Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0458
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-05-11T04:00Z

EPA
PUBLIC
MEETING
40
CFR
PART
745:
LEAD
RENOVATION,
REPAIR
and
PAINTING
PROGRAM
­
PROPOSED
RULE
Tuesday,
April
4,
2006
ATLANTA
PEACH
REPORTERS,
LLC
Court
Reporting
and
Videography
3775
Clairmont
Road
Atlanta,
Georgia
30341
Phone:
(
770)
452­
0303
Fax:
(
770)
454­
0348
2
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
S
1
1:
17
p.
m.
2
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
It
looks
like
we've
3
proximated
our
quorum,
so
why
don't
we
go
4
ahead
and
get
started.
5
MS.
JENNIFER
KADUCK:
Hello.
Good
6
afternoon,
everybody.
I'm
Jennifer
Kaduck.
7
I'm
chief
of
the
land
protection
branch
here
8
at
the
Georgia
Environmental
Protection
9
Division.
10
On
behalf
of
EPD,
I
want
to
welcome
you
11
to
this
public
meeting
on
the
lead
Rule.
And
12
we
understand
that
there's
going
to
be,
maybe,
13
some
comment
on
it.
We're
glad
to
host
the
14
meeting.
Glad
to
be
working
in
partnership
15
with
U.
S.
EPA
and
other
state
and
private
16
sector
partners
on
our
lead­
abatement
program
17
here
in
Georgia.
We've
had
it
for
some
time
18
and
are
continuing
to
improve
it.
Getting
the
19
lead
out
is
our
business.
And
we
are
very
20
happy
to
host
the
meeting
here
today.
21
If
you're
looking
for
the
restrooms,
you
22
can
go
out
this
door
(
indicating),
turn
right,
23
and
there's
a
men's
and
women's
bathroom.
24
There's
also
a
snack
room
right
across
the
25
3
hall,
if
you
want
a
soft
drink
or
anything
1
like
that.
2
Again,
welcome
to
EPD.
3
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Thank
you.
4
MS.
JOANNE
BENANTE:
Good
afternoon.
My
5
name
is
Joanne
Benante.
I'm
with
the
regional
6
office
here
of
EPA.
I'm
in
the
pesticides
and
7
toxic
substances
branch,
which
houses
the
lead
8
program.
9
First
I
want
to
give
a
big
thank
you
to
10
Georgia
EPD
for
hosting
us
there
today.
I
11
know
a
lot
of
work
went
into
putting
this
12
together.
And
it's
such
a
great
location.
13
It's
easily
accessible
from
the
airport,
of
14
course,
and
there's
free
parking,
which
is
a
15
lot
better
than
our
downtown
offices.
We
16
appreciate
your
efforts.
In
particular,
17
Jennifer
and
Mark,
Gwyn
in
the
back,
and
18
Maggie.
We
appreciate
all
of
your
efforts
19
today.
20
We're
here
today
to
talk
about
the
new
­­
21
You'll
have
to
read
it
all
­­
Lead,
22
Renovation,
Repair
and
Painting
Program.
EPA
23
Region
IV
is
committed
to
the
fight
against
24
poisoning
of
children.
And
we've
worked
with
25
4
our
partners
in
order
to
meet
our
goal,
2010
1
goal,
of
elimination
of
lead
poisoning
in
2
children.
That's
with
the
states
and
with
the
3
tribes,
with
the
Center
for
Disease
Control,
4
CDC;
and
HUD,
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
5
Development.
And
this
Rule
is
sort
of
a
step
6
toward
meeting
that
2010
goal
of
elimination
7
of
poisoning
children.
8
We
appreciate
your
attendance
here
today.
9
And
we
look
forward
to
your
comments
on
the
10
proposed
Rule.
11
With
me
here
today
is
the
Region
IV
Lead
12
Team,
which
includes
our
Regional
Lead
13
Coordinator,
which
is
Liz
Wilde,
Alex
Winston.
14
Alex.
There's
Alex,
so
you
know
folks
in
the
15
regional
office,
and
Pat
Livingston.
16
Anybody
else
that
I
forgot
from
the
17
regional
office?
18
Also,
we
have
with
us
today,
Mark
19
Henshall,
from
our
headquarters
office.
Mark
20
has
been
with
the
Agency
since
1989.
Is
that
21
correct,
Mark?
22
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Uh­
huh
(
affirmative).
23
MS.
JOANNE
BENANTE:
Mark
is
in
the
24
office
pollution,
prevention
and
toxins
up
in
25
5
headquarters.
And
I
know
I
have
to
read
this
1
part,
the
lead,
heavy
metals
and
inorganics
­­
2
And
he's
worked
in
developing
the
lead­
based
3
paint
regulations,
not
only
these
new
rules,
4
but
the
original
rules.
So
he
is
an
expert
on
5
lead­
based
paint.
And
he
is
just
going
to
6
explain
today
before
we
comment
on
the
new
7
regulations.
8
So
with
that,
Mark,
I'll
handle
it
over
9
to
you.
10
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Great.
Thanks.
11
Now
I
won't
to
using
much
lead
expertise
12
today,
because
today
is
not
­­
Unlike
many
of
13
the
other
meetings
that
we've
all
been
at,
14
today
is
not
an
opportunity
to
really
engage
15
in
sort
of
a
dialogue
in
the
regulations.
16
Today
is
an
opportunity
to
all
members
of
the
17
regulatory
communities,
state
and
local
18
governments
to
provide
comment
on
­­
formal
19
comment
on
the
Rule.
20
So
first
I
want
to
thank
EPD
for
hosting
21
us.
I
want
to
thank
the
folks
at
Region
IV,
22
Alex,
Liz,
Joanne
and
Pat,
for
doing
all
the
23
work
and
getting
this
setup.
24
As
you
may
know,
this
is
one
of
five
25
6
public
hearings
that
we're
having
on
the
1
regulation.
We've
met
so
far
in
Washington,
2
New
York
City,
here
in
Atlanta,
in
Chicago.
3
And
then
we
have
a
meeting
on
Thursday
in
San
4
Francisco.
5
And
the
goal
of
these
hearings,
again,
is
6
to
give
the
public
just
another
venue
to
7
provide
public
comment
on
our
proposed
8
regulations.
9
These
comments
will
be
transcribed
by
our
10
court
reporter.
They
will
be
entered
into
the
11
docket
alongside
all
other
written
comments
12
that
we
receive
on
the
Rule.
They'll
be
13
treated
no
differently,
the
written
comments.
14
They'll
be
recorded
and
responded
to
in
the
15
exact
same
manner.
16
Just
because
you
speak
here
today
and
17
provide
public
comment
or
oral
comment
on
the
18
Rule,
does
not
preclude
you
in
anyway
from
19
presenting
any
written
comment
either
now
or
20
later
on
down
the
road.
21
If
you
do
have
any
written
materials
that
22
you
would
like
to
see
entered
into
the
docket,
23
in
addition
to
your
oral
testimony,
provide
24
them
to
me
or
to
Amy
with
ICF,
and
we
will
25
7
make
sure
they
get
docketed.
1
If
you
could
try
to
limit
your
comments
2
to
about
ten
minutes
or
so.
Please
speak
3
slowly.
State
your
name
and
your
organization
4
when
you
begin
so
that
we
can
get
that
into
5
the
record
accurately.
6
If
you
have
not
registered
yet,
please
7
register
over
here
on
the
right­
hand
side
to
8
speak.
Amy
will
be
calling
speakers
in
the
9
order
in
which
they
signed
up.
10
And
I
think
that's
about
it.
Have
I
11
missed
anything,
Amy?
12
MS.
AMY
MORTIMER:
I
think
that's
it.
13
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Then
why
don't
we
go
14
ahead
and
get
started.
15
MS.
AMY
MORTIMER:
So
our
first
speaker
16
is
Michael
Wright.
And
then
he'll
be
followed
17
by
William
Spain.
18
And
just
come
up
here
to
this
table.
19
We've
got
a
little
microphone.
20
MR.
MICHAEL
WRIGHT:
Good
afternoon.
My
21
name
is
Michael
Wright.
And
I'm
the
managing
22
broker
for
Prudential
Georgia
Realty
Midtown
23
Team,
and
president
elect
to
the
Atlanta
Board
24
of
Realtors.
I'm
also
a
member
of
the
25
8
National
Association
of
Realtors,
which
I'll
1
refer
to
as
NAR
from
this
point
forward
just
2
for
simplicity's
sake.
3
On
behalf
of
the
1.2
million
members
of
4
NAR,
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
provide
5
comments
on
this
Proposed
Lead
Renovation,
6
Repair
and
Painting
Rule.
NAR
has
an
interest
7
in
this
proposed
rule
because
we
represent
8
members
who
manage
rental
property
as
their
9
primary
business.
NAR
also
includes
members
10
who
manage
single­
and
multi­
family
11
properties,
who
would
also
be
affected
by
this
12
Rule.
The
National
Association
of
Realtors
13
has
a
number
of
concerns
about
this
proposal.
14
Our
first
concern
has
to
do
with
the
15
enforcement
of
the
Rule.
Even
if
this
Rule
16
becomes
deligible
to
the
state
governments,
it
17
is
completely
unknown
how
it
would
be
18
enforced.
Given
the
fact
that
many
19
renovators,
contractors,
painters
and
20
carpenters
are
not
licensed
or
regulated
by
21
the
states,
it
is
unclear
how
these
renovators
22
will
even
be
aware
that
they
are
required
to
23
be
certified
in
this
work
practice
standard.
24
Even
if
the
states
do
create
a
separate
25
9
regulatory
structure
to
ensure
that
the
1
renovators
are
certified,
the
cost
of
that
2
regulation
will
be
passed
along
to
the
3
renovators,
who
in
turn
will
pass
the
cost
on
4
through
to
property
owners.
That
cost
would
5
be
in
addition
to
the
cost
related
to
the
6
actual
compliance
for
specific
rules,
7
components
of
the
rules,
which
will
be
8
addressed
shortly.
9
As
related
to
this
point
regarding
10
renovators,
the
proposal
requires
certified
11
renovators
to
complete
an
EPA
approved
12
training
course.
