Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0016
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-01-10T05:00Z

Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
1
EPA
Conference
Call
With
Industry
Representatives
About
Possible
LBP
Activities
Framework
(
May
9,
2003)

1.
Summary
Discussion
and
Qs
&
As
on
"
Background
and
Rationale"
Document
Summary
Discussion:

Mike
Wilson
from
EPA
introduced
the
"
Background
and
Rationale"
document.
Briefly,
he:

°
Reviewed
EPA's
statutory
obligations
and
the
background
about
the
decisions
leading
to
the
current
regulatory
structure
and
requirements;
°
Highlighted
the
key
issues
that
EPA
has
encountered
in
implementing
the
current
regulatory
structure
and
activities;
and
°
Emphasized
that
EPA's
goal
is
to
reduce
the
burden
of
the
rule
that
regulates
lead­
based
paint
activities
while
still
achieving
the
agency's
statutory
responsibilities,
and
also
to
broaden
the
scope
of
the
rule
to
include
renovation
activities.

Questions
&
Answers:

Q:
A
number
of
small
businesses
previously
participated
as
representatives
to
EPA's
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
workgroup.
How
did
that
work
inform
EPA's
thinking
in
developing
this
potential
updated
framework?
(
Paul)
A:
Yes,
a
number
of
participants
on
this
call
provided
input
to
EPA's
SBREFA
process.
EPA,
with
SBA
and
OMB,
looked
at
SBREFA
workgroup
outputs
and
options
under
consideration
and
developed
a
final
report,
which
is
now
with
the
EPA
Administrator.
Since
this
report
is
part
of
the
regulatory
process,
it
is
EPA
policy
not
to
make
such
reports
publically
available
until
proposal
of
the
rule.
Note,
however,
that
EPA
is
using
SBREFA
inputs
as
well
as
input
from
these
new
rounds
of
workgroup
calls
in
thinking
about
potential
revisions
to
the
existing
framework.
Nothing
from
the
SBREFA
process
has
been
discarded
in
favor
of
a
new
approach.
(
Mike)

Q:
To
clarify,
previously
the
world
was
divided
into
separate
"
paths"
 
interim
controls,
abatement,
and
renovation.
Is
it
EPA's
intent
now
to
put
all
three
groupings
on
a
combined
path?
(
Brandt)
A:
Yes,
EPA's
intent
is
to
have
a
consolidated
framework.
Firms
will
require
certification;
a
single
certification
will
allow
a
firm
to
conduct
interim
controls,
abatement,
or
renovation.
(
Mike)

Q:
Was
the
SBREFA
process
utilized
as
part
of
EPA's
rationale
for
joining
the
three
paths
(
e.
g.,
interim
controls,
abatement,
renovation)
into
one?
(
Brandt)
A:
The
SBREFA
process
significantly
impacted
and
changed
EPA's
thinking
in
terms
of
all
three
categories
of
activities.
In
focusing
on
renovation
activities
during
the
SBREFA
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
2
process,
EPA
realized
that
renovators
often
performed
the
same
jobs,
using
the
same
methods
as
abatement
contractors
(
e.
g.,
so
with
the
same
"
assurances"
of
safety)
but
in
a
less
costly
manner.
With
abatement,
contractors
were
also
providing
assurances
of
safety
but
at
a
much
higher
cost.
So
EPA
is
now
focusing
on
a
way
to
reduce
the
difference
between
abatement
(
and
interim
controls)
and
renovation
so
as
to
ensure
safety
but
at
a
lower
cost.
(
Mike)

Q:
Renovation
Program
under
Section
402(
c)(
3)
states
that
"
large
amount
of
lead
dust
may
be
produced
by
many
renovation
activities..."
He
disagrees;
it's
either:
(
1)
"
some"
amount
of
lead
dust
may
be
produced
by
"
many"
activities;
or
(
2)
a
"
large"
amount
of
lead
dust
may
be
produced
from
a
"
few"
renovations.
Can
EPA
provide
statistics
from
the
R&
R
studies
to
back
up
its
characterization
of
"
most"
or
"
many"
activities?
(
Bob)
A:
EPA's
Phase
I
study
focused
on
work
conducted
by
a
contractor
on
a
typical
business
day.
The
vast
majority
of
these
cases
exceeded
the
hazard
standard,
which
at
the
time
was
100
mg/
sq.
ft.
Now
that
the
standard
has
been
reduced
to
40
mg/
sq.
ft.,
even
more
cases
would
exceed
the
standard.
(
Mike)

