THE WISCONSIN

EPA-AUTHORIZED LEAD PROGRAM

AND

TSCA GRANT

END-OF-YEAR REPORT

TO THE

EPA REGION 5 ADMINISTRATOR

Summary of Progress and Performance

for the period

October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008

Submitted: Shelley Bruce

Prepared by: Diane McGinnis

Lead & Asbestos Section

Bureau of Environmental and Occupational HealthDivision of Public Health
Element 1: Significant changes in content or administration 7

Element 2: Summary of the scope of the regulated community 8

Table 1: Individual certifications issued

Table 2: Individuals certified by discipline

Table 3: Lead certification exam results

Table 4: Lead Spanish supervisor certification exam results

Table 5: Company certifications issuedTable 6: Lead companies

Table 7: Notices of lead hazard reduction activities

Table 8: Types of lead projects notified

Table 9: Reports of lead investigation activities

Table 10: Accredited Training Course Status by ProviderTable 11: Number of accredited lead courses

Table 12: Accredited lead classes offrred

Table 13: Approved principal instructors

Element 3: Compliance monitoring 14

Table 14: Onsite lead hazard reduction project inspections

Table 15: On-site observations of deficienciesTable 16: Lead Investigation Activities and Report Audits

Table 17: Course on-site audits

Element 4: Enforcement activities 17

Table 18: Enforcement by Action TypeTable 19: Enforcement Activity by Category of Violation

Table 20: Major certification enforcement actions

Element 5: Compliance assistance provided 20

Table 21: Compliance Issues Observed Onsite

Table 22: Training & PresentationsTable 23: Call Tracking

Table 24: Media Coverage of Lead Issues

Element 6: State activities summary sheet 25

Element 7: Level of resources committed by the State 26

Element 8: State lead-based paint program analysis 27

3
> outreach and education, including developing collaborations and building coalitions> grant activities administration and reporting

Other program activities included:

> working with the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program on the Elimination 2010 Plan,

particularly in the areas ofresources and funding, reducing hazards in housing, and education and

outreach

> identifying improvements to enhance overall lead enforcement coordination, effectiveness and

efficiency

Program data shows that overall the regulated industry was relatively stable with little change incertification disciplines, but notified lead activities were down significantly. Certifications increased by

3 % in the total number of certified persons in the state. Individual disciplines changed by:

> 6 % increase in the number of certified lead-safe workers

r

> 1 % decrease in the number oflead abatement workers

> 1 % decrease in the number of lead abatement supervisors

> 11 % increase in the number oflead sampling technicians> 5 % increase in the number oflead hazard investigators

> 9 % increase in the number oflead risk assessors

Other industry data show mixed results:

> 7 % increase in the number of lead companies in the state

43 % decrease in the number of notified lead projects statewide

9 % decrease in the number oflead investigation activities (inspections, risk assessments,

clearances) reported by certified lead professionals (65% increase over FFY 06)

> Steady number of accredited lead training courses in the state

> 17 % increase in the number of lead training classes held

The lead program issued 299 formal letters to individuals who did not report their lead quarterly

investigation activities, including inspections, risk assessments, and clearances. These letters continue to

increase compliance with lead investigation reporting requirements.

Twenty-one ofthe 25 courses accredited as of September 30, 2008 have achieved full accreditation

status. One ofthe 26 expired during the fiscal year and was not renewed.

The lead program conducted fewer onsite compliance inspections in FFY 08. In FFY 07 the program

conducted 303 inspections in comparison to 198 in FFY 08. This is attributed partially to two vacanciesduring the reporting period as well as several major enforcement cases using staffresources and one in

particular that required hundreds of hours to develop.

5
g 

(

) a

d

Wisconsin Association of Local Health Directors and Boards (WALHDAB) Conference in July, andCommunity Outreach Look Out For Lead in Milwaukee in August.

The program has had two vacancies for most ofFFY 08, equaling the loss of 1.0 FTE on the lead side of

the program. This did not affect the FTE’s covered under the EPA grant, but does affect overall

productivity in the lead program. The program was able to fill one ofthose vacancies on August 4, 2008

and expects to fill the other vacancy in October 2008.

The Wisconsin lead program continues to fulfill its obligations in administering the EPA-authorized lead

training accreditation, certification and enforcement program.

6
program is now in the Department ofHealth Services.

B. Issues arising during the past year

Formal variances and accommodations:

Comparable compliance was approved for a lead worker from Illinois to become certified in Wisconsin

even though his training history did not show that his refresher training history met the stricter

requirements ofWisconsin rules for frequency oftraining. The comparable compliance was based on the

person’s long history of continuous certification in Illinois.

The Department approved a request from a homeowner to complete 2-days oftraining and becomecertified as a Lead Abatement Worker in order to conduct lead abatement in her own home to comply

with EBL orders from the local health department. Approval was granted with the condition that the

person would work under the general supervision ofthe local health department and would only conduct

the work in her own home.

Limited English Proficiency:

The program developed and began offering the Lead Supervisor certification exam in Spanish in

December of 2005. The exam was offered in Spanish to two individuals in FFY 08, and both ofthe

students passed.Other Issues:

Several issues affecting the lead program are discussed under Element 8 ofthis report. These issues

include limited English proficiency accommodations, ongoing fiscal concerns for the lead program’s

budget deficit, low lead Registry participation, and non-abatement lead-disturbing work concerns.

7
Abatement Worker 134 109 102 63 36 99

Abatement Supervisor 641 408 456 96 55 235 386

(188 2-yr) (111 2-yr) (172 2-yr) (5 2-yr) (72 2-yr)

Project Designer 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

Sampling Technician 2 10 17 20 14 11 25

Hazard Investigator 3 105 48 72 5 2 36 43

(54 2-yr) (23 2-y 51 2-.yr (0 2-yr (2 2-yr)

Inspector 3 3 0 1 0 2 3

Risk Assessor 171 105 157 23 6 74 103

(95 2-yr) (54 2-yr) (126 2-yr) (4 2-yr) (17 2-yr)

Total Issued 1177 794 848 234 63 395 692

Table 2: Individuals Certified by discipline as of: 10/1/05 10/1/06 10/1/07 10/1/08

Lead-Safe Workers’ 369 470 510 543

Abatement Workers 208 215 188 185

Abatement Supervisors 599 540 495 489

Sub-Total 1176 1242 1193 1217

Project Designers 0 1 1 1

Sampling Technicians 2 59 25 36 40

Hazard Investigators 3 119 106 85 90

Inspectors 1 3 0 1

Risk Assessors 228 215 211 230

Sub-Total 407 350 333 362

Total Certifications 1583 1592 1526 1579

Most lead hazard reduction disciplines have seen moderate decreases in numbers of certified persons

during the past year. However, most ofthe lead investigation disciples saw an increase in FFY 08.

