. 

4 MR. OSCAR: Thank you very much. I'll keep my 

5 comments brief, because I was delighted that we were 

6 able to have one of our contractors come in from 

7 Finishing Contractors Association, Rick Vandegraft, who 

8 presented earlier today from Illinois. But I do think 

9 there are some points and concerns that need to be 

10 raised. I appreciate the enthusiasm of the last 

11 speaker, but that is the purpose of today's hearing, is 

12 to collect that information, find out what data is out 

13 there, and how can we analyze that data to better assist 

14 the EPA in that particular subject matter. 

15 If you look at the handout that they 

16 specifically gave us on the way in, page 9, it 

17 specifically asks for work practices that are currently 

18 going on in the renovating public and commercial 

19 buildings hoping for this type of material that he has 

20 otherwise cited. 

21 Having worked up on the Hill, there always 

22 will be questions to be asked. Federal agencies tend 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 137

1 sometimes not always to give the best information, but

2 that's why it is incumbent upon us to get them 

3 information directly from the industry. That's what

4 we're trying to do today. But more specifically, I 

5 think the overriding themes of today's presentations

6 come down to some certain topics of interest. Cost 

7 being one of them. 

8 Ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing with a

9 toxic substance no matter how you look at it. Lead 

10 paint is of the utmost importance to the members of my 

11 industry. We have 7,000 contractors that deal with this 

12 on a regular basis, and they deal with cost constantly, 

13 from the subcontractor position to a general contractor 

14 position. And we make the investment. 

15 We are fully aware of the ruling that came 

16 down in 2010, and we continue to work with our partners, 

17 not only with the IUPAT, but with Sherwin Williams and 

18 Benjamin Moore, one of the largest painting contractors 

19 in the industry, because we know specifically that this 

20 removal is paramount. 

21 I also want to compliment the speaker this 

22 morning that talked and raised the question about the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 138

1 issue of collecting this data. We knew that this ruling 

2 was coming down the pike. Now it is incumbent upon us 

3 as an industry -- we're always willing to pass the buck. 

4 Well, the buck stops here; meaning that it's incumbent 

5 upon us to get the data that should have been collected, 

6 that we knew about the impact that was going to -- 

7 obviously they gave us a heads up and said, it was going 

8 to come from the residential and the public and 

9 commercial buildings. Before they start continuing 

10 regulating our industry, let's help them and give them 

11 the best information. 

12 At the end of the day, whether OSHA deals with 

13 the issue of lead paint removal and EPA wants to look at 

14 it in a different way, the reality is that one agency 

15 takes care of it, and the other one, one that's 

16 interceding, they're asking for comments before that 

17 session. It's incumbent upon us to give them the best 

18 information so that they can make the best decision. 

19 Now, in terms of the overall opt-out 

20 provision, that one is of a greater consequence. And 

21 the arguments that have been made have been primarily 

22 cited on the fact of cost, trillions of dollars as it 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 was indicated in some of the presentations.

Page 139 

2 My concern, ladies and gentlemen, is not about 

3 cost. My concern -- and cost is a concern. But my

4 concern, ladies and gentlemen, would be about the 

5 liability issues. Who is liable? Is it the contractor? 

6 Is it an owner of the commercial building? You're 

7 giving, in the opt-out provision, a tremendous amount of 

8 control on that project. And it has been indicated

9 those who were exposed to lead paint removal are going 

10 to be impacted, whether they were workers on the job, 

11 whether they are the community that surrounds 

12 the commercial building. 

13 Look, ladies and gentlemen, I witnessed it 

14 firsthand recently in Philadelphia. There was a 

15 collapse. Six people died because of a belligerent 

16 vagrant owner, and the City of Philadelphia right now 

17 along with our contractors and the building trades are 

18 now trying to rectify the problem because license and 

19 inspections didn't do their job. 

20 Lead paint was all over that building, and 

21 that building was definitely predated, 1926, the 

22 original foundation for that building. And now we're 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 working doing due diligence trying to resolve the

Page 140 

2 matter. The matter is being finally dealt with. And we 

3 need to be working in advance of something like that so 

4 another catastrophe in that situation doesn't occur 

5 again, but more specifically, that when the Agency asks 

6 us for information, we want to be helpful. 

7 The bottom line is this is a number one 

8 priority for the Finishing Contractors Association. It 

9 is a number one priority to resolve to give them the 

10 best information so that they can make the best 

11 judgment. 

