Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0014
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-01-10T05:00Z

Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
1
EPA
Conference
Call
With
State,
Local,
and
Tribal
Government
Representatives
About
Possible
LBP
Activities
Framework
(
May
15,
2003)

1.
Summary
Discussion,
Qs
&
As,
and
Comments
Mike
Wilson,
EPA,
and
Eric
Oetjen,
ICF
Consulting,
opened
the
discussion
by
asking
participants
to
focus
their
comments
on
the
following
five
overarching
topics:

1.
Expanding
Capacity.
Will
the
updated
framework,
as
currently
described,
increase
the
number
of
firms
that
perform
hazard
reduction?
Increase
the
use
of
lead­
safe
work
practices
(
LSWP)
during
renovation
and
remodeling
(
R&
R)
activities?

2.
Unintended
Impacts
on
Interim
Controls
(
ICs)
and/
or
Use
of
LSWP.
Are
there
aspects
of
the
framework
which,
in
their
opinion,
will
hinder
or
discourage
use
of
firms
performing
ICs
or
using
LSWP
during
R&
R?

3.
Other
Impacts
on
Industry.
What's
the
overall
impact
on
the
abatement
industry?
On
the
R&
R
industry?

4.
Cost
and
Quality
of
Lead­
based
Paint
(
LBP)
Services.
What
are
the
cost
implications
of
the
possible
framework
changes?
Are
there
any
quality
implications?

5.
Other
Implementation
Issues.
What
other
implementation
issues
do
they
foresee?
Are
there
practical
issues
in
terms
of
what
state,
tribes,
and
localities
will
need
to
do?
What
challenges
would
they
and
other
stakeholders
face?

Preliminary
Qs
and
As,
and
Comments
Before
diving
in
to
these
five
topics,
participants
had
some
general
questions
and
comments
regarding
certification
of
firms
and
individuals:

Q:
What
is
the
point
of
certifying
firms
for
renovation?
It
is
hard
enough
to
get
R&
R
firms
even
to
register,
let
alone
to
certify
to
do
LSWP.
(
Kerra)
A:
The
statute
directs
EPA
to
look
at
R&
R
activities
and
to
introduce
requirements
if
EPA
determines
that
R&
R
activities
pose
hazards.
So,
this
possible
framework
would
certify
R&
R
contractors
(
as
well
as
hazard
reduction
contractors).
For
the
purpose
of
this
discussion,
EPA
is
asking
for
comments
on
the
need
for
such
certification.
Remember
that
the
framework
describes
certification
both
for
firms
as
well
as
for
individuals
(
e.
g.,
supervisors).
When
you
comment,
please
differentiate
between
these
two
possible
certification
requirements.
(
Mike)

Q:
In
California,
individuals
have
to
go
through
a
rigorous
state
contractor
licensing
board.
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
2
Has
EPA
thought
about
differential
implications
of
adding
to
already
existing
programs
versus
implementing
new
requirements
in
places
without
existing
contractor
licensing?
(
Larrie)
A:
EPA
has
considered
the
framework
both
ways
 
either
as
an
element
of
an
existing
contractor
licensing
program
or
as
a
standalone
program.
(
Mike)

Comments:

°
One
rationale
for
requiring
certification
is
to
be
able
to
have
some
leverage
against
a
contractor
that
does
poor,
unsafe
work.
In
this
way,
certification
may
be
an
"
easy"
means
to
enforce
regulatory
compliance.
(
Ernie)

°
EPA
believes
that
unlike
certification
at
only
the
individual
level,
certification
of
both
firms
and
individuals
provides
the
best
balance
between
costs
and
benefits.
(
Mark)
Thus,
a
benefit
of
certification
is
that
a
state,
tribal,
or
local
government
agency
could
oversee
what's
being
done
at
either
the
firm
or
individual
level.
(
Mike)

°
Regarding
certification
of
supervisors,
EPA
may
want
to
make
sure
that
one
bad
supervisor
can
not
move
on
to
do
poor
work
at
another
firm
(
e.
g.,
by
taking
away
his
individual
certifications).
(
Mike)

Topic
1:
Expanding
Capacity
Question
Posed
by
EPA:
Will
the
updated
framework,
as
currently
described,
increase
the
number
of
firms
that
perform
hazard
reduction?
Increase
the
use
of
LSWP
during
R&
R
activities?

Answers,
Comments,
and
Other
Qs
and
As
Number
of
firms
may
increase:

°
The
framework
will
increase
the
"
ability"
to
increase
the
number
of
contractors,
since
it
lowers
the
number
of
hours
for
supervisors
training
and
the
number
of
in­
class
hours
for
workers.
(
Tom)

Number
of
firms
is
hard
to
predict
given
other
factors:

°
There
is
a
major
negative
inducement
for
R&
R
contractors
to
become
trained
and
certified,
which
is
not
related
to
the
possible
framework.
Namely,
contractors
are
concerned
about
OSHA
requirements
regarding
personal
protection,
medical
monitoring,
annual
physicals,
etc.
These
requirements
impose
a
great
deal
of
expenses
on
contractors.
So,
the
number
of
R&
R
firms
that
certify
may
be
driven
by
the
cost
of
health
monitoring,
not
potential
framework
changes.
(
Ernie)
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
3
Hazard
reduction
firms
may
decrease
as
R&
R
firms
increase:

°
This
framework
seems
to
propose
a
two­
tiered
standard
 
one
for
abatement/
hazard
reduction
contractors,
which
requires
notification,
etc.,
and
one
for
R&
R
contractors
that
has
less
stringent
requirements.
The
number
of
abatement/
hazard
reduction
contractors
may
go
down,
since
these
firms
will
flock
toward
the
lower
R&
R
tier
(
and
so,
the
number
of
R&
R
firms
may
increase).
(
Bob)