While the number of certifications issued during FFY 08 decreased from the previous year, the numberofindividuals certified increased. The only disciplines to experience a decrease in certification numbers

were the Lead Abatement Workers and Lead Abatement Supervisors, by 3 and 6 persons respectively.

The Lead-Safe Worker discipline is based on a one-day course equivalent to the lead-safe renovation and lead-safe maintenance courses

developed, approved by and/or offered by EPA and HUD. In Wisconsin, Lead-Safe Worker certification is required to do work that disturbs

lead paint in registered lead-safe housing. Lead-Safe Worker training/certification also qualifies individuals to work on HUD-funded

housing projects.2 The Lead Sampling Technician discipline is based on a one-day course equivalent to the EPAJHUD Lead Sampling courses. In Wisconsin,

certified Lead Sampling Technicians may conduct clearance after non-abatement lead-paint disturbing work but may not conduct clearance

after lead abatement. Certified Lead Sampling Technicians may also assist Lead Inspectors, Lead Hazard Investigators and Lead Risk

Assessors.

The Lead Hazard Investigator discipline is based on completion ofthe one-day Lead Sampling course and the two-day Lead Hazard

Investigation course and allows individuals to conduct lead risk assessments and clearance, but not to use an XRF analyzer in conductingtheir work. A Lead Hazard Investigator may not conduct an inspection.

8
and Urban Development Department (HUD) in the state. These two factors drive most ofthe lead

abatement work being conducted and also affect the numbers of certified lead investigation professionals.

Table 3 below shows the most recent and long-term state certification exam results. A new lead

supervisor exam was implemented and the passing rate for lead supervisors increased in FFY 08 as a

result. The lead risk assessor passing rate decreased in FFY 08 even though the exam remained the

same. One individual failed the risk assessor exam three times which affected the overall perfomiance of

this test. This individual was looking at the questions from a local health department perspective, and

was basing her answers as ifthe project was ordered work and the landlord would have to complyregardless ofmoney to what the order stipulated.

TaI)Je 3: i.ead (.‘ertilication Exam Results

FFY 08

Takej

Takeii 107 0 11 10 128

• Passed 96 0 9 113

% Passed 89% -- 72% 90% 88%

From Inception: 2’ ‘4 *‘

1/1198 -9/30/07 LCJ ALL’

Total Taken 2489 49 57 686 3281

Total Passed 2026 42 44 620 2732

% Passed 81% 86% 77% 90% 83%

The Spanish Supervisor exam is provided upon request to individuals who have successfully completedan English-language Lead Abatement Supervision course and course test, but who feel more comfortable

reading in Spanish. To date, 18 have taken the Spanish exam and 7 have passed it. The low number

passing in Spanish may indicate that language is not the only issue of concern. It is possible that reading

ability is a concern for some and it is possible that some did not learn what they needed to learn in their

initial course, possibly because they could not fully understand the lectures and could not read theEnglish course manuals. However, this year the two persons taking the exam in Spanish both passed.

Table 4: Lead Spanish Supervisor certification exam results:FFY 08

# Taking: 2 # Passing: 2 % Passing: 100%

Dec. 15, 2005 — Sept. 30, 2007: Totals for All Spanish Exams Taken

# Taking: 18 # Passing: 7 % Passing: 39%

9
p

Lead Companies 443 455 400 431

Lead-Safe Companies 30 35 33 33

Total Companies 473 490 433 464

Company certifications are cyclical based on 2-year certification periods with even years bearing the

greater number ofre-certifications. Company certifications have declined as the number ofindividual

certifications has decreased. These certifications will be watched during the next fiscal year to determine

if a trend has begun. Lead-safe companies have held steady for the past few years; however, there are

very few statewide. These figures are unlikely to change until regulatory requirements are written for

lead-safe renovation and remodeling.

Table 7: Notices of lead hazard reduction activities

Month FFY 04 FFY 05 FFY 06 FFY 07 FFY 08

October 63 96 3 143 101

November 40 102 120 101

December 38 99 98 89 56January 105 90 98 109 73

February 88 75 100 66 42

March 96 97 114 86 58April 102 89 92 100 59

May 98 80 102 88 69

June 103 88 80 74 61July 84 80 77 93 50

August 84 104 93 98 58

September 85 88 109 78 67

TOTAL 986 1088 1147 1144 795

Notifications have decreased by 43% compared to FFYO7. October and November of 2008 were the besttwo months for lead notices in this reporting cycle. The program has been working with Beloit and Rock

County who were funded for the first time with a HUD lead hazard reduction grant on the requirements

of certification and notification. The grant trained many new abatement contractors to conduct work, but

unfortunately the program was not receiving project notifications for much ofthe work being conducted.Warning letters were issued to these contractors that stated the requirements of certification and

notification. Seventeen jobs were conducted under this grant without notification.

Company certifications are for 2-year periods.

10
TOTAL 1087 1147 1144 795

Table 9 shows the numbers of lead investigation activities reported to the department during thereporting period. The numbers ofreported activities has maintained steady over this fiscal year. In

addition to the reminder emails we regularly send out at the end of each quarter, the program also sent

out a formal letter to those that have not responded after 6 weeks. In FFY 08, 299 formal letters were

sent. The program is considering sending a notice ofnon-compliance and forfeiture to those individuals

that have not responded in two consecutive quarters.