13
It
has
been
our
experience
that
under
14
similar
regulations,
states
have
refused
to
15
accept
other
states'
training
for
work
16
conducted
in
their
state.
We
strongly
urge
17
EPA
to
require
states
to
accept
reciprocity
18
for
all
EPA
approved
training
courses.
19
Without
reciprocity
renovators
in
neighboring
20
states
would
be
required
to
take
the
same
21
course
multiple
times.
Renovators
would
pass
22
on
these
additional
education
and
23
certification
costs
to
their
customers.
24
The
proposed
Rule
requires
that
a
25
10
certified
renovator
supervise
each
and
every
1
renovation
defined
as
an
activity
that
2
disturbs
more
than
two­
square
feet
of
paint.
3
NAR
believes
that
such
a
requirement
will
4
result
in
a
disincentive
for
property
owners
5
to
conduct
regular
maintenance
on
their
6
properties.
This
could
result
in
deferred
7
maintenance
of
the
targeted
housing
and
8
possibly
creating
greater
lead
hazards
down
9
the
road.
10
Due
to
the
increased
expense,
11
administrative
burden
and
time
involved
in
12
complying
with
the
Rule,
some
owners
may
be
13
forced
to
defer
small
maintenance
activities
14
until
they
are
forced
to
deal
with
a
much
15
bigger
problem.
16
EPA
has
requested
comment
on
whether
or
17
not
the
Rule
should
apply
when
housing
is
18
unoccupied,
for
example,
during
turnover
of
a
19
unit.
We
would
argue
that
requiring
such
work
20
practices
in
a
vacant
unit
would
be
21
unnecessary
unless
immediate
occupancy
after
22
the
renovation
work
is
complete
is
expected,
23
as
the
threat
to
the
exposure
is
negligible
24
when
no
one
is
residing
in
the
unit.
25
11
The
proposed
Rule
requires
that
a
1
certified
renovator
be
present
at
the
work
2
site
on
a
regular
basis
to
oversee
work
3
practices.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
4
whether
this
individual
should
be
physically
5
present
at
the
work
site
at
all
times.
6
Comments
were
also
requested
about
7
whether
this
individual
should
be
prohibited
8
from
being
assigned
to
more
than
one
job
at
a
9
time.
10
We
believe
that
such
a
requirement
would
11
be
unnecessary.
Providing
oversight
by
the
12
certified
renovator
on
a
regular
basis
would
13
be
sufficient
to
control
air
quality
during
14
the
project.
15
Further,
the
Rule
states
that
all
persons
16
performing
renovation
activities
must
have
17
on­
the­
job
training
by
the
certified
18
renovator.
19
This
is
sufficient
for
ensuring
the
20
practices
are
used,
without
that
person
being
21
there
all
the
time.
22
The
Rule
proposes
a
requirement
that
23
signed
and
dated
records
be
kept
describing
24
the
work
practices,
signed
posting
procedures
25
12
and
containment
and
cleaning
methods
utilized
1
for
every
job.
EPA
expects
this
2
record­
keeping
burden
to
take
no
more
than
3
five
hours
per
year.
NAR
would
strongly
argue
4
that
this
requirement
would
be
far
more
5
time­
consuming
than
EPA
believes.
This
6
proposed
revision
would
require
the
7
development
and
maintenance
of
paper
filing
8
systems,
which
would
require
floor
space
and
9
time
to
establish.
For
security
purposes
this
10
would
most
likely
mean
contracting
for
an
11
off­
site
record
storage
company
to
keep
and
12
maintain
these
files.
Obtaining
signatures
on
13
documents
is
a
time­
consuming
process,
as
14
well.
For
even
small­
to
medium­
sized
15
property
managers
and
realtors
with
small
16
property
management
portfolios,
this
provision
17
would
quickly
take
up
an
immense
amount
of
18
time
and
other
resources
far
beyond
the
five
19
hours.
20
We
are
also
opposed
to
the
possible
21
requirement
that
EPA
be
notified
prior
to
the
22
start
of
all
renovation
projects.
23
As
a
practical
matter,
this
would
be
24
infeasible
and
may
result
in
property
owners
25
13
deferring
all
maintenance
until
such
time
that
1
they
can
take
care
of
all
of
their
jobs
at
the
2
same
time
in
order
to
consolidate
3
notification.
4
We
urge
EPA
to
stick
with
the
proposal
5
not
to
require
such
notification.
6
The
proposed
Rule
does
not
require
7
dust­
clearance
sampling
after
each
renovation
8
project.
We
fully
support
the
reasoning
that
9
EPA
has
used
in
not
requiring
this
testing.
10
Dust
sampling
is
expensive
and
time­
consuming.
11
While
waiting
for
the
test
results,
the
12
renovation
area
would
have
to
remain
13
unoccupied.
This
would
create
a
tremendous
14
burden
on
property
owners
and
residents.
Such
15
a
requirement
would
result
in
deferred
16
maintenance
and
deteriorating
properties.
17
In
order
to
gain
the
most
possible
18
compliance,
EPA
should
stay
away
from
19
requirements
that
make
the
use
of
lead­
safe
20
practices
more
difficult.
We
strongly
urge
21
EPA
to
stand
by
their
decision
not
to
require
22
dust­
clearance
sampling
for
renovation
23
projects.
24
The
proposed
Rule
requires
that
certified
25
14
renovators
take
­­
using
cleaning
verification
1
swipes
with
a
Swiffer­
type
cloth.
These
2
cloths
generally
run
one
to
two
dollars
each.
3
We
would
urge
EPA
to
allow
use
of
the
4
ASTM­
approved
dust
testing
cloths.
These
5
cloths
are
the
type
used
in
dust
sampling.
6
They
are
readily
available
and
cost
between
7
two
and
five
cents
each.
8
In
addition,
the
Rule
requires
that
the
9
results
of
the
cleaning
verification
be
kept
10
for
three
years.
We
are
concerned
about
this
11
provision
with
respect
to
1018
disclosure
12
requirements.
Would
the
results
of
all
13
renovation
cleaning
have
to
be
disclosed
to
14
buyers
and
lessees
at
the
time
of
sale
or
15
lease?
16
EPA
is
unclear
regarding
this
important
17
relationship
between
the
proposed
Rule
and
the
18
Section
1018
disclosure
rule.
And
NAR
19
requests
clarification
in
this
area.
20
The
proposed
Rule
makes
several
mentions
21
of
fees.
Fees
for
applications,
fees
for
22
training.
23
NAR
urges
EPA
to
make
the
training
for
24
certified
renovators
free
for
some
period
of
25
15
time
in
order
to
facilitate
the
creation
of
1
this
kind
of
workplace.
EPA
and
HUD
have
2
provided
this
kind
of
free
training
for
other
3
rules.
And
that
has
been
helpful
in
gaining
4
compliance.
We
also
request
this
free
5
training
be
heavily
publicized
in
advance
of
6
the
training
sessions.
We
urge
EPA
to
do
the
7
same
with
this
Rule.
8
Finally,
the
docket
for
the
proposed
Rule
9
is
voluminous
in
additional
sources
that
have
10
been
added
since
the
Rule
was
proposed.
Due
11
to
the
sheer
volume
of
reports
and
studies,
we
12
have
asked
EPA
for
an
extension
of
the
comment
13
period
to
provide
sufficient
comment
to
review
14
all
the
materials
included
in
docket,
15
particular
those
information
items
that
were
16
placed
in
the
docket
after
the
public
comment
17
period
commenced.
18
So
I
thank
you
once
again
for
the
19
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
proposed
Rule,
20
on
behalf
of
the
membership
of
the
National
21
Association
of
Realtors.
22
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Thank
you
very
much.
23
One
point
of
clarification.
And
it
24
hasn't
been
announced
yet
at
federal
registry,
25
16
but
the
Agency
did
make
the
decision
on
Friday
1
or
Monday
that
it
would
be
extending
the
2
public
comment
period
on
this
Rule
until
May
3
25th.
4
And,
Michael,
thank
you
for
reminding
me
5
of
that.
6
MS.
AMY
MORTIMER:
William
Spain.
And
7
after
William,
Tom
Laubenthal.
8
MR.
WILLIAM
SPAIN:
I'm
William
Spain,
9
with
the
Georgia
Environmental
Protection
10
Division,
land
protection
branch,
which
is
11
Jennifer's
branch,
lead­
based
paint
and
12
asbestos
program.
And
thanks
for
the
13
opportunity
to
review
and
provide
input
on
14
this.
And
we
will
be
providing
written
15
comments
to
the
record,
also,
before
the
May
16
deadline.
17
We
start
by
saying
congratulations
to
EPD
18
and
all
those
people
who
have
been
involved
in
19
conducting
the
research
and
writing
the
great
20
background
on
this
very
challenging
issue.
21
The
proposed
standard,
particularly
the
22
background
portion
of
it,
is
a
wonderfully
23
written
document
that
serves
as
great
guidance
24
concerning
the
issue
and
what
is
already
known
25
17
and
how
it
is
known
and
what
is
being
1
considered,
and
proposes
a
variety
of
options.
2
We
have
reviewed
some
of
those
options
and
3
want
to
give
input
at
this
point.
4
One
of
the
questions
asked
in
the
5
proposed
Rule
is
would
a
rule
limited
to
6
provisions
of
information,
certification
and
7
training
and
accreditation
requirements
be
8
more
enforceable?
9
And
our
position
is,
yes,
it
would
be
10
more
enforceable.
A
bottom
line,
that
I'm
11
going
to
come
back
to,
is
we're
concerned
12
about
the
enforceability
of
this
­­
well,
what
13
might
come
out
as
the
final
Rule.
We're
14
concerned
about
the
ability
for
EPA
to
enforce
15
it
in
the
states
for
which
they'll
be
16
responsible.
And
I
would
fear
that
might
be
a
17
much
larger
number
than
it
is
with
the
18
lead­
abatement
states.
And
we're
concerned
19
about
the
ability
of
states
who
might
sign
20
agreements
with
you
to
be
able
to
enforce
it.
21
It
would
take
a
lot
of
manpower,
and
it's
very
22
challenging
to
get
down
to
the
level
of
firms
23
and
operations
that
perform
these
types
of
24
work.
