U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

1

Discussion Guide: Background and Discussion Areas for Public Meeting on

EPA’s Proposed Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule for

Public and Commercial Buildings

This discussion guide is intended to assist the public and other stakeholders in preparing for the 

June 26, 2013 public meeting regarding the potential regulation of renovation, repair and 

painting (RRP) activities in public and commercial buildings (P&CBs). 

The discussion guide provides the following information:

• Purpose Statement

• Background Information

• Summary of Comments Received 

• Discussion Areas

• Next Steps

Purpose Statement

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is convening a public meeting to allow 

interested parties to present relevant information that the EPA may use to develop an RRP

program for P&CBs. On May [XX], 2013 the EPA published an announcement in the Federal 

Register including details on how potential participants can register to attend [include link to 

notice]. The meeting will be held on June 26, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the EPA 

headquarters, Room 1153 EPA East, 1201 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20004. In 

anticipation of this meeting, the EPA published a Federal Register Notice on December 31, 

2012, requesting information from the public on any relevant data or other information that the 

EPA may use in making its regulatory determinations. The EPA is issuing this discussion guide 

to provide a summary of information received in response to the December 31, 2012 Federal 

Register Notice and to help structure public input during the meeting. 

Background Information

Congress enacted Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as part of the LeadBased Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 to reduce the public’s exposure to lead, particularly 

from lead-based paint. The Act directs the EPA to promulgate regulations addressing renovation 

activities in target housing, public buildings constructed before 1978, and commercial buildings 

that create lead-based paint hazards. In doing so, Congress also imposed a statutory deadline.

In April 2008, the EPA issued a final RRP Rule under TSCA section 402(c)(3). The 2008 RRP 

Rule regulated renovation, repair, and painting activities in target housing, which is most pre1978 housing, and child-occupied facilities (COFs) - defined in the rule as a subset of P&CBs in 

which young children spend a significant amount of time.

The EPA was sued on the 2008 RRP Rule for, among other things, failing to address P&CBs by 

the statutory deadline. The EPA entered into a settlement agreement that, among other things, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

2

establishes a timeline for action on P&CB renovations. Under the terms of the agreement, as 

subsequently amended, the EPA agreed to sign a proposed rule covering RRP activities in 

P&CBs by July 15, 2015, unless the agency determines that these activities do not create leadbased paint hazards. The agreement further calls for the EPA to hold a public meeting on or 

before July 31, 2013, and offer an opportunity for stakeholders and other interested members of 

the public to provide data and other information that the EPA may use in making its regulatory 

determinations. 

The EPA has already taken several actions to facilitate public input and gather information. On 

May 6, 2010, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in the 

Federal Register on renovations of P&CBs.a The ANPR reviewed relevant information already 

collected by the agency that can inform regulatory decision making, and invited the public to 

provide any available information that the EPA should consider. Commenters expressed 

concerns that the EPA lacked enough information to make a hazard determination for P&CBs, 

and that any regulations would be costly and duplicative in light of the existing Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Lead-In-Construction Standard. Commenters also 

indicated that use of lead-based paints and coatings may have decreased substantially on P&CBs

after a 1978 Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) ban on consumer lead-based paint.

(16 C.F.R. § 1303.1, 47 Fed. Reg. 44193 (September 1, 1977)). The CPSC ban applies to all 

consumer lead-based paint and the use of lead-based paint on buildings where the public could 

access the paint, but exempts lead-based paint on structural steel, steel doors and windows, and 

maintenance coatings used on commercial and industrial buildings. ((16 C.F.R. § 1303.1, 47 Fed. 

Reg. 44196 (September 1, 1977)).

As noted above, the agency already has information that can inform rulemaking decisions. 

Nonetheless, the EPA issued a Federal Register Notice on December 31, 2012, announcing its 

plan to hold a public meeting on June 26, 2013 to accept and discuss any other available 

information that the EPA may use in developing its regulatory determinations. In particular, the 

EPA requested stakeholders and other interested members of the public to submit any relevant 

data and information pertaining to five topics:

1. The manufacture, sale, and uses of lead-based paint after 1978.

2. The use of lead-based paint on public and commercial buildings.

3. The frequency and extent of renovations of public and commercial buildings.

4. Work practices used to renovate public and commercial buildings.

5. Dust generation and transport from exterior and interior renovations of public and 

commercial buildings.

In addition to the request for information in the December 31, 2012 Federal Register Notice, the 

EPA directly notified potential stakeholders and interested parties, including government 

agencies, businesses, individuals, interest groups and trade organizations. 

 a The ANPR and other information related to the “Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and 

Commercial Buildings” action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov, docket ID # EPA–HQ–OPPT–

2010–0173; FRL–8823–6; http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

3

Summary of Comments Received 

The EPA received seventy-two public comments in response to the December 31, 2012 Federal 

Register Notice. 

