Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0460
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-05-11T04:00Z

0001
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
2
LEAD­
BASED
PAINT
HEARING
3
March
29th,
2006
4
Washington,
D.
C.
5
*
*
*
*
*
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0002
1
MS.
DOA:
Good
afternoon.
I
think
we're
about
2
ready
to
get
started.
My
name
is
Maria
Doa.
I'm
3
the
Director
of
EPA
National
Program
Chemical
4
Solution
which
is
the
lead
division
for
EPA's
Lead
5
Paint
Program
and
here
with
me
today
starting
at
my
6
right
is
Aquanetta
Dickens
who's
the
Chief
of
Toxics
7
Programs
and
enforcement
in
region
three.
Demian
8
Ellis
who's
the
region
three
Regional
Coordinator
9
and
Julie
Simpson
who's
the
Chief
of
the
Lead
Heavy
10
Metal
and
Inorganic
branch
here
at
EPA.
11
I'd
like
to
welcome
you
to
the
public
12
meeting
on
EPA's
Lead
Renovation/
Repair
Painting
13
Program
Proposed
Rule.
This
is
the
second
in
four
14
public
meetings
we're
holding
around
the
country
and
15
we
look
forward
to
hearing
your
comments
on
the
16
proposed
rule.
17
Your
comments
are
critical
in
ensuring
18
that
we
develop
a
good
final
rule
that's
both
19
protective
and
practical.
This
rule
is
an
important
20
component
of
the
federal
government's
strategy
in
21
getting
to
our
goal
and
as
important
maintaining
the
22
goal
once
we
get
there
of
eliminating
childhood
lead
0003
1
poisoning.
2
The
comment
period
closes
on
April
10th.
3
We've
received
a
number
of
requests
to
extend
the
4
comment
period
and
one
comment
that
the
comment
5
period
should
not
be
extended.
The
EPA
is
in
the
6
process
of
reviewing
these.
If
it
decides
the
7
comment
period
is
to
be
extended,
we
will
announce
8
that
in
a
Federal
Register
notice
on
or
before
April
the
10th.
9
And
we'll
also
post
it
on
our
website.
10
Again,
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
taking
11
the
time
to
come
and
participate
in
the
public
12
meeting
and
we
do
really
look
forward
to
hearing
13
your
comments.
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Julie
Simpson.
14
MS.
SIMPSON:
Just
for
the
benefit
of
anyone
who
15
isn't
familiar
with
the
federal
rule
making
process,
16
after
we
publish
a
proposed
rule
we
have
a
period
17
when
we
take
public
comment,
we
have
a
docket
that's
18
open
where
people
can
submit
written
comment.
19
In
addition,
the
remarks
of
everyone
who
20
is
speaking
today
are
being
prescribed
by
a
court
21
reporter
and
the
transcript
will
go
into
the
written
22
record.
So
also
if
you
have
any
written
materials
0004
1
with
you
that
you
want
to
submit
to
the
docket
you
2
can
give
them
to
Amy
Mortimer
or
to
Pujan
at
the
3
back.
They're
helping
us
today,
they're
with
ICF
4
Consulting
and
they're
taking
care
of
the
logistics
5
for
us.
In
order
to
make
sure
that
we
allow
6
everyone
time
to
speak,
we've
asked
that
everyone
7
limit
their
remarks
to
a
maximum
of
10
minutes.
Amy
8
will
be
calling
the
speakers
who
have
registered
and
9
she'll
be
there
to
let
you
know
if
you
start
to
10
exceed
your
time
limit.
Pujan
in
the
back
can
11
direct
you
to
any
facilities
you
may
need
to
locate
12
in
the
building.
Any
questions
from
the
room?
13
Let's
get
started.
14
MS.
MORTIMER:
The
first
person
up
is
Olivia
15
Farrow.
After
that
Dennis
Livingston.
16
MS.
FARROW:
Good
afternoon.
I
am
Olivia
Farrow
17
Assistant
Commissioner
of
the
Environmental
Health
18
Division
with
the
Baltimore
City
Health
Department.
19
I
welcome
this
opportunity
to
support
strong
20
mandated
federal
regulations
to
reduce
exposure
to
21
lead
hazards
created
by
renovation,
repair
or
22
painting
activities
that
disturb
lead­
based
paint.
0005
1
With
20
million
remodels
each
year
in
housing
with
2
lead
hazard
conditions,
the
nation's
children
are
in
3
need
of
further
protection
from
this
environmental
4
hazard.
5
We
are
well
aware
that
childhood
lead
6
poisoning
is
the
most
common
environmental
hazard
7
facing
American
children.
We
are
also
aware
that
8
lead­
based
paint
within
the
home
has
long
been
9
recognized
as
the
leading
cause
of
lead
poisoning
in
10
our
children.
Therefore,
removing
lead­
based
paint
11
hazards
from
the
home
is
an
essential
measure
to
12
prevent
further
poising.
Lead
hazard
reduction
13
properly
completed
is
extremely
beneficial
and
may
14
reduce
exposure.
15
However,
if
the
lead
hazard
reduction
is
16
improperly
carried
out
the
repair
and
remodeling
can
17
cause
a
significant
elevation
of
blood
lead
levels
18
in
children.
One
case
reported
that
got
national
19
attention
regarding
the
hazards
of
remodeling
and
20
renovation
in
lead
hazard
homes
is
the
Marino
case
21
named
after
the
physician
who
treated
the
family.
22
Workers
used
rotary
power
sanders,
hand
sanders,
0006
1
scrapers,
torches,
heat
guns
and
chemical
paint
2
strippers
to
compete
the
renovation
of
this
house.
3
Dust
was
prevalent
throughout
all
rooms.
As
a
4
result
four
cases
of
childhood
lead
poisoning
and
5
two
cases
of
adult
lead
toxicity
were
identified.
6
Initial
blood
lead
levels
in
the
children
ranged
7
from
56
to
87
micrograms
per
deciliter.
All
four
8
required
chelation
therapy.
The
Marino
case
is
just
9
one
of
the
many
cases
of
serious
lead
poisoning
10
still
occurring
throughout
the
country.
11
In
Baltimore
City
a
family
was
referred
to
12
the
Baltimore
City
Health
Department's
Childhood
13
Lead
Poisoning
Program
in
September
2004
after
14
significant
home
renovations
in
2000
had
resulted
in
15
a
child's
blood
lead
level
of
18
micrograms
per
16
deciliter.
In
another
example
a
couple
moved
to
17
Baltimore
City
with
their
one­
year­
old
child
in
18
2005.
The
couple
had
their
home
tested
for
lead
by
19
a
private
contract
and
educated
themselves
on
proper
20
renovation
procedures
for
an
affected
home.
A
21
contract
was
hired
to
do
the
renovations
which
22
included
removing
walls
and
window
replacement.
The
0007
1
family
remained
in
the
property
while
the
renovation
2
was
being
completed.
By
the
time
the
child
was
3
referred
to
the
Baltimore
City
Health
Department's
4
Childhood
Lead
Poisoning
and
Prevention
Program
on
5
September
16th,
2005
the
child
had
a
blood
lead
6
level
of
19
micrograms
per
deciliter.
7
In
another
example,
a
family
that
rented
8
an
apartment
in
the
Fells
Point
area
found
their
9
child
had
a
blood
lead
level
of
25
micrograms
per
10
deciliter
after
the
landlord
replaced
the
windows
11
one
month
prior
to
the
family's
arrival.
The
12
landlord
had
not
insured
that
proper
precautions
13
were
taken
to
protect
the
family
against
lead
dust.
14
The
combined
efforts
of
the
City
Health
Department
15
and
the
Coalition
to
End
Childhood
Lead
Poisoning
16
resulted
in
relocating
the
family
to
lead­
safe
17
housing.
As
of
February
17th,
2006
the
child's
18
blood
lead
level
decreased
to
12
micrograms
per
19
deciliter
from
the
initial
25.
These
are
just
three
20
cases
out
of
many
in
one
American
city.
21
Surveys
conducted
by
HUD
estimated
that
in
22
2000
38
million
homes
had
lead
paint
and
25
million
0008
1
had
hazardous
conditions.
Furthermore,
substantial
2
evidence
proves
lead
paint
removal
be
conducted
on
3
the
30
million
homes
the
danger
of
a
child
being
4
becoming
lead
poisoned
is
alarming.
One
study
found
5
that
refinishing
activity
performed
in
dwellings
6
with
lead­
based
paint
was
associated
with
an
average
7
of
69
percent
increase
in
the
blood
lead
level
of
8
the
249
infants
living
there.
Another
study
of
370
9
recently
lead
poisoned
children
found
a
significant
10
association
between
renovation
activity
and
elevated
11
blood
lead
level
existed.
12
The
Centers
for
Disease
Control
reported
13
that
findings
from
a
study
in
New
York
state
14
suggested
that
home
renovation
and
remodeling
was
an
15
important
source
of
lead
exposure
among
children
in
16
New
York
during
1993
to
1994.
17
The
majority
of
Baltimore
City
homes
were
18
built
prior
to
1950.
As
Baltimore
City
continues
to
19
experience
an
explosion
in
residential
20
redevelopment,
the
risk
of
lead
poisoning
of
small
21
children
becomes
even
greater.
Federal
leadership
22
in
regulating
renovation
and
repair
work
in
affected
0009
1
properties
would
help
stop
preventable
lead
2
poisoning.
3
While
the
EPA
is
taking
greater
steps
in
4
providing
protection
to
children
and
homes
under
5
renovation,
the
Baltimore
City
Health
Department
6
would
like
to
see
the
proposed
rule
go
even
further.
7
We
strongly
urge
that
EPA,
number
one,
make
the
8
proposed
rule
applicable
to
all
homes
whether
a
9
child
resides
in
the
property
or
not.
The
proposed
10
rule
would
initially
only
impact
homes
where
11
children
have
been
identified
with
elevated
blood
12
lead
levels.
We
think
that
proposal
is
wrong
and
13
allows
the
continuation
of
the
poisoning
of
our
14
children.
We
have
seen
the
evidence
in
the
City
of
15
Baltimore
that
many
young
children
spend
several
16
hours
each
day
with
family,
friends.
At
any
point
a
17
property
not
currently
occupied
by
a
child
may
18
become
so
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
Number
two,
we
19
strongly
urge
that
EPA
eliminate
the
waiver
whereby
20
a
renovator
can
seek
a
signed
statement
from
the
21
owner
stating
that
a
child
does
not
reside
at
the
22
property
thus
avoiding
the
obligation
to
comply
with
0010
1
the
proposed
rule.
We
must
make
all
the
homes
safe
2
for
all
children
whether
residing
or
visiting
in
a
3
property.
A
home
while
not
a
permanent
residence
4
for
a
child
may
serve
as
a
secondary
residence.
And
5
thirdly,
we
strongly
urge
that
EPA
impose
stiff
6
penalties
for
renovators
who
failed
to
comply
with
7
the
new
rule
and
direct
those
penalties
or
a
portion
8
thereof
into
the
recognized
lead
abatement
programs
9
of
the
jurisdiction
in
which
the
violation
occurred.
10
The
need
for
financial
assistance
with
lead
11
abatement
is
a
continuing
need
for
many
struggling
12
homeowners
who
own
old
and
historic
housing
in
13
cities
like
Baltimore.
I
would
like
to
concluded
by
14
saying
that
this
country
has
made
tremendous
15
progress
in
the
fight
to
eliminate
childhood
lead
16
poisoning,
but
we
still
have
much
to
do
to
eliminate
17
this
problem
by
2010.
18
Promulgating
strong
federal
regulations
19
regarding
renovating
and
repairing
affected
homes
is
20
a
key
step.
On
behalf
of
Baltimore
City's
Health
21
Department
I
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
22
present
our
comments
to
the
Agency.
0011
1
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you.
2
MS.
MORTIMER:
Next,
Jane
Malone.
3
MS.
MALONE:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Jane
Malone.
4
I
work
for
the
Alliance
for
Healthy
Homes.
The
5
alliance
is
submitting
for
the
record
four
reports
6
from
work
groups
of
advocates,
researchers
and
7
others
covering
proposed
rules,
deficiencies
8
regarding
clearance,
dangerous
work
practices,
9
qualifications
and
training
and
enforcement.
These
10
important
views
reflect
thoughtful
deliberations
by
11
many
persons
over
the
past
few
months.
We
urge
EPA
12
serious
consideration
of
these
recommendations.
I'm
13
going
to
just
give
copies
to
you.
14
Secondly,
the
Alliance
is
the
party
that
15
submitted
the
comments
asking
EPA
to
not
16
extend
the
rule
making
period
and
I
just
want
to
17
clarify
that
our
interest
is
in
seeing
this
rule
18
move
forward
and
we
really
believe
that
no
further
19
amount
of
study
by
outside
parties
is
going
to
add
20
to
the
factual
record
here
and
really
make
a
case
21
for
changes
in
the
rule
that
we
don't
already
know
22
need
to
be
changed.
So
I'd
just
like
to
reiterate
0012
1
we
would
ask
EPA
to
stick
to
the
schedule
and
not
2
extend
the
deadline.
3
Let's
consider
all
the
lost
IQ
points
and
4
the
missed
teachable
moments
experienced
by
young
5
children
denied
the
opportunity
to
thrive
in
school,
6
in
the
workplace,
in
life
because
they
were
7
needlessly
exposed
to
excessive
amounts
of
lead,
8
after
sloppy
renovation
work
and
paint
jobs
that
9
were
left
room
clean.
Hopefully
the
final
10
renovation
and
remodeling
rule
will
help
the
U.
S.
11
render
childhood
lead
poisoning
history.
The
12
Alliance
for
Healthy
Homes
is
the
preeminent
voice
13
for
advocacy
to
prevent
childhood
lead
poisoning.
14
Our
work
enabled
the
passage
of
the
1992
legislation
15
that
crystalized
the
bi­
partisan
consensus
16
commitment
to
mandate
lead
safety
across
the
U.
S.
17
including
the
prevention
of
exposure
to
lead
fro
18
renovation
and
remodeling
work.
19
The
Alliance
commends
the
EPA
for
the
20
development
and
proposal
of
a
rule
that
requires
21
trained
personnel
to
adhere
to
containment
and
clean
22
work
practices
in
renovation
and
repair
of
pre­
1970
0013
1
housing.
However,
the
Alliance
is
deeply
2
disappointed
that
EPA's
proposed
rule
that,
One,
3
fails
to
require
adherence
to
proven
health
4
protective
performance
standards
which
are
5
refraining
from
the
use
of
extremely
dangerous
work
6
practices
and
collecting
dust
wipe
samples
for
lab
7
analysis
to
check
for
lead
safety
at
the
end
of
the
8
job;
Two,
is
a
poor
match
with
how
most
painting
9
and
renovation
work
is
conducted
and
particularly
10
supervised;
and,
Three,
promotes
unproven
cleaning,
11
quote,
verification
procedures
that
add
incremental
12
costs
better
invested
in
clearance,
mislead
13
consumers
by
creating
false
sense
of
security
and
14
add
not
a
whit
of
protection
from
exposure
to
lead
15
whatsoever.
16
We
believe
that
the
flaws
in
the
proposed
17
rule
are
not
indicative
of
EPA's
misapprehension
of
18
the
science
or
unawareness
of
proven
practices
or
19
overall
vacation
from
reality,
but
rather
political
20
imperative
to
accommodate
the
Executive
Branch's
21
consultation
with
and
deference
to
proponents
of
the
22
renovation
industry.
It's
now
time
for
0014
1
scientifically
proven
approaches,
common
sense
and
2
principles
of
public
health
to
prevail,
otherwise
3
painting
and
renovation
work
will
indeed
become
more
4
expensive
as
the
painters
and
renovators
fear
but
5
the
way
they
conduct
business
will
fail
to
protect
6
children.
And
federal
policy
will
have
failed
to
7
protect
the
painters
and
renovators
from
liability
8
problems.
This
is
a
lose­
lose
proposition.
9
Concerns
about
costs
have
always
been
a
10
factor
of
advocacy
of
lead
poisoning
prevention.
11
Health
and
housing
advocates
care
deeply
about
12
housing
affordability
and
completely
agree
with
13
construction
and
real
estate
interests
that
the
14
incremental
cost
of
lead
safety
must
be
kept
to
an
15
absolute
minimum.
The
feasibility
of
adoption
of
new
16
requirements
depends
whether
the
approach
is
17
workable
and
practical.
Yet
we're
not
convinced
of
18
the
relative
merits
of
the
proposed
approach
by
the
theoretical
19
estimates
of
cost
for
selected
approaches
that
have
20
been
presented
in
the
economic
analysis.
21
Because
the
administration
prematurely
22
dismissed
consideration
of
alternatives
there
are
no
0015
1
estimates
documented
in
the
docket
for
the
2
incremental
cost
of
refraining
from
uncontrolled
3
power
sanding
or
picking
up
dust
wipes
and
sending
4
them
to
a
lab.
Instead
the
proposal
promotes
a
5
white
glove
test
characterized
as
cleaning
6
verification
and
estimates
that
performing
this
test
7
costs
around
seven
dollars.
8
Further,
public
health
tradeoffs
have
9
resulted
from
the
Agency's
failure
during
its
10
deliberations
and
consultations
subsequent
to
the
11
2000
panel
report
to
transparently
communicate
about
12
its
plans
with
experts
in
the
health
effects
of
lead
13
exposure,
despite
statutory
requirement
for
14
consultation
with
those
knowledgeable
about
health
15
effects.