Q:
Has
EPA
considered
a
single
standard
(
e.
g.,
any
activity
that
disturbs
more
than
2
sq.
ft.
creates
a
lead
hazard
that
is
treated
in
one
program,
with
clearance
testing,
accredited
training,
etc.)
in
addition
to
this
two­
tiered
program?
(
Bob)
A:
EPA
considers
the
framework
to
be
a
unified
approach,
with
a
single
tier
for
training
and
certification.
There
would
not
be
categories
of
firms
such
as
"
abatement"
or
"
R&
R"
contractors;
rather,
there
would
be
one
group
of
"
certified"
contractors.
The
idea
is
that
any
certified
firm
could
do
lead
work.
Under
the
framework,
for
example,
HUD
could
subcontract
out
the
project
design
(
PD)
and
then
contract
with
any
local
certified
firm
to
do
the
work.
EPA
views
this
framework
as
a
way
to
bring
everyone
in
to
the
system.
There
may
be
a
few
additional
requirements
for
abatement
(
e.
g.,
clearance
testing),
but
only
in
the
face
of
clear
hazard
reduction.
(
Mike
&
Mark)

Topic
2:
Unintended
Impacts
on
ICs
and/
or
Use
of
LSWP
Question
Posed
by
EPA:
Are
there
aspects
of
the
framework
which,
in
their
opinion,
will
hinder
or
discourage
use
of
firms
performing
ICs
or
using
LSWP
during
R&
R?

Answers,
Comments,
and
Other
Qs
and
As
Hazard
reduction
versus
renovation:

°
The
core
of
the
issue
is
whether
there's
any
rationale
for
conducting
and
regulating
lead
hazard
reduction
differently
under
hazard
reduction
versus
R&
R.
In
many
cases,
there
is
a
good
reason
for
handling
the
two
activities
differently:
°
Hazard
reduction
may
be
associated
with
extreme
events
(
e.
g.,
a
lead­
poisoned
child).
In
this
case,
the
goal
is
to
arrive
at
a
lead­
safe
household,
cleaned
to
endpoints
dictated
by
state
standards.
°
During
R&
R,
contractors
need
to
make
sure
they
do
not
create
additional
hazards
while
they
are
doing
the
work.
Not
sure
that
training
for
a
worker
doing
hazard
reduction
would
be
the
same
for
a
person
doing
R&
R.
(
Ernie)

°
California
has
done
some
preliminary
work
in
reviewing
childhood
lead
poisoning
cases.
In
about
1/
3
of
the
cases,
there
was
exposure
during
R&
R
activities.
(
Larrie)
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
4
Q:
Can
California
follow
up
its
review
with
questions
such
as:
Did
a
professional
conduct
the
work?
Was
the
family
kept
out
of
the
work
area?
[
In
a
good
number
of
R&
R
cases,
children
may
not
be
kept
out
of
the
work
area.]
(
Mike)
A:
California
is
just
starting
to
incorporate
such
questions
in
its
follow
up
surveys.
(
Larrie)

°
These
are
excellent
reasons
for
having
performance­
based
standards
for
R&
R
activities.
(
Ernie)

Clearance
and
performance­
based
standards:

Q:
Re.
clearance,
are
there
any
states
that
foresee
having
a
problem
requiring
clearance
if
children
are
there?
(
Kerra)
A:
Clearance
will
not
tell
you
the
whole
story,
since
sofas
and
other
furniture
may
not
be
easily
cleaned.
Poorly
performed
jobs
could
still
poses
issues;
clearance
will
not
tell
that.
(
Ernie)

Q:
Would
states
prefer
to
use
their
ability
to
deviate
from
the
federal
model
to
implement
more
tailored
clearance
scheme
that
best
suites
their
needs?
(
Mark)
A:
In
Utah,
it
is
feasible
for
the
state
to
be
more
stringent
than
the
federal
program,
but
the
state
needs
to
justify
why
it
is
more
stringent.
So,
it
would
be
best
if
the
federal
program
looked
more
like
what
the
state
wants.
(
Bob)
California
can
also
be
more
stringent
than
the
federal
program.
The
state
currently
regulates
ICs
with
abatement
and
is
looking
at
performance­
based
standards.
As
proposed,
there
are
no
certification
requirements;
rather,
contractors
have
to
use
LSWP,
period.
So,
looking
simply
to
mandate
that
anyone
doing
renovation
must
use
LSWP.
(
Larrie
and
Dan)

Q:
Do
California's
requirements
include
work
practices
prohibited
in
the
current
abatement
rule?
(
Bob)
A:
California
favors
performance­
based
versus
prescriptive
standards.
The
state
does
not
prohibit
work
practices,
since
it's
fiscally
too
prohibitive.
(
Dan)

°
In
California,
the
perspective
is
that
clearance
is
"
the"
performance­
based
standard
 
the
bottom
line
is
that
the
work
site
be
left
clean.
EPA
would
need
to
propose
something
along
these
lines
to
get
California
buy­
in
on
the
framework.
(
Larrie)

°
EPA
is
studying
whether
electrostatic
cleaning
clothes,
such
as
"
swiffer"­
like
products
that
you
find
in
a
grocery
store,
could
be
used
for
cleaning
and
determining
if
a
job
clears
and
passes
the
lead
hazard
standard.
An
ECC
test
could
reinforce
the
idea
of
renovation
with
voluntary
dust
sampling
­
so
not
only
cleanup,
but
also
clearance.
If
ECCs
are
effective,
then
they
could
be
incorporated
in
cleaning
up
the
work
area.
If
they
fail,
then
EPA
will
need
to
look
at
options
for
interior
clearance.
EPA
is
interested
in
receiving
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
5
comments
regarding
the
need
for
clearance.
(
Mike)

°
Would
like
to
see
clearance
testing
more
uniform,
e.
g.,
required
not
only
if
children
are
there,
since
a
family
with
children
could
move
in
to
a
place
that
previously
had
not
housed
kids,
and
vice
versa.
(
Bob)

Compliance
with
406(
b):