General comments supporting P&CB regulations. Thirty commenters supported development of

regulations required under the statute. For example, one commenter mentioned that the “playing 

field” would be leveled if lead safe work practices were required for all pre-1978 buildings and 

there would be less confusion regarding work practices and bidding on jobs. They also state that 

all businesses that disturb lead-based paint should be trained and follow the minimum 

requirements of the 2008 RRP Rule. One commenter suggested that the EPA should base any 

decision to eliminate work practice requirements on compelling evidence from industry, and that

an absence of evidence should be understood as confirmation that the work is unsafe given 

Congress’ and the EPA’s previous findings. This commenter also stated that the EPA should 

style its language to fit model codes and provide model code language. Of those who supported 

the regulations, seventeen are environmental consultants or provide environmental training 

services, four are contractors, one is an inspector, two are trade associations, four are 

environmental groups, one consists of law students and the affiliation for one commenter is 

unknown.

General comments opposing P&CB regulations. Twenty-one commenters opposed any 

additional regulation, with several commenters expressing their concern that it would increase 

costs and time to complete projects. For example, numerous commenters expressed a general 

concern that additional RRP requirements will be a significant financial burden on the renovation 

industry. One commenter suggested that the cost of compliance with additional rules will 

discourage consumers from hiring appropriately certified individuals and businesses. Another 

commenter suggested that the EPA review the costs of an RRP rule for P&CBs versus the 

benefits of encouraging renovations to improve energy efficiency. Of those opposing the 

regulation, eleven are contractors, three are trade associations, one is a consultant and the 

affiliations for six commenters are unknown.

Neutral comments. Nine commenters did not express support for or opposition to and/or asked 

questions regarding the rulemaking. For example, commenters asked if children frequent public 

and commercial buildings, offered to “partner” with the EPA to perform additional studies, and 

offered to review additional data or studies should they become available. Four commenters were 

from trade associations, three were training providers, one was from a city government and the 

affiliation for one commenter was unknown.

Comments related to the EPA’s requests for information. A number of commenters provided 

information or comments related to one or more of the EPA’s requested topic areas: (1) the 

manufacture, sale, and uses of lead-based paint after 1978, (2) the use of lead-based paint on 

public and commercial buildings, (3) the frequency and extent of renovations of public and 

commercial buildings, (4) work practices used to renovate public and commercial buildings, and 

(5) dust generation and transport from exterior and interior renovations of public and commercial 

buildings. These comments, as well as relevant comments received in response to the 2010 

ANPR, are summarized in the applicable section below. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

4

Comments related to the EPA’s authority and obligations under TSCA. Several commenters 

questioned or affirmed the EPA’s authority under TSCA to promulgate regulations for P&CBs. 

Some commenters suggested that the EPA’s previous findings for the 2008 RRP Rule that all 

RRP activities involving lead-based paint create a hazard is sufficient to support the hazard 

finding under TSCA for P&CBs. Other commenters suggested that the EPA cannot rely on data 

gathered for the 2008 RRP Rule because of the fundamental differences between use, 

occupancies and work practices for residential buildings and P&CBs. Some commenters 

mentioned that if industry seeks exemptions from regulation they should present clear evidence 

that supports this assertion and that further study of renovation projects is not necessary. Other 

commenters stated that the EPA is obligated to find a hazard under TSCA Section 403 before 

proposing any P&CB regulations. One commenter suggested that because seven years separated 

the hazard finding for residences and the 2008 RRP Rule, a similar schedule should be 

implemented for P&CBs. 

Information on adverse human health effects. Some commenters provided or referenced 

government and peer-reviewed research that may be relevant to identifying adverse human 

health effects.

1 Some commenters suggested that the 2008 RRP Rule has not reduced blood lead 

levels in children. Some commenters stated that the dangers of lead exposure are well established 

for children and adults, and that all people, adults and children, are impacted by lead exposure; a 

single exposure can poison a child or adult. One commenter also suggested that the 2008 RRP 

Rule hazard finding should apply to public and commercial buildings as well.

Offers and suggestions for additional information gathering. Several commenters offered to 

assist the EPA in collecting relevant information. These commenters claimed that the 

information requested by the EPA in its December 30, 2012, Federal Register request is largely 

unknown or has not been previously collected. Some commenters suggested that the EPA work 

with industry to collect this data and to identify additional research needs. Other commenters 

also suggested that the EPA consider working with other federal agencies to gather the necessary 

information.

Miscellaneous comments. One commenter posed questions on the timeline for any rulemaking. 

One commenter stated that the EPA should explore its authority to address lead-based paint 

hazards in P&CBs under RCRA and CERCLA. 

Comments inapplicable to P&CBs. Eleven commenters provided comments about the RRP

Program for residential buildings or provided information that was not applicable to the Federal 

Register Notice.