As
a
result
the
rule
falls
far
short
of
16
protecting
children
as
well
as
the
progeny
of
17
pregnant
women
and
other
females
of
child
bearing
18
age
from
needless
exposure
to
lead.
Instead,
19
there's
a
checkoff
form
encouraging
homeowners
to
20
save
money
by
declaring
no
child
under
six
is
21
present.
Any
exemption
from
these
requirements
as
22
our
colleague
said
is
dangerous
because
future
0016
1
occupants
and
visitors
may
include
vulnerable
2
persons.
If
there
is
to
be
no
exemption
under
the
3
theory
that
new
owners
friends,
neighbors
and
4
relatives
are
invulnerable
the
exemption
should
be
5
expanded
to
cover
women
of
child
bearing
age.
6
Ideally
there
would
be
no
exemption
whatsoever.
7
Similarly,
the
scope
of
the
rule
misses
8
the
obvious
opportunity
to
protect
children
in
child
9
occupied
facilities,
let
alone
begin
to
address
10
other
public
and
commercial
buildings
by
covering
their
11
exterior
renovation.
12
We
are
encouraged
the
EPA
responded
to
13
advocacy
by
expediting
this
rule
and
are
hopeful
a
14
final
rule
will
be
promulgated
by
the
end
of
15
calendar
2006,
but
the
decision
to
expedite
a
rule
16
that
is
nine
years
overdue
does
not
obviate
EPA's
17
obligation
to
consult
with
parties
in
the
regulated
18
industry.
There's
still
time
to
meet
the
statutory
19
requirement
in
deliberations
prior
to
final
rule
20
making.
21
The
Agency
completes
due
diligence
by
22
giving
full
attention
to
the
responses
of
those
not
0017
1
thoroughly
consulted
heretofore,
the
public
health
2
community,
community
based
organizations
and
other
3
advocates,
full
accountability
to
meet
statutory
4
requirement
demands
health
experts
views
be
fully
5
considered,
since
proponents
of
the
remodeling
and
6
abatement
industries
have
already
had
their
say.
I
7
will
be
submitting
further
comments
through
the
8
docket.
Thank
you.
9
MS.
MORTIMER:
Dennis
Livingston
is
on
and
Tom
10
Neltner's
up
after
him.
11
MR.
LIVINGSTON:
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
make
this
12
presentation.
I'm
presenting
from
the
point
of
view
13
of
a
contractor.
I've
been
a
contractor
my
whole
14
life.
And
one
of
the
criticisms
of
this
rule
has
15
been
that
this
will
make
a
burden
on
contractors
and
16
I
wanted
to
speak
to
the
fact
that
this
will
be
the
17
exact
opposite.
This
will
be
a
tremendous
benefit
18
to
contractors,
particularly
to
the
small
19
contractors.
The
vast
majority
of
work
that's
done
20
in
this
country
on
old
houses,
as
far
as
maintenance
21
goes,
is
not
done
by
large,
above­
ground,
certified
22
insured
contractors.
The
vast
majority
of
the
0018
1
maintenance
work,
the
painting
work
and
the
rehab
2
has
been
work
that
is
done
by
small
neighborhood
3
based
contractors.
It's
those
contractors
that
we
4
want
to
put
at
an
advantage.
We
want
to
give
them
5
the
knowledge
and
the
skills
and
the
marketing
6
capacity
to
be
able
to
compete
in
the
field,
do
the
7
work
right
and
do
the
work
safely
both
for
occupants
8
and
for
the
workers.
9
I'm
author
of
the
book
that
HUD
10
distributed
to
every
main
library
in
the
country
and
11
the
major
author
to
the
book
distributed
by
HUD
12
around
lead.
So
as
a
contractor
I've
been
very
13
interested
in
translating
trade
information
into
14
comprehensible
words
that
contractors
can
really
15
understand
and
the
workers
can.
16
As
a
small
contractor
what
I
want
­­
I
17
don't
mind
if
I'm
told
to
do
something
like
send
my
18
workers
to
one­
day
training,
as
long
as
my
19
competition
is
required
to
do
the
same.
I
don't
20
like
to
compete
on
price.
I
don't
want
to
undercut
21
my
competition
because
those
low
prices
hurt
me.
22
What
I
want
is
to
be
able
to
go
into
a
house
and
say
0019
1
here
is
my
certificate
that
says
that
my
company
is
2
certified.
Here
are
the
names
of
the
workers
who
3
will
be
working
in
the
house
and
record
that
they
4
have
been
trained.
I'm
not
telling
you
I'm
going
to
5
be
low
bidder
but
I
am
telling
you
make
sure
anybody
6
bidding
against
me
has
these
pieces
of
paper
or
your
7
house
is
in
jeopardy
and
your
children
are
in
8
jeopardy.
9
Now,
I
use
that
marketing
strategy
for
10
years
and
I
can
tell
you
I
was
able
to
get
jobs
with
11
high
bid
over
and
over
and
over
again
because
my
12
competition
came
in
and
they
didn't
know
what
the
13
customer
was
talking
about.
Now,
eventually
my
14
competition
began
to
get
that
training
because
this
15
hurts
them
after
awhile
of
not
having
this
16
information.
So
this
is
a
wonderful
opportunity
for
17
small
contractors
to
be
trained
to
do
the
work
right
18
and
to
be
competitive
in
their
field.
This
is
not
a
19
burden.
20
Secondly,
there
isn't
such
a
thing
as
21
supervisors.
Whoever
is
running
that
job
that
day
22
is
the
supervisor.
For
small
companies
if
I
walked
0020
1
in
and
saw
somebody
standing
around
and
just
giving
2
orders
and
not
using
their
tools
they'd
be
fired.
3
This
is
only
large
corporations
that
have
these
4
large
crews
that
have
supervisors.
Where
you
do
5
have
them
they
may
be
working
four
and
five
jobs,
6
that
means
the
vast
majority
of
the
time
they're
not
7
on
a
job
site.
Every
single
worker
in
small
8
contracting
companies
is
the
supervisor
of
9
themselves.
There
is
no
system
you
could
create
10
that
substitutes
conscious
trained
workers
with
the
11
right
tools
and
equipment.
You
can't
do
that.
You
12
can
do
that
on
large
jobs.
On
those
jobs
you
can
13
have
a
supervisor
who's
breathing
down
your
neck
14
every
minute.
That
works.
That's
not
where
15
children
are
being
poisoned.
Children
are
being
16
poisoned
in
these
small
jobs
where
workers
all
of
17
whom
need
to
know
what
to
do.
18
The
other
thing
is
these
workers
go
from
19
job
to
job.
When
I
hire
a
worker
I
don't
want
to
20
give
a
lesson
on
how
to
use
a
hammer,
I
expect
when
21
they
come
to
the
job
site
that
they
know
this
22
information.
So
we
need
an
initial
training.
But
0021
1
workers
go
from
company
to
company
to
company.
I
2
want
them
to
carry
a
card
with
them
that
doesn't
3
need
to
be
a
certification,
but
basically
says
they
4
have
the
training.
I
can
then
use
that
as
a
5
criteria
for
hiring
whether
I'm
hiring
somebody
for
6
one
job
or
a
long­
term
job.
For
most
small
7
contractors
they
don't
keep
on
a
large
crew.
8
Majority
of
jobs
they're
bringing
people
on
and
off
9
and
I
want
all
the
workers
out
there
to
not
only
10
have
the
skills
but
to
basically
not
poison
the
11
people
I'm
working
for.
12
The
notion
that
this
mythical
supervisor
13
is
going
to
train
these
mythical
workers
that
they
14
have
steadily
for
one
hour
is
based
on
unbelievable
15
ignorance
of
conveying
information.
It
is
16
absolutely
totally
impossible
to
convey
this
17
information
in
an
hour.
I've
done
this
training
my
18
entire
life.
That's
not
training,
that's
19
harassment.
Training
means
they
engage
with
20
discussion,
they
talk
with
their
experience,
bring
21
their
skills
to
the
table,
they
demonstrate
things,
22
they
do
things,
they
put
the
plastic
up,
they
look
0022
1
at
how
to
do
the
window,
they
work
on
the
door.
The
2
way
that
I
learned
how
to
do
things
is
with
my
3
hands.
If
I
was
good
academically
I
wouldn't
have
4
become
a
carpenter
and
it's
true
for
a
lot
of
5
tradespeople.
We
learn
by
doing
things.
I
can
do
6
something
in
10
minutes
and
remember
it
forever
or
7
you
can
tell
me
about
it
for
two
hours
and
I'll
8
forget
it
the
next
day.
9
So
the
crucial
thing
is
to
give
enough
10
time
in
this
training.
Six
hours
is
the
time
11
because
I
want
an
hour
for
taking
a
break
and
for
12
lunch
and
so
forth,
much
more
than
that
I'm
not
13
going
to
be
able
to
focus.
I
want
three
hours,
14
lunch,
and
another
three
hours.
And
then
some
spare
15
time
on
both
ends
of
that.
So
the
hourly
thing
is
16
very,
very
critical.
17
So
let
me
just
go
through
the
key
points
18
one
at
a
time.
Number
one,
we
don't
want
to
create
19
the
myth
of
formal
supervisors.
Whoever
is
the
20
senior
person
on
that
job
with
the
most
skill
for
21
that
particular,
on
one
job
I'm
the
carpenter,
I'm
22
in
charge.
On
another
job
I'm
working
where
the
0023
1
painters
are
working
and
I'm
prepping
the
wood
the
2
painters
in
charge.
Whoever
is
the
senior
skilled
3
person
on
that
job's
in
charge.
We
don't
have
4
"
supervisors"
for
the
most
part,
other
than
the
5
person
that
owns
the
company
and
we
rarely
see
them.
6
Number
two,
I
want
evidence
­­
as
a
7
contractor
I
want
evidence
people
that
I'm
hiring
8
have
these
skills,
I
would
absolutely
guarantee
you
9
that
there
is
not
a
single
person
in
this
room
that
10
would
allow
somebody
to
work
with
lead
in
their
11
house
who's
had
one
hour
training.
Nobody
in
this
12
room
would
permit
that.
So
if
nobody
would
permit
13
that
for
their
own
house,
then
the
EPA
shouldn't
14
create
a
rule
that
permits
it
for
other
people's
15
house.
16
Number
three,
as
I
said,
five
hours
plus
17
an
hour
of
eating
is
good
because
we
have
to
include
18
how
to
protect
a
house,
how
to
protect
the
19
environment,
how
to
protect
the
workers,
how
to
20
protect
the
occupant
of
the
training
is
critical.
I
21
did
training
for
HUD
a
year
and
a
half
ago
where
we
22
did
substantial
lead
work
in
some
rooms
where
the
0024
1
family
was
still
in
the
house.
And
my
crew
had
been
2
trained
to
create
no
dust,
zero
dust.
As
a
matter
3
of
fact
we
went
in
and
cleaned
the
house
and
during
4
the
course
of
the
training
the
dust
levels
dropped.
5
At
the
end
of
our
jobs
the
houses
are
cleaner
than
6
they
were
when
we
got
there
and
they're
cleaner
than
7
they
were
when
we
got
there
during
the
job
except
in
8
the
areas
we're
working
which
are
isolated
from
the
9
other
areas.
That
is
a
valuable
skill
for
10
tradespeople.
That
is
something
that
all
of
the
11
trade
associations
should
be
ecstatic
about
is
12
having
crews
to
do
this.
So
the
certification
is
13
very
important.
14
I
want
the
company
certified
because
if
15
the
company
acts
incompetent
I
want
the
ability
to
16
remove
the
certification.
I
need
to
give
them
17
something
I
can
take
away.
There's
no
reason
for
18
the
workers
to
be
certified,
they
just
need
a
little
19
picture
card
that
says
they
completed
the
training
20
that
they
can
take
with
them
from
job
to
job.
That
21
should
be
centralized
in
some
database
someplace.
22
Five,
obviously
the
way
the
rule
is
0025
1
written
it
makes
courses
given
in
a
second
language
2
more
difficult,
obviously
the
EPA
should
do
the
3
exact
opposite
and
make
courses
given
in
4
particularly
in
Spanish
extremely
easy.
We
want
to
5
make
translation,
we
want
to
train
bilingual
people
6
to
be
able
to
give
these
courses
and
we
want
to
make
7
it
as
inexpensive
and
simple
as
possible
because
at
8
this
point
in
history
an
enormous
amount
of
the
9
tradespeople
who
are
working
within
the
trades,
10
particularly
the
renovation
trades,
are
Spanish
as
a
11
first
language.
12
And,
finally,
testing.
If
these
courses
13
are
designed
right
there's
no
reason
for
any
14
tradespeople
to
ever
fail
them
because
what
you're
15
doing
is
you
are
doing
this
stuff
and
the
test
is
16
doing
this
stuff.
It
shouldn't
be
an
academic
test,
17
it
should
prove
that
you
are
able
to
do
these
18
things.
You
can't
do
it
in
an
hour
but
in
a
six
19
hour
training
and
so
we
have
the
opportunity
for
20
people
not
just
to
know
that
they
know
which
is
the
21
true
or
false
answer
but
they're
able
to
put
plastic
22
containment
on
a
door,
they're
able
to
use
this
tool
0026
1
and
obviously
this
training
would
include
those
2
measures
which
we
are
positive
poison
children,
such
3
as
using
sanders
and
burning
paint
and
using
toxic
4
materials
that
are
able
to
dissolve
paint
and
so
5
forth.
6
So
it
is
crucial
that
no
contractor
ever
7
uses
those
methods
ever
again
because
they're
8
disastrous
aside
from
the
fact
that
they
create
lead
9
poisoning.
The
key
thing
is
here
is
that
small,
10
regardless
of
what
the
large
trade
associations
say,
11
small
tradespeople
can
put
this
to
their
advantage.
12
This
particularly
is
helpful
for
small
minority
13
contractors
that
tend
to
be
locked
out
of
the
field
14
because
the
large
suburban
contractors
are
able
to
15
have
all
this
large
certification
training.
We
want
16
this
training
given
to
every
single
trades
person
17
and
every
contractor
that
works
in
an
old
house
18
particularly
when
children
are
present.
Thank
you.
19
MS.
MORTIMER:
Tom
Neltner.
20
MR.
NELTNER:
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
come
and
21
talk
to
you.
My
name
is
Tom
Neltner.
I
represent
22
the
National
Center
for
Healthy
Housing
and
while
0027
1
you've
had
many
very
eloquent
people
talking
about
2
the
rule,
I
just
want
to
focus
on
a
very
narrow
3
piece
of
it.
4
There
are
4.3
million
events
that
will
be
5
using
lead
safe
work
practices
under
this
rule.
6
There
are
10
million
regulated
events
that
are
going
7
to
come
under
scrutiny
under
this
rule.
Unless
EPA
8
is
planning
a
tremendous
investment
of
resources
9
that
it
doesn't
have,
most
of
those
projects
are
10
going
to
go
unmonitored.
I
doubt
that
the
states
11
and
locals
are
going
to
have
the
resources
to
step
12
up
and
even
visit
a
fraction
of
those.
13
What's
missing
in
this
rule
is
the
14
opportunity
to
deal
with
the
two
or
three
parties
15
that
are
present
at
each
and
every
one
of
the
jobs,
16
obviously
the
renovator,
the
owner
and
the
occupant.
17
This
rule
continues
the
shortcomings
of
the
18
pre­
renovation
education
rule
by
just
giving
the
19
owner
and
the
occupant
a
generic
brochure,
but
it
20
just
gives
them
the
booklet
and
assumes
that
that's
21
education.
In
fact,
the
rule's
been
called
22
pre­
renovation
education.
That
is
not
education.
0028
1
EPA's
own
definition
of
environmental
education
by
2
the
Office
of
Environmental
Education
says
3
environmental
education
increases
public
awareness
4
and
knowledge
about
environmental
issues
and
5
provides
the
skills
necessary
to
make
informed
6
decisions
and
take
responsible
actions.
It
is
based
7
on
objective
and
scientifically
sound
information.
8
It
does
not
advocate
a
particular
viewpoint
or
9
course
of
action,
it
teaches
individuals
how
to
10
weigh
various
sides
of
an
issue
through
critical
11
thinking
and
enhancing
their
own
problem
solving
and
12
decision
making
skills.
Nothing
in
this
rule
forces
13
the
renovator
to
communicate
to
the
owner
and
the
14
occupant
the
key
information
they
need
like
did
the
15
renovator
decide
that
lead­
based
paint
wasn't
16
present
based
on
a
spot
test
kit.
That's
an
17
incredible
bit
of
information.
If
a
contractor
came
18
in
and
says
I
don't
need
to
do
it
because
it
passed
19
the
spot
test
kit,
I'd
like
to
know
that.
I'd
like
20
to
have
a
right
to
know
that
presumption's
is
being
21
made
so
I
can
second
guess
it,
I
can
ask
questions,
22
I
can
make
critical
decision,
I
can
be
informed.
0029
1
That's
what
this
rule
doesn't
do.
2
Similarly,
I
think
there's
some
option
to
3
the
white
glove
test,
but
if
that
does
get
into
the
4
final
rule
there's
nothing
that
documents
to
the
consumer
what
5
happened.
It
seems
reasonable
that
either
a
6
photograph
of
the
actual
wipe
should
be
shown
to
the
7
owner
and
occupant
to
say,
look,
this
is
what
we
8
did,
we
passed,
let
them
see
it,
make
their
own
9
decisions.
If
they
don't
like
it
they
can
go
in
and
10
second
guess
it.
They
can
go
in
and
check
the
work.
11
They
can
say
to
the
contractor
you
didn't
do
it
12
right.
I
can
rub
my
own
wipe
there
and
get
all
this
13
dirt
that
you
missed.