Q:
What
about
compliance
with
406(
b)?
(
Dan)
A:
Compliance
with
406
is
low,
and
enforcement
is
not
robust.
If
it's
difficult
to
comply
with
406,
it
will
be
equally
difficult
to
enforce
R&
R
without
clearance,
and
even
more
difficult
to
enforce
R&
R
with
clearance.
You
will
never
have
100
percent
certification;
any
firm
in
the
program
will
compete
against
ones
that
are
not
in
compliance.
(
Mike)
[
It's
less
an
issue
of
individuals
not
complying,
and
more
an
issue
of
making
people
aware
of
the
406
requirement.
(
Tom)]

Q:
Right,
the
R&
R
community
is
90+
percent
small
businesses.
So
how
do
you
get
in
touch
with
them
and
let
them
know
about
406
and
the
framework?
(
Mike)
A:
Massachusetts
learns
about
projects
by
receiving
tips
and
complaints
from
neighbors
who
are
concerned
about
their
potential
exposure
to
migrating
dust.
The
state
also
researches
building
permits,
visits
job
sites,
and
has
a
state
standard
that
essentially
parallels
the
406
rule
for
lead
hazard
information
distribution.
When
the
state
gets
a
tip,
they
check
with
compliance
for
work
practices
and
the
406
rule,
and
then
in
lieu
of
a
penalty,
have
the
contractor
take
LSWP
training.
The
state
also
requires
lead
safe
renovations
for
HUD
IC
work.
Contractors
have
to
get
training
and
be
licensed
in
order
to
gain
access
to
that
business.
(
Ernie)

Topic
3:
Other
Impacts
on
Industry
Question
Posed
by
EPA:
What's
the
overall
impact
on
the
abatement
industry?
On
the
R&
R
industry?

Answers,
Comments,
and
Other
Qs
and
As
Abatement
industry:

°
In
California,
there
are
about
500
firms
involved
in
the
asbestos
and
abatement
business.
They
will
be
very
unhappy/
upset
to
see
"
the
rug
pulled
out
from
under
them"
under
the
revised
framework.
These
companies
got
their
people
certified
to
do
abatement
work,
so
whenever
there
is
abatement
to
be
done,
they
get
the
job.
And
they
know
the
process
for
dealing
with
cases
of
elevated
blood
levels
(
EBL).
But
under
the
possible
framework,
any
certified
firm
(
including
R&
R
contractors)
may
do
hazard
reduction.
This
equates
to
severe
economic
loss
for
those
firms
that
have
already
invested
in
training,
etc.,
under
the
existing
abatement
regulations.
The
changes
take
away
all
market
incentive.
If
EPA
sets
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
6
up
separate
groups
with
separate
regulations,
the
state
agency
will
lose
credibility
and
will
never
get
people
to
help
out.
(
Larrie)

°
One
of
the
key
goals
of
the
change
is
to
increase
the
supply
of
firms
that
do
hazard
reduction,
including
abatement,
as
a
means
to
help
bring
down
the
cost
of
abatement
work.
(
Mike)

R&
R
industry:

°
In
terms
of
policy
itself,
EPA
has
to
think
hard
about
implementation.
R&
R
contractors
will
see
this
as
a
burden
but
will
deal
with
it,
since
the
requirements
level
the
playing
field
(
e.
g.,
give
them
access
to
hazard
reduction
work,
if
they
so
desire).
(
Larrie)

Topic
4:
Cost
and
Quality
of
LBP
Services
Question
Posed
by
EPA:
What
are
the
cost
implications
of
the
possible
framework
changes?
Are
there
any
quality
implications?

Answers,
Comments,
and
Other
Qs
and
As
Cost
of
abatement:

°
Costs
of
abatement
may
increase,
since
currently
the
supervisor
can
design
and
do
the
project.
But
under
the
possible
framework,
while
supervisors
training
decreases,
PD
training
increases,
and
those
PDs
must
do
the
project
design
plan.
In
California,
there
are
5,000
certified
individuals,
less
than
100
of
whom
are
PDs.
The
state
is
in
the
process
of
dropping
the
PD
classification,
since
it's
a
duplication
of
work
activities
with
supervisors.
(
Dan)

°
Hopefully
the
framework
would
allow
abatement
not
to
be
viewed
as
so
extreme.
(
Mark)
Note
that
abatement
and
ICs
are
often
funded
with
federal
dollars.
(
Mike)

Level
of
effort:

Q:
Can
EPA
provide
any
information
on
the
level
of
resources
it
might
be
able
to
provide
states
in
implementing
the
program?
It
takes
a
significant
level
of
effort
(
LOE)
for
states
to
implement
programs
such
as
these.
(
Bob)
A:
EPA
will
be
discussing
state
resource
needs
internally
in
about
a
week.
LOE
concerns
are
not
lost
on
either
EPA
Headquarters
or
Regional
staff.
EPA
will
begin
the
process
of
getting
the
concern
elevated
to
and
formalized
through
the
chain
of
budgeting
command.
(
Mark)

°
Additionally,
when
states
think
about
costs,
especially
states
that
seek
authorization
to
pick
up
this
program,
they
also
need
to
consider
enforcement.
There
are
about
25
million
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
7
renovation
"
events"
annually.
If
only
1
percent
led
to
a
tip
or
complaint,
that
would
mean
250,000
tips,
or
almost
700
calls
a
day
about
R&
R
projects
that
might
not
be
in
compliance.
How
would
states
handle
that
volume
of
tips?
How
quickly
would
states
be
able
to
respond
to
such
tips?
Also,
note
that
if
enforcement
personnel
have
not
actually
witnessed
non­
compliant
work
practices,
it
would
also
make
enforcement
very
difficult
to
pursue.
(
Mike)

State
authorization
and
enforcement:

Q:
Will
the
program
be
authorized
under
Section
402/
404,
or
Section
406?
(
Dan)
A:
EPA
has
not
decided
at
this
time;
it
could
go
a
number
of
ways.
For
example,
it
could
go
as
a
single
authorization,
or
it
could
be
divided
in
to
two
parts
(
hazard
reduction
and
renovation).
Clearly,
it
would
be
best
if
all
implementation
and
enforcement
was
done
in
a
state
by
either
the
state
or
the
federal
government.
(
Mark)

°
Even
if
states
were
delegated
authority,
there
still
should
be
some
level
of
concurrent
federal
authority.
Sometimes
states
would
want
to
collaborate
with
EPA
under
its
concurrent
authority.
(
Ernie)

°
Along
that
vein
of
authorization
under
sections
402,
404,
or
406,
EPA
also
needs
to
look
at
this
from
the
standpoint
of
funding
and
enforcement.
Kansas,
for
example,
already
has
406
program
and
has
already
pursued
R&
R.
(
Barry)

°
California
has
state
authority
only
for
402/
404;
it
would
need
legislative
authority
for
406.
So,
authorization
under
Section
402
would
be
okay,
but
authorization
under
Section
406
would
pose
a
problem.
(
Larrie)

°
EPA
is
thinking
of
making
changes
to
Section
406
at
some
point
to
make
it
easier
to
implement.
(
Mark)
EPA
is
also
developing
a
new
pamphlet
under
Section
406,
with
more
useful
tools.
He
will
bring
the
most
latest
version
of
the
draft
to
San
Antonio.
(
Mike)

Topic
5:
Other
Implementation
Issues
Question
Posed
by
EPA:
What
other
implementation
issues
do
they
foresee?
Are
there
practical
issues
in
terms
of
what
state,
tribes,
and
localities
will
need
to
do?
What
challenges
would
they
and
other
stakeholders
face?

Answers,
Comments,
and
Other
Qs
and
As
Interagency,
cross­
jurisdictional
coordination:

°
There
are
multi­
tiered,
cross­
jurisdictional
issues
(
e.
g.,
permitting
through
local
building
departments;
working
with
60+
health
and
environmental
jurisdictions
and
hundreds
of
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
8
counties,
cities,
etc.).
The
state
has
$
2.5
million
in
funding
for
cross­
jurisdictional
support
on
the
program,
but
that's
not
enough.
(
Larrie)

°
Echos
that
 
Utah
has
12
different
but
similar
local
health
jurisdictions,
which
have
incorporated
lead
into
their
programs,
but
have
zero
new
hires
to
support
the
program.
(
Bob)

°
In
Kansas,
tried
to
get
the
health
department,
city
code
officials
to
get
on
board
the
Section
406
program,
but
it
was
just
another
cost
they
did
not
want
to
incur.
So,
it
is
up
to
him
to
travel
across
the
state
to
deal
with
406,
404,
etc.
This
level
of
outreach
would
be
key
to
setting
up
a
new
program
across
the
state.
Kansas
also
tried
to
give
money
to
local
jurisdictions
for
406,
but
only
got
two
applications
(
i.
e.,
the
money
was
not
sufficient
for
the
work
to
be
performed).
(
Cory)

°
EPA
needs
to
get
building
code
officials,
i.
e.,
the
folks
who
issue
permits,
on
board
with
the
lead
program.
Building
inspectors
do
not
think
it's
their
job
to
be
concerned
about
lead.
HUD
totally
failed
at
changes
to
the
uniform
building
code.
(
Larrie)

°
In
Massachusetts,
building
code
officials
have
come
around
over
time
on
this
issue.
(
Ernie)
That's
why
it's
important
to
get
them
at
the
table.
(
Larrie)

°
In
California,
the
law
gave
state
and
local
agencies
authority
to
enforce
lead
hazards.
So,
now
the
agency
is
going
out
to
building
and
housing
staff
to
get
them
knowledgeable
(
e.
g.,
trying
to
train
code
enforcement
staff).
So
it's
a
2­
prong
approach:
(
1)
LSWP
required
as
an
enforceable
standard,
with
huge
fines
for
noncompliance;
and
(
2)
education
of
code
enforcement
staff
re.
the
codes
and
their
ability
to
cite
noncompliant
outfits.
(
Dan)

Outreach:

°
EPA
needs
to
raise
awareness
of/
education
on
lead
issues
across
the
general
populace.
(
Kurt)

°
He
agrees
 
there
needs
to
be
outreach
to
the
public
to
increase
lead
safety
awareness,
combined
with
a
paradigm
shift
from
contractors
themselves.
EPA
should
set
thresholds
(
e.
g.,
performance­
based
standards),
and
contractors
should
report
other
firms
that
are
not
working
appropriately.
That's
why
certification
of
firms
is
so
important.
Certified
firms
will
assist
EPA
and
the
states
by
policing
their
competitors.
EPA
needs
the
leverage
to
take
away
a
noncompliant
firm's
ability
to
work.
(
Ernie)

°
Compliance
assistance
is
going
to
be
a
big
part
of
implementing
the
program.
Kansas
spent
time
and
money
on
advertising
to
get
information
to
contractors
and
consumers
regarding
Section
406.
Note:
it
was
hard
to
gauge
the
success
of
the
advertising
campaign.
EPA
needs
to
communicate
to
the
public
(
e.
g.,
families
with
kids),
to
hire
certified/
licensed
contractors
versus
"
fly­
by­
night"
firms
even
if
it
would
cost
the
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
9
consumer
more
money.
In
terms
of
cost,
people
have
a
short­
term
cost
orientation;
need
to
get
to
homeowners
with
clear
and
compelling
arguments.
(
Barry)

°
What
EPA
has
notably
misjudged
in
the
past
was
the
level
of
incremental
value
consumers
put
on
abatement/
LSWP
 
i.
e.,
that
the
job
not
only
needs
to
be
done
well,
but
also
leadsafe
(
Mark)

°
Massachusetts
has
done
several
outreach
campaigns
 
bill
boards,
posters
on
mass
transit,
painters
caps
custom­
printed
with
lead­
safe
message,
etc.
These
methods
target
contractors
and
consumers.
He
thinks
contractors
like
to
wear
these
caps,
since
it
differentiates
them
in
the
marketplace.
(
Ernie)

°
Agrees
that
EPA
needs
to
get
information
out
for
the
program
to
succeed.
How
do
you
get
the
information
out?
 