I'll
come
back
to
that
issue
briefly.
25
18
One
of
the
questions
is
that
better
1
clarification
or
better
wording
should
be
used
2
for
the
exception
in
coverage.
And
let
me
3
read
to
you
one
of
the
exceptions
that
is
4
proposed.
An
exemption
is
proposed
that
says
5
the
following:
Exceptions.
Components
free
6
of
regulated
lead­
based
paint.
EPA
is
7
proposing
to
continue
to
exempt
renovations
8
that
only
affect
painted
components
that
have
9
been
determined
by
a
certified
inspector
or
10
risk
assessor
to
be
free
of
paint.
11
That's
fine.
12
But
then
it
goes
ahead
to
say:
or
other
13
surface
coatings
that
contain
lead
equal
to
or
14
in
excess
of
one
milligram
per
centimeter,
15
squared,
or
5/
10
percent
by
weight.
16
I
think
many
people
will
read
that
that
17
surfaces
which
have
coatings
on
them
in
access
18
of
one
milligram
per
centimeter,
squared,
are
19
in
excess
of
a­
half
a
percent
by
weight
are,
20
in
fact,
exempted,
which
obviously
was
not
the
21
intent.
22
So
a
request
for
clarification
in
23
wording,
which
is
a
good
point,
in
my
opinion,
24
to
express
the
concern
that
the
regulated
25
19
constituents
under
this
Rule,
when
it
comes
1
out,
will
fit
into
probably
two
extreme
2
categories,
those
working
for
public
housing
3
and
apartment
complexes
and
other
businesses
4
where,
in
fact,
they
are
in
a
corporate
5
structure
and
are
trained
and
supervised.
And
6
then
the
other
half
of
the
regulated
community
7
are
those
persons
working
out
of
the
back
of
a
8
pickup
truck
or
maybe
they
have
not
even
been
9
able
to
buy
a
pickup
truck
yet,
and
they're
10
still
doing
these
repair
and
repainting
and
11
renovation
activities
out
of
a
car.
And
12
across
the
South,
from
the
East
Coast
to
the
13
West
Coast,
a
lot
of
these
repainting
14
operations
are
being
performed
by
Latin
crews
15
working
out
of
a
van
with
lots
of
ladders.
16
One
of
the
concerns
is
how
are
they
going
to
17
learn
about
all
of
these
requirements
and
how
18
will
enforcement
be
achieved
in
that
19
small­
firm
segment
of
the
regulated
community?
20
And
I
think
the
enforceability
is
21
complicated
by
several,
or
perhaps
we
should
22
say
many,
it
then
approaches
which
are
written
23
into
the
standards,
where
it
will
say
under
24
these
circumstances
it's
covered,
under
these
25
20
circumstances
it
isn't
covered,
under
these
1
circumstances
you
have
to
do
this,
under
these
2
circumstances
you
have
to
do
that.
That
is
a
3
challenge
even
for
larger
corporation
4
employees
to
follow.
And
it
becomes
almost
5
un­
interpretable
by
the
levels
of
persons
that
6
I
referred
to
who
are
working
out
of
their
7
cars,
vans
and
trucks;
one­
person
firms,
8
two­
person
firms,
three­
person
firms,
or
two
9
people
who
get
together
and
they're
a
firm
10
today,
and
they
have
their
own
firm
tomorrow.
11
A
lot
of
repainting
operations
are
being
done
12
on
that
basis
across
the
South.
13
One
of
the
things
that
is
proposed
in
the
14
standard
is
to
encourage
or,
yea,
even
enforce
15
the
development
of
lead
test
kits,
which
will
16
not
yield
any
more
than
five
percent
false
17
negatives
or
ten
percent
false
positives
at
18
one
milligram
per
centimeter,
squared,
or
5/
10
19
of
a
percent
lead
concentration.
20
Two
issues
concerning
that.
One
is
OSHA
21
regulates
lead
activities
under
their
Lead
and
22
Construction
Standard
1926.62,
at
any
23
detectible
quantity.
24
We
and
people
in
the
regulated
community
25
21
or
some
people
in
the
regulated
community,
1
have
been
depending
upon
test
methods
such
as
2
lead
checks
to
tell
us
whether
it
appeared
3
there
were
detectible
quantities
there.
We
4
realize
that
they
didn't
detect
0.1
milligrams
5
per
centimeter,
squared,
or
0.01
percent.
But
6
we
figured
it
was
much
more
sensitive
than
the
7
one
milligram
per
centimeter,
squared.
8
Some
of
us
have
the
concern
that
if
you
9
force
them
to
redevelop
these
kits,
that
they
10
will
become
the
only
ones
which
are
available,
11
and
we
will
once
again
lose
a
reasonable
12
possibility
for
persons
to
test
to
see
whether
13
there's
any
detectible
quantity
for
purposes
14
of
complying
with
the
OSHA
1926.62
Standard.
15
Yes,
we
realize
that
theoretically
two
16
categories
of
tests
kits
could
remain
17
available.
The
new
version
which
has
­­
the
18
five
percent
and
ten
percent
dependability
19
rates
for
false
negatives
and
false
positives
20
and
then
the
original
one,
which
was
more
21
sensitive
than
that.
But
I
am
concerned
that
22
might
not
occur
and
we
will
lose
the
ability
23
to
make
inexpensive
quick
determinations
of
24
whether
detectible
quantities
of
lead
are
25
22
present
for
purposes
of
complying
with
the
1
OSHA
Lead
Standard.
So
I
would
encourage
­­
2
We
encourage
the
EPA
to
confer
some
with
OSHA
3
in
regard
to
that.
It's
not
likely
that
4
persons
doing
those
small
repaint
jobs
and
5
sometimes
even
large
repaint
jobs,
are
going
6
get
a
lead
inspection
with
an
XRF
instrument
7
or
have
representative
numbers
of
paint
chips
8
collected
and
submitted
for
laboratory
9
analysis.
We
have
thought
we
were
doing
well
10
when
we
moved
them
to
check
it
with
one
of
the
11
chemical
test
methods
in
the
field.
12
One
of
the
things
proposed
in
the
13
Standard
is
that
emergency
projects
be
14
exempted.
And
I
think
that
is
a
very
valid
15
consideration,
that
emergency
projects
should
16
be
exempted.
But
we
get
the
opportunity
to
17
work
with
the
regulated
community
every
day.
18
And
not
all
of
them
try
to
comply
with
the
19
rules
nearly
equally.
So
we
propose
that
20
perhaps
you
consider
adding
a
requirement
that
21
each
firm
have
to
keep
the
a
log
of
projects
22
which
were
performed
on
an
emergency
basis
so
23
that
there
will
be
the
opportunity
to
look
24
back
over
a
period
of
time
and
see
how
many
25
23
projects
you
did
under
the
emergency
exception
1
basis.
2
One
of
the
questions
asked
in
the
3
proposed
Rule
is
do
we,
the
regulated
4
community,
believe
that
there
will
be
more
5
do­
it­
yourself
projects.
6
Well,
I
am
a
homeowner
myself.
And
based
7
on
my
experience
as
being
a
homeowner
and
8
working
for
the
regulated
community,
I
predict
9
that
there
will
be
more
do­
it­
yourself
10
projects,
as
a
result
of
these
proposed
rules.
11
Some
people
will
not
want
to
pay
the
extra
12
monies
which
would
be
justified
to
be
charged
13
in
order
to
comply
with
these
rules.
14
A
key
requirement
of
the
proposed
15
regulations
are,
quote,
"
renovations,
which
16
are
performed
for
compensation."
And
we
17
request
that
stronger
clarification
be
given
18
to
what
counts
as
renovation
for
19
compensations.
For
example,
does
picking
up
a
20
day
laborer
at
the
Home
Depot
Store
or
at
the
21
other
local
locations
where
we
know
day
22
laborers
can
be
picked
up,
and
having
them
23
work
for
cash
under
the
table
constitute
work
24
being
­­
renovation
being
performed
for
25
24
compensation?
Would
those
activities
be
1
covered
by
this
Rule?
A
good
number
of
small
2
demolition,
small
renovation
and
repainting
3
projects
use
personnel
of
that
nature
across
4
South.
5
Going
way
back
to
the
issue
of
the
6
revised
test
kits.
If
test
kits
are
forced
or
7
allowed
to
be
brought
to
the
marketplace
that
8
do
not
yield
anymore
than
five
percent
false
9
negatives,
ten
percent
false
positives
at
the
10
EPA/
HUD
trigger
quantities,
will
these
test
11
kids
then
be
considered
acceptable
for
12
purposes
of
conducting
a
lead­
based
paint
13
inspection
under
the
existing
rules?
Or
will
14
the
existing
rules
continue
to
force
them
to
15
either
use
XRF
instruments
or
paint
chips?
16
Another
issue
is
we
find
in
the
proposed
17
rules,
quote,
"
some
references
to
the
term
18
lead­
based
paint
free."
And
we
are
concerned
19
that
the
use
of
the
term
lead­
based
paint
free
20
can
lead
to
confusion
by
the
overlapping
rules
21
and
regulations.
Does
lead­
based
paint
free
22
mean
there
is
no
detectable
quantity?
Or,
no,
23
does
it
just
mean
it's
below
the
one
milligram
24
per
centimeter,
squared,
or
the
0.5
percent?
25
25
It
appears
that
it
means
that
it's
below
the
1
one
milligram
per
centimeter,
squared,
or
0.5
2
percent.
3
That
can
lead
to
legitimate
and
4
illegitimate
confusion
about
the
applicability
5
of
other
rules,
such
as
the
OSHA
Standard,
6
1926.62,
which
is
triggered
by
any
detectable
7
quantity,
and
by
other
rules,
such
as
our
8
hazardous
site
response
inventory
rules
here
9
in
the
State
of
Georgia.
10
One
of
the
questions
that
gets
asked
11
repeatedly
is
what
types
of
facilities
and
12
projects
should
be
covered,
based
on
13
construction
dates,
based
on
occupants,
based
14
on
circumstances,
based
on
the
work
15
activities?
An
issue
which
we
deal
with
on
16
approximately
a
weekly
basis
is
someone
having
17
bought
vacant
property
that's
been
sitting
18
there
for
a
while,
such
as
single­
family
homes
19
that
have
been
deteriorating.