Discussion Areas 

The public meeting will center on the five topics referenced in the December 31, 2012, Federal 

Register Notice. These topics reflect the questions posed and types of information the EPA 

requested in the May 6, 2010 ANPR. The EPA strongly encourages meeting participants to share

any substantive data or studies, or citable sources related to these five discussion areas, or 

otherwise relevant to the renovation of P&CBs, as they will be the most informative to the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

5

EPA’s regulatory determinations. The EPA will also accept anecdotal information, comments, 

and opinions related to renovations in P&CBs. Information can be provided either at the public 

meeting or by submitting comments in the Federal Register docket. The EPA expects that 

submitted information could be used to inform hazard and exposure determinations, risk 

determinations, baseline work and cleaning practice assumptions, cost-benefit analyses, and, if a 

regulation is proposed, the requirements and scope of the regulation.

(1) The manufacture, sale, and uses of lead-based paint after 1978.

Congress directed the EPA to promulgate regulations for renovation and remodeling activities in 

“public buildings built before 1978, and commercial buildings” that create lead-based paint 

hazards.2 Notably, the statutory directive does not provide an age qualifier for commercial 

buildings as it does for public buildings. Whether post-1978 commercial buildings contain leadbased paint, and whether certain renovations therein would create a lead-based paint hazard are 

significant questions. The EPA welcomes any available information or data that would help 

clarify the post-1978 market (manufacture, sale, and use) for paint and other coatings that 

contain lead. This information may ultimately help the EPA determine the extent to which post1978 commercial buildings may contain lead-based paint (or other lead-containing coatings), and 

whether the renovation of buildings built after 1978 may create a lead-based paint hazard. 

The EPA continues to accept data and information on the manufacture, sale, and use of leadbased paint after 1978, but has gathered or received the following information relevant to this 

topic: 

• In 1978, the CPSC banned paint and similar surface-coating materials for consumer use 

that contain lead or lead compounds.

3 The ban eliminated all consumer paint containing 

more than 0.06% lead (0.009% lead as of August 14, 2009).

b Although the ban mainly 

applied to household consumer paints, CPSC did extend the ban to “products which are 

used or enjoyed by consumers after sale, such as paints used in residences, schools, 

hospitals, parks, playgrounds, and public buildings or other areas where consumers will 

have direct access to the painted surface.”4

• The ban does not extend to commercial and industrial maintenance coatings. In its 1978 

rule, CPSC acknowledged that most industrial and commercial maintenance coatings are 

not available to consumers and therefore are likely not “consumer products.”5 The 

preamble to the final rule described examples of exempted industrial paints, described as 

glossy enamels and red lead primers used on machinery, equipment, steel doors and 

frames, and steel structural members as safety marking paint (yellow lead chromate).6

The summary also stated that commercial building maintenance coatings used on 

plumbing, electrical conduits and equipment, steel doors and exposed steel structural 

members are exempt.7 Notwithstanding the exemption, lead paint and coatings packaging 

must contain a warning label that the product contains lead.8

 b The 1978 CPSC consumer ban, 16 C.F.R. § 1303.1, was broader than an earlier 1973 ban under the Federal 

Hazardous Substances Act on all household lead-based paint shipped in interstate commerce and composed of over 

0.5% lead between 1973 and 1974, and 0.06% thereafter. 38 Fed.Reg. 27012, 27017 (September 27, 1973). 16 

C.F.R. § 1500.17(6)(i); Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2507, 2508.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

6

• Since the 1978 ban, use of lead paint appears to have decreased substantially. The U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that the quantity of lead consumed by the paint 

industry declined from approximately 55,000 short tons (110,000 pounds) in 1972 to less 

than 9,000 short tons (18,000 pounds) in 1993.9 USGS estimated that lead paint 

consumption levels would not decline any further because the paint industry had already 

eliminated most of its lead-based paint by 1993.10 

• According to industry estimates, the U.S. consumed twenty-two million pounds of 

chrome yellow and orange pigments in 1991.11 Consumption data after 1991 for chrome 

yellow is not publically available from the USGS or other sources. However, data 

indicates that chrome yellow imports continued after 1991 until at least 2003. Chrome 

yellow pigment imports increased between 1991 and 2003, from approximately 

7,685,000 pounds12 to 12,247,265 pounds.13 

• According to industry estimates, the U.S. consumed approximately five million pounds of 

molybdate orange in 1991.14 Consumption data after 1991 for molybdate orange is not 

publically available from the USGS or other sources. However, data indicates that 

molybdate orange imports continued after 1991 until at least 2003. Molybdate orange 

pigment imports increased from 1,790,065 pounds in 199115 to a peak of 4,514,703 

pounds in 1998;16 imports decreased to 2,174,972 pounds in 2003.17

• According to an industry source, in 1991, the U.S. consumed six million pounds of 

corrosion inhibiting lead pigments, such as red lead, basic lead-silico chromate, basic 

white lead (lead carbonate), and other specialty corrosion-inhibiting lead pigments

(including diabasic lead phosphate, lead salicylate, di- and tribasic lead phosphosiclicate, 

and flake metallic lead).