At
trade
shows,
house
fairs,
etc.
Lead
has
been
phased
out
of
gasoline
and
has
not
been
used
in
paint
since
1978.
So,
in
designing
outreach
materials,
EPA
needs
to
clarify
that
while
the
issue
is
being
resolved,
it's
not
resolved
yet.
(
Jack)

Clearance:

°
Clearance
should
be
required
after
renovation
when
children
are
on
the
property.
Neither
LSWP
nor
clearance
are
100
percent
protective,
but
together
they
provide
more
assurance
that
the
job
has
been
performed
and
cleaned
up
safely.
(
Kerra)

°
Clearance
following
R&
R
may
have
immediate
value,
but
in
many
cases,
requirements
for
clearance
could
drive
the
property
to
being
abated.
There
may
be
costs
associated
with
that
outcome.
(
Ernie)

Certification,
training,
and
3rd
party
exams:

°
Agrees
with
EPA's
approach
to
drop
requirements
for
accreditation
and
certification
of
workers,
since
(
1)
training
will
still
be
required
(
e.
g.,
on­
the­
job
(
OJT)),
and
(
2)
a
certified
supervisor
will
be
on
site
at
key
times.
(
Bob)

°
Agrees,
but
supervisors
should
be
there
100
percent
of
the
time
in
the
case
of
a
lead
poisoned
child.
Additionally,
OJT
of
new
abatement
workers
should
be
directly
supervised
by
trained
supervisors.
(
Kerra)
Q:
How
do
the
potential
changes
effect
3rd
party
exams?
(
Dan)
A:
The
desirability
of
a
3rd
party
exam
for
supervisors
(
and
perhaps
for
PDs,
too)
is
currently
up
in
the
air,
so
EPA
is
open
for
input.
(
Note
that
there
is
no
LST
discipline
now.)
If
EPA
went
with
a
3rd
party
approach,
then
it
would
apply
to
all
supervisors
 
both
under
hazard
reduction
and
renovation..
(
Mike)

Re.
3rd
party
for
PDs:
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
10
°
They
need
to
be
tested
if
they
have
increased
responsibility
under
the
framework.
(
Kerra)

Re.
3rd
party
for
supervisors:

°
California
would
see
benefits;
there
is
no
issue
with
reciprocity.
The
state
has
a
29
percent
failure
rate
on
clearance
test.
The
exams
are
really
important,
since
they
ask
hard
questions
that
relate
to
things
in
the
field
(
e.
g.,
regarding
how
supervisors
should
be
able
to
read
an
MSDS).
Since
supervisors
have
more
responsibility
(
e.
g.,
training
workers),
they
should
be
tested.
(
Larrie)

°
Utah
could
see
doing
away
with
3rd
party
for
supervisors,
since
their
own
training
is
scaled
back.
(
Bob)

°
If
EPA
is
doing
away
with
abatement
worker
certification,
then
would
still
need
some
gauge
of
their
supervisors
(
e.
g.,
to
ensure
they
can
properly
teach
workers
on
the
job).
(
Kerra)

°
It
makes
sense
that
R&
R
supervisors
be
trained
and
certified
parallel
to
abatement
(
e.
g.,
"
de­
leading")
supervisors,
but
logistically
and
economically
it
could
be
quite
a
challenge.
(
Ernie)

Project
design:

Q:
One
of
the
flaws
is
that
there
is
no
real
consensus
regarding
just
how
far
abatement
should
go.
Should
you
simply
engage
in
LSWP?
Or
totally
remove
all
paint?
Or
just
change
windows?
It
is
conceivable
that
R&
R
contractors
could
do
maintenance
work,
but
it
is
also
conceivable
that
R&
R
contractors
might
not
have
the
sophisticated
knowledge/
protocols
to
do
hazard
reduction
work.
(
Ernie)
A:
Remember
that
a
project
design
plan
would
be
done
by
a
certified
PD,
who
would
understand
the
specific
requirements
in
the
state
and
write
up
the
plan
for
what
to
do,
where
to
do
it,
etc.
Renovation
activities
would
follow
this
professional
plan,
which
would
be
drawn
up
in
advance
of
the
work.
(
Mike)

Q:
Would
extra
training
bridge
this
perceived
gap?
(
Mark)
A:
It's
possible
that
training
could
correct
some
of
the
skills
of
de­
leading
scheme.
Some
of
the
R&
R
contractors
now
excluded
from
hazard
reduction
have
the
skills
and
efficiency;
one
could
even
end
up
with
a
higher
quality
de­
leading
project.
(
Ernie)

Q:
Why
does
EPA
think
it
needs
a
PD
designation?
Right
now,
supervisors
must
be
on­
site
100
percent
of
the
time.
Will
a
PD
do
that
under
the
framework?
(
Kurt)
A:
EPA
envisions
the
same
supervisors
course
for
hazard
reduction
and
renovation.
Thus,
it
does
not
want
to
incorporate
PD
elements
for
hazard
reduction
into
the
supervisors
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
11
course,
since
the
number
of
renovation
supervisors
(
who
do
not
have
to
have
project
design
plans
for
renovations)
will
be
so
much
larger.
One
of
the
reasons
to
decrease
supervisors
training
is
to
remove
design
elements
and
business
type
issues.
Those
topics
will
be
moved
into
a
more
robust
PD
course.
(
Mike)

Q:
Would
current
supervisors
be
grandfathered
in
to
PDs,
since
that's
the
level
of
training
they
received
under
the
current
abatement
regime?
(
Kurt)
A:
Yes,
EPA
would
have
to
consider
previous
training;
this
would
increase
participation
in
the
PD
discipline.
(
Mike)