They
can
be
20
bought
rather
inexpensively.
They're
sending
21
in
crews,
often
day
laborers,
to
do
repaint
22
and
other
activities,
which
we
find
leading
to
23
both
lead
violations
and
asbestos
violations.
24
The
lead
violations
which
we
find
are
improper
25
26
disposal
of
the
material.
1
Yes,
we
acknowledge
and
accept
the
EPA
2
exemption
for
residential
disposal.
But
that
3
doesn't
allow
them
to
scrape
paint
and
allow
4
it
to
contaminate
property
and
be
left
there.
5
We
consider
this
buying
and
renovating
of
6
vacant
houses
where
they're
going
to
perhaps
7
put
it
into
an
investment
pool
or
just
try
to
8
flip
it
for
a
profit,
to
be
a
significant
9
problem.
And
we
­­
Not
only
for
the
direct
10
property,
but
for
neighbors
on
both
sides.
11
Often
we
find
out
about
these
projects
by
a
12
neighbor
complaining
that
somebody
is
scraping
13
paint
on
the
adjacent
house
and
they
are
14
contaminating
our
property.
15
One
of
the
questions
that's
asked
in
here
16
is
should
certain
facilities
and
activities
be
17
covered
if
there
is
a
pregnant
woman
in
the
18
facility.
19
And
while
that
is
certainly
an
issue
20
worthy
of
consideration,
it
is
probably
a
very
21
complicated
one
to
enforce.
And
I
go
back
to
22
the
issue
of
what
kinds
of
work
crews
are
we
23
talking
about
here.
24
It's
difficult
enough
to
know
whether
25
27
there
is
a
child
six
years
of
age
residing
in
1
the
property
or
not.
And
now
we
want
to
add
2
the
issue
of
is
perhaps
there
a
pregnant
on
3
the
property.
4
Another
issue
closely
related
to
that
is
5
the
issue
of
the
primary
residents.
Some
6
properties
were
going
to
be
exempted
on
the
7
basis
that
they
didn't
meet
the
criteria
of
a
8
primary
residence.
And
I
think
that
will
lead
9
to
a
source
of
confusion
about
whether
this
is
10
or
is
not
a
target
house,
which
is
covered
by
11
these
proposed
rules
and
regulations,
since
12
there
is
an
exception
for
the
possibility
of
13
it
not
being
covered
if
it's
not
a
primary
14
residence
of
a
child
six
years
of
age
or
15
younger.
16
Multiple
places
in
the
proposed
Rule,
17
they
ask
should
you
cover
facilities
which
are
18
in
the
construction
age
of
1960
through
1978.
19
Should
you
cover
them
at
all,
or
should
you
do
20
delayed
coverage
or
should
you
wait
until
the
21
revised
lead­
based
paint
test
kits
come
out?
22
Well,
I
was
surprised
and
amazed
to
learn
23
that
it
was
reported
in
here
that
the
24
lead­
based
paint
content
on
certain
building
25
28
components
was
higher
in
houses
constructed
in
1
the
1960
to
1978
timeframe.
And
one
of
those
2
components
was
windows.
And
window
3
replacement
is
a
common
renovation
activity
4
occurring
either
under
federal
funds
or
5
private
funds.
So
I
question
the
logic
of
6
excluding
window
coverage
and
­­
in
residences
7
that
were
constructed
from
1960
to
1978
or
8
delaying
that
beyond
the
initial
Phase
One
9
enforcement
date.
10
One
provision
in
the
Standard
was
that
11
certified
renovators
do
not
have
to
be
present
12
on
the
renovation
projects
while
they
are
13
being
performed,
but
they,
quote
mark,
"
just
14
have
to
be
available."
15
Based
on
our
experience
for
lead
16
abatement
projects
and
asbestos
abatement
17
projects
where
they
are
supposed
to
be
present
18
on
the
job
site,
and
we
even
have
difficulty
19
with
that,
I
predict
that
there
will
be
20
substantial
difficulty
with
a
final
rule
that
21
says
a
certified
renovator
only
has
to
be
22
available,
that
they
do
not
have
to
be
on
the
23
job
site.
24
A
couple
of
other
issues,
and
then
I'll
25
29
come
back
to
the
bottom
line.
1
One
of
the
questions
that
you
2
specifically
asked
us
to
address
is,
should
3
any
category
of
specialty
contractor
be
4
excluded
from
this
proposal?
If
so,
are
you
5
aware
of
any
data
that
would
support
such
6
exclusions?
7
Well,
we
have
not
attempted
to
generate
8
the
data.
But
as
a
result
of
our
lead­
based
9
paint
and
asbestos
enforcement
activities,
we
10
go
on
a
lot
of
apartment
renovation
projects
11
where
multiple
trades
are
working,
such
as
12
HVAC,
plumbers
and
electricians.
And
we
­­
13
Electricians
are
one
of
the
ones
that
wanted
14
to
know
should
they
be
excludable
from
the
15
coverage
of
the
rules.
And
we
observed
that
16
electricians
end
up
making
their
own
trade
17
cuts.
And
even
a
certified
person
has
been
18
hired
to
make
a
trade
cut
in
a
specific
area
19
for
them
it
ends
up
not
being
in
the
right
20
location,
and
the
electrician
ends
up
21
enlarging
the
hole
or
generating
where
they
22
really
wanted
it
in
the
first
place.
So
I
23
cannot
think
of
any
specialty
trades
that
you
24
were
considering
covering
that
would
not
run
25
30
the
potential
of
disturbing
some
of
these
1
lead­
coated
surfaces.
So
our
input
would
be
2
that
probably
you
need
to
leave
all
of
those
3
in
as
being
covered,
specialty
contractors.
4
And
then
next­
to­
the­
last
issue
that
I'll
5
try
to
cover
is,
you
asked
is
the
proposed
6
minor
maintenance
exemption
of
two
square­
feet
7
for
building
interiors
and
20
square­
feet
for
8
exteriors
an
appropriate
surrogate
for
9
roofing,
building
maintenance
activities.
10
Well,
yes,
that
is
in
your
other
11
standards,
including
the
pre­
renovation
rule.
12
So
it
seems
appropriate
that
that
would
be
13
maintained
for
any
rule
which
would
come
out
14
for
R
and
R
purposes.
15
I
go
back
to
the
bottom
line
that
we
are
16
concerned
about.
And
that
bottom
line
is
the
17
enforceability
of
this.
We
are
concerned
18
whether
the
program
for
any
particular
state
19
is
being
run
by
federal
EPA
or
by
the
few
20
states
who
may
figure
out
a
way
to
sign
an
21
agreement
with
this,
that
it
will
be
22
substantially
unenforceable.
How
do
you
23
regulate
these
kinds
of
people
doing
these
24
kinds
of
activities?
That
goes
back
to
the
25
31
issue
of
maybe
should
we
just
educate
them
and
1
accredit
them
and
depend
on
a
degree
of
2
voluntary
compliance.
3
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
give
4
input.
And
we
will
give
written
input,
also.
5
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Thank
you,
William.
6
MS.
AMY
MORTIMER:
Okay.
Our
next
7
speaker
is
Rom
Laubenthal.
8
MR.
TOM
LAUBENTHAL:
Good
afternoon.
9
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
be
here.
My
10
name
is
Tom
Laubenthal.
And
I
am
the
11
technical
chief
of
the
Environmental
12
Institute,
one
of
the
largest
training
13
providers
of
lead­
based
paint
training
in
the
14
Southeast.
15
I
actually
was
made
aware
of
this
meeting
16
at
the
last
minute
while
I
was
teaching
a
lead
17
inspector
course
this
morning.
So
please
18
forgive
my
informality
of
dress.
And
my
19
comments
are
going
to
be
brief
because
of
20
that,
as
well.
21
I
have
a
number
of
issues
that
I'd
like
22
to
talk
about,
things
that
we'll
have
to
23
address
as
training
providers.
And
the
first
24
two
that
I
think
will
be
difficult
have
to
25
32
deal
with
the
quantitative
aspect
of
doing
1
this
work.
And
first
is
the
clearance
2
requirements
that
are
proposed,
which
is
a
3
very
qualitative
standard,
comparing
lights
4
versus
that,
which
is
already
mandated
under
5
Title
X,
which
is
at
40
micrograms
per
6
square­
foot
clearance
standard
and
child­
like
7
­­
facilities.
There's
a
grave
difference
8
between
these
two
in
the
amount
of
protection
9
that
it
affords
the
occupants,
especially
10
children
and
pregnant
women.
11
But
in
the
aspect
of
actually
trying
to
12
trying
to
train
individuals
to
do
these
13
qualitative
measurements,
we're
going
to
14
really
need
some
clearance
if
those
exist
at
15
all.
Also,
the
question
is,
who
really
16
performs
these
tests?
Is
this
something
that
17
should
be
done
by
the
contractor
themselves?
18
A
disinterested
third
party
is
almost,
in
19
general
in
this
industry,
have
been
preached
20
and
taught
in
both
asbestos
and
lead
and
21
related
disciplines.
This
third
party
needs
22
to
be
trained.
They
need
to
have
specific
23
instructions
as
to
how
to
perform
these
tests.
24
And
if
it
is
qualitative,
we
need
to
make
sure
25
33
that
as
training
providers
we
exactly
know
how
1
to
explain
this
and
what
is
expected
of
these
2
folks
when
they
perform
this.
3
There
is
no
doubt
in
my
mind
that
the
4
time
and
cost
involved
in
doing
things
like
5
clearance
testing
in
work
like
this
is
very
6
time­
consuming
and
very
expensive.
But
I
7
think
we
need
to
be
balance
with
the
safety
of
8
the
occupants
and
the
children
within
these.
9
Because,
as
I
mentioned,
we
do
have
a
40
10
micrograms
per
square­
foot
clearance
standard
11
in
other
buildings
with
similar
occupants.
12
Second
would
be
the
proposed
infield
13
paint
testing
protocols.
I
think
Mr.
Spain
14
has
covered
that
quite
in
detail.