If
we
do
go
with
the
14
clearance
test
which
I
think
is
the
much
better
15
approach
there's
no
requirements
that
you
tell
the
16
consumer
what
happened
as
a
result
of
the
test.
It
17
seems
to
me
imperative
that
the
consumer
get
told
18
what
happened,
give
them
the
lab
results,
the
19
clearance
exams.
HUD
does
that.
The
HUD
rule
20
requires
that
this
basic
information
go
through.
21
What
I'm
calling
for
is
that
EPA
set
up
22
the
opportunity
for
environmental
education
by
0030
1
enhancing
the
pre­
renovation
education
so
it's
more
2
than
just
a
notice
to
give
the
consumer
basic
3
information.
We'll
submit
written
comments
on
what
4
that
information
is,
but
it's
the
spot
test
kit.
5
It's
which
rooms
are
covered
by
the
work
areas.
6
Where's
the
entrance
and
the
exit.
So
if
I'm
a
7
homeowner
and
I
see
work
being
done
and
people
are
8
going
out
the
wrong
door
I've
got
a
question.
9
Another
one
would
be
how
do
I
contact
the
10
certified
renovator.
They're
not
required
in
this
11
rule
to
be
on
site.
It
certainly
makes
sense
if
I'm
12
the
occupant
and
I
see
something
going
on
that's
13
wrong
I
should
be
able
to
have
a
phone
number
to
14
call.
Again,
if
you
do
the
white
glove
test
I
may
15
want
to
if
I'm
a
homeowner
or
consumer
or
occupant
I
16
need
to
know
who
I
can
call
on
to
get
an
independent
17
clearance
exam
to
double
check
the
work
if
I've
got
18
questions
about
it.
19
What
I'm
encouraging
in
this
20
pre­
renovation
is
that
EPA
provide
basic
information
21
about
the
job,
it's
a
fill­
in­
the­
blank
and
make
22
sure
that
that
gets
filled
out.
You
heard
Dennis
0031
1
talk
about
the
contractors
wanting
to
take
advantage
2
of
this
rule.
I
feel
that
unless
there's
a
level
3
playing
field
where
the
contractors
who
are
going
to
4
cut
the
corners
have
to
say
what's
going
on,
those
5
contractors
that
are
doing
the
job
right
are
going
6
to
be
at
a
disadvantage.
By
making
the
consumer
7
educated
by
actually
doing
what
EPA's
own
definition
8
of
environmental
education
calls
for
you
level
the
9
playing
field,
then
you
engage
the
owner
and
the
10
occupant
in
overseeing
the
project
to
being
an
extra
11
eyes
and
ears
watching
the
project.
12
You
also
need
to
add
post
renovation
or
13
post
renovation
repair
and
painting
notice,
which
is
14
the
results.
How
many
times
were
the
wipes
done,
how
15
many
times
do
I
have
to
re­
clean,
did
I
fail
the
16
dust
wipe
test,
did
I
pass,
what's
the
lab
results.
17
That's
important
because
that
information
should
be
18
disclosed
and
if
you
don't
require
it
going
to
the
19
owner
and
occupant
it'll
never
require
the
20
disclosure
requirements
that
HUD
has.
21
Recordkeeping.
EPA's
got
in
their
22
requirements
recordkeeping.
I
actually
tried
to
0032
1
fill
out
that
recordkeeping
and
EPA
estimates
six
2
minutes,
is
how
I
calculated
out
five
hours,
51
3
events
per
year,
you
can't
do
it
if
you're
taking
4
those
requirements
seriously
in
six
minutes.
It
5
took
me
25
minutes.
What
I'm
suggesting
is
rather
6
than
require
that
contractor
to
write
up
a
lot
of
7
information
and
then
put
it
in
a
file
drawer
4.3
8
million
times
a
year
that
no
one
is
going
to
look
9
at,
let's
narrow
the
recordkeeping
to
just
the
core
10
elements
and
make
sure
that
that
information
gets
11
communicated
to
the
owner
and
occupant.
So
rather
12
than
­­
I
think
you
can
reduce,
make
clear
actually,
13
the
recordkeeping
requirement
so
the
rule's
more
14
enforceable
and
get
that
communicated
to
the
owner
15
and
occupant.
16
EPA's
only
planning
12
people
to
enforce
17
this
rule,
while
you
may
be
able
to
engage
some
18
resources
from
state
and
locals
who
care
about
it,
19
that's
not
going
to
be
enough
to
handle
the
20
questions
and
concerns
that
come
up.
What
I
believe
21
is
that
if
EPA,
no
matter
what,
unless
EPA
requires
22
an
independent
clearance
exam
for
each
project,
if
0033
1
the
consumer,
if
the
owner
and
occupant
have
2
questions
about
what
happened
and
they
can
show
3
things
happened
wrong
like
the
plastic
wasn't
put
4
down,
like
they
used
dry
methods
and
there
was
no
5
ventilation,
like
they
left
the
door
open,
like
they
6
went
out
the
wrong
door
and
may
have
tracked
it
in
7
the
bedroom,
that
the
consumer
needs
to
be
able
to
8
in
the
rule
be
authorized
to
be
able
to
tell
the
9
contractor
you
pay
for
an
independent
clearance
exam
10
to
resolve
the
questions.
Provide
a
limited
remedy,
11
not
exclusive
of
the
oversight
that
EPA
has
to
do,
12
but
to
supplement
it
to
say
that
if
there's
not
an
13
independent
clearance
exam
done
that
we
make
sure
14
that
that
gets
done
where
there's
questions
about
15
it.
You
can
write
the
rule
but
I
think
the
simpler
16
remedy
to
make
sure
you
can
resolve
problems
by
17
checking
the
job
instead
of
having
it
rise
to
EPA's
18
attention
would
make
the
rule
much
more
enforceable,
19
effective
and
you're
going
to
have
a
shot
at
20
reaching
the
75
compliance
rate
that's
in
the
rule.
21
Thank
you.
22
MS.
MORTIMER:
Katrina
Korfmacher
is
up
and
0034
1
Dave
Jacobs
after
that.
2
MS.
KORFMACHER:
I'm
Katrina
Korfmacher.
I'm
Assistant
3
Professor
of
Environmental
Medicine
at
the
4
University
of
Rochester.
I
want
to
tell
you
very
5
briefly
how
I
got
into
the
business
of
lead.
I
6
started
out
life
as
an
environmental
policy
7
scientist.
When
I
moved
to
Rochester,
my
best
8
friend
is
a
doctor.
She
lives
in
the
city
of
9
Rochester.
She
had
children
eight,
six,
four,
she
10
was
going
to
have
their
porch
repainted
and
I
came
11
over
one
day
and
saw
that
there
was
dust
all
over
12
the
place
and
the
porch
was
getting
remodeled
and
I
13
said,
Lindsey,
is
there
any
lead
there.
She
said,
14
oh,
no,
I
got
one
of
those
lead
check
swabs
that
you
15
told
me
about
and
I
checked
three
layers
of
paint
16
and
I
said
that's
nice,
why
don't
you
have
your
kids
17
checked.
All
of
them
had
elevated
blood
lead
18
levels,
all
the
way
up
to
age
nine.
This
is
a
19
doctor
doing
a
renovation
on
her
own
home
and
if
she
20
could
feel
reassured
by
a
lead
check
swab
and
21
poisoning
her
own
children
I
really
caution
you
22
about
incorporating
that
into
a
federal
regulation.
0035
1
I
realized
shortly
that
my
friend's
story
2
was
not
typical
of
lead
poisoning
in
Rochester,
3
however.
This
is
a
very
poor
community
with
38
4
percent
of
the
children
living
in
poverty,
87
5
percent
of
housing
was
built
before
1970
and
as
a
6
result
not
surprisingly
we
have
a
25
percent
child
7
lead
poisoning
rate,
some
of
the
neighborhoods
it's
8
over
40
percent.
9
As
people
in
Rochester
became
increasingly
10
concerned
about
this,
they
realized
we
have
a
very
11
weak
framework
for
preventing
lead
poisoning
in
New
12
York
state.
We
became
convinced
we
had
to
take
13
local
action.
So
several
years
ago
we
began
talking
14
about
how
we
could
develop
a
law
to
prevent
lead
15
poisoning
in
high
risk
housing
in
the
city.
This
is
16
a
city
that
has
3000
abandoned
houses
that
the
city
17
can't
tear
down
fast
enough
and
an
ongoing
and
18
strong
debate
and
fear
about
adding
any
regulatory
19
burden
or
cost
to
the
housing
providers
here.
20
Even
still,
when
we
started
considering
21
how
we
were
going
to
effectively
prevent
lead
22
poisoning
in
Rochester
there
was
universal
agreement
0036
1
that
all
rental
housing
was
going
to
be
targeted,
2
not
just
childhood
housing.
That
was
for
several
3
reasons.
A
lot
of
people
have
multiple
homes,
they
4
move
frequently
or
there
may
be
in­
home
daycares.
5
The
second
was
fear
of
discrimination
6
against
families
with
children.
If
you
only
7
focused
on
housing
with
children
people
would
be
8
less
inclined
to
rent
or
lie
about
the
presence
of
a
9
child
in
that
unit.
10
Second,
we
agreed
very
strongly
that
homes
11
with
hazards
must
be
fixed
by
workers
who
have
the
12
training.
That
training's
going
to
be
required
by
13
the
City
and
required
by
anyone
doing
that
work
14
whether
it
be
the
owner
or
contractor
for
the
owner.
15
And,
third,
there
was
strong
agreement
that
after
16
that
work
is
done
all
homes
must
have
a
clearance
17
done
in
accordance
with
existing
federal
standards.
18
There
was
really
very
little
debate
about
19
this.
The
property
owners
and
the
realtors
and
the
20
builders
who
were
very
concerned
about
the
cost
of
21
this
law
they
did
not
argue
one
bit
about
clearance.
22
Part
of
it's
because
I
ran
a
direct
action
project
0037
1
called
Get
The
Lead
Out.
We
found
a
number
of
homes
2
that
would
have
easily
passed
any
white
glove
test.
3
They
looked
perfectly
clean.
The
parents
were
4
excellent
housekeepers.
You
could
have
eaten
off
5
the
floor
but
if
you
did
you
would
have
gotten
lead
6
poisoned
because
lead
is
sticky,
it's
invisible
and
7
you
can't
see
it.
8
We
also
had
recently
move
to
town
Reverend
9
Marlow
Washington
whose
child
was
poisoned
in
a
10
parsonage
in
Rhode
Island
and
that
child
ended
up
11
having
to
be
chelated.
A
white
glove
test
would
not
12
have
protected
that
child.
These
anecdotes
combined
13
with
the
scientific
study
showing
the
effectiveness
14
of
clearance
combined
with
the
fact
that
it's
15
already
a
federal
regulation
means
the
property
16
owners,
contractors,
all
strongly
supported
17
clearance
because
they
knew
that's
what
would
18
protect
kids
and
them
from
liability
in
the
case
of
19
inadvertently
poisoning
a
child.
In
a
housing
market
20
like
Rochester
it's
widely
agreed
that
we
can
21
sustain
a
universal
clearance
test,
other
22
communities
can
do
it
too.
0038
1
If
Rochester
is
willing
to
go
out
on
a
2
limb
to
require
clearance,
please
don't
undermine
3
this
by
a
weaker
federal
standard
that
is
going
to
4
leave
us
out
there
as
a
community
that's
tried
to
do
5
the
brave
thing
and
the
right
thing
and
the
6
scientifically
proven
thing
by
saying
that
a
7
national
standard
does
not
require
clearance
test.
8
Finally,
after
years
of
debate
and
lots
of
9
study
and
a
thorough
environmental
impact
statement,
10
testimony
from
property
owners,
from
scientists,
11
from
educators,
the
City
Council
in
Rochester
was
12
flooded
with
cards
from
the
Greater
Rochester
13
Realtors
Association
asking
them
to
delay
the
vote.
14
They
said
we
just
haven't
studied
this
enough.
We
15
need
more
time.
16
Now,
the
cover
letter
to
that
message
that
17
asked
the
members
to
submit
that
plea
for
more
time
18
said,
look,
folks,
we
have
to
balance
children's
19
health
against
costs,
you
got
to
stop
this
20
ordinance.
Don't
be
fooled
by
a
request
for
an
21
extension.
Our
City
Council
saw
right
through
that
22
request
and
said,
look,
our
community
is
committed
0039
1
to
the
federal
goal
of
ending
childhood
lead
2
poisoning
by
2010.
The
science
we
have
been
3
presented
is
clear
the
approach
is
based
on
federal
4
standards
and
it's
fiscally
responsible.
If
we
5
delay
another
day
we
are
not
going
to
meet
that
goal
6
of
ending
lead
poisoning
by
2010.
I'd
say
the
same
7
principle
applies
here
in
order
to
meet
the
federal
8
government's
own
goal
of
ending
childhood
lead
9
poisoning
by
2010
you
must
adopt
a
stronger
rule
10
now.
Thank
you.
11
MS.
MORTIMER:
Dave
Jacobs,
after
him
Ruth
Ann
12
Norton.
13
MR.
JACOBS:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Dave
Jacobs.
14
I'm
currently
the
Research
Director
at
the
National
15
Center
for
Healthy
Housing.
I've
been
doing
16
research
in
this
field
for
I
guess
over
20
years
17
now.
Previously
served
on
the
faculty
of
Georgia
18
Tech.
I
currently
hold
faculty
appointments
at
19
Johns
Hopkins
University
and
the
University
of
20
Illinois
at
Chicago.
21
I
want
to
step
back
from
the
minutia
of
22
this
rule
and
basically
say,
first
of
all,
it's
0040
1
great
to
see
this
rule
finally
come
out.
We've
2
known
for
a
long
time
that
this
demarcation
that
we
3
have
in
this
country
between
formal
hazard
control
4
processes
and
renovation
and
housing
repair
is
5
flawed.
Title
10
basically
required
us
to
use
6
intent
as
the
means
of
determining
which
was
which
7
and
not
really
so
much
that
the
risks
that
were
8
posed
by
the
work.
So
this
rule
holds
promise
for
9
breaking
down
that
subjective
intent
problem
and
10
basically
allowing
the
country
to
make
sure
that
11
work
practices
that
actually
pose
substantial
risks
12
are
properly
regulated.
13
My
overall
response
is
positive.
This
is
14
one
of
the
final
rules
to
come
out
under
Title
10.
15
I
assumed
that
we
would
use
much
of
the
knowledge
16
and
the
infrastructure
and
the
science
that's
been
17
generated
over
the
last
period
of
time,
that
is
we
18
would
build
on
the
previous
work
that's
been
done,
19
but
in
many
respects
it
seems
to
me
this
rule
is
20
almost
as
if
we're
starting
all
over
again
from
21
scratch.
The
citizens
of
this
country
and
EPA
and
22
other
agencies
have
made
a
large
investment
to
get
a
0041
1
lot
of
the
systems
in
place
to
make
sure
this
works
2
well.
My
basic
message
here
is
let's
use
what
we've
3
learned.
Let's
use
that
system
and
not
start
over
4
from
scratch.
5
The
clearance
process
is
now
pretty
well
6
validated.
In
fact,
EPA
itself
set
up
a
major
7
testing
program
to
make
sure
the
results
would
be
8
accurate.
We
know
that
wipe
sampling
correlates
9
with
blood
lead
level.
We
know
it
teaches
10
contractors
to
clean
up
the
dust
they
can't
see
11
that's
most
biologically
relevant,
that
is
that
12
poses
that
greatest
risks
to
children.
It's
a
13
simple
procedure
and
costs
have
plummeted
14
dramatically.
In
the
'
80s
it
could
cause
from
35
to
15
50
dollars
per
sample,
to
do
a
dust
sample.
Now
16
it's
down
to
about
five.
But
instead
EPA
has
17
proposed
a
new
test
method
which
I
think
is
likely
18
to
be
much
more
subjective
and,
furthermore,
no
one
19
in
this
field
has
really
been
trained
to
implement
20
it.
It's
essentially
a
visual
examination.
The
21
National
Center
did
a
study
in
Maryland
that
looked
22
at
the
quality
of
advice
you
can
get
from
a
visual
0042
1
examination
and
we
found
that
54
percent
of
the
2
units
passed
a
visual
examination
but
they
failed
3
the
clearance
wipe
test.
4
Furthermore,
EPA
proposed
absolutely
no
5
clearance
testing
process
visual
or
wipe
sampling
6
for
carpeted
floors.
And
how
do
we
protect
children
7
who
live
in
houses
that
have
wall­
to­
wall
carpeting.
8
It
also
conflicts
with
other
federal
9
agencies
which
will
cause
confusion
in
the
market
10
place.
And
clearance
process
has
been
around
well
11
before
Title
10,
used
substantially
in
public
12
housing
and
the
economic
analysis
submitted
by
the
13
agency
did
not
even
present
as
an
option
a
monetized
14
estimate
of
the
cost
of
clearance
test.
If
there's
15
a
cheaper
way
of
doing
this
I'm
all
in
favor
of
it.
16
But
we
can't
just
decree
a
new
analytical
method
by
17
regulation.
It
has
to
be
based
on
sound
science.
18
Another
example
is
permitting
the
19
dangerous
methods
of
removing
lead
paint.
As
you
20
know
this
is
also
already
banned
in
federally
21
assisted
housing
across
the
country.
I'm
a
little
22
perplexed
that
there's
even
a
controversy.
I
0043
1
couldn't
find
a
single
study
anywhere
in
the
2
literature
that
showed
that
these
methods
could
be
3
done
safely.