Table 9: Lead investigation activities conducted by certified lead professionals

Activity: Partial Full Hazard Risk Lead-Free Clearance Totals

Inspections 6Inspections Screens ‘Jessments Lead-Safe

FFY Hazard/Paint Found 122 (68%) 269 (93%) 21 (60%) 641 (90%) 1 (50%) 121 (8%) 1175

08 No Hazard/Paint 56 (32%) 19 (7%) 14(40%) 70 (10%) 1 (50%) 1422(92%) 1582

Totals 178 288 35 711 2 1543 2757

FFY Hazard!PaintFound 200 (61.5%) 195 (89%) 22 (55%) 879 (93%) 1 (33%) 139 (10%) 1436

07 NoHazardlPaint 125 (38.5%) 25 (11%) 18 (45%) 66 (7%) 2 (67%) 1192 (90%) 1428

. Totals 325 220 40 945 3 1331 2864

FFY Hazard/Paint Found 105 (77%) 60 (81%) 28 (76%) 523 (90%) 1 (17%) 104(14%) 821

06 No Hazard/Paint 31 (23%) 14(19%) 9 (24%) 61 (10%) 5 (83%) 643 (86%) 763

Totals 136 74 37 584 6 747 1585

FFY Hazard,Paint Found 143 (72%) 45 (70%) 19(73%) 380(87%) 7 (24%) 125 (16%) 719

05 No Hazard/Paint 55 (28%) 19 (30%) 7 (27%) 55 (13%) 22 (76%) 642 (84%) 800

Totals 198 64 26 435 29 767 1519

We now have reporting for more clearances conducted than lead hazard reduction activities notified.This may well be because federally funded renovation and remodeling jobs do not require project

notices, but clearance must still be conducted on them.

Lead investigation activities include lead inspections, lead hazard screens, lead risk assessments and clearance. Quarterly summary reports

ofthese activities are required. Reports are due by the last day of January, April, July and October for each previous quarter. 6 A partial inspection is a regulated activity that includes anything less than a surface-by-surface sampling/testing for lead-based paint.

11
Lead 

Supe

v

s

o

Contingent 7/7/09

Milw. Community Service Corps Lead-Safe Work Full 7/24/08

Milwaukee Lead/Asbestos Lead-Safe Work Full 2/20/12Information Center (MLAIC) Lead-Safe Work — Spanish Contingent 4/14/09

Lead Abatement Work — Initial Full 2/20/12

Lead Abatement Work - Initial Spanish** Contingent 5/31/09Lead Abatement Worker — Refresher Full 9/5/09

Lead Abatement Supervision - Initial Full 2/20/12

Lead Abatement Supervisor — Refresher Full 4/23/11Lead Sampling — Initial Full 5/6/09

Lead Sampling Technician — Refresher Full 10/5/11Lead Inspection — Initial Full 4/19/12Lead Hazard Investigation — Initial Full 5/6/13Lead Hazard Investigator — Refresher Full 7/8/09

Lead Risk Assessor — Refresher Full 5/11/11

Wisconsin DKFS Lead Sampling — Initial Full 7/25/12

Madison Lead Sampling Technician — Refresher Full 7/25/12

(for public employees only) Lead Inspection — Initial Full 3/1/12

Lead Inspector — Refresher Full 10/12/10

Lead Hazard Investigation — Initial Full 3/1/10Lead Hazard Investigator — Refresher Full 3/1/10

Lead Risk Assessor — Refresher Full 10/12/10

* Courses in Bold expired during the year and were not renewed.** These courses were not offered in FFY 08.

This year, one course expired that the training provider did not renew, but the program added one new

training provider and an additional course. Therefore, the number of accredited courses remained the

same. Milwaukee Lead/Asbestos information Center continues to be the dominant provider in the state.

The second largest provider, Lake States, offered just 7 classes during the fiscal year, and Milwaukee

Community Service Corps and AmTek did not offer any classes during the year. The Departmentcontinues to offer lead risk assessor refresher classes for local health department employees and

infrequent lead sampling technician refresher courses.

Lake States Environmental has not achieved full accreditation for most of its courses and has not offered or held most ofits courses during

FFYO8. The Lead Abatement Work Initial, Lead Abatement Worker Refresher, and Lead Abatement Supervision Initial were not held duringthis reporting period.

12
p

Lead Inspector Refresher 1 1 1 1

Lead Hazard Investigation Initial 12 2 2 2 2

Lead Hazard Investigator Refresher 2 2 2 2Lead Risk Assessor Refresher 3 2 2 2

Total Accredited Courses 31 28 26 26

Table 12: Accredited lead classes offered durin the period

Initial Courses FFY 05 — - i 08Lead-Safe Work 56 44 3 36

Lead-Safe Work (Spanish) 1 1 0 2

Lead Abatement Work 26 16 11 15Lead Abatement Work (Spanish) 1 1 0 0

Lead Abatement Supervision 19 15 9 14

Lead Sampling 4 6 3 3

Lead Inspection 4 3 2 2Lead Hazard Investigation 4 3 2 2

Total Initial Courses 115 89 58 74

Refresher Courses FFY 05 FFY 06 FFY 07 FFY 08

LeadAbatement Worker 4 2 4 4

Lead-Abatement Supervisor 26 21 18 17Lead Sampling Technician 1 2 1 3

Lead Inspector 0 0 0 0Lead Hazard Investigator 13 6 7 4Lead Risk Assessor 13 10 7 10

Total Refresher Courses 57 41 37 38

Total ALL Courses 172 130 95 112

The lead initial courses showed an increase by 16 classes this year. These courses primarily took place incommunities that had HUD lead hazard reduction grants.

The Lead-Safe Work course is a 1-day course equivalent to the EPA Renovation and Remodeling course and is a prerequisite to the Lead

Abatement Work course.

The Lead Abatement Work course is a 1-day course that along with the Lead-Safe Work course is equivalent to the EPA 2-day Lead

Worker course and is a prerequisite to the Lead Abatement Supervision course. 10 The Lead Abatement Supervision course is a 2-day course that together with the Lead-Safe Work and Lead Abatement Work courses is

equivalent to the EPA 4-day Lead Supervisor course.

The Lead Sampling course is a 1-day course equivalent to the EPA Lead Sampling Technician course and is a prerequisite to the Lead

Inspection and Lead Hazard Investigation courses. 12 The Lead Hazard Investigation course is a 2-day course equivalent to the EPA Lead Risk Assessor course. It may be taken alone after

completing the Lead Sampling course or after completing the Lead Inspection course. The Hazard Investigation course replaced the Lead

Risk Assessor initial course in 2002.

