U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–577 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 110–1234 

LEAD AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 18, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

OCTOBER 18, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 4 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. from the State of Rhode Island ....................... 10 

Bond, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ..................... 11 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 13 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 15 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 16 

Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho .................................... 17 

WITNESSES 

Gulliford, James, Assistant Administrator For Pesticides, Prevention, and 

Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ............................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Nagel, Mike, CGR, Caps, Remodelone-Design/Build Construction, on Behalf 

of the National Association of Homebuilders, Remodeler’s Council ................ 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 44 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 46 

Lanphear, Bruce P., M.D., Mph, Director, Cincinnati Children’s Environmental Health Center; Professor of Pediatrics And Environmental Health ... 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 50 

Neltner, Thomas G., on Behalf of Improving Kids’ Environment, Sierra Club, 

and Concerned Clergy of Greater Indianapolis ................................................. 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 65 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 66 

Jacobs David E., PhD., CIH, Director of Research, National Center for 

Healthy Housing .................................................................................................. 69 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 92 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 94 

Farrow, Olivia, Assistant Commissioner, City of Baltimore Department of 

Health ................................................................................................................... 94 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 131 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 131 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements: 

Toxics Link: Brush With Toxics, An Investigation on Lead in Household 

Paints in India .............................................................................................. 139 

ClearCorps: ClearCorps USA, Report on Investigation of Lead in Children’s Products .............................................................................................. 175 

Articles: 

Identifying Housing That Poisons: A Critical Step in Eliminating Childhood lead Poisoning ...................................................................................... 179 

The Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing ................... 186 
Page

IV 

—Continued 

Lead Content of Currently Available new Residential Paint in Several 

Asian Countries ............................................................................................. 194 

Lead Content of Dried Films of Domestic Paints Currently Sold in Nigeria ................................................................................................................... 198 

Validation of a 20-year Forecast of U.S. Childhood Lead Poisoning: Updated Prospects for 2010 .............................................................................. 203 

ClearCrops USA: Lead in Children’s Jewelry ....................................................... 216 

Letters from: 

The Sierra Club to Commissioner Stratton and Administrator Johnson .... 219 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency to Jacqueline Elder . 227 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency to Jane Doe ............. 229 

The Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, 

to Bob Eckert ................................................................................................. 232 

The Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, 

to Michael A. Monahan ................................................................................ 234 
(1) 

LEAD AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Barrasso, Bond, Cardin, Craig, Inhofe, 

Klobuchar, and Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. I want to welcome all my colleagues. I am sorry 

I was running 5 minutes behind schedule. We call to order the 

hearing on lead and children’s health. I think we have some very 

important people to hear from on this. We will each be given 5 

minutes for an opening statement, and then we will go to the witnesses. 

We have known for decades that lead is highly toxic, and with 

every passing year more scientific studies show that lead harms 

our kids at even lower levels than previously believed. What does 

it do? Lead damages kids’ brains, impairs their learning, reduces 

their IQs and can cause behavioral problems. 

Along with millions of other parents and grandparents across the 

Country, I am outraged that lead still is in wide use, especially in 

products designed for children. I just became a grandmother for the 

second time. My little guy is 3 months old and he is starting to put 

everything into his mouth. My children are trying to follow what 

products are safe and what products aren’t safe. But to tell you the 

truth, as vigilant as they are, they are very concerned, and the little one just loves all the bright colors. But you just can’t help but 

worry is something wrong here. 

There has recently been what seems like an endless stream of recalls of our children’s toys, jewelry and other products containing 

toxic lead levels. This includes over 1.5 million Mattel toys contaminated with lead paint. These Mattel recalls included Sesame 

Street and Nickelodeon characters such as Elmo, Tub Sub, the 

Dora the Explorer backpack, and the Giggle Gabber, a toy shaped 

like Elmo or Cookie Monster, and many Barbie accessories. 

We invited Mattel to testify at this hearing to explain why their 

products have been lead-contaminated and what they are doing 

about the problem. Mattel accepted the invitation, but then they 

backed out earlier this week. We intend to follow up with the com-
2 

pany on their failure to participate in this hearing. It is important 

for companies like Mattel to be part of the discussion about what 

has caused this problem, and about the steps necessary to address 

the issue in the future. There is no excuse for their failure to appear before this committee today. They had nothing to fear, and 

they could help us understand what is happening. 

Lead contamination of children’s products can have extremely serious consequences. In 2006, a 4-year old child in Minnesota swallowed a heart-shaped metal charm from a bracelet that came with 

Reebok sneakers. Tests showed his blood lead level was three times 

the level that is considered a medical emergency, and the child died 

6 days later. If you could just pass that around to my colleagues, 

I would appreciate it. We will have the staff help us do that. Three 

hundred thousand of these Reebok charms were recalled. 

In 2003, a 4-year old in Oregon got violently ill and an x-ray 

showed that he had swallowed a vending machine medallion. He 

had surgery to remove the object, which was 39 percent lead. His 

blood level was 12 times the CDC lead safety level. His life was 

saved by a painful treatment that uses chemicals to take the lead 

out of the body. 

In 2004, a 5-year old child in San Jose, CA was tested for lead 

at the suggestion of her school. Her blood lead levels were nearly 

three times higher than the CDC risk level. Charms that she put 

into her mouth were found to contain lead. 

These are but a few examples of the kinds of children’s products 

contaminated with lead. Among the other recalls are 35,000 Baby 

Einstein blocks contaminated with lead paint. How ironic that 

these very blocks that should be helping babies learn were actually 

contaminated with a brain toxin that could lower a child’s IQ. 

Thousands of Wal-Mart bibs which babies often put in their 

mouths that contained high lead levels were recalled. These bibs 

were recalled by Wal-Mart after investigation by Illinois authorities, and there they are. 

Lunch boxes distributed by health officials in California and labeled ‘‘eat five a day for better health’’ were contaminated with excess lead. Over 1.5 million Thomas and Friends railway toys with 

lead paint were recalled. 

In all, there have been over 60 recalls of over 9.5 million leadcontaminated products in 2007, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. With more testing comes more recalls. But these lead toys in 

kids’ products are not the only source of lead in kids’ blood. Some 

of the other most significant sources of lead exposure for children 

include deteriorating lead-based paint, lead-contaminated dust, 

lead-contaminated residential soil, lead in drinking water, lead in 

food contact surfaces such as certain dishware and pottery. 

Parents are stunned. They are confused. They are terribly worried, and the Government, in my view, simply hasn’t done one of 

its most important jobs—protecting children from harm. 

The failure of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect the public from kids’ toys has received widespread publicity recently. I sit on the Commerce Committee and I commend them, 

both sides of the aisle, for looking at this. 

But I want to focus attention on EPA’s failure to use its power, 

and it has the power, to protect our children from lead in products. 
3 

We will hear from a witness later today that EPA explicitly denied 

a petition to use the agency’s authority over the Toxic Substances 

Control Act to address these risks. Only after a lawsuit from the 

Sierra Club and Improving Kids’ Environment did EPA begin to 

act. If EPA had taken action in response to the April, 2006 petition, 

the agency could at least have had very useful information on quality control and other procedures of companies such as Mattel, before the massive toy recalls. 

EPA’s failure to act on this petition is similar to its failure to 

adopt strong guidelines for lead paint remediation. It also reminds 

me of the agency’s recent announcement that EPA is considering 

the possibility of revoking the standard for lead in air. They are 

moving in the wrong direction. 

I know I have gone over my time, so I will put the rest of my 

statement in the record, and say this. It is our moral obligation to 

protect our children from this devastating poison. I intend to do my 

best and work across the aisle to do this. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON, BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

We have known for decades that lead is highly toxic. And with each passing year, 

more scientific studies show that lead harms our children at even lower levels than 

previously believed. Lead damages kids’ brains, impairs their learning, reduces their 

IQs, and can cause behavioral problems. 

Along with millions of other parents and grandparents across the country, I am 

outraged that lead still is in wide use, especially in products designed for children. 

This is absolutely inexcusable and unacceptable. 

There has recently been what seems like an endless stream of recalls of kids’ toys, 

jewelry, and other products containing toxic lead levels. This includes over 1.5 million Mattel toys contaminated with lead paint. 

These Mattel recalls included Sesame Street and Nickelodeon characters such as 

the Elmo Tub Sub, the Dora the Explorer Backpack, and the Giggle Gabber, a toy 

shaped like Elmo or Cookie Monster, and many Barbie accessories. 

We invited Mattel to testify at this hearing to explain why their products have 

been lead-contaminated and what they are doing about the problem. Mattel accepted the invitation, but then they backed out earlier this week. We intend to followup with the company on their failure to participate in this hearing. It is important 

for companies like Mattel to be part of the discussion about what has caused this 

problem, and about the steps necessary to address the issue the future. There is no 

excuse for their failure to appear before this Committee today. 

Lead contamination of children’s products can have extremely serious consequences. In 2006, a 4-year old child in Minnesota swallowed a heart-shaped metal 

charm from a bracelet that came with Reebok sneakers. Tests showed his blood-lead 

level was three times the level that’s considered a medical emergency. The child 

died 6 days later. 

300,000 of these Reebok charms were recalled. One of these charms is on the table 

in front of us. 

In 2003, a 4-year old in Oregon got violently ill, and an x-ray showed that he had 

swallowed a vending machine medallion. He had surgery to remove the object, 

which was 39 percent lead. His blood lead level was 12 times the CDC lead safety 

level. His life was saved by a chelation, a painful treatment that uses chemicals to 

take the lead out of the body. 

In 2004, a 5-year old child in San Jose, California was tested for lead at the suggestion of her school. Her blood level levels were nearly three times higher than the 

CDC risk level. Charms that she put into her mouth were found to contain lead. 

These are but a few examples of the kinds of children’s products contaminated 

with lead. Among the other recent recalls are: 

• 35,000 Baby Einstein blocks contaminated with lead paint. How ironic that the 

very blocks that should be helping babies learn, were actually contaminated with 

a brain toxin that could lower kids’ IQs. 
4 

• Thousands of bibs, which babies often put in their mouths, that contained high 

lead levels. These bibs were recalled by Walmart after an investigation by Illinois 

authorities. 

• Lunch boxes, distributed by health officials in California and labeled ‘‘Eat 5 a 

Day for Better Health,’’ that were contaminated with excess lead. 

• Over 1.5 million Thomas & Friends Railway toys with lead paint. 

In all, there have been over 60 recalls of over 9.5 million lead-contaminated products in 2007. And this clearly is just the tip of the iceberg. With more testing come 

more recalls. 

But these lead toys and kids’ products are not the only source of lead in kids’ 

blood. Some of the other most significant sources of lead exposure for children include deteriorating lead-based paint, lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated residential soil, lead in drinking water, and lead in food-contact surfaces such as certain dishware and pottery. 

Parents are stunned, confused, and terribly worried. And the government simply 

has not done one of its most important jobs—protecting children from harm. 

The failure of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect the public from 

kids’ toy threats has received widespread publicity recently. I want to focus attention on EPA’s failure to use its powers to help protect our children from lead in children’s products, and how EPA’s authorities can be strengthened. 

We will hear from a witness later today that EPA explicitly denied a petition to 

use the agency’s authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address many of these risks. Only after a lawsuit from the Sierra Club and Improving 

Kids’ Environment did EPA begin to act. 

If EPA had taken action in response to the April 17, 2006, TSCA petition, the 

agency could at least have had very useful information on quality control and other 

procedures at companies such as Mattel, before the massive toy recalls revealed this 

serious problem to millions of Americans. 

EPA’s failure to act on this petition and use its Toxic Substances Control Act authorities to crack down on lead is similar to its failure to adopt strong guidelines 

for lead paint remediation. It also reminds me of the agency’s recent announcement 

that EPA is considering the possibility of revoking the standard for lead in air. EPA 

clearly needs to take lead contamination far more seriously. 

The good news is that when EPA and Government agencies are doing their jobs, 

they can reduce children’s lead poisoning risks. From the late 1970’s through the 

1990’s, EPA and other agencies took several actions including phasing out lead in 

gasoline and banning lead paint. According to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), the number of kids CDC considers lead-poisoned dropped from 

13.5 million in 1978 to 310,000 children in 2002. So when agencies put their minds 

to it, and have the will, we can make a big difference. 

But we still have a lot of work to do. According to a Work Group of independent 

scientists convened by the CDC in 2004, recent data show that there are adverse 

effects on children from lead at blood lead levels below the current CDC level of concern. The CDC agreed, but decided not to reduce the level because of their concerns 

about the difficulty of implementing a lower number. I think that decision needs to 

be reconsidered, in order to better protect our children in light of all the new data. 

It is time for our government to put as high a priority on lead-poisoned children 

as parents do. I intend to introduce legislation to force EPA to eliminate lead in 

products that children use. And I plan to carefully and vigorously oversee EPA’s implementation of its other lead authorities. 

It is our moral obligation to protect our children from this devastating poison. And 

I intend to do my best to make sure that EPA and other agencies do their part to 

help assure that our kids are safe. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe, thank you for being here. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I do appreciate having this hearing. I think it is very significant, 

but I would like to express my dismay about the fact that despite 

our request over and over and over again from the minority side, 

the Center for Disease Control wasn’t invited to testify. The National Center for Environmental Health within the CDC is the lead 
5 

agency regarding childhood lead exposure, and their testimony 

would certainly have been germane. 

In preparation for this hearing, I sent the Director of the center 

a letter with several questions about their work, and would like to 

enter their responses into the record at this time. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

RESPONSES BY THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC) TO

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. Please describe CDC’s most recent lead survey data. Can you quantify 

the progress has been made to date in decreasing childhood lead exposure and the 

rate of incidences of lead exposure-related illness? What are the trends in childhood 

blood lead levels? 

Response. The most recent published data, the National Health and Nutritional 

Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999—2002, indicated that the percent of children 

1—5 years old with blood lead levels 10 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL) has declined from 4.4 percent in 1991—1994 to 1.6 percent. The largest decrease in elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) was in black non Hispanic children, from 11.2 percent 

to 3.1 percent. Although the 1999—2002 prevalence of elevated BLLs was higher for 

Non-Hispanic Blacks than for either white or Hispanic subgroups, statistical power 

was not sufficient to examine these differences because of the small proportions and 

large variability around the estimates. 

Question 2. Recognizing that lead is an element of the environment and that there 

may be multiple exposure pathways that accumulate in children, what is the single 

biggest exposure pathway for children in the United States? How accurately can we 

pinpoint the root of the major exposure pathway? How can CDC’s data be used to 

identify the locations where children have been exposed to lead? 

Response. Residential house paint is the most common high-dose source of lead 

in children’s environments. Paints that were sold in the 1920’s and 1930’s contained 

as much as 50 percent lead by dry weight. Lead paint can be found in most housing 

built before 1950 and in many houses built between 1950 and 1978. When this paint 

peels or is disturbed during renovation, it contaminates house dust and soil and is 

ingested by young children during normal hand-to-mouth activities. However, lead 

is a pervasive environmental contaminant found in air, water, food, and consumer 

products, usually at levels lower then the levels found in house paint. Children are 

exposed to lead from a variety of sources. Because children do not excrete lead from 

their bodies very well, lead from all of these sources accumulates and causes adverse health effects. 

Question 3. Please explain the CDC’s 10 micrograms/deciliter (ug/dl) ’’level of concern’’ for lead in children under 6. On what is it based? Is this a regulatory standard? What exactly does this standard mean? What actions are triggered when a 

child is found with a blood lead level (BLL) above 10 ug/dl? 

Response. The CDC ‘‘level of concern’’ of 10 ug/dL was established in 1991 as a 

public health action level. It has over time become the level at which individual children are considered to have elevated BLLs that require an individualized intervention. Depending on the jurisdiction, the resources available, and the number of children with higher blood lead levels, families of children with levels greater than or 

equal to 10 ug/dL receive education about sources of lead and how to control or 

eliminate them, referral for nutritional intervention (i.e., Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]), an inspection of their home, and enforcement of regulations that require housing to be made ‘‘lead safe’’ if they live in a jurisdiction that has implemented such regulations. Children with blood lead levels of greater than or equal 

to 10 ug/dL have more frequent blood lead tests done. and siblings and housemates 

may also be tested to assess whether they too have elevated blood lead levels. 

Some have interpreted the CDC ‘‘level of concern’’ to mean that CDC is not concerned about children with blood lead levels less than or equal to 10 ug/dL. However, since 1991, CDC has emphasized the need to use primary prevention of lead 

poisoning by controlling or eliminating lead hazards before children are poisoned. 

Primary prevention activities can be expected to benefit all children, particularly 

those living in high-risk communities. In 2005, CDC issued Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children: A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This document describes strategies to institutionalize primary prevention. 

It outlines specific recommendations for Federal, state, and local government agencies, healthcare providers, and community-based organizations. These strategies in-
6 

stitutionalize primary prevention and are essential to achieving the Healthy People 

2010 goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning. 

The blood lead level of 10 ug/dL is not a regulatory standard for Federal agencies. 

In 2005, CDC recommended that Federal agencies discontinue using 10 ug/dL as a 

level for regulatory action, and agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) have begun to do this (see the recent Clean Air Standards). The blood 

lead level of 10 ug/dL also is not a toxicologic threshold. No toxicologic threshold 

or safe blood lead level for children has been identified. 

Question 4. What are the demographic characteristics for children who have BLLs 

above 10 u/dl? What are the demographic characteristics for children who have 

BLLs below 10 ug/dl? Are they different? 

Response. Children with blood lead levels greater or equal to 10 ug/dL are more 

likely to be African American, live in poverty, and live in housing built before 1950 

than their counterparts with blood lead levels less than 10 ug/dL. As a result of an 

intense coordinated effort to control or eliminate lead sources in children’s environments by government officials, healthcare and social service providers, and the communities most at risk, disparities between the percent of children with less than or 

equal to 10 ug/dL by race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status have decreased significantly since the 1970’s. However, disparities in level of lead exposure still exist, especially among children with BLLs less than or equal to 10 ug/dL, as seen in the 

mean BLLs and distribution of BLLs that continue to be higher for low-income children, non-Hispanic black children, and children living in older housing stock (built 

before 1950). 

Question 5. There is some interest in dropping the CDC standard below 10 ug/ 

dl. If the standard for lead was lowered, how many more cases of lead poisoning 

would there be? What would be the course of action that should be taken at levels 

below 10 ug/dl? 

Response. Based on the 1999—2004 National Health and Nutritional Examination 

Survey estimate, 7.4 percent of U.S. children have blood lead levels greater than or 

equal to 5 ug/dL. Based on the U.S. census estimate of the number of children 1— 

5 years old (approximately 25 million), this means that approximately 1.85 million 

children have blood lead level greater than or equal to 5 ug/dL. 

Question 6. Would an increase of the numbers of cases of lead poising (due to a 

lowering of the standard) dilute the resources available to those children we know 

are currently exposed at levels above 10 ug/dl? 

Response. Public health agencies would continue to triage cases, prioritizing those 

children with the highest blood lead levels and responding to children with lower 

levels as resources allow. Although efforts to provide services to children with blood 

lead levels less than 10 ug/dL may deflect needed resources from children with higher blood lead levels, there are many more important reasons not to provide case 

management to children at blood lead levels less than 10 ug/dL. These include the 

following: 

• No effective clinical or public health interventions have been identified that reliably and consistently lower blood lead levels <10 ug/dL. • No threshold for adverse health effects has been identified; thus, lowering the 

level of intervention would be arbitrary and a lower level may provide a false sense 

of safety. • The adverse health effects of blood lead levels less than 10 ug/dL are subtle, 

making it difficult to predict the impact of these levels on individual children. • The uncertainty associated with laboratory testing is too great to ensure that 

a single blood lead test reliably classifies individual children at levels less than 10 

ug/dL. 

Question 7. Some states have, on their own, lowered their BLL levels of concern 

below 10 ug/dl. What is the standard for care for that segment? 

Response. Services provided to children with blood lead levels less than 10 ug/dL 

vary by jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, families receive a brochure in the mail 

that describes sources of lead and how to control or eliminate them. In other jurisdictions, families may receive a home visit and visual assessment of potential lead 

sources in the home. 

Question 8. Given the recent spate of toy and jewelry recalls for alarming levels 

of lead content, how do we address imported products? Would a lowering of the level 

of concern have changed the outcome? 

Response. In 2005, CDC recommended a systematic approach that allows the 

identification of lead contaminated items and prohibits their sale before children are 

exposed and, ultimately, that all nonessential uses of lead should be eliminated. 

Lowering the blood lead level at which children receive case management would not 

affect these recommendations, which would prevent exposure before children have 

elevated blood lead levels. 
7 

Question 9. As you know, in 2000—2004, many District of Columbia residents’ 

drinking water exceeded EPA’s action level of 15 ppb. What is CDC doing to examine the potential correlation between the lead contamination in DC’s water and children’s blood lead levels? Further, can you please explain what the data in MMWR 

April 2004 is depicting and what it says about blood lead levels for children in DC? 

Response. CDC is analyzing blood lead surveillance data from the Washington, 

DC, l1ealth department from 1998—2006 to determine the trend in blood lead levels 

over time. The key message from the 2004 Morbidity and A1ortality Weekly Report 

(MMWR) article is that because no threshold for adverse health effects in young 

children has been demonstrated (no safe blood level has been identified), all sources 

of lead exposure for children should be controlled or eliminated. Lead concentrations 

in drinking water should be below the EPA’s action level of 15 parts per billion. 

Question 10. If the Federal Government could do only one thing to prevent childhood lead exposure, what would give us the most bang far our buck? 

Response. The ‘‘biggest bang for our buck’’ in preventing childhood lead exposures 

would be a coordinated effort with regard to three elements: 

• Target efforts to the clearly identifiable areas where risk for lead exposure is 

disproportionately high. In many urban areas, the prevalence of elevated BLLs is 

10—15 times higher than the national average. In 2003, 46 percent of the children 

reported to CDC as having elevated BLLs lived in 10 cities. Within these cities, a 

small number of buildings, often 1 percent or less, account for a disproportionate 

number of cases, as children are successively identified with elevated blood lead levels in the same or adjacent apartments. In some communities, 40 percent of this 

‘‘repeat offender’’ housing receives a Federal subsidy or is publicly owned. 

• Provide resources to address lead in all geographic areas known or presumed 

to be high risk. Census characteristics associated with risk for lead poisoning include a high percentage of 1950’s housing, rental property, the presence of AfricanAmerican residents, and children living in poverty. These indicators for exposure 

are distributed throughout a State in rural areas and very small towns. Addressing 

lead sources in remote areas will require creative and coordinated planning. 

• Identify special-risk populations and control or eliminate exposure to both paint 

and non-paint sources of lead. Newly arrived immigrant and refugee populations 

often have high body burdens of lead when they come to the United States. They 

may also be exposed to lead as a result of cultural practices and traditional medicines. Once here, most families are not familiar with the sources of lead; thus, their 

children are more likely to ingest lead paint or lead-contaminated house dust or soil. 

Senator BOXER. This will not come out of your time. We are having the CDC here on another hearing, and I will be happy to set 

aside time for you to ask any questions that you wish. 

Senator INHOFE. What hearing will that be? 

Senator BOXER. This will be a hearing on global warming and its 

impact on disease. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, of course, that will be our 23d. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Well, anyway, still that doesn’t change. Our request was we want 

the Centers for Disease Control to be here to talk about this, because this is the issue that is before us. They are the ones who are 

responding. 

Now, generally speaking, addressing lead exposure is one of the 

great American success stories. We have a chart here. I would you 

to look at it. According to the data from the CDC and others, the 

median concentration of lead in the blood of children 5 years old 

and under has declined 89 percent since the period of 1976 to 1980, 

to 1.6 micrograms per deciliter in 2003 and 2004. 

Now, despite our success, the CDC has found that ‘‘There are 

some populations and geographic areas that have disproportionately higher risks of childhood lead poisoning.’’ They recognize this 

and they want to address this in spite of the successes that they 

have had in reducing the lead in children. 
8 

Now, to get at this problem, the Department of Health and 

Human Services has established an ambitious goal of eliminating 

elevated blood lead levels in children by 2010. I recognize this problem first-hand due to my involvement in the Tar Creek Superfund 

site where the blood lead levels of children are the highest in the 

State. Although these levels have been decreasing, there is much 

work left to be done. 

What I am saying here is in Northern Oklahoma, in our Tar 

Creek area, the blood lead levels of these kids is higher really than 

probably anyplace else in the Nation. Now, according to the CDC, 

the two major remaining exposure pathways for children are lead 

in housing and nonessential uses of lead in other products such as 

toys, jewelry and so forth. 

Regarding the toy issue, I have 20 kids and grand kids. I know 

a little bit about kids. I am troubled by the recent toy recalls due 

to the presence of lead paint. It is a reminder to everyone that does 

business outside the United States to be vigilant about product 

quality because other countries don’t share the same environmental and public health ideals as we do, as the Chairman stated. 

I have some studies here to enter into the record. It is right here, 

if it would be all right. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The referenced documents can be found on page XXX:] 

Senator INHOFE. They are regarding lead in household paint 

manufactured outside the United States. 

Now, as far as Mattel is concerned, Mattel, the company has already testified twice on the toy recalls before the House Energy 

and Commerce Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Now, that is twice in the last month. I would just suspect, 

Madam Chairman, that might have something to do with their reluctance to come back and testify for a third time in a period of 

a month. Their absence today should not be portrayed as an unwillingness to participate. They have already participated. 

I don’t want the toy issue, however, to make us lose focus. According to the CDC, paint, paint dust, and paint-contaminated soil 

account for more than 70 percent of exposure. Additionally, it is estimated that 24 million housing units have deteriorating paint and 

contaminated house dust. It has been shown that poorer children 

who live in older housing units are disproportionately at risk for 

elevated levels of lead. 

The extensive assistance from State and local agencies, CDC 

working with them, has identified housing down to the apartment 

number in many cases, where multiple children with high blood 

lead levels have been identified. These repeat offender properties 

should be our greatest target. 

Without objection, I would like to enter into the record a study 

that appeared in Public Health Management Practice that developed a method for identifying and prioritizing the high-risk buildings that could be pursued for lead poisoning prevention activities. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced document can be found on page XXX:] 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate the National Center for Health 

Housing and the National Association of Homebuilders joining us 

today to discuss their efforts. I know they have made efforts to ad-
9 

dress these residential lead paint problems. The Centers for Disease Control have established a national level of concern for children whose blood lead levels are more than 10 micrograms per 

deciliter. This is the level at which public health action is recommended. 

Compelling studies done by one of our witnesses, Dr. Lanphear, 

have shown adverse developmental and behavioral effects at blood 

lead levels below this number. Thus, there is an interest in lowering the national level of concern below the 10 micrograms that 

is current today. 

My concern with this approach is that efforts to identify and provide services to children at levels below 10 will deflect needed resources from children who we already know have blood lead levels 

above 10, and are the greatest risk from exposure. 

Resources are scarce at all levels of government. I believe the 

biggest bang for the buck comes from directing our resources at 

those housing units in neighborhoods where there is documented 

chronic lead exposure and the revolving door for kids with lead poisoning. 

I am also concerned that the CDC has not identified any effective 

clinical or public health interventions that reliably and consistently 

lower blood levels that are already are below 10 micrograms today. 

Lead poisoning is a preventable disease, and we should focus our 

efforts on reducing or eliminating exposures before they happen. 

That will benefit all children regardless of their current blood lead 

levels. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Good morning. First, I’d like to express my dismay at the fact that, despite repeated requests from the minority, the Centers for Disease Control was not invited 

to testify. The National Center for Environmental Health, within the CDC, is the 

lead agency regarding childhood lead exposure and their testimony would certainly 

have been germane. In preparation for this hearing, I sent the Director of the Center a letter with several questions about their work and would like to enter their 

response in the record. 

Generally speaking, addressing lead exposure is one of the great American success 

stories. According to data from the CDC and others, the median concentration of 

lead in the blood of children 5 years old and under has declined 89 percent since 

the period of 1976—1980 to 1.6 micrograms per deciliter in 2003—2004. Despite our 

success, the CDC has found that ‘‘there are some populations and geographic areas 

that have disproportionately high risk of childhood lead poisoning.’’ To get at this 

problem, the Department of Health and Human Services has established an ambitious goal of eliminating elevated blood lead levels in children by 2010. I recognize 

this problem first hand due to my involvement in the Tar Creek Superfund Site 

where the blood lead levels in children are the highest in the State. Although these 

levels have been decreasing, there is much more work left to do. 

According to the CDC, the two major remaining exposure pathways for children 

are lead in housing and non-essential uses of lead in other products, such as toys, 

jewelry, etc. 

Regarding the toy issue, having 20 kids and grand kids myself, I am troubled by 

the recent toy recalls due to the presence of lead paint. It is a reminder to everyone 

that does business outside of the United States to be vigilant about product quality 

because other countries do not share the same environmental and public health 

ideals that we do. I have some studies here to enter into the record regarding lead 

in household paint manufactured outside of the U.S. As for Mattel, the company has 

already testified twice on the toy recalls, before the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Mattel’s absence today 
10 

should not be portrayed as an unwillingness to participate in the public dialog on 

this issue. 