12 We believe that the impact has been 

13 tremendous. And when we look to the concerns -- and we 

14 provided a chart in our testimony of why should we be 

15 concerned about lead paint, and the impacts that it had 

16 as mentioned by both Jim Brewer and Rick Vandegraft in 

17 their testimonies about the impact of the construction 

18 worker that's working on the lead paint removal and the 

19 impact that it had on the blood level, blood levels for 

20 their children. 

21 We have a chart here that we worked out in 

22 terms of what the impact would be on adults, hazardous 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 conditions in terms of the high blood pressure rates, 

2 fertility rates, digestive problems, nerve disorders,

Page 141 

3 memory and concentration problems, sexual disorders, and 

4 muscle and joint pain; let alone what the impact would

5 be for a child under seven years old, damage to the 

6 nervous system, kidney damage, decreased intelligence,

7 attention deficit disorder, learning disabilities, 

8 speech language problems, behavioral problems, brain 

9 damage, just to name a few. 

10 So the reality is, is that we understand the 

11 cost. We represent a small gross revenue, about a 

12 million dollars, has about seven to ten employees, it's 

13 been in business now since 1998, passing along to the 

14 second generation. But they realize that they need to 

15 get the proper training put in place to their employees 

16 about safety. 

17 We saw this coming down the pike. This is not 

18 a situation where we were blind-sided. We need to work 

19 together as an industry. And I compliment the EPA for 

20 allowing us the opportunity. And I don't make it a 

21 practice to compliment a federal agency especially on 

22 regulation, but I do think on this particular time it is 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 142

1 warranted because we're allowed to give our comments to 

2 rectify the situation early and often to make sound 

3 policy decisions and regulatory decisions on our behalf. 

4 Thank you very much. 

5 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Michael. 

6 We have two remaining speakers. They signed 

7 up this morning. We have Michael McKnight. He's with 

8 the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning. 

9 Because we have time, Michael, you can speak 

10 up to ten minutes if you so wish. 

11 MR. MCKNIGHT: Thank you. 

12 As he said, I'm here representing the 

13 Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning. We are an 

14 organization based in Baltimore City, Maryland that 

15 provides a broad range of lead-related direct services, 

16 including hazard control, lead-based production, healthy 

17 homes interventions, housing relocation assistance, 

18 family advocacy, legal services, lead poisoning 

19 education, and public policy work. Also, we provide 

20 technical assistance to 25 cities nationwide on lead 

21 poisoning prevention strategies. 

22 We provided comments directly to the EPA, so 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 I'm just going to highlight a couple of things in our 

2 regular comments. We support moving the LRRP rule to 

3 the commercial buildings and public buildings just 

4 because of the importance of looking at workers and

Page 143 

5 workers' families, and also, the fact that even if there 

6 are children that are only there for temporary time

7 periods, what we know about science is that there still

8 is a great risk of having even low levels of elevated

9 blood, and that has an effect. 

10 There's been recent studies that have just 

11 come out from the CDC where they actually removed the 

12 outdated limit used to be the level of concern, which was 

13 10 micrograms per deciliter. That was actually removed 

14 last year. So this is after the RRP rule came out. So 

15 in 2012, they got rid of that. So because of the 

16 effects at such a low level, from 2 to 7, you can 

17 actually see a greater amount of adverse effects per 

18 increment of micrograms per deciliter of blood. So that 

19 level has been removed. 

20 I know this morning there was a slide that had 

21 .65 percent of children having an elevated blood lead 

22 level. That actually is outdated. It's based off of 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 the old levels. So the new level is 2.68 percent of 

2 children, which is 535,000 children in this country,

Page 144 

3 below the age of six, have a blood lead level above the 

4 referenced level, which was currently now 500 micrograms 

5 per deciliter. 

6 So that increases the risk of having adverse 

7 effects from workers bringing lead hazards home or for 

8 children that are in the public space, in the public 

9 buildings for a temporary period of time. I just wanted 

10 to say that. 

11 Now, in terms of practices, we invariably 

12 looked at sort of strengthening the RRP rule and trying 

13 to since devise work being done by firms that are 

14 actually certified and not having incentives to push 

15 people to do work on their own or to go to contractors 

16 that have not been certified and trained. 

17 We do want to say that we actually would 

18 support more dust clearance testing rather than visual 

19 inspections in both residential rule now and in any 

20 proposed commercial RRP rule, and also, for a 

21 notification to owners and occupants in the commercial 

22 buildings, including reports of dust wipe sampling so 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 145

1 that the occupants of those buildings in the spaces will 

2 know sort of the condition of the property including 

3 dust testing results. 