I
think
15
what's
very
important
is
if
we
are
going
to
16
issue
something
like
this,
we
have
to
make
17
sure
there
are
some
succinct
but
clear
18
training
materials
that
explain
to
people
that
19
they
must
liberate
all
paint
layers
and
make
20
sure
that
there
are
a
minimum
of
false
21
negatives.
22
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
23
determining
whether
lead
paint
is
there.
Our
24
problems
with
doing
this
on
this
basis,
on
25
34
worker­
protection
basis,
with
OSHA
already
1
having
a
­­
any
detectable
lead
bases.
So
our
2
main
concern
here
is
how
to
specifically
teach
3
these
methods.
And
then
once
someone
is
in
4
the
field,
will
they
be
properly
trained,
in
5
terms
of
actually
sampling
the
paint
and
6
whether
or
not
we
can
quantitatively
say
7
whether
we
have
lead­
based
paint
or
not.
8
Work
practices.
I
think
we
need
to
have
9
very
clear
work
practices
for
those
that
are
10
performing
this.
I
think
the
training
11
materials
that
are
already
provided
on­
line
12
are
very
good.
But
as
we
work
out
the
issues
13
here
as
training
providers,
we
need
to
know
14
exactly
what
is
expected
of
these
folks,
15
because
they
will
be
asking
us
what
do
we
have
16
to
do,
what
do
we
not
have
to
do.
And
they're
17
going
to
draw
lines.
So
we
need
to
know
where
18
the
corners
are,
in
terms
of
the
expectations.
19
This
is
not
only
going
to
be
from
the
20
federal
EPA
Standard,
but
work
practices
will
21
probably
also
be
instituted
by
the
states,
22
which
we're
going
to
have
to
incorporate,
23
which
will
probably
be
more
stringent,
as
24
well.
We
also
feel,
just
like
with
any
of
25
35
this,
we
need
to
have
supervision
onsite,
and
1
that
supervision
needs
to
be
onsite
if
it's
2
not
available.
3
Another
concern
is
the
enforcement
basis.
4
What
we
already
see
in
our
classroom
is
that
5
larger
entities
tend
to
participate
in
these
6
programs.
They're
aware
of
them
because
of
7
the
trade
associations
they
may
belong
to.
8
They
may
have
members
that
are
involved
in
9
training
programs
that
are
made
aware
of
10
additional
issues
regarding
worker
training
11
and
the
like.
But
I
think
smaller
entities
12
will
be
ignorant
of
these
issues.
There
is
a
13
language
barrier,
in
terms
of
many
or
our
.
.
14
.
many
or
our
participants
in
the
renovation
15
work
force
are
Hispanic.
And
will
they
be
16
able
to
get
the
message
that
they
need
to
17
provide
training
to
their
workers.
Will
the
18
worker
­­
Will
the
training
providers
­­
Will
19
there
be
enough
Hispanic
training
providers
to
20
get
this
information
and
certification
to
21
these
people?
Smaller
entities
will
probably
22
not
be
getting
this
training.
23
And
my
big
fear
for
those
who
do
put
a
24
lot
of
money
and
time
into
trying
to
meet
this
25
36
is
that
once
again
we're
going
to
have
an
un­
1
level
playing
field.
People
that
are
not
2
taking
the
training
and
not
performing
3
testing,
not
providing
for
supervision,
while
4
many
may
not.
And
the
saddest
part
of
that
is
5
that
we're
probably
not
going
to
be
providing
6
the
protection
that
I
think
is
within
this
7
regulation
that
is
admirable.
And
I
think
we
8
just
need
to
make
sure
that
all
these
edges
9
are
covered,
otherwise
the
Reg
won't
meet,
I
10
think,
what
we're
trying
to
set
out
to
do,
11
which
is
protect
occupants.
12
Thank
you
for
your
time.
13
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Great.
Thank
you
14
very
much.
15
That's
all
of
the
speakers
that
we
have
16
registered
at
the
moment.
17
Do
we
have
anybody
else
who
would
like
to
18
speak
who
is
not
registered
at
this
time?
19
Okay.
If
not,
what
I'm
proposing
to
do
20
then
is
we
will
adjourn
the
meeting
for
21
one­
half
hour,
and
then
we'll
reconvene
at
22
2:
15,
and
see
if
anyone
else
has
come
to
23
speak.
24
­
­
­
25
37
(
Whereupon,
a
short
break
was
taken
from
1
1:
58
p.
m.
until
2:
43
p.
m.)
2
­
­
­
3
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Let's
go
ahead
and
4
reconvene
and
see
if
we
have
any
other
5
speakers
that
have
signed
up
to
speak.
6
Amy,
do
we
have
any
other
speakers?
7
MS.
AMY
MORTIMER:
We
have
one.
8
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
We
have
one
more
9
speaker.
10
MS.
AMY
MORTIMER:
Possibly
two.
11
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Possibly
two.
All
12
right.
13
We're
here
until
5:
00,
Jackie,
so
take
14
your
time.
15
Anybody
else
who
has
not
had
an
16
opportunity
to
speak
yet
that
would
like
to
17
speak,
you
can
see
Amy,
provide
your
name.
18
Otherwise,
we
will
call
the
next
speaker.
19
MS.
AMY
MORTIMER:
All
right.
So
Jackie
20
followed
by
Adrienne.
21
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Great.
Just
a
22
reminder
to
Jackie
and
all
the
other
speakers
23
to
speak
slowly.
And
begin
with
your
name
and
24
your
agency
so
we
can
get
it
into
the
record.
25
38
Okay?
1
MS.
JACKIE
MANUEL:
My
name
is
Jackie
2
Manuel,
State
of
Tennessee.
Currently,
right
3
now,
I
do
the
accreditation
of
firms
and
4
individuals
that
conduct
lead­
based
paint
5
work.
6
I
haven't
read
the
total
Rules,
but
I'm
7
just
going
to
go
over
some
of
the
things
that
8
I've
just
read
at
the
beginning.
9
And
one
of
the
points
was
allowing
the
10
use
of
work
practices
in
lieu
of,
you
know,
11
telling
people
what
they
can
and
cannot
do.
12
We
have
a
problem
with
the
people
that
are
13
certified
that
have
gone
through
these
14
five­
day
training
programs
that
will
15
circumvent
the
rules
if
they
think
no
one
is
16
looking.
So
I
have
a
problem
with
renovators
17
who
will
probably
go
out
­­
I'm
not
sure
what
18
the
training
requirements
were.
Two
days?
19
One
day?
And
then
they
turn
around
and
they
20
go
and
they
hire
workers,
like
he
said
before,
21
possibly
day
laborers
or
just
ride
by
the
22
corner
and
pickup
somebody
else
that's
23
standing,
and
okay,
we're
going
to
do
a
24
tail­
gate
training
to
tell
you
how
to
do
this
25
39
work.
1
I
have
a
problem
with
that,
because
I've
2
seen
in
construction
sites
or
in
other
works
3
that
some
things
that
will
happen
with
day
4
laborers,
they
like
­­
I
knew
of
a
case
where
5
there
was
an
insurance
company
that
had
gotten
6
some
people
to
come
in
and
do
some
work.
It
7
was
a
fire
at
a
hotel
or
whatever.
They
just
8
brought
the
people
in,
put
them
in
a
suit,
9
gave
them
­­
Didn't
give
them
gloves,
you
10
know.
There
was
no
worker
protection
there.
11
They
weren't
protected.
They
were
exposed
to
12
all
types
of
chemicals
and
debris.
And
I
just
13
think
that
giving
renovators
the
option
of
not
14
having
to
have
to
be
­­
people
to
be,
you
15
know,
trained
properly,
this
is
what
we'll
16
wind
up
with
again.
17
Not
only
that,
but
if
they
are
given
the
18
option
to
use
work
practice
standards
or
19
decide
what
quality
of
care
they
need
to
do,
20
they're
going
to
always
do
the
less.
21
The
problem
with
that,
too,
is
that
the
22
kids
are
going
to
be
contaminated
again.
So
23
your
2010
date
is
going
to
stretch
out
to
3010
24
(
sic),
because
people
are
not
going
to
do
25
40
anything
in
which
they
have
to
do
it
properly
1
if
they're
not
made
to
do
it
properly.
They
2
just
won't.
3
The
cleaning
verification
and
do
a
4
clearance
testing.
It's
like
you
can't
see
40
5
micrograms
per
square
foot.
You
can't
see
it.
6
I
mean,
I
have
a
problem
with
the
white­
glove
7
test.
Are
the
test
gloves
going
to
be
8
quantitative?
Do
they
have
a
meter
on
them
9
that
says
you're
over
the
limit
or
under
the
10
limit?
11
You
can
­­
I
can
take
and
­­
The
test
12
that
a
lot
of
the
training
providers
use
a
lot
13
of
times
is
they
take
their
little
pack
of
14
saffron
(
phonetic)
and
spray
it
across
the
15
room.
If
you
was
to
go
back
and
do
a
16
dust­
wipe
test
on
that,
the
room
fails,
but
17
you
wouldn't
see
it
on
the
white
glove.
It's
18
not
quantitative.
19
I
just
think
that
adhesive
work
practices
20
­­
And
there
was
something
in
there
about
21
unintended
consequences.
We
keep
talking
22
about
this
money
thing.
People
that
are
doing
23
renovation
and
remodeling
now
without
being
24
certified.
The
people
that
­­
You
have
people
25
41
that
know
what
they
are
supposed
to
do.
You
1
have
the
big
players
that
know
what
they're
2
supposed
to
do.
They
don't
do
it
a
lot
of
3
times,
if
somebody
doesn't
come
in
and
knock
4
on
their
door
and
say
this
is
what
you're
5
supposed
to
comply
with.
You
have
the
smaller
6
people
that
don't
do
it.
So
noncompliance
is
7
not
an
issue
about
whether
it's
a
big
company
8
or
a
small
company,
it's
about
due
diligence
9
on
that
person
that's
doing
the
work.
10
Sometimes
it's
just
the
bottom
line.
If
the
11
bottom
says
­­
If
they
think
they
can
get
away
12
with
it,
then
they
don't.
Or
they
charge
the
13
people
the
same
rate
as
if
they
were
doing
the
14
abatement
project,
and
they're
not
following
15
those
work
practice
standards.