I don’t want the toy issue, however, to make us lose focus. According to the CDC, 

paint, paint dust and paint-contaminated soil account for more than 70 percent of 

exposure. Additionally, it is estimated that 24 million housing units have deteriorating paint and contaminated house dust. It has been shown that poorer children 

living in older housing units are disproportionately at risk for elevated blood lead 

levels. With extensive assistance from State and local agencies, CDC has identified 

housing, down to the apartment number in many cases, where multiple children 

with high blood lead levels have been identified. These ‘‘repeat offender’’ properties 

should be our greatest target. Without objection, I would like to enter into the 

record a study that appeared in Public Health Management Practice that developed 

a method for identifying and prioritizing ‘‘high risk’’ buildings that could be pursued 

for lead poisoning prevention activities. I appreciate the National Center for Healthy 

Housing and the National Association of Home Builders joining us today to discuss 

their efforts to address residential lead-paint. 

The Centers for Disease Control has established a national level of concern for 

children whose blood lead levels are more than 10 micrograms per deciliter. This 

is the level at which public health action is recommended. Compelling studies done 

by one of our witnesses, Dr. Lanphear (LAN-FEAR), have shown adverse developmental and behavioral effects at blood lead levels below this number. Thus, there 

is an interest in lowering the national level of concern below 10 micrograms per 

deciliter. 

My concern with this approach is that efforts to identify and provide services to 

children at levels below 10 will deflect needed resources from children who we already know have blood lead levels above 10 and are the greatest risk from exposure. 

Resources are scarce at all levels of government and I believe the biggest bang for 

our buck comes from directing our resources at those housing units and neighborhoods where there is documented chronic lead exposure and a revolving door of kids 

with lead poisoning. I’m also concerned that CDC has not identified any ‘‘effective 

clinical or public health interventions that reliably and consistently lower blood lead 

levels that already are below 10 micrograms per deciliter.’’ 

Lead poisoning is a preventable disease and we should focus our efforts on reducing or eliminating exposures before they happen. That will benefit all children, regardless of their current blood lead level. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. There is a lot in 

what you say that I totally agree with. 

We are going to call on you in order or arrival, so that would be 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for convening this hearing. Under your leadership, this Committee is focused intently on the way in which we influence our environment 

and how we can be better stewards of the world around us, from 

cleaning up pollution in our air and water to reversing the devastating damage that will be caused by global climate change. 

We do this to preserve and protect, to preserve the natural resources on which we and future generations will depend, and to 

protect families from changes in our natural and manmade environments that can harm our lives and health. 

All too often, these threats appear in places we least expect. In 

recent weeks, we have been reminded of another danger found 

where we least expect it, in our children’s toys. Hundreds of thousands of toys and other merchandise have been recalled because 

they contain lead paint, a poison that poses a serious risk to children’s health and well being. Children exposed to lead can develop 

learning disabilities, hearing impairments, and behavioral prob-
11 

lems even at extremely low exposure levels. This damage cannot be 

reversed. 

We in Rhode Island know the dangers of lead poisoning well. For 

years, tens of thousands of Rhode Island children have lived in 

homes contaminated by lead paint, exposed to lead in paint chips 

or dust. More than 30,000 children have been diagnosed with elevated blood lead levels in our little State. Last year alone, lead poisoning was diagnosed in an additional 500 children. 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as 

many as 1.7 million children aged five and younger—five and 

younger—are affected by lead poisoning. Nationwide, more than 80 

percent of older homes constructed before 1978 contain lead paint. 

While the danger of lead poisoning is in no way restricted to 

Rhode Island, I am proud that our State has been a leader in the 

fight to raise awareness about the dangers of lead poisoning and 

taken strong action to reverse it. I am very pleased that our Ranking Member noted that 70 percent of the exposure comes from exposure to lead paint and dust, and that this burden falls disproportionately upon the children of America who are poor. 

When I served as Rhode Island’s Attorney General, we brought 

public nuisance action against the companies that manufactured 

lead-contaminated paint, an innovative approach that after several 

years and two trials finally resulted in a jury verdict last year that 

the paint companies must help abate the damage they caused. That 

decision was a victory for Rhode Islands and the first of its kind 

in the Nation. 

Today, we are moving ahead on abatement plans to ensure that 

our homes are safe for children and families. I am proud that this 

Committee has turned its attention to the serious risks presented 

by lead contamination and I truly look forward to today’s hearing. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you will excuse me, I also have an 

Attorney General to talk about his future with. 

Senator BOXER. I understand. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But I will return, and I thank you for your 

courtesy. 

Senator BOXER. We look forward to having you return. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank 

you for holding this hearing today on lead and children’s health. 

Lead poisoning, as I think we all agree, is a terrible tragedy for 

children who it afflicts. No child should have blood levels that hurt 

their ability to think and learn. For better or for worse, I have had 

extensive experience with lead paint poisoning in Missouri. One in 

three children tested in certain areas of St. Louis, Missouri in 2003 

suffered from lead paint poisoning. That is 30 percent of our kids 

in many of the poorer neighborhoods who may not live up to their 

full potential and who suffer needlessly. 

As we know, and it has already been said, once lead damage occurs, it cannot be reduced, but it can be prevented. And that is 

where we need to focus our efforts. 
12 

I was very proud to have joined over the last several years with 

my colleague, Barbara Mikulski from Maryland, on the Appropriations Committee to bring additional Federal help to cities like St. 

Louis with the worst lead paint problems. As has already been 

said, we know that the overwhelming cause of lead paint poisoning 

is the paint on window sills. Small children hold onto window sills 

and often chew on them. If they have lead, that may poison them. Over the last 5 years, Congress has appropriated nearly $250 

million to HUD to remediate homes in high-risk areas inhabited by 

low-income families. At the same time, because the programs were 

not working as well as they could, I worked with a community 

health center, Grace Hill Neighborhood Health Center, and the 

children’s hospitals and a broad coalition in St. Louis to design and 

implement a new model lead paint remediation program. 

By focusing on primary prevention for pregnant women and their 

babies, the Grace Hill model has turned the lead paint remediation 

process on its head. For the first time, the objective is to find and 

remove lead paint problems before children are poisoned. New 

mothers will bring their newborns home to a lead-safe environment. 

Over 3 years, I have secured over $15 million in earmarks to flow 

through the Grace Hill Neighborhood Health Center to St. Louis 

neighborhoods with the highest incidence of lead paint poisoning. 

Communities at the source of the lead chain also need attention, 

as our witness, Mr. Gulliford, will tell you. Some may know that 

Southeastern Missouri holds our Nation’s primary lead reserves. 

Nobody believes we can tolerate lead in infant toys, but lead is 

used in everything from batteries, televisions, to much high-tech 

equipment, from medical instruments to musical instruments. To 

bring America the lead it needs, thousands of Missouri workers 

support middle class families with their jobs in lead mining and 

processing. Nature has allocated Missouri 90 percent of the lead in 

the U.S., lead which we do need. 

If I had my choice, I would prefer to have natural gas. I would 

be happy to have them drilling in my backyard if we had that rather than lead, but you have to mine for lead where you find it. When 

a lead smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri violated ambient air quality requirements for lead, I worked with EPA and the Missouri 

State agencies to put pressure on the company. They, of course, 

needed to be treated fairly, but they also needed to meet their environmental obligations. The company made millions of dollars of 

plant upgrades, as they should have, and now emissions levels are 

back in compliance. 

Moving forward, I am working to bring Federal funding for a 

new lead ore transport routes that avoid residential neighborhoods 

on the way to the plant. I hope these examples can serve as a 

model for other States and other areas where lead is a problem, 

pushing where we need to, helping where we can, and educating 

everywhere. 

Lead paint poisoning is preventable and it must be prevented because once it occurs, the damage is done and it is unacceptable to 

sentence our future generations to the tragedy of lead paint poisoning. This is a crusade I am happy to pursue on a bipartisan 

basis in this body and anyplace else we can. 
13 

I thank the Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator Bond. You obviously have had a lot of experience in this area, and that is going 

to be very helpful to us. 

Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I also thank you for 

holding the hearing. It is encouraging to hear our colleagues talk 

about the commitment to tackle lead poisoning in our children. 

Lead poisoning is an American tragedy. It is a tragedy for the 

children who suffer from lead poisoning and their families. The 

tragedy is compounded because this is an entirely preventable disease. During today’s hearing, we will hear from a number of witnesses that will relate and tell us about some important success 

stories. 

Since 1995, for example, the number of Baltimore City children 

with elevated blood levels has decreased by 92 percent. I am very 

pleased that Olivia Farrow, our Assistant Commissioner of Health 

in Baltimore, is with us today. I thank the Baltimore City Health 

Department for what you have been able to do in tackling the problems of lead poisoning among our children. 

I am proud of the institutions in Baltimore that have been working with national leaders in trying to develop strategies to deal 

with preventing lead poisoning and dealing with the health consequences of those children who have elevated levels of lead in 

their blood. The Kennedy Krieger Institute is doing an incredible 

job for children, not only in Baltimore and Maryland, but around 

the Country. The University of Maryland at Baltimore has been a 

leader in dealing with the lead poisoning issues. I am proud of the 

role that we played. 

Witnesses will tell us about the straightforward approaches they 

have employed to help protect children. They are identifying housing stocks where lead-based paint poses a risk and other rental 

units where these risks have been abated. They will tell us about 

excellent training programs for contractors working in the housing 

industry. These skilled workers are making our homes safer, while 

protecting themselves and their fellow workers from the dangers of 

lead. 

Unfortunately, there will also be heartbreaking stories. In spite 

of all we know about the dangers of high-level lead and the effective ways to eliminate those risks, there are still more than 1,200 

children in Maryland who are lead poisoned. That figure of 1,200 

is based upon the health standard of 10 micrograms per deciliter. 

Some of the best medical people in the world at Johns Hopkins and 

the University of Maryland Medical School in Baltimore tell us 

that standard of 10 micrograms per deciliter is too high. 

So we know that we have children who are poisoned today. We 

know that the risks are probably much greater than we even know 

today because the acceptable levels are probably too high. Madam 

Chair, we know what the problem is. We have seen great progress 

in reducing blood lead levels in our vulnerable children because we 

know how to eliminate these risks, but we need to do more. 
14 

I appreciate you bringing to our attention the problems with 

toys. That is just unacceptable that we allow toys to come into this 

Country or be sold to our families that contain lead. That has to 

stop, and I thank you for bringing that to our attention. 

I agree with Senator Inhofe in regards to the housing issue and 

lead paint in our homes today is still at an unacceptable level. We 

need to do more to help eliminate and abate lead paint in homes. 

The Federal Government needs to do more. I introduced legislation when I was in the House that dealt with one of the issues that 

Senator Bond raised, that is to encourage the recycling of lead, 

rather than having to mine more lead, because the problem is that 

a lot of the lead batteries get discarded in a way that produces an 

environmental risk. So we should be doing things to try to encourage the proper disposition of lead and recycling of lead, rather than 

just trying to mine more lead in our community. 

The legislation also created a responsible funding source so the 

Federal Government could have a larger partnership working with 

our State and local governments to have lead abatement programs 

that work, that are effective, and reduce the risk to our children. 

The bottom line, Madam Chairman, it is time for us to act. I 

thank you for holding this hearing because I think it gives us the 

information we need to take responsible action. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

Madame Chairman thank you for holding this hearing today. 

Lead poisoning is an America tragedy. It is a tragedy for the children who suffer 

from lead poisoning and for their families. That tragedy is compounded because this 

is an entirely preventable disease. 

During today’s hearing we will hear from a number of witnesses. They will tell 

us about some important success stories. Since 1995, for example, the number of 

Baltimore City children with elevated blood lead levels has decreased by 92 percent, 

while childhood lead poisoning in Baltimore City has dropped by 96 percent since 

1993. 

The Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, based in Baltimore, has brought 

extraordinary national leadership to the prevention of lead poisoning in children. 

The Coalition’s technical expertise in developing lead elimination plans has not only 

benefited the Baltimore area, but has aided local and State governments across the 

country. 

We also appreciate the work of, and look forward to hearing the testimony from, 

Olivia Farrow, Assistant Commissioner in the city of Baltimore’s Department of 

Health. Baltimore City’s work in identifying children’s jewelry with excessive levels 

of lead and removing such jewelry from store shelves is an example of the work 

being done at the local level to make conditions safer for our children. 

Other witnesses will tell us about some straightforward approaches they have employed to help protect children. They are identifying housing stocks where leadbased paint poses a risk and other rental units where those risks have been abated. 

They will tell us about excellent training programs for contractors working in the 

housing industry. These skilled workers are making our homes safer while protecting themselves and their fellow workers from the dangers of lead. 

Unfortunately, they will also have heart-breaking stories. In spite of all we know 

about the dangers of high lead levels and effective ways to eliminate those risks, 

there are still more than 1,200 children in Maryland who are lead poisoned. And 

that figure of 1,200 is based on a health standard of 10 micro-grams per deciliter. 

Some of the best medical people in the world work at Kennedy Krieger, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Maryland Medical School in Baltimore. These doctors 

tell us that the current standard of 10 micro-grams per deciliter is too high. In fact, 

there is probably no safe level of lead in children’s blood. 
15 

Madame Chairman, we know what the problem is. We have seen great progress 

in reducing blood lead levels in our vulnerable children, because we know how to 

eliminate these risks. 

We need to do more. The time to act is now. 

Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

This issue of child exposure to lead is a serious concern. I appreciate the progress that has been made by the EPA, as shown in 

Senator Inhofe’s charts. But I am sure as the witnesses will testify, 

child exposure is down, but we can do more. It is down from where 

it was a decade ago. 

I really understand the importance of preventive medicine. We 

need to protect these children from lead exposure to prevent the 

long-term adverse effects that they have on health care. Last year, 

I served in the Wyoming State Senate on the Health Committee, 

and we came out with a warning, actually the Department of 

Health did a little over a year ago, the Department of Health 

warned of unexpected lead dangers, with the key word being ‘‘unexpected.’’ 

The Wyoming Department of Health officials are asking parents 

to be aware of the dangers to children posed by items that may unexpectedly contain lead. They talked about the recall of the 300,000 

heart-shaped charm bracelets, one like you passed around today, 

Madam Chairman, that had been provided as a free gift to children 

with shoe purchases. A young child died from acute lead poisoning 

after swallowing one of these charms, and it was because of it contained lead. 

Infants and children are especially vulnerable to lead poisoning. 

A child who swallows large amounts of lead may develop anemia, 

severe stomach ache, muscle weakness, brain damage. Lead can affect a child’s mental and physical growth even at very low levels 

of exposure. 

Now, there has been actually a measurable change. I can tell you 

this, Madam Chairman, when I was in medical school in the late 

1970’s, when we studied x-rays, there would be something called 

lead lines on x-rays where growth had been delayed in a child and 

you could see it on x-ray. Just above the knees on both sides, both 

sides on the femurs, you would see these little lines because there 

had been a period of time where the growth had been delayed, development delayed. These were called lead lines. We learned that 

in medical school 25 years ago, or a little more. But now, I haven’t 

seen one of those lead lines on an x-ray for years, which says we 

are making progress and we are making measurable progress. 

We need to do more. Let’s find solutions that are attainable and 

reasonable based on sound science. I look forward to the testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

Senator Klobuchar. 
16 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Thank you for 

holding this important hearing. 

I have been dealing with this all summer on the Commerce Committee. I think as everyone has noted, it has been hard to open a 

paper or to watch TV without hearing about another toy recall because of lead. As a former prosecutor and a mother, I am appalled 

by the number of toys. I think it is 20 million now that have been 

recalled. It started with Thomas the Train sets and SpongeBob 

SquarePants. My 12 year old daughter, Madam Chairwoman, was 

very embarrassed I was working on this because the toys at issue 

were SpongeBob SquarePants. But when it got to Barbie, she came 

into the kitchen and said, Mom, this is getting serious. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. One of the first products that was recalled 

this summer was this Thomas the Train set that I have here. One 

little interesting fact that I don’t know if everyone knows, the RC2 

Corporation, these came from China, apologized to their customers 

and to try to prompt them to get more trains, they actually gave 

them bonus gifts for their troubles. The bonus gift backfired in a 

big way. They then had to recall the bonus gifts after that because 

they realized that those also had lead in the paint. And this actually is a toy that Tamara Fucile, my great staff person on this, her 

child bit on this toy and it has now been recalled. 

We have watched this process unfold over the summer. I think 

it has given American consumers a sense of why we do need good 

government and why we do need regulation. Senator Durbin and 

I have been working together to make sure that the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission has the money it needs, and then on 

the Commerce Committee, along with Senator Pryor and Senator 

Nelson, we have been working toward getting some new standards 

in place for lead in toys and other products. 

Right now how it works, and I think people would be surprised 

to know this, there really isn’t a set Federal standard. A lot of the 

States have standards as a voluntary guideline, and there are a lot 

of hoops that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has to go 

through to actually recall toys or other items. 

So what we are trying to do instead of setting up another rulemaking, which would take months, is actually put a standard in 

place. We have drafted a bill suggesting a .04 parts per million, 

with a lower standard for jewelry like they have in California at 

.02. I will say that the retailers, especially my hometown company 

of Target and others like Toys R Us have been very helpful and 

supportive of these efforts. I think they realize that we need to 

have a stronger Consumer Product Safety Commission and that 

also we need to have some better rules in place. 

This really hit home for us in Minnesota when a little 4 year old 

boy swallowed a lead charm. He didn’t buy it. He was given it 

along with a pair of tennis shoes as a free gift. He swallowed that 

charm and he didn’t die from choking on it or some kind of other 

problem with the air. He died when the lead seeped into his bloodstream over a period of days. It crept into his bloodstream. He died. 

The charm was later tested and it tested at 99 percent lead and 
17 

it was made in China. So if that isn’t enough to make people realize that we need to change the way we are doing business, I don’t 

know what is. 

So I think it is time to act. While we will continue to focus on 

the Commerce Committee on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, as we know, on this Committee, the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission cannot and should not do this alone. It doesn’t 

have the resources or the statutory authority. I am pleased that we 

are taking steps to modernize the commission. Right now, there is 

one guy who checks toys. He sits in the back of a room. What is 

his name? Bob the Toy Guy, and he is retiring at the end of the 

year. 

So we need to improve the CPSC, but I will tell you that the EPA 

must be a partner here. With a budget more than 10 times the size 

of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and with greater authority to gather information, the EPA is uniquely positioned to 

support the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s efforts to get 

lead out of stores and get lead off of our shores. 

I am pleased that you are holding this hearing today, Madam 

Chair. Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you very much. 

Senator Craig. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. 

Yesterday when we were looking through this Committee at 

Superfund and where we are with its administration and response, 

I mentioned a situation that had occurred in Idaho a good number 

of years ago, and I suspect all of us have those stories. While we 

clearly don’t have the legacy of old metropolitan areas or old communities of the kind that Senator Cardin spoke of, we were the second largest producer of lead in the Nation for a century, following 

Missouri, as Senator Bond has spoken to. 

During that time and within the Superfund side of the Coeur 

d’Alene basin, we had a smelter who through its filtration system 

broke down and for well over a couple of years, lead dust settled 

in over this valley. There was no question at the time that it was 

stopped. The children of that valley and the adults of that valley 

had a substantial elevated lead level. Over the course of the 1980’s 

and the 1990’s, I have worked with that valley to clean itself up. 

It literally is a matter of vacuuming the valley, removing the dirt 

from the yards, repainting the homes, vacuuming out the attics, 

and of course changing the whole character. And the blood lead levels have dropped dramatically. 

While there are great success stories to be told, and Senator 

Inhofe has mentioned one that we cannot walk away from. The 

chart shows it. Because of the attention we have paid, this Government has paid, and therefore the marketplace has paid to lead, we 

have reduced those lead levels 89 percent. Senator Cardin spoke of 

lead levels in Baltimore down 90 percent in certain areas. 

So there are tremendous success stories to be told, but it also reminds us that effective and responsive oversight ought to continue 
18 

to be done because clearly this is not a story yet that you can write 

its final chapter, nor should you. 

And so I thank you very much today for the attention you are 

giving. But as we have brought down our levels here, now we have 

to focus offshore. That is where we have been at error, and that 

is what this hearing offers us. It forces the marketplace to get 

smart too, and they haven’t been. It is pretty obvious by all of the 

stories told and by the millions of products recalled. 

Between what we can do, what the Centers for Disease Control 

can do, what the Consumer Product Safety Commission can do, and 

what the marketplace is already doing to these toy manufacturers, 

there is a phenomenal economic penalty that is going on out there 

at this moment. That, in combination, refocuses us as it refocuses 

the American consumer in a way that is critically important. 

So the combination of it all, Madam Chairman, your attention to 

it, the attention of this Committee and this Congress, is going to 

be very critical in continuing the writing of the next chapter in 

what I think is a great American success story yet unfinished, from 

a legacy of our industrial past where we simply did not know, to 

a State where we now know it today and we are doing the right 

things, in combination with the EPA and all of the agencies involved, and in cooperation with the marketplace and the private 

sector to get it right and keep it right for the American consumer. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

I think all Senators have really made a contribution. Before I call 

on Mr. Gulliford, I want to put something in the record. I think everyone who said that paint, on average, is the biggest source of 

lead is absolutely correct. And everyone who cited these statistics 

is absolutely correct. On average, paint is a bigger source of lead. 

But for kids who have lead toys like some of these here, the biggest 

source of lead can be a toy. So everything we are doing on paint 

is commendable. And by the way, there will be more we have to 

do, which we will be talking about. 

So what I want to put in the record is a list of some of these 

products. I want to make a point here that the safety level of lead 

in paint, and correct me if I am wrong here, is 600 parts per million. Anything above that is deemed unsafe. I want to give you an 

example. Vinyl bibs recalled in Illinois, 1,000 ppm lead, 1,000. Remember, 600 is the level that is safe. We have some other ones 

here. Vinyl lunch box, the one that is in California, Spanish language, 16,000 parts per million lead; Spider Man lunch box, 1,000 

parts per million; a teething toy, 900 parts per million lead; 

bendable toys, 10,000, et cetera, et cetera. And a jewelry chain 

from Claire’s, it appears that one has 30,000 parts per million and 

there is a hair clasp with 450 parts per million. I mean, this is 

what we will put in the record. 

[The referenced document can be found on page XXX.] 

Senator BOXER. The point is, my colleagues, you are so right. 

This is a success story that we have had here, but it is getting 

ahead of us and we need to catch up to it. 

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 
19 

Senator CRAIG. Those products you have just mentioned, how 

many of those are manufactured offshore? 

Senator BOXER. I would bet most of them. I would say the vast 

majority. 

Senator CRAIG. Nearly 100 percent, I would guess. 

Senator BOXER. Probably close to that. 

Senator CRAIG. Yes. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And Madam Chair, all the toys recalled 

have been recalled from China this year. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, but the question I was going to ask, maybe 

the witnesses would have this, they can be manufactured overseas, 

but many times that is by American companies. 

Senator BOXER. That is correct. 

Senator INHOFE. There, we could have some control. 

Senator BOXER. Exactly. 

Senator INHOFE. The question is going to be how are we going 

to control those that are not American companies that are made 

overseas. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. That is the difficult thing. 

Senator BOXER. You are exactly right. It does present a challenge, and that is why I am so happy that you are all here because 

together we can meet this challenge. I know that we can. 

So anyway, James Gulliford, welcome. Go ahead. We will put 

your whole statement in the record. If you could summarize in 5 

minutes, that would be great. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES GULLIFORD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PESTICIDES, PREVENTION, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Thank you. I do appreciate the fact that the 

statement is entered. 

Good morning, Madam Chairman and Senator Inhofe and members of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss our efforts at the Environmental Protection Agency to prevent lead poisoning of our Nation’s children. 

Lead is a pervasive problem and many offices at EPA are working to protect public health and the environment from lead. My remarks this morning focus on the lead-based paint program under 

TSCA, which is the responsibility of my office. Due to the leadership from this Committee and the Congress, there has been, as 

pointed out by many of our speakers already, many of the Senators 

this morning, remarkable progress in significantly reducing childhood lead poisoning. 

In 1978, there were 13.5 million children with elevated blood 

lead levels in the United States. As a result of persistent efforts by 

countless individuals and organizations at the community and 

State levels, as well as our agencies, that number has dropped by 

2002 to 310,000 children. CDC is currently compiling the most recent data which will be released later this year, and we expect to 

see a further decline in the number of children that are lead 

poisoned. We thank you for your leadership in this area. 
20 

However, much work remains to be done because, as I think everybody has stated, one poisoned child is one too many. EPA is 

working hard toward the goal of eliminating lead poisoning in children as a major public health concern by a goal date of 2010. With 

that goal in mind, let me discuss our current program and the activities underway to meet that goal. 

EPA’s primary goal is to prevent children from being poisoned 

and avoid the consequences associated with childhood lead poisoning. We have an active multi-pronged program to combat the 

majority of the remaining cases of elevated blood lead levels in children, which are caused by lead paint and related sources in older 

housing. 

Our lead paint program includes a national regulatory infrastructure, outreach and education programs aimed at those most at 

risk, and educating those who can help address the problem. The 

program also issues grants targeted to vulnerable populations 

whose children are at most risk for lead poisoning. 

EPA requires the training and certification of lead-based paint 

professionals who conduct lead-based paint inspection, risk assessment, and abatement services in residents and child-occupied facilities such as day care centers. We require practices for lead paint 

abatement that assure the work is done adequately and safely. 

EPA, together with HUD, issued the rule that mandates lead-based 

paint disclosure requirements for sales and rentals of pre-1978 

housing, thus ensuring that home buyers and renters are made 

aware of lead-based paint hazards and provides the right to a lead 

inspection before purchases. 

Similarly, the pre-renovation education rule implements a very 

simple concept that all owners or tenants of pre-1978 housing 

should be given basic information about lead poisoning prevention 

before paint-disturbing renovations are started. EPA also issued a 

rule on the identification of hazardous levels of lead in dust and 

soil. 

EPA is now developing a new rule, known as the Lead R&R rule, 

which when completed in 2008 will minimize lead hazards that result from the disturbance of lead-based paint during renovation, repair and painting work. In 2006, EPA issued this proposed rule 

covering renovation activities in housing. Earlier this year, EPA 

issued a supplemental proposal to extend these requirements to 

renovations in child-occupied facilities. All together, EPA received 

more than 250 comments on the proposed rules and held five public 

meetings around the Country. Our deliberations regarding the content of this final rule are underway. I can assure the members of 

the Committee that we are giving serious consideration to your 

comments, as well as to those that we receive from many other important organizations. 

As I mentioned earlier, EPA is part of a broad effort in this 

Country to protect our children from the hazards of lead-based 

paint. Our Federal partners, including HUD, CPSC, and CDC also 

have many activities underway to eliminate these risks. States and 

all levels of local government have set up programs to identify and 

treat lead poisoning in children and to rehabilitate deteriorated 

housing. Parents, too, are the most important individuals who have 

helped greatly to reduce lead exposure to their children by cleaning 
21 

and maintaining their homes, by having their children’s blood lead 

levels regularly checked, and by promoting proper nutrition. 

So thank you for the opportunity to discuss these programs. I appreciate your support and commitment to this work to better protect our children from lead-based paint poisoning. I am pleased to 

answer your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gulliford follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. GULLIFORD ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

invitation to appear before you today to discuss the Agency’s efforts to prevent leadbased paint poisoning of our nation’s children. Lead is a pervasive problem and 

many offices at EPA have various activities occurring to protect public health and 

the environment from lead. My responsibilities focus on the lead-based paint program and its activities. 

BACKGROUND

Since the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X) 

was enacted, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, together with the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Health and Human 

Services (HHS), the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), as well as our 

State partners, have made significant progress in eliminating childhood lead poisoning. In 1978, there were 13 and one-half million children with elevated blood 

lead levels in the United States. By 2002, that number had dropped to 310,000 children, and it continues to decline. We expect the Centers for Disease Control to release updated data later this year. While we still have a significant challenge, particularly in reducing the incidence of lead-poisoning in low-income children, EPA is 

very proud of how its Federal, State, and private sector partners have coordinated 

their efforts with the public to better protect our children. 

The Federal Government has phased-out lead in gasoline, reduced lead in drinking water, reduced lead in industrial air pollution, and banned or limited lead used 

in products such as mini-blinds, food cans, glazed china and ceramic wear, crystal, 

and residential paint. States and municipalities have set up programs to identify 

and treat lead poisoning in children and to rehabilitate deteriorated housing. Parents, too, have greatly helped to reduce lead exposures to their children by cleaning 

and maintaining homes, having their children’s blood lead levels regularly checked, 

and promoting proper nutrition. 

CURRENT ACTIVITIES

EPA has an active, multi-pronged program to combat the majority of the remaining cases of elevated blood lead levels in children, which is caused by leaded paint 

and related sources in older housing. EPA’s primary goal is to prevent children from 

being exposed to lead based paint hazards and avoid the consequences associated 

with it. EPA’s lead-paint program includes a national regulatory infrastructure, outreach and education programs aimed at those most at risk, and educating those who 

can help address the problem. The program also issues grants targeted to vulnerable populations whose children are at risk for lead-poisoning. 

Regulations: 

• EPA requires the training and certification of lead-based paint professionals 

who conduct lead-based paint inspection, risk assessment and abatement services in 

residences and child-occupied facilities, such as day care centers. The Agency has 

also set work practice standards for these professionals so that lead-based paint activities are conducted safely, reliably, and effectively (TSCA §402(a)). EPA requires 

that trainers be accredited to ensure that training programs provide quality instruction in current and effective work practices. In addition, EPA has authorized individual States, Tribes, and Territories to develop and administer training and certification programs, thereby extending the reach of these efforts. At present, 39 States, 
22 

Puerto Rico, two Tribes, and the District of Columbia, assisted by Federal grants, 

are authorized to carry out this program, with EPA retaining direct authority in the 

remaining areas. 