18

• White lead consumption in the U.S. declined from 18,549 short tons (37,098,000 pounds)

in 1952 to 4,412 short tons (8,824,000 pounds) in 1977. After 1977, government reports

no longer differentiated among different lead pigment types (e.g., white lead, red lead and 

litharge, and other lead pigments). Although white lead use declined after the 1978 ban, 

basic white lead was used as a corrosion inhibiting lead pigment into the 1980s. 19 In 

1983, less than one million pounds of white lead (5% of white lead’s total consumption) 

was added to lead paints and coatings.20

• Overall imports of lead carbonate have declined from 175,181 pounds in 199121 to 0 

pounds in 2000 and 2002; imports increased to 1,102 pounds in 2003.22 Lead carbonate is 

used in paint, but has other uses as well. The import data do not allow the EPA to 

distinguish its use.

• Lead-based driers, such as lead napthenate, lead octanoate, and lead tallates, can also be 

added to paint and coatings to accelerate or control paint hardening.23 From the 1970s 

until at least the mid-1980s, commercial lead driers contained approximately 30% lead.24

In 1982, the U.S. consumed approximately 1,180,000 pounds of lead based-driers.25

The EPA encourages submission of additional data and information on the manufacture, sale, 

and uses of lead-based paint after 1978. Such information may be available from the following 

sources:

• Paint industry market research or records.

• Building design or construction specifications, both pre- and post-1978.

• Building industry management standards or records.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

7

• Maintenance records.

• Information on products that contain lead, including usage and composition data.

• Information on products that used to contain lead, including usage and composition 

data, and replacement ingredient timing.

In response to the December 31, 2012 Federal Register Notice, the EPA received the following 

comments related to this discussion area:

• One commenter stated that lead paint use was not “consequential” in P&CBs after 1960.

• Another commenter stated that the EPA should follow the statutory language and assume 

that all P&CBs contain lead-based paint unless evidence to the contrary is presented by 

industry.

(2) The use of lead-based paint on public and commercial buildings

The use of lead-based paint and other surface coatings, both past and present, is an important 

consideration for the EPA in determining the scope of buildings that might contain lead-based 

paint/coatings, the age of those buildings, what components might be coated with lead-based 

paint/coatings, where those components are typically located within or on the building, and the 

types of renovation activities that might disturb those components. Information on the use of 

lead-based paint/coatings on P&CBs could help the EPA focus any regulation on those buildings, 

building ages and specific renovation activities that may create lead-based paint hazards. 

The EPA continues to accept additional information on the use of lead-based paint on P&CBs, 

but has gathered or received the following information:

• Lead-based pigments, chromium yellow and molybdate orange, were applied to 

automobiles, to signs, as machinery and equipment finishes, and as traffic paints,26 but 

may have also been used on P&CBs. 

• Red lead, basic lead-silico chromate, basic white lead, and other specialty corrosioninhibiting lead pigments (diabasic lead phosphate, lead salicylate, di- and tribasic lead 

phosphosiclicate, and flake metallic lead)27 were used as primers and/or paint additives to 

prevent corrosion on steel surfaces,

28 and may have been applied to steel doors, steel 

frames, 29 and other areas of P&CBs.

• Paint with lead-based driers was likely used on P&CBs, as they were mainly used as 

architectural coatings and in industrial systems.30

The EPA encourages submission of additional data and information on the use of lead-based 

paint. Such information may be available from the following sources:

• P&CB design specifications, both pre- and post-1978.

• P&CB construction contracts, both pre- and post-1978.

• Industry standards, both pre- and post-1978.

• Market data on use, including manufacture, import or sale, of lead-based paint or similar 

surface coatings used on P&CBs. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

8

• Federal, state and local laws, regulations, standards, etc., that could affect the prevalence 

of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead on P&CBs.

In response to the December 31, 2012 Federal Register Notice, the EPA received the following 

comments related to this discussion area:

• One commenter suggested that the International Building Code (IBC) might be a source 

of information on when and where lead-based paint might be used.

• One commenter suggested that lead paint continues to be used on bridges, railways, 

ships, lighthouses and other steel structures. 

• Commenters disagreed on whether the CPSC 1978 lead-based paint ban impacted the use 

of lead-based paint in non-residential buildings. For example, some commenters 

suggested that the CPSC ban in residential buildings set a de facto standard for paint use

in all building types. Other commenters cautioned that the EPA should assume that leadbased paint continued to be used. One commenter stated that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) used lead-based paint on its buildings until the end of 1988. 

• One commenter advised that the OSHA standards for lead require employers to undertake 

worker exposure assessments. Therefore, industry should have records regarding the 

presence of lead-based paint on P&CBs. This commenter further suggested that the 

failure to comply with OSHA or for industry to provide this data to the EPA should not 

delay any regulation of P&CBs.