16
And
as
far
as
­­
As
I
hop
around
here.
17
Going
back
to
whether
the
contractor
can
do
18
the
clearance.
Okay.
The
thing
that
we've
19
always
stressed
with
contractors
is
that
they
20
have
to
have
a
third
party
to
do
the
21
clearance.
If
­­
It's
like
the
hen
watching
22
the
chicken
coup
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
23
it,
the
fox
watching
the
hen
house.
If
that
24
person
­­
If
nobody
is
watching
them
do
it
or
25
42
­­
I
guess
the
thing
is
that
they
will
always
1
say
that
their
property
has
cleared,
because
2
they
know
that
in
order
to
get
paid
they
have
3
to
meet
clearance.
And
the
white­
glove
test,
4
no
dust,
it's
just
not
quantitative
enough
to
5
be
protective
of
children
six
and
under.
It's
6
just,
it's
not
protective
of
them.
7
And
I
had
a
question,
too,
it
was,
like,
8
I
noticed
that
the
proposed
Rule
only
chose
9
target
housing.
I
wondered
what
happened
to
10
child­
occupied
facilities?
I
wonder
how
did
11
that
fall
out?
I
wasn't
sure
how
that
fell
12
out
or
.
.
.
13
And
there
was
something
in
there
about
14
the
first
stages
about
target
housing.
Deals
15
with
EBL
status.
Right
now
most
of
the
time
16
when
these
guys
go
in
and
do
the
work,
even
17
the
abatement
contractors,
they
don't
know
18
whether
there's
an
EBL
child
there
or
not.
19
They
just
were
made
to
go
­­
They
are
asked
to
20
go
in
and
do
the
work.
And
I
think
that
21
sometimes
may
be
a
little
too
much
22
information.
23
Owner
occupied
facilities
or
­­
I'm
24
sorry,
owner
occupied
housing.
Whether
­­
And
25
43
you're
getting
a
statement
from
that
person
1
saying
that
there's
no
one
there
that's
going
2
to
reside
there
under
six.
Okay.
How
long
3
does
that
have
to
­­
How
long
to
they
have
to
4
attest
to
that?
Because
I
could
have
the
work
5
done
and
say
that
no
child
under
six
is
living
6
there.
But
tomorrow
­­
God
forbid,
I
don't
7
have
a
grandchild
­­
But
the
grandchild
could
8
come
in
for
some
reason
or
another
and
you
may
9
­­
they
may
be
there
to
live
there,
you
know.
10
So
how
long
­­
What
is
this?
How
long
does
11
this
attest
for?
12
And
I
did
have
a
problem
with
this
term
13
certified
renovators.
If
a
course
does
not
14
certify
an
individual,
who
does
certify
them?
15
I
mean,
is
the
­­
once
they
do,
like,
would
16
the
abatement
­­
Would
they
access
this
17
abatement
when
they
go
to
the
training
18
provider
and
they
come
away
with
a
class?
19
Are
they
then
considered
to
be
certified?
I
20
think
the
term
­­
I
think
what
happens
is
a
21
lot
of
times,
from
what
I
see
with
this
22
program,
we
have
a
hard
enough
time
in
the
23
lead
program
trying
to
get
people
­­
and
24
certified.
25
44
Okay.
If
we
come
to
a
point
where
we're
1
certifying
renovators
through
training
2
providers,
it's
going
to
dry
up
the
lead
3
programs.
They're
already
drying
up.
The
4
amount
of
people
that
are
being
done
­­
being
5
certified,
companies
that
are
being
certified,
6
the
numbers
are
going
down
as
we
sit
here
and
7
speak
today.
The
numbers
are
going
down
8
because
­­
one
of
the
reasons
­­
I'm
not
going
9
to
say
the
only
reason.
One
of
the
reasons
10
may
be
because
HUD
is
putting
out
less
money.
11
So
if
they're
not
using
government
funds
to
do
12
this
work,
they
don't
do
the
work
anyway.
13
So
when
2010
comes
and
passes,
we're
14
going
to
have
people
that
are
not
going
to
be
15
certified.
The
renovation
and
remodeling
Rule
16
is
going
to
maybe
negate
some
of
the
things
17
that
people
normally
would
have
done.
Because
18
why
to
be
certified
in
a
state
when
I
can
be
a
19
renovator
and
I
can
still
do
the
same
work
and
20
don't
have
to
be
as
regulated?
21
I
think
I
have
a
­­
I'm
not
sure
about
22
voluntary.
But
then
again,
I
am.
Because
23
it's
like
the
lead­
based
paint
program
pretty
24
much
is
voluntary.
You
can
volunteer
to
be
25
45
part
of
the
programs
if
they
decide
to
do
the
1
work.
But
they
also
know
that
if
they
don't
2
­­
if
they're
not
certified
to
do
the
work
and
3
they
don't
have
the
proper
training,
that
4
there
is
some
recourse.
So
I
guess
I'm
kind
5
of
mixed
about
the
voluntary
statement.
6
I
think
they
need
to
be
­­
I
need
the
­­
7
I
think
they
need
to
know
that
they
need
to
8
comply
with
the
rules
and
regulations,
and
we
9
need
to
be
clear
about
what
it,
about
what
it
10
is
they
need
to
comply
with.
11
If
you
can
be
he
a
sampling
technician
12
and
not
have
properly
­­
not
have
all
the
13
training,
you
know,
I
have
a
problem
with
14
that.
I
just
have
a
problem
with
some
of
the
15
things
about
the
limited
amount
of
training
16
that
you're
going
to
require
these
people
to
17
do
to
be
protective
of
the
children
that
are
18
six
and
under
that
are
already
19
disproportionately
being
affected.
And
I
20
think
this
won't
help
them
not
get
­­
I
think
21
it'll
push
your
date
out
past
out
where
you
22
think
it's
going
to
be.
23
Okay.
I'm
through.
24
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Thank
you.
25
46
Next
speaker?
1
MS.
AMY
MORTIMER:
The
next
speaker
is
2
Adrienne.
3
MS.
ADRIENNE
WHITE:
Hi.
My
name
is
4
Adrienne
White,
and
I'm
with
the
State
of
5
Tennessee
lead­
based
paint
program.
6
All
of
my
comments
are
not
as
organized
7
as
I
would
like
for
them
to
be,
because
we've
8
been
very
busy
in
Tennessee
dealing
with
an
9
upcoming
meeting
that
we're
having
of
the
mid
10
states.
11
But
one
of
the
first
things
that
I
did
12
when
I
was
looking
at
the
proposed
Rule
was
to
13
go
back
and
look
at
Title
X.
And
one
of
the
14
first
paragraphs
of
Title
X
says
that
the
15
purpose
of
Title
X
is
to
encourage
effective
16
action
to
prevent
childhood
lead
poisoning
by
17
establishing
a
workable
framework
for
18
lead­
based
paint
hazard
and
reduction
ending
19
the
current
confusion
over
reasonable
20
standards
of
care.
The
keywords
here
are
21
ending
confusion
over
reasonable
standards
of
22
care.
23
Now
why
­­
Although
I
commend
EPA
for
the
24
proposed
Rule
and
come
up
with
an
R
and
R
25
47
regulation,
I
think
in
many
respects
it
is
1
going
to
be
counter
to
the
first
paragraph
of
2
Title
X.
Rather
than
ending
confusion,
I
3
think
it's
going
to
cause
and
enhance
4
confusion
over
standard
of
care.
5
One
of
the
first
things
I
looked
at,
if
6
you
look
on
the
proposed
Rule,
it's
cited
at
7
745.81
­­
I
really
was
going
to
go
through
8
this
Rule
sentence
by
sentence
and
come
up
9
with
a
page
of
things
and
comments.
But
I
10
know
I
do
not
have
that
much
time
here
today.
11
So
I'll
just
go
over
some
of
the
more
12
interesting
comments
that
I've
come
up
with.
13
In
this
particular
part
of
the
proposed
14
Rule,
it
says
the
firm
may
not
begin
work
if
15
they
­­
And
I'm
just
paraphrasing
this
­­
in
16
parentheses
(
provide
the
owner
or
occupant
an
17
opportunity
to
inform
the
firm
that
there
is
a
18
child
living
there
who
may
be
EBL.
EBL
case
19
stands
for
Elevated
Blood
Lead
Level.
20
Well,
first
of
all
I
think
that
21
requirement
would
have
the
firm
find
out
22
whether
or
not
there's
an
EBL
child
in
the
23
house
maybe
in
violation
of
HIPA
regulations.
24
And
do
I
have
to
explain
what
HIPA
stands
25
48
for?
I
probably
should,
but
I
can
do
that
in
1
written
comments.
But
those
are
medical
2
requirements.
3
And
plus,
I
think
that
this
requirement
4
takes
some
of
the
legal
liability
off
the
5
owner
of
the
property.
It
is
not
unreasonable
6
that
owners
of
properties
would
probably
tell
7
a
renovation
and
remodeling
firm
that
they
do
8
not
have
kids
in
the
house.
So,
therefore
the
9
onerous
is
on
the
owner
make
sure
that
the
10
firm
knows
whether
or
not
there's
a
child
in
11
the
house.
12
Many
owners
do
try
to
circumvent
the
13
lead­
based
paint
regulations
that
we
currently
14
have
by
saying
that
a
lot
of
the
work
that's
15
being
conducted
is
currently
unregulated
R
and
16
R.
So
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
with
17
removing
some
of
the
liability
from
the
owner
18
and
trying
to
place
it
on
the
firm
that's
19
conducting
the
work.
Again,
due
diligence
20
must
be
the
legal
burden
of
the
owner
and
not
21
transferred
to
firm.
22
Under
745.90,
definitions
lead­
safe
work
23
practices.
Certified
renovator
must
train.
24
Okay.
That's
what
a
certified
renovator
is.
25
49
It
is
also
a
person
who
must
train.
1
I'm
still
unaware
as
to
what
it
is
that
2
this
certified
renovator
is
going
to
do
in
3
providing
this
o­
the­
job
training
to
their
4
workers.
How
are
they
going
to
do
it?
When
5
should
they
do
it?
Where
should
they
do
it?
6
And
exactly
what
is
it
that
they're
doing?