• EPA, together with HUD, promulgated the Residential Lead-based Paint Real 

EState Disclosure Rule (Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) §1018). This rule mandates lead-based paint disclosure requirements for sales and rentals of pre-1978 

housing, thereby helping to ensure that home buyers and renters are made aware 

of lead-based paint hazards before deciding on a dwelling, and, in the case of home 

buyers, guarantees the right to a lead inspection before purchase. 

• The Pre-Renovation Education Rule implements a very simple concept: all owners/tenants of pre 1978 housing (about 15 million housing units) should be given 

basic information about lead-poisoning prevention before paint-disturbing renovations are started (TSCA §406(b)). 

• EPA promulgated a rule on the Identification of Hazardous Levels of Lead in 

Dust and Soil (TSCA §403). This rule defines certain locations and conditions of 

lead-based paint, and specific levels of lead in dust and soil that are most likely to 

pose a health threat to children. These standards effect disclosure provisions, the 

need to use trained, certified lead workers, and control and abatement requirements 

for federally owned and federally assisted housing. These standards were based in 

part on the level of lead in blood (10 ug/dl) that CDC considers to be elevated. 

• EPA is developing a Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program rulemaking. On 

January 10, 2006, EPA issued a proposed rule for contractors working in residences. 

On June 5, 2007, EPA issued a supplemental proposal to extend these requirements 

to renovations in child-occupied facilities. Altogether, EPA received more than 250 

comments on the proposed rules, and in addition received comment at five public 

meetings it held around the country 

• The growing concern about lead in children’s toys and jewelry has resulted in 

close cooperation between EPA and CPSC regarding concerns about the content of 

lead in toy jewelry. As you aware, CPSC is currently engaged in a rulemaking effort 

to address lead in children’s jewelry. Earlier this year, EPA notified more than 120 

companies of their obligations under TSCA section 8(e), which requires manufacturers, processors and distributors of chemical substances to inform the Agency if they 

obtain information that a substance presents a substantial risk to health or the environment. EPA is also nearing completion on a rule under TSCA section 8(d) which 

will require manufacturers of lead in consumer products intended for use by children to submit existing health and safety studies to EPA. Through this rule, EPA 

hopes to obtain existing studies that relate to lead content in children’s products or 

children’s exposure to lead from such products. 

Outreach and Education: 

EPA conducts outreach with potentially affected parties in the development of regulations to assist regulated parties in complying with regulations, inform citizens 

of their rights under these rules, inform the public about the nature of lead-based 

paint hazards, and provide guidance on how to reduce risks. Our partners at HUD 

and CDC partially fund these activities and provide technical support. This outreach 

includes: 

• A bilingual National Lead Information Center (1—800 424-LEAD). The Center 

operates a national hotline handling more than 28,000 contacts per year, distributes 

2200 documents annually and operates a national clearinghouse where best practices are shared. 

• Development of materials, such as brochures and sample real eState disclosure 

forms, needed to comply with regulatory requirements. 

• Creation and distribution of educational materials and national lead awareness 

campaigns for parents, homeowners and renters, medical professionals, child-care 

professionals, renovation contractors and ‘‘do-it-yourselfers,’’ and others. This includes the award-winning, bilingual ‘‘Get the Lead Out’’ campaign to increase 

awareness of lead-paint hazards; and the ‘‘Keep Your MVP in the Game’’ campaign, 

with President Bush and the slogan: Lead Poisoning Can Steal Your Child’s Future. 

• Partnership programs with nonprofit groups and other government agencies to 

conduct lead awareness/education activities, particularly targeted to minority and 

urban populations often most at risk. This includes the ‘‘Chance of a Lifetime’’ campaign for Head Start Centers. 

• Outreach to Spanish-speaking populations in the United States. 
23 

Grants Targeting Low-Income and Other Vulnerable Populations 

• EPA has developed several grant programs targeted to populations still at risk 

for lead poisoning. These grants are intended to reduce the incidence of childhood 

lead poisoning in populations most at risk, and include grants targeted to: 

• federally recognized Indian tribes and tribal consortia: These grants support 

Tribal educational outreach and the establishment of baseline assessments of Tribal 

children’s existing and potential exposure to lead-based paint and related lead-based 

paint hazards. These include a grant to the Houlton Band of the Maliseet Indians 

of Houlton, Maine. This grant includes several lead poisoning prevention workshops, 

such as a ‘‘Lead-free Babysitting’’ course for all tribal child care providers, a health 

fair where blood-lead screenings will be conducted, and lead risk assessments and 

inspections at the homes of young children. 

• Low-income communities with older housing: These grants support the partnership of national organizations with community-based organizations and local governments to improve the environmental health of a community regarding lead poisoning prevention. One example is a grant to the Alliance for Healthy Homes which 

will partner with several local groups to serve community members from four low 

income populations. Activities will include lead-awareness training, lead-safe work 

practices training, and to address substandard housing conditions such as leadbased paint, through ordinance development 

• Populations still at risk for elevated blood lead levels: These grants, which are 

intended to reduce the incidence of childhood lead poisoning in vulnerable populations, include projects to: (1) reduce lead poisoning to target communities with 

high incidences of elevated blood-lead levels; (2) identify and reduce lead poisoning 

in under-studied communities with high potential for undocumented elevated bloodlead levels; and (3) develop tools to address unique and challenging issues in lead 

poisoning prevention, especially tools that are replicable and scalable for other communities. One example is the grant to the Community Action Partnership of MidNebraska, which supports blood-lead testing and home assessments through collaborative partnerships with Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and Well Child public 

health clinics. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss some of EPA’s contributions to prevent 

lead-based paint poisoning. Again, I want to thank you for your support and commitment to our work to better protect children from lead based paint poisonings. 

We remain committed to the goal of eliminating lead poisoning in children as a 

major health concern by 2010. I would be pleased to address your questions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

As you know, you have gotten many letters from me and other 

colleagues talking about your rule for renovation. When EPA sets 

its cleanup standard for lead paint renovation by contractors, will 

the agency base its standard on the most recent scientific studies 

showing childhood impacts at low blood lead levels? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. We appreciate what we are learning from 

science and what is emerging in the science area with respect to 

the importance of lead poisoning. We recognize that the 10 

microgram per deciliter level is not a standard, but rather it is a 

health threshold on the part of CDC which they consider as the appropriate level at which to intervene in actions at the community 

level. 

So we will not be basing our rule decisions on that as a level or 

as a threshold. Rather, we will look at our concerns for levels of 

lead exposure. Our rule will be designed to reduce lead exposure 

to children, and our goal then is to assure that children at not 

poisoned by activities related to lead renovation and repair. 

Senator BOXER. When are you going to have this rule done? It 

sounds to me like you are not going to follow your science advisors. 

You didn’t answer it that clearly. You said a lot of words, but I 
24 

didn’t hear you saying that you were going to follow and go with 

the science advisors. When can we anticipate this rule? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We anticipate 

completing the rule in the first quarter of 2008, which was our 

commitment to the members of this Committee. 

Senator BOXER. I was told it was going to be December 2007. 

That is what I was told the last time. Now you are moving it to 

when? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Our commitment has been to the first quarter 

of calendar year 2008. 

Senator BOXER. And you have not decided to follow your scientific advisors urging you to use this data? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. In fact, we are. We are listening very carefully 

to the reports from CASAC. 

Senator BOXER. So you will come out and reflect the science on 

this, because we know kids are exposed at very low levels. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Our concern is through the rule, and our goal for 

the rule will be to reduce exposure to lead that is involved in the 

rehabilitation and repainting of homes. Our goal will be to reduce 

lead exposure. Again, this threshold of 10 micrograms per deciliter 

is not, again, a part of our actual determination for our lead rule. 

You are correct. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I think you are going to have some concern 

by members of this Committee, so some of us will want to weigh 

in with you because now you are saying it is first quarter of 2008. 

OK. Are you aware that recent studies have found highly leaded 

jewelry with almost half of the pieces exceeding 80 percent lead by 

weight remains widely available in U.S. stores? And that electronic 

waste exported from the U.S. could be the source of that lead? Are 

you aware of that? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes, I am. 

Senator BOXER. Has EPA issued or does EPA plan to issue any 

rule under TSCA to gather data on these exports or to control the 

export of such waste to ensure that this waste does not come back 

into this Country and threaten our children? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. We are doing several things. One thing that we 

are doing is we have developed a concept called ePIT, which is designed to make the materials that are in computers and the electronics industry more appropriate for the actual recycling of them, 

again to reduce the content of—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is in the future. I am talking about 

now. Look at this. I am talking about now. What are you doing now 

to stop this from coming back into the Country, sir? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. The actual programs that are in place to control 

the import of child toys and other materials such as you have here 

displayed today are under the purview of CPSC. 

Senator BOXER. We understand. You have control over TSCA, 

and what are you doing under TSCA to gather data on these exports or to control the export of such waste to ensure that it does 

not come back and kill our children or harm them? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Two things that we are doing is that we have 

notified 120 companies of their obligation to inform EPA if they obtain information that products they manufacture for import present 
25 

a lead poisoning risk to children. This is a TSCA 8(e) action that 

we are taking. 

Senator BOXER. So they have to inform you—I am just trying to 

get this right—if they obtain information, but they don’t have to 

obtain the information? You don’t tell them they must test and let 

you know? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. That is the authority that we have under TSCA. 

And yes, that is their obligation. 

Senator BOXER. What is their obligation? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Is to report any information to us that they 

have, that they are aware of the content of unsafe levels of lead 

poisoning risks to children. 

Senator BOXER. And these are the electronic people. And then 

what are you doing to make sure they don’t come back into the 

Country? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Madam Chairman, this is regarding any products that are imported that contain lead that children might be exposed to. 

Senator BOXER. Look, I am very confused. I am going to repeat 

the question one more time and then I am going to come back to 

you in a minute. 

Recent studies have found highly leaded jewelry with almost half 

of the pieces exceeding 80 percent lead by weight remains available 

in U.S. stores, and that electronic waste exported from the U.S. 

could be the source of this lead. Has EPA issued or plan to issue 

any rule under TSCA to deal with these exports? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. The exports—— 

Senator BOXER. Yes or no. Could you try me with yes or no? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. The exports of material for recycling are not subject to our rules. The import of any products that contain lead that 

children might be exposed to are under the purview of CPSC. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So EPA does not plan under TSCA, because 

you have been sued several times and lost in court on your point 

that TSCA doesn’t do anything. So what you are saying is you have 

no plans to issue any rule under TSCA to gather data on these exports. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. On the exports of electronics? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. From the United States? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. No, we have no plans to issue a rule. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for answering the question. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am not going to take my full time. I really wanted to get to the 

next panel because I am going to have to leave at noon. But let me 

just start off by saying, Mr. Administrator, that as the chart shows 

up here, we have done a good job. For those of us who are not really the experts in this area, try to simplify it for me. That is, as I 

said in my opening statement, 70 percent of the problem is in the 

paint, the things we have been talking about. We are concerned 

about the other 30 percent because that is what more directly affects the children. 
26 

It is kind of interesting. I am not sure what we tools we have 

in this Country. I know what we can do about American manufacturers who make things in China and bring them over here. I am 

wondering what is out there and what is the proper authority to 

go to do something about the toys that would be coming in that 

were manufactured by Chinese manufacturers. Can you draw that 

distinction and tell me what authorities we have we could be more 

aggressive with? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. The strongest authorities are within the Consumer Product Safety Commission. They have an ANPR, an advanced notice for proposed rulemaking, to ban, again, the import 

of any products, and there is a threshold standard of lead content 

in those products, for products that children would be exposed to, 

much as the products that are again on the table in front. That is 

the most appropriate action that we can take. 

Similarly, the U.S. Government is working on import safety activities right now. HHS Secretary Leavitt has put together a working group to address the challenges of import safety of all products, 

not just products containing lead, but everything from food to other 

products that come into commerce. One of the aspects of that initial plan, the framework that has been advanced, is to do more on 

the prevention side and to help people understand why these issues 

are of concern for us, to look for traceability in the manufacture of 

products. 

So there are activities that are projected in those areas. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. That is good. Let’s go back to the 70 percent now, which we have been talking about on the rule. It is my 

understanding this actually was written into law back in 1992 or 

so, and it actually mandated a deadline for the report and for the 

rule itself by 1996. Am I incorrect in that? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I believe that is correct. 

Senator INHOFE. I think that is, yes. This is something that we 

didn’t do it during the Clinton administration. It is not done yet, 

and yet we are looking right now just down to a few weeks in having this done. So in terms of the first quarter of 2008, we will be 

looking at it. 

I think it would be a good idea, Madam Chairman, for them to 

let us know between now and then of the progress so that if there 

is a problem in meeting that deadline that we would be able to address it. 

Getting back to CASAC, we have dealt with them I remember 

during the previous Administration on a number of things. Do you 

feel that you are getting the full benefit of the advice of the Clean 

Air Scientific Advisory Committee? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes, we do. In fact, we actually took a number 

of issues to them for their advice with respect to this rule and we 

appreciated their comments. They gave us comments on other 

areas that have been helpful as well. 

With respect to your other question, Senator, we will be happy 

to inform the Committee if at any point in time we project that we 

will not meet that first quarter goal. 

Senator INHOFE. That would be good. 

The last thing I wanted to ask, we have a witness on the next 

panel from the Homebuilders. They have been working on the ren-
27 

ovation rule. Have you had a dialog with them? Do you feel that 

they are making progress in making a contribution to the ultimate 

rule that we will be able to adopt? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I have had an opportunity to speak with Homebuilders on this issue a number of times. They have submitted 

studies that they have done. They have submitted comments on the 

rule as proposed, like many other organizations have. We have welcomed their comments. We have welcomed the comments from the 

environmental community, from the health officials as well. So all 

of those help to inform us, as well as those comments from Members of Congress. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

In your testimony, you talked about how you have been working 

in close cooperation in your written testimony with the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission. I was speaking earlier in my opening 

statement about how important it is to beef up that organization. 

I wanted to know, beyond notifying companies of their statutory obligations under the Toxic Substance Control Act, what specific actions has the EPA taken to coordinate with the CPSC in light of 

this crisis we are seeing with lead in toys. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Thank you, Senator, for your question. 

Let me mention two other very specific things that we did. We 

did send a letter to CPSC expressing our concern for lead in toys, 

our concern that is again a very unfortunate, but pervasive opportunity or exposure pathway for children to be exposed. And second, 

then, we also have initiated a rulemaking at EPA. We did this in 

discussion with them, and notified CPSC about that, that will require any companies with studies on existing health and safety 

studies on lead in children’s products, not just toys, but all products, to make that data available to us. So there would be a requirement for that. Any failure to do so, then, would be subject to 

enforcement action on our part. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And when do you expect to deliberate on 

that rule? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. That rule, we project to have that rule about a 

year from now. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And when do you think you can have it 

done? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Fall, late fall of 2008. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You know, I talked about Bob the Toy Guy 

in the back room in the CPSC. Are there other ways that the EPA, 

when you have a budget 10 times bigger than the CPSC, can assist 

them in working with them in testing these products and trying to 

find a way to make this work? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. One of the things that we try not to do is duplicate the actions or the authorities of other agencies. So CPSC has 

worked on the issue of toy imports, children’s products that are imported. We are really focusing on the lead in homes. 

Also in other programs of EPA such as the Superfund program, 

as you heard Senator Bond refer to, we have a number of cleanups 
28 

of areas where, again, children are exposed to lead that is in their 

yards. So we are working in the areas that are clearly within our 

identified authorities. We want to be supportive of the other agencies, and we do that by again exchanging information as we become 

aware of it related to health issues. But again, we do not try and 

duplicate their functions. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. To get into that area that you have been focusing on, and that is the questions that Senator Boxer was asking 

you about the EPA regulation, the status of it, to protect children 

and others. HUD issued their rule for assisted housing I think it 

was back in 1998, and it took effect in 2001. I think people had expected that the EPA would quickly follow suit right after this was 

issued in 1998. What took so long? It has been 11 years after Congress required that the rule be passed, and there is still not a final. 

I know she asked you about the timing. I just don’t understand 

why it could take so long when HUD was able to do this back in 

1998. I think it is something like 1.1 million kids could be protected who are potentially exposed to lead. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Senator, I came to this position in July of last 

year with a commitment to this Committee to implement, to finalize and complete this rule. I am committed to do that. I also come 

with a strong concern for the safety of children with respect to lead 

because of my experience in the region where we had, as the Senator indicated, a lead smelter. We have the largest cleanup Superfund site from the actions of the past, an historic smelter. So my 

commitment is to what I can do. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I know. But do you know why, in your current position have you heard why it took so long when HUD was 

able to do it? We are just trying to make it better going forward. 

I am new at this, but I come in and I find out that it takes this 

many years to get something done. It doesn’t make any sense to 

me. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I can speak to my actions and my commitment 

to completing the rule. I am not aware of the history. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

The other thing I wanted to ask about was the standard that you 

have, because we are working on the Commerce Committee as we 

speak. In the next 2 weeks, we would like to get the bill done here 

and we are working to get a web standard in there for these toys. 

As Senator Boxer mentioned, there is a voluntary standard right 

now and it is not a strict standard, but it is 600 parts per million. 

A lot of States have that, but we don’t have any set standard on 

the Federal level. So we were looking at this 400 parts per million. 

Part of that was the standard that you use for soil in children’s 

play areas. Do you know what this standard is based on, the 400 

parts per million? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes. That is not a hard and fast standard, but 

it is a cleanup standard that is used. It is a cleanup guideline. Actually, in cases where lead cleanups of soil are done, an effort is 

made to—while that may be a working point to take off from, an 

effort is made to determine the bioavailability that may be in those 

soils which may require a more strict cleanup standard or a less 

strict cleanup standard. But the goal is to develop a cleanup 

threshold that clearly is protective for children. 
29 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And does the EPA use the same technology 

as the CPSC to test for this lead? It is not a trick question. I don’t 

know the answer. I am just trying to figure it out as we go forward 

here. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I don’t know the answer to that. I know that we 

have equipment that measures the existence of lead in soils, and 

contractors use that equipment in the field regularly. Lead is actually then collected for analysis to determine the bioavailability of 

it. There is a test, I believe we always refer to it in the field as 

the pig test, because somehow there is some exposure. It is an animal test. I apologize for that, but it is designed to determine the 

bioavailability of that lead, and we can then transfer that to the 

potential for children to be exposed from just that lead. 

So there are a number of tests with respect to lead important to 

the health industry, but also important even just to the recognition. 

I am sorry. 

Senator BOXER. I am so sorry to interrupt. We found out we have 

a vote that is starting at around noon, so we are going to have to 

move on. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. That is fine. 

Senator BOXER. We will leave the record open. 

I did have just one more follow up to you, and I will be quick 

if I can. 

In April, 2006, the Sierra Club petitioned EPA to require manufacturers or importers of toy jewelry with .06 percent lead to notify 

the EPA prior to manufacturing or importing these articles. That 

would have been a huge step forward if you had done something. 

I don’t mean you personally, the agency. 

In July, 2006, EPA denied this petition because, ‘‘These actions 

are not petitionable under TSCA Section 21.’’ Our attorneys believe 

under Section 5 the EPA does have this authority. What is your 

opinion? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Those actions that we have taken as a result of 

that petition and as a result of a lawsuit that followed up with 

that, we believe are consistent with the TSCA authorities, and 

those are the three things that I have described that we have taken 

since, again, that initial petition by the Sierra Club, again to request information on existing health studies, to inform companies 

of their obligation to disclosure, and also though to express our concern to CPSC for again the import of products. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, you haven’t issued a rule on this. Do 

you plan to do that? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Pardon? 

Senator BOXER. Do you plan to issue a rule on that? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. We at this point do not plan to. We are preparing, yes, a rule again that requires any companies that import 

products, they are aware of health studies related to those products 

to disclose them. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. What if they are not aware? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Pardon? 

Senator BOXER. What if they are not aware? I mean, that is the 

weakest thing I have ever heard, but let me move on. 

In April, 2006, Sierra Club petitioned EPA to issue quality control orders if EPA found companies producing toy jewelry that pre-
30 

sents an unreasonable risk. Do you know what EPA said? ‘‘Information suggests there may be numerous instances where toy jewelry containing lead is still available in the marketplace.’’ They refused to do it because the problem was so widespread. I mean, this 

is outrageous. And you know, I have to say, just because we need 

to move on, sir. I respect that you are trying to do your best, but 

I have to say you just tell a parent, oh, that was the Consumer 

Product Safety job, not my job. I will let them do it. People don’t 

get it out there. This is America. We are one national Government. 

We are supposed to protect our kids. 

So I just want to give you a little encouragement to be stronger 

than the agency has been in the past. Because I will tell you why, 

Senator Inhofe is 100 percent correct on the great progress we have 

made with lead paint. This is a new problem, and he is also right 

to say the vast majority is coming from abroad. Some of these products are assembled in America, however, and all of them have 

American toy company labels, pretty much. 

So you have more jurisdiction than you are stepping up to the 

plate to handle. So we don’t have enough time to debate this anymore today, but I think you get the sense that although we might 

disagree on how to move forward, I think all of us on this Committee really want to address this matter. We think it is something 

we can do together. So if you could go back and talk to your lawyers and folks. We are going to follow some of your progress. I 

think Senator Inhofe is right on that. Keep us informed on how the 

rule is coming, the remodeling rule. We will stay in close touch 

with you. 

Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. If I could ask the next panel to come up. Because 

of time, do it fast as you can. Get the lead out of your feet. Where 

did that come from? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Because I know Senator Inhofe is particularly interested in the homebuilding perspective, we are going to start 

with that witness first. 

OK. We are also going to ask our friends on the panel to go from 

5 minutes to 4 minutes, so do your best. 

The vote hasn’t been set yet, Senator, so that is good news. 

OK. We can go back to 5 minutes. 

Let’s see. Let’s start with Mr. Nagel, because I think you represent the National Association of Homebuilders, and I think Senator Inhofe had asked that you go first, sir. Go right ahead. 

Mr. NAGEL. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. And you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE NAGEL, CGR, CAPS, REMODELONE-DESIGN/BUILD CONSTRUCTION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS, REMODELER’S COUNCIL 

Mr. NAGEL. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Mike Nagel. I am 

a professional remodeler from Chicago, Illinois, and Chairman of 

the NAHB Remodelers, a 14,000 member organization within the 

Association of Homebuilders, the federation representing 235,000 
31 

members in the homebuilding, remodeling, multifamily, and light 

commercial construction industry. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of professional 

remodelers using lead-safe renovation and repair practices and reducing lead levels in older homes and helping to eliminate instances of lead exposure. I will also discuss ways that Congress can 

encourage lead-safe remodeling and training for contractors and 

enhanced public awareness of the danger of lead hazards in do-ityourself projects in older homes. 

Despite decades of effort, lead poisoning remains a critical problem facing young children living in older homes and housing units. 

The CDC estimates that nearly 40 percent, or 38 million homes, in 

the U.S. may contain lead-based paint, but those built after 1960 

only make up about 2 percent, according to HUD research. In 1978, 

strict limitations were imposed on the use of lead paint, but the 

Nation’s housing stock continues to age and deteriorate, creating 

pathways for exposure. For young children, lead exposure usually 

comes from ingesting peeling paint, chewing or mouthing painted 

surfaces, or hand to mouth exposure from dust. 

Thus, with limited resources, it is crucial to focus attention on 

pre-1960 privately owned housing units, which are disproportionately inhabited by lower-income residents and where young children are more likely to reside. The challenge is to find the best way 

to improve the conditions of older homes and to maximize the public and private sectors’ resources in reducing childhood lead exposure. 

NAHB Remodelers have responded to this challenge by implementing extensive training and public awareness programs, and 

have worked cooperatively with the EPA and other advocacy 

groups to promote voluntary programs for lead-safe work practices. 

Because we are dedicated to lead-safe remodeling, NAHB commissioned an extensive research project in 2006 to carefully analyze remodeling and renovation work as it is performed in the field. 

The project collected air and surface samples from unoccupied 

homes that contain lead-based paint in the areas of the home 

where the remodeling work was conducted. In all, 342 air samples 

and 407 surface dust samples were collected from five homes in the 

Northeast and Midwest. My written testimony details more specifics about the research, but the results confirmed that lead-safe 

work practices substantially reduced lead dust loadings after remodeling work, and did not create new hazards either on surfaces 

or in the air. 

Furthermore, the research showed that the additional control 

and cleanup methods can deliver even better results. Unquestionably, lead-safe remodeling improves conditions in older homes, but 

only if it is performed by professional remodelers who are well 

trained and use specialized equipment. If they are subject to additional regulations, inevitably some homeowners, particularly lowerincome households, will find it cost-prohibitive to hire professionals, resulting in homeowners either undertaking the work 

alone or, worse yet, doing nothing at all, thus completely undercutting efforts by both the Government and our members to eradicate 

childhood lead poisoning. 
32 

1U.S. EPA, 2006. Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule. Chapter 3.2.3, page 10. 2Ibid., Chapter 3.1.1, page 1. 

3Ibid., Chapter 3.1.1, page 1. 

As I have explained, our industry is undertaking a comprehensive approach to educate, train and inform both consumers and 

contractors about the necessity of lead-safe work practices not only 

in lower-income households, but for all pre-1978 homes. However, 

we need Congress to help coordinate and combine resources of the 

Federal agencies working on these issues, specifically, EPA, HUD 

and OSHA, and target pre-1960 homes where young children reside. 

Furthermore, Congress should support the use of lead-safe work 

practices for owners of multifamily properties and remodelers who 

work in pre-1978 housing. NAHB also urges Congress to fully fund 

the training requirements of HUD and EPA lead-based paint regulations so they are functional and operate as Congress intended. 

Finally, Congress should ensure that professional lead-safe remodeling is encouraged, and not saddled with costly regulatory requirements that could pose a further disincentive for homeowners 

to undertake necessary repair and renovation work. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the 

progress the our members are making in the fight against childhood lead poisoning. We share the common goal of eradicating it 

entirely and professional remodelers are committed to helping 

homeowners create a lead-safe environment for their children. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nagel follows:] 

STATEMENT OF MIKE NAGEL, CGR, CAPS, REMODELONE-DESIGN/BUILD CONSTRUCTION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS REMODELER’S

COUNCIL

This written statement is respectfully submitted on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on the issue of children’s health and lead. NAHB 

is a national federation representing more than 235,000 members involved in single 

family and multifamily home building, remodeling, light commercial construction 

and housing finance. This testimony, as presented by Mike Nagel, a professional remodeler from Chicago, Illinois, and the current Chairman of the NAHB Remodelers, 

a 14,000-member organization within NAHB, details facts about the strides that are 

being made by professionally trained remodelers to reduce lead exposure for children living in older homes throughout the United States. 

INTRODUCTION

Despite decades of effort and more than 10 years of continually declining lead levels, lead poisoning remains an important problem facing some of our nation’s youth. 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as reported by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), approximately 40 percent of all 

U.S. housing units (about 38 million homes) have some lead-based paint.1 For the 

most part, older homes are more likely to have lead-based paint hazards because 

of the use of lead as a primary ingredient in many oil-based interior and exterior 

house paints used throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s.2 Though the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (CPSC) finally imposed strict limitations on the use of lead in 

paint for toys, residences, and public areas in 1978, the nation’s stock of pre-1980 

housing continues to age and deteriorate, and the deteriorated paint creates pathways for lead exposure to the residents in our homes who are the most easily susceptible to the damaging effects of lead poisoning—children.3

Children are more sensitive to health problems from lead exposure, often attributable to contact with lead in their home. Young children are the most affected by 

lead in the home, first because they are more likely to ingest contaminants and 

other toxics by virtue of hand-to-mouth contact, and second, because their central 
33 

4U.S. EPA. 2006. Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule. 5Title X (pronounced Title Ten) of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, P.L. 

102—550 6Presidential Task Force Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting 

Lead Paint Hazards, February 2000. 7U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Survey of Lead & Allergens 

in Housing: Final Report, Volume I: Analysis of Lead Hazards. Office of Lead Hazards Control, 

Washington, DC, Page(s) 4—6 and 4—7, April 18, 2001. 8President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks & Safety Risks to Children, Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards, Washington, DC, Page 29. February 2000. 

nervous system is still developing. The most likely source is ingestion from peeling 

or cracking paint, paint chips, chewing, mouthing painted surfaces, or through leaded dust on the hands. Additionally, outside the home, lead can arrive on the property through airborne emissions from lead smelting, battery manufacturing, solid 

waste incineration,4 or even transportation. In whatever instance it occurs, children 

with elevated blood lead levels are reported to have lower IQ scores and face other 

challenges in mental and intellectual development. Therefore, it is imperative that 

something be done to address childhood lead exposure in older homes that may be 

in disrepair, or that may contain lead-based paint. 