Q:
Did
EPA's
Phase
I
study
also
include
tests
in
Philadelphia,
where
carpenters
did
not
use
lead
safe
work
practices
(
LSWP)?
(
Brandt)
A:
The
Phase
I
study
included
standard
work
activities,
e.
g.,
sawing,
sanding,
etc.
Phase
I
did
not
include
the
Philadelphia
work;
that
was
performed
in
Phase
III.
(
Mike)

Q:
Is
it
possible
to
email
the
results
of
those
studies
so
members
can
review
them
before
the
next
conference
call
on
May
22?
(
Dave)
A:
Certain
Executive
Summaries
are
available
electronically
through
EPA's
Web;
see
Section
4
of
this
document
for
links/
information
on
EPA's
studies.
Additionally,
the
full
reports
and
appendices
are
available
through
the
National
Lead
Information
Center
(
National
Lead
Information
Center
at
1­
800­
424­
LEAD(
5323))
or
the
National
Technical
Information
Service
(
NTIS).
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
3
2.
Summary
Discussion,
Qs
&
As,
and
Comments
on
"
Summary
Table"
&
"
Discussion"
Documents
Summary
Discussion:

Mike
Wilson
from
EPA
then
introduced
the
"
Summary
Table"
and
"
Summary
Table
Discussion"
documents,
which
describe
the
key
elements
of
a
possible
updated
framework.
Briefly,
he:

°
Described
the
key
types
of
changes
that
would
occur
across
10
key
components
of
the
current
regulatory
structure
if
the
updated
framework
were
adopted;
°
Noted
that
the
framework
would
apply
to
all
pre­
1978
housing;
°
Highlighted
that
the
framework
emphasizes
performance­
based
standards
for
work
practices
and
the
same
basic
standards
would
be
applied
to
hazard
reduction
and
renovation;
°
Emphasized
that
the
framework
seeks
to
reduce
training
and
other
costs
to
firms
doing
these
types
of
work;
and
°
Emphasized
the
importance
of
pending
results
of
several
current
research
efforts
in
understanding
the
updated
framework
(
see
Mike's
explanation
in
the
next
Section
3
of
these
notes).

Questions
&
Answers
and
Comments:

Q:
Re.
supervisors
training
 
is
EPA
aiming
for
16
hours
or
8
hours
of
accredited
training?
(
Bob)
A:
EPA
is
first
working
through
the
framework.
Once
a
decision
is
made
on
the
proposed
approach
to
take,
EPA
will
make
a
decision
on
training.
In
general,
EPA's
current
thinking
is
to
reduce
supervisors
training
and
increase
project
designers
(
PDs)
training.
Specifically,
the
idea
is
to
remove
from
the
supervisors
training
all
elements
of
PD
and
to
focus
the
course
on
containment,
dust
minimization,
and
cleanup.
EPA
anticipates
a
revised
supervisors
course
lasting
between
8
and
16
hours.
The
current
PD
course
is
a
day
long;
it
could
be
expanded
to
2
days.
(
Mike)

Q:
How
available
will
these
courses
be?
(
Andy)
A:
The
courses
will
be
readily
available.
Training
may
be
provided
through
accredited
training
providers
and
through
NETI.
Additionally,
EPA
will
provide
training
and
tools
on
the
Web
to
help
employers
provide
training
at
low
cost.
(
Mike)

Q:
Is
EPA
looking
to
dismantle
current
training
for
abatement
and
merge
requirements
in
terms
of
one
training
curriculum?
(
Richard)
A:
No,
EPA
is
looking
to
modify,
not
dismantle,
the
current
training
program.
EPA
does
not
want
to
implement
standards
that
are
unique
and
separate
for
a
number
of
different
programs;
EPA
wants
to
simplify
matters
and
provide
abatement­
like
protection
during
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
4
renovation
activities.
(
Mike)
Q:
EPA's
approach
makes
good
sense,
but
why
the
lead
sampling
technician
(
LST)
discipline
and
training?
(
Bob)
A:
Issues
associated
with
potential
LST
training
requirements
were
also
brought
up
by
members
of
the
State,
Local,
and
Tribal
Stakeholders
Workgroup
in
their
call
last
week.
If
industry
stakeholders
also
have
comments
on
the
LST
designation,
EPA
would
appreciate
receiving
them.
(
Mike)