My
very
first
study
in
this
field
was
4
in
the
public
housing
development
where
they
were
5
burning
off
lead
poisoning
and
power
sanding
it.
It
6
was
done
with
an
asbestos­
like
negative
air
7
containment
system.
It
didn't
work.
The
levels
of
8
exposure
were
enormous.
It
was
very
difficult
to
9
clean
it
up.
10
There's
a
estimate
in
the
record
that
11
states
that
this
is
the
only
method
that
can
be
used
12
in
historic
housing.
But
HUD
has
never
reported
a
13
single
waiver
request
and
HUD
probably
does
more
14
work
in
historic
properties
than
any
other
entity
in
15
the
country.
In
our
comments
for
the
docket
that
16
we've
submitted
we
show
the
temperatures
produced
by
17
propane
torches
are
well
above
those
levels
that
are
18
likely
to
produce
lead
fumes.
So
better
19
alternatives
exist.
Let's
use
them.
Let's
not
20
create
confusion.
I
want
to
point
out
there
is
an
21
OSHA
regulation
that
prohibits,
it's
not
the
lead
22
regulation,
it's
another
part
of
the
OSHA
regs,
that
0044
1
prohibits
heating
of
painted
metal.
2
In
general
I
find
that
the
economic
3
analysis
overestimates
the
cost
and
underestimates
4
the
benefits.
Again
the
cost
of
paint
testing
was
5
not
even
monetized
as
a
formal
option.
It
didn't
6
consider
the
fact
that
most
paint
even
in
older
7
housing
is
not
in
fact
lead
paint.
There
is
no
8
analysis
done
of
how
much
it
would
cost
to
use
9
laboratory
or
x­
ray
flourescence
analyzers
and
so
10
forth.
11
So
we
shouldn't
­­
there
are
assumptions
12
in
the
economic
analysis
that
I
think
are
flawed.
13
For
example,
all
pipe
replacement
is
assumed
to
14
disturb
painted
surfaces.
That's
not
a
good
15
assumption.
We
know
that
is
not
true.
I
wouldn't
16
use
the
prevalence
of
lead
paint
anywhere
in
a
room
17
to
trigger
cost
estimates.
Let's
use
the
specific
18
surfaces.
There
are
concrete
estimates
of
the
19
prevalence
of
lead
paint
by
the
surface
type.
We
20
should
use
those
data
to
inform
a
better
economic
21
analysis.
Those
data
are
contained
in
the
appendix
22
of
the
president's
task
force
report.
0045
1
Finally,
the
benefits
should
include
the
2
new
slope
estimate
of
the
relationship
between
blood
3
lead
and
IQ.
EPA
is
currently
using
the
1994
4
Schwartz
estimate.
The
new
estimate
is
between
.6
5
and
.7
IQ
points
per
one
microgram
per
deciliter.
6
The
Schwartz
estimate
was
.25
IQ
points.
So
this
7
new
estimate
which
is
based
on
a
much
more
8
representative
blood
lead
distribution
and
also
9
based
on
an
international
pooled
analysis
that
is
much
10
more
robust.
Your
new
final
economic
analysis
11
should
use
those
blood
lead
estimates
so
you
can
12
properly
characterize
the
benefits.
13
Finally,
because
this
is
an
14
inter­
generational
transfer
issue,
that
is
parents
15
are
making
investments
to
protect
their
children,
I
16
believe
the
literature
supports
a
discount
rate
of
17
one
percent,
not
the
three
or
seven
percent
that
is
18
typically
used
in
these
sorts
of
regulations,
19
especially
over
the
long
time
horizon
that
is
used
20
in
the
economic
analysis.
21
In
closing,
I
know
maybe
more
than
any
22
other
witness
that
will
appear
before
you
today
how
0046
1
very
difficult
it
is
to
get
these
regulations
out.
2
This
is
one
of
those
regulations
that
probably
3
should
have
come
out
decades
ago.
So
in
closing
I
4
want
to
salute
those
of
you
in
the
Agency
for
doing
5
the
hard
work
that's
necessary
to
get
this
6
regulation
out
so
that
the
children
of
this
great
7
country
can
be
properly
protected.
Thank
you.
8
MS.
MORTIMER:
Ruth
Ann
Norton
and
Don
Ryan.
9
MS.
NORTON:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
Ruth
Ann
Norton.
I
10
am
the
Executive
Director
of
the
Coalition
to
End
11
Childhood
Lead
Poisoning
located
in
Baltimore,
12
Maryland
and
market
seven
states
throughout
the
13
country.
We
do
applaud
the
EPA
for
putting
forth
14
regulations
that
are
long
overdue,
but
we
have
very
15
serious
concerns.
16
Our
first
concern
comes
for
the
protection
17
of
pregnant
women.
As
drafted
we're
concerned
the
18
rule
does
not
adequately
protect
persons
at
risk,
19
including
pregnant
women.
It's
most
concerning
the
20
proposed
rule
talks
about
children
under
the
age
of
21
six
and
leaves
pregnant
women
out
while
pregnant
22
women
are
classified
at
risk
for
lead
hazards
under
0047
1
all
medical
standards.
We
believe
they
must
receive
2
protection.
Our
recommendation
is
to
include
3
pregnant
women
along
with
children
under
the
age
of
4
six
as
the
group
to
receive
highest
levels
of
5
protection
under
this
program.
6
Secondly,
we're
concerned
about
the
7
housing
units
as
they
would
be
covered
by
the
rule.
8
The
bifurcated
phase­
in
of
the
rule
we
think
is
9
unnecessary
and
we
think
it
will
cause
confusion.
10
In
phase
one
the
rule
would
apply
to
renovations
for
11
compensation
in
all
pre­'
78
housing
where
the
12
renovation
company
receives
documentation
that
a
13
child
under
six
lives
in
the
housing
and
has
an
14
elevated
level
above
10
micrograms
per
deciliter
or
15
set
by
state
authority.
Then
also
all
pre­'
60
owner
16
occupied
rental
housing
properties
are
under
the
17
phase­
in.
In
the
case
of
owner
occupied
housing
the
18
rule
will
not
apply
if
the
renovation
receives
a
19
waiver
by
the
owner
that
no
child
under
six
resides
20
in
the
house.
This
is
counter
productive.
The
21
child
under
six
can
visit
the
owner's
property,
can
22
get
poisoned
through
that
process
if
they're
0048
1
spending
considerable
time
on
a
weekly
basis
2
visiting
an
aunt's
house
or
friend's
house
and
3
that
property
will
not
have
come
under
4
your
rule.
5
Our
recommendation
is
to
eliminate
the
6
distinction
for
owner
occupied
housing
and
do
not
7
permit
waivers
even
if
an
owner
proves
a
child
under
8
six
doesn't
reside
in
the
property.
In
Maryland
9
under
our
law
we
require
all
units
to
be
treated
and
10
we
did
not
zero
in
on
units
where
children
under
six
11
or
residing
because
we
do
think
that
there
are
a
12
number
of
children
that
are
poisoned
every
year
in
13
the
hundreds
if
not
thousands
in
our
state
alone
14
where
they're
visitors
to
properties.
15
Also
phase
two
would
apply
to
all
rental
16
target
housing
pre­'
78
and
owner
occupied
housing,
17
unless
a
waiver
is
mentioned.
The
phasing
is
18
problematic
because
it
ignores
the
fact
that
at
19
least
a
quarter
of
the
housing
units
between
'
60
and
20
'
78
contains
lead­
based
paint.
Our
recommendation
21
is
to
eliminate
the
phase­
in
process
and
require
22
renovation
procedures
for
all
pre­'
78
houses.
0049
1
Our
third
area
of
concern
is
training,
2
certification
and
accreditation.
We
just
simply
3
find
this
inadequate.
We
do
not
find
the
training
4
adequate
to
protect
residents
of
5
target
housings
where
renovations
are
taking
place.
6
Our
major
concern
is
that
as
written
the
proposed
7
rule
does
not
require
the
on­
site
workers
receive
8
any
third­
party
training
before
renovation
9
activities.
We
think
this
is
a
dangerous
path
to
10
take.
11
Under
the
rule
the
EPA
is
only
requiring
12
that
the
renovation
company
doing
the
work
have
one
13
person
trained
as
a
renovator
to
act
as
supervisor
14
during
the
project
but
does
not
require
this
15
training
renovator
to
be
on­
site
continuously
while
16
the
work
is
being
undertaken.
The
workers
are
not
17
required
to
complete
a
training
course
but
are
18
permitted
to
receive
on­
the­
job
training
from
the
19
renovation
company's
supervisor
on
lead
safe
work
20
practices.
We
think
this
is
wide
open
to
having
21
faulty
training.
Under
the
proposed
rule
one
22
renovator
can
supervisor
multiple
jobs
so
they're
0050
1
not
even
really
assuring
on
a
full­
time
basis
the
2
safety
of
any
job.
3
Unsafe
work
practices
can
create
more
of
a
4
hazard
than
just
leaving
lead­
based
paint
in
place
5
and
if
you
don't
have
proper
training
you
can
create
6
a
greater
hazard.
And
the
current
reality
that
we
7
face
in
the
states
we
work
and
throughout
the
8
country
is
that
a
substantial
number
of
home
9
improvement
work
is
completed
by
non­
English
10
speaking
workers
and
the
proposal
to
only
require
11
on­
the­
job
training
we
believe
will
overlook
the
12
language
barrier
and
health
and
safety
of
those
13
workers
and
families.
We'll
often
see
in
reality
14
the
projects
that
are
happening
in
our
neighborhoods
15
and
communities
where
we
work
that
Spanish
workers
16
are
often
trained
by
English
speaking
only
people
17
and
therefore
they're
really
left
I
think
to
serious
18
harm
for
themselves,
their
children
and
the
work
19
they're
doing.
20
Additional
concern
with
the
training
of
21
the
renovator
who
has
to
receive
third­
party
training.
22
There's
no
test
or
evaluation
at
the
end
of
this
0051
1
training.
This
is
a
concern
for
us
because
not
2
requiring
any
testing
to
receive
the
certification
3
compromises
the
quality
of
training
and
provides
no
4
incentive
for
the
renovator
to
take
the
training
5
seriously.
Our
recommendation
is
that
all
workers
6
involved
in
the
renovation
receive
a
least
a
one
day
7
third­
party
training
not
provided
by
the
supervisor
8
and
pass
an
examination
to
be
certified
as
meeting
9
the
law's
basic
requirements.
The
method
of
that
10
examination
should
take
into
account
people's
11
different
languages.
12
Our
third
concern
with
the
training
13
certification
and
accreditation
scheme
is
that
there
14
are
no
proposed
renewals
for
supervisors
or
workers
15
beyond
the
initial
training.
There's
no
refresher
16
training
put
out
in
your
proposed
regulations.
The
17
lack
of
such
training
does
not
give
an
opportunity
18
for
the
renovator,
worker
or
contractor
to
keep
19
current
with
any
potential
changes
that
may
occur
in
20
the
field.
EPA's
lack
of
emphasis
on
renewing
21
training
conveys
lead
hazard
reduction
methods
are
22
not
evolving
and
we
believe
they
still
are.
Our
0052
1
recommendation
would
be
to
require
that
all
workers
2
and
supervisors
conduct
renewed
training
after
3
initial
training
every
year
or
two
years
to
update
4
and
inform
them
on
changes
in
lead
hazard
reduction
5
and
remind
them
of
safety
practices
that
are
6
critical
to
keeping
children
and
families
safe.
7
Our
fourth
area
of
concern
is
in
the
8
pre­
intervention
testing
and
clearance
wipes
at
the
9
conclusion
of
renovations.
The
proposed
rule
10
provides
pre­
intervention
verification
of
lead­
based
11
paint
utilizing
a
new
unknown
EPA­
approved
lead
12
testing
kit
and
a
post­
intervention
testing
by
13
the
renovator
utilizing
a
new
swab
test
to
determine
14
if
unsafe
levels
of
lead
dust
remain
in
the
15
property.
Dave
Jacobs
addressed
this.
There
is
16
great
data
out
there
and
knowledge
based
on
lead
17
dust
clearance
testing
and
we
believe
that
that
is
18
what
should
be
used
here.
Pre­
intervention
lead
19
based
testing
kit
is
not
an
approved
product.
The
20
on­
site
swab
testing
which
the
proposed
rule
21
recommends
is
also
not
really
available
or
shown
to
22
have
a
proven
track
record.
In
fact
EPA
has
been
0053
1
critical
of
home
testing
kits
and
stated
data
retrieved
2
from
such
kits
are
not
reliable.
So
we're
putting
3
forth
a
rule
that
appears
to
ignore
EPA's
on
4
standards
and
research
for
home
testing
kits.
5
In
addition
we're
concerned
that
that
test
6
and
the
swab
wipe
clearance
test
are
not
currently
7
available
and
this
will
serve
as
a
method
for
8
further
delay
and
potential
inaction
if
they're
9
delayed
in
reaching
the
market.
The
rule
does
10
not
provide
for
any
type
of
third­
party
clearance
at
11
the
end
of
the
renovations
or
any
method
of
12
independently
verifying
lead
safe
work
practices,
13
that
they
are
actually
employed.
The
failure
to
use
14
lead
safe
work
practices
can
create
a
greater
hazard
15
than
if
no
work
is
undertaken
in
some
circumstances.
16
Having
contractors
verify
the
safety
of
17
their
own
work,
we
feel,
is
not
a
protective
18
standard
for
children.
So
we
recommend
the
law's
19
implementation
not
be
contingent
upon
the
20
development
or
approval
of
new
testing
methods
but
21
to
implement
lead
dust
clearance
testing
and
have
22
testing
where
possible
to
be
done
on
an
independent
0054
1
third­
party
basis.
2
We
also
have
concerns
for
hazardous
work
3
practices.
The
rule
is
proposing
to
permit
unsafe
4
work
practices
such
as
open
flame
burning,
machine
5
blasting
and
sand
blasting.
We
actually
think
this
6
is
terribly
wrong.
The
rule
would
also
create
an
7
exemption
in
emergency
situations
involving
8
properties
occupied
by
a
child
with
an
elevated
9
blood
level.
Using
these
dangerous
practices
is
10
wrong
to
begin
with
and
create
a
hazard
and
will
11
exacerbate
the
situation
when
there's
a
poisoned
12
child.
13
By
allowing
practices
that
are
prohibited
14
during
lead
abatement
to
be
used
during
renovation
15
activities
the
rule
is
not
prohibiting
or
restricting
16
renovation
work
practices
that
are
known
to
generate
17
lead
dust,
debris
and
cause
poisoning.
While
we
18
understand
the
need
to
expedite
actions
and
hazard
19
reduction
projects
and
properties
occupied
by
20
children
with
elevated
levels,
the
exception
21
condones
clearly
unsafe
practices
in
the
most
22
at­
risk
properties
where
lead­
poisoned
children
0055
1
reside.
Poisoning
properties
already
contain
2
significant
hazards
and
permitting
unsafe
work
3
practices
will
only
exacerbate
those
hazards
and
we
4
recommend
that
the
practices
that
are
prohibited
5
under
40
CFR
745
also
be
prohibited
for
renovation
6
work
in
pre­'
78
properties.
We
recommend
that
no
7
exception
to
the
rule
be
established
for
properties
8
occupied
by
lead­
poisoned
children
or
children
and
9
pregnant
women
in
general.
Those
are
our
comments.
10
We
do
commend
you
in
getting
this
rule
and
11
regulation
out.
We
hope
you
will
take
our
concerns
12
seriously
and
address
them.
Thank
you.
13
MR.
RYAN:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
Don
Ryan,
a
home
14
builder
in
Arlington,
Virginia.
I
participated
back
15
in
'
92
when
Congress
was
shaping
Title
10
and
16
wrestling
with
all
these
issues
and
I
directed
the
17
Alliance
to
End
Childhood
Lead
Poisoning.
18
I
want
to
say
for
the
record
I'm
one
home
19
builder
that
urges
EPA
to
go
forward
under
your
20
originally
announced
schedule
in
bringing
this
rule
21
to
closure.
The
rule
in
fact
is
now
10
years
late
22
and
I
urge
you
with
all
dispatch
to
go
forward
with
0056
1
your
process.
I
think
the
process
has
had
every
2
opportunity
for
all
sides
to
be
heard.
3
I
want
to
commend
you
for
proposing
the
4
rule
and
for
holding
hearings
in
Washington
and
5
around
the
country
to
get
real
feedback.
I
want
to
6
empathize
with
the
tough
job
that
the
Agency
has
7
had,
salute
the
hard
work
of
all
the
staff
over
the
8
passed
decade
who
have
worked
on
this.
9
I
want
urge
EPA
to
simplify
this
rule
and
10
to
cutout
some
of
the
unnecessary
red
tape.
I
think
11
there's
an
opportunity
for
this
rule
to
take
a
giant
12
step
forward
for
the
country
to
make
lead
safe
13
housing
the
national
norm
and
the
2010
goal
14
achievable.
I
want
to
begin
my
comments
by
15
acknowledging
a
reality
that's
a
little
bit
painful,
16
but
I
think
it
needs
to
be
put
front
and
center
and
17
that
is
that
this
rule
will
never
be
broadly
18
monitored
and
enforced
in
any
meaningful
way.
19
There's
four
million
or
more
renovation
events
each
20
year
and
no
matter
how
hard
EPA's
12
staff
work
with
your
21
counterparts
in
state
and
local
agencies
enforcement
22
and
monitoring
of
the
rule
is
not
going
to
be
0057
1
effective.