Following passage in 1992 of Title X Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act,5

three Federal agencies—U.S. EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), and OSHA and one Presidential taskforce6 conducted research, developed 

policies and regulations, and made recommendations on how to reduce the risks of 

childhood lead-based paint poisonings from deteriorated lead-based paint. Some important findings came from national surveys for lead-based paint in housing conducted in 1990 and again in 2001 by HUD. For example, HUD’s surveys found only 

2 percent of the homes built after 1960 were likely to contain any deteriorated leadbased paint, however that percentage increased to 25 percent for homes built between 1940 and 1959, and finally increased to 56 percent for homes built before 

1940.7

Armed with this data, it makes sense for Federal agencies to target their control 

strategies on housing and areas of the country where the greatest risks are known 

to exist. HUD’s findings, coupled with numerous government and university studies, 

confirm that the focus should clearly rest on addressing the housing of primary concern. As identified in extensive research by CDC, HUD, and the President’s Task 

Force on Lead-Based Paint: ‘‘The program (elimination of [Lead-Based Paint] poisoning in children) should continue to emphasize control of lead paint hazards in 

pre-1960 low-income privately owned housing units where young children are expected to reside.’’8

Thus, the challenge before us today is to recommend the best way to leverage the 

combined resources of private and government sectors to focus on those residential 

structures (pre-1960) that pose the most significant risks of lead-based paint exposure to children while still providing an adequate level of protection for children 

across all income levels in all housing built before 1980. NAHB’s response to this 

challenge is to ensure that all contractors and homeowners are aware of lead-safe 

work practices and to recommend that Federal and State agencies continue to focus 

their limited resources on finding and eradicating lead hazards in child-occupied 

housing built prior to 1960. 

PROFESSIONAL REMODELING IMPROVES LEAD HAZARDS

Extensive public debate has already taken place about who should ultimately be 

held responsible for children’s exposure to lead-based paint in homes. While this debate goes on, NAHB Remodelers are improving the conditions of our nation’s older 

homes by renovating, repairing, and repainting with lead-safe work practices performed by trained remodeling professionals. Furthermore, NAHB members continue 

to educate consumers about the dangers of lead hazards in homes and the potential 

consequences of unprofessional or unsafe do-it-yourself remodeling activities that 

can exacerbate lead hazards and actually create more health problems in the long 

term. 

In 2006, NAHB commissioned a substantial research project to measure the 

amount of lead dust generated by home improvement contractors using typical renovation/remodeling activities and to assess whether these routine activities increased lead dust levels in the work area and the property. This research was conducted by Atrium Environmental Health and Safety Services, LLC (Atrium), an environmental research services firm that employs a staff of Certified Industrial Hy-
34 

9Attached is a copy of the Executive Summary of the Atrium survey project. NAHB is happy 

to provide the entire Atrium report, which is a comprehensive and substantive analysis detailing 

the entire work project including all recordable data collection results. 10Additionally, work practices identified by HUD as ‘‘prohibited’’—including open-flame burning, torching, or the use of volatile paint strippers in an enclosed space—were explicitly avoided 

in this project. 11U.S. EPA, 2006. Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule. Chapter 3.2.3, page 10. 

gienists and environmental and health safety specialists who evaluate, develop, and 

implement programs to minimize hazards and comply with current environmental, 

health and safety regulations, standards and guidelines. 

The Atrium project consisted of onsite field data collection from actual homes containing lead-based paint in the Northeast and Midwest. During the data collection 

phase, 342 air samples and 407 surface dust samples were collected during 60 typical R&R activities in five separate, unoccupied residential properties located in Roselle, Illinois; Wallingford, Connecticut; Farmington, Connecticut; Cheshire, Connecticut; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The project was designed to evaluate routine 

remodeling and renovation activities that normally occur in the marketplace and 

that represent the most common jobs performed by renovation and remodeling 

firms. Lead dust loadings were measured on the surfaces and in the air both before 

and after the work took place. The remodeling and renovation work itself was performed by trained and licensed professional renovation and remodeling contractors 

in each of the areas where the property was located and the final survey data was 

reviewed by the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) as a means of quality 

control, in which NCHH conducted statistical analyses of the sampling results.9

The results of the research showed a clear improvement in the amount of lead 

dust loadings from nearly every type of typical remodeling activity with the exception of mechanized sanding events.10 The Atrium project data revealed that renovation and remodeling activities did not create new lead hazards and in all properties 

except one (Farmington, Connecticut, where an unshrouded power sander was used 

extensively), the lead dust loadings on surfaces were lower after the remodeling contractors completed the work than when they arrived. As for air exposure, the results 

also showed a trend of reductions in airborne lead based on personal breathing zone 

air sample results. 

In addition to these results, the Atrium project data also demonstrated that several practices, associated with lead-safe remodeling and renovation generally, produced remarkable reductions in overall lead dust loadings. For example, misting 

surfaces with water during the renovation work showed a significant reduction in 

airborne lead dust levels when compared to events where no misting was used. Furthermore, the use of a HEPA filter-equipped vacuum cleaner, combined with either 

wet wiping or Swiffer mops during post-work clean-up showed the greatest effect on 

reducing lead loading in surface dust. Combining these two activities could reap 

even greater benefits for reducing lead dust and further improving pre-work conditions in lead-affected homes. 

The overall conclusions of the Atrium project reinforce what has been commonly 

believed among remodelers for a long time: lead-safe remodeling and renovation activities performed by a trained professional can remarkably improve lead dust loadings in older homes. It is also our belief that it can improve the health and welfare 

of the home’s residents, particularly young children. Ultimately, lead-safe professional remodeling is one of the best lines of defense for reducing lead exposure for 

children living in older homes and it should be encouraged. The CDC agrees that 

the ‘‘use of lead safe work practices during renovation can advance the goal of primary prevention of lead poisoning.’’11 As leaders in the fight to reduce lead hazards 

in homes, and reduce pathways to childhood lead poisoning, we applaud the work 

of professional remodelers and the substantial improvements they make to older 

homes. 

THE DANGERS OF DO-IT-YOURSELF AND LEAD

In the U.S. today, there are approximately 120 million existing homes that embody the full range of structural and environmental soundness. Many of these 

homes and older housing units need serious renovation and repair work, but often 

this work cannot be undertaken due to cost limitations, especially for lower-income 

households. To their own detriment, some individuals attempt to undertake this 

work via untrained contractors or do-it-yourself projects, and consequently dramatically increase instances of lead exposure for the home’s residents. In this regard, 

Congress has a real opportunity to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citi-
35 

zens by prescribing methods by which professional remodeling using lead-safe work 

practices becomes the viable alternative to any potentially harmful do-it-yourself 

venture, or worse, the hiring of cheap contractors who are not adequately trained 

to undertake the work. 

Unfortunately, there are many cases in which lead poisoning has resulted from 

home renovation activities undertaken by well-intentioned homeowners who simply 

want, or need, to save some money. In reality, hiring a professional trained in leadsafe work practices usually costs more than doing it alone, or contracting an untrained handyman. Professionals are more careful, which increases the length of 

time of the project; require specialized equipment (respirators, HEPA vacuums, 

etc.); and often employ highly skilled laborers. For homeowners who want to be frugal, or that want to complete a project in a faster timeframe, it may seem infeasible 

or less desirable to hire a professional. The option of choosing the untrained contractor, or undertaking dangerous work alone, can become a real, albeit worrisome, 

alternative because it appears to be more affordable. 

In light of this situation, there are a number of regulatory factors that need careful consideration for addressing childhood lead poisoning in older homes. For example, the EPA will soon issue new regulations for contractors conducting renovations, 

repair, and painting for pre-1978 homes. Initial drafts of these proposed regulations 

have included a mandatory testing requirement called a ‘‘clearance test,’’ or thirdparty verification requirement. This clearance test will supposedly demonstrate that 

the contractor took the necessary steps to ensure that the home is below abatementlevel lead levels after remodeling and renovation activities are completed. NAHB 

has substantive concerns with the concept of a ‘‘clearance test,’’ as well as the impacts of such a test’s cost on consumer decision making when remodeling their 

home. 

A clearance test is basically designed to prove an elimination of the presence of 

lead in the home, which is technically the task of abatement work not remodeling. 

The law already deals separately with abatement regulations. Because clearance 

testing cannot distinguish between lead from remodeling versus lead that may have 

blown in the window, been tracked in from outdoors on someone’s shoes, or is 

present in the house from some other source, the requirement seems inappropriate 

in a remodeling context. The results of a clearance test depend on the entire history 

of the house and its neighborhood, and a remodeler simply is not responsible for 

having this breadth of information. 

Compliance with clearance test requirements will only be enforced upon trained 

remodeling professionals, the very people who are most likely to do the work safely. 

Unlike these individuals, the law does not apply to homeowners who do the work 

themselves or to untrained contractors. Neither of these two groups has the adequate knowledge, equipment, nor training to undertake lead-safe work practices, nor 

will they be required to verify or confirm that the presence of lead in the home has 

been eliminated. This is an incredibly important distinction because clearance testing will add additional costs only for the professionally trained remodeler. So, choosing a professional, in this instance, who will be subject to clearance testing requirements is even less affordable to consumers who may already have cost constraints. 

It has been established that lead-safe remodeling activities performed by professionally trained remodelers improve the condition of the home, in terms of lead exposure. This should be good for the health and quality of life for the home’s occupants, especially children. If the government imposes a regulatory requirement like 

a clearance test on professional remodelers that further increases costs of hiring 

them, it could create a real disincentive for residents to get lead-safe remodeling in 

the homes with the most critical repair and renovation needs. Specifically, lowerincome households that lack the financial resources to pay for lead-safe professional 

remodeling are disproportionately the ones who live in homes that are in the greatest need of repair. 

Potentially, the higher cost could create an incentive for low-income consumers to 

do nothing at all, which further undercuts the broader goal of eradicating childhood 

exposure to lead. 

RECOMMENDATIONS—EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

There is clear benefit to the safety of children and proven reductions in lead exposures in older homes from professional remodeling. NAHB recommends that a combined public and private education and training program for home buyers, homeowners, remodelers and home improvement contractors would help increase public 

awareness of the dangers of lead exposure in older homes. This effort has already 

begun in the remodeling industry, but additional help is needed. 
36 

At the national level, NAHB has taken several steps in the last 20 years to increase consumer education on lead-safe work practices. NAHB has distributed materials to all its members about training and lead-safe work practices from HUD, the 

U.S. EPA, and OSHA. In 1993, NAHB began distributing its own publication 

What Remodelers Need to Know and Do About Lead regarding the dangers of prohibited practices (torching, belt-sanding, scraping) and the importance of proper 

post-work clean-up techniques that minimize lead dust exposure in both the work 

area and the property. NAHB began a public/private partnership with EPA in the 

late 1990’s to establish a voluntary program to address lead-based paint issues during remodeling and renovation and has continually supported robust training programs for remodelers and renovators that work in pre-1978 homes. 

NAHB also sponsors education courses for builders and remodelers at its annual 

International Builders Show, and in other conference settings. In fact, many NAHB 

Remodeler members teach courses in lead-safe work training and mastering leadsafe work techniques. Education and training has been incredibly successful and 

continues to highlight the importance of having adequately trained and knowledgeable remodeling professionals to perform renovation and repair work in older homes. 

In addition to the efforts noted above, NAHB urges Congress to do the following: 

• Instruct and ensure that HUD and the U.S. EPA target the limited resources 

and enforcement assets concerning mandatory lead hazard evaluation and reduction 

toward those units constructed prior to 1960 and likely to be occupied by a child 

under the age of six. 

• Support the development and use of voluntary training and lead-safe work practices for owners of multifamily properties and remodelers who work in residential 

properties built from 1960—1978 and are believed to contain lead-based paint. 

• Direct HUD, the U.S. EPA, and OSHA to work together to reconcile the differences in work practices and allow reciprocity for training and certification requirements for remodelers and multifamily property owners to facilitate achieving 

the goals of eliminating childhood lead poisoning in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. 

• Fully fund the training requirements in the HUD and U.S. EPA lead-based 

paint regulations so that they can operate and function as Congress intended. 

CONCLUSIONS

Professional remodeling, renovation, and repair work, performed by knowledgeable, trained contractors, can serve as an agent against spreading lead hazards in 

older homes and further endangering the health and welfare of our nation’s children. NAHB urges Congress to work with the relevant Federal agencies (HUD, U.S. 

EPA, and OSHA) to coordinate efforts, to fully fund important lead-safe training 

programs, and to effectively use the combined resources in a way that maximizes 

outcomes. NAHB cautions against imposing inappropriate and costly regulatory burdens on professional remodelers that would be cost-prohibitive for consumers to hire 

trained professionals or that could lead to further proliferation of potentially harmful do-it-yourself projects. NAHB is working hard to promote the value of lead-safe 

work practices and the benefits of professional remodeling for older homes and encourages effort by Congress. 

NAHB Remodelers are working hard to educate consumers, train professionals, 

and perform lead-safe work practices. Research data confirms that lead-safe remodeling and renovation improves lead levels in older homes, and that new hazards are 

not created when typical remodeling and renovation activities are undertaken by 

trained professionals. NAHB has invested significant resources in both education 

and research about the benefits of lead-safe work practices and looks forward to 

working with Congress to expand on efforts like these in the future. 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program Proposed Rule, (February 2006). 2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program Proposed Rule, ch. 7, p. 19 (February 2006). 3National Association of Home Builders, Report on Lead Paint Test Survey (April 2007) 

(NAHB Report). 4U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program Proposed Rule Table 4—14 (February 2006). 

RESPONSES BY MIKE NAGEL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. How do we avoid creating a disincentive for individual homeowners 

to take matters into their own hands and repair and inadvertently increase the lead 

hazards to their chilren? 

Response. The best way to avoid consumer disincentives is to ensure that professional remodeling remains affordable to those who live in target housing. This is accomplished by reducing unnecessary or excessive costs from training, extensive recordkeeping, cleaning verification (third party abatement-style clearance testing as 

suggested by some health advocates) and maintaining liability insurance. The economic analysis EPA prepared for the Lead: Renovation, Repair and Paint (RRP) rule 

addresses the first three of these cost centers.1

a. The benefits of the rule shown in EPA’s economic analysis can only be 

actualized if a professional remodeler performs the work. In as much as the 

benefits from the rule scarcely outweigh the costs, there are little benefits 

if a homeowner or black-market contractor does the RRP project and no 

benefit if nothing is done. 

b. Cleaning verification, or the more arduous dust-wipe clearance testing 

provides very little benefit to achieve the desired outcome. 

i. EPA’s economic analysis states that clearance testing only adds a 2 percent 

benefit to the proposed rule and that 98 percent of the benefit is achieved by 

cleaning to a level of no visible dust and debris.2

ii. In a survey done by NAHB, 81 percent of consumers, who were fully aware 

of the dangers of lead, were not willing to pay $200 extra on a remodeling project 

for a clearance test. This amount is a far cry from the actual costs of clearance 

testing.3

iii. This unwillingness to pay for clearance testing marks a crucial 

disincentive for homeowners. Along with the requirement to disclose ‘‘the presence 

of any known lead-based paint’’ (40 CFR§745.100), these disincentives provide 

strong motivation for homeowners to avoid complying with the rule and performing 

the renovations themselves. 

c. Some training costs are unavoidable as training in lead-safe work practices is essential to the performance of proper procedures in renovating target housing. However, the proposed rule imposes a training regime that is 

unnecessarily costly because of its inflexibility, inconsistency and authorizing states, territories and tribes to establish their own training programs. 

i. Inflexible—the 8-hour training requires 2 hours of hands-on training, which 

eliminates the option of distance learning, video, or internet training. 

ii. Inconsistent—individuals, renovation firms, and trainers are working on 

different timelines for re-certification. Individuals and firms re-certify every 3 years; 

training course re-accreditation occurs every 4 years. If training courses need to be 

updated every 4 years, then renovator refresher and firm re-certification should 

follow the same timeline. 

iii. Grandfathering’—remodelers who have already taken the approved HUD/ 

EPA ‘‘Lead Safety for RRP’’ is not addressed in the rule. 

iv. State/Local Program—Under EPA’s proposed rule, either states or EPA 

can provide certification to remodeling firms. However, remodeling firms that work 

in metropolitan areas bordering multiple states (e.g., Chicago, IL, New York City, 

NY, Washington DC, St. Louis, etc.) face multiple State licensing fees to comply 

with the same Federal requirement. Therefore, training program accreditation 

should remain with EPA alone. By retaining responsibility for training 

accreditation, the rule can avoid an unnecessary patchwork of differing State 

requirements. 

Considering the monumental task of training a sufficient professional base, EPA 

estimates in its economic analysis that a minimum of 311,000 certified renovators, 

expanding opportunities for training, ‘grandfathering’ and consistency are required.4
45 

5U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, Senate Report P.L. 102—550, 

Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, S. Rep. No. 102—332, p. 12 (July 23, 1992) 6Tohn, E.R., et al., ‘‘An Evaluation of One-time Professional Cleaning in Homes with Leadbased Paint Hazards.’’ Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 18 no.2, 138—143 

(2003). 

d. The recordkeeping requirements for the proposed rule are onerous and 

unrealistic. 

i.The rule does not tie the record of the remodeling event to the property, 

where it would be accessible for subsequent purchasers or clientele of a child 

occupied facility. 

ii. They require meticulous detail concerning every procedure—remodeling, 

cleaning, waste-handling, certification, the posting of signs, even copies of certified 

renovators training certificates, etc. 

iii. Certain document retention is unrealistic. For example, ‘‘documentation of 

compliance’’ can be defined as requiring the firm to keep dust wipes on file for 3 

years after a project. In a filing cabinet, those dust wipes are subject to 

contamination from sources foreign to the project it is representing, rendering the 

wipes invalid and subjecting the firm and renovator to noncompliance and the 

liability associated with it. 

Moreover, the excessive paperwork generated by the recordkeeping requirements 

violates the principles of the Paperwork Reduction Act. A simple checklist that identifies which renovation activities were undertaken, lists certified renovators’ registration numbers and a simple statement of compliance that begins ‘‘Under penalty 

of law. . . ’’ could remedy the recordkeeping difficulties. 

e. There is a lack of available liability insurance for remodelers who disturb 

or might disturb lead-based paint. Most policies contain ‘‘absolute pollution 

exclusions’’ which exclude coverage for claims from RRP projects generating 

presumed pollutants, including lead. There is also no regulatory ‘‘safe harbor’’ for remodelers who perform RRP. In 1992, the Senate requested the 

feasibility of standards for a ‘‘safe harbor’’ that exempted owners and lenders from liability if particular procedures and demonstrable compliance 

were achieved.5 Remodelers working in target housing should be given 

similar consideration. 

Anecdotally, an NAHB remodeler member in Rhode Island recently had liability 

coverage canceled by the insurer after the company realized the member was working in homes, which may be contaminated with lead. 

Question 2. What is the likelihood that remodelers will just avoid performing renovations of homes built proir to 1978, therefore keeping older housing ina state of 

continual deterioration? 

Response. The likelihood that many remodelers will avoid working in pre-1978 

houses is extremely high, as a means to avoid non-compliance with the proposed 

rule, as expressed in the response to Question 1. Avoiding the repair or remodeling 

of a home is the worst-case scenario for the nation’s older housing stock. A 2003 

study acknowledged that simply cleaning dust and debris without addressing potential sources of lead dust is ‘‘unlikely to result in significant and sustained reductions 

in dust lead loadings.’’6 Similarly, remodeling done by the homeowner or untrained 

contractor is also hazardous and does not lower dust lead loadings, but in fact increases dust lead loading levels and increases the potential for childhood lead poisoning (1999 U. of Iowa & 1999 EPA Wisconsin studies). Moreover, in situations 

where untrained do-it-yourself renovations occur, children may be underfoot, the 

children’s eagerness to help tragically endangering their own health. Likewise, in 

renovations done by untrained contractors, work areas not cordoned off and left exposed pose sure risks for lead poisoning. 

Response. Studies by EPA/Battelle (2007), NAHB (2006), and the New Jersey 

School of Medicine (2004) all established that professional remodeling reduces lead 

dust loading levels from their pre-construction levels. These studies also demonstrated which practices should be prohibited and identified instances in which 

extra care needs to be taken, i.e., cleaning rough surfaces. 

Question 3. Are you concerned that contractore may be held responsible for lead 

tht remains in the home after the work is completed, even when the lead condition 

is drasticlly improved? 

Response. Yes, NAHB Remodelers are concerned with potential liability for lead 

sources left in homes after remodeling activities are completed. Both Congress and 
46 

715 USC§2682(c) 8Supra n. 5, S. Rep. No. 102—332 at——(1992). 

9National Association of Home Builders, Lead-Safe Work Practices Survey Project Report (November 9, 2006). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Dust Lead Levels 

after renovation, Repair and Painting Activities (January 2007). Yiin, L. et al., Evaluation of 

Cleaning Methods in Home Environments after Renovation and Remodeling, Environmental Research, 96 no. 2, 156—162 (2004). 10Yiin, L., et al., ‘‘Comparison of Techniques to Reduce Residential Lead Dust on Carpet and 

Upholstery: The New Jersey Assessment of Cleaning Techniques Trial.’’ Environmental Health 

Perspectives, 110 no. 12, 1233—1237 (2002). 

the EPA have recognized that abatement and renovation are separate activities.7 40 

C.F.R.§745.83 states: 

Response. Renovation means the modification of any existing structure, or portion 

thereof, that results in the disturbance of painted surfaces, unless that activity is 

performed as part of an abatement as defined by this part (40 CFR 745.223). The 

term renovation includes (but is not limited to): the removal or modification of 

painted surfaces or painted components (e.g., modification of painted doors, surface 

preparation activity (such as sanding, scraping, or other such activities that may 

generate paint dust)); the removal of large structures (e.g., walls, ceiling, large surface replastering, major re-plumbing); and window replacement. 

and 40 C.F.R.§745.223 reads: 

Abatement does not include renovation, remodeling, landscaping or other activities, when such activities are not designed to permanently eliminate lead-based 

paint hazards, but, instead, are designed to repair, restore, or remodel a given structure or dwelling, even though these activities may incidentally result in a reduction 

or elimination of lead-based paint hazards. Furthermore, abatement does not include interim controls, operations and maintenance activities, or other measures 

and activities designed to temporarily, but not permanently, reduce lead-based paint 

hazards. 

Any removal of lead sources during renovation activities is strictly coincidental 

and remodeling does not require the complete removal of all sources of lead. As stated in response #1, there is no ‘‘safe harbor’’ for remodelers who use lead-safe work 

practices and demonstrate compliance with the proposed rule. The Senate Committee said, 

The task force would, in particular, consider the efficacy of adopting measures to 

reduce the liability of lenders and owners of multifamily housing by clarifying 

standards of care or adopting a statutory ‘‘safe harbor’’. The Committee expects that 

the task force would consider whether it makes sense to develop a set of standards 

that, if followed by owners and lenders, would adequately protect building residents 

from exposure to lead-based paint. Owners or lenders who could demonstrate compliance with such standards would be exempted from liability for harm that resulted 

in spite of their exercise of ‘‘due care.’’8

These thoughts were expressed during deliberation of Title X. While the quote addresses owners and lenders, at this time the same consideration should be afforded 

the remodeler who legitimately complies with the proposed rule. Current insurance 

products contain ‘‘absolute pollution exclusions’’ for contaminants including lead. 

The proposed RRP rule exposes remodelers to potentially excessive legal responsibilities with no statute of limitations and no relief for those complying with the rule. 

In homes with significantly deteriorated surfaces, such as degraded wood floors 

and windowsills, several studies have shown that although lead-safe work practices 

significantly reduced dust loadings, the degraded surfaces still did not meet abatement clearance standards (40 ug/sq. ft. on floors, 250 ug/sq. ft. on sills).9 While the 

Yiin 2004 study stated that ‘‘extra care may be necessary on rough surfaces,’’ the 

core of the study proved clearance was achieved only 95 percent—98 percent using 

LSWP cleaning techniques. Additionally, in an Environmental and Occupational 

Health Sciences Institute study on carpets, there were no significant reductions in 

lead dust loadings when using either a standard vacuum or a HEPA-filtered vacuum.10 These are instances where remodelers are potentially liable for lead dust not 

generated by RRP activities, but which simply exist in the conditions prevalent in 

the dwelling and for which they bear no responsibility. 

RESPONSE BY MIKE NAGEL TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question. EPA recently proposed to include certain child occupied facilities in its 

lead paint renovation reulemaking. 

Does the National Association of Homebuilders support this expansion of the rule? 
47 

11U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lead; Renovation, Repair and Painting Program, 72 

Fed. Reg. 31022 (supplemental notice June 5, 2007). 12U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, 71 

Fed. Reg. 1588, 1628 (proposed Jan. 10, 2006) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 745)., see proposed 40 C.F.R.§745.82 13Joint Center for Housing Studies, Foundations for Future Growth in the Remodeling Industry (Harvard University Press. 2007). 1472 Fed. Reg. 31022. 15Yiin, 2004; Erte, LA, et al., An Evaluation of Effectiveness of Lead Paint Hazard Reduction 

when Conducted by Homeowners and Landlords, Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 14 no. 8, 522—525 (1999). 

Response. NAHB does support the expansion of this rule to child occupied facilities (COF) and NAHB has stated its support in the most recent comments to the 

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM).11 NAHB believes this expansion can help meet the goal of eradicating childhood lead poisoning. However, 

there are some concerns that the COF only closes a minor ‘loophole’ in reaching that 

goal. The major problem is that it does not include do-it-yourself property owners 

in target housing. 

Unfortunately, regardless of whether or not EPA decides to apply the proposed 

rule to COF, the majority of renovations covered under the proposed rule (above the 

two-square feet de minimis disturbance) will never be affected.12 Homeowners, who 

are not covered by the proposed rule, perform the vast majority of these projects. 

This homeowner exclusion is the single largest loophole under EPA’s proposed rule. 

While NAHB is not aware of any national data that attempts to quantify this gap 

in coverage, the Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies estimated 

in 2007 that approximately half of all of the ‘‘major’’ remodeling work (defined with 

a monetary value of $5,000 or more) was performed by do-it-yourself-ers.13 Given 

these facts, NAHB believes the current loophole allowing untrained homeowners to 

perform renovations means that the vast majority of activities that disrupt leadbased paint in target housing will never be covered by EPA’s proposed RRP rule. 

Additionally, the expansion in the supplemental notice to include COF has many 

of the same pitfalls of the original proposed rule and poses additional concerns. 

a. The definition of COF is vague. The formula for deciphering what is a 

COF is confusing and certainly, a more straightforward method to determine a COF should be established.14

b. The notification requirements for the COF provision are problematic. The 

SNPRM requires remodelers to inform clients of the COF about the RRP 

activities. The remodeler has no contractual connection to the COF client, 

as he or she is a ‘‘subcontractor’’ of the facility’s proprietor. These requirements would expose remodelers to further potential tort claims. 

c. Owners and lessees of COF have a disincentive to call on professional remodelers because of increased costs that a remodeler would have to absorb 

from the rule. Peer-reviewed research has documented that ‘‘do-it-yourselfers’’ and untrained personnel leave facilities dirtier (with a higher lead dust 

loading level) than before the renovation was done. A comparison of the 

Yiin 2004 study to a University of Iowa 1999 study show that professional 

remodelers clean work areas better than homeowners and landlords.15

d. There are no ‘‘safe harbors’’ for remodelers who comply with the rule and 

remodelers are open to tort claims well after renovations are complete. The 

SNPRM did not address these liabilities and lack of insurance products 

available to professional remodelers working in COF with lead paint and 

the expansion of any claims to clients of the COF. 

e. Cleaning verification or clearance testing blurs the line Congress established between renovation and abatement. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. 

Now, we are in fact going to have a vote at noon, so we are going 

to have to go back to our 4 minutes. 

Dr. Lanphear, we welcome you. You are a doctor. You are Director of Cincinnati Children’s Environmental Health Center, Professor of Pediatrics and Environmental Health. Go ahead, sir. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. 

Now, we are in fact going to have a vote at noon, so we are going 

to have to go back to our 4 minutes. 
48 

Dr. Lanphear, we welcome you. You are a doctor. You are Director of Cincinnati Children’s Environmental Health Center, Professor of Pediatrics and Environmental Health. Go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE P. LANPHEAR, M.D., MPH, DIRECTOR, 

CINCINNATI CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CENTER; PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH 

Dr. LANPHEAR. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer, Senator 

Inhofe. 

Despite the dramatic decline in children’s blood lead concentrations, which were unquestionably due to the dramatic reductions in 

environmental lead exposure, rather than educational efforts, 

which we continue to rely on for children who have blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter, lead toxicity remains a 

major public health problem. 

Exceedingly low levels of exposure to environmental lead have 

been associated with an increased risk of diminished intellectual 

ability, reading problems, ADHD, school failure, and even criminal 

behavior in children and young adults. 

Moreover, there is no evidence of a threshold for the adverse consequences of lead exposure. Indeed, studies show that the detriments in children’s intellectual abilities are, for a given increase 

in blood lead concentration, greater at blood lead levels less than 

10 micrograms per deciliter than for the same level of exposure at 

blood leads above 10. 

On average, there is an estimated two to three IQ point decline 

for children whose blood lead levels increase from 10 to 20 

micrograms per deciliter, but there is an estimated decline of four 

to seven IQ points at blood lead levels below 10 micrograms per 

deciliter. 

Thus, if we continue to rely on the 10 microgram per deciliter 

cutoff, which all of us continue to refer to here today, we will fail 

to protect children. Indeed, we will fail to protect the vast majority 

of children, over 90 percent of children, who are adversely affected 

by lead exposure. 