Q:
Is
EPA
taking
off
the
table
all
the
discussions
that
came
out
of
the
SBREFA
meetings,
including
all
the
information
previously
provided
by
the
painting
industry?
He's
been
heavily
involved
in
SBREFA,
PDCA
activities,
etc.,
over
the
past
few
years.
While
it
may
seem
logical
on
paper
to
combine
the
abatement,
interim
controls,
and
renovation
programs,
it
seems
that
the
possible
updated
framework
is
very
much
at
the
expense
of
renovators.
It
does
not
simply
ease
the
abatement
burden.
Renovators
want
to
stay
away
from
abatement
industry.
(
Brandt)
A:
No,
nothing
is
off
the
table.
EPA
typically
talks
with
stakeholders
over
the
course
of
any
rulemaking
process
and
will
consider
all
comments
and
information
 
old
and
new
 
in
its
deliberations.
This
possible
updated
framework
is
in
line
with
the
SBREFA
process,
since
it
recognizes
similar
work
practices
while
reducing
burdens.
(
Mike)

Comment:
Brandt
disagrees
very
much
with
Mike's
characterization
of
this
framework
as
being
in
keeping
with
SBREFA
and
previous
discussions,
and
in
reducing
burden.

Q:
How
does
this
regulatory
framework
link
to
the
voluntary
program
described
at
the
March
PDCA
meeting?
It
seems
the
2
approaches
­
regulatory
and
voluntary
­
are
incongruous.
(
Kevin)
A:
The
rulemaking
and
voluntary
approaches
are
proceeding
on
two
separate
but
parallel
tracks.
There
is
a
statutory
requirement,
enacted
by
Congress
in
the
original
Title
X
legislation,
which
directed
EPA
to
promulgate
a
rule
to
address
lead­
based
paint
(
LBP)
hazards
and,
based
on
research
findings,
to
extend
coverage
of
the
rule
to
R&
R
should
that
be
warranted.
The
research
discussed
earlier
in
the
call
indicated
that
R&
R
activities
did,
in
fact,
create
significant
amounts
of
lead
dust.
At
the
same
time,
EPA
recognizes
that
a
voluntary
approach
may
be
effective
in
helping
to
create
a
market
for
LSWP.
The
final
decision
on
whether
to
proceed
with
one
or
the
other,
or
both
approaches
will
be
made
by
the
leadership
at
EPA.
(
Mike)

Q:
Are
these
2
approaches
related?
Will
one
win
out?
(
Kevin)
A:
There
is
the
potential
for
EPA
to
look
at
how
successful
the
voluntary
initiative
is,
and
then
consider
that
in
terms
of
what
a
regulatory
program
would
look
like.
(
Mike)

Q:
Re.
Rule
Component
1,
Applicability,
does
the
2
sq.
foot
deminimis
trigger
for
renovation
apply
to
the
total
surface
area
as
well
as
to
a
perimeter
cut?
Electrical
contractors
need
to
place
a
lot
of
electrical
outlets,
etc.,
which
means
they
cut
into
dry
wall
that
may
have
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
5
LBP.
They
are
only
disturbing
the
surface
area
that
is
physically
being
cut
 
the
hole
could
be
larger
than
2
sq.
ft.
but
not
really
disturb
more
than
1/
16
or
1/
8
of
an
inch
times
the
length
of
the
cut,
which
is
much
less
than
2
sq.
ft.
Would
these
perimeter
cuts
also
be
restricted
to
2
sq.
ft?
(
Dave)
A:
The
original
2
sq.
foot
trigger
was
developed
in
the
context
of
sanding
and
preparing
a
surface,
such
as
a
wall,
for
painting.
EPA
would
like
feedback
on
this
issue
with
respect
to
cutting
a
hole
in
the
wall.
(
Mike)

Q:
Under
Rule
Component
8,
Prohibited
Practices,
the
list
of
work
practice
restrictions
indicates
that
machine
sanding,
grinding,
abrasive
blasting,
or
sandblasting
of
LBP
is
prohibited
unless
there
is
a
HEPA
exhaust
control.
Is
water
blasting
included?
What
about
chemical
strippers?
(
Richard)
A:
Under
Section
1012,
HUD's
federal
abatement
program
addresses
chemical
strippers,
but
chemical
strippers
were
never
in
the
TSCA
Section
402
requirements.
(
Mike)