2
I
think
the
rule
still
holds
a
tremendous
3
potential
for
making
a
difference.
So
I
want
to
4
suggest
the
ways
that
it
will
make
a
difference
and
5
urge
you
to
consider
the
rule
as
you
finalize
it
6
from
that
context.
I
see
four
opportunities.
The
7
first
is
reinforcing
the
industry
norm,
the
emerging
8
industry
norm
over
lead
safe
work
practices.
We
are
9
in
a
place
right
now
far
down
the
road
far
ahead
of
10
where
we
were
a
decade
ago
and
we're
reaching
the
11
tipping
point
in
terms
of
lead
safe
practices
being
12
standard.
In
addition
to
what's
legally
required
13
what
really
matters
out
there
is
this
is
the
way
14
it's
done.
The
norms
that
govern
practice
in
the
15
industry
and
the
National
paint
and
Coatings
16
Association
acknowledgment
a
few
years
ago
of
the
17
dangers
of
lead
dust,
their
sponsorship
of
the
18
HUD/
EPA
training
course
in
lead
safe
work
practices,
19
all
of
these
things
have
helped
to
establish
a
norm
20
and
this
rule
needs
to
reinforce
that
norm.
21
Second,
I
think
it's
important
for
this
22
rule
to
clarify
the
standard
of
care
in
terms
of
0058
1
just
what
practices
do
remodelers
need
to
follow
in
2
order
to
demonstrate
due
care,
in
order
to
persuade
3
a
judge
and
jury
that
they
have
done
the
right
4
thing.
It's
important
that
rule
send
clear
messages
5
that
help
reduce
the
confusion
rather
than
split
6
hairs.
I
think
it's
extremely
important
to
look
at
7
the
role
of
consumers,
property
owners
and
8
occupants,
because
this
rule
has
the
opportunity
as
9
Tom
addressed
to
empower
consumers
to
give
them
10
information,
to
help
them
make
better
decisions,
to
11
give
them
leverage
points
in
that
process.
12
And
finally
I
think
this
rule
is
important
13
because
it
holds
the
opportunity
to
encourage
state
14
and
local
agencies
to
make
needed
reforms.
The
15
truth
is
we
still
have
a
lot
of
lead
paint
poisoning
16
prevention
programs
around
the
country
that
don't
17
appreciate
the
danger
of
unsafe
practices,
that
18
don't
appreciate
the
importance
of
adequate
19
verification
at
the
end
of
jobs.
So
the
best
thing
20
to
do
is
ban
unsafe
work
practices.
The
proposed
21
rule
made
a
real
effort
to
justify
why
you
weren't
22
banning
unsafe
work
practices
and
the
truth
is
that
0059
1
you
just
fell
short,
you
failed
to
make
that
case.
2
The
emerging
norm
across
the
country
recognizes
the
3
danger
of
unsafe
work
practices
and
EPA
needs
to
say
4
in
a
clear
and
crisp
voice
that
is
the
reality.
We
5
keep
hearing
concerns
about
historic
preservation,
6
there
are
some
narrow
situations
where
dangerous
7
work
practices
need
to
be
used.
Personally
I'm
8
unconvinced
that
is
the
case.
But
if
that
is
the
9
case,
I
would
urge
you
not
to
take
that
concern
and
10
apply
it
across
the
board.
Ban
unsafe
work
11
practices.
If
you
need
to
­­
a
relief
valve
create
12
a
little
pocket
and
say,
well,
if
you
just
must
use
13
unsafe
work
practices
and
then
set
up
a
special
set
14
of
requirements
and
additional
safeguards
over
15
there.
But
the
clear
and
simple
message
across
the
16
board
needs
to
be
ban
unsafe
work
practices.
If
EPA
17
misses
this
opportunity
it
really
is
going
to
be
a
18
tragedy,
if
you
put
out
a
rule
that
allows
open
19
flame
burning
it's
clouding
the
waters.
It's
going
20
to
confuse
everyone.
Let's
just
reinforce
the
clear
21
messages
that
are
out
there.
22
It's
extremely
important
that
the
0060
1
individuals
doing
the
work
receive
training.
The
2
workers
need
to
be
trained.
I
think
the
one
hour
­­
3
the
supervisor
doing
one
hour
training
for
workers
4
is
just
a
fig
leaf.
It's
not
real.
It's
not
going
5
to
happen.
Just
on
my
own
job
I've
got
to
see
how
6
teams
of
people
work,
I've
got
to
see
how
7
supervisors
and
day
laborers
and
different
people
8
work.
The
folks
who
are
actually
doing
the
work
9
need
this
training.
10
We
have
a
wonderful
training
course,
the
11
EPA/
HUD
five
and
a
half
hour
training
course.
There
12
are
resources
out
there
are
for
that
course's
13
delivery.
The
macro
view
of
the
world
is
our
goal
14
needs
to
be
everybody
out
there
doing
this
work
15
needs
this
training
and
we're
at
the
tipping
point
16
where
that
reality
is
within
our
grasp.
There's
17
some
cities
that
are
now
offering
training
in
lead
18
safe
work
practices
for
day
laborers
for
migrant
19
workers.
This
is
a
way
for
those
individuals
to
get
20
trained,
get
qualified,
to
get
some
certification,
21
find
their
way
into
the
work
force.
So
this
22
training
of
workers
is
really
critical.
0061
1
I
would
urge
you
not
to
set
up
complicated
2
certification
programs
for
the
workers.
I
would
3
urge
you
to
drop
the
certification
program
for
4
supervisors.
The
training,
that
knowledge,
is
what
5
is
important.
It
needs
to
be
conveyed
and
you
can
6
rely
on
the
firm,
the
certification
of
firms,
to
7
ensure
that
workers
they
use
in
fact
have
that
8
training.
9
In
terms
of
verification,
we
would
all
10
love
to
find
the
silver
bullet,
quick,
inexpensive
11
realtime
way
to
verify
that
lead
dust
hazards
aren't
12
left
behind.
I
think
you
made
a
good
a
case
as
you
13
could
for
the
white
glove
test.
The
truth
is
it's
14
not
ready
for
prime
time.
The
white
glove
test
is
15
not
scientifically
sound.
It
doesn't
deserve
to
be
16
in
a
federal
regulation.
It
is
not
proven.
It's
17
not
reliable.
18
When
I
read
the
rule
I
was
struck
by
the
19
rule
this
part
of
it
seems
like
Alice
in
Wonderland
20
to
me,
that
we
start
with
a
­­
this
test
which
is
21
unproven
and
build
this
whole
house
of
cards
of
22
reporting
and
recordkeeping
and
all
of
this
around
0062
1
the
swiffer
test.
So
I
would
urge
you,
there
is
a
2
reliable
method,
it
is
affordable,
it
is
widely
3
recognized,
it's
recognized
by
state
and
local
4
agencies
and
that's
clearance
dust
testing.
This
5
rule
really
needs
to
embrace
clearance
dust
testing.
6
It
needs
to
inform
consumers
and
arm
consumers
with
7
that.
My
personal
view
is
that
the
rule
need
not
8
require
clearance
testing
in
each
and
every
9
situation,
but
the
rule
needs
to
identify
the
10
utility
and
the
reliability
of
this
tool,
require
it
11
in
the
highest
risk
situations
and
arm
consumers
to
12
use
this,
again,
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
13
give
consumers
full
credit
for
making
the
right
14
decisions.
15
I
want
to
strongly
urge
you
to
abandon
16
the
owner
occupied
exemption.
I
guess
you
were
17
doing
it
to
try
to
save
costs.
There's
a
right
way
18
to
do
things
and
a
wrong
way
to
do
things.
And
the
19
EPA
rule
needs
to
be
very
clear
that
this
is
the
way
20
things
get
done,
they
need
to
do
it
the
right
way
21
and
need
to
avoid
unsafe
work
practices
and
workers
22
need
to
be
trained.
0063
1
So
that's
­­
finally,
that's
about
child
2
care
centers.
Congress
charged
EPA
with
regulating
3
commercial
and
public
buildings
and
this
rule
ducked
4
that
pitch
completely.
Again,
I
don't
think
one
5
size
necessarily
has
to
fit
all.
But
by
any
6
measure,
the
highest
priority
among
commercial
7
buildings
is
child
care
centers
and,
again,
just
for
8
consistency
this
rule
needs
to
reach
out
and
embrace
9
and
offer
protections
to
children
in
day­
care
as
10
well.
Thank
you.
11
MS.
SHABAZZ:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
Zakia
Shabazz,
mother
12
of
a
lead­
poisoned
son,
founder
and
National
13
Director
of
United
Parents
Against
Lead,
14
headquartered
in
Richmond,
Virginia
with
18
chapters
15
around
the
country.
I
testify
today
on
behalf
of
16
lead­
poisoned
children
and
their
families
and
I
17
bring
with
me
375
voices
of
those
families
18
supporters
and
children
advocates
via
signed
19
petitions.
20
They
sent
me
here
to
remind
you
that
we
21
demand
zero
tolerance
when
it
comes
to
the
22
protection
of
our
children.
There
are
no
safe
lead
0064
1
levels
in
children.
I
bring
with
me
photographic
2
evidence
of
dangerous
work
practices.
These
are
3
relatives
of
the
paint
chips
that
poisoned
my
son
in
4
1996
giving
him
a
blood
lead
level
of
30
at
the
age
5
of
one
and
a
half.
These
were
left
after
unlicensed
6
painters
were
hired
to
conduct
the
lead
hazard
7
control.
These
other
photographs
were
taken
8
September
20th,
2005
on
Lee
Street
in
Richmond,
9
Virginia,
where
as
I
drove
along
the
street
I
was
10
compelled
to
stop
and
speak
to
the
young
man
who
was
11
using
an
open
flame
and
scraping
paint
off
of
the
12
columns
onto
the
grass
and
porch
below.
When
I
13
voiced
to
him
the
dangers
of
what
he
was
doing
he
14
said
I've
been
doing
this
for
years
and
it's
okay
as
15
long
as
I'm
not
inside.
He
wore
no
mask
or
other
16
protective
gear.
And
I
wondered
how
many
children
17
would
become
poisoned
by
the
hazardous
way
he
left
18
it
on
the
ground.
I
gave
him
a
brochure
and
19
promptly
reported
to
DPOR,
our
regulatory
authority.
20
There
must
be
meaningful
enforcement
and
penalties
21
for
non­
compliance,
especially
for
slumlords
and
22
repeat
offenders
who
own
the
toxic
dwellings
that
0065
1
poison
our
children.
It
is
no
longer
acceptable
for
2
us
to
have
laws
on
the
books
without
proper
3
enforcement
and
inconsequential
sanctions.
4
We
were
all
saddened
to
hear
about
the
5
lead­
poisoning
death
of
a
four
year
old
child
in
6
Wisconsin
and
although
Reebok
voluntarily
recalled
7
their
tainted
bracelets,
I
can
attest
that
the
CPSC
8
does
nothing
to
enforce
the
recalls.
These
rings
9
were
readily
available
to
children
at
our
dentists
10
office
at
MCV
Pedestrian
Dentistry.
My
daughter
11
received
one
in
September
2004.
These
rings
were
12
part
of
a
recall
issued
earlier
that
year
in
July.
13
We
have
available
for
you
a
news
article
that
14
contains
statements
made
by
CPSC
representatives.
15
These
rings
had
also
been
associated
with
a
child's
16
death.
So
we
have
a
problem
with
the
lack
of
17
enforcement.
Our
health
director
called
me
up
and
18
said
we
don't
want
people
to
get
alarmed,
although
a
19
child
had
once
again
died
from
lead
poisoning.
She
20
said
we
don't
want
to
take
the
focus
off
lead
in
21
paint
dust.
Well,
I
want
everyone
to
be
alarmed.
I
22
think
our
children
should
be
protected
regardless
of
0066
1
the
source
of
lead
poisoning.
And
even
the
death
of
2
one
child
is
cause
enough
for
alarm.
How
many
more
3
children
have
to
die
before
we
take
action
and
do
4
what
is
right.
One
child
is
one
too
many
and
thus
5
our
call
for
zero
tolerance.
6
I'd
like
to
share
with
you
the
six
items
7
that
we
posted
to
the
public
comment
docket
back
in
8
February
that
there
are
no
safe
blood
lead
levels
in
9
children.
EPA
must
review
and
adjust
its
lead
air
10
standard
and
not
bow
to
industry
pressure.
EPA's
11
revision
should
incorporate
the
latest
scientific
12
knowledge
and
must
be
sufficient
to
protect
public
13
health
especially
the
health
and
well­
being
of
our
14
most
valuable
resources,
our
children.
15
When
CDC
and
EPA
failed
to
do
the
right
16
thing
by
lowering
the
lead
poisoning
action
level
17
they
sent
a
loud
and
clear
message
that
they
do
not
18
care
about
our
children's
health
and
safety.
Air
19
monitoring
should
be
required
and
instituted
at
and
20
around
all
race
tracks,
leaded
gasoline
should
be
21
banned
from
use
in
racing
cars
immediately.
22
Finally,
I
urge
federal
agencies,
namely
0067
1
the
EPA,
HUD
and
CDC,
to
continue
funding
beyond
2
2010
because
we
all
know
that
lead
poisoning
will
3
not
vanish
by
the
year
2010,
nor
should
any
of
our
4
efforts
or
funding
to
prevent
lead
poisoning.
Lead
5
poisoning
remains
the
number
one
environmental
6
health
threat
to
children.
Don't
let
our
children
7
continue
to
die
from
this
preventable
disease.
8
Thank
you
and
I'd
like
to
leave
information
packets
9
for
the
panel
and
I
also
have
additional
ones
for
10
members
of
the
audience.
11
MR.
SUSKAUER:
Good
afternoon
on
behalf
of
the
National
12
Association
of
Home
Builders
I
just
wanted
to
make
13
some
brief
comments
about
EPA's
proposed
rule
for
14
renovation
of
repair
in
the
painting
industries.
15
NAHB
is
a
Washington,
D.
C.
based
trade
association
16
representing
more
than
225,000
member
firms
involved
17
in
home
building,
remodeling,
multi­
family
18
construction,
property
management
and
other
aspects
19
of
residential
and
light­
commercial
construction.
20
More
than
14,000
of
our
member
firms
identify
21
themselves
as
being
involved
primarily
in
remodeling
22
or
renovation
work
and
that's
about
one
fifth
of
the
0068
1
marketplace.
We
very
much
sympathize
with
the
issue
2
of
lead
poisoning
in
children
and
believe
that
this
3
is
an
issue
that
needs
to
be
addressed.
However,
we
4
think
that
this
rule
is
not
suited
to
achieve
those
5
goals.
6
First
and
foremost
the
rule
is
not
7
effective
in
significantly
reducing
lead
poisoning
8
in
children.
Unfortunately
the
rule
will
only
9
regulate
professional
remodelers,
the
10
do­
it­
yourselfers
who
work
on
their
own
homes
11
conduct
about
half
of
the
­­
more
than
half
of
the
12
jobs
nationally
and
these
do­
it­
yourself
homeowners
13
will
remain
unregulated.
According
to
Harvard
14
University's
Joint
Center
of
Housing
Studies
more
15
than
half
of
the
kitchen
and
bathroom
remodeling
16
jobs
are
conducted
by
these
people.
The
substantial
17
exclusion
of
over
half
the
marketplace
subverts
the
18
stated
intent
of
the
rule
of
eliminating
childhood
19
lead
poisoning
by
2010.
Furthermore,
the
rule
will
20
drive
homeowners
into
the
unregulated
segment
of
the
21
market.
The
increased
compliance
costs
that
will
be
22
imposed
on
the
professional
sector
will
be
passed
0069
1
along
meaning
that
fewer
homeowners
will
be
able
to
2
afford
to
use
a
qualified
remodeler.
These
additional
3
rules
mean
more
costs
and,
therefore,
the
higher
4
prices
will
result
for
remodeling
work.
The
5
increased
compliance
costs
will
then
lead
to
fewer
6
homeowners
able
to
afford
a
qualified
remodeler.
As
7
a
result,
the
increase
in
do­
it­
yourself
activities
8
will
occur
and
unfortunately
homeowners
who
did
it
9
themselves
are
more
likely
to
lack
experience
with
10
typical
renovation
and
remodeling
jobs
and
11
additionally
tend
to
work
in
their
free­
time
being
12
evenings,
weekends,
so
that
the
project
can
take
13
more
days
and
weeks
to
complete.
These
increased
14
timeframes
prolong
potential
exposures
to
lead
15
dust.
A
professional
remodeling
firm
would
more
16
clearly
have
the
experience
and
expertise
in
17
completing
jobs
quickly
and
safely.
18
Furthermore,
remodeling
jobs
should
be
19
encouraged
and
not
discouraged.
Renovating
and
20
remodeling
activities
are
what
help
improve
the
21
condition
of
surfaces
coated
with
lead­
based
paint.
22
Lead­
based
paint
causes
a
lead
exposure
problem
when
0070
1
it
is
deteriorated,
Poorly
maintained
paint
is
2
most
likely
the
culprit.
This
proposed
rule
will
3
make
maintenance
more
expensive
causing
some
4
homeowners
to
defer
necessary
maintenance
which
would
5
create
even
more
deteriorated
surfaces
in
the
6
future.
7
As
currently
proposed
these
rules
will
8
cause
many
remodeling
firms
to
elect
only
to
work
in
9
post
1978
housing,
thus
limiting
further
the
amount
10
of
professionals
available
and
increasing
costs,
11
thus
further
undermining
the
intention
of
the
rule.
12
Another
important
point
is
that
remodeling
13
and
abatement
are
very
different
activities
with
14
different
purposes
and
different
methods.