But scientists and pediatricians are finding that the affects on intellectual abilities are only the tip of the iceberg. Overall, 8.7 percent of U.S. children are estimated to have ADHD. In a nationwide 

survey, we found that children were four times more likely to have 

doctor-diagnosed ADHD and to take ADHD medication if they had 

blood lead levels above two micrograms per deciliter. We estimated 

that one in five children’s cases of doctor-diagnosed ADHD can be 

attributed to low-level lead exposure. 

There is increasing evidence linking lead exposure with conduct 

disorders, delinquency and criminal behaviors even at levels considerably lower than the 10 microgram per deciliter action level set 

by CDC. But lead’s effects extend beyond childhood. In adults, lead 

exposure has been associated with some of the most prevalent diseases of industrialized society—cardiovascular disease, miscarriage, 

chronic kidney disease, and accelerated cognitive decline—at levels 

commonly observed throughout the United States population. 

Consistent with research on childhood lead exposure, there is 

emerging evidence indicating that the risk for death from heart at-
49 

tacks and stroke, as well as the risk for chronic kidney disease, increase at blood lead levels considerably lower than 10 micrograms 

per deciliter. 

The key to prevention is to eliminate environmental lead exposure. Federal agencies use a variety of standards for unacceptable 

lead content. It is critical to recognize that all of the existing standards were promulgated long before the research demonstrated the 

harmful effects at blood lead levels below 10 micrograms per deciliter. 

The recommendations that I have are, first, the U.S. EPA should 

request the National Academy of Sciences to update the report on 

protecting infants, children and pregnant women. This report 

should review and synthesize the existing evidence about sources 

of lead intake. They should evaluate the adverse affects of lead at 

blood lead levels below 10 micrograms per deciliter; review and 

synthesize existing evidence about the primary prevention of lead 

exposure; and make recommendations about the primary prevention of lead exposure. 

The U.S. EPA should heed the advice of the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee and lower the national ambient air quality 

standard for lead to a level no greater than 0.2 microgram per 

meter cubed. As recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee, the U.S. EPA should reduce the existing residential 

dust lead standards, which are insufficient to protect children at 

blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per deciliter, let alone children 

below that value. 

Finally, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics 

and other groups, Federal agencies should require all products intended for use by or in connection with children to contain no more 

than trace amounts of lead. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanphear follows:] 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE P. LANPHEAR, M.D., MPH, DIRECTOR, CINCINNATI CHILDREN’S

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CENTER; PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Prior to 1970, lead poisoning was defined by a blood lead concentration of 60 ug/ 

dL or higher—a level often associated with overt signs or symptoms such as abdominal colic, encephalopathy or death (1). Since then, the blood lead concentration for 

defining lead toxicity has gradually been reduced from 60 ug/dL to 40 ug/dL in 1971, 

to 30 ug/dL in 1978, and to 25 ug/dL in 1985. In 1991, the Centers for Disease Control further reduced the definition of undue lead exposure to a blood lead concentration of > 10 ug/dL (1). 

Children’s blood lead concentrations have declined dramatically over the past 30 

years. In the 1970’s, 88 percent of U.S. children younger than 6 years were estimated to have a blood lead concentration > 10 ug/dL (2). When lead was at long 

last banned from paint, lead solder in canned foods and phased out of gasoline, children’s blood lead levels plummeted (2). By the early 1990’s, fewer than 5 percent 

of children younger than 6 years were estimated to have blood lead concentrations 

> 10 ug/dL (3). 

Despite the dramatic decline in children’s blood lead concentrations, lead toxicity 

remains a major public health problem. Exceedingly low-levels of exposure to environmental lead have been associated with an increased risk for reading problems, 

ADHD, school failure, delinquency and criminal behavior in children and adolescents (4—9). Moreover, there is no evidence of a threshold for the adverse consequences of lead exposure (10—13). Indeed, studies show that the decrements in 

intellectual function are, for a given increase in blood lead concentration, greater at 

blood lead levels < 10ug/dL (10—13), the level considered acceptable by the Centers 

for Disease Control. On average, there is an estimated decline of 2 to 3 IQ points 
50 

for children whose blood lead levels rise from 10 to 20 ug/dL, but there is an estimated decline of 4 to 7 IQ points for children whose blood lead levels rise from 1 

ug/dL to 10 ug/dL (10—11). 

Lead’s effects extend beyond childhood. In adults, lead exposure has been associated with some of the most prevalent diseases of industrialized society: cardiovascular disease (14—15), miscarriage (16), renal disease (17—18) and cognitive decline (19). Consistent with research on childhood lead exposure, there is emerging 

evidence indicating that the risk for death from heart attacks and stroke, as well 

as the risk for chronic kidney disease, occur at blood lead levels considerably lower 

than 10 ug/dL. 

The key to primary prevention is to eliminate environmental lead exposure. Federal agencies use a variety of standards for unacceptable lead content. It is critical 

to recognize that all of these standards were promulgated long before research demonstrated the harmful effects of lead at blood lead levels below 10 ug/dL. Because 

there is no known safe level of lead exposure, exposure to lead below these existing 

standards should not be considered ‘‘safe.’’ 

Prevention of lead toxicity will, first and foremost, require a declaration of the full 

scope of the problem. Thus, the CDC’s level of concern should be lowered to a blood 

lead level < 5 ug/dL because society cannot respond to a threat until it first acknowledges it. It will require the revision of regulations to further reduce airborne lead 

exposure; screening of high-risk, older housing units to identify lead hazards before 

a child is exposed—before occupancy, after renovation or abatement; reductions in 

allowable levels of lead in water; and stricter regulations and enforcement on the 

allowable levels of lead in toys, jewelry and other consumer products. Finally, protecting children will require eliminating all non-essential uses of lead. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

1. The US EPA should request the National Academies of Science to update the 

Report on Protecting Infants, Children and Pregnant Women. This Report should 

review and synthesize the existing evidence about sources of lead intake; evaluate 

the adverse effects of lead at blood lead levels < 10 ug/dL; review and synthesize 

existing evidence about primary prevention of lead exposure and; make recommendations about the primary prevention of lead exposure. 

2. The US EPA should heed the advice of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS) for Lead to 

a level no greater than 0.2 ug/m3. 

3. As recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, the U.S. EPA 

should review the existing residential dust standards to ensure that they are sufficiently low to protect children. 

4. The US EPA should review the water lead standard to ensure that it is sufficiently low to protect children. 

5. As recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Federal Government should require all products intended for use by or in connection with children 

to contain no more than trace amounts of lead. 

6. As recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the US EPA should 

define a ‘‘trace’’ amount of lead in consumer products as no more than 40 ppm, the 

upper range of lead in uncontaminated soil. 

7. As recommend by the American Academy of Pediatrics, ‘‘children’s product’’ 

should be defined to ensure it will cover the wide range of products used by or for 

children under the age of 12 years. 

8. As recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the limit on lead content must apply to all components of the item or jewelry or other small parts that 

could be swallowed, not just the surface covering. 

9. As recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, legislation or regulations should limit the overall lead content of an item, rather than only limiting lead 

content of its components. 

RESPONSES BY BRUCE P. LANPHEAR TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Have you been involved in reviewing EPA’s scientific documents dealing with the agency’s lead paint renovation rulemaking and clean air protection 

against lead exposures? 

Response. I have served as a member of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee for the ‘‘National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead’’ and the ‘‘Lead Repair, Renovation and Paint Rule’’. 
51 

Could you please give me your opinion on whether the EPA is moving in the right 

direction, or the wrong direction, in these regulatory processes by using recent scientific studies to protect children’s health from lead exposure? 

I was pleased with the deliberations and advice of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee about the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead. I was 

equally satisfied with the recommendations of EPA Staff on Lead NAAQS, which 

were remarkably consistent with the CASAC’s advice. In contrast, I was disappointed and troubled by the EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPR). 

The ANPR showed surprising disregard for scientific evidence, the NAAQS review 

process and the mandate to protect public health. After citing the scientifically 

based advice and recommendations of the CASAC and Agency staff, the ANPR made 

it clear that options which had already been examined and dismissed on scientific 

grounds by both CASAC and EPA staff would be considered for the primary lead 

standard. Based on the scientific evidence and the review process, the ANPR should 

have retained lead as a criteria air pollutant and indicated that the lead standard 

would be dramatically lowered from its current value of 1.5 ug/m3—established over 

30 years ago when blood lead levels lower than 30 ug/dL were considered acceptable 

for children—to a value less than 0.2 ug/m3, as recommended by CASAC and EPA 

Agency Staff. 

I was especially concerned that the ANPR consistently selected options that underestimated the adverse effects of lead, diminished the benefits of reducing the 

lead standard and failed to provide an adequate margin of safety. As a key example, 

the ANPR contemplated using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) level of concern for lead in blood of 10 ug/dL as an acceptable risk level by 

the EPA Administrator. It is clear that the adverse effects of lead occur at demonstrably lower levels, with consistent evidence indicating that the effects of lead persist at blood lead levels lower than 5 ug/dL. Any suggestion that the U.S. EPA 

would use the CDC’s level of concern as a starting point for risk assessment is particularly troubling. This approach—which ignores both the CDC and CASAC determinations that there are adverse health effects at lower blood lead levels—would 

fail to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety as required by the 

Clean Air Act. 

I was also pleased with the deliberations and advice of the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee about the Lead Repair, Renovation and Paint Rule. In contrast, 

my perception is that the US EPA was intent on selecting inexpensive and unproven 

methods to minimally comply with the congressional mandate to protect children 

from lead hazards generated by renovation, repair and painting. For example, the 

qualitative and simplistic method proposed by the U.S. EPA to verify the effectiveness of these cleaning procedures—i.e., the ‘‘white glove’’ or ‘‘white cloth verification 

tests’’—is unproven and did not yield consistently reliable results, thus leading to 

an inaccurate assessment of cleaning efficiency after repair and renovation activities. This was especially troubling because there is a reliable, proven and inexpensive method (dust wipe sampling method) used by environmental technicians to 

comply with existing standards promulgated by the US EPA and US Department 

of Housing and Urban Development. In my opinion, it would be irresponsible to propose using a new method until further research is conducted to validate that it is 

superior or at least comparable to the existing dust wipe sampling method. (See additional comments about LRRP in my response to question 3.) 

Question 2. While other Federal agencies can recall dangerous products, EPA has 

strong authorities to control the use of lead ? to stop dangerous exposures before 

they happen. Can you please describe the importance to public health of preventing 

dangerous lead exposures before they happen? 

Response. Primary prevention of childhood lead poisoning is critical. In spite dramatic reductions in childhood lead exposure (1), levels of lead exposure previously 

thought to be safe or inconsequential only two decades ago have consistently been 

shown to be risk factors for reading problems, intellectual delays, school failure, 

ADHD and criminal behaviors (2—13). There is no evidence for a threshold for the 

adverse effects of lead exposure; indeed, there is compelling evidence that lead-associated decrements in intellectual function are proportionately greater at blood lead 

<10 ug/dL (8—13). On average, there is an estimated decline of 2 to 3 IQ points 

for children whose blood lead levels rise from 10 to 20 ug/dL, whereas there is an 

estimated decline of 4 to 7 IQ points for children whose blood lead levels rise from 

1 ug/dL to 10 ug/dL (7—8). 

The key to primary prevention is to require the promulgation of regulations to 

further reduce environmental lead exposure; screening of high-risk, older housing 

units to identify lead hazards before a child is exposed—before occupancy, after renovation or abatement—and reducing lead in drinking water, consumer products and 
52 

industrial emissions. These reductions in exposure will only occur with stricter regulations and enforcement on the allowable levels of lead in air, house-dust, water and 

consumer products. 

Question 3. Are there studies that demonstrate cleaning up indoor dust from lead 

paint to low levels is feasible? Has EPA incorporated these studies in its current 

rulemaking on lead paint renovation activities? Please provide a copy of any such 

study. 

Response. There is considerable evidence that cleaning after lead hazard controls 

can result in dramatic reductions in dust lead loading. In one EPA-funded study, 

dust lead levels immediately following abatement were 8.5 ug/ft2, 8 ug/ft2 and 21 

ug/ft2 for floors, interior windowsills and window troughs, respectively—representing reductions of over 80 percent compared with pre-abatement levels (14). In 

a large, national study of over 2600 housing units, post-abatement dust lead levels 

were 12 ug/ft2, 31 ug/ft2 and 32 ug/ft2 for floors, windowsills and window troughs, 

respectively (15). 

In unpublished data from our ongoing US EPA/NIEHS-funded HOME Study, we 

found that we could consistently achieve dust lead levels following lead hazard controls below 5 ug/ft2, 50 ug/ft2 and 400 ug/ft2 for floors, interior windowsills and window troughs, respectively. Indeed, we achieved these dust lead levels in over 98 percent of 165 housing units that underwent lead hazard controls. Although 41 (25 percent) housing units required 3 or more cleanings to achieve these lower levels, we 

have shown that it is feasible to consistently achieve levels below 5 ug/ft2, 50 ug/ 

ft2 and 400 ug/ft2 for floors, interior windowsills and window troughs, respectively. 

The EPA proposes to use obsolete dust lead standards of 40 ug/ft2 for floors and 

250 ug/ft2 for window sills for the proposed Rule. These dust lead levels have consistently been shown to be associated with about 15 percent to 20 percent of children having a blood lead level exceeding 10 ug/dL (16—20). Moreover, research indicating that adverse health effects are found in children who have blood lead lower 

than 5 ug/dL provides additional justification for further lowering the dust lead 

standards (7—13). Existing studies thus indicate that it is necessary to achieve dust 

lead levels < 15 ug/ft2 and < 50 ug/ft2 on floors and interior window sills after renovation and repair activities to adequately protect children (14—21). The results of 

these studies have not been incorporated into current rulemaking on lead paint renovation activities. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

Tom Neltner, on behalf of Improving Kids’ Environment, Sierra 

Club, and Concerned Clergy of Greater Indianapolis. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. NELTNER, ON BEHALF OF IMPROVING KIDS’ ENVIRONMENT, SIERRA CLUB, AND CONCERNED CLERGY OF GREATER INDIANAPOLIS 

Mr. NELTNER. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you 

today. I was the lead attorney on the Sierra Club lawsuit against 

EPA that forced those three actions that EPA described. 

What we have effectively is lead becoming the poster child for 

the breakdown in our Consumer Product Safety Commission and 

our consumer product safety network. A lot of times we hear about 

it being CPSC’s responsibility, but EPA has a clear responsibility 

and they have not fulfilled that role. 

As a result of EPA’s denial of the petition and a clear reluctance 

to move ahead, people have lost faith in the Federal Government’s 

ability to protect people from lead in consumer products. They went 

out and tested products. They used lead-check swabs. They used 

Niton XRFs. And they found it. It is a lot better than finding like 

the Reebok charm. A child died finding the lead in a Reebok 

charm. 

A grandmother in Bloomington, Indiana was showing people how 

to use a swab. She grabbed one of the toys that they used to give 

to kids when they read well. She rubbed the swab on the bendable 
53 

1See www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prerel.html. 

toy and it came out red. That was a product that the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission would not quickly recall—Indiana went 

ahead and did the recall. 

There are other toys that you see up in front of you that you entered into the exhibits that included ones that were just bought 2 

days ago. One is a snorkel. It is about 1000 parts per million on 

the mouthpiece. There is a baby teething ring with about 1,000 

parts per million of lead in it. Those are products that were just 

purchased. There is a vinyl lunch box with 12,000 parts per million 

on the surfaces. So there are still products out there. They are still 

a problem, and we don’t have systematic corrections. 

What we asked EPA to do in our petition and lawsuit was to use 

its authority to go to the companies and require that they submit 

their quality control procedures. EPA basically said, you can’t make 

us do that; you can’t make us because of a glitch in TSCA; you can 

make us issue a rule, but you can’t make us issue an order. If EPA 

had issued an order to these companies, EPA and CPSC would 

have had the information so that they could have proactively dealt 

with this problem . Instead of being behind the curve on this caseby-case basis, the EPA could have used its authority and gotten 

ahead of the curve. 

On the RRP rule, the renovation, repair and painting rule, I am 

glad to hear it will be coming out soon. It was promised actually 

in January 2007. The problem is that rule relies heavily on EPA 

and the Federal Government to enforce it. We need a rule that allows the consumers and the contractors to identify problems, make 

informed decisions, and to resolve those problems. EPA did not do 

that in its proposal. We are asking them to do that as well. 

Two quick comments. The Assistant Administrator pointed out 

that 400 ppm of lead in soil is not a hard and fast standard. In 

fact, it is when it comes to bare soil around housing. The standard 

is not part of the Superfund cleanup. It is a hard and fast standard 

for play areas for children. And I was surprised to learn, and I was 

the lead attorney on the settlement negotiations, that it will be another year or so until that rule goes into effect requiring reporting 

by companies of measurable levels of lead. We were under the impression it would be done in June 2008. I have no idea why the 

delay has occurred. We have been asking about it without luck. 

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neltner follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. NELTNER, ON BEHALF OF IMPROVING KIDS’ ENVIRONMENT, 

SIERRA CLUB, AND CONCERNED CLERGY OF GREATER INDIANAPOLIS

THE SITUATION: 

Sixty-two recalls of more than 9.5 million items in 2007 with 10 weeks to go before the end of the year. There were 43 recalls by the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC) in the previous 3 years.1

The public is dazed and confused. The CPSC is overwhelmed and left to triage 

recalls based on the magnitude of the danger. In the absence of Federal leadership, 

State and local legislators scramble to adopt laws to fill gaps. State and local childhood lead poisoning prevention programs struggle with calls from the public. These 

calls draw their limited resources away from their core mission to protect children 

from the primary source of lead poisoning lead-based paint in housing. By all accounts, product retailers and importers of children’s products are faring little better. 
54 

2U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 

Dispatch, March 23, 2006 / 55(Dispatch);1—2. 3National Center for Healthy Housing, Testing for Lead in Consumer Products for Children, 

August 14, 2007. See www.centerforhealthyhousing.org/factsheet-leadtestconprod.pdf 4Id. 

5California Statutes 2006, Chapter 415, Article 10.1.1 Lead Containing Jewelry. Illinois Public 

Act—4—0879: The Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 2006. Baltimore City, Maryland regulations 

at www.baltimorehealth.org/jewelry.html. 6See Attachment 5. ‘‘Results of Lead Content Screening of Children’s Jewelry Indiana Black 

Expo, July 20—22, 2007’’ by Improving Kids’ Environment. 

WHAT IS HAPPENING?

Put simply, parents, local health departments, and children’s health advocates 

have lost faith in the Federal Government’s ability and commitment to protect children from lead poisoning. 

The Minnesota child’s death in February 2006 laid bare the tattered network designed to protect children from toxic chemicals in consumer products.2 As a result, 

citizens took matters into their own hands and started testing products. They used 

low-cost swabs that change color when the swabs contacted lead.3 They used expensive x-ray fluorescent (XRF) devices designed for lead-based paint to measure lead 

levels in plastic, metal, and coatings on toys.4

When they found lead, they filed complaints forcing action. When the Federal 

Government was slow to act, they went to their elected officials. California, Illinois, 

and Baltimore adopted laws.5 Indiana, New York and Illinois issued their own recalls. 

Despite these efforts, the problem remains. At the Indiana Black Expo’s Health 

Fair in August 2007, the Concerned Clergy of Greater Indianapolis and Improving 

Kids’ Environment found that 62 percent of almost 400 children’s metal jewelry 

items and 32 percent of 85 plastic jewelry items contained more than 600 parts per 

million of lead—CPSC’s screening level.6 The Indiana Pacer’s cheerleaders were 

passing out mardi Gras beads containing 1400 ppm of lead. Children were wearing 

this jewelry and some were mouthing it! 
55 

7See Attachment 6. Sierra Club’s, April 17, 2006 Section 21 Petition to EPA and CPSC 

8EPA’s July 20, 2006 Denial of Sierra Club’s Section 21 Petition. See page 1. 

9Id. See page 2. 

10Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 402(c)(3). 11January 10, 2006 Federal Register. Page 1587. See www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm. 1240 CFR Part 745, Subpart D. See www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2001/January/Day—05/ 

t84.pdf. 

EPA’S COMPLICITY

While the focus has been on CPSC’s shortcomings, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been complicit. EPA refused to use its authority under the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to support CPSC’s effort. Only after a lawsuit 

from the Sierra Club and Improving Kids’ Environment forced its hand did EPA act. 

The delay has cost us dearly. 

If EPA had responded constructively to the Sierra Club’s April 17, 2006, TSCA 

Section 21 petition7, EPA could have had the quality control procedures of companies such as Mattel in its hand 1 year before the failings of those procedures became 

painfully apparent. EPA could have identified the problems and taken steps to fix 

them. Instead of putting CPSC in a reactive mode triaging complaints Congress 

gave EPA the statutory authority to take action. EPA refused to exercise that authority. 

Instead of acting immediately, EPA chose to take advantage of a loophole in the 

law claiming that Sierra Club could not force a regulation on quality control procedures without EPA first issuing orders to the companies. EPA refused to issue the 

orders—even to those companies who already had recalls. Sierra Club maintained 

that a recall was ample evidence that a company’s quality control procedures had 

failed. Unfortunately, many of these companies had additional recalls after EPA denied the Sierra Club’s petition. 

In denying the petition, EPA said it planned to work ‘‘in coordination with CPSC 

to understand the scope of the problem.’’8 EPA claimed that a ‘‘holistic and proactive 

approach may be more effective and less resource intensive than the case-by-case 

approach provided for under section 6(b).’’9 Eighteen months and 72 recalls have 

passed and there is no tangible evidence that EPA has found that ‘‘holistic and 

proactive approach.’’ 

As a result, parents must work through complicated websites and conflicting guidance as they make decisions on Holiday presents for their children. Retailers must 

resort to testing products on their shelves to restore consumer confidence. And 

CPSC is left to issue repeated recalls on a case-by-case basis. 

Acting a year earlier would not necessarily have avoided the recalls. But it would 

have given EPA and CPSC the opportunity to proactively address the situation in 

a systematic method. This proactive approach would have reassured the public and 

saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in wasted resources, especially at the State 

and local level. 

While CPSC might have been able to take action on its own, the failure of CPSC 

and EPA to work together and leverage EPA’s more powerful information gathering 

authorities was a lost opportunity. 

EPA’s failure is not limited to consumer products. Congress mandated that EPA 

adopted rules regarding the renovation, repair and painting of housing and childoccupied facilities by 1996.10 EPA issued a proposed rule on January 10, 2006 under 

pressure from a lawsuit by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 

(PEER) and others.11 It committed to finalizing the rule by January 2007 and is 

now hoping for March 2008. 

Public confidence is going to take another hit if EPA finalizes this rule as proposed. In the proposed rule, EPA rejected the use of lead dust wipes to verify that 

contractors did not create lead hazards. Lead dust wipes had been repeatedly validated as the most reliable method to determine whether lead hazards were present 

or not. EPA’s own rules relied on this method.12

EPA’s proposed rule was virtually unenforceable. Contractors would have little 

documentation that they did or did not comply with the rules. Instead of empowering consumers with information and the means they needed to act, EPA proposed 

leaving consumers in the dark with generic pamphlets instead of actual information 

on the work that was done. Consumers who later tested their home would have to 

plead with an understaffed EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

(OECA) to ‘‘recall’’ contractors to the home to clean up lead hazards left behind. 

The situation would be a repeat of the children’s products recalls of 2007 but instead of dealing with hundreds of importers, consumers would be left with hundreds 

of thousands of contractors. 
56 

13Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 40 USC 13101(b) 14Jeffrey D. Weidenhamer and Michael L. Clement. 2007. Widespread lead contamination of 

imported low-cost jewelry in the U.S. Chemosphere 67 961?965. 15Gordon Fairclough,Wall Street Journal, ‘‘Lead Toxins Take a Global Round Trip ’E-Waste’ 

From Computers Discarded in West Turns Up In China’s Exported Trinkets,’’ July, 12, 2007, 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118420563548864306.html 16EPA 530-F—01—006. See www.epa.gov/osw/elec—fs.pdf 17In addition, there is no emphasis on using the Federal pollution prevention hierarchy to require strict quality control programs to ensure that lead is kept out of future products manufactured or importer. 18Abigail Goldman, Los Angeles Times, ‘‘Disposal a murky issue in recall of lead-tainted 

items; State law holds sway, but there’s no uniform procedure in place.’’ October 8, 2007. 19Id. 20See Attachment 9. 

WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND

In the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Congress declared ‘‘it to be the national 

policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the 

source whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in 

an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever 

feasible; and disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only 

as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.’’13

This pollution prevention hierarchy makes clear that our top priority should be 

to keep lead out of products. Recycling is a second choice. 

Congress’ foresight was made starkly clear by research by Dr. Jeffrey 

Weidenhamer of Ashland University in Ohio14 and an investigation by the Wall 

Street Journal.15 They found that much of the lead in toy metal jewelry from China 

was apparently recycled electronic waste such as circuit boards from the West. Instead of recycling the lead from electronic waste, it appears that it may have been 

easier to remove the mixture of lead, copper and tin from the waste, melt it up, pour 

it into the jewelry mold to be shipped back to the United States for our children 

to use. 

In the late 1990’s, EPA had taken a leading role in working with electronics makers to phase lead out of their products. In June 2001, EPA published the ‘‘Electronics: A New Opportunity for Waste Prevention, Reuse, and Recycling.’’16 Since 

2001, EPA’s focus on prevention appears to have shifted from a balanced approach 

that emphasizes prevention to a recycling focus. The industry may very well have 

continued the prevention focus to engineer out lead. The lead that is found in metal 

toy jewelry may also be a relic of circuit boards from long ago. But EPA appears 

to have lost its leadership role on the issue. 

Under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, EPA is responsible for the broader management of solid wastes. Yet it has been silent on the issue of the management and disposal of the recalled products. CPSC apparently requires companies 

with recalls to follow Federal, State and Federal law.17 Many organizations, including the Sierra Club, are concerned that the lead-contaminated recalled product will 

be shipped overseas to a country with lower standards, resold in the U.S. on the 

second-hand market, or disposed of improperly. 

The Los Angeles Times investigated the issue.18 It contacted many of the companies with recent recalls. Most refused to return the call or answer the queston. 

Mattel said ‘‘Mattel said it planned to recycle as many components of its returned 

toys as possible, including selling or reusing zinc and some of the resins used to 

make the toys.’’19

Once again, State and local elected officials stepped up when the Federal Government was silent. On August 16, 2007, Connecticut Attorney General Richard 

Blumenthal sent letters to Mattel’s Chief Executive Officer and its Senior Counsel 

for Regulatory Affairs asking for a response to detailed questions regarding the disposition of the recalled products.20 Sierra Club applauds the leadership of Attorney 

General Blumenthal. 

Mattel’s response was due September 16, 2007. As of October 4, Sierra Club understands that Mattel has not responded to the request. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Regarding the EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule, Congress should: 

• Direct EPA to finalize the rule by January 2008 or prepare a detailed explanation for its delay. January 2008 is 2 years after the date of its initial proposal. 

The status report should describe EPA’s plans to finalize the rule and explain the 

delays in finalizing the rule. 
57 

• Direct EPA to prepare a report when the rule is finalized that explains: 

• How the rule will be enforced to achieve at least 75 percent compliance; 

• How the rule empowers citizens to: 

• Identify compliance problems that leave lead hazards in their residence; and 

• Force contractors to clean-up lead hazards contractors create without having to 

engage the Federal Government in the resolution of the problem; 

• How EPA will assess compliance with the rule and report results to Congress 

and the public on an ongoing basis. 

Regarding lead in consumer products, Congress should revise the Toxic Substances Control Act to direct EPA to: 

• Ban lead from children’s products unless it can be affirmatively demonstrated 

that the expected use of the product will not expose a child to lead; 

• Routinely issue Section 6(b) quality control orders to companies that have recalls to determine whether their quality control procedures are adequate to exclude 

toxics from children’s products; 

• Issue a Section 6(b)(2) rule establishing specific and effective quality control 

standards for all manufacturers and importers; 

• Finalize the Section 8(d) rule as recommended by the Interagency Testing Committee before the end of November 2008; 

• Send a letter, in cooperation with the CPSC, to all importers and manufacturers 

of children’s products: 

• Explaining the company’s responsibilities to comply with the new Section 

8(d) rule; 

• Reminding the company of its long-standing obligations under Section 

8(e) to submit 8(e) notices of recalls; 

• Identifying the factories that have produced lead contaminated children’s 

products and encouraging the companies to check all of their products for 

lead if they used the factories. 

FINALLY CONGRESS NEEDS TO: 

• Adequately fund EPA and CPSC to address lead in children’s products in particular and toxic chemicals in consumer products in general. 

• Build institutional links between CPSC and EPA so that CPSC relies on EPA 

for its toxicological expertise and waste management expertise and does not use its 

limited funding to duplicate this expertise. 

• State that the level of concern for lead in children is any measureable level of 

lead. The current level of concern of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood 

should be reclassified as the level for individual case management. 