Q:
What
about
water
blasting
under
Section
745?
(
Richard)
A:
I
believe
we
were
attempting
to
summarize
all
abrasive
blasting,
so
we
will
have
to
review
the
original
language
and
get
back
to
you
on
whether
it
specifically
includes
water
blasting.
[
In
followup,
as
shown
in
Section
4,
hydroblasting
is
not
included
in
the
rule
at
this
time.]
(
Mike)

Q:
Re.
Rule
Component
7,
Work
Practice
Standards,
there
are
six
possible
examples
under
consideration
listed
in
the
Summary
Table
Discussion
document.
Is
it's
EPA
intent
to
have
approximately
6
standards,
or
to
have
50,
or
even
100,
of
such
standards?
(
Bob)
A:
Any
component
of
the
potential
framework
is
open
to
future
modification.
Items
could
be
added
or
deleted.
But
EPA's
overarching
goal
is
to
simply
the
program.
(
Mike)

Q:
Re.
Rule
Component
10,
Exterior
Clearance,
could
a
supervisor
provide
visual
clearance/
inspection
of
their
own
work?
(
Richard)
A:
Yes.
(
Mike)

Q:
Why
would
EPA
allow
a
possible
conflict
of
interest
(
COI)
on
an
issue
like
this?
(
Richard)
A:
Please
provide
comments
on
COI.
(
Mike)

Q:
Why
is
clearance
testing
voluntary
for
renovation?
(
Richard)
A:
EPA
believes
that
where
cleanup
is
done
in
compliance
with
specific
requirements,
the
results
will
be
below
the
hazard
standard.
Requiring
clearance
testing
would
be
costly.
(
Mike)

Q:
What's
the
group's
"
homework"
in
preparing
for
the
second
call?
Does
EPA
want
the
group
to
provide
data
(
e.
g.,
impacts,
costs,
etc.)
per
the
list
of
questions
on
page
3
of
the
invitation
memorandum?
(
Bob)
A:
Today's
call
was
to
communicate
EPA's
understanding
of
the
issues
involved
and
the
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
6
rationale
behind
a
potential
updated
framework.
The
next
call
will
be
to
provide
feedback
on
specific
issues,
including
those
listed
in
the
memorandum.
So
yes,
EPA
appreciates
all
data
that
stakeholders
may
have
on
these
questions.
(
Mike)

Q:
When
are
written
comments
due?
(
Amy)
A:
EPA
would
appreciate
receiving
written
comments
by
May
23,
which
is
right
after
the
May
22
call.
EPA
recognizes
that
some
participants
may
require
a
little
additional
time,
but
is
still
hoping
to
receive
comments
as
expeditiously
as
possible,
no
later
than
the
week
of
May
26.
EPA
will
use
these
comments
to
brief
management
during
internal
lead
meetings
the
week
of
June
9.
Send
your
comments
to
Mike
Wilson
at
wilson.
mike@
epa.
gov.
(
Mike)

Q:
What's
the
anticipated
timeframe
for
the
rulemaking?
(
Richard)
A:
That's
difficult
to
say,
since
EPA
is
still
in
the
process
of
deliberating
options.
To
proceed
to
proposal,
EPA
needs
to
have
concurrence
from
senior
officials
in
the
Agency,
who
are
aware
of
the
program
but
have
not
bought
in
to
any
one
approach.
After
that,
it
may
take
10
months
for
proposal.
(
Mike)

Q:
So,
a
goal
of
4
to
5
years?
(
Richard)
A:
In
the
Regulatory
Agenda
it
says
2004
for
proposal,
but
that's
subject
to
change.
(
Mike)

Q:
Who
will
make
the
final
decision
about
whether
to
proceed
with
a
rule?
(
Brandt)
A:
The
political
leadership
at
EPA
will
do
what
is
called
an
"
options
selection"
process.
Once
they
have
selected
an
option,
if
the
option
is
to
proceed
with
a
rule,
then
OMB
would
be
involved
in
reviewing
the
rule.
(
Mike)

Q:
Does
that
mean
that
EPA's
political
leadership
has
not
yet
bought
in
to
a
rulemaking?
(
Brandt)
A:
EPA
has
not
yet
held
its
internal
options
selection
meeting,
since
the
lead
program
is
still
accumulating
information
and
debating
the
framework.
(
Mike)