• One commenter stated that building use patterns vary more widely in mixed use 

neighborhoods possibly blurring the distinction between where lead-based paint use is 

allowed under the CPSC ban.

(3) The frequency and extent of renovations of public and commercial buildings.

The EPA is accepting additional information regarding the frequency and extent of renovations 

of P&CBs, including but not limited to how often P&CBs are renovated or repainted and the 

typical size or magnitude of those renovations. This information could, among other things, help 

further inform exposure scenarios that are a component of the analyses to determine whether or 

not renovations of P&CBs create lead-based paint hazards. 

The EPA continues to accept data and information regarding the frequency and extent of 

renovations of P&CBs, but has gathered or received the following information: 

• The General Services Administration (GSA) Standard Lease, GSA FORM L201C, 

Section 6.12 provides information on paint maintenance practices and a repainting

schedule for the over 8,100 leases in GSA’s portfolio.

The frequency and extent of renovations of P&CBs may vary based on the type of renovation 

activity or the type and vintage of building. The EPA encourages submission of additional data 

and information on the frequency and extent of renovations of P&CBs. Such information may be 

available from the following sources:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

9

• Building or management records.

• Maintenance records.

• Best management practices.

• Corporate or agency guidelines.

In response to the December 31, 2012 Federal Register Notice, EPA received the following 

comments related to this discussion area:

• One commenter stated that estimating the frequency and extent of renovations in P&CBs

would be difficult to determine. However, “renovations” – as defined for the 2008 RRP 

Rule - are routine and likely occur everyday in commercial buildings. This commenter 

urged the EPA to define “renovation” in a way that would exclude routine maintenance, 

repair and cleaning. 

• One commenter suggested that the EPA modify the methodology used by the Harvard 

Joint Center on Housing Studies for non-residential buildings. 

• Commenters also provided anecdotal evidence that commercial buildings undergo more 

frequent renovations than residential buildings. 

In addition, several commenters on the 2010 ANPR offered similar anecdotal information on the 

frequency and extent of renovations of various P&CB sectors. One stated that, in the electric 

energy sector, most renovations are small-scale modifications and large renovations are rare. 

Another stated that P&CBs are typically repainted every five years, although this may occur 

more frequently in retail businesses. One commenter estimated that major remodels can take a 

year to complete, while minor renovations are more typically performed within a week. This 

commenter noted that hospitals will have continuous minor renovations in process, while schools 

typically conduct minor renovations during breaks in the school year. This commenter also stated 

that major remodels in P&CBs occur every 15 years, on average.

(4) Work practices used to renovate public and commercial buildings. 

In determining whether or not renovations of P&CBs create lead-based paint hazards, 

understanding what work practices are currently being implemented, including but not limited to 

dust and debris containment and cleanup, is desirable. Current work practices will also inform 

the starting point, or baseline, for an analysis of what, if any, additional work practices are 

necessary to reduce or eliminate lead-based paint hazards in P&CBs, should they be identified. 

The EPA continues to accept additional data and information on work practices that are currently 

implemented for P&CBs, but has gathered or received the following information:

• The GSA Standard Lease, GSA FORM L201C, Section 6.07 provides information on 

required cleaning practices and cleaning schedule for the over 8,100 leases in GSA’s 

portfolio.

• The OSHA Lead-In-Construction Industry Standard applies to all construction work 

where an employee may be exposed to “lead.”31
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

10

• Unlike residential household lead-based paint waste, commercial lead-based paint waste 

must be managed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.32

• Federal military guidelines strongly recommend that waste determinations be made

before a project begins, by either analytical means or knowledge of the waste.

33 This may 

involve testing multiple paint samples.34

Current work practices for dust and debris containment and cleanup during and after renovations 

of P&CBs might vary based on the type of renovation activity, the type of building, and the 

location of renovation activity in the building. The EPA encourages submission of additional 

data and information on work practices. Such information may be available from the following 

sources:

• Voluntary industry standards.

• General standards of care for renovating P&CBs with lead-based paint.

• Federal, state, or local laws and regulations.

In response to the December 31, 2012 Federal Register Notice, the EPA received the following 

comments related to this discussion area:

• One commenter provided several voluntary industry standards that may address work 

practices in P&CBs, including the National Institute of Building Sciences’ (NIBS) Whole 

Building Design Guide (WBDG); the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC)

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) work practices for new 

construction and major renovations; LEED Existing Buildings Operations and 

Maintenance (EBOM); LEED Commercial Interiors (CI); National Green Building 

Standard / International Code Council (ICC) 700; and Green Globes. 

• Other commenters pointed out that the EPA should consider the relevant (ICC) codes –

the model IBC, International Existing Building Code (IEBC), and the International 

Property Maintenance Code (IPMC).

• One commenter suggested that compliance with some OSHA requirements can protect 

the public as well as renovation workers.