On behalf of the Sierra Club, Improving Kids’ Environment and Concerned Clergy 

of Greater Indianapolis, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to describe the situation to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and make recommendations to the Committee for tangible action to protect children. 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

1On December 13, 2004, EPA stated in a Federal Register notice that it was pursuing a voluntary program for renovation and remodeling activities. It withdrew this plan in a May 16, 

2005 Federal Register notice. 2On December 20, 2005, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and 

nine other plaintiffs sued EPA for failing to meet the deadline. EPA published the proposed Renovation, Repair and Painting Activities (RRP)2 rule a few weeks later on January 10, 2006. Note 

that on October 26, 2006, EPA moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the plaintiffs 

waited too long to sue EPA for failing to comply with the law. EPA’s position makes its clear 

that concerned citizens should not be too patient with EPA. 

RESPONSE BY THOMAS G. NELTNER TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question. In your testimony you noted that Congress instructed EPA to issue 

rules regarding renovation and remodeling by 1996. Do you know why the previous 

administration did not comply? 

Response. EPA is in the best position to answer that question fully. I was not 

privy to EPA’s reasoning and deliberations. But I will provide my best answers to 

the question based on the public record and my understanding of the situation. 

In 1992, Congress set a rigorous rulemaking schedule for EPA to address renovation and remodeling activities. See Table 1 for specific deadlines and EPA’s progress 

in meeting those deadlines. It is clear that EPA quickly fell behind the deadlines. 

The gap increased over the years despite consistent progress. 

In the mid and late 1990’s, EPA’s progress was stymied by three new hurdles that 

Congress established in the rulemaking process. In 1995 and 1996, Congress enacted three laws that established significant requirements for agencies adopting 

major new rules. They are: 

• National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Section 12; • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Title II; and • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, Section 609. 

These new laws, especially SBREFA, forced the Federal Government to retool its 

rulemaking process resulting in delays for major new rules. The laws also imposed 

significant new burdens on the agencies for major new rules. With an estimate annual economic impact of $500 million in costs and almost ten 

times that much in annual economic benefits, the renovation and remodeling rule 

was definitely a major new rule. There is no indication that EPA under the previous 

administration received additional time or resources to comply with the new requirements. As a result, the renovation and remodeling was further delayed. When 

the retooling was complete, EPA convened the SBREFA panel in 1999 and published the SBREFA report in 2000. 

After 2000, it appears that all work on the rule stopped until EPA resumed work 

in 2005.1 EPA published the proposed rule 3 weeks after being sued by ten organizations and individuals for failure to meet the 1996 statutory deadline.2
66 

7See www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/0322.asp. 

8See www.sierraclub.org/toxics/. 

9See www.sierraclub.org/toxics/. 

10See www.leadfreewheels.org. 

3The statute only requires that these activities be completed. In the transcript of 

the first meeting of the stakeholder meeting on December 7, 1998, EPA clearly interpreted the statute as requiring that the consultation occur before the rule was 

proposed. This approach ensures more effective public participation. See 

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrmeet.pdf. 4In 1996, Congress passed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

(SBREFA) Act. This law required EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson to 

convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel before proceeding with significant 

rulemaking. EPA convened the panel on November 23, 1999 and published the report on March 3, 2000. 5In December 1998 and March 1999, it held two meetings to fulfill the requirement that it consult with key stakeholders. In the March 1999 meeting, EPA stated 

that it anticipated publishing a proposed rule before the end of 1999. See 

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/3—8—99.pdf at page 8 for comments by EPA’s Mark 

Henshall. 6In its supplement to the proposed rule in the June 5, 2007 Federal Register, EPA 

finally made the long delayed determination that it would exempt contractors working in public and commercial buildings that were not child-occupied facilities. In 

1992, Congress specifically, directed EPA to address three areas: target housing, 

public buildings constructed before 1978, and commercial buildings that create leadbased paint hazards. EPA’s initial proposal on January 10, 2006 addressed only target housing. 

RESPONSES BY THOMAS G. NELTER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. How would you assess EPA’s response to your petition that urged the 

agency to use its authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act to address 

threats from dangerous levels of lead in consumer products? 

Response. I have been involved in three petitions to EPA since 2006. We submitted these petitions pursuant to Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). They are: 

• Lead in Consumer Products: Filed by Sierra Club and Improving Kids’ Environment in April 2006. EPA denied the petition in July 2006. The petitioners filed a 

lawsuit challenging the decision in September 2006. The parties reached a settlement in April 2007 and agreed to dismiss the case in June 2007.7

• Nonylphenol Ethoxylates: Filed by Sierra Club, the Environmental Law and 

Policy Center, Physicians for Social Responsibility, UNITE HERE! and the Pacific 

Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and the Washington Toxics Coalition 

in June 2007. EPA partially denied the petition in August 2007. Five of the petitioners filed a lawsuit challenging the denial in October 2007. The case is still in 

litigation.8

• Air Fresheners: Filed by Sierra Club, National Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes and the Natural Resources Defense Council in September 

2007. EPA denied the petition in December 2007. EPA issued letters to the seven 

major manufacturers of air fresheners asking that they voluntarily submit a list of 

chemicals in their products, the range of concentrations for each chemical, the 

chemical’s function, and total annual amount used. The petitioners are considering 

their legal option.9

In December 2007, I also attended a stakeholder meeting convened by EPA as a 

follow-up to its denial of a petition by Ecology Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan in 

2005 to ban the sale of leaded wheel weights.10 These weights are used to balance 

tires. More than 50 million pounds of leaded wheel weights are sold each year with 

a significant portion ending up in the environment. EPA rejected rulemaking options to protect children from the danger of lead in these wheel weights and was 

pursing voluntary options. At this meeting, the manufacturers of the wheel weights 

and their retailers expressed a willingness to move to more costly substitutes but 

said regulations would be needed. They called for regulations and EPA indicated it 

was unable to follow through despite clear statutory authority. 

The common theme running through EPA’s responses to these petitions is that 

EPA will do whatever is necessary to deny the petition. EPA does not appear to be 

seeking to respond to important questions about threats to public health. The sole 
67 

exception is EPA’s letter to air freshener manufacturers. But these letters essentially mooted a straightforward claim that would have been resolved in subsequent 

litigation. 

EPA does not appear to seriously consider actions that it cannot be compelled to 

undertake without litigation. For example, regarding: 

• Lead in Jewelry, EPA refused to send a request to CPSC asking CPSC to undertake rulemaking regarding lead in jewelry pursuant to Section 9 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). This action is a critical first step to taking action 

under TSCA. EPA’s failure to make the request has been used as an excuse to taking subsequent action. 

• Lead in Recalled Jewelry, EPA refused to issue orders pursuant to Section 6(b) 

of TSCA. These orders would have required companies that had recalled products 

to submit their quality control procedures. With these procedures, EPA could have 

identified in 2006 the quality control problems that became apparent in 2007. EPA 

has the authority to issue rules to require improvements in quality control procedures. Due to convoluted language in TSCA, citizens cannot force EPA to issue a 

quality control rule unless it first issues quality control orders. By not issuing orders, EPA can block the citizen petitions. To the best of my knowledge, EPA has 

never issued a quality control order. 

• Air Freshener Allegations, EPA refused to ask manufacturers of air fresheners 

to report allegations by consumers of problems with their products. Manufacturers 

and importers are required to track these allegations pursuant to TSCA Section 8(c) 

and report them to EPA if EPA requests them. In a narrow interpretation of TSCA, 

EPA concluded that citizen’s could not petition it to make an 8(c) request. It could 

have made the request anyway, but apparently rejected that option. 

• Air Freshener Health and Safety Studies, EPA refused to ask manufacturers of 

air fresheners to submit unpublished health and safety studies regarding their products. EPA made this decision despite petitioners clearly meeting the TSCA ‘‘B’’ exposure findings with more than 10,000 people in the general public receiving significant exposures. EPA could have worked with the Interagency Testing Committee 

(ITC) pursuant to Section 4 of TSCA and, if the ITC agreed, issue a direct final rule 

requiring the submission of the studies. This was the approach the EPA took as part 

of its settlement with Sierra Club on lead in consumer products. It involves very 

little resources and time. 

• Lead Wheel Weights, EPA denied the petition to ban lead in wheel weights. In 

its denial, EPA identified eight areas where it needed information to undertake a 

ban. EPA could have used its information gathering authorities under TSCA to fill 

those gaps. But it did not. Instead EPA undertook a voluntary program to get lead 

wheel weights off of the market that had stakeholders scratching their heads wondering if EPA understands market dynamics and the important role that regulation 

plays in protection children from lead poisoning. 

Given EPA’s ‘‘deny-if-at-all-possible’’ approach to citizen petitions, citizens are left 

with the option of litigating EPA’s decisions. Litigation is a time-consuming and inefficient method to protect public health. 

Question 2. Does EPA have authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

that it can use, if the agency chooses, to address lead threats in children’s toys? 

Response. Yes, EPA seems reluctant to exercise its authorities under TSCA regarding lead in consumer products. Based on its testimony at the Senate Committee 

on Environment and Public Works and its handling of other petitions, EPA seems 

particularly reluctant to act regarding consumer products. 

Specifically, EPA could undertake the following actions to protect our nation’s 

children from being poisoned or killed from dangerous lead exposures: 

• Issue final Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule that is no less stringent than 

HUD’s standards. 

• Make it standard practice to order any importer or manufacturer that has a recall by CPSC involving a toxic chemical to submit to EPA their quality control procedures designed to prevent future recalls. TSCA Section 6(b)(1) 

• Order paint retailers to submit to EPA their quality control procedures to ensure that imported paint does not violate the U.S. standards for lead-based paint. 

TSCA Section 6(b) (1) 

• Order firms that handle electronic waste for recycling to submit to EPA their 

quality control procedures to ensure that the lead from the electronic waste does not 

get added to children’s products. TSCA Section 6(b)(1) 

• Undertake rulemaking to establish quality control procedures for children’s 

products importers to ensure that lead is not present in those products except in 

trace amounts. TSCA Section 6(b)(2) 
68 

• Investigate any company that has had a recall to determine whether they properly notified EPA of substantial risks posed by the lead contamination. TSCA Section 8(e) 

• Identify the overseas factories or companies that produced products subject to 

a recall for lead contamination. TSCA 8(e) Follow-up 

• Implement the recommendations of the Interagency Testing Committee regarding lead and lead compounds so that importers must report by the statutory deadline of June 14, 2007 12 months after receiving the recommendations. TSCA Section 

4 and 8(d) 

• Send a letter to importers of children’s products alerting them to their obligation to report pursuant to the ITC recommendations and to check their products if 

they used any of the overseas factories or companies that produced products subject 

to a recall for lead contamination. 

• Adopt a testing rule requiring the lead manufacturers to fund a National Institute for Health study evaluating the health implications of lead to children at levels 

below five micrograms per deciliter. TSCA Section 4 

• Adopt rules requiring companies to notify public and businesses that distribute 

these lead contaminated products of such threats and to replace or repurchase ? and 

prohibit the reselling of such products in the U.S. TSCA Section 4 and 6. 

• Issue an order that requires facilities that export electronic waste to businesses 

that make or distribute lead-contaminated substances used in children’s products 

sold in the United States to notify EPA of such exports. TSCA Sections 4 and 12. 

• Work with the Secretary of the Treasury to prohibit the importation of products 

that fail to comply with the protections described above. TSCA Section 13. 

Question 3. Please provide the committee with a list of the lead-contaminated children’s items that were before the committee during the hearing. Please include a 

description of the lead testing results for each item. 

All measurements were made using a Thermo Niton X-ray Fluorescent (XRF) device. 

• Reebok Charms: Two sets of charms. These charms have been recalled. They 

are similar to the charm that killed the child in Minnesota in 2006 thought they 

have much lower levels of lead. The lead levels in the Reebok charms varied dramatically. One charm was over CPSC’s screening level. The Chicago Health Department provided them. 

• Vinyl Bibs: One set of baby bibs with vinyl backing. The State of Illinois recalled these bibs. CPSC refused to recall them. The vinyl on the back has 1000 ppm 

lead. It was purchased from WalMart. The Chicago Health Department provided 

them. 

• CA Vinyl Lunchbox: Two sets of vinyl lunchboxes. One has English text. The 

other has Spanish text. These items were recalled. They were distributed to children 

in California by the California Department of Public Health. The vinyl on the 

English version is 900 ppm. The Spanish language one is 16,000 ppm (1.6 percent) 

lead. Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program provided them. The Center for Environmental Health originally found the problem. 

• Spiderman Lunch Box: A vinyl lunchbox. The vinyl inside is 1000 ppm. The 

Chicago Department of Health provided the lunchbox and reported that 14 

micrograms of lead could be wiped off the surface per square foot of vinyl. 

• Teething Toy: A vinyl teething toy for babies in the shape of an ear of corn. 

It was purchased at a store in Omaha, Nebraska. It has 900 ppm lead. It has not 

been recalled yet. 

• Snorkel: A plastic snorkel for children with a vinyl mouthpiece. It was purchased at a store in Omaha, Nebraska. The mouthpiece is 2000 ppm lead. It has 

not been recalled yet. 

• Math Blocks in Bag: A bag of painted plastic blocks in a vinyl bag. It was purchased at a store in Omaha, Nebraska. Two of the blocks are at 1500 ppm and 4000 

ppm lead. It has not been recalled yet. 

• Baby Einstein Blocks: A fabric and vinyl cushion in the shape of block intended 

for young children. It has painted symbols on several sides. CPSC has recalled the 

blocks. It was purchased in Nebraska block. It has well over 600 ppm lead on the 

white paint on the belly of the turtle. 

• Bendable Toys: Three plastic figures about 5’’ tall of different characters. The 

paint on the dog is 10,000 ppm lead. It is 10,000 ppm on the cat and 30,000 ppm 

on the snowman. These were found in Indiana. Libraries were giving them away 

to children who did well in reading. A Grandmother of a lead poisoned child was 

teaching kids about lead. She used a LeadCheck swab to show how the work and 

was shocked to find it came out positive. Indiana Department of Health recalled the 

items when CPSC was slow to act. CPSC later recalled them. 
69 

• Mardis Gras Beads: A chain of colorful beads commonly passed out during 

Mardis Gras to children and adults. The beads are 600 ppm lead. It was purchased 

in Minneapolis. • Hush Toy Ring: The small ring sold in vending machines. Commonly referred 

to as a hush toy in the vending machine industry. The ring has 1300 ppm lead. It 

was purchased in Minneapolis. • Jewelry: A chain of jewelry purchased from Claires. It appears that the solder 

is 30,000 ppm. • Hair clasp: A clasp for a child’s hair. It has 450,000 ppm lead—about 45 percent 

lead. • LeadCheck Swabs: A package of nine swabs commonly used to qualitatively de- termine if wipable lead is present on a toy. They are about $1.50 a piece. The vinyl 

bibs and bendable toys were found with this type of swabs. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

When I get a chance, I want to talk more about how we can help 

speed that up. 

Mr. NELTNER. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. Jacobs. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. JACOBS, PH.D., CIH, DIRECTOR OF 

RESEARCH, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTHY HOUSING 

Mr. JACOBS. Thank you. 

Much has been said in this hearing already about housing issues, 

so I don’t want to belabor the statistics. But I do want to take my 

time with you this morning to raise a warning flag about a new 

emerging lead-based paint threat to our children, and also to explore some of the lessons that we have learned in how we dealt 

with the lead problem in housing and their implications for other 

lead poisoning prevention efforts. 

If we don’t do more on the housing front, there will be literally 

millions, and I am not exaggerating, millions of children who will 

be poisoned in the decades to come. We are currently running at 

about a clip of 300,000 children a year who are poisoned, mostly 

from lead in housing stock. While we have made tremendous 

progress, much, much more remains to be done. 

In my written testimony, I give you the statistics on housing, but 

I do want to make the point that we know how to fix houses. The 

intervention effectiveness has been shown. I helped to design the 

Nation’s largest study on residential lead hazard control covering 

3,000 housing units in 14 jurisdictions across the country. Those 

kids had average blood lead levels around 10 micrograms per deciliter. We were able to reduce those blood lead levels by 38 percent 

over a 2-year period, so this works. 

If we don’t do this properly, however, we can make matters 

worse. If you take a single square foot of lead paint in a house at 

the minimum regulatory level, and sand it, turn it into dust, 

spread it over a 10 foot by 10 foot room, the resulting dust level 

is 9,300 micrograms per square foot. The current EPA standard is 

40 micrograms per square foot. In other words, a great deal of leadcontaminated dust can be released from only a small amount of 

lead paint. In my written testimony, I give some data that show 

why the current EPA dust lead standard should be and can be reduced now. 

When I was at HUD, we put a regulation in place to stop those 

sorts of dangerous renovation and remodeling activities. We 

thought, frankly, that EPA would quickly follow suit, but there is 
70 

still not a final EPA regulation. I have served with the Federal 

Government. I can tell you this sort of regulation can be done much 

more rapidly than has happened in this case. EPA should pass the 

final rule. It should not include the dangerous methods of paint removal that are allowed in the proposed regulation and it should require dust lead testing after the work has been completed to make 

sure the house is safe for children to occupy. 

Furthermore, HUD also needs to complete its own regulation for 

federally assisted housing. Right now, the single family mortgage 

insurance program is not covered. Does it make any sense for children who are living in non-HUD assisted housing to get no protection, while children who do live in HUD housing get adequate protection? That makes no sense to me. 

The low-income housing tax credit program has no lead paint requirements. Why should taxpayers be asked to subsidize houses 

that poison kids? 

I helped write the first Federal interagency strategy in 2000. 

Neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration has ever funded 

the program adequately. We provided monetary estimates on what 

it would take to clean up the Nation’s housing stock. Thankfully, 

a bipartisan consensus in the Congress with Senator Bond, Senator 

Mikulski, Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe and many, many others, 

such as Senator Jack Reed have helped to restore those funding 

levels, but it is still well below the necessary level. 

Finally, I mentioned an emerging threat. I have with me some 

paint samples from India, China and Nigeria that were provided to 

me by my colleague, Dr. Scott Clark and Dr. Sandy Roda of the 

University of Cincinnati and Drs. Eugenious and Clement 

Adebamowo. This is new residential paint that is being manufactured. This sample is from India. It has 131,000 parts per million 

of lead in it, a huge level. Remember, the limit in the U.S. is 600 

parts per million. This is a Nigerian paint sample, which has 

38,000 parts per million of lead in it. 

Now, it is bad enough that these countries are contaminating 

their own housing stock, but given our global economy it is only a 

matter of time before this paint starts washing up on our own 

shores and then we will be faced with the task of having to once 

again cleanup our Nation’s housing stock. 

So if there is a single lesson to be learned from the lead paint 

experience, it is that once we allow the uses of lead to be entered 

into commerce and issued in a dispersed form, whether it is gasoline or food canning or paint or toy jewelry, it is going to cost the 

Nation far more to manage it after the fact. There is really just no 

good reason to allow lead into these products in the first place. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobs follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. JACOBS, PH.D., CIH, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, NATIONAL

CENTER FOR HEALTHY HOUSING

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss recent developments in childhood lead 

poisoning. Today, I will present the scientific evidence demonstrating the prevalence 

of this entirely preventable problem and where it is most severe. I will show why 

housing with lead paint and the contaminated dust and soil it generates remains 

the main source of exposure for most children today in the U.S. Specifically, I will 

show how uncontrolled housing rehabilitation that disturbs lead paint and the failure to promulgate a 1992 congressionally mandated EPA regulation have harmed 
71 

1Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘‘Update: Blood Lead Levels—United States 

1991—1994,’’ Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services/Public Health Service, Vol 46, No.7, Feb 21, 1997, p. 141—146 and erratum in vol 46, 

No. 26, p. 607, July 4, 1997. Also, Brody et al., Blood lead levels in the U.S. Population: Phase 

1 of the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991, Journal of the 

American Medical Association 272(4): 277—283, July 27, 1994 and Pirkle et al., The decline in 

blood lead levels in the United States, Journal of the American Medical Association 272(4):284— 

291, July 27, 1994. 2Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Blood lead levels in young children—United 

States and Selected States, 1996—1999, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 49(50): 1133— 

1137, December 22, 2000. 3Brody D, Brown MJ, Jones RL, Jacobs DE, Homa D, Ashley PJ, Mosby JE, Schwemberger 

JG and Doa MJ. Blood Lead Levels-United States, 1999—2002, U.S. Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 54(20) 513—516, May 27, 2005. 

millions of children in years past and why action is needed to prevent millions more 

from being harmed in the decades to come. federally assisted housing has been covered by such a regulation since 1999 and such requirements can readily be extended 

to cover all children, not just those in federally assisted housing. I will also describe 

how the reappearance of new residential lead paint from Asia and Africa and other 

emerging exposures threaten the progress that has been made; the adequacy of existing standards and funding; and other matters. While the Nation has made important progress, much more remains to be done if our children are to have a future 

free of lead poisoning. 

I am the Director of Research at the National Center for Healthy Housing 

(NCHH). We have conducted numerous studies of lead hazards in housing, including 

the nation’s largest and longest-term evaluation of residential lead hazard control, 

covering 3,000 housing units in 14 jurisdictions across the country. NCHH is a national technical and scientific non-profit organization dedicated to developing and 

promoting practical measures to protect children from residential environmental 

hazards while preserving affordable housing. NCHH develops scientifically valid and 

practical strategies to make homes safe from hazards, to alert low-income families 

about housing-related health risks, and to help them protect their children. Previously, I served as the Director of the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard 

Control at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development from 1995— 

2004. I was the principal author of the first Federal interagency strategy to address 

childhood lead poisoning for the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks to Children, and I have published many scientific studies on the 

subject. I am also an adjunct associate professor at the School of Public Health at 

the University of Illinois at Chicago, a faculty associate at Johns Hopkins University and a board-certified industrial hygienist. 

TRENDS IN CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING

In 1991—94, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated 

that 890,000 children had blood lead levels greater than 10 ug/dL (micrograms of 

lead per deciliter of blood).1 The data also showed that 16 percent of low-income 

children and 21 percent of African-American children living in older housing where 

lead-based paint is most prevalent were poisoned, compared to 4.4 percent for the 

general population at the time. In December 2000, CDC provided more recent data 

showing that while some counties had prevalence rates as high as 27 percent, the 

average blood lead level in young children had declined by 25 percent from 1996— 

99.2 The data show that the problem is most severe in older housing in urban areas, 

although rural areas remain less well characterized. 

The most recent CDC published report shows a further decline. During 1999— 

2002, 310,000 children had blood lead levels above 10 ug/dL, down from 1.7 million 

in the late 1980’s.3 In addition, the racial and ethnic disparities in lead poisoning 

have been greatly reduced (but not eliminated entirely), as shown in the Figure 

below. 
72 

4National Academy of Sciences. Measuring Lead Exposure in Infants, Children, and Other 

Sensitive Populations, Report of the Committee on Measuring Lead in Critical Populations, 

Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993. 5Jacobs DE. Lead-based paint as a major source of childhood lead poisoning: A review of the 

evidence. In: Lead in Paint, Soil and Dust: Health Risks, Exposure Studies, Control Measures 

and Quality Assurance (Beard ME and Iske SDA, eds). Philadelphia: ASTM STP 1226, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1995;175—187.; Also: McElvaine MD, DeUngria EG, 

Matte TD, Copley CG, Binder S. Prevalence of radiographic evidence of paint chip ingestion 

among children with moderate to severe lead poisoning, St. Louis, Missouri, 1989—90, Pediatrics 89:740—742 (1992). Also: Clark CS, Bornschein R, Succop P, Roda S, Peace B. Urban lead 

exposures of children in Cincinnati, Ohio, Journal of Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability, 

3(3/4):163—171 (1). 6President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead-based paint Hazards. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, February 2000. 7HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead Based Paint Hazards in Housing. 

1995. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington DC, Chapter 4. 

(Figure above is reproduced from reference 3.) 

The reason for this improvement is that the Nation took action. Congress and government agencies mandated that lead exposures from lead solder in food and infant 

formula canning, gasoline and new residential and toy paint were eliminated. Lead 

in air emissions, occupational exposures and water all were controlled and older 

housing with lead paint is continually being rehabilitated, abated or demolished. 

Studies of the numerous (but often subtle and asymptomatic) harmful effects of lead 

were completed and a consensus emerged, reflected in a major report from the National Academy of Sciences.4 All of these actions have caused average blood lead levels to decline by over 90 percent since the 1980’s, an achievement that ranks as one 

the nation’s most successful public health stories. Yet if no further action is taken, 

the current rate of childhood lead poisoning, now numbering nearly 300,000 children 

each year, means that literally millions of children will be unnecessarily poisoned 

in the decades to come. The means and methods to solve this long-running problem 

are known and Congress should act. 

HOUSING IS THE LARGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF

CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING

The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that the major high dose source for most 

children in the U.S. today is existing lead-based paint in older housing and the contaminated dust and soil it generates.5,6 The existing limit for lead in new residential 

house paint set by the Consumer Product Safety Commission in the U.S. is 600 

parts per million (ppm). But older paints already coating surfaces in housing can 

be more than 500,000 ppm. These older paints can produce extraordinarily high levels of lead dust, exceeding 9,300 micrograms of lead per square foot (•g/ft2) from 

only a single square foot of lead paint in an average sized room.7 This is much, 

much higher than the existing EPA dust lead standard of 40 •g/ft2. And it is also 
73 

8Jacobs DE and Nevin R. Validation of a Twenty-Year Forecast of U.S. Childhood Lead Poisoning: Updated Prospects for 2010, Environ Res 102(3) 352—364, Nov 2006. 9Jacobs DE, Clickner RL, Zhou JL, Viet SM, Marker DA, Rogers JW, Zeldin DC, Broene P 

and W. Friedman. The Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing, Environ 

Health Perspect 110:A599-A606, Sept 13, 2002. Also see HUD, National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing, 2001 (available at www.hud.gov/offices/lead). 1024 CFR Part 35 

why existing lead paint needs urgent attention and must be addressed with great 

care. 

The evidence that housing with lead paint hazards is the main problem comes 

from several sources. Together with others, I recently published a study showing 

that the reduction in childhood lead poisoning from 1990 to the present can be 

largely explained by trends in housing demolition, window replacement and other 

renovation, and lead paint abatement.8 If housing were not the main contributor, 

then demolition, window replacement and abatement trends would not have tracked 

the trend in childhood lead poisoning as closely as it actually has. 

Furthermore, a HUD survey of the nation’s housing stock (conducted in 2000) 

shows that the estimated number of homes with lead paint declined from 64 million 

in 1990 to 38 million in 2000, out of a total of about 100 million houses. But of the 

38 million housing units with lead paint, 24 million still have significant lead hazards in the form of deteriorated lead paint, contaminated dust, or contaminated bare 

soil. Over five million of these houses have children under the age of 6, and 1.6 million have low-income families with children under 6, the population most at risk. 

Forty-one percent of low-income housing has lead paint hazards, compared to 18 

percent of middle and upper income housing.9 In short, these housing data are consistent with blood lead surveillance data. The problem is well-defined and the 

houses likely to pose problems are well-known. 

NO REGULATION OF HOUSING BEING RENOVATED OR REPAINTED

The data also show that the problem is severe in housing undergoing rehabilitation, repair or painting that disturbs lead-based paint, creating dust and soil hazards. Consider the following tragic case study: 

(The following description of the Marino case report is reproduced from the HUD 

Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead Based Paint Hazards in Housing, 

Chapter 4.) 

HUD issued a regulation that controlled exposures from federally assisted housing 

undergoing renovation, repair or painting (as well as other forms of assistance). The 

regulation was issued in 1999, had a 1-year phase-in period and finally took full effect in 2001.10 The experience with the HUD regulation shows that renovation and 

repair work can be done safely and is feasible and effective. But of course it only 
74 

11Nevin R, Weitz S, Jacobs DE. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Rule on LeadBased Paint Hazard Evaluation and Reduction for federally Supported Housing, ICF Corporation, Washington DC, September 8, 1995, final Economic Analysis published in September, 1999. 12Title X of the 1992 Housing and Community Development Act. 13Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair and Painting Proposed Rule. Feb 2006. http:// 

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrp—nprm—ea—revised.pdf. 14National Center for Healthy Housing, Comments Regarding Dangerous Work Practices in 

EPA’s Proposed Regulation on Renovation, Repair and Painting. EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT— 

2005—0049, March 24, 2006. Available at: http://www.nchh.org/NCHH—Comment—Dangerous—Work—Practices—Final—3—24—06.pdf. 15Jacobs DE. Occupational Exposures to Lead-Based Paint in Structural Steel Demolition and 

Residential Renovation, International Journal of Environment and Pollution 9:1 126—139, 

Inderscience Enterprises, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 

Switzerland, 1998. 16Jacobs DE, Mielke H, Pavur N. The High Cost of Improper Lead-Based Paint Removal, Env 

Health Perspectives 111:185—186, 2003. 17Comments from NCHH on Two New Studies in the EPA Docket, April 16, 2007. Available 

at: http://www.nchh.org/Comment—on—EPA—and—NAHB—Studies—Final—4—15—07.pdf. 18HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing, 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington DC, 1995. 19Wilson J, Pivetz T, Ashley PJ, Strauss W, Jacobs DE, Menkedick J, Dixon S, Tsai HC, and 

V. Brown, Evaluation of HUD-Funded Lead Hazard Control Treatments at Six Years Post-Intervention, Environ Res. 102(2) 237—48 Oct 2006. 

covers federally assisted housing, which is only a small fraction of the houses at 

risk. The cost of implementing that regulation in its first year was approximately 

$253 million, but the benefits were a minimum of $1.1 billion, yielding a net benefit 

of at least $890 million in the first year alone.11 It is worth noting that the U.S. 