Q:
By
options
in
the
framework,
do
you
mean
voluntary
versus
regulatory?
(
Amy)
A:
No,
the
options
selection
process
refers
only
to
selection
of
a
regulatory
option.
The
framework
discussed
today
is
only
one
approach
within
the
regulatory
construct.
There
are
a
variety
of
options
for
each
component
of
the
framework.
EPA
is
trying
to
come
up
with
a
single
approach
that
best
addresses
all
the
various
issues
under
consideration.
(
Mike)

Q:
Can
participants
get
names,
addresses,
etc.
of
other
participants
on
the
call?
(
Dave)
A:
Yes,
see
Section
5.
(
Mike)
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
7
3.
Summary
Discussion,
Qs
&
As,
and
Comments
on
Research
Projects
Underway
Colorimetric
Swab
Test
Kits
HUD
is
now
conducting
a
study
of
the
ability
of
colorimetric
swab
tests
to
identify
the
presence
of
lead­
based
paint
(
LBP)
by
changing
color.
Should
it
be
determined
that
swab
tests
are
effective,
homeowners
may
test
on
disturbed
surfaces
at
low
cost.
It
would
be
very
easy
to
evaluate
the
results
of
such
tests.
If
swab
tests
are
found
not
to
be
effective,
then
the
only
ways
to
determine
the
presence
of
LBP
remain
the
higher
cost
methods
of
XRF
testing
or
laboratory
analysis
of
paint
samples.

Q:
Is
EPA's
goal
to
require
every
house
pre­
1978
to
require
testing
prior
to
renovation
(
e.
g.,
is
EPA
trying
to
establish
a
baseline
so
as
not
to
make
problems
worse)?
(
Jeff)
A:
EPA
will
consider
whether
these
tests
could
be
incorporated
into
the
regulatory
program.
°
If
so,
if
lead
were
found
to
be
present,
then
the
regulations
would
apply;
if
lead
were
found
not
to
be
present,
then
the
regulations
would
not
apply;
if
no
test
were
conducted,
then
one
would
have
to
assume
that
lead
was
present.
°
Without
a
swab
test,
EPA
may
focus
applicability
of
the
rule
based
on
the
age
of
the
home.
There
are
several
indications
that
lead
levels
have
dropped
over
time:
°
HUD's
2000
National
Survey
showed
that
incidence
of
LBP
in
pre­
78
housing
dropped
from
67
percent
to
40
percent;
in
housing
built
between
1960
and
1978,
incidence
dropped
from
about
62
percent
to
24
percent.
°
An
estimated
50
percent
of
pre­
1978
homes
were
built
before
1960
and
1978;
approximately
90
percent
of
homes
pre­
1940
contain
some
LBP.
°
An
estimated
18
percent
of
these
homes
had
kids
under
age
6
­
so
18
percent
of
24
percent
is
less
than
5
percent
(
i.
e.,
very
low
percent).
So,
EPA's
overarching
issue
is,
if
the
swabs
are
not
effective,
should
the
framework
discussed
be
applied
only
to
pre­
50/
60
housing
or
to
multi­
family
dwellings
(
i.
e,
where
there
is
still
a
greater
likelihood
of
LBP)?
(
Mike)

Use
of
Electrostatic
Cleaning
Clothes
(
ECCs)

EPA
is
very
concerned
about
costs
of
LSWP,
particularly
on
the
testing
side.
A
single
clearance
test,
for
example,
can
cost
$
150.
EPA
wants
to
ensure
safety
of
renovation
jobs
(
e.
g.,
ensure
that
clearance
standards
are
met),
but
contain
the
costs.

With
this
in
mind,
EPA
is
currently
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.
ECCS
cost
$
1
or
less
per
pad.
The
research
is
not
complete,
but
there
is
some
preliminary
evidence
that
ECCs
perform
better
than
dust
wipe
sampling
in
picking
up
lead
dust,
and
may
be
more
effective
in
cleaning
surfaces
to
a
level
under
the
40
micrograms/
sq.
ft.
standard.
[
Also,
a
dust
wipe
sample
is
limited
to
1
sq.
ft.
surfaces,
while
an
ECC
would
be
used
over
the
whole
work
area,
so
greater
assurance
that
the
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
8
levels
would
be
less
than
40
micrograms.]
An
ECC
test
could
reinforce
the
idea
of
renovation
with
voluntary
dust
sampling
­
so
not
only
cleanup,
but
also
clearance.
The
overarching
question
is,
how
clean
should
the
ECC
be
after
covering
the
entire
work
area?
(
Mike)
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
9
4.
Further
Information
as
Requested
in
Advance
of
May
22,
2003,
Follow­
up
Call
Data
from
EPA's
Studies
under
TSCA
Section
402(
c)(
3)
of
LBP
Hazards
Specifically
Created
by
R&
R
Activities
The
following
EPA
Phase
I,
II,
III,
and
IV
studies
of
lead
exposure
associated
with
R&
R
activities
are
available
through
the
Web,
the
National
Lead
Information
Center
(
National
Lead
Information
Center
at
1­
800­
424­
LEAD(
5323))
and/
or
the
National
Technical
Information
Service
(
NTIS).