• A few commenters indicated that compliance with the OSHA standards may be low and 

suggested that the EPA should regulate P&CBs rather than rely on OSHA standards. For 

example, one commenter suggested that some workers have not taken necessary OSHA 

precautions to protect themselves or other individuals in work areas containing leadbased paint. 

• Several commenters highlighted the fact that an “EPA standard” would protect occupants 

of P&CBs, and therefore not conflict with OSHA standards for lead-exposed workers. 

One commenter suggested that because OSHA housekeeping standards (29 CFR § 

1910.1025(h)) may be inadequate in light of more recent research,35 the EPA should 

address containment and cleanup in all P&CBs.

• Some commenters noted that other environmental laws may not protect vulnerable 

populations. For example, studies show that families of LBP workers may be exposed to 

"take-home" lead, and the EPA should take steps to protect them. One commenter noted 

that some regulations require containment to reduce lead releases into waterways or into 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

11

the ground, but these practices may increase the level of lead dust to which employees 

may be exposed. 

• Some commenters were generally supportive of additional regulations for P&CB, with 

some stating that the EPA should establish work practice requirements consistent with the 

2008 RRP Rule requirements. 

• Several commenters suggested that the EPA consider the proximity of commercial 

buildings to residential property. In addition, some commenters requested that the EPA 

require adjacent properties to be notified when renovations occur. For interior 

renovations in commercial buildings, the EPA should distinguish between work done 

where the public does and does not have regular access. 

• Other commenters suggested work practices for future regulations, including: requiring

dust clearance testing for all renovations of P&CBs above the de minimis; requiring dust 

clearance testing when property has twice failed cleaning verification; requiring thirdparty dust clearance testing; prohibiting random dust clearance sampling; requiring that 

building owners and tenants be provided with clearance results; requiring occupants to 

stay out of work area and prohibiting re-occupancy until clearance passes; requiring 

exterior containment, including vertical containment; providing instructional video on 

how to construct vertical containment properly; requiring lead safe demolition practices; 

and requiring a minimum penalty to incentivize compliance. 

• One commenter supports the use of lead safe work practices to reduce the creation of 

hazards and states that new technology, such as HEPA vacuums, and the new work 

practices required under the 2008 RRP Rule are much more effective at reducing dust

than those of the past. 

• One commenter states that P&CBs are not always closed to non-renovation workers or 

visitors during construction. In some instances the work area is only delineated with 

scaffolding or signs that indicate a renovation is underway; access is not restricted. The 

commenter also states that although commercial building tenants are often given notice of 

a renovation (pursuant to lease agreements), visiting members of the public are generally 

not given such notice. Despite this, the commenter notes that interior renovations might

occur in vacant spaces not currently used by building tenants and visitors.

• In response to both the 2010 ANPR and the December 31, 2012, Federal Register Notice, 

several commenters provided personal accounts or other anecdotal evidence of work 

practices. For example, several commenters highlighted potential gaps in existing 

mitigation measures and regulatory programs. Some commenter indicated that common 

renovation techniques for P&CBs may leave behind lead dust or that typical clean-up 

after P&CB renovations consisted of only sweeping with a broom. One commenter also 

noted that survey techniques do not always include lead dust wipe samples.

• However, one commenter noted that, in hospitals, renovation firms are generally required 

to separate renovation work areas due to infectious control issues. In those cases, an 

environmental contractor is brought in to establish containment and provide HEPA air 

filtration devices.

• Several commenters on the 2010 ANPR stated that P&CB owners conduct testing for 

lead-based paint and other hazards before soliciting bids for renovations, although one 

thought that this was more common before major renovations.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

12

(5) Dust generation and transport from exterior and interior renovations of public and 

commercial buildings.

Information related to dust generation and transport from renovations of P&CBs is likely to 

inform the EPA’s determination on lead-based paint hazards: (1) whether specific renovation 

activities generate dust, (2) the extent of dust created by specific renovation activities, (3) 

whether and where a hazard exists, and (4) the analyses of whether work practice or other 

regulatory requirements would reduce or eliminate hazards. In addition to information and data 

on dust generated and transported from renovations of P&CBs, the EPA is interested in any 

relevant information, data, or studies that inform whether renovations of P&CBs, particularly 

exterior renovations, can create hazards inside nearby residential housing, COFs, or other 

buildings. The EPA is also interested in information, data, or studies regarding lead dust 

contamination of exterior hard surfaces where children could be exposed, including, but not

limited to porches, stoops, stairs, driveways, paved play areas, and play structures. 