Office of Management and Budget approved the economic analysis accompanying 

the HUD regulation. 

There was every expectation that EPA would quickly follow suit in 2000 and regulate renovation, remodeling and painting activities in housing that does not receive 

Federal assistance, as required by Congress in 1992.12 Yet it is now 11 years after 

Congress required that this rule be passed, and neither the Clinton nor the Bush 

administrations have issued a final regulation. EPA’s own estimate is that the regulation would protect 1.1 million children each year. 

The question now before us is simply this: Why should children living in unassisted housing receive no protection, while those living in federally assisted housing 

are protected? All children should be able to live in homes without lead hazards. 

The net economic benefits of EPA’s regulation are even larger than those associated with the HUD regulation, because the EPA regulation covers more housing 

units. The current estimates are that the EPA regulation achieves net benefits of 

between $2.6 billion to $7.5 billion annually.13 In short, the EPA regulation makes 

both good policy and good economic sense. 

The evidence that uncontrolled housing renovation, repair and painting activities 

cause lead poisoning is overwhelming. NCHH and others have reviewed this extensive evidence base in earlier testimony provided to EPA.14 The administration did 

finally propose a regulation covering these activities nearly 2 years ago, but only 

after bipartisan pressure from Congress. However, the proposed regulation is badly 

flawed. The proposed regulation would allow dangerous methods of removing lead 

paint, such as power sanding, abrasive blasting, and burning. All of these methods 

are now prohibited in federally assisted housing and in many local jurisdictions, because they create extraordinarily high levels of lead dust that is virtually impossible 

to clean up and pose large exposures to workers (one of my studies showed that 

workers engaged in these activities have exposures to lead of 11,000 micrograms per 

cubic meter, well above the OSHA limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter).15 When 

these practices are permitted, the cost of cleaning up a single house has been shown 

to be nearly $200,000.16 The cost of doing this work safely is a tiny fraction of that. 

The proposed regulation would also implement cleaning methods that research 

has found to be ineffective17 and an entirely unproven lead dust testing method at 

the end of the job to ensure the dwelling is safe for children to occupy. There are 

established cleaning and lead dust testing procedures18 that are known to achieve 

very low dust lead levels, up to 6 years following the repairs.19 In particular, dust 

testing after the work has been completed is essential to ensuring that cleaning has 

been adequate. Without dust testing, many houses will contain high levels of lead 

dust, which is not necessarily visible to the naked eye. The absence of dust testing 

places children unnecessary risk. 

Recently, the National Center for Healthy Housing worked with the National Association of Home Builders to once again prove that uncontrolled methods of paint 
75 

20Comments from NCHH on Two New Studies in the EPA Docket, April 16, 2007. Available 

at: http://www.nchh.org/Comment—on—EPA—and—NAHB—Studies—Final—4—15—07.pdf. 21National Center for Healthy Housing, Analysis of Lead-Safe Weatherization Practices and 

the Presence of Lead in Weatherized Homes, March 14, 2007. Available at: http://www.nchh.org/ 

html/doe—study.htm. 22Jacobs DE. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention 

Final Report, Prepared for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Contract 200—2006- 

M—18771, April 15, 2007. 23Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy, President’s Task Force on Children’s Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, Washington DC (March 2000). Available 

at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/reports/fedstrategy.cfm. 

removal and housing renovation result in very high dust lead levels.20 The evidence 

is clear that renovation, repair and painting can produce high dust lead levels. The 

Administration should quickly promulgate a final, responsible regulation to eliminate excessive exposures caused by lead from housing renovation, repair and painting and should follow the procedures already in place in the HUD regulation. 

The EPA regulation would also cover weatherization programs. These programs 

often disturb lead-based paint and create lead dust hazards. NCHH, in collaboration 

with Oak Ridge National Laboratories, recently completed a study for the Department of Energy. The study showed that between 29 percent and 70 percent of the 

floors in the nearly 60 houses studied had higher dust lead levels following weatherization than before the work began or were above the existing EPA dust lead standards after the work was completed.21 This means that improved cleanup measures 

and dust testing after the work has been completed are needed (DOE does not currently require lead dust testing after the work is finished, unlike the other Federal 

programs). Families receiving weatherization assistance should not have their children inadvertently poisoned in the process. 

INCOMPLETE HUD REGULATION

It is worth noting that the HUD regulation remains incomplete. Only one HUD 

housing program remains that did not incorporate modern lead hazard control 

methods and was not covered in 1999, but it is an important one—the single family 

mortgage insurance program. A section of the HUD regulation is reserved for final 

action for this program (24 CFR Part 35, Subpart E), but no such action has been 

forthcoming since 1999. 

Why should children who live in housing with multi-family mortgage insurance 

be covered, while children who live in housing with single-family mortgage insurance remain unprotected? HUD should finalize its regulation so that all children in 

federally assisted housing are protected. 

THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM

Furthermore, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, which is perhaps the 

Federal Government’s largest housing construction and rehabilitation program, does 

not have explicit lead-based paint requirements. This means that approximately 

14,000 housing units are rehabilitated each year without regard to lead-based paint 

hazards.22

Taxpayers should not be subsidizing housing rehabilitation that could poison children. 

FUNDING

In 2000, the Federal Government estimated that a minimum of $2.4 billion would 

be needed to address lead paint hazards in housing. To date, less than half of that 

amount has actually appropriated. Indeed, although housing remains the most important source of exposure to lead for most children today in the U.S., major funding 

reductions have been proposed for the past several years by this Administration. For 

example, last year the President proposed only $115 million for HUD’s lead hazard 

control and healthy homes program, well below the $175 million appropriated in recent years, out of a total HUD budget of over $30 billion. A long-standing bipartisan 

congressional coalition has consistently resisted these reductions and restored some 

of the funding. Yet funding still remains well below the levels needed to eliminate 

the problem by 2010, a goal that has been embraced in theory by this Administration and previous ones.23 Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations have ever 

proposed full funding of the Federal Government’s lead poisoning prevention activities in housing. 
76 

24Lanphear et al. Lanphear BP, Matte TD, Rogers J, Clickner RP, Dietz B, Bornschein RL, 

Succop P, Mahaffey KR, Dixon S, Galke W, Rabinowitz M, Farfel M, Rohde C, Schwartz J, Ashley P, Jacobs DE. The Contribution of Lead-Contaminated House Dust and Residential Soil to 

Children’s Blood Lead Levels: A Pooled Analysis of 12 Epidemiologic Studies, Env. Research, 

79:51—68, 1998. 2524 CFR Part 35 (HUD) and 42 CFR Part 745 (EPA). 26National Center for Healthy Housing, Study of HUD’s Risk Assessment Methodology in 

Three US Communities, Final Report, June 30, 2006. 27Jacobs DE, Clickner RL, Zhou JY, Viet SM, Marker DA, Rogers JW, Zeldin DC, Broene P 

and Friedman W. The Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing, Environ Health 

Perspect 110:A599-A606, Sept 13, 2002. And: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Survey of Lead and Allergens, Volume 1, Analysis of Lead Hazards, Prepared 

by Westat, Oct 31, 2002 Jacobs EHP and HUD report. 28Wilson J, Pivetz T, Ashley PJ, Strauss W, Jacobs DE, Menkedick J, Dixon S, Tsai HC, and 

Brown V. Evaluation of HUD-Funded Lead Hazard Control Treatments at Six Years Post-Intervention, Environ Res. 102(2) 237—48 with Oct 2006. 29National Center for Healthy Housing. 2004. Evaluation of the HUD Lead Hazard Control 

Grant Program, Final Report, National Center for Healthy Housing and University of Cincinnati, Columbia, MD. 

Furthermore, there have been reductions in funding for important lead poisoning 

prevention programs at CDC and EPA, which are also hampering the nation’s efforts to address the problem. 

The Federal programs need to be fully funded if they are to be effective in protecting the nation’s children. 

EXISTING STANDARDS

Lead Dust 

Lead-contaminated settled dust is known to be a major exposure pathway and its 

effect on children’s blood lead has been demonstrated in numerous studies that have 

been analyzed elsewhere.24 In 1999 and 2001 respectively, the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established lead dust standards for the home environment.25 Generally, the standards 

were based on three criteria: 

• Health and the relationship between dust lead and children’s blood lead; 

• Feasibility of meeting and maintaining compliance with the standards; and 

• Laboratory detection (reporting) limit capabilities. 

Below, I present new evidence for each of these three considerations, which suggests the dust lead standards can and should be lowered. 

The EPA and HUD standard for dust lead on floors was set to protect 95 percent 

of children from developing a blood lead level equal or greater than 15 •g/dL (the 

environmental intervention level established by CDC in 1991), holding all other 

measured exposures (e.g., soil, dust, water) to their national averages (blood lead 

levels are discussed further below). The EPA and HUD floor dust lead standard is 

40 micrograms of lead per square foot of floor (•g/ft2). 

After the HUD and EPA standards were promulgated, we published a study showing that a floor dust lead level equal or less than 15 •g/ft2 achieved the highest specificity and sensitivity (77 percent and 58 percent, respectively), suggesting that such 

a standard would be both most protective of health and at the same time be least 

likely to produce false cause for concern.26

Furthermore, new evidence has emerged that a lower dust lead level is feasible 

in today’s housing. New national estimates of the prevalence of lead dust in US 

housing were published in 2002.27 That study showed that only 5 percent of homes 

had dust lead levels above 13 •g/ft2 and the geometric mean was only 1 •g/ft2. In 

addition, new data from high-risk houses that were examined 6 years after hazard 

control was completed showed that dust lead levels on floors continued to decline, 

reaching a geometric mean of only 4.8 •g/sq ft.28 In high-risk houses enrolled in the 

large-scale Evaluation of the HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant program (which was 

conducted in the mid-to-late 1990’s), the median dust lead level immediately following lead hazard control work was 17 •g/ft,2 which declined to a median level of 

14 •g/ft2 1 year later.29 In the preamble to its regulations, HUD and EPA stated 

that this demonstrated the feasibility of both meeting and continuing to maintain 

compliance with a floor lead dust standard of 40 •g/ft.2. 

But the new data now show that this standard is obviously well above the average 

level in high risk homes, and also greatly above the average level in all U.S. housing. Together, these data demonstrate that a dust lead standard of equal or less 

than 15 •g/ft2 is feasible. 
77 

30Personal Communication, S. Roda, University of Cincinnati Lead Reference Laboratory, 

2007. 31Maryland Annotated Code 26.02.07. 32U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on Identification of Lead-Based Paint Hazards; Notice. Federal Register Vol 60 No. 175 Sept 11, 1995 p. 47248. 33Preventing Lead Poisoning In Young Children: A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 1991. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/books/ 

plpyc/contents.htm. 34A Review of the Evidence of Health Effects of Blood Lead Levels ? 10 •g/dL, Feb 23, 2004. 

Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/meetingMinutes/lessThan10MtgMAR04.pdf. 35Canfield, Richard L., Christopher R. Henderson, Deborah Cory-Slechta, C. Cox, Todd A. 

Jusko, and Bruce P. Lanphear 2003. Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead levels 

below 10 ?g/dL. The New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 1517—1522 and Lanphear et al. 

2005. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children’s intellectual function: An international pooled analysis Env Health Perspectives 113:894—899. 36Nevin R, Jacobs DE, Berg M, Cohen J. Monetary benefits of preventing childhood lead poisoning with lead-safe window replacement, Environ Res (accepted, in press). 

The final issue is whether or not a lower floor dust lead level can be measured 

reliably. A method detection limit used by laboratories should be lower than a regulatory standard to ensure measurement reliability and avoid the possibility that a 

level above the standard is due to laboratory or sampling error and not actual noncompliance with the standard. At the time the HUD and EPA standards were promulgated, many analytical laboratories used a method detection limit of 25 •g per 

sample, so HUD and EPA stated that a standard of 40 •g/ft2 could be measured reliably, since laboratories could measure levels well below the standard. Laboratories 

have since improved and most laboratories today use a detection limit of only 3— 

5 •g/sample.30

Together, this evidence shows that lead dust loadings at the existing Federal 

standard for floors of equal or less than 40 •g/ft2 produces harm in too many children and that lower levels are both feasible and can be reliably measured as new 

research and technology have advanced in the years since the 1999 HUD and 2001 

EPA standards were promulgated. By reducing the allowable floor dust lead loading 

from equal or less than 40 •g/ft2 to equal or less than 15 •g/ft2 , the percentage of 

children who would be protected from developing a blood lead level equal or greater 

than 15 •g/dL would be cut in half, from 4.7 percent to 2.1 percent. Because no safe 

level of exposure to lead has been established, dust lead levels should be kept as 

low as possible. 

Historically, allowable dust lead standards have been reduced, as research has 

progressed. In the early 1990’s, Maryland enacted a floor lead dust standard of 

equal or less thatn 200 •g/sq ft.31 EPA issued guidance in 1995 lowering the floor 

dust lead standard to equal or less than 100 •g/sq ft.32 And in 1999—2001, HUD 

and EPA promulgated a floor dust lead standard of equal or less than 40 •g/ft,2 

which has since remained unchanged. 

In short, the evidence supports a further reduction in the lead dust standard. The 

evidence shows that a standard of 15 •g/ft2 or lower for floors will reduce harm to 

children significantly and is both feasible and measurable. 

Blood Lead Levels 

The preceding discussion of dust lead standards is based on protecting children 

from developing a blood lead level that would require an intervention under current 

CDC Guidelines and HUD regulations, which were developed in 1991 and 1999, respectively. It should be noted that the Federal environmental intervention level is 

above the CDC level of concern, which is equal or greater than 10 •g/dL. 

Importantly, the CDC level of concern was not established to be a ‘‘safe’’ or ‘‘normal’’ level, although some have used it in this fashion. As early as 1991, CDC reported that adverse health effects could be seen at blood lead levels below 10 •g/ 

dL.33 More recent evidence from multiple studies, reviewed by CDC itself, has confirmed the 1991 CDC Statement that no safe level of lead exposure has been 

found.34,35

Physicians and other medical professionals have in recent years suggested that 

CDC should lower its current blood lead level of concern. While the level of concern 

has declined over the years from 60 •g/dL to 30 •g/dL to 25 •g/dL to the current level 

of 10 •g/dL, I believe that further reductions are unlikely to actually help prevent 

exposures. This is because blood lead levels should not be used to trigger exposure 

prevention. Instead of waiting for a child to produce a blood lead level of 2, 5, 10, 

or 15 •g/dL (or any other level), we should eliminate exposures before harm occurs. 

Quite simply, this means that we should not wait for a child’s blood lead level to 

increase before taking action. Primary prevention (taking action to prevent expo-
78 

37Jacobs DE, Clickner RL, Zhou JL, Viet SM, Marker DA, Rogers JW, Zeldin DC, Broene P 

and W. Friedman. The Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing, Environ 

Health Perspect 110:A599-A606, Sept 13, 2002. 38Nevin R and Jacobs DE. Windows of Opportunity: Lead Poisoning Prevention, Housing Affordability and Energy Conservation, Housing Policy Debate 17(1): 185—207, 2006. 39Clark CS, et al. 2006. The lead content of currently available residential paint in several 

Asian countries. Environ Res 102: 9—12. 40Adebamowo EB, et al. 2007. Lead content of dried films of domestic paint currently sold in 

Nigeria. Science of the Total Environ. Article in Press. Available on line at 

www.sciencedirect.com. 41KK Berg et al. 2006. Death of a child after ingestion of a metallic charm. Morbidity and 

Mortality Weekly Report 55(12) 340—341. 

sure) is much more important than adherence to a medical approach that is limited 

to treating children only after they have been harmed. The nation should be testing 

and abating houses and other sources to prevent exposure, not just use children as 

detectors of lead problems. In order to avoid the perception that a blood lead level 

of 10 •g/dL or 5 •g/dL is ‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘safe,’’ CDC and other medical authorities 

might considering labeling blood lead levels between 2 and 10 •g/dL what they really 

are: ‘‘above average.’’ 

The important point is that all exposures should be kept as low as possible, because no safe level of exposure to lead has been established. 1Lead-Safe 

Window Replacement 

Together with colleagues, I have recently published a study showing that window 

replacement is particularly important. Specifically, replacing single-pane windows in 

older housing (nearly all such windows are known to have lead paint) will achieve 

net benefits of at least $67 billion over 10 years.36 Window replacement has 

emerged as a major form of controlling lead-based paint hazards, because more than 

any other building component, windows are known to contain the highest levels of 

lead paint and lead-contaminated dust.37 The benefits come from reduced childhood 

lead poisoning, lower utility bills from heating and cooling, and increased market 

value. Yet energy conservation professionals often fail to recommend window replacement with energy-efficient windows, and lead hazard control programs are 

often unable to afford this expense in light of reduced funding. In short, a lead-safe 

window replacement incentive can make a major impact on preventing childhood 

lead poisoning, while also achieving improved energy conservation and increased 

home value—all at the same time.38

Federal energy, environmental, and housing policies, together with local utility 

programs and policies should be modified to encourage homeowners and others to 

replace lead contaminated windows with new energy-efficient ones. 

EMERGING THREATS

The nation is now faced with emerging exposures that threaten the progress we 

have made. New residential lead-based paint is now being manufactured in several 

Asian countries39 and in Nigeria40 and likely elsewhere. The concentrations of lead 

in these paints is enormous, exceeding 100,000 parts per million (ppm). By comparison, the existing US standard for lead in residential paint is 600 ppm. 

It is bad enough that these countries are contaminating their own houses and 

putting their own workers and children at great risk. But in today’s global economy, 

it is only a matter of time before these products appear in the U.S., re-contaminating the very houses that taxpayers and parents have already spent billions 

cleaning up. 

The table below presents some of the recent data collected by my colleague, Dr. 

Scott Clark from the University of Cincinnati, and his co-workers. The table is reproduced from reference 39. 
79 

41KK Berg et al. 2006. Death of a child after ingestion of a metallic charm. Morbidity and 

Mortality Weekly Report 55(12) 340—341. 

These emerging threats are not limited to paint. Lead contaminated toy jewelry 

has already caused deaths in at least one child41 and has likely exposed many others. There is no reason for lead to be used in any children’s product, including plastic toys. Other non-toxic stabilizers and additives can and should be used, as has 

been done in house paint here in the U.S. 

This does not mean that all uses of lead should be eliminated. Some applications 

have important uses and can be properly managed. Shielding around X-ray machines and use in batteries that are required to be recycled are two such examples. 

CONCLUSION

Lead paint in housing remains the largest and most significant source of exposure 

for U.S. children today. Programs to address this problem should be fully funded 

and regulations should be promulgated to prevent exposures from housing renovation, repair and painting. 

If there is one lesson from the nation’s experience with lead poisoning, it is simply 

this: 

Once non-essential uses of lead are permitted to enter commerce in dispersed 

forms such as paint, gasoline, food canning, toys and others, it is very difficult to 

prevent exposure or to manage it after the fact. It is far more costly to clean up 

the contamination than to prevent it at the outset. Government policies should prevent all non-essential uses of lead, especially the emerging use of lead in new house 

paint from other countries. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Require EPA to promulgate a responsible and effective regulation to prevent 

lead exposures from housing renovation, repair, painting and weatherization without further delay. Authorize a program to stimulate the replacement of old singlepane windows in older housing, which will achieve net benefits of at least $67 billion over 10 years in lead poisoning prevention, reduced energy consumption, and 

increased home market value. 

2. For the first time, fully fund Federal lead poisoning prevention programs at 

EPA, CDC and HUD. These programs have been proven to work. The Administration’s repeated attempt to reduce funding in recent years has been rebuffed by a 

bi-partisan consensus in Congress, but funding still remains well below the recognized need. 

3. Mandate that the Consumer Product Safety Commission and other agencies 

with regulatory authority over international trade take steps to prevent new residential lead-based paint and other lead-contaminated consumer products from being 

manufactured for U.S corporations or imported. Provide the CPSC and other agencies with adequate resources to carry this out. 

4. Initiate actions to eliminate all non-essential uses of lead. 

5. Require HUD to complete its lead regulations by modernizing its lead requirements for single family housing mortgage insurance (24 CFR Part 35, Subpart E.) 

6. Require EPA to reduce the floor dust lead standard to 15 •g/ft2 or less. Such 

a reduction will protect more children, is feasible, and is measurable. 

7. Require the Department of Energy to improve cleaning methods and to conduct 

clearance dust lead testing after weatherization work that disturbs lead-based paint. 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

1Preventing Lead Poisoning In Young Children: A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 2005. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/ 

PrevLeadPoisoning.pdf 2Preventing Lead Exposure in Young Children: A Housing-Based Approach to Primary Prevention, October 2004. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/Primary 

percent20Prevention percent20Document.pdf 3Preventing Lead Poisoning In Young Children: A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 1991. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/books/ 

plpyc/contents.htm 4Preventing Lead Poisoning In Young Children: A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 2005. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/ 

PrevLeadPoisoning.pdf 5Canfield, Richard L., Christopher R. Henderson, Deborah Cory-Slechta, C. Cox, Todd A. 

Jusko, and Bruce P. Lanphear 2003. Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead levels 

below 10 ug/dL. The New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 1517—1522 and Lanphear et al. 

2005. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children’s intellectual function: An international pooled analysis Env Health Perspectives 113:894—899. 

RESPONSES BY DAVID E. JACOBS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. Dr. Jacobs, there is a statement by the CDC that said, ‘‘Efforts to 

identify and provide services to children with blood lead levels less than 10 

micrograms per deciliter may deflect needed resources from children with higher 

blood levels who are likely to benefit most from individualized intervention.’’ I guess 

what I would like to know, and this would be fine to do for the record, do you agree 

with the statement? And then, should we focus or should we not focus our resources 

on those kids with the greatest risk? That would be one. 

Response. A long-standing public health principle is that those with the worst 

conditions should be treated first and most intensively, which means that resources 

should be focused on those with the greatest need. Our public health workforce has 

become adept at triage to accomplish this. However, a medical approach where 

treatment is triggered by a clinical blood lead test is not effective for the vast majority of children today, because the key is to prevent blood lead levels from increasing 

in the first place. Of course, for some children who have very high blood lead levels, 

rapid medical intervention is needed and CDC has established guidance for those 

medical procedures at various blood lead levels. In short, there is no single ‘‘CDC 

level.’’ 

Environmental interventions, such as controlling lead paint hazards in a child’s 

home, are entirely different than medical treatment. CDC’s position clearly calls for 

‘‘a systematic and society wide effort to control or eliminate lead hazards in children’s environments before they are exposed?and is clearly the foremost action’’1 It 

is noteworthy that this statement applies to all children, not only to children with 

a certain blood lead level. Together with Dr. Pat McLaine from the National Center 

for Healthy Housing and others, I worked with CDC to publish an official statement 

on the importance of primary prevention in housing.2 A part of this exposure prevention effort ensures that homes undergoing renovation, repair or painting do not 

create lead exposures in the process. The idea that the long-delayed EPA regulation 

covering these activities would inadvertently create more incentives for do-ityourselfers to do the work unsafely, instead of trained and regulated construction 

workers is without merit. Similar fears were expressed when HUD promulgated its 

regulation covering renovation in federally assisted housing. Despite fears expressed 

by homebuilders and others, there is no evidence that the HUD regulation caused 

an increase in unsafe work by do-it-yourselfers. 

The CDC level of concern of 10 ug/dL was not established to be a ‘‘safe’’ or ‘‘normal’’ level or a level below which nothing needs to be done, although some have erroneously used it in this fashion. As early as 1991, CDC reported that adverse 

health effects could be seen at blood lead levels below 10 ug/dL.3 More recent evidence from multiple studies, reviewed by CDC itself as recently as 2005,4 has confirmed again the 1991 CDC Statement that no safe level of lead exposure has been 

found.5 A further review of this evidence is unlikely to yield any new fresh insights. 

In recent years, a few physicians and other medical professionals have suggested 

that CDC should lower its current blood lead level of concern. While this level has 

declined over the years from 60 ug/dL to 30 ug/dL to 25 ug/dL to the current level 

of 10 ug/dL, blood lead levels should not be used to trigger exposure prevention. Instead of waiting for a child to produce a blood lead level of 2, 5, 10, or 15 ug/dL 

(or any other level), the Nation should eliminate exposures before harm occurs. 

Quite simply, this means that we should not wait for a child’s blood lead level to 

increase before taking action. This is consistent with CDC’s position. The idea that 

CDC recommends no action at blood lead levels below 10 ug/dL is incorrect. In fact, 
93 

6Binns HJ, Campbell C, Brown MJ, Interpreting and Managing Blood Lead Levels of Less 

Than 10 ug/dL in Children and Reducing Childhood Exposure to Lead: Recommendations of the 

Centers For Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning 

Prevention. Pediatrics 120 (3) e1285-e1298. Nov 2007. 1Nevin R, Jacobs DE, Berg M, Cohen J. Monetary benefits of preventing childhood lead poisoning with lead-safe window replacement, Environ Res, (Accepted Sept 6, 2007, Available on 

line. doi: 10:1016/j.envres 2007.09.003). 2Binns HJ, et al. 2007. Interpreting and Managing Blood Lead Levels Less Than 10 ug/dL 

in Children and Reducing Childhood Exposure to Lead. Pediatrics 120; e1285-e-1298. Available 

at: http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/120/5/e1285 3Binns HJ, et al. 2007. Interpreting and Managing Blood Lead Levels Less Than 10 ug/dL 

in Children and Reducing Childhood Exposure to Lead. Pediatrics 120; e1285-e-1298. Available 

at: http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/120/5/e1285 

CDC has recently published guidance on what actions need to be taken at blood lead 

levels below 10 ug/dL.6 Primary prevention (taking action to prevent exposure) is 

much more important than adherence to a medical approach that is limited to treating children only after they have been harmed. We should not use children as detectors of lead problems and we must not wait until children’s blood lead levels increase. Instead, the Nation should be testing and abating houses and other sources 

of lead to prevent exposure, and focusing resources on where the exposures are 

greatest. 

Question 2. Dr. Jacobs, you have conducted numerous studies that suggest housing is the biggest source of childhood lead exposure in your testimony, you say that 

the nation should be testing and abating houses to identify lead problems. Is focusing on the housing problem the best way to get the biggest bang for our buck? If 

we could do one thing inside of a home to reduce lead paint exposure, what would 

it be? 

Response. In my written testimony, I have provided references to numerous studies demonstrating that for most children in the U.S. today, exposure to residential 

lead-based paint hazards constitutes the greatest threat of lead poisoning. Most 

housing still remains untested and unabated in this country. For individual children, of course, exposures to other sources of lead, some of which can be quite severe 

and even fatal, are critically important and therefore must be promptly addressed. 

Generally speaking, focusing on housing with lead paint does remain the best way 

to get the biggest bang for our buck, because that is where most exposures to lead 

are the greatest. We must focus on housing, while also retaining and expanding the 

public health capacity to respond to other important lead exposure sources. Within 

housing, lead-safe window replacement is likely to be the best one thing we could 

do to reduce lead paint exposure.1

Question 3. The CDC has stated that ‘‘Efforts to identify and provide services to 

children with blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter may deflect 

needed resources from children with higher blood lead levels who are likely to benefit most from individualized interventions.’’ Do you agree with this statement? 

Shouldn’t we focus our resources on those kids with greatest risk? 

Response. The CDC level of 10 ug/dL was not established to be a ‘‘safe’’ or ‘‘normal’’ level, although some have used it in this fashion. In fact, CDC, together with 

the American Academy of Pediatrics, has recently published new guidance on what 

actions should be taken at blood lead levels less than 10 ug/dL.2 Sound public health 

practice requires that those with the highest exposures or worst conditions be treated first, as any visitor to a hospital emergency room knows. Yes, resources must 

be focused on children at greatest risk and we should provide additional resources 

so that no child is placed at excessive risk The essential point is that blood lead 

levels should not be used to trigger exposure prevention. Instead of waiting for a 

child to produce a blood lead level of 2, 5, 10, or 15 ug/dL (or any other level), we 

should eliminate exposures before harm occurs. Quite simply, this means that we 

should not wait for a child’s blood lead level to increase before taking action. Primary prevention (taking action to prevent exposure) is much more important than 

adherence to a medical approach that is limited to treating children only after they 

have been harmed. The nation should be testing and abating houses and other 

sources to prevent exposure, not just use children as detectors of a lead problem. 

Question 4. Does CDC suggest that blood lead levels below 10 are acceptable? 

Response. No, CDC does not in fact suggest that blood lead levels below 10 ug/ 

dL are ‘‘acceptable’’ or ‘‘normal.’’ In fact, CDC recommends that clinicians and others 

take specific actions when blood lead levels are below 10 ug/dL.3 If such blood lead 

levels were in fact ‘‘acceptable,’’ CDC would not recommend specific interventions. 
94 

124 CFR Part 35.140 

RESPONSE BY DAVID E. JACOBS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question. Please describe whether you believe that EPA’s lead paint renovation 

rulemaking makes adequate use of recent scientific studies that demonstrate risks 

to children’s health from blood lead levels below 10 micrograms per decilter? 