7
That's
not
in
that
particular
definition.
8
Is
this
going
to
be
an
apprenticeship,
as
9
recognized
by
the
Department
of
Labor,
and
10
therefore,
you
know,
some
certificate
is
given
11
to
the
worker
so
that
they
can
leave
the
12
employment
of
that
renovator
and
go
to
another
13
firm
and
say
hey,
I'm
a
certified
renovator
14
worker
and
I
can
do
R
and
R
work.
15
Okay.
I
have
a
concern
about
the
16
renovator
being
able
to
identify
lead­
based
17
paint
using
test
kits.
As
I
was
going
through
18
the
proposed
preamble
to
the
Rule,
there
were
19
a
lot
of
publications
in
there.
And
I'm
glad
20
to
hear
that
the
comment
period
has
been
21
extended.
While
I
pride
myself
in
having
kept
22
up
on
a
lot
of
reading,
there
were
some
23
references
that
I,
number
one,
were
unaware
of
24
even
though
the
preamble
said
that
they
were
25
50
sent
out
for
peer
review.
I
know
constantly
1
that
we
keep
asking
­­
We
have
asked
the
2
states
in
Region
IV
who
have
authorized
3
programs
about
various
studies
that
have
been
4
done.
And
so
this
extended
time
for
comment
5
hopefully
will
allow,
you
know,
those
who
are
6
concerned
to
actually
go
back
and
read
some
of
7
the
references
that
were
cited
in
the
proposed
8
Rule.
9
If
you
will
bear
with
me.
10
As
a
state
regulator
of
an
authorized
11
lead­
based
paint
program
­­
And
I'm
sure
that
12
maybe
a
lot
of
state
programs
that
are
13
authorized,
I
really
don't
mind
adopting
other
14
regulations.
And,
Mr.
Henshall,
I
want
to
15
commend
you
for
having
amended
the
existing
16
regulations,
which
makes
it
easier
for
us
to
17
adopt,
compared
to
having
to
come
up
with
a
18
new
one.
19
However,
one
thing
that
was
missing
in
20
the
proposed
Rule
is
the
timeframe.
There's
a
21
word
that
says
states
who
are
authorized
may
22
after
one
year
adopt
this
regulation.
23
Well,
in
the
State
of
Tennessee,
you
24
can't
give
Tennessee
an
option.
And
to
me,
25
51
the
word
may
is
an
option.
If
it
is
a
year,
1
it
needs
to
be
put
in
there
you
have
to
adopt
2
these
requirements
one
year
after
the
3
effective
date
or
­­
And
I
think
that
part
is
4
important
that
we
do
have
a
year
in
that
5
mandate
or
people
will
just
drag
their
feet.
6
I
do
have
a
question
or
concerns
about
7
the
white­
glove
test.
I
know
my
colleague
8
previously
gave
comment.
When
I
was
working
9
in
private
industry
as
a
chemist,
I
used
to
10
pride
myself
in
saying
that
I
perfect
MI's
11
(
phonetic)
­­
an
instrumentation
that
allows
12
you
to
look,
you
know,
at
the
various
13
substances
and
give
them
an
analytical
result.
14
I
knew
that
I
did
not
have
eyes
with
that
15
accuracy
to
be
able
to
say
that,
yes,
this
16
glove
is
clean
and
this
glove
is
not.
Or,
17
yes,
this
glove
does
not
have
40
micrograms
18
per
square
feet
of
lead
dust
and
this
one
19
does.
20
I
question
that
we
may
be
challenging
of
21
those
people
who
are
going
to
school
to
22
actually
learn
what
qualitative,
quantitative
23
instrumental
analysis
is
and
why
we
have
it.
24
The
human
eye
is
different
for
each
25
52
individual.
And
I
think
we
should
keep
that
1
in
mind.
2
To
be
able
to
have
a
glove
test
that
3
tells
you
the
concentration
is
anywhere
from
4
40
to
200
micrograms
per
square
foot,
in
the
5
State
of
Tennessee
we
have
some
contractors
6
that
are
very
good
at
what
they
do.
But
one
7
thing
we
do
know,
for
a
floor,
if
you
do
not
8
put
a
finish
on
the
floor,
you
will
never
pass
9
40
micrograms
a
square
foot.
10
As
a
regulator,
if
I
want
to
come
in
11
behind
you,
I
can
always
find
a
level
of
lead
12
dust
that
would
cause
you
not
to
pass
the
40
13
micrograms
per
square
foot.
And,
furthermore,
14
you
may
not
be
able
to
see
any
dust
on
that
15
particular
white
glove.
16
Is
just
do
want
to
make
a
couple
of
last
17
comments
right
quick
on
one
of
the
speakers
18
representing
the
National
Association
of
19
Realtors.
There
are
a
lot
of
good
things
20
about
the
existing
406
treatment
abatement.
21
In
reading
the
proposed
renovation
remodeling
22
Rule,
I
think
it
will
probably,
as
written,
23
put
a
lot
of
lead­
based
paint
certified
firms
24
out
of
business.
I
think
what
we
should
do
is
25
53
look
for
a
common
balance.
That
would
not
1
exist
with
renovation
remodeling
that
we
2
wanted
to
be
covered
within
the
lead­
based
3
paint
program.
I
think
that's
what
we
should
4
do.
Take
what
was
not
working
to
bridge
that
5
gap,
and
fix
402
so
that
it
works.
6
406
is
a
very
good
regulation.
However
7
else
you
want
it
to
work,
let's
go
back
and
8
amend
it.
But
to
replace
406
with
the
9
existing
proposed
Rule
I
think
is
going
to
be
10
a
demise
of
the
lead­
based
paint
regulations.
11
And
after
the
year
2010
has
come
and
gone,
and
12
the
year
2025
after
I
have
retired,
we're
13
going
to
have
our
predecessors
saying
I
14
thought
the
states
and
EPA
took
care
of
those
15
lead
problems.
16
Thank
you
very
much.
17
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Think
you,
Adrienne.
18
Do
we
have
any
other
speakers
signed
up?
19
Any
other
speakers
that
are
present?
20
MS.
AMY
MORTIMER:
Did
anyone
sign
up?
21
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Well,
what
I'd
like
22
to
do
then
is
adjourn
the
meeting
until
four
23
o'clock.
If
I
get
any
other
speakers
between
24
now
and
four,
we'll
have
them
speak
then.
But
25
54
otherwise
we're
adjourned.
Thank
you.
1
­
­
­
2
(
Whereupon,
a
short
break
was
taken
from
3
3:
05
p.
m.
until
4:
08
p.
m.)
4
­
­
­
5
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
What
I'd
like
to
do
6
is
to
reconvene
the
meeting
and
see
if
we
have
7
any
other
speakers
that
have
shown
up
or
who
8
have
expressed
interest
in
speaking.
When
9
those
speakers
are
done,
we
will
adjourn
the
10
meeting
until
five
o'clock,
and
I'll
see
if
11
any
other
speakers
have
shown
up
between
now
12
and
then.
After
this
round
of
speakers,
13
though,
if
folks
want
to
feel
free
to
go
ahead
14
and
leave,
I
think
that
would
fine.
15
So
do
we
have
any
other
speakers?
16
MS.
AMY
MORTIMER:
We
have
Peter
Tadin.
17
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Great.
1
18
MR.
PETER
TADIN:
Hi.
My
name
is
Peter
19
Tadin.
I
represent
the
Texas
Department
of
20
State
Health
Services
in
Austin.
We've
had
a
21
lead
program
there
for
about
11
years.
And
22
certainly
we
are
going
full
steam
ahead
with
23
out
lead
program
in
regards
to
abatement
24
inspections.
25
55
We've
become
aware,
or
course,
of
the
1
proposal
Rule,
and
­­
that
deals
with
2
renovation
and
remodeling,
and
would
certainly
3
like
to
make
a
few
comments
regarding
that,
4
and
hopefully,
make
it
a
better
rule,
if
it's
5
going
to
be
a
rule.
I
know
that's
the
intent
6
of
it.
So,
therefore,
we
certainly
want
to
7
add
to
that.
We'll
also
be
submitting
written
8
comments,
as
well.
9
One
of
the
concerns
that
we
have,
of
10
course,
maybe
relates
to
enforceability.
But
11
certainly
there's
no
notification
requirements
12
for
these
activities.
We
certainly
see
this
13
is
a
complaint­
driven
deal.
And
we
will
14
probably
see
a
lot
of
complaints
being
15
generated,
as
results
of
X­
house
complaining
16
about
the
activities
on
Y­
house.
And
17
certainly
word
will
get
around
that
some
of
18
the
fly­
by­
night
operations,
the
small
agency
19
operations,
the
one­
or
two­
person
operations,
20
we
seem
to
feel
that
those
will
slip
through
21
the
cracks,
because
you'll
see
them
do
one
22
job,
and
you'll
never
see
them
again.
And
­­
23
But
the
problem
is
the
cause
and
there's
24
nobody
to
go
after.
And
then
we've
got
to
25
56
deal
with
the
problems
of
the
child
being
in
1
the
home,
being
exposed
to
potentially
lead
2
dust.
3
Of
course
it's
already
been
mentioned,
4
but
still
we
want
to
go
on
record
with
regards
5
to
absence
of
child
­­
facilities.
Certainly
6
that's
an
issue
that
we
feel
very
strongly
7
about
because
of
the
children
being
present
8
there.
I
assume
it
sums
up
the
definition
of
9
child
facility
that's
in
the
current
lead
10
rule
of
abatement
inspection
from
risk
11
assessment.
We
feel
that
the
child
is
going
12
to
be
there
for
so
many
hours
a
week,
and
13
therefore
run
the
potential
of
getting
exposed
14
in
a
particular
facility,
especially
built
15
before
1960
and
of
course
before
1978,
maybe
16
to
a
lesser
degree.
I
don't
know.
I
don't
17
have
the
study
for
the
results
that
they
18
provided
as
far
as
how
much
lead
dust
was
19
created
in
structures
built
in
that
period.
20
The
clearance
test
issue.
I
don't
know
21
why
we're
­­
we
feel
that
it's
less
important
22
to
have
definitive
clearance
tests
done
in
23
renovation
activities,
where
the
hazards
24
presented
are
no
less
dangerous
than
are
25
57
presented
when
you
have
a
abatements­
type
1
complaints.