13
13 Lead Investigation Instructors must be certified Lead Risk Assessors and may teach Lead Sampling, Inspection, Hazard Reduction Initia1

and Refresher courses and the Risk Assessor Refresher course.

14 Lead Hazard Reduction Instructors must be certified Lead Abatement Supervisors and may teach the Lead-Safe Work, Lead Abatement

Work and Lead Abatement Supervision Initial and Refresher courses.

14
Inspection Basis FFY 05 FFY 06 FFY 07 FFY 08

Complaint’ 5 3 3 6 3

New Contractor 11 15 10 3

Random (NAIS) 295 214 196 157

Referral 16 0 0 1 0Targeted 24 72 66 26

Look Behind of Lead Investigation 36 2 23 9Other (happened upon) 2 1 1 0

TOTAL for Period 371 307 303 198

Ofthe 27 deficiencies observed during onsite inspections, 44% were related to work practice issues, 22%

were certification violations, 18% to notification issues and 14% were for other reasons.

Table 15: On-site observations of deficiencies -- lead hazard reduction projects Total FFY 08

Performed work requiring certification at a job site without having proof of certification onsite. 1

Performed work using individuals who were not certified when certification was required. 3

Performing work requiring a certified supervisor without a certified supervisor on site. 2

Failed to follow work practice standards. 12

Failed to send D}{FS notice at least 2 days prior to starting lead-hazard reduction, with the 5

exception of emergency notice.Other reasons. 4

Total 27

The program increased the number oflead investigation activities audits it conducted, including reportaudits and onsite look-behind audits. The majority ofthe lead investigation audits conducted this year

were for clearances, with only one audit of a lead risk assessment report.

Table 16: Lead Investigation Activities and Renort Audits’ 7Conducted bhe Department

.. FFYO6 FFY 07 FFYO8

Report On-Si4e Report On-Site Report On-Site

Audit Audit Audit

Lead Clearance Reports 0 1 0 1 8 2

Lead Inspection Reports 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lead Risk Assessment Reports 0 1 0 1 1 0

TOTALS 0 2 0 2 9 2

15 Complaints include concerns from the general public or a non-governmental organization or business. 16 Referrals include concerns and investigations provided to us from federal, state or local government agencies 17 The Department conducts lead investigation report audits as part ofits oversight of certified lead professionals who conduct

lead clearance, inspection and risk assessment activities. The audits and on-site reviews determine compliance with clearance,

inspection and risk assessment requirements under Wis. Adm. Code, IIFS 163.14.

15
1 Lead Risk Assessor Refresher 3/5/08 Class Spot Check — no issues found

2 Lead Abatement Work 4/2/08 Passed3 Lead-Safe Work 4/11/08 Passed

4 Lead-Safe Work 4/14/08 Passed

5 Lead-Safe Work Spanish 4/14/08 Failed —The instructor did not clearly

explain the difference between abatementand non-abatement and the certifications

necessary for each. Lack of instructor

preparation understanding and using theIIILD guidelines.

6 Lead-Safe Work 4/15/08 Passed

7 Lead-Safe Work 5/8/08 Passed

8 Lead Hazard Investigation 5/15/08 Passed

9 Lead-Safe Work 06/23/08 Passed

10 Lead-Safe Work 9/17/08 Passed11 Lead Supervisor Refresher 9/29/08 Passed

Lake States Environmental

12 Lead-Safe Work 7/31/08 Passed

16
Total Cases Opened/Closed 25 25 156 17 7 6

Enforcement Actions on Companies Opened Opened Opened Closed Opened ClosedLetter ofJnquiry/Waming Letter 0 0 0 0 7 7

Notice ofNon-Compliance/Orders 9 9 7 6 6 7Denial/Withholding/Suspension 3 3 0 0 1 1

Revocation 0 0 0 0 1 1

Penalty / Forfeiture 2 2 8 3 7 7

Total Cases Opened/Closed 14 14 15 9 22 23

TOTALS for ALL Cases 39 39 171 26 29 29

Ofthe eight notices ofnon-compliance the Department issued during the fiscal year, five were field

NON’s. Four field NON’s were to companies and one to individuals. Field notices of non-compliance

are issued immediately on site for certain relatively minor violations such as not having the certification

card on site, expired certification card, uncertified worker in a regulated area, or supervisor not on site.

Field NON’s represented 18% ofthe 28 enforcement actions closed during the year.

The Department issued 136 warning letters in FFY 07 to certified lead investigators who failed to submit

their quarterly summary reports for previous quarters. No further action was taken concerning this issueas a follow-up to these letters. Reminders are sent to certified lead investigators who fail to submit theirquarterly reports in a timely manner. In FFY 09 the Department intends to follow up recalcitrant

investigators with more formal enforcement action.

Ofthe cases opened each fiscal year, 28% ofthe FFY 06 cases involved a major enforcement action

(denial, revocation or penalty), 39% ofthe FFY 07 cases (not including the 136 warning letters) were

major, and 43% ofthe FFY 08 cases were major. This increase in percentage ofmajor cases reflects a

greater willingness on the part ofthe Department to take strong action for repeated non-compliance. Ingeneral, the Department gives one chance for a person or company to show they can become compliant

and remain compliant. Ifthey violate regulations again, the Department takes stronger action, such as a

monetary forfeiture, to send the message that compliance is required. As companies and persons

develop an enforcement history with the Department, we are more likely to take stronger action for eachsubsequent violation.

18 Enforcement actions are taken following the requirements ofWis. Adm. Code chapter HFS 163, and the guidelines and

procedures provided in the DHFS Asbestos & Lead Program Enforcement Policy Manual. 19 Letter ofInquiry/Warning Letters: letters ofinquiry require a response regarding a potential violation and may lead to an

enforcement action ifthe person fails to respond or the response indicates a violation was committed. A warning letter may beissued when a true violation may not have occurred or cannot be verified, but the Department determines that there is reason to

provide the person with clear information regarding regulatory requirements and a warning ofpotential consequences should

an action be found in violation ofthe regulations.