Because
15
remodelers
are
not
hired
to
remove
lead
they
should
16
only
be
required
to
avoid
making
lead
exposures
17
worse.
The
only
test
necessary
for
a
typical
18
renovation
job
should
be
the
simple
standard
of
no
19
visible
dust
and
debris.
If
there
is
no
visible
20
dust
or
debris
the
job
site
is
probably
at
least
as
21
clean
as
it
was
before
the
job
with
no
more
lead
22
present.
In
that
case
the
remodeler
has
done
no
0071
1
harm.
2
As
EPA
has
clearly
stated
there
is
a
big
3
difference
between
abatement
and
remodeling.
4
Abatement
jobs
are
designed
to
eliminate
all
lead
5
from
a
structure
while
the
primary
intent
of
6
renovation
and
remodeling
is
to
change
the
7
structure,
function
or
appearance
of
a
room
or
8
building.
As
a
by­
product
some
remodeling
9
activities
may
actually
result
in
reduction
of
10
lead­
based
hazards
through
the
replacement
of
old
11
windows
with
new
ones
that
have
no
lead­
based
paint
12
on
them.
This
important
distinction
provides
13
further
illustration
why
clearance
testing
should
14
not
be
required.
Requiring
renovation
contractors
15
to
clean
up
to
an
abatement
standard
effectively
16
makes
the
contractor
responsible
for
all
the
lead
17
that
was
in
the
home
prior
to
when
the
remodeling
18
work
commenced.
That
means
that
a
remodeler
would
19
have
to
remove
any
lead
that
had
no
relationship
to
20
the
activity
that
was
being
conducted
in
the
home.
21
An
unintended
consequence
of
this
requirement
will
22
be
that
many
certified
renovators
will
become
0072
1
excellent
at
judging
the
level
of
cleanliness
in
a
2
home
when
giving
an
estimate.
If
a
home
looks
dirty
3
or
poorly
maintained,
in
short,
if
it
looks
like
4
there
may
be
lead
dust
present,
the
remodeler
is
5
likely
to
refuse
the
work
or
to
charge
a
high
price
6
to
cover
the
increased
cost
of
compliance.
7
A
possible
approach
for
EPA
would
be
to
8
develop
a
voluntary
lead
safe
work
practice
and
9
program
for
both
for
remodelers
and
homeowners.
10
NAHB
has
supported
the
development
of
voluntary
lead
11
safe
work
practices
which
would
protect
occupants
12
and
workers
from
the
risks
of
disturbing
lead­
based
13
paint.
We
have
worked
with
EPA
for
five
years
14
developing
voluntary
lead
safe
pilot
program
which
15
focussed
on
the
remodeler
and
homeowner
on
how
to
16
safety
conduct
remodelling
activities.
A
voluntary
17
program
allows
appropriate
flexibility
for
both
18
homeowners
and
remodelers
to
choose
which
practices
19
best
suit
unique
jobs.
Another
advantage
of
a
20
voluntary
program
is
the
avoidance
of
potential
21
legal
conflicts
between
existing
state
laws
and
22
EPA's
proposed
rule.
0073
1
For
example,
EPA's
proposed
clearance
test
2
is
inconsistent
with
the
existing
state
requirements
3
which
already
define
state
certified
lead­
based
4
paint
testing
firms
and
these
are
not
remodeling
5
firms.
EPA
abruptly
ceased
work
on
the
voluntary
6
program
last
Spring
and
NAHB
encourages
EPA
to
7
return
to
a
voluntary
program
approach.
And
we'll
8
be
filing
more
complete
comments
before
the
end
of
9
the
comment
period,
thank
you.
10
MS.
MORTIMER:
Let's
take
a
five
minute
break.
11
(
Off
the
record)
12
MS.
MORTIMER:
Next
up
is
Bruce
Campbell
and
13
then
Andrew
Langer.
14
MR.
CAMPBELL:
Good
afternoon,
my
name
is
Bruce
Campbell.
15
I'm
a
certified
property
manager,
member
of
the
16
Institute
of
Real
State
Management
and
the
National
17
Association
of
Realtors.
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
18
myself
as
well
as
those
organizations.
19
I
was
appointed
by
then
Governer
Donald
20
Schaefer
of
the
state
of
Maryland
in
1994
as
a
21
member
of
the
Lead
Paint
Poisoning
Prevention
22
Program
that
was
developed
over
two
years
to
bring
0074
1
about
a
change
in
the
problem
with
children
being
2
poisoned,
particularly
in
older
housing.
It
was
a
3
well­
balanced
commission.
I
think
we
addressed
most
4
of
the
areas
that
we
could
possibly
address
and
we
5
tried
to
make
it
fair
and
phased
it
in.
6
This
past
February
we
completed
our
10
7
year
phase­
in
which
required
that
all
pre­
1950
8
houses
be
at
least
dust
tested
and
pass
a
dust
test
9
or
a
modified
risk
reduction
standard.
That
means
10
one
hundred
percent
of
the
units
to
be
in
11
compliance.
The
biggest
problem
we
have
had
is
12
getting
everyone
to
comply.
I
think
the
responsible
13
owners,
the
responsible
landlords,
the
responsible
14
managers,
in
all
cases
certify
their
units,
register
15
their
units,
continue
to
do
the
work
that
is
16
necessary
and
every
year
our
state
legislature
looks
17
at
improving
that
law
and
is
currently
going
through
18
some
additional
recommendations
to
tighten
it
up
a
19
little
bit
and
come
into
compliance
with
some
of
the
20
changes
that
EPA
has
adopted,
and
the
CDC
has
21
adopted.
22
That
being
said,
I
would
hope
that
EPA
0075
1
could
consider
some
type
of
exemption
for
those
2
states
that
already
have
a
very
significant
program
3
in
place
that
they
would
have
an
exemption
if
4
they're
in
compliance
with
the
regs
within
the
5
state.
This
would
be
some
benefit
to
those
who
have
6
already
gone
through
a
very
extension
program
in
our
7
state
of
certifying
workers,
certifying
inspectors
8
and
certifying
our
units.
9
When
we
started
there
were
thousands
of
10
young
children
who
had
elevated
levels
above
15
to
11
25,
some
were
seriously
poisoned.
I
believe
our
12
2004
statistics
had
less
than
250
cases
throughout
13
the
entire
state,
most
of
which,
as
you
can
well
14
imagine,
are
in
certain
census
tracts
in
Baltimore
15
City.
Of
those
units,
unfortunately,
I
believe
70
16
percent
were
owner
occupied
units
which
were
not
17
under
our
regulations.
18
In
addition,
in
the
remaining
30
percent,
19
the
vast
majority
of
those
were
non­
compliant
20
owners.
And
therefore
had
not
even
gone
into
the
21
program
to
get
the
exemption.
That
left
a
handful
22
of
compliant
owners
who
unfortunately
had
a
case
of
0076
1
a
poisoned
child.
Maryland
also
in
addition
to
the
2
stick,
that
is
fines
for
non­
compliance
and
others,
3
offers
a
carrot
and
I
think
the
EPA
should
consider
4
some
type
of
carrot
to
get
more
compliance.
I
think
5
it
has
worked
in
Maryland
for
the
vast
majority.
I
6
don't
care
how
strong
a
rule
you
put
into
effect
you
7
will
not
get
one
hundred
percent
compliance.
There
8
are
bad
landlords
as
there
are
bad
everything
else.
9
If
they
can't
comply
with
1018
and
others,
how
are
10
we
going
to
get
them
to
do
it.
I
would
like
to
say
11
having
a
carrot
out
there
for
compliance
would
be
12
quite
helpful.
The
compliance
carrot
in
Maryland
is
13
a
tort
limit.
The
tort
limit
is
$
17,000
per
child
14
and
it
includes
basically
moving
the
poisoned
15
individual
out
of
the
home
and
possibly
some
medical
16
remediation
for
that
child.
And
I
believe
it
has
17
worked
in
nearly
all
cases
and
been
very
effective.
18
Number
of
states
have
come
to
us,
I've
spoken
with
a
19
number
throughout
the
country
to
try
to
encourage
20
them
to
bring
these
rules
for
adoption
in
other
21
jurisdictions.
22
One
of
the
problems
is
if
you
have
workers
0077
1
in
multiple
states
they
would
have
to
get
certified
2
on
a
state­
by­
state
basis,
if
there's
uniform
3
regulations
for
approved
training
courses
I
would
4
hope
that
it
would
be
overlapping
and
allow
5
reciprocity
from
one
state
to
the
next.
6
Number
two,
we
would
urge
that
the
EPA
7
also
allow
the
use
of
ASTM
approved
dust
testing
8
cloths.
I
don't
think
we
have
a
problem
with
the
9
testing
process.
I
think
it's
important
that
that's
10
done
so
they
know
that
they've
cleaned
these
11
surfaces
when
there's
been
significant
renovation.
12
The
results
of
the
cleaning
verification
13
be
kept
for
three
years.
We
are
concerned
about
14
that
with
respect
to
the
1018
disclosure
15
requirements.
Would
we
now
have
to
make
a
complete
16
list
every
time
we
renovate
or
paint
a
unit,
to
add
17
that
to
the
list
that
we
would
have
to
have
18
available
for
tenants,
particularly
in
large
19
multi­
family
communities.
20
The
docket
for
the
rule
is
voluminous
and
21
additional
sources
have
been
added
since
the
rule
22
was
proposed.
Due
to
the
sheer
volume
of
reports
0078
1
and
studies
we
have
asked
the
EPA
for
an
extension
2
to
the
comment
period
to
provide
sufficient
time
to
3
review
all
those
materials.
This
is
a
critical
4
things.
It's
going
to
affect
obviously
the
lives
of
5
children,
but
it's
also
going
to
affect
the
6
availability
of
affordable
housing,
the
availability
7
of
more
and
more
homes
we're
seeing
in
a
very
hot
8
real
estate
market
and
I
believe
here
in
the
9
Washington
area
more
and
more
apartment
projects
10
converting
to
condominium
and
there's
less
and
less
11
product
available
for
those
who
need
rental
housing.
12
I
did
have
one
question
and
that
is
the
13
rule
on
the
two
square
foot
rule.
I
don't
know
14
whether
this
would
15
continue
to
be
on
a
component
basis?
I
would
16
agree
with
that
because
a
lot
of
our
renovations
17
particularly
in
large
multi­
family
community
is
18
merely
painting.
There's
very
little
has
to
be
19
done,
but
you're
not
tearing
out
and
sanding
and
20
doing
a
lot
of
heavy
work.
So
I
accept
that
nod.
21
As
I
said,
the
Maryland
plan
has
worked.
22
It's
worked
because
there's
been
buy­
in
by
the
0079
1
industry,
a
buy­
in
by
the
proponents
for
prevention
2
and
all
the
people
that
do
the
work
out
there.
It's
3
an
interesting
process.
It's
worked
in
Maryland
and
4
hope
you
consider
that
exemption
as
I've
requested,
5
thank
you.
6
MS.
MORTIMER:
Next
up
is
Andrew
Langer.
7
MR.
LANGER:
I'll
be
brief.
It's
a
pleasure
for
me
to
8
be
here
today.
My
name
is
Andrew
Langer.
I'm
the
9
manager
of
regulatory
policy
for
the
National
10
Federation
of
Independent
Business.
NFIB
is
the
11
largest
small
business
trade
association
with
six
12
hundred
thousand
members
nationwide.
13
By
way
of
background,
up
until
a
few
years
14
ago
I
also
served
as
an
adjunct
policy
analyst
with
15
the
environmental
scientists
laboratory
at
Brooklyn
16
College
and
spent
a
considerable
amount
of
time
17
dealing
with
environmental
regulations
and
their
18
impacts
and
regulations
as
an
academic
subject.
19
Who
are
NFIB
members?
We
have
six
hundred
20
thousand
members
nationwide,
not
just
in
21
construction
trades
but
in
all
manner
of
trade.
22
This
rule
will
impact
all
of
our
members.
Our
0080
1
average
member
size
is
five
employees.
And
I
want
2
to
inject
a
little
bit
about
the
small
business
3
reality
here.
It's
refreshing
for
me
to
come
to
a
4
place
like
this
because
you
get
a
sense
of
the
5
parochial
nature
of
certain
research
areas,
and
how
6
folks
get
so
focussed
on
one
particular
area
of
7
expertise
or
one
particular
issue
of
study
that
they
8
tend
to
forget
that
there
are
a
lot
of
other
things
9
that
are
out
there.
And
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
10
about
that
from
our
perspective.
11
Being
a
small
business
owner
means
you
are
12
responsible
for
doing
every
job
that's
related
to
13
your
business.
With
five
employees
our
average
14
member
doesn't
have
a
full­
time
regulatory
affairs
15
person
on
staff
to
ferret
out
every
regulation
that
16
applies
to
them.
We
know
regulations
impact
small
17
businesses
differently
than
large
businesses.
We
18
know
that
once
a
business
gets
above
20
employees
19
regulatory
costs
drop
by
a
third,
we
now
know
the
20
regulation
costs
to
average
small
business
is
seven
21
thousand
six
hundred
per
employee
per
year.
If
our
22
average
member
who
brings
in
about
$
350,000
annually
0081
1
you're
facing
a
$
40,000
regulatory
cost
right
off
2
the
bat.
Really
what
the
problem
is
when
you
get
3
down
to
new
regulations
that
produce
new
burdens,
as
4
this
rule
undoubtedly
will,
is
that
it
is
incredibly
5
difficult
for
our
members
to
figure
out
exactly
what
6
they
need
to
do
to
comply.
7
I
want
to
talk
briefly
are
the
good
actors
8
out
there.
The
folks
who
have
every
intention
of
9
abiding
by
the
law
but
for
whom
the
way
that
our
10
federal
regulatory
regime
has
been
created
it's
11
almost
impossible
for
them.
We're
looking
at
40
CFR
12
part
745,
and
if
you
think
about
what
the
code
of
13
federal
regulations
look
like
I
don't
have
a
copy
of
14
the
fed
reg
on
my
wall,
I
now
use
a
computer,
but
15
the
paper
copy
would
stretch
back
to
that
wall
14
to
16
20
feet
in
length
and
my
average
NFIB
member
is
17
responsible
for
knowing
every
regulation
within
the
18
code,
within
the
14
to
20
feet,
that
applies
to
him
19
or
her.
20
So
as
we
move
forward
talking
about
this
21
and
talking
about
adding
these
new
requirements
I
22
want
you
to
consider
that,
consider
that
you're
0082
1
going
to
be
adding
to
a
burden
that
many
small
2
businesses
ill­
understand
right
now
and
making
it
3
more
complex
and
confusing.
4
Lead
is
a
lighting
rod.
You
think
about
5
lead,
you
hear
about
lead
and
it
conjures
all
sorts
6
of
negative
images
in
your
mind
and
when
we
consider
7
lead
regulation
we
consider
it
from
the
standpoint
8
of
things
like
zero
tolerance
and
the
standpoint
of
9
not
poisoning
children.
We
use
a
lot
of
rhetorical
10
arguments.
Lead
is
a
bad
thing.
There's
no
denying
11
that.
But
we
have
to
look
at
lead
versus
other
12
risks
as
well
and
not
be
pursuing
lead
at
an
ad
13
infinitum
level.
Why
is
that?
Because
once
you
14
start
prioritizing
things
that
may
not
be
as
risky,
15
other
public
policy
priorities
fall
by
the
wayside,
16
other
negative
health
consequences
are
downgraded
at
17
the
sacrifice
of
something
that
may
not
be
as
risky
18
which
is
why
I
really
wish
we'd
be
doing
this
after
19
the
new
OMB
IRA
guidelines
on
comparative
risk
20
assessment
had
been
completed.
I
think
a
new
21
regulation
like
this
would
have
benefited
from
some
22
scientific
understanding
of
how
that
risk
compares
0083
1
with
other
risk.
Like
a
lot
of
my
colleagues
today
2
I
believe
in
science,
I
believe
in
pursuing
science
3
and
I
believe
there
are
some
fundamental
flaws
4
scientifically
with
this
new
regulation.
I
believe
5
this
new
regulation
will
produce
very
marginal
6
benefits
in
terms
of
protecting
health
of
children
7
while
producing
some
very
high
costs.
And
what
do
I
8
mean
by
lack
of
science.
One
of
the
things
that
was
9
mentioned
just
before
me,
this
two
foot
square
rule.
10
This
is
two
square
feet.
It's
not
a
large
number.
11
It's
not
a
large
amount
of
space.
And
yet
we're
12
talking
about
kicking
in
hugely
burdensome
13
regulations
for
that,
for
this.
14
I
question
that.
I
can't
find
any
15
scientists
that
I've
talked
to
so
far,
I've
talked
16
to
a
number
of
them
about
lead,
who
can
justify
or
17
find
some
justification
for
setting
a
limit
of
two
18
square
feet
for
the
kick­
in
for
this
regulation.
19
Mr.
Ryan,
I
have
to
appreciate
the
comments,
I
don't
20
agree
with
all
of
them,
but
I
do
agree
that
this
are
21
needlessly
confusing,
as
many
regulations
are.
One
22
of
the
things
we
talk
about
is
trying
to
make
0084
1
regulations
conform
to
other
existing
standards
that
2
are
out
there.
I
think
we
need
to
cut
the
red
tape
3
in
this
regulation,
especially
when
you
consider
who
4
is
doing
the
work,
folks
who
are
not
sophisticated
5
when
it
comes
to
regulatory
policy,
not
highly
6
educated
but
doing
some
unskilled
labor
who
can
be
7
trained
to
do
that
labor
but
nevertheless
not
8
trained
scientists
and
any
time
EPA
engages
in
9
situations
where
they
prescribe
behavior
to
a
minute
10
level
of
detail
is
a
very
bad
thing.