°
[
NIC.
#
404]
Lead
Exposure
Associated
with
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Activities:
Phase
I,
Environmental
Field
Sampling
Study,
Volume
I:
Technical
Report,
May
1997
(
EPA
747R96007);
Executive
Summary
HTML
format.

°
[
NIC.
#
405]
Lead
Exposure
Associated
with
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Activities:
Phase
I,
Environmental
Field
Sampling
Study,
Volume
II:
Appendices,
May
1997
(
EPA
747­
R­
96­
008).

°
[
NIC.
#
403]
Lead
Exposure
Associated
with
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Activities:
Phase
II,
Worker
Characterization
and
Blood­
Lead
Study,
May
1997
(
EPA
747­
R­
96­
006);
Executive
Summary
HTML
format.

°
Lead
Exposure
Associated
with
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Activities:
Summary
Report,
May
1997
(
EPA
747­
R­
96­
005).
This
report
is
no
longer
available
from
the
NIC.
To
obtain
a
copy,
contact
NTIS
and
request
NTIS
document
#
PB97­
185953.
Executive
Summary
HTML
format.

°
[
NIC.
#
407]
Lead
Exposure
Associated
with
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Activities:
Phase
III,
Wisconsin
Childhood
Blood­
Lead
Study,
March
1999
(
EPA
747­
R­
99­
002).

°
[
NIC.
#
408]
Lead
Exposure
Associated
with
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Activities:
Phase
IV,
Worker
Characterization
and
Blood­
Lead
Study
of
R&
R
Workers
Who
Specialize
in
Renovation
of
Old
or
Historic
Homes,
March
1999
(
EPA
747­
R­
99­
001).

Water
Blasting
under
Section
745
§
745.227
Work
practice
standards
for
conducting
lead­
based
paint
activities:
target
housing
and
child­
occupied
facilities.

a)
Effective
date,
applicability,
and
terms.
(
1)
Beginning
on
March
1,
2000,
all
lead­
based
paint
activities
shall
be
performed
pursuant
to
the
work
practice
standards
contained
in
this
section.

(
2)
When
performing
any
lead­
based
paint
activity
described
by
the
certified
individual
as
an
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
10
inspection,
lead­
hazard
screen,
risk
assessment
or
abatement,
a
certified
individual
must
perform
that
activity
in
compliance
with
the
appropriate
requirements
below.

(
3)
Documented
methodologies
that
are
appropriate
for
this
section
are
found
in
the
following:
The
U.
S.
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
(
HUD)
Guidelines
for
the
Evaluation
and
Control
of
Lead­
Based
Paint
Hazards
in
Housing;
the
EPA
Guidance
on
Residential
Lead­
Based
Paint,
Lead­
Contaminated
Dust,
and
Lead­
Contaminated
Soil;
the
EPA
Residential
Sampling
for
Lead:
Protocols
for
Dust
and
Soil
Sampling
(
EPA
report
number
7474­
R­
95­
001);
Regulations,
guidance,
methods
or
protocols
issued
by
States
and
Indian
Tribes
that
have
been
authorized
by
EPA;
and
other
equivalent
methods
and
quidelines.

(
4)
Clearance
levels
are
appropriate
for
the
purposes
of
this
section
may
be
found
in
the
EPA
Guidance
on
Residential
Lead­
Based
Paint,
Lead­
Contaminated
Dust,
and
Lead
Contaminiated
Soil
or
other
equivalent
guidelines.

e)
Abatement.