17
Certification actions: (See On-site Inspection Observation Table 14)

Minor violations or non-compliance included on letters of non-compliance with or without orders

(Includes NONs with assessed forfeiture, but not major actions):

• Uncertified worker or supervisor in a regulated work area• Company using uncertified persons to conduct regulated work

• Person conducted lead investigations/clearance after certification expired• Company conducted lead investigations using person with expired certification

• Individual certification expired• Supervising person who did not have certification card on site

• No certification card on site• No supervisor on site as required

The most common violations of certification requirements involved using uncertified workers or workers

without their cards on site, and workers with expired certifications. The number of companies found inviolation ofwork practice requirements during this fiscal year was small, although there were some with

significant violations ofthese requirements, as documented below.

Table 20*: Major certification enforcement actions were taken as follows:

Action Type Enforcement Reason Outcome

Forfeiture Company had no certified supervisor Issued $1300 forfeiture to company and

Case #102225 on site, was using an untrained and required plan of correction. Case appealed.

uncertified individual, and was Appeal ended with company agreeing to a

conducting dry scraping oflead-based reduced forfeiture with a payment schedule.

paint. Company failed to comply with agreement.

Case referred to fiscal services for collection

of original forfeiture amount.

Forfeiture Company had no certified supervisor Letter ofForfeiture sent. Case appealed.

Case #102 100 on site and was using an untrained and Appeal ended with company agreeing to a

uncertified individual. Several work reduced forfeiture with a payment schedule.

practice standard violations were

observed.

Forfeiture, Company has history ofserious and Issued large forfeiture to company.

Summary repeated violations ofwork practice Summarily suspended certification and

suspension, and standards and inconsistent and provided notice ofintent to revoke company

Revocation inadequate supervision. Inspection and individual supervisor certification of

Case #s discovered multiple serious violations company owner. Company appealed.

102231, ofwork practice standards at job site, Settlement agreement signed requiring

18
supervisor and committing fraud as a

Lead Risk Assessor.

Forfeiture Individual conducted abatement with Issued $800 forfeiture to individual.

Case #102393 another individual when neither was

certified, with no on-site supervisor,

and without providing notice.

Forfeiture Company found conducting abatement Issued $700 forfeiture to company.

Case #102352 with no company certification, no Individual had relocated out ofstate.

certificationsbrtwo individuals, and Department will monitor whether individual

not complying with work practice or company attempts to return to Wisconsin

standards. and conduct abatement activities.

Forfeiture Company found conducting abatement Issued $720 forfeiture to company.

Case #102459 using an individual who was not

certified and not complying withseveral work practice standards.

* See attached Notices ofNon-compliance for details on each case.

Most major violations or non-compliance involved the failure to follow work practice standards and

therefore resulted in the creation ofsignificant lead hazards. As a result of our increased emphasis on

forfeitures assessed against major violators, we have been required to defend some ofthese actions uponappeal.

We have also increased our use ofthe Department’s Bureau of Fiscal Services to facilitate collection of

forfeitures from recalcitrant violators who fail to pay.

Notification actions:

Minor notification violations or non-compliance included:

Failure to amend start date ofproject.

• Submitting notice less than 2 days prior to the start date ofproject.

No major enforcement actions were taken for notification violations.

19
The number of work practice compliance issues observed during inspections increased significantly

during this fiscal year. Five major enforcement actions were based on work practice violations. The

program is unsure why work practice standards in the field have deteriorated, but the program will

continue to work with contractors to bring those standards back up. As noted earlier, the Department is

willing to revoke company and individual certifications when repeated enforcement actions fail to bring

assurance of compliance.

Table 21: Compliance Assistance On-site — FFY 08

Written On-site

Outreach Activity: Materials Technical Total

Observation: Assistance

Failed to comply with any federal, state or local government lead- 0 0

based paint statute, ordinance, rule or regulation.Performed work requiring certification at a job site without 2 2having proof of certification onsite.Performed work using individuals who were not certified when 3 3

certification was required.

Performing work requiring a certified supervisor without a 2 2

certified supervisor on site.

Failed to follow work practice standards. 11 11

Failed to send DHFS notice at least 2 days prior to starting lead- 0 0hazard reduction, with the exception of emergency notice.

Other reasons 0 0

Total 0 18 18

2. Compliance assistance mailings

Renewal notices are mailed to all certified persons and companies approximately 90 days before the

expiration dates. Quarterly reminder emails are sent to lead investigators prior to due dates for theirQuarterly Summary Reports oflead inspection, risk assessment and clearance activities.

3. Wisconsin lead program WEB sitea. The general public can access information about licensure requirements in Wisconsin through the

State’s government website. This is not the Asbestos and Lead Program’s Web page, but provides

basic information on licensure requirements of our program. This site is available at

www.wi.gov/state/horne.

b. The Asbestos and Lead Section website is located at www.dhs.wi.gov/lead. The full text ofthe lead

rule, HFS 163, is accessible from this page along with other program information, including the 2010Elimination Plan, the 2005 Report on Lead to the Governor and Legislature, product alerts,Wisconsin lead poisoning data and maps, and court decisions. The public and certified individuals

20
4. Outreach, Training and Presentations

Table 22: TraininWPresentations in FFYO8

Date ..... Presentation / Sponsor. IWs..

Risk Assessor Refresher Training for

10/2/07 Health Departments -DHFS Risk Assessments, orders, legal 11 Baraboo

Risk Assessor Refresher Training for

10/3/07 Health Departments -DHFS Risk Assessments, orders, legal 13 Eau Claire

Risk Assessor Refresher Training for

10/4/07 Health Departments -DHFS Risk Assessments, orders, legal 16 Kenosha

Risk Assessor Refresher Training for

10/11/07 Health Departments -DHFS Risk Assessments, orders, legal 15 Appleton

10/12/07 Wisconsin Public Health Council Recommendations to the Governor 30 Madison

,

. Capturing Energy savings for

10/17/07 Center on WI Systems/City of Milwaukee renovation 15 Milwaukee

12/7/07 Dominican Women Center Pilot Project Planning Meeting 8 Milwaukee

1/3/08 Racine-Kenosha HUD Program CLEAR Meeting 8 Racine

1/10/08 Dominican Women Center Funding lead-safe rehab 15 Milwaukee1/17/08 Family Wellness Collaborative Lead safe zones plan 7 Waukesha