The EPA continues to accept additional data and information on dust generation and transport 

from renovations of P&CBs, but has gathered or received the following information: 

• In 2007, the EPA issued results from a field study entitled “Characterization of Dust Lead 

Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities” (Dust Study).36 This study was 

conducted to characterize dust-lead levels resulting from renovations by comparing 

environmental lead levels at appropriate stages after various types of interior and exterior 

renovation, repair, and painting activities at both target housing units and child-occupied 

facilities. Specifically, the Dust Study evaluated the dust-lead and soil-lead levels 

generated by the following activities at an unoccupied school building (one type of public 

or commercial building) and/or unoccupied target housing: 

o Making cut-outs in the walls.

o Replacing a window from the inside.

o Removing paint with high and low temperature heat guns.

o Removing paint by dry scraping.

o Removing paint with a power planer.

o Removing kitchen cabinets.

• The Dust Study supported the EPA’s finding in the 2008 RRP Rule that typical 

renovation and remodeling activities that disturb lead-based paint create exceedances of 

the residential hazard standards. 

• Data from the Dust Study indicate that lead-based paint hazards may be created inside 

contiguous, adjacent, and nearby residential and COF buildings as a result of exterior 

renovations on P&CBs. Dust generated during exterior renovations has the potential to 

create a hazardous level of interior floor lead dust through various pathways such as 

make-up air for HVAC systems, air exchange between the inside of the building and the 

exterior environment, open doors and windows, and dust tracked into the residences and 

COFs. 

• Another study used by the EPA to support the 2008 RRP Rule was the Environmental 

Field Sampling Study (EFSS).37 This study, Phase I of the study conducted under TSCA 

section 402(c)(2), evaluated the amount of leaded dust generated by the activities below. 

Note that the dust-lead levels generated by abrasive sanding were evaluated through a 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

13

literature survey, the results of which included both residential buildings and P&CBs. 

The rest of the evaluated activities were performed in residential buildings as part of the 

study. 

o Paint removal by abrasive sanding.

o Removal of large structures, including demolition of interior plaster walls.

o Window replacement.

o Carpet removal.

o HVAC repair or replacement, including duct work.

o Repairs resulting in isolated small surface disruptions, including drilling and 

sawing into wood and plaster.

• Phase II of the EFSS study conducted under TSCA section 402(c)(2), the Worker 

Characterization and Blood Lead Study,

38 is also relevant to the assessment of lead-based 

paint hazards associated with renovations of public and commercial buildings. This study 

involved collecting data on blood lead and renovation and remodeling activities from 

workers. Half of the renovations studied occurred in commercial buildings and half 

occurred in residential housing. This study provides evidence of a relationship between 

commercial building renovation activities and worker blood lead levels. Phase IV of the 

study, the Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of R&R (Renovation and 

Remodeling) Workers Who Specialize in Renovations of Old or Historic Homes, was 

similar to Phase II, but focused on individuals who worked primarily in old historic 

buildings.

• In response to the 2010 ANPR, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) submitted several studies that assessed worker exposure and transport of lead 

dust from renovation activities.

39 One study assessed lead-based paint exposures of 

workers during exterior renovation work on several building types, including a 

multipurpose building that had been used as a daycare center. 

The EPA encourages submission of additional data and information on dust generation and 

transport from exterior and interior renovations of public and commercial buildings. Such 

information may be available from the following sources:

• Air, dust, or soil sampling data from specific P&CB renovation projects that may be held 

by contractors, building owners, environmental sampling firms, and/or state and local 

enforcement authorities.

• Renovation studies conducted by private or public institutions or entities, not publicly 

available

In response to the December 31, 2012 Federal Register Notice, the EPA received the following 

comments related to this discussion area:

• Some commenters cautioned against relying on studies used to support the 2008 RRP 

Rule, although they acknowledged that some P&CBs were assessed in these studies. 

Other commenters suggested that dust generation in P&CBs is different from dust 

generation in residential buildings. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

14

• Some commenters requested that the EPA perform new studies of current renovation and 

remodeling projects in P&CBs. Other commenters suggested that the EPA use research 

done by NCHH on dust generation from demolition.

• Two commenters mentioned that renovation workers can put their children and families 

at risk by bringing lead-dust home on their person and clothing resulting in elevated 

blood lead levels and that lead-based paint hazards can be created in all building types.

• One commenter expressed concern that exterior renovations can create hazards at nearby 

residences in mixed use neighborhoods and that work practice requirements should 

prevent dust migration and worker tracking of dust to these public spaces. The 

commenter mentioned that the HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of LeadBased Paint Hazards in Housing40 recommend cleaning of these adjacent surfaces and 

also recommends protection of adjacent properties when setting up the work area and that 

the work practices from the 2008 RRP Rule as a starting place for this rule. 

In addition, in response to the 2010 ANPR, one commenter suggested that bridge renovation 

studies were relevant to the question of the transport of lead from renovations. This commenter 

suggested that these studies and anecdotal evidence from the commenter’s members demonstrate 

that full negative-air containment is needed to prevent lead contamination from abrasive blasting.