°
There
may
be
a
perception
issues
with
PD;
some
consumers
would
perceive
the
PD
as
superfluous
level
of
classification.
(
Ernie)

Risk
assessors
and
PDs:

Q:
Supportive
of
new
requirements
for
PDs.
But,
is
there
any
parallel
effort
to
modify
the
descriptions
of
"
inspector"
or
"
risk
assessor"?
(
Kerra)
A:
EPA
is
considering
some
changes
to
these
categories,
too,
but
did
not
want
to
include
them
in
this
framework
update.
Please
forward
any
comments
you
may
have
on
this
issue
to
EPA.
(
Mike)

Q:
Wouldn't
it
be
more
palatable
to
meld
the
risk
assessor
and
PD
categories
together?
At
one
time
people
though
abatement
and
R&
R
were
really
different,
and
now
they
are
shown
to
have
many
similarities.
(
Ernie)
A:
The
experience
and
education
requirements
of
a
risk
assessor
and
a
PD
are
quite
different.
The
original
intent
of
the
two
disciplines
was
different.
(
Bob)

°
Believes
that
multiple
tiers
in
categories
of
consultants
(
e.
g.,
various
sampling
disciplines
such
as
LSTs,
risk
assessors,
etc.)
will
create
problems
in
the
states
and
in
the
real
estate/
rental
industry.
There's
a
lot
of
money
involved
in
risk
assessment,
etc.,
which
already
raises
costs
to
homeowners.
(
Ernie)

°
Wisconsin
has
tried
to
address
this.
For
example,
XRF
was
pulled
out
of
the
standard
curriculum;
it
is
now
only
"
tacked
on"
to
training
if
required.
This
significantly
reduced
training
for
inspectors
(
putting
it
more
on
line
with
that
for
LSTs).
(
Mike)

°
In
California,
PDs
are
typically
CIHs.
Many
of
them
are
also
risk
assessors
(
although
not
all
risk
assessors
are
PDs).
(
Larrie)

Closing
Comments
°
Participants
may
provide
written
comments
to
Miek
at
wilson.
mike@
epa.
gov.
[
Bob
Ford
provided
written
comments,
which
are
provided
in
Section
2
below.]
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
12
°
Mike
will
use
these
comments
in
preparing
for
the
national
lead
program
meeting,
in
June
in
San
Antonio.

°
Steve
Johnson,
EPA
AA,
may
be
interested
in
discussing
possible
framework
changes
with
group
members
after
that
meeting.
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
13
2.
Written
Comments
Submitted
by
Bob
Ford,
Utah
DEQ,
on
the
Updated
Framework
under
Consideration
"
I
want
you
all
to
know
that
I
like
the
direction
you
are
going
in
with
the
upcoming
R&
R
rule
and
I
agree
with
a
majority
of
the
items
you
are
proposing
to
do
for
both
R&
R
and
the
existing
abatement
program.
However,
I
look
at
things
from
a
program
management
and
regulation
enforcement
perspective
and
I
think
there
are
some
potential
problems
in
the
some
of
the
items
you
are
proposing.
Where
I
believe
we
have
the
ability
to
rectify
those
issues
at
the
state
level,
I
want
to
share
these
issues
with
you
prior
to
your
publishing
the
proposed
R&
R
regulation
in
the
Federal
Register.

There
are
two
overlying
principles
that
I
feel
need
to
be
incorporated
into
this
upcoming
rule,
the
existing
USEPA
LBP
Abatement
Program
and
the
USHUD
LBP
regulation.
Those
principles
are
a
"
single
standard"
(
not
multiple
standards
for
USEPA/
USHUD
Abatement,
USEPA
R&
R,
and
USHUD
R&
R
in
target
housing
and
child­
occupied
facilities
and
the
upcoming
bridges,
buildings
and
structures
(
BB&
S)
rule)
and
the
KIS
(
keep
it
simple)
concept.
Overall,
I
think
we
can
simplify
things
for
the
regulated
public
and
maintain
the
level
of
protection
for
individuals
who
both
live
and
work
in
pre­
1978
structures
and
it
may
actually
increase
the
level
of
protection
as
a
simplified
rule
may
increase
the
number
of
contractors
willing
to
comply.

I
am
going
to
list
items
that
I
think
need
to
be
revisited
by
USEPA
(
and
may
already
have
been
considered)
in
no
particular
order
of
importance.
As
always,
I
am
willing
to
discuss
these
items
with
you
to
provide
additional
clarification
at
your
convenience.
Thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
input
to
you
and
I
look
forward
to
seeing
you
all
in
San
Antonio.

A.
APPLICABILITY
1.
Instead
of
having
three
different
standards
of
Abatement,
Interim
Controls
and
Renovation
(
and
a
possible
fourth
if
you
include
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)),
just
have
one
standard
where
if
you
disturb
more
than
2
ft2
of
LBP
on
the
interior
of
a
structure
(
and
this
applies
the
BB&
S
rule
when
it
is
promulgated
also)
or
20
ft2
on
the
exterior
of
a
structure,
then
you
need
to
comply
with
all
aspects
of
this
regulation.
This
rule
needs
to
apply
to
all
structures
that
have
LBP
as
currently
defined
and
not
just
pre­
1978
housing
or
child­
occupied
facilities.
If
you
disturb
more
than
2
ft2/
20
ft2
of
LBP,
then
you
would
need
to
follow
the
regulations
of
this
program.

2.
The
only
exclusion
to
this
is
if
a
rental
unit
owner
wants
to
work
in
a
unit
that
they
are
not
currently
living
in
or
wants
to
work
in
a
housing
unit
that
has
an
EBL
child,
then
they
would
need
to
take
the
training
and
get
certified
as
an
individual
and
as
a
firm.
The
EBL
child
exception
that
you
have
in
the
current
abatement
rule
needs
to
be
extended
to
the
proposed
R&
R
rule
also.