1/24/08 Racine Health Department CLEAR Meeting 20 Racine

1/25/08 IOCEducation Subcommittee Legislative action, CLPP week 13 Baraboo

2/5/08 Dominican Women Center Testing, outreach rehab 11 Milwaukee

2/29/08 WI VET Funding and Health Effects 6 Madison3/2/08 Dominican Women Center Health Effects and safe rehab 40 Milwaukee

Status of childhood lead poisoning in South

3/5/08 South Milwaukee Coalition South Milwaukee 25 Milwaukee

3/6/08 WI Energy Center Health Effects and safe rehab 20 WI Dells

3/7/08 WI Energy Center Health Effects and safe rehab 20 WI Dells3/13/08 WHEDAJFederal Reserve Safe rental/rehab/affordable housing 35 Pewaukee3/14/08 IOC Education Subcommittee Lead outreach 12 Milwaukee.

Health Effects and lead in building

3/18/08 DHFS and ReStore components 3 Milwaukee3/27/08 Lead Sampling Technician Refresher Clearance and dust wipe sampling 3 WI Rapids

4/10/08 Family Wellness collaborative Lead safe zones plan 7 Waukesha

Family’s experience with childhood

4/16/08 Governor’s Capital for the Day Event lead poisoning 10 Waukesha4/23/08 Academic Staff Showcase Blood lead testing 250 Madison

4/17/08 DWC Funding lead safe rehab 12 Milwaukee4/23/08 League of Wisconsin Municipalities Looking for failing paint 75 Sheboygan

Looking for failing paint, testing and

4/25/08 PTA Annual Conference hazards

. 300 Green Bay

Health effects/safe rehab and

4/29/08 DWC Pilot Planning community effort 14 Milwaukee4/30/08 Emergency Food Annual Meeting Status of lead in Wisconsin 60 Madison

21
6/27/08 State Health Officer webcast Legacy of Lead report released Madison

7/9/08 Housing Trust Fund Planning Meeting Funding lead safe rehab 11 Madison

Health effects, housing as

7/23/08 Affordable Housing Conference infrastructure 250 Appleton7/24/08 Affordable Housing Conference Health effects, safe rehab 125 Appleton

7/24/08 WPHA*/WALHDAB* Conference Legacy of Lead and policy priorities 200 Madison7/28/08 DWC Pilot Planning Funding lead safe rehab 9 Milwaukee

CDC Childhood Lead Poisoning

7/30/08 Prevention Program Training Lead 100 Chicago8/4/08 Southern Region In-service Lead 101 40 Janesville

8/8/0 8 Public Health Council Meeting Legacy of Lead 15 Madison8/8/08 Press Conference with Secure Health Blood lead testing grant 15 Wausau8/12/08 League of Municipalities Legacy of Lead and policy priorities 6 Madison8/22/08 IOC Education Subcommittee CLPP Week and program 13 Milwaukee

8/26/08 Housing Trust Fund Planning Meeting Funding lead safe rehab 7 Madison8/27/08 Local Coalition Exploration Integration Messages 4 Baraboo

Community Outreach — Look Out For

8/30/08 Lead Look out for lead 230 Milwaukee

9/8/0 8 Elimination of Lead Poisoning — IOC Statewide effort to eliminate lead 41 Madison

9/17/08 Tn-Agency Conference-EPAJHUD/CDC Improving blood lead testing 50 Baltimore

WI Medical Society Health of the Public

9/18/08 Committee Legacy of Lead and blood lead testing 15 Madison9/19/08 Rehab Racine Homes Rehab program 13 Racine

Risk Assessor Refresher Training for Risk Assessments, state legislation,

9/23/08 Health Departments -DHS and clearance 26 Sheboygan9/24/08 Low Cost Rehab Loans Window bill 11 Madison

* IOC = Implementation Oversight Committee ofthe 2010 Childhood Lead Poisoning Elimination Plan.

WCA = Wisconsin Counties Association

WPHA = Wisconsin Public Health Association

WALHDAB = Wisconsin Assocation of Local Health Departments and Boards

5. Communication Tracking

6. Informational materials and brochures:

EPA Pamphlet: Renovate Right

> In development: Program integration messages

> Major Report: “Legacy ofLead”

FFY 08FFY 07

Table 23: Call TrackingTeJjne Tracking 

22
> HIJD/CDC Lead Paint Safety Field Guide

Pre-Renovation Education regulation information packet

> Certification exam study guides

EPA/HUD Lead Disclosure Regulations

> HFS 163, Wis. Adm. Code

Lists of certified lead hazard identifièation consultants, lead hazard reduction contractors,accredited lead training providers

7. Tracking of press coverage of lead issues in Wisconsin

Table 24: Media ,Coverage of Lead Issues FFVO7

Date Media Type Media Name Topic ArRaclie4

12/19/07 Newspaper Appleton Post-Crescent Funding the clean up oflead paint — East Central

. one ofthe political priorities

1/22/0 8 Web Article UW-Madison Population HUD award of $1.9 million to Statewide

Health Sheboygan County

1/22/0 8 Newspaper Milwaukee Journal Milwaukee County Circuit Court Milwaukee &

Sentinel rule in favor of paint makers statewide

1/23/08 Newspaper Milwaukee Journal Lack of blood screening for Milwaukee &

Sentinel Medicaid children statewide

3/23/08 Newspaper Appleton Post-Crescent Lead in paint and toys East Central

4/2/08 Newspaper The Daily Reporter Renovation, Remodeling and Paint Milwaukee &

Rule statewide

6/23/08 Newspaper The Daily Reporter Economic impact of lowering the Milwaukee and

threshold for lead poisoning statewide

8. DHS lead training provider meeting

The program did not hold a trainer meeting in FFY 08. Milwaukee Lead and Asbestos InformationCenter is the only private training provider that offers the Lead Investigation disciplines and, therefore,

any information specific to these disciplines would not be relevant for the other training providers. The

other three training providers primarily teach only the Lead-Safe Work course.

9. DHS-sponsored lead training for public employees

The Asbestos and Lead Section provided Lead Risk Assessor Refresher training for over 100 Local

Public Health, local housing and State employees in FFY 08. Lead Sampling refresher training was

offered in Wisconsin Rapids in March, 2008 for local health department workers.