11
I'd
like
to
use
the
example
of
OSHA
coming
12
out
with
hazardous
communications
guidance
standards
13
a
couple
years
ago.
They
came
out
with
a
14
communications
guidance
that
was
this
thick,
15
literally,
about
a
telephone
book
of
a
major
city.
16
That's
a
useless
standard
and
why
is
that
because
17
your
average
small
business
owner
is
going
to
look
18
at
a
standard
like
that
and
is
going
to
blanch.
19
He's
going
to
say
there's
no
possible
way
given
all
20
the
other
requirements
that
I
have
for
me
to
21
understand
that.
So
any
time
you
get
to
that
level
22
of
detail
it's
a
bad
thing.
0085
1
As
a
student
of
regulatory
policy
over
the
2
last
decade
I've
noticed
that
when
we
start
3
prescribing
these
behaviors
it
creates
perverse
4
disincentives.
As
we
heard
from
the
folks
of
the
5
home
builders,
this
sort
of
a
rule
by
increasing
6
costs
for
individuals
by
20
to
30
percent,
I've
7
heard
varying
estimates,
it
is
going
to
lead
to
8
more­
self
renovations
and
who's
doing
this
9
self­
renovations,
it's
not
retirees
at
home,
folks
10
with
no
children
in
the
home,
it
is
going
to
be
11
parents
with
young
children.
We
don't
want
that
12
happening.
This
is
not
the
outcome
that
we
want
to
13
have
happen.
It
means
more
exposures
for
children.
14
It's
going
to
mean
greater
exposure
times
as
was
15
pointed
out
as
we
do
our
projects,
they
are
going
to
16
be
left
out
and
exposures
are
going
to
be
allowed
to
17
happen
for
greater
durations
of
time
and
there
will
18
be
fewer
renovations
of
pre­
1970
homes
as
those
19
costs
get
driven
up.
Folks
would
be
much
more
20
inclined
to
leave
things
alone
as
to
seeing
those
21
renovations
done.
22
We've
been
hearing
from
our
members
about
0086
1
this.
We
are
continuing
to
hear
from
our
members
2
about
this,
real
small
businesses
with
real
3
experiences
with
regulation.
And
because
we're
4
continuing
to
get
those
reports
in
we
feel
that
we
5
would
be
able
to
make
more
valuable
comments
if
the
6
comment
period
were
extended
between
30
and
60
days.
7
So
I
would
ask
you
to
do
that.
Thank
you
very
much.
8
MS.
MORTIMER:
Steve
Sides
followed
Amy
9
McDonald.
10
MR.
SIDES:
Thank
you.
Steve
Sides
from
the
National
11
Paint
and
Coatings
Association.
The
members
of
the
12
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
have
13
supported
EPA's
efforts
to
implement
all
aspects
of
14
the
Title
10
legislation
and
particularly
we're
15
engaged
in
considerable
voluntary
efforts
to
promote
16
the
lead­
free
renovation
education
rule
and
the
lead
17
information
hotline.
NPCA
also
helped
launch
the
18
CLEAR
CORE
which
has
a
progressive
10­
year
history
19
of
assisting
at­
risk
communities
with
their
proven
20
approach
to
lead
hazard
reduction.
21
In
2003
we
forged
a
cooperative
agreement
22
with
46
of
50
State
Attorneys
General
taking
on
the
0087
1
development
and
implementation
of
a
nationwide
2
community
education
and
training
program
on
3
lead­
based
paint
hazards
and
that
involved
4
distribution
of
the
EPA
brochures
at
retail
points
5
of
sale.
This
program
which
is
currently
in
year
6
three
of
the
original
four
year
agreement
has
7
provided
our
industry
with
really
a
unique
level
of
8
insight
on
the
promotion
and
training
on
lead­
safe
9
work
practices.
10
Now
that
you
have
decided
to
move
out
this
11
rule,
we
really
feel
it's
important
that
you
work
12
hard
to
provide
uniformity.
States
should
not
be
13
allowed
arbitrarily
deviate
from
the
program
14
elements
that
you're
trying
to
put
in
place
and
15
eventually
will
have
put
in
place.
Certainly
take
16
the
states
concerns
or
issues
or
experience
into
17
account
as
part
of
the
rule
making
process,
but
once
18
you've
decided
on
the
best
approach
to
go
try
and
19
contrive
in
that
final
rule
a
consensus
that
does
not
20
allow
the
states
to
move
out
of
it
and
others
have
21
mentioned
reasons
why.
22
We've
been
promoting
in
the
paint
industry
0088
1
lead­
safe
practice
training
in
2
English
and
Spanish
using
the
HUD/
EPA
curriculum
3
that
was
developed
at
the
time.
Sponsoring
over
400
4
free
classes
and
training
over
10,000
individuals.
5
They're
not
just
contractors.
We've
had
homeowners.
6
We've
had
property
managers,
code
officials
and
the
7
like.
The
training's
open
to
anyone
and
we
promote
8
it
in
that
way.
9
This
is
a
significant
investment
on
the
10
part
of
our
industry
in
fact
all
the
people
we
11
partner
with
to
put
this
training
on
out
in
the
50
12
states
of
the
U.
S.
the
curriculum,
as
you
know,
does
13
not
include
the
clean­
up
verification
aspect
that
14
are
covered
in
this
proposed
rule
but
the
training
15
does
alert
homeowners,
residents,
property
managers,
16
to
the
concept
of
the
HUD­
type
clearance
testing.
17
What
is
stressed
in
the
curriculum
is
that
strict
18
adherence
to
lead­
safe
work
practices
including
19
careful
clean­
up
keeps
the
work
area
free
from
20
lead­
based
paint
hazards
and
this
should
be
the
goal
21
for
the
rule
as
well.
The
white
glove
test
as
it's
22
been
characterized
will
remain
controversial
and
0089
1
many
advocates
will
stress
for
the
clearance
2
type
testing
as
defined
by
HUD
but
we
strongly
3
believe
that
contractors
who
have
the
training
in
4
the
lead­
safe
work
practices
curriculum
but
not
5
necessarily
the
white
glove
test
or
clearance
6
testing
techniques
should
be
acknowledged
by
EPA
in
7
the
final
rule
as
having
met
the
proficiency
level
8
desired.
In
short,
don't
require
retraining
people
9
just
to
promote
a
white
glove
test.
And
in
our
10
instance
we've
put
10,000
potentially
certified
11
people
out
in
the
marketplace
to
help
provide
12
lead­
safe
housing.
We'd
hate
to
see
a
final
rule
13
preclude
those
folks
from
continuing
to
operate
or
14
having
to
come
back
for
some
arbitrary
additional
15
training.
16
Revising
the
brochure,
Protect
Your
Family
17
brochure,
while
helpful
in
creating
a
consistent
18
message
really
is
not
a
priority
in
our
opinion.
19
There
are
literally
hundreds
if
not
thousands
of
20
brochures
on
lead­
based
paint
hazards
in
circulation
21
throughout
the
country
and
while
the
brochure
you
22
create
would
have
the
benefit
of
a
regulatory
0090
1
blessing,
if
you
will,
across
the
nation,
it
2
shouldn't
be
viewed
as
the
exclusive
source
of
3
information
in
our
opinion.
The
purpose
of
that
4
brochure
is
to
inform.
The
past
versions
of
Protect
5
Your
family
have
served
well.
And
let's
say
the
6
contractors
who
have
been
distributing
those
7
brochures
have
been
fully
prepared
to
take
on
the
8
follow­
up
questions
that
come
from
their
customers
9
when
they
put
that
brochure
in
their
hands.
It's
10
important
that
the
contractors
be
trained
to
handle
11
those
questions
to
do
lead­
safe
projects.
I
don't
12
want
to
see
a
compliance
issue
centered
around
an
13
arbitrary
change
in
that
brochure.
14
Lastly,
with
filed
comments
you
are
likely
15
to
get
a
considerable
amount
of
data
on
worker
16
exposure
and
dust
contamination
levels
associated
17
with
typical
renovation
and
remodeling
tasks.
If
18
this
data
shows
in
a
statistically
reliable
manner
19
that
undertaking
such
tasks
does
not
result
in
20
appreciable
exposure
to
the
worker
and
does
not
21
create
workplace
or
residence
contamination
we
would
22
expect
you
to
acknowledge
that
in
any
final
rule
for
0091
1
the
beneficial
reliance
of
all
contractors
and
their
2
customers
who
will
be
dealing
with
this
rule.
3
While
we
have
been
fully
prepared
and
4
engaged
to
submit
comments
by
the
close
of
the
5
comment
period
on
April
10th,
we
have
filed
for
an
6
extension
to
better
integrate
what
we
believe
will
7
be
particularly
useful
information
and
content
8
derived
from
our
national
training
program
9
participants
who
we
maintain
contact
with.
So
we
10
support
an
extension
for
good
and
valid
reasons,
not
11
arbitrary
reasons
at
this
point.
Thank
you
for
the
12
chance
to
talk.
13
MS.
MORTIMER:
Amy
McDonald.
14
MS.
MCDONALD:
Good
afternoon.
I'm
Amy
McDonald.
I'm
15
with
the
District
of
Columbia
Attorney
General's
16
Office
and
my
comments
are
on
behalf
of
the
17
Department
of
Health
in
D.
C.
with
the
Lead­
based
18
Paint
Management
Program.
19
In
general,
the
District
does
support
the
20
EPA's
renovation
and
repair
rule.
We
feel
as
the
21
rule
is
written
right
now
there
are
several
issues.
22
I'll
briefly
point
out
a
few
of
the
issues.
0092
1
The
first
issue
we
have
is
with
the
2
phase­
in
system.
As
it
stands
right
now
we
feel
the
3
phase­
in
system
is
very
confusing
and
we
feel
that
4
it
will
inhibit
trying
to
enforce
the
regulation
5
because
people
are
obviously
going
to
be
confused
6
what
they
have
to
do.
The
department
will
be
7
spending
more
of
their
time
trying
to
explain
who
8
this
involves
instead
of
spending
time
trying
to
9
find
out
who's
doing
it
correctly.
10
Also
with
the
phase­
in
system
the
goal
11
right
now
is
to
eliminate
childhood
lead
poisoning
12
by
2010.
The
phase­
in
system
there's
no
way
that
13
this
can
efficiently
eliminate
lead
poisoning
by
the
14
deadline
of
2010.
We
also
feel
that
the
rule
should
15
include
all
housing
regardless
of
whether
or
not
a
16
child
lives
there.
Other
people
have
stated
today
17
that
they
feel
because
of
the
fact
that
children
can
18
visit
because
of
the
fact
that
eventually
a
child
19
can
move
in
at
a
later
date
all
housing
should
be
20
covered.
21
The
second
issue
with
the
dust
sampling
22
technicians.
We
feel
that
this
is
a
good
idea
to
0093
1
have
this
new
category
of
worker,
the
problem
2
becomes
that
they're
trained
a
little
bit
less
than
3
everybody
else
and
because
of
that
lack
of
training
4
we
feel
that
maybe
they
should
be
required
to
work
5
under
a
certified
risk
assessor
or
certified
6
inspector
so
that
somebody
with
a
little
more
7
training
can
kind
of
make
sure
they're
doing
their
8
job
correctly.
9
We
have
a
problem
with
the
test
kits.
10
There's
no
way
to
verify
that
these
test
kits
would
11
be
used
properly
and
they
are
very
rampant
for
12
abuse.
There's
no
way
to
determine
whether
or
not
a
13
person
is
going
to
actually
test
the
correct
14
surfaces,
whether
they're
just
going
to
pick
a
place
15
where
there's
no
lead
and
use
that
to
say
there's
no
16
lead
components,
therefore
we
don't
need
to
comply
17
with
everything.
So
we
think
that
if
these
test
18
kits
will
be
used
they
should
be
required
to
be
19
completed
by
a
disinterested
third­
party.
20
We
have
a
problem
with
the
notification
21
requirement.
EPA
needs
to
promulgate
some
form
of
22
notification
requirements
under
this
renovation
and
0094
1
repair
rule.
Without
a
notification
requirement
2
there
is
absolutely
no
way
you
can
enforce
this
3
rule.
If
there's
no
notification
requirement,
the
4
states
have
no
way
of
knowing
what
projects
are
5
occurring
and
when
they
can
go
inspect
those
6
projects
to
make
sure
that
they're
being
done
7
correctly
and
safely.
8
We
also
have
the
problem
with
the
cleaning
9
verification.
Why
not
clearance
sampling?
Why
10
should
there
be
less
of
a
standard
for
a
renovation
11
than
an
abatement
when
they
create
the
exact
same
12
hazards.
So
we
feel
that
since
you're
creating
the
13
same
hazards
you
should
have
the
same
standard
and
14
simply
taking
a
sample
and
comparing
it
to
a
card
15
that
the
EPA
says
it
should
look
like
this
is
way
16
too
subjective
and
there's
no
way
to
ensure
it's
17
done
properly.
18
Perhaps
most
importantly
the
biggest
issue
19
is
with
the
prohibited
activities,
such
as
heat
guns
20
over
1100
degrees
Fahrenheit.
These
should
remain
21
prohibited.
Renovation
and
repair
creates
the
same
22
lead
dust
that
an
abatement
does
and
because
of
that
0095
1
those
prohibited
acts
should
not
be
allowed
here
2
just
as
they're
not
allowed
in
abatement.
3
In
fact,
renovation
and
repair
can
create
4
even
more
hazards
because
of
the
lack
of
containment
5
and
other
precautions
that
may
be
required
as
6
they're
required
in
abatement
and,
therefore,
they
7
really
have
to
be
prohibited.
8
There's
an
issue
with
enforcement.
As
I
9
stated,
there's
a
problem
with
each
and
every
one
of
10
these
issues
of
enforcing
them.
If
EPA
promulgates
11
the
rule
as
it
is
written
now,
states
will
have
a
12
very
difficult
time
enforcing
the
rule.
13
I'll
leave
you
with
one
question.
We
14
understand
that
EPA
is
concerned
for
the
renovators
15
and
trying
to
decrease
their
costs
to
comply
with
16
these
issues,
but
shouldn't
the
ultimate
goal
be
to
17
ensure
that
there's
no
children
that
are
lead
18
poisoned
no
matter
what
the
cost.
Thank
you.
19
MS.
MORTIMER:
Pat
McLaine
is
up.
20
MS.
MCLAINE:
My
name
is
Pat
McLaine.
I'm
a
doctoral
21
student
at
the
Johns
Hopkins
Bloomberg
Public
Health
22
in
Baltimore.
I'm
also
an
appointed
member
to
0096
1
Maryland's
Lead
Commission
and
have
been
involved
in
2
lead
research
for
more
than
13
years.
My
comments
3
are
my
own.
4
I
remain
concerned
about
EPA's
failure
to
5
enact
requirements
to
protect
families
from
the
6
dangers
of
renovation
remodeling
before
this
date
in
7
accordance
with
Title
10
requirements.
I
think
the
8
proposed
rule
and
requirements
fall
far
short
of
the
9
effort
that
we
need
to
protect
children
and
their
10
families
from
being
lead
poisoned.
In
addition,
the
11
failure
to
propose
any
solid
recommendations
to
12
protect
families
that
renovate
and
remodel
their
own
13
homes
rather
than
and
in
addition
to
hiring
a
14
contractor
increases
the
risk
for
many
children
who
15
are
being
lead
poisoned
throughout
this
country
16
because
they
think
what
they're
doing
is
safe.
17
EPA's
estimated
that
4.4
to
4.8
million
18
paid
renovations
are
completed
every
year
in
19
pre­
1978
housing.
I
suspect
the
number
of
20
do­
it­
yourself
repair
and
renovation
work
far
21
exceeds
this
number.
Do­
it­
yourself
home
22
improvements
are
part
of
the
lifestyle
of
many
0097
1
American
families,
even
those
who
can
afford
to
hire
2
a
contractor,
certainly
for
work
considered
easy
to
3
do
such
as
painting
interior
walls
and
woodwork
or
4
exterior
siding,
trim
and
porches.
Many
families
5
look
forward
to
this
work
often
done
to
accommodate
6
new
members
or
older
family
members
or
make
new
use
7
of
old
space.
They
save
up
money,
take
out
loans
to
8
do
this
work.
Families
wouldn't
dream
that
9
repairing
a
ceiling
that
incurred
a
water
leak
might
10
put
their
children
at
risk,
particularly
at
risk
for
11
something
as
terrible
as
lead
poisoning
but
because
12
many
individuals
don't
use
lead­
safe
work
practice
13
when
they
do
repair
work
in
all
their
homes
whether
14
they're
contractors
or
do­
it­
yourselfers
children
15
are
being
poisoned.
What's
the
evidence
of
this.
16
You
presented
some
evidence
in
the
proposed
rule
but
17
I
want
to
share
some
more
evidence.
18
In
the
national
evaluation
a
HUD­
funded
19
study
of
the
experience
of
more
than
3000
homes
in
20
14
locations
that
were
abated
using
HUD
funds
in
the
21
late
1990'
s
there
was
follow
up
with
2375
families,
22
more
than
35
percent
of
these
families
indicated
0098
1
that
in
their
initial
interview
that
remodeling
and
2
repair
work
had
been
done
on
their
home
in
the
3
previous
six
months.
Between
grantees,
the
percentage
4
of
families
whose
homes
had
remodeling
and
repair
5
work
varied
between
10
and
59
percent,
a
very
high
6
percentage.
