Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0056-0035
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2020-08-13T04:00Z

­­
­­
<
ED
STN%

~~~~~~
E~
.
I
'
/'
a
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION
AGENCY
OPP'F"
NC/
C
REGION
111
.
a
.1650
Arch
Street
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103­
2029
..,
..
.
.
~
.
#
...
.
.

..
..
.
..
..
t.
I,

Theodore
J;
Gordon
.
.
I
,

Senior
Deputy
Director
...
.,
..
JUN
'
i
I
.
,.
.
­.
for
Public
Health
Assurance­...
..
.
..
District
of
ColumbiaDepartment
of
Health
..
,.
.
..

825
N..
Capital
St.,
NE
.

Washington,.
D.
C.
20002­.
,(
..
­.

Dear
Mr.
Gordon:
I
EPA
has
reviewed
the
District
of
Columbia's
(
District)
Lead
Program
Autkorizatiw
.
Package
stnd
has
stated
on
several
occasions
(
EPA's
October
1999
and
February
200Fr
.
.~
Authorization
comment
letters)
its
concern
over
the
adequacy
of
the
District's
civil
and
criminal
penalty
authorities
as
compared
to
EPA's
penalty
authority
under
Section
16of
the
Toxic,
.
Subststnce
Control
Act,
15
U.
S.
C.
9
2615.
Section
16
of
TSCA
allows
far
civil
and
criminal.
.,,,­­
penalties
up
to
$
25,000
a
day
per
violation
or
in
the
case
of
criminal
acts
imprisonment
for
not
more
than
one
year,
or
both.
TheDistrict's
civil
and
criminal
fineand
pkalty
amounts
are
substantidly
lower
than
EPA's
and
are
the
lowest
penalty
amountsfor
any
ofthe
state
authorized­
lead
programs
in
the
region.
Based
1990US.
census
data,
the
District
ranksas
the
third
largest
city
in
the
region.
with
regards
to
number
of
housing
units
estbnated
to
contain
lead­
based
paint
and
the
third
highest
with
respect
to
the
number
of
children
below
age
six
(
the
age
up
to
which
children
are
most
susceptible
to
lead
poisoning
and
may,
suffer
them&
developmental
damage
from
lead
exposure)
residing
in
the
city.
..
II
I
LI
I­­.
EPA
has
previously
recommended
that
the
District
furtheridevelopand
strengthen
its­
Schedule
of
Fines­
Classes
of
Infractions
(
Classes
1through5
)
to
further
specify
typesand
levels
of
violations
with
a
range
of
penalty
amounts
within
a
minimumto
maximum
penalty
authority
in
order
to
address
the
many
different
types
of
violations
that
pose
apotential
threat
to
human
health.
This
range
would
enable
the
District
to
issue
penalties
that­
are
commensurate­~
with
the
level
of
ham
or
endangerment
that
may
occq
due
to
the
violation,
and
provide
penalties
at
levels
that
provide
adequate
enforcement
and
are
more
likely
to
deter
potential
violators.
EPA
strongly
urges
all
states
and
the
District
to
set
their
penalty
amounts
at
levels
that
are
as
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
as
the
federal
program.
Other
states
with
similar
enforcement
deficiencies
in
their
proposed
lead
programs
are
currently
working
with
their
legislators
to
change
their
penalty
amounts.

For
example,
under
the
District's
Class
2
Infractions,
applying
lead­
based
paints
or
glazes
to
a
surface,
which
can
result
in
a
direct
lead
exposure
to
the
public,
may
result
in
a
low
penalty
amountof
only
$
500
for
a
first
time
offense
which
is
not
commensuratewith
the
potential
hann
to
human
health.