(
6)
The
work
practices
listed
below
shall
be
restricted
during
an
abatement
as
follows:

(
i)
Open­
flame
burning
or
torching
of
lead­
based
paint
is
prohibited;

(
ii)
Machine
sanding
or
grinding
or
abrasive
blasting
or
sandblasting
of
lead­
based
paint
is
prohibited
unless
used
with
High
Efficiency
Particulate
Air
(
HEPA)
exhaust
control
which
removes
particles
of
0.3
microns
or
larger
from
the
air
at
99.97
percent
or
greater
efficiency;

(
iii)
Dry
scraping
of
lead­
based
paint
is
permitted
only
in
conjunction
with
heat
guns
or
around
electrical
outlets
or
when
treating
defective
paint
spots
totaling
no
more
than
2
square
feet
in
any
one
room,
hallway
or
stairwell
or
totaling
no
more
than
20
square
feet
on
exterior
surfaces;
and
(
iv)
Operating
a
heat
gun
on
lead­
based
paint
is
permitted
only
at
temperatures
below
1100
degrees
Fahrenheit.

http://
a257.
g.
akamaitech.
net/
7/
257/
2422/
14mar20010800/
edocket.
access.
gpo.
gov/
cfr_
2002/
julqtr/
pdf/
40
cfr745.227.
pdf
45796
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
61,
No.
169
/
Thursday,
August
29,
1996
/
Rules
and
Regulations
In
regard
to
the
establishment
of
restrictions
for
hydroblasting
and
highpressure
washing,
the
Agency
does
not
have
enough
data
to
demonstrate
that
these
practices
may
pose
a
lead­
based
paint
hazard
in
target
housing
or
childoccupied
facilities.
Nor
is
there
sufficient
data
to
support
specific
restrictions
on
how
to
effectively
control
or
limit
these
practices
to
reduce
any
hazards
they
might
pose.
Consequently,
the
rule
does
not
establish
restrictions
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
11
for
hydroblasting
and
high­
pressure
washing.
However,
the
Agency
recommends
that
controls
be
used
to
contain
any
debris
or
wastewater
that
may
be
generated
when
hydroblasting
and
high­
pressure
washing
are
employed
as
abatement
techniques.
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
12
5.
Workgroup
Participants
on
the
May
9,
2003,
Industry
Stakeholder
Group
Call
Richard
Baker
Baker
Environmental
Consulting
7941
Westgate
Street
Lexana,
KS
66215­
2636
ph:
913­
541­
0220
fax:
913­
541­
0457
Paul
Corey
Paul
J.
Corey
Painting
and
Decorating
769
East
Street
Dedham,
MA
02026
ph:
781­
326­
4225
fax:
781­
320­
9062
Lake
Coulson
National
Association
of
Plumbing,
Heating,
and
Cooling
Contractors
180
S.
Washington
St.
Falls
Church,
VA
22046
ph:
1­
800­
533­
7694
fax:
703­
273­
7442
Brandt
Domas
Domas
&
Associates,
Inc.
1344
West
Cedar
Avenue
Denver,
CO
80233­
1731
ph:
303­
733­
7186
fax:
303­
733­
2802
Amy
Erickson
National
Association
of
Home
Builders
1201
15th
Street,
NW
Washington,
DC
20005
ph:
202­
822­
0328
fax:
202­
822­
0390
Bob
Hanbury
House
of
Hanbury
Builders
109
Stamm
Road
Newington,
CT
06111
ph:
860­
666­
1537
Draft
Deliberative
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
 
May
16,
2003
 
Page
13
fax:
860­
665­
7815
Jeff
Hurst
Hurst
Total
Home,
Inc.
2852
Haig
Avenue
Kettering,
OH
45419
ph:
937­
296­
1133
fax:
937­
296­
1134
Eileen
Lee
National
Multi
Housing
Council
1850
M
Street,
NW
Suite
540
Washington,
DC
20036
ph:
202­
659­
3381
fax:
202­
775­
0112
Andy
Moelk
JEFFCO
Painting
and
Coating,
Inc.
1260
Railroad
Ave.,
Bldg.
750
Vallejo,
CA
94592
ph:
707­
556­
1900
fax:
707­
556­
1907
Kevin
Nolan
Nolan
Painting,
Inc.
118
West
Hillcrest
Avenue
Havertown,
PA
19083
ph:
610­
642­
1415
fax:
610­
642­
7856
Dave
Potts
National
Electrical
Contractors
Association
3
Bethesda
Metro
Center,
Suite
1100
Bethesda,
MD
20814
ph:
301­
657­
3110
fax:
301­
215­
4500