23
y 

p

> Look-behind audit findings

Risk assessment/clearance reports

Health and housing relationships

> Elimination Plan 2010 update

September 23, 2008 — Sheboygan

September 30, 2008 — Rice Lake

Topics:

> EPA Renovator, Remodeler, and Painter Rule

> Standard Terminology and Treatments> Good and Bad Worksites

> Challenges or What Can Go Wrong? (contractor issues, foreclosures, enforcement of orders, weather

delays, homeowner hires uncertified contractor, etc)

XRF Demonstration

> Legacy oflead and priorities to eliminate lead

> Clearance Reporting

Lead Sampling Technician Refresher Training:

March 27, 2008 — Wisconsin RapidsTopics:

> Kids come first

‘ Role ofLead Sampling in Prenatal Care Coordination‘ What can Sampling Techs do, what can’t they do?

> Clearance

> What to tell moms about lead?> Dust Wipe Sampling

24
# notices received -- includes lead abatement 1934 1618 3552

notices and lead investigation (clearance, sinspection and risk assessment) reports

# inspections completed 63 135 198

# advisory letters sent 145 154 299

# minor enforcement actions taken 4 11 15 _________________ . ?4 # major enforcement actions taken 12 2 14

# major enforcement actions settled 10 3 13

B. Accredited Training Programs

Measure Total Total Total Total

Processed Processed Processed Approved

10/1—3/31 4/1—9/30 10/1—9/30 asof9/30

# training providers receiving accred. 1 0 1 5

# courses receiving approval 1 0 1 25

# courses held 50 62 112

# class audits (desk and onsite) 1 11 12

# records audits 0 0 0

# advisory letters 0 0 0

# minor enforcement actions 0 0 0

# major enforcement actions 0 0 0# major enforcement actions settled 0 0 0

C. Comparison of Projected and Actual Compliance Monitoring Activities

Type of Compliance Monitoring Projected Activities from Actual Activities

Activity 10/1 — 9/30 Accomplished 10/1 — 9/30

Course audits (on-site) 4-6 desk reviews or on-site audits 12 on-site

Training Provider records audits 2-4 0

Inspections 200 198

25
FFY 08 EPA Lead Grant (402/404g) 10/1/07-9/30/08 $300,053

[Lead Program Revenuel

Estimated lead certification program PRO funds 10/1/07-9/30/08 $90,625

Lead Program Revenue Expenses 10/1/07-9/30/08 $251,546

Difference between revenues and expenses $(160,921)20

2. Personnel: Asbestos and Lead Section, Bureau of Occupational HealthNumber of lead-specific FTE’s 21:

. Position .:flpoibffifies F1’E

Program Supervisor — Shelley Bmce Lead Training, Certification and Enforcement Program supervision 0.5

and oversight, grants administration, data management

Environmental Health Specialist Training course accreditation, course audits, inspections, enforcement, 0.5(Training focus) — exam administration, outreach/education

Diane McGinnisEnvironmental Health Specialists — On-site lead project inspections, complaint investigations, case 2.0Al Guyant, Dave Schmitt, Linda Walta and development, project notice data-entry, lead investigation reports and

Kristi Zwiefelhofer activities reviews (clearance, inspections, risk assessments)Regulatory Specialist — Enforcement action processing and case development, certification 0.55

Fred Johnson program oversight and reviews, database administration

Public Health Educator — Outreach activities and collaboration building activities for 0.5

Steve Antholt elimination, training course accreditation and audits, inspections

Program Assistants — Certification processing, class roster data entry, database 0.8Vicki Stekly and Carmen Clark management, reception and office administration duties

Total: 4.8522

20 There was a deficit in the Lead Revenue Account of over $250,000 coming into the Federal Fiscal Year. Our federal grantcontinues to be essential to the continued operational success ofthe lead program.

21 The time accounting system is designed so there can be no duplicate funding for FTE hours. All budgeted FTE hours are

accounted for throughout the year.

22 4.05 FTE’s were supported directly by the EPA Continuing Lead Grant during FFY 08. The rest were supported by PRO.

26
CertificationlAccreditationlApproval Activities:

• 692 individual certification applications — down from 848 the previous year

173 company certification applications— down from 256 the previous year

130 lead certification exams — up from 128 the previous year

• 16 lead principal instructor approvals — up from 15 the previous year

0 training course desk audit completed for initial approval — same as the previous year

20 courses have achieved full accreditation — same as previous year

All certifications were processed well within the timelines required by regulation, with an

average processing time of 4 days.

Compliance Review and Assistance/InspectionlEnforcement Activities:

12 on-site training course field audits were conducted (including 1 class spot checks) — down

from 14 audits conducted the previous year

• 795 lead hazard reduction project notifications were processed — down from the 1144

processed the previous year

198 on-site lead hazard reduction project inspections —25 % of all noticed jobs.

110, or 55%, work sites visited were vacant compared with 44% in FFYO7

• 18 observations ofnon-compliance with certification or work practices for a 9 % non

compliance rate --up from in previous year

20 on-site compliance assistance activities were offered during on-site inspections.28 enforcement cases were opened, with 7 major enforcement actions taken.

14% of onsite inspections resulted in enforcement actions (compared with 9.5 % from

previous year).

The program reduced processing time for enforcement actions from 30 days average to 25days, not counting onsite field NON’s.

Major Outreach/Education Activities:

9 major presentations: — 2 presentation to rental property owner groups — 7 major conferences: League ofWisconsin Municipalities, Affordable Housing

Conference, Community Outreach-Look Out for Lead, PTA Annual Conference, WI

Public Health AssociationlWl Assoc. of Local Health Ddirectors and Boards Conference,

Tri-Agency Conference and Emergency Food annual meeting.

• 7 training sessions offered: — 6 lead risk assessor refresher training classes for state and local government employees — 1 lead sampling technician refresher training class

b. Certification turn-around times — During this reporting year our average processing time

remained at 4 days from date ofreceipt to date ofmailing the completed certification card.