4 And as was just mentioned by one of the 

5 speakers just now, I would feel like there is a big 

6 level of concern from demolition. Our organization was 

7 a key author of Lead Safe Demolition Practices of $1 

8 billion, a Baltimore development, an urban removal in 

9 Baltimore, Maryland. And we have a long list of lead 

10 safe demolition practices that we provided in our 

11 written statement. 

12 We thank you for the opportunity to speak with 

13 the EPA. 

14 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Michael. 

15 Our last speaker this morning is Warren 

16 Friedman. He's with the Office of Healthy Homes and 

17 Lead Hazard Control. 

18 MR. FRIEDMAN: I will provide just a few 

19 technical notes. 

20 HUD's interest in this rulemaking is that in 

21 addition to housing we are also involved with commercial 

22 buildings that come under the development or 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 rehabilitation as a result of some of the (inaudible) 

2 that applies to jurisdictions of property. 

3 First on the OSHA lead in construction 

4 standard, it's certainly important that data from the

Page 146 

5 assessments of whether there is lead paint is provided

6 to EPA in order to assist in assessing the extent of 

7 possible lead-based paint hazards that were created post 

8 1977 in public and commercial buildings. 

9 In addition, the OSHA standards -- there has

10 been a lot of discussion about it in terms of having 

11 work practice requirements. It does not have a dust 

12 clearance level. There's no dust standard except in 

13 (inaudible) area, not the actual work areas. There is 

14 no OSHA dust standard at the end of a construction 

15 project, construction which includes renovation, 

16 repairing, painting. 

17 As a result, the issues that have been 

18 discussed today in terms of workers taking this home to 

19 children, or people who may visit the commercial 

20 buildings, also public buildings. Those issues were not 

21 addressed directly by OSHA standards because it doesn't 

22 handle dust levels. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

Page 147

1 The second item is spot test kits. Spot test 

2 kits, use of paint chip sampling and analysis by 

3 laboratories and current models. EPA's national lead 

4 limit has paint chips tested at the beginning of the 

5 project to determine if it is paint. 

6 One of the speakers today brought up x-ray 

7 forensics analysis. That is also a way in which lead 

8 can be determined, lead-based paint. Of course, the 

9 paint is paint. It didn't create it in the pre '78 

10 building or the post 1977 buildings. How they're 

11 applied could be different for the public and commercial 

12 buildings. 

13 And then finally, in terms of apartments, 

14 apartments that are pre-1978 are covered by the RRP. 

15 Any number of units, one unit for single-family or two 

16 units for duplex, all the way up to thousands of units 

17 already covered. So the sector of the apartment 

18 industry is covered post '77 housing, not pre '78 

19 housing. Those are technical comments. 

20 Those are my only comments today. 

21 MR. PIANTANIDA: Thank you, Warren. 

22 That concludes today's public hearing. I have 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 two reminders. 

2 Janie, our court reporter, would appreciate

Page 148 

3 getting a hard copy of your presentations this morning. 

4 If you don't have it with you, please send it today if 

5 you can. 

6 Secondly, the docket is open until July 12th. 

7 So the opportunity to continue this for an additional 14 

8 or 16 days to submit comments to the docket on this. 

9 And then lastly, I want to thank you for a 

10 very efficient process. Everyone stayed within the 

11 eight to ten minutes. We got through all our speakers. 

12 We ended early. We take this process seriously, we 

13 being the "EPA." We all appreciate you staying orderly 

14 and following the rules and helping us put together a 

15 better proposed rule. 

16 Thank you. 

17 (Thereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the hearing 

18 concluded.) 

19 

20 

21 

22 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800-9656

1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 

2 I, Janie G. Arriaga, Court Reporter, before

Page 149 

3 whom the foregoing hearing was taken, do hereby certify 

4 that the testimony that appears in the foregoing hearing 

5 was duly sworn by me; that the testimony was taken by me 

6 stenographically, and that I thereafter reduced it to 

7 typewriting; that said hearing is a true record of the 

8 testimony given; that I am neither counsel for, related 

9 to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in 

10 which this hearing was taken; and further, that I am not

11 a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel 

12 employed by the parties thereto; nor financially or 

13 otherwise interested in the outcome of the action. 

14

15 JANIE G. ARRIAGA, 

16 Notary Public in and for the 

17 District of Columbia 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22