3.
You
must
assume
you
have
LBP
on
all
pre­
1978
housing
unless
you
have
documentation
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
14
from
a
certified
and
independent
LBP
inspector
and/
or
risk
assessor
stating
that
it
is
not
LBP
that
is
verified
through
an
NLLAP
accredited
laboratory
or
using
an
XRF
following
all
protocols
outlined
on
the
performance
characteristic
sheets.
Any
building,
bridge
or
other
structure
that
has
a
coated
surface
must
assume
LBP
regardless
of
age
(
the
1978
CPSC
ban
is
for
LBP
applied
to
residential
housing)
unless
documented
using
the
previously
described
methods
by
a
certified
and
independent
LBP
inspector/
risk
assessor.

B.
CERTIFICATION
OF
FIRMS
1.
Firms
need
to
be
certified
for
enforcement
and
program
revenue
generation
issues
(
we
need
to
be
self­
sustaining).
Revoking
a
certification
is
a
typical
program
enforcement
strategy
with
companies
that
repeatedly
violate
program
regulations.

C.
WORKERS
1.
Workers
need
to
continue
to
receive
accredited
training.
I
have
discussed
OSHA
program
training
concerns
(
not
unlike
the
OJT
training
proposed
by
USEPA)
with
Utah
program
inspectors
and
there
are
concerns
whether
the
training
ever
takes
place.
Also,
there
are
issues
that
the
information
being
taught
by
firms
is
inaccurate
information
(
i.
e.
no
training
may
be
better
than
bad
training).
I
do
think
the
current
training
could
be
trimmed
to
from
16
hours
to
8
hours
(
4
hour
refresher
every
3
years)
that
is
heavy
on
demonstrating
safe
work
practices
and
hands­
on
activities
for
workers.

2.
Workers
do
not
need
to
be
certified.
Having
a
current
training
certificate
on
site
for
the
worker
would
be
documentation
of
compliance
with
the
training
rule.
This
would
need
to
be
incorporated
with
a
requirement
that
at
least
one
certified
supervisor
be
on
site
at
all
times.

D.
SUPERVISORS
1.
One
or
more
certified
supervisors
need
to
be
on­
site
at
all
times
when
work
activities
are
being
performed
(
see
Section
C).
Training
could
be
scaled
back
from
the
32
hours
requirement
to
16
hours
(
8
hour
refresher
every
3
years).
Training
needs
to
be
accredited
and
be
focused
on
lead­
safe
work
practices,
OSHA
requirements
for
personal
protection,
and
compliance
with
federal,
state,
and
local
regulations.
Other
existing
requirements
should
be
removed
or
moved
to
an
expanded
Project
Designer
course
(
see
Section
F).

2.
We
have
spoken
with
all
of
our
certified
firms
about
not
requiring
worker
certification
and
requiring
certified
supervisors
to
be
on
site
100%
of
the
time.
They
all
said
this
would
be
a
preferred
regulatory
alternative
to
the
current
requirement.
Small
firms
with
only
one
supervisor
on
staff
thought
this
may
be
a
problem
but
would
probably
end
up
getting
a
second
individual
certified
as
a
supervisor.

3.
Paying
a
state
certification
fee
to
the
training
provider
may
not
be
acceptable
to
all
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
15
states/
tribes
or
the
training
providers.
Currently,
we
have
that
option
with
our
principal
in­
state
training
provider,
but
all
states/
tribes/
training
providers
may
not
be
willing
to
do
that.

E.
LEAD
SAMPLING
TECHNICIANS
1.
I
believe
HUD
called
these
individuals
"
Dust"
Sampling
Technicians
and
I
like
that
terminology
better
(
especially
if
those
individuals
can
only
conduct
visual
inspections
and
collect
dust
wipe
samples
and
not
collect
lead
samples
in
the
form
of
paint
chips,
XRF,
soil,
water,
etc.).
Keep
the
same
name
for
the
discipline
so
there
will
be
no
confusion.

2.
I
think
we
should
create
this
discipline
though
I
am
sure
that
there
will
be
a
concern
from
currently
certified
LBP
inspectors
and
risk
assessors.
I
have
reviewed
the
curriculum
(
though
some
time
ago)
and
do
not
have
an
issue
with
teaching
people
how
to
collect,
ship,
do
chain­
of­
custody,
choose
a
NLLAP
accredited
laboratory,
etc,
etc.
in
4­
hours.
I
think
we
should
require
refresher
training
every
three
years
(
could
be
the
same
4­
hour
course).

F.
PROJECT
DESIGNER
1.
Accredited
project
designer
training
of
24
hours,
a
prerequisite
of
attending
and
successfully
passing
the
LBP
Supervisor
course
and
3rd
party
test.
Certification
should
also
be
required.
Project
design
should
be
required
for
all
projects
that
disturb
more
than
2
ft2/
20
ft2
for
hazard
reduction,
R&
R,
O&
M
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
it.
Simple,
repetitive
projects
(
like
window
removal,
paint
preparation,
etc.)
could
have
a
generic
project
design
created
that
should
be
reviewed
for
applicability
and
potential
modification
prior
to
project
start.

2.
Project
designer
training
should
be
expanded
to
include
all
items
being
removed
from
the
Supervisor
training
course.
Supervisor/
Project
Designer
training
should
be
no
more
than
40
total
hours.

G.
WORK
PRACTICE
STANDARDS
 
GENERAL
1.
I
am
absolutely
ecstatic
about
the
performance­
based
standards
and
believe
that
should
be
used
for
all
projects
(
i.
e.
abatement,
R&
R,
O&
M,
BBS,
etc.)
using
the
"
single
standard".

2.
Hazard
reduction
and
R&
R
(
as
well
as
O&
M,
BB&
S,
etc.)
should
include
a
project
design,
and
occupant
protection
plan,
and
lead­
reduction
report.