27
a. Certification numbers — (see tables 1, 2, 5 and 6) Certification numbers continue to fluctuate

and adjust as the lead industry matures in Wisconsin, and overall numbers ofindividuals certified

increased this past year. While the number oflead notices received for projects declined and the

number of lead investigation activities reported slightly declined over the past year, the number

ofindividuals certified has remained steady.

The number of certified lead abatement supervisors and certified lead abatement workers

remained steady while the Lead-Safe Worker discipline continued to grow in numbers, mainlybecause this certification does not expire. The number of certified lead-safe workers increased

from 510 in FFY 07 to 543 in FFY 08. However, the number of newly certified Lead-Safe

Workers is declining from over 100 annually to only 33 new certifications this year.

Unfortunately, as the largest growth segment ofthe regulated industry it is also the one that

provides the least revenue to maintain the lead program. This will be reviewed and, no doubt,revised when the lead renovation rule is written.In FFY 08, 40% ofthose first completing lead-safe work training went on to become certified at

any level from lead safe worker through lead abatement supervisor. Sixty percent ofthose

completing lead-safe work training are not becoming certified. Over 4,600 persons have

completed at least lead-safe work training in Wisconsin. Certification at the lead-safe work level

is not required under most conditions.

The number oflead risk assessors increased to 230 in FFY 08, from 211 in FFY 07 and hasincreased over the past four years. The numbers ofregulated lead investigation activitiesconducted in Wisconsin in FFY 07 and FFY 08 were also up significantly over previous years.

Demand for lead inspectors and lead project designers continues to be non-existent in Wisconsin,there now being only one certified person in each discipline in the state.b. Certification Exam Results — (See table 3) FFY 08 saw a slight increase in the number ofcertification exams administered.

During the past fiscal year 94% oftakers passed the Lead Supervisor Exam. This was a greatimprovement over FFY 06 which saw only a 61% passing rate. This is most likely the result of

the use of a new version oflead abatement supervisor exam developed this year. Great care wasused to choose test items that were validated and that had performed well in previous testversions, and that represented a good mix of difficult, medium and somewhat easier questions asdata from prior uses supported. The certification exam passing rates for all disciplines increasedfrom 65% in FFY 06 to 90% in FFY 07 as a result ofthe increased passing rate for the supervisorexam.

28
assessments finding lead hazards has remained fairly stable over the past three years, 92% in

FFYO4, 87% in FFY 05, 90% in FFY 06, 93% in FFY 07 and 90% in FFY 08. The percent of

lead clearances that failed are declining slowly but steadily, 16% in FFY 05, 14% in FFY 06,

10% in FFYO7 and 8% in FFY 08. This is most likely attributable to the maturing ofthe industry

and contractors that can better estimate the level ofpre-treating surfaces and cleaning needed to

reach clearance.

e. Lead Training Courses — (See tables 10, 11 and 12) The number of active training providers

remained at five. One training provider allowed it’s only accredited course to expire in FFY 07

and has not renewed, and in FFY 08 a new provider fmished the desk review process and is now

offering the Lead-Safe Work course. The number of courses with active accreditation during the

year remained steady at 26.

The number of classes offered increased from 95 in FFY 07 to 112 in FFY 08, for a 15%

increase. This may be due to HUB funding coming into the state later in the fiscal year.

Course Audits: (Table 17) Twelve on-site audits were conducted during this fiscal year,

including one class spot check. Eleven of the twelve courses audited had full accreditation and

all but one passed the audit.

Ofthe 26 accredited courses, six had contingent approval. Ofthe six courses with contingent

approval only one, MLAIC’s Lead Safe Work — Spanish, was offered in FFY 08. This class was

offered twice this fiscal year and was audited and failed once. This may mean that some courses

may drop out ofthe accredited course list in the next year without ever achieving full

accreditation.

f. Inspections and Enforcement — (See tables 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20) The program wasjust shy

ofthe goal of 200+ site inspections for the year with 198 inspections conducted. Inspectors

visited 24% of all notified lead project sites.

Work practice violations and lack of worker certification accounted for the majority of our

major violations. Five ofthe seven enforcement actions were found on projects taking place

outside Milwaukee. This is, in part, a testament to the strong efforts by the City of Milwaukee

to require and provide extra training to contractors they use under their federal lead grant funds.They required all new contractors wanting to work with the city and certain oftheir current

contractors with poor work records to go through a 40 hour hands-on training course beyond the

required certification training in order to be eligible to bid on city-funded lead projects. This

training was held during FFY 07. There was some evidence during FFY 08 that for a few ofthe

contractors, at least, its positive effects may have worn thin as the Department saw work practice

slippages by some contractors that had earlier displayed very good work practices.

29
to implement the renovation, remodeling and painted rule, or can be added shortly thereafter.b. Effect of ‘intent-based’ classification on lead paint disturbing activities — ‘Intent-based’

lead-paint regulations continue to be a major problem for our program and allow unsafe work

practices to continue to be used in ‘non-lead’ work that disturbs lead-based paint. The EPA andHLTD regulations together have effectively created three intent-based work classifications:

abatement, non-abatement lead hazard reduction (interim controls), and paint disturbing work

other than abatement or lead hazard reduction (renovation, repairs). Each class ofwork currently

requires different training and has different notification requirements, ranging from full

abatement training and certification along with project notification, to no training with no project

notification. This is confusing for contractors, government regulating agencies, property owners

and grantees. The program will look at this closely during the rule revisions needed to add the

EPA Renovation, Remodeling and Painting Rule provisions to the Department’s lead rule.c. Improve inspection rate — This year the program missed its target for 200 to 220 work site

inspections by two, achieving just 198 inspections. This is mostly due to being short twoinspectors for most ofthe fiscal year and even after hiring one new inspector in August of 2008,

needing to send that person on training inspections with an experienced inspector, meaning thatno additional inspections could be accomplished. This should improve in the next fiscal year

with the addition of another new inspector, though one experienced inspector will be retiring

before the end of 2008. Over all, the program inspected about 25% of all noticed lead projects, as

compared with 26% in FFY 07 and 27% in FFY 06. So while numbers were down somewhat,

the inspection rate remained fairly stable. The program will work diligently in FFY 09 toincrease both inspection numbers and the inspection rate, but loss ofstaff or the imposition of oneor more major enforcement cases, as occurred in FFY 08, may change the outcome.

30