The
same
is
true
for
other
activities
listed
in
the
District's
Class
'

2
Infractions
that
are
not
commensurate
with
the
potential
of
harm
to
human
health
and
the
~
3
Printed­
on
100%
recycled+
ecyclable
paper
with
100%
post­
consumerfiber
and
process
chlorinefrea
Customer
Service
Hotline:
1­
800­
438­
2474
I
environment
such
as
failure
to
obtain
certificationbefore
conducting
a
lead­
based
paint
activity;
selling
or
offering
for
sale,
transfemng,
delivering
or
transfening
an
articletintendedforuse
by
chldren
that
has
lead­
based
paint
or
glaze
applied
to
it.
Additionally,
the
District s
Class
4
Infraction
category
where
an
improper
work
practice
by
a
lead
worker
can
pose
a
direct
threat
to
human
health
and
the
environment
represents
another
example
of
how
the
$
50
penalty
for
a
first
time
offender
is
not
commensurate
with
the
potential
for
harm.
Damage
caused
by
some
improper
work
practices
at
a
lead
abatement
site,
such
as
lack
of
containment
of
lead
paint
dust,
can
pose
an
immediate
threat
or
endangerment
to
human
health,
especially
to
young
children
who
are
most
vulnerable
to
the
adverse
effects
of
lead
exposure.
Children
exposed
to
lead
can
have
physical
health
and
brain
developmental
problems
which
can
adversely
affect
them
throughout
their
lives.
Penalty
amounts
such
as
the
amounts
listed
in
the
District s
Class
1
Infractions
($
1,000
for
the
first
offense
)
or
higher
may
be
more
appropriate
for
the
type
of
violations
mentioned
above
for
Class2
and
4
Inkactions.

In
addition
to
providing
a
deterrent
to
potential
violators
to
reduce
the
potential
threat
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
the
District
should
consider
other
factors
in
determining
,

appropriate
penalty
amounts
for
its
program,
such
as
costs
to
documerit
and
conduct
administrative
and
enforcement
activities,
and
costs
for
the
health
and
educational
care
of
a
child
who
has
been
adversely
affected
by
lead
poisoning.
Over
the
past
decade,
both
the
U.
S.
Housing
and
Urban
Development
(
HUD)
and
the
Center
for
Disease
Control
have
provided
estimated
amounts
of
money
saved
by
reducing
the
levels
of
lead
in
children s
blood.
In
HUD s
report
 
Putting
the
Pieces
Together 
(
July
1995,
HUD
­
1547­
L.
P.),
HUD
estimated
that
additional
costs
for
medical
care
can
be
$
1,800
and
special
educational
needs
can
be
$
4,000
a
year
for
each
child
with
blood
lead
poisoning
above
25
pg/
dl.
HUD
estimated
that
preventing
anincrease
of
1pg/
dl
of
lead
in
a
child s
blood
can
increase
a
child s
hture
income
capabilities
by
$
1,350
per
person.
Additional
studies
have
recently
been
published
by
other
researchers
on
the
increased
economical
benefits
of
reducing
childhood
exposure
to
lead
which
can
be
provided
to
the
District
at
its
request.
Lastly,
the
cost
of
training,
testing,
licensing,
and
permitting
lead
business
entities
together
with
the
District s
fee
application
levels
are
higher
than
the
District s
proposed
Class
2
Inkaction
penalties,
which
inherently
creates
an
incentive
for
non­
compliance.

With
the
above
information
in
mind,
EPA
strongly
urges
the
District
to
consider
increasing
its
penalty
amounts
with
regard
to
its
lead
program
for
approval.
Both
myself
and
my
staff
are
available
to
furtherdiscuss
this
issue
with
you.

2
*

J.
,

HP
If
you
have
additional
questions
or
concerns,
please
contact
Roberta
Riccio,
Regional
Lead
Program
Coordinator
at
(
215
)
814­
3107or
LouisRamalho,
Assistant
Regional
Counsel
at
(
215)
814­
2681..
Sincerely,

James
J.
Burke,
Director
Waste
and
Chemicals
Management
Division
cc:
Dr.
Lynette
Stokes,
DC
DOH
Cheryl
Amisial,
DC
DOH
Louis
Ramalho,
EPA
Roberta
Riccio,
EPA
3