3.
A
certified
supervisor
should
be
required
to
be
on
site
100%
of
the
time
when
regulated
activities
are
being
performed.
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
16
4.
Notification
should
be
required
for
all
projects
disturbing
more
than
2
ft2/
20
ft2
of
LBP.
The
thought
of
regulatory
over
site
and
a
proactive
enforcement
program
would
help
ensure
regulated
LBP
projects
are
performed
effectively
and
Lead­
Safe.

5.
Emergency
projects
are
problematic
from
an
enforcement
perspective
(
i.
e.
everything
is
an
emergency).
"
Deferring"
the
project
from
regulation
(
not
"
exempting"
the
project)
while
it
poses
an
"...
endangerment
to
public
health
or
substantial
property
damage..."
is
necessary.
Notification
should
still
be
required
and
as
soon
as
the
building
no
longer
poses
an
"...
endangerment
to
public
health
or
substantial
property
damage...",
all
regulatory
requirements
should
be
required
before
proceeding.

H.
PROHIBITED
PRACTICES
1.
A
single
standard
should
be
used
whenever
more
than
2
ft2/
20
ft2
of
LBP
is
disturbed
(
i.
e.
whether
it
is
abatement,
R&
R,
O&
M,
BB&
S,
etc.).
Open
flame
burning
or
torching,
machine
sanding,
grinding,
abrasive
or
sand
blasting
without
HEPA
exhaust
control,
extensive
dry
scraping
or
sanding
(
above
2
ft2/
20
ft2)
or
heat
guns
above
1100
degrees
F.
should
be
prohibited
regardless
of
the
intent
of
the
project.

I.
INTERIOR
CLEARANCE
1.
Current
requirements
for
interior
clearance
of
LBP
abatement
projects
should
be
used
for
all
projects
disturbing
more
than
2
ft2/
20
ft2
of
LBP.
"
Dust"
sampling
technicians
could
be
used
for
interior
clearance.
Intent
of
the
project
should
not
be
a
consideration
in
the
decision
making
process
of
whether
to
perform
clearance.
Adequate
cleaning
after
a
project
will
only
be
performed
on
regulated
projects
if
clearance
is
a
requirement.

2.
I
personally
feel
that
clearance
after
a
regulated
LBP
project
is
the
best
insurance
a
contractor
can
have.
It
is
good
"
bang"
for
the
"
buck".
Clearance
samples
collected
after
the
end
of
a
project
could
help
prevent
lawsuits
and
regulatory
enforcement
issues.
Especially
with
performance­
based
standards,
this
would
be
the
documentation
that
a
project
has
been
successfully
completed
and
is
ready
for
re­
occupancy
(
which
is
required
by
HUD
projects).

3.
I
believe
HUD
currently
requires
the
firm
performing
the
regulated
LBP
abatement
or
R&
R
project
cannot
perform
the
inspection/
risk
assessment
before
the
project
or
perform
the
clearance
after
the
project.
I
believe
that
USEPA
should
revisit
this
issue
and
modify
the
rules
to
be
consistent
with
HUD
requirements
(
i.
e.
single
standard).

J.
EXTERIOR
CLEARANCE
1.
Current
requirements
for
exterior
clearance
of
LBP
abatement
projects
should
be
used
for
all
projects
disturbing
more
than
2
ft2/
20
ft2
of
LBP.
"
Dust"
sampling
technicians
could
be
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
17
used
for
exterior
clearance.
Intent
of
the
project
should
not
be
a
consideration
in
the
decision
making
process
of
whether
to
perform
clearance.

2.
I
believe
HUD
currently
prohibits
contractors
performing
abatement/
R&
R
activities
from
performing
clearance
on
their
own
projects
(
see
I3,
above)
and
USEPA
should
modify
their
existing
and
future
rules
to
be
consistent
with
HUD
requirements
(
i.
e.
single
standard).

K.
OTHER
ISSUES
1.
We
have
had
some
issues
with
the
definition
of
Certified
Firm
as
some
non­
profits,
military
bases,
local
health
jurisdictions,
state
agencies
have
come
to
us
and
said
they
are
not
a
"...
company,
partnership,
corporation,
sole
proprietorship,
association
or
other
business
entity..."
and
therefore
they
are
not
required
to
be
certified
as
a
firm.
We
are
considering
changing
the
language
to
say
"...
or
any
other
business
entity...".

2.
The
definition
of
inspection
has
been
problematic
for
us
in
that
some
individuals
who
perform
partial
inspections
don't
believe
they
are
required
to
get
certified
as
either
an
inspector
or
as
a
firm
(
and
I
agree
with
them
considering
the
current
language).
USEPA
should
evaluate
the
need
to
define
a
partial
inspection
or
augment
their
current
definition
to
include
partial
inspections
as
a
regulated
activity."
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
June
2,
2003
 
Page
18
3.
Workgroup
Participants
on
the
May
15,
2003,
State,
Local
and
Tribal
Government
Stakeholder
Group
Call
Legislators
The
Honorable
Jack
Barraclough,
Idaho
House
of
Representatives
State
Programs
Larrie
Lance,
Kendra
Frazier,
Russell
Stowe,
and
Dan
Scannell
California
Department
of
Health
Childhood
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Program
Gary
Flentge,
Glen
Garner,
and
Kurt
McAfee
Illinois
Department
of
Public
Health
Environmental
Lead
Program
Barry
Brooks,
Tom
Morey,
and
Cory
Lambrecht
Kansas
Department
of
Health
and
Environment
Childhood
Lead
Poisoning
Prevention
Program
Ernie
Kelly
Massachusetts
Department
of
Labor
and
Workforce
Development
Kerra
Rouderbush,
Cheryl
Bradley,
Lynnette
Jordan,
and
Kevin
Tallant
Oklahoma
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Air
Quality
Division
Bob
Ford
Utah
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Division
of
Air
Quality