Next Steps

On June 26, 2013, the EPA will hold a public meeting to provide an opportunity for stakeholders 

and other interested parties to provide the EPA with additional information that could help 

inform the EPA’s regulatory determinations. The EPA invites any and all interested parties to 

participate in the public meeting. Additionally, the EPA has reopened the comment period from 

May [XX], 2013 to July 26, 2013, so that relevant data and information can be submitted 

electronically to the docket for this action, available at www.regulations.gov, docket ID # EPA–

HQ–OPPT–2010–0173.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

15

REFERENCES

 1 Richard L. Canfield et al., Intellectual Impairment in Children with Blood Lead Concentrations below 10 ug per 

Deciliter, 345 New Eng. J. Med. 1517, 1521 (2003)); 1995 NIOSH report on construction industry workers, 

specifically during maintenance or repainting of steel structures coated with LBP, which have been among those 

workers with the highest BLL; Sussell, A. Protecting Workers Exposed to Lead-Based Paint Hazard – A Report to 

Congress. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, CDC, NIOSH, January 1997. 2 15 U.S.C. § 2683 3 16 C.F.R. § 1303.1, 47 Fed. Reg. 44193 (September 1, 1977). 4 16 C.F.R. § 1303.1, 47 Fed. Reg. 44193 (September 1, 1977). 5 42 Fed. Reg. 44193, 44196 (September 1, 1977). 6 Id.

7 Id.

8 16 C.F.R. § 1303.3(a). 9 U.S. Geological Survey, Total Materials Consumption - An Estimation Methodology and Example Using Lead—A 

Materials Flow Analysis, April 30, 1999, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1999/c1183/c1183.pdf 10 Id. 11 National Paint and Coatings Association, U.S. Paint Industry Data Base, 113 (1992). 12 U.S. Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Division, Historical Summary 1989-1993 for Chrome Yellow 

(3206200010), U.S. Imports History: International Harmonized System Commodity Classification by Country by 

Customs District (June 1998); see also National Paint and Coatings Association, U.S. Paint Industry Data Base, 111 

(1992)

13 U.S. Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Division, Historical Summary 1999-2003 for Chrome Yellow 

(3206200010), U.S. Imports History: International Harmonized System Commodity Classification by Country by 

Customs District (June 1998). 14 National Paint and Coatings Association, U.S. Paint Industry Data Base at 113. 15 U.S. Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Division, Historical Summary 1989-1993 for Molybdenum Orange 

(3206200020), U.S. Imports History: International Harmonized System Commodity Classification by Country by 

Customs District (June 1998); see also National Paint and Coatings Association, U.S. Paint Industry Data Base, 111 

(1992). 16 U.S. Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Division, Historical Summary 1997-2001 for Molybdenum Orange 

(3206200020), U.S. Imports History: International Harmonized System Commodity Classification by Country by 

Customs District (June 2002). 17 U.S. Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Division, Historical Summary 1999-2003 for Molybdenum Orange 

(3206200020), U.S. Imports History: International Harmonized System Commodity Classification by Country by 

Customs District (June 2004). 18 SRI International, The U.S. Paint Industry: Technology Trends, Markets, Raw Materials, 126. Prepared for the 

National Paint and Coatings Association (1984). 

19 SRI International, The U.S. Paint Industry: Technology Trends, Markets, Raw Materials, 128. Prepared for the 

National Paint and Coatings Association (1984).

20 Id. 21 U.S. Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Division, Historical Summary 1989-1993 for Lead Carbonate 

(2836700000), U.S. Imports History: International Harmonized System Commodity Classification by Country by 

Customs District (June 1998). 22 Id. 23 SRI International, The U.S. Paint Industry: Technology Trends, Markets, Raw Materials, 168. Prepared for the 

National Paint and Coatings Association (1984).

24 Id. at 169. 25 Id. at 170. 26 National Paint and Coatings Association, U.S. Paint Industry Data Base at 113. 27 SRI International, The U.S. Paint Industry: Technology Trends, Markets, Raw Materials, 126. Prepared for the 

National Paint and Coatings Association (1984). 

28 National Paint and Coatings Association, U.S. Paint Industry Data Base at 137-138.

29 16 C.F.R. § 1303.1, 47 Fed. Reg. 44193 (September 1, 1977).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2013

16

 30 SRI International, The U.S. Paint Industry: Technology Trends, Markets, Raw Materials, 170. Prepared for the 

National Paint and Coatings Association (1984). 31 29 C.F.R. § 1926.62. 32 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et. seq. 33 Navy Lead Hazard Reduction Steering Committee, NAFAC TSCA Workgroup, Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command. Facilities Management Guide for Asbestos and Lead. 2004. 34 Id.

35 S.A. Grinshpun, et al., Efficiency of Final Cleaning for Lead-Based Paint Abatement in Indoor Environments, 17 

Applied Occupational Envt. Hygiene 222 (2002).

36 See Docket ID # EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173. 37 Id. 38 Id.

39 Id. 40 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based

Paint Hazards in Housing (2012).