Response. The EPA proposed regulation on renovation, repairs and painting estimated the large net benefits of such a regulation to children with blood lead levels 

both above and below 10 ug/dL using recent scientific studies, although the economic benefits estimated by EPA are likely to greatly underestimate the true benefits. The proposed regulation is not triggered by a child with a particular blood lead 

level, which I believe is the correct approach. Instead, the proposed regulation is 

properly triggered by certain events in housing that could disturb existing leadbased paint, regardless of blood lead level. But, EPA has not used available scientific studies in the proposed regulation that show certain paint removal methods, 

such as open flame burning and power sanding, must not be used; HUD has already 

banned these paint removal methods in federally assisted housing in 1999.1 EPA 

has also not used available scientific studies demonstrating that dust lead testing 

following cleanup, i.e., clearance testing, must be done to ensure the housing is safe 

at the conclusion of the work. Finally, EPA has not used the available scientific 

studies to modernize its lead dust standard, which of course is the subject of a separate, but related regulation. EPA should not establish a regulation based solely on 

a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. 

Senator BOXER. That was very powerful testimony. 

Ms. Farrow. 

STATEMENT OF OLIVIA FARROW, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, 

CITY OF BALTIMORE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

Ms. FARROW. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the Committee. On behalf of the Baltimore City Health Department, I would like to thank you for this 

opportunity to testify. My name is Olivia Farrow. I am the Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Health for the Baltimore City 

Health Department. 

The Centers for Disease Control State on their website that there 

is no threshold below which adverse effects are not experienced. 

There is no safe level for a child. As we have worked diligently to 

reduce the hazards associated with lead-based paint exposure, the 

lead-containing consumer products are a growing concern nationwide and represent a major challenge for local jurisdictions. Following are our attempts at the local level to prevent poisoning from 

two consumer products. 

In response to the tragic event in Minneapolis in 2006, the Baltimore City Health Department began testing samples of children’s 

jewelry sold within its jurisdiction. Our tests found excessive levels 

of lead in children’s jewelry in Baltimore. The products were being 

sold in stores that operate throughout the Country, including 

Claire’s and Wal-Mart. To respond under the authority of the Commissioner of Health, the Baltimore City Health Department proposed and then promulgated regulations on children’s jewelry in 

December 2006. This city regulation requires that the Health Department collect monthly samples of children’s jewelry and test for 

lead content. 

Since we have banned the children’s jewelry at the level of 600 

parts per million, which went into effect September 1, 2007, part 

of that regulation is that no product can contain an excessive 

amount of lead. A violation notice is issued if a jewelry product is 
95 

found to have more than 600 parts per million. The notice declares 

all items of the same style and from the same manufacturer to be 

a nuisance and order the retailer to stop sale within 24 hours. 

The city began the mandatory monthly testing of children’s jewelry in February of this year, and out of the 8 months we have tested, we have found excessive levels of lead in four of those months. 

Furthermore, the majority of the samples of jewelry that are found 

to be poisonous are ones that are sold for $1 or less. 

In March, 2007, three rings that were manufactured in India and 

sold for only 25 cents each in a city vending machine tested approximately 5 percent lead by weight. These rings were previously 

subject to a product recall in July, 2004 by the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission. In August, our Health Department discovered 

that a Spiderman ring, which I have here now, a Spiderman III 

ring which sold for $1 contained 128,000 parts per million of lead 

by weight. 

Other products that present a potential and real hazard to children, in September 2006, we were notified by the Maryland Department of the Environment that two children under the age of 

two in different areas of the State had been lead-poisoned by a 

product known as kohl, which I have here today. Each child had 

a blood lead level greater than 20 micrograms per deciliter, and the 

family had purchased the product at a small Pakistani store in the 

city of Baltimore. Kohl, also known as surma, jajal or al-kahl, is 

a black powdered substance applied around the eyes of small children to improve health, according to its packaging. As translated 

from the package, it is ‘‘especially prepared for newborn children. 

This product at the store was tested and two samples revealed lead 

levels of 39 percent and 45 percent lead by weight. 

To respond, under the authority of the Health Commissioner, the 

department identified the product as a health hazard and issued a 

notice and order prohibiting the sale of any cosmetic products containing Kohl within the city of Baltimore. We immediately contacted the Food and Drug Administration’s Imports Operations Division. It resulted in an import bulletin being issued and an updated import alert for products coming from the identified vendors. 

Our experience in Baltimore City has proven that many of these 

imported products are not adequately regulated by the Federal 

Government. The failure of the CPSC product recall system exemplifies the Federal Government’s failure to protect the public from 

imported good. As I previously stated, the CPSC recalled three 

rings in July, 2004 because of high lead content, yet almost 3 years 

later, Baltimore City finds that these rings are still available for 

sale to the public. 

In the case of the Kohl poisonings, the Food and Drug Administration issued an import alert for automatic detention for eye cosmetics containing Kohl back in 1996, yet the product continues to 

make it into the United States for retail sale. 

The Environmental Protection Agency also has a role in protecting the health of children with its authority to provide oversight of toxic substances, including lead, and a local jurisdiction’s 

authority can only extend so far. Federal agencies need to aggressively take the lead in preventing the sale of these contaminated 
96 

products, and current Federal regulations are obviously insufficient 

in protecting children from lead in imported products. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrow follows:] 

STATEMENT OF OLIVIA FARROW, ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER, CITY OF BALTIMORE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the Committee, on 

behalf of the Baltimore City Health Department, I would like to thank you for this 

opportunity to testify on the risks to children from lead and mechanisms for addressing and preventing childhood lead exposure. My name is Olivia Farrow and I 

am the AssistantCommissioner of the Environmental Health Division of the Baltimore City Health Department. 

Lead poisoning is the most common environmental hazard facing American children today. It is also one of the most preventable. Children are frequently exposed 

to lead by ingesting lead dust from deteriorating lead-based paint. Exposure may 

also come from soil that contains lead, drinking water or lead-tainted consumer 

products such as food, jewelry and even cosmetics. The Centers for Disease Control 

states on their website that there is no ‘‘threshold below which adverse effects are 

not experienced.’’ There is no safe lead level for a child. 

As we have worked diligently to reduce the hazards associated with lead-based 

paint exposure, the lead-containing consumer products are a growing concern nationwide and represent a major challenge for local jurisdictions. Following are our 

attempts at the local level to prevent poisonings from two consumer products. 

On March 23, 2006, a 4-year-old child in Minneapolis died from lead intoxication 

after swallowing a piece of children’s jewelry that was sold with a new pair of shoes. 

In response to this tragic event, the Baltimore City Health Department began testing samples of children’s jewelry sold within its jurisdiction. Our tests found excessive levels of lead in children’s jewelry in Baltimore. The products were being sold 

in stores that operate throughout the country, including Claire’s and Wal-Mart (Attached are the lab results). 

To respond, under the authority of the Commissioner of Health, the Baltimore 

City Health Department proposed and then promulgated regulations on children’s 

jewelry on December 7, 2006. (Attached is the final regulation). 

The City regulation requires that the Health Department collect monthly samples 

of children’s jewelry and test for lead content. In order to give City retailers an opportunity to come into compliance, the regulation initially banned children’s jewelry 

containing more than 1200 parts per million. Effective September 1, 2007, we further reduced the 

acceptable level of lead, banning all children’s jewelry with metal components containing in excess of 600 parts per million of total lead. Once a product is found to 

contain an excessive amount of lead, a violation notice is issued. The notice declares 

all items of the same style and from the same manufacturer to be a nuisance and 

orders the retailer to stop sale within twenty-four hours. An owner can be charged 

with multiple misdemeanor offenses and fined should he or she fail to comply with 

the notice. 

The City began the mandatory monthly testing of children’s jewelry in February 

of this year. Out of the 8 months we have tested, we have found excessive lead levels in four of those months. Our testing has revealed that the majority of the products found with excessive levels of lead are sold in discount stores that cater to a 

lower-income clientele. Furthermore, the majority of the samples of jewelry that are 

found to be poisonous are ones that are sold for a dollar or less. 

For an example, in March 2007, three rings that were manufactured in India and 

sold for only 25 cents each in a City vending machine operated by Cardinal Novelty 

tested approximately 5 percent lead by weight. These rings were previously subject 

to a product recall in July 2004 by the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC). 

In August, our Health Department discovered that a Spiderman 3 ring, which 

sold for one dollar, contained 12.8 percent lead by weight. This ring was sold at a 

Dollar Tree and was imported from China. 

Turning to other products that present a potential and real hazard to children, 

in September of 2006, we were notified by our State Department of the Environment that two children, under the age of two, in different areas of the State had 

been lead poisoned by a product known as Kohl. Each child had a blood lead level 

of 20 ?g/dl or higher. One family purchased the product at a small Pakistani grocery 

store in Baltimore City. 
97 

Kohl, also known as Surma, Kajal or Al-Kahl, is a black powdered substance applied around the eyes of small children to improve health, according to its packaging. As translated from the package it is ‘‘especially prepared for new-born children. . . ’’ 

The product at the store was tested and the two samples revealed lead levels of 

39 percent and 45 percent lead by weight. The limit for lead paint is 0.06 percent 

lead by weight. To respond, under the authority of the Commissioner of Health, the 

Baltimore City Health Department immediately identified the product as a health 

hazard and issued a Notice and 

Order to Remove Health Nuisance, prohibiting the sale of any cosmetic products 

containing Kohl within the city of Baltimore. We immediately contacted the Food 

and Drug Administration’s Imports Operations Division. FDA conducted its own investigation tracing the product back to the importer and manufacturer resulting in 

Import Bulletin being issued and an updated Import Alert for products coming from 

the identified vendors. Our experience in Baltimore City has proven that many of 

these imported products are not adequately regulated by the Federal Government. 

The failure of the CPSC product recall system exemplifies the Federal Government’s 

failure to protect the public from imported goods. 

As I previously stated, the CPSC recalled three rings in July 2004 because of high 

lead content. Yet, almost 3 years later, Baltimore City finds that these rings are 

still available for sale to the public. Cardinal Novelty would have been free to continue to redistribute this poisonous product had Baltimore City not enacted its regulations. 

In the case of the Kohl poisonings, the Food and Drug Administration issued an 

Import Alert for automatic detention for eye cosmetics containing Kohl back in 1996, 

yet the product continues to make it into the United States for retail sale. 

The Environmental Protection Agency also has a role in protecting the health of 

children with its authority to provide oversight of toxic substances, including lead. 

A local jurisdiction’s authority can only extend so far. Federal agencies need to 

aggressively take the lead in preventing the sale of these contaminated products. 

Current Federal regulations are obviously insufficient in protecting children from 

lead in imported products. 

I would like to conclude by stating that this country has made tremendous 

progress in the fight to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. But even one child 

poisoned is one child too many. Stricter Federal regulation on products for children 

is urgently needed. 

On behalf of Baltimore City’s Health Department and Mayor Sheila Dixon, I 

thank you for the opportunity to offer comments today. 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 

RESPONSE BY OLIVIA FARROW TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question. In your testimony, you cited the terrible cases where two children were 

poisoned when their family purchased a product at a Pakistani grocery store that 

in some cultures was used to improve the health of babies. CDC has identified these 

types of cultural products as a real problem. How do we address the lead content 

of these products while still being respectful of the cultural practices of people who 

come to live in this country? 

Response. When a product is found to contain high levels of lead, the only solution 

is to inform the public and have the product pulled from sale. Certain products are 

used for certain cultural practices. However, we find that parents, regardless of cultural background, have the best intention for their children. Thus, once they are informed of the health dangers of a product, they voluntarily stop using the product. 

No parent wants to endanger the health and safety of his or her child. 

RESPONSE BY OLIVIA FARROW TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. How important is it to city health departments, like the one that you 

work for, that Federal agencies ? including EPA ? take stronger actions to stop the 

use of lead in consumer products, such as toy jewelry? 

Response. It is extremely important that Federal agencies take stronger action to 

stop the use of lead in consumer products. At this time, local health departments, 

such as Baltimore City, are only reacting to this health threat. Being reactive can 

only protect consumers to a certain extent. Baltimore City’s monthly random testing 

has fortunately stopped sales of some lead contaminated products. It does not, however, prevent all contaminated products from being sold to the public. In order to 

proactively address the issue of lead in consumer products, Federal action needs to 

be taken. 

Relying on local or State jurisdictions to enact laws and regulations will result 

in a patchwork of regulatory oversight that fails to protect children nationwide. 

Manufacturers would also support a uniform regulatory guideline that would enable 

them to create a product that meets one standard. 

Only the Federal Government has the resources and authority to stop contaminated products from entering the United States or ensuring that manufacturers follow standards across the country. 

Question 2. Would stronger Federal efforts to collect information on consumer 

products that contain dangerous levels of lead help local officials’ efforts to protect 

their citizens? If so, please explain. 

Response. More Federal action is needed in order for local efforts to be more effective. Because products are distributed nationally and are available to the public in 

multiple states, it is necessary for Federal agencies to collect information on those 

products that pose a risk immediately and notify all affected states and locales. At 

this time, Baltimore City is primarily relying on its monthly jewelry testing to find 

products that endanger the public. We hope that we are able to find all products 

with excessive lead levels. Realistically though, we realize our resources are limited 

and there may be lead products on store shelves that we have not tested. 

Senator BOXER. I think you are just terrific in that. I am going 

to stop you right there because of time concerns. 

Ms. Farrow, I just want to say, it is funny to me. I am taken 

aback. I can’t speak for anybody else, that this burden has fallen 

on the city. One of the problems is we have the Government witnesses leave after they speak. With all of the staff we have at the 

EPA, with all of the power they have given the laws of the land, 

that you are now telling us that you have to protect the kids, when 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission acted and these goods 

are still on the shelves. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. I really have to. I am sorry I had to leave 9 

minutes ago. 

Senator BOXER. That is OK. 

Senator INHOFE. So there won’t be time for me to—— 
132 

Senator BOXER. Go ahead. You take my time. It is fine. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

Well, let me just not ask you to respond to any of the questions, 

but maybe for the record you can respond. There are some things 

that I think would be interesting. One would be, well let’s see. 

Dr. Jacobs, there is a statement by the CDC that said, ‘‘Efforts 

to identify and provide services to children with blood lead levels 

less than 10 micrograms per deciliter may deflect needed resources 

from children with higher blood levels who are likely to benefit 

most from individualized intervention.’’ I guess what I would like 

to know, and this would be fine to do for the record, do you agree 

with the statement? And then, should we focus or should we not 

focus our resources on those kids with the greatest risk? That 

would be one. 

Then I wanted to, one of the concerns I have, Mr. Nagel, is because I am very familiar with your—I used to do what your people 

are doing. I worry a little bit about creating a disincentive for people to have renovations done and end up doing them themselves, 

which most likely in most cases is going to end up with a higher 

lead level. This is a concern that I have, and I am not sure how 

to address this. I think you probably have given some thought to 

it, and I would like to get your thoughts. 

Then also, what would be the likelihood, if we have a rule that 

comes out that would be very difficult to deal with, that remodelers 

would just quit remodeling some of these homes? I happen to be 

living in one of the oldest areas of Tulsa, and frankly I have been 

guilty of a lot of this myself. But if you just thought, well, the risk 

is too great, or perhaps you would end up being responsible for 

something you had no control over, just not taking those jobs, and 

therefore you are going to keep older houses in a State of continual 

deterioration, where there would be greater risk. 

Maybe just on that last question you could just make a comment, 

Mr. Nagel, and then I will have to leave, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. NAGEL. Absolutely. Working as a professional remodeler who 

has been trained in lead-safe work practices, working in a pre-1978 

house that is known to contain lead creates many issues for us. 

Certainly, the least of which is a legal issue for us because it puts 

us in a litigative State that we area acknowledging the existence 

of lead in that house. 

We are not abatement contractors. We are not required to be 

kept at the standard that abatement contractors are kept at. Having some form of clearance testing at the end of the project, which 

basically only proves the existence of lead in the house is putting 

us at risk from a litigation standpoint. 

We also have the issue in some States, as in my State of Illinois, 

where if I know there is lead in a house, I legally am not allowed, 

as a non-abatement contractor, I am not allowed to renovate that 

house without somebody coming in and abating it beforehand. 

We also have the issue of insurance. Current insurance in our 

area where workman’s comp and liability issues does not cover. In 

fact, it specifically excludes hazardous waste, and outside contractors working in a hazardous waste situation. So as a professional 

remodeler who has been in the business for 22 years, if I know the 
133 

house has lead in it, I will not work in that house because it puts 

me at too much risk. It puts my business and my family at risk. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. I understand. I thought that should be in 

the record. With that, I will have to leave. 

Maybe for the record, Ms. Farrow, one of the things that concerns me, and I think it concerns you, too, is if you are dealing— 

we are talking about the Pakistani things that are originating 

there—you are dealing with a culture, and you are dealing with a 

cultural problem. I would like to have you perhaps for the record 

let me know your thoughts on that. That could be a problem. 

Madam Chairman, I want to appreciate you for holding this 

hearing. You guys don’t know this, this is one of the few hearings 

where we are almost in total agreement with each other. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. So thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am just speechless at that, Senator. Look, 

we are grandparents. We care about our kids. 

Senator INHOFE. Right. 

Senator BOXER. Let me just say, this has been a very illuminating hearing for me in many, many ways. I want to get back 

to Ms. Farrow. I want to understand exactly—you say you do 

monthly testing. Do you say that in the law in the city of Baltimore 

in order to sell retail, they have to do the testing? Or do you come 

in and just test? 

Ms. FARROW. No. Actually, we come in and test, and we just pick 

a few retail shops throughout the city randomly. We are not doing 

a lot of testing, just two or three stores each month. We just take 

four or five items just randomly. So it is the Health Department 

that is actually conducting the testing. 

Senator BOXER. And then you put out an alert to all stores, if you 

have this, they have to get rid of it? 

Ms. FARROW. Exactly. We issue a violation notice to the particular store that was selling the product. We issue a press advisory so that everyone in the city is aware in the event that someone has already purchased the product, and then we notify the 

CPSC also. 

Senator BOXER. OK. If the retailer continues to sell the product, 

are they subject to fines? 

Ms. FARROW. Yes. They are subject to misdemeanor fines if found 

guilty. 

Senator BOXER. And you are saying that you found products that 

had been recalled that are still out there? 

Ms. FARROW. Right. Three rings in a vending machine, they had 

been recalled by the CPSC in 2004, and I can’t speak for what happened in 2004. 

Senator BOXER. And you reported that to the CPSC? 

Ms. FARROW. Right. We reported it to the CPSC, as we do whenever we find positives. In March, we reported that to CPSC. A couple of months later, CPSC actually issued a re-recall of those rings 

because of our sampling. They realized that this product was back 

on the market. 

Senator BOXER. I guess the question I have, the issue of recall 

and the product continues to come in, and people continue to sell 

it, they ought to be—would you agree that there ought to be some 
134 

punishment out there for people who continue to import a product 

that has been banned? It just seems to me, it just sounds like these 

recalls are not working as they are supposed to work. 

Ms. FARROW. Meaningless, yes. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I just can’t get over the fact that we have 

to have this enforcement at the city level. I just admire what you 

are doing, because here is the thing. You could see from the EPA, 

they are not that interested in getting involved in toy safety. They 

have to be pushed by Sierra Club to do the minimal amount of 

work, and they haven’t even done that. They are taking so long to 

do this rule on remodeling. So we have the EPA just trying to bow 

out of this, and everybody is taking credit for the lead in paint, 

which is a wonderful accomplishment, but as my staff counsel 

pointed out to me, if you are a child and you put one of these toys 

in your mouth, it doesn’t matter that the lead is out of the paint. 

This is pretty much death, sickness, retardation and the rest. 

So what you are doing in stepping in here is really commendable. 

Do you know of other cities that are doing this as well? 

Ms. FARROW. No. We are trying to follow the model of California 

and I believe there is some work going on in Illinois. But as far 

as a local jurisdiction, I can’t say right offhand. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. Neltner, in response to my questioning of Mr. Gulliford 

about how he is responding to the settlement of those lawsuits, you 

said that you were surprised that they were going to slowly. I think 

I would just say to my staff, I mean I guess I would like to ask 

you since you are the attorney who was involved in this. Are you 

the attorney? 

Mr. NELTNER. Yes, I am. 

Senator BOXER. Your expectation was that they would be taking 

action much quicker on these imported toys? 

Mr. NELTNER. Right, that the rule would have been effective in 

June 2008. It sounds like much longer than that now. They are 

talking a year from whenever they issue this rule, and they didn’t 

firmly commit to a deadline to issue the rule. 

Senator BOXER. Would you think that that is a violation of the 

settlement agreement, if that is the case? 

Mr. NELTNER. Perhaps. 

Senator BOXER. Well, this is what I want to do. I am going to 

write a letter today and ask for immediate response, and ask them 

how the timetable they laid out meets the settlement. 

Mr. NELTNER. It also seems inconsistent with the Toxic Substances Control Act, because they received a recommendation from 

the Interagency Testing Committee in June to issue this rule to implement the recommendations. They have no industry opposition. 

The industry said, fine, just do what you promised, and there has 

been no opposition. So I don’t understand why it would take so long 

to do a simple rule on this one—because of the way TSCA allows 

them to act more quickly. It is interesting that it seems to be taking a long time. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I have another question. That one we will 

work on together. If you could give me your top three recommendations on how EPA could use its authorities under TSCA that so far 

it is refusing to do. Because my sense is, they keep saying, we can’t 
135 

do this under TSCA, and we have a different view. I wonder what 

you believe TSCA allows them to do, without any change in law. 

Mr. NELTNER. Well, obviously issue the renovation, repair and 

painting rule in a manner that allows consumers to be able to take 

steps to protect themselves. Second issue quality control orders to 

any company that has a recall. If a company has had a recall, they 

have obviously had a quality control problem. Issue an order, get 

those quality control procedures, find out the factories—also under 

TSCA 8(e) they should be submitting these notices—find out those 

factories that have a problem and then begin to work on those factories and work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

In many ways, because of the failure of EPA, the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission and EPA have been working blind. 

When you have facts, you make better decisions. They have been 

reluctant to get those facts. 

Senator BOXER. So you are saying under TSCA, without any 

change in law, they could issue quality control orders to companies 

who have been subjected to having their products recalled. 

Mr. NELTNER. Correct. Their response in the negotiations was, 

you can’t force us to issue an order because it was a glitch in the 

way the law was written for citizen petitions. You can only force 

us to issue a rule, but you can’t make this issue a rule until we 

first issue an order. A little complicated, but the bottom line is they 

have the authority and they could do it very quickly, much quicker 

than the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Senator BOXER. Have they ever issued a quality control order to 

a company that has been the subject of a recall? 

Mr. NELTNER. No. 

Senator BOXER. OK. And if they were sitting here now say they 

can’t do it? 

Mr. NELTNER. That seems to be my impression. I would sure like 

to figure that out. I can’t figure out why they don’t feel they have 

the authority. If it means deference to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, we also asked them to formally ask Consumer 

Product Safety Commission for that go-ahead, and they refused to 

do that by saying, the Sierra Club can’t force EPA to issue a Section 9 report to CPSC. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So in your opinion, they could go ahead and 

do that. 

OK, what else could they do? 

Mr. NELTNER. Well, because they issued one of those letters to 

the 120 companies about Section 8(e) notices, reminding them of 

their responsibilities, it became clear to us that EPA wasn’t going 

to act when the companies weren’t submitting these notices. So we 

ended up filing a notice of intent to sue against 11 companies, including Mattel, saying, you have had repeat recalls; you need to follow the law; you need to submit the TSCA 8(e) notices. 

We would like to see EPA enforce the law instead of having to 

rely on citizens groups to do it. The citizen groups are prepared to 

sue Oriental Trading Company and Mattel because EPA won’t. 

When EPA goes out to companies with this 8(e) reminder, they 

could also remind them of their new responsibilities under this 8(d) 

rule. EPA could include the names of the factories that have been 

producing the lead-contaminated products in China. They have 
136 

that ability to get that information from the companies. It is very 

hard for CPSC to get that. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. NELTNER. Get that information on the factories, and then let 

all the other importers know that if you use these factories, you 

should check your products. Right now, we have a catch—as-catchcan system where local health departments, as you correctly pointed out, are using their very limited resources, resources that should 

be focused on housing, to do what the Federal Government is unwilling to do. 

If they would have done that, if they would have systematically 

gone to importers to check their other products, then we would be 

able to start fixing the system and proactively get ahead of the 

curve. 

Senator BOXER. It just seems to me that so much of the problem 

is from these imported products. I don’t know why we can’t easily 

have testing done. First ask the companies in America to sign a 

statement that they know there is quality control. But I guess if 

there is a quality control order, it would be issued on a company 

like Mattel, for example? 

Mr. NELTNER. Right. 

Senator BOXER. And then Mattel would have to—see if I am 

right on this—then if they had a quality control order, Mattel 

would have to go over to these factories and do the testing, and 

they would be held liable if the products came in with lead. 

Mr. NELTNER. Well, three points. One is the order would only ask 

them to submit their procedures so EPA could identify the shortcomings and adopt a rule to order that testing, to require them to 

do more. 

But you asked, why haven’t the companies have not done the 

testing. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has been behind the curve when it comes to the technology needed to test the 

products. In large measure, you can test in a nondestructive way 

using an XRF device. You can check products very quickly. That is 

how we check these products here with a Niton XRF. You can 

quickly check them. 

What I understand now is that instead of relying on CPSC’s 

standard test, companies are going ahead and using the new technology, checking lots more products, and that is part of the reason 

we are getting so many recalls. 

So CPSC is just behind the technology curve, and that is another 

area where EPA could have provided some support to Consumer 

Product Safety Commission because EPA knew all about these 

XRFs and their ability to quickly determine the lead content. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I would greatly appreciate it if any of the 

witnesses here today, because you are all so knowledgeable on this, 

could send to the Committee, Senators Inhofe and myself, your recommendations for what EPA could be doing right now without any 

change in the law. Because I think there is a reticence on their 

part. They are focused on the paint, which of course is super critical. But even there, they are slow on the home remodeling rule. 

But it seems to me they have a great statement on their website 

which says the following. One of their biggest goals is, it says, ‘‘to 

make significant progress toward our goal of virtually eliminating 
137 

childhood lead poisoning as a public health threat by advancing 

meaningful reductions in blood lead levels for children at risk 

through a comprehensive program of new regulations, technical assistance, education, outreach, and community assistance.’’ 

Those are nice words, but I don’t get it from the EPA witness 

today that that is what we are seeing here at all. I see a great reticence, a slow-down, taking credit for past efforts. Wonderful. They 

have been good, but we need to do more because, again, even if the 

homes are 100 percent clean, if a kid puts something in his mouth, 

it is going to undo it all. 

Mr. Jacobs, you showed us the beautiful colors of paints that are 

in these foreign countries that have astronomical levels of lead. Are 

the people there unaware of the problem, No. 1? And No. 2, how 

do you think they could make their way in? You said they are 

going to make their way onto our shores. Under our current laws, 

could they make their way onto our shores? 

Mr. JACOBS. It would be illegal, of course, because it would violate the existing Consumer Product Safety Commission, but so 

were a number of these other products that have already crossed 

our borders. 

Senator BOXER. Right. 

Mr. JACOBS. These are children’s products as well. 

To borrow a lesson from the lead paint experience, one of the 

things that often happens is agencies will point to each other and 

say, this is not our job; this is CPSC’s or EPA’s job. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. JACOBS. Lead disclosure for properties was sort of like that; 

it was not entirely clear which agency should required owners to 

disclose information on lead paint hazards. The solution was pretty 

straightforward: Congress required that HUD and EPA pass a joint 

regulation. It is a little unwieldy, but it works. Agencies don’t like 

it, but it can be done and it is quite effective, and you don’t get 

the finger-pointing that way. There is no reason that CPSC and 

EPA can’t coordinate their activities to take steps that are necessary through joint regulation. 

Senator BOXER. Right. 

Mr. JACOBS. I suspectg many people in these other countries are 

not aware of this problem. There are a few researchers in India, 

Nigeria and other countries that working to make this known and 

to have their governments take action. I have left out one important element here, and that is it is the same companies, some of 

them may have affiliations to U.S. paint companies, who are manufacturing these paints with high amounts of lead. Singapore actually has an effective regulation. The same company will manufacture these products and comply with the much lower Singapore 

standards. This green paint sample is from Singapore, and it only 

had 300 parts per million. And yet the same color paint, made by 

the same company in China, has a lead content of hundreds of 

thousands parts per million. 

So the technology is there to make paint with low levels of lead. 

This is a matter of making sure that there are global restrictions 

on the production of lead in paint. Back in the late 1980’s, there 

was an effort by the United Nations Environment Program, UNEP, 

to globally ban all non-essential uses of lead. Senator Inhofe was 
138 

correct. There are some essential uses of lead. They can be managed. We need to take steps to make sure that happens. 

But it is time to refocus our attention on a global ban of nonessential uses of lead. We have been down this road too many 

times. There is no reason to repeat it again. 

Senator BOXER. I really do agree. 

Anybody else have anything to add for the record before we adjourn? Yes, sir, Doctor. 

Dr. LANPHEAR. I would just like to add, just so we are realistic 

moving into this. If you look at the dramatic declines in blood lead 

levels that we have seen, we have to realize that that too happened 

under great duress and great resistance. In fact, for the air lead 

standard, EPA didn’t take action until they were sued by NRDC. 

So to be realistic, they need this kind of pressure. That is part 

of our job, but they really need it to protect kids. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. Well, I couldn’t agree with you more. 

I just want to say to the whole panel, thank you so much. It has 

just been a really good hearing. I am glad the votes on the floor 

cooperated with us at the end. 

We do stand adjourned. 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 

Æ