A
HUD­
funded
risk
assessment
study
of
7
229
families
in
Baltimore
County
Milwaukee
and
New
8
York
City
conducted
in
1998
found
that
41.2
percent
9
of
participating
families
had
been
involved
with
10
home
maintenance
in
the
12
months
preceding
the
11
study.
This
included
remodeling,
repairing
and
12
renovating
their
home
32.3
percent,
removing
13
paint
from
furniture
12.9
percent,
and
soldering
14
pipes
or
metal
8.3
percent.
15
In
this
risk
assessment
study
a
number
of
16
variables
are
found
to
predict
the
risk
that
a
child
17
would
have
an
elevated
blood
lead
level.
This
was
18
done
in
two
cities
in
New
York.
In
New
York
City,
the
19
odds
of
a
child
having
an
elevated
blood
lead
level
20
were
8.3
times
higher
if
the
family
reported
21
that
paint
had
been
sanded
from
the
exterior
of
a
22
neighboring
building.
0099
1
In
Milwaukee
the
odds
of
a
child
having
an
2
elevated
blood
lead
level
were
38.9
times
higher
if
3
the
family
reported
that
a
household
resident
worked
4
in
construction
and
significantly
higher
dust
lead
5
levels
were
identified
in
these
homes
where
6
construction
workers
lived.
This
suggests
that
7
there's
a
hazard
to
the
workers,
there's
a
hazard
to
8
the
families
who
live
with
the
workers
and
there's
9
probably
a
hazard
again
to
a
family
where
renovation
10
work
is
being
done.
11
A
third
study
randomized
community
trial
12
of
comprehensive
education
and
home
visiting
by
13
registered
nurses
to
151
families
with
blood
lead
14
levels
living
in
Rhode
Island
funded
by
CDC
15
documented
the
results
of
family
carpet
removal
on
16
dust
and
blood
lead
levels.
One
of
the
families
lived
17
in
a
rental
property
built
in
1780
in
structurally
18
sound
condition.
They
moved
into
the
home
in
August
19
after
removing
some
paint
from
the
exterior.
They
20
stripped
wallpaper,
removed
rugs
and
repainted
21
windows
and
window
wells
in
a
parent's
bedroom
and
22
an
office.
One
month
later
they
did
interior
paint
0100
1
repair
but
no
structural
renovations.
Floors
2
throughout
the
home
had
been
cleaned
several
times
3
before
their
14
month
old
child
had
an
elevated
4
blood
lead
level.
During
routine
testing
later
that
5
month
all
dust
lead
levels
in
the
home
were
found
to
6
be
above
federal
standards
ranging
from
40.4
7
micrograms
per
foot
in
the
play
room
to
1,866
8
micrograms
per
square
foot
in
the
office
where
this
9
kind
of
work
had
been
done.
10
Special
cleaning
with
TSP
multiple
times
11
enabled
the
family
to
decrease
these
levels
to
852
12
micrograms
per
square
foot
and
bring
the
living
room
13
levels
below
standards
but
it
took
six
months
of
14
repeated
cleaning
to
bring
the
child's
bedroom
floor
15
levels
to
a
27.3
microgram
per
square
foot
and
the
16
family
was
unable
to
significantly
reduce
floor
dust
17
lead
levels
in
the
office
or
parents'
bedroom
for
18
nine
and
a
half
months
until
the
floors
were
19
completely
refinished,
even
then
floor
dust
lead
20
levels
remained
above
the
current
clearance
21
standard.
A
second
family
removed
carpeting
in
22
their
rental
home
built
in
the
early
1900s
this
0101
1
resulted
in
an
elevation
of
dust
lead
levels
from
an
2
average
of
10
micrograms
per
square
foot
to
an
3
average
of
376
micrograms
per
square
foot,
with
a
4
794
microgram
per
square
foot
in
the
play
room
and
5
228
on
the
bedroom
floor.
These
are
floor
dust
lead
6
levels,
not
sill
or
well.
7
The
levels
returned
to
federal
standard
8
after
new
vinyl
tile
was
installed
throughout
the
9
home,
but
not
before
a
three
year
old's
blood
lead
10
jumped
from
a
12
to
24
microgram
per
deciliter
after
11
the
carpeting
had
been
removed.
12
This
winter
I
managed
a
community
health
13
rotation
for
eight
BSN
students
from
Johns
Hopkins
14
School
of
Nursing
located
in
Baltimore
City
Lead
15
Poisoning
Prevention
Program.
The
students
visited
16
10
children
with
elevated
blood
leads
who
had
been
17
reported
to
Baltimore
City's
Program
with
elevated
18
blood
lead
levels.
Three
of
the
10
reported
19
exposure
to
remodeling
and
renovation
work
in
the
period
20
before
their
children
became
poisoned.
Two
reported
21
ongoing
remodeling
work
for
the
family
by
the
family
22
in
their
owner
occupied
home,
but
the
third
whose
0102
1
elevated
blood
lead
level
was
reported
seven
months
2
after
the
fact
noted
that
the
houses
on
either
side
3
of
their
rental
property
were
renovated
top
to
4
bottom
with
extensive
removal
of
paint
and
painted
5
components.
The
family
reported
dust
was
everywhere
6
in
their
home
despite
measures
that
that
family
took
7
to
keep
the
house
clean,
and
the
windows
closed
8
during
the
July
heat
in
Baltimore.
The
family
9
noticed
they
had
a
change
in
their
18
month
old
10
child's
behavior
at
that
time,
a
change
that
only
11
intensified
after
a
bedroom
ceiling
collapsed
in
12
their
home
two
months
before
the
child
was
tested.
13
These
studies
and
these
scenarios
14
suggested
efforts
to
control
renovation
and
remodeling
15
contractor
work
should
follow
established
practices
16
for
keeping
homes
safe
when
work
is
ongoing
that
17
we've
learned
from
lead
abatement.
If
these
18
standards
are
followed
and
enacted
this
will
be
the
19
industry
standard
and
I
think
do­
it­
yourselfers
will
20
soon
follow
these
practices.
21
We
should
see
requirements
to
prohibit
22
work
practices
known
to
create
lead
dust
hazards,
0103
1
including
open
flame
burning,
heat
guns
burning
over
2
1100
degrees,
volatile
chemical
strippers,
machine
3
power
sanding,
power
blasting,
dry
sanding,
dry
4
scraping.
We
don't
need
to
relearn
the
lesson
and
5
less
hazardous
alternatives
are
already
proven.
6
Make
clearance
lead
dust
testing
a
requirement
7
following
renovation
and
remodeling
work
to
achieve
8
EPA/
HUD
standards
in
all
rooms
where
renovation
took
9
place,
regardless
of
whether
the
floors
are
10
carpeted.
Visual
assessment
isn't
good
enough.
11
In
another
study
where
children
were
12
relocated
to
housing
identified
as
safe
by
visual
13
inspection
53
percent
of
the
homes
actually
had
lead
14
dust
levels
above
the
current
federal
standards.
15
Visual
inspection
is
unlikely
based
on
research
to
16
be
good
enough
to
protect
a
child.
Renovators
17
should
be
required
to
report
clearance
test
results
18
to
the
owner
and
occupant.
The
diminimous
19
requirements
should
be
looked
at
closely.
HUD
20
guidelines
indicate
that
removing
one
square
foot
of
21
lead­
based
paint
in
a
room
could
result
in
lead
dust
22
levels
of
9300
micrograms
per
square
foot
and
would
0104
1
be
very
unlikely
to
be
able
to
clean
that
to
2
clearance
standards.
3
Standards
should
be
followed
in
all
older
4
homes
regardless
of
whether
or
not
a
child
under
six
5
is
living
there.
Children
visit
families,
they
go
6
in
and
out,
they
move
and
stay
with
families
for
7
various
reasons.
This
standard
will
not
protect
8
families
unless
it
applies
to
all
homes.
I
feel
9
that
local
and
state
public
health
authorities
10
should
be
notified
immediately
in
situations
that
11
are
deemed
to
be
an
emergency
to
help
the
contractor
12
determine
what
should
be
done
to
protect
the
health
13
of
the
public
because
emergency
requirements
are
14
mentioned
in
this
standard.
15
We
also
need
to
provide
for
meaningful
16
enforcement
and
penalties
for
non­
compliance
and
17
ensure
that
all
persons
working
on
the
renovation
and
18
remodeling
jobs,
not
just
supervisors,
receive
19
effective
training
in
lead
safety.
Safeguards
are
20
urgently
needed
to
protect
children
and
I
hope
that
21
you
will
consider
this
in
enacting
a
rule
that
will
22
be
sufficiently
strong
to
help
us
meet
our
goal
of
0105
1
eliminating
childhood
lead
poisoning
by
2010.
2
MS.
MAYBERRY:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Astrid
3
Mayberry.
I'm
a
certified
property
manager
4
candidate,
direct
of
education
for
the
Greater
5
Metropolitan
Washington
IRA
Chapter
8.
The
6
Institute
of
Real
Estate
Management
is
an
affiliate
7
of
the
National
Association
of
Realtors.
The
8
Institute
is
the
only
professional
real
estate
9
management
association
serving
both
multi­
family
10
commercial
real
estate
sectors.
With
81
U.
S.
11
chapters
and
eight
international
chapters
IRA
is
the
12
international
organization
that
serves
as
an
13
advocate
on
issues
affecting
the
real
estate
14
management
industry.
IRA
members
manage
more
than
15
6.5
billion
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
I
have
16
a
background
in
both
commercial
and
residential
and
17
retail
property
management.
I'm
here
to
speak
about
18
the
proposed
lead­
based
paint
rule.
The
proposed
19
rule
requires
that
a
certified
renovator
supervise
20
each
and
every
renovation
defined
as
any
activity
21
that
disturbs
more
than
two
square
feet
of
paint.
22
IRA
believes
that
such
a
requirement
will
result
in
0106
1
a
disincentive
for
property
owners
to
conduct
2
regular
maintenance
on
their
properties.
This
could
3
result
in
deferred
maintenance
of
target
housing
4
possibly
creating
greater
lead
hazards.
Due
to
5
increased
expense,
administrative
burden
and
time
6
involved
in
complying
with
the
rule
owners
may
be
7
forced
to
defer
small
maintenance
until
they
are
8
forced
to
deal
with
the
bigger
problem.
9
The
proposed
rule
would
require
that
10
signed
and
dated
records
be
kept
describing
the
work
11
practices,
containment,
12
and
cleaning
for
every
job.
EPA
expects
its
13
recordkeeping
burden
to
take
no
more
than
five
hours
14
per
year.
IRA
would
strongly
argue
this
15
recordkeeping
will
be
far
more
time
consuming
than
16
the
EPA
believes.
The
proposed
rule
requires
that
a
17
certified
renovator
be
present
at
the
work
site
on
a
18
regular
basis
to
oversee
work
practices
but
EPA
19
requests
comment
on
whether
this
individual
should
20
be
physically
present
at
the
work
site
at
all
times
21
and
whether
they
should
prohibit
this
individual
22
from
being
assigned
to
more
than
one
job
at
a
time.
0107
1
IRA
would
argue
that
such
a
requirement
would
be
2
unnecessary.
Providing
oversight
by
the
certified
3
renovator
on
a
regular
basis
would
be
sufficient
for
4
quality
control
over
the
project.
5
The
proposed
rule
does
not
require
EPA
be
6
notified
prior
to
beginning
all
renovation
jobs
but
7
requests
comment
about
whether
or
not
they
should
8
be.
IRA
strongly
argues
that
requiring
EPA
9
notification
prior
to
all
disturbances
of
paint
over
10
two
square
feet
would
be
infeasible
and
result
in
11
property
owners
deferring
all
maintenance
until
such
12
time
they
could
take
care
of
all
their
jobs
at
the
13
same
time
to
consolidate
notification.
We
urge
EPA
14
to
stick
with
the
proposal
to
not
require
such
15
notification.
16
The
proposed
rule
talks
a
lot
of
fees
for
17
applicants'
training.
IRA
urges
the
EPA
to
make
the
18
training
for
certified
renovators
free
for
some
19
period
of
time
to
help
with
the
creation
of
this
20
type
of
worker.
EPA
and
HUD
have
provided
free
21
training
for
many
of
their
other
rules
which
have
22
been
helpful
in
gaining
compliance.
IRA
urges
the
0108
1
EPA
to
do
the
same
with
this
rule.
The
proposed
2
rule
does
not
require
dust
clearance
sampling
after
3
each
renovation
project.
IRA
fully
supports
the
4
reason
EPA
has
used
not
to
require
this
testing.
5
Dust
sampling
is
very
expensive
and
time
consuming.
6
While
waiting
for
test
results
the
renovation
area
7
would
have
to
remain
unoccupied
creating
a
8
tremendous
burden
on
property
owners
and
residents.
9
Such
requirement
would
absolutely
result
in
deferred
10
maintenance
and
deteriorating
properties.
We
11
strongly
urge
EPA
to
stand
by
their
decision
to
not
12
require
dust
clearance
sampling
on
renovation
jobs.
13
Thank
you
for
your
time.
14
MR.
LIVINGSTON:
I'd
just
like
to
make
a
minute
of
comments
15
just
to
clarify
some
things.
We're
not
talking
16
about
abatement.
We're
talking
about
maintenance
17
practices.
Abatement
is
a
different
subject.
If
we
18
are
talking
about
abatement,
abatement
means
19
removing
all
of
the
lead
paint.
What
we're
talking
20
about
is
maintenance.
It
is
not
true
by
any
21
measurement
that
doing
lead­
safe
work
practices
22
increase
the
cost
of
a
job
by
20
or
30
percent.
0109
1
It's
absolutely
not
true.
I've
done
hundreds
and
2
hundreds
of
jobs
and
what
I'm
doing
is
exactly
what
3
I
did
before
using
different
tools
and
creating
a
4
situation
where
I
have
much
less
clean­
up
at
the
end
5
because
I'm
cleaning
up
as
I
go
and
I'm
masking
6
areas
that
will
absorb
dust,
so
my
clean­
up
costs
go
7
down,
my
safety
goes
up,
and
I
wind
up
costing
8
approximately
the
same
thing
but
maybe
four
or
five
9
percent
more,
maybe
four
or
five
percent
less,
but
I
10
guarantee
there's
no
20
or
30
percent
unless
you
11
compare
maintenance
with
abatement
and
we're
not
12
doing
that.
13
I
wrote
the
book
for
the
National
Parks
14
Service
on
lead­
safe
historic
restoration.
There
is
15
no
historic
restoration
process
that
demands
burning
16
or
unvacuum
attached
sanding.
We
don't
need
to
make
17
exceptions.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
there's
a
bunch
of
18
new
techniques
that
include
benign
strippers,
steam
19
stripping,
closed
planing
with
vacuums,
sanding
and
20
infrared
removal
that
are
far
superior,
far
safer
21
and
far
cheaper.
So
these
are
not
adding
a
burden
22
of
cost
and
they
are
very
simple
and
I
would
plead
0110
1
for
you
to
turn
this
document
you've
written
into
2
English.
It's
very
simple.
Don't
burn
or
machine
3
sand,
contain
your
mess,
clean­
up
your
mess
and
4
measure
how
well
you've
cleaned
it
up.
That's
what
5
this
is
about.
That's
all
this
is
about.
6
Exaggerating
these
things
doesn't
serve
anybody.
7
And
by
the
way,
the
people
who
go
to
the
visual
8
inspector
training
get
more
training,
more
training,
9
by
about
four
fold
of
doing
dust
tests
than
the
10
people
who
are
inspectors
because
there's
so
many
11
other
things
they
do.
12
This
is
a
very,
very
simple
way
of
13
basically
making
maintenance
of
older
houses
safe
14
for
workers
and
for
the
occupants
and
we
don't
have
15
to
move
everybody
out
of
every
house
every
time
we
16
do
this.
These
are
all
straw
men.
This
isn't
the
17
real
world.
We
just
want
to
train
the
workers
to
18
work
more
cleanly.
This
is
what
your
mother
would
19
tell
you.
Thank
you.
20
MS.
MORTIMER:
Anybody
else
wish
to
speak
at
21
this
time?
22
MS.
DOA:
Well,
again,
thank
you
so
much
for
0111
1
your
time
and
for
the
comments
that
you've
provided.
2
I
think
quite
a
number
of
issues
were
brought
up
for
3
EPA
to
seriously
think
about
and
of
course
we're
4
going
to
think
about
all
the
comments
very
5
seriously.
Again,
right
now
please
get
in
your
6
written
comments
by
the
10th
of
April
and
if
there
7
is
an
extension
there
will
be
a
Federal
Register
8
notice
and
check
our
website
and
if
you
have
written
9
copies
of
anything
to
give
it
to
Amy
that
would
also
10
be
great.
Thank
you
very
much.
11
(
The
meeting
was
adjourned)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0112
1
CERTIFICATE
OF
NOTARY
PUBLIC
2
3
I,
TEAGUE
GIBSON,
do
hereby
certify
that
I
4
reported
in
shorthand
the
proceedings
had
at
the
5
meeting
aforesaid,
and
that
the
foregoing
is
a
6
true,
complete,
and
accurate
transcript
of
the
7
proceedings
at
said
meeting
as
appears
from
my
8
stenographic
notes
so
taken
and
transcribed
under
9
my
personal
direction,
this
29th
day
of
March,
2006.
10
11
TEAGUE
GIBSON,
Notary
Public
in
and
for
12
the
State
of
Maryland.
13
_____________________________
14
15
My
commission
expires:
October
1,
2007