We
certainly
a
stronger
advocate
2
of
having
the
current
clearance
test
3
requirements
done,
such
as
paint­
chip
analysis
4
­­
or
not
paint­
chip
analysis,
I'm
sorry,
but
5
the
dust
samples
collected
over
a
certain
area
6
of
a
floor
space,
windowsills
and
whatever
7
horizontal
surfaces
there
might
be
and
in
the
8
place
of
a
lead
check
or
a
lead
swab
or
other
9
quick­
and­
dirty­
type
of
tests
taking
place
or
10
even
the
white­
glove
test
that's
being
11
proposed.
12
We
are
also
concerned
about
differing
13
understandings
of
what
a
potential
child
would
14
be,
in
regards
to
the
enforceability
of
this
15
Rule.
Is
it
under
six,
as
it's
proposed?
Is
16
it
six
and
under?
Is
it
under
seven?
We
want
17
to
see
some
uniformity
across
all
the
rules.
18
We're
certain
you've
been
wrestling
with
that
19
matter,
because
we've
seen
it
now
in
two
20
places
where
it
says
under
the
age
seven
and
21
six
and
under.
And
we
find
that
to
be
22
somewhat
palatable,
because
it
kind
of
means
23
the
same
things.
But
now
we're
introducing
24
another
term
called
under
six.
And
I
don't
25
58
know
if
that's
the
direction
of
the
Agency,
if
1
it
is,
certainly
we
ought
to
go
across
the
2
board,
not
just
with
EPA
but
also
with
HUD's
3
requirements
in
regards
to
that,
as
well,
so
4
that
there's
no
misunderstanding
when
we
talk
5
about
those
issues.
6
We're
also
concerned
about
the
formal
7
training
requirement
for
the
lead
renovator
8
workers.
Of
course,
in
the
current
lead
rule
9
for
abatements,
we
do
have
lead
worker
10
training.
And
that's
formalized
through
11
accredited
trainers.
But
we
also
need
to
get,
12
as
we
feel,
trained
as
formalized
by
13
accredited
trainers
for
these
lead
regulator
14
workers,
if
you
want
to
call
them
that.
We
15
feel
that
this
tail­
gate
type
training
for
16
these
individuals
is
not
adequate.
And
we
17
feel
strongly
that
these
folks
should
not
be
18
allowed
to
slip
through
the
loop
hole.
19
We
don't
want
to
under­
service
the
20
population,
either.
We
have,
through
our
21
experience,
seemed
to
find
out
that
these
22
folks
are
minority­
type
workers,
and
we
want
23
to
give
them
the
same
level
of
training
as
we
24
would
for
anybody
else.
And
even
if
it's
in
25
59
Spanish
or
some
other
language,
that
they
1
would
benefit
from.
2
We
also
have
some
concerns
about
the
3
issue
of
not
have
renovator
supervisor
on
4
site.
We
are
wrestling
with
the
current
rule,
5
in
regards
to
the
two
hour
­­
having
the
lead
6
abatement
supervisor
be
there
or
at
least
7
within
two
hours
of
the
project
site.
That's
8
hard
to
prove.
And
we've
yet
in
all
of
our
9
experience
of
having
the
rule
in
place,
we've
10
never
been
able
to
enforce
that
without
11
actually
testing
it,
without
actually
having
a
12
situation
in
place
where
we
actually
had
to
13
have
them
there.
And
only
wanted
them
there
14
to
see
if
this
thing
could
work.
We
never
had
15
to
actually
have
the
lead
abatement
workers
16
call
and
see
if
they
can
be
there
within
two
17
hours.
And
yet
we
have
some
background
18
knowledge
that
these
supervisors
are
doing
19
jobs
in
cities
hundreds
of
miles
apart
at
the
20
same
time.
And
we
certainly
see
this
21
happening,
as
well,
with
this
type
of
22
situation,
maybe
even
worse,
because
there's
23
not
even
a
two­
hour
requirement,
just
being
24
accessible
by
telephone.
25
60
And,
you
know,
the
bottom
line
is,
we
1
heard
from,
I
think
the
State
of
Georgia,
2
enforceability.
Right
now,
as
proposed,
I
3
guess
to
put
it
nicely,
we
see
this
as
4
something
very
difficult
to
enforce,
something
5
that
I
feel
that
could
more
easily
have
been
6
taken
care
of
by
removing
the
renovation
and
7
remodeling
loophole
from
the
current
lead
8
abatement
regulation.
It
would
have
been
a
9
better
idea.
But
with
this
in
place
now
and
10
what
we're
trying
to
propose
here,
the
11
enforceability
of
this,
I
don't
see
much
more
12
than
asking
for
voluntary
compliance.
And
13
maybe
that's
the
better
way
to
go.
14
I
think
maybe
we
ought
to
put
our
15
resources
more
into
outreach
and
get
voluntary
16
compliance,
as
opposed
to
trying
to
trying
to
17
go
after
the
hundreds
of
thousands
of
workers
18
out
there,
probably
more
than
ten
of
19
thousands,
that
are
doing
this
kind
of
work
in
20
the
State
of
Texas.
It's
going
to
be
very
21
difficult
to
really
uniformly
and
equitably
22
enforce
this
across
the
board.
And
chasing
23
down
these
people
is
going
to
take
a
lot
of
24
resources.
And
I
don't
know
if
these
25
61
resources
are
going
to
be
well
spent
in
this
1
direction,
as
opposed
to
really
piling
money
2
into
the
arena
of
outreach.
We
really
want
to
3
get
the
word
out.
I
don't
know
if
4
enforceability
of
the
current
proposed
Rule
is
5
really
going
to
work
very
well.
And
at
this
6
point,
it's
going
to
really
need
a
lot
of
7
cleaning
up
to
make
this
think
palatable,
8
especially
to
our
state
and
our
state
9
legislators,
and
getting
something
passed
10
where
we
can
accommodate
something
like
this.
11
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
opportunity,
12
of
course,
to
comment
on
this.
And
like
I
13
said
before,
will
also
be
submitting
written
14
comments,
as
well.
15
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Great.
Thank
you.
16
Do
we
have
any
other
speakers?
17
MS.
AMY
MORTIMER:
That's
all
we've
got.
18
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
All
right.
I'd
like
19
to
go
ahead
and
adjourn
the
meeting.
I
20
appreciate
all
of
you
coming.
Thank
you
very
21
much.
22
Oh,
are
you
on
the
docket?
23
MR.
MARCUS
MINCEY:
Yes.
24
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Okay.
Great.
Go
25
62
ahead.
State
your
name
and
your
organization.
1
MR.
MARCUS
MINCEY:
I'm
Marcus
Mincey.
2
I'm
with
the
Georgia
Environmental
Protection
3
Division,
lead­
based
paint
and
asbestos
4
program.
And
I'd
like
to
take
this
5
opportunity
­­
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
thank
6
you
for
letting
me
make
comments
about
the
7
proposed
Rules.
8
And
I
have
a
brief
statement
regarding
9
the
handout
with
the
Rules,
as
it
pertains
to
10
­­
on
the
second
page
­­
as
it
pertains
to
11
where
it
says
economic
analysis.
It
says
to
12
what
extent
do
renovators/
contractors
already
13
conduct
any
of
the
individual
activities
14
described
in
the
rules?
15
And
I'm
here
to
tell
you,
they
do
not.
16
And
this
is
an
issue
that
really
bothers
our
17
program,
pretty
much
daily.
Not
necessarily
18
daily,
but
presently
right
now
even
certified
19
individuals
have
a
problem
with
actually
20
getting
clearance,
dust
clearance.
And
I
do
21
have
a
visual
simulated
lead­
based
paint
22
visual
aid
here,
where
we
have
40
micrograms.
23
I'll
pass
it
around.
But,
you
know,
you
can
24
barely
see
it.
So
­­
And
then
250.
25
63
So
our
concern
is
that
with
the
clearance
1
aspect
of
it,
these
individuals
will
have
a
2
hard
time
actually
getting
this
clearance,
to
3
these
clearance
levels.
We're
presently
4
working
on
a
­­
it's
a
complaint
at
this
point
5
where
an
individual
came
in
and
prepped
the
6
house
for
resale.
And
individuals
have
7
actually
scraped
and
paint
chips
are
falling
8
all
over
the
ground,
and
thereby,
the
houses
9
are
close
together,
so
an
individual
next­
door
10
has
a
pregnant
wife.
And
that's
a
concern.
11
And
for
a
renovator
or
a
contractor
to
get
12
clearance,
we
see
it
that
it
would
be
a
big
13
problem.
So
we're
saying
that,
you
know,
this
14
needs
to
be
looked
at
a
little
harder.
15
And
dust
tends
to
migrate
on
areas
off
16
the
property.
And
most
contractors
don't
put
17
any
type
of
protection
down
to
prevent
this.
18
So
that's
a
big
concern
of
ours.
So
I
think
19
that
should
be
addressed.
20
That's
it.
21
MR.
MARK
HENSHALL:
Great.
Thanks,
22
Marcus.
Appreciate
it.
23
I
think
now
we're
done.
Excellent.
24
Thank
you
for
coming.
We
appreciate
all
your
25
64
comments.
And,
again,
please
do
not
forget
1
you
can
submit
­­
You're
encouraged
to
submit
2
written
comments,
as
well,
in
addition
to
all
3
these
submitted
here.
And
thanks
for
coming.
4
­
­
­
5
(
Whereupon,
a
short
break
was
taken
from
6
4:
22
p.
m.
until
5:
06
p.
m.,
at
which
time
the
7
meeting
was
officially
adjourned)
8
­
­
­
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
65
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
E
CLAYTON
COUNTY
STATE
OF
GEORGIA
I
hereby
certify
that
this
is
a
true,

correct,
and
complete
record
of
proceedings
held
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
on
April
4,

2006,
before
Kathleen
A.
Baxter,
Certified
Court
Reporter.

This,
the
14th
day
of
April
2006.

____________________________
Kathleen
A.
Baxter
Certified
Court
Reporter
Certificate
